The REAL reason people leave Scientology

Why people leave3

(Article submitted by Kent Bengtsson)

 CONFIDENTIAL:  WHY PEOPLE LEAVE – LRH

A while ago I received a “friend request” on Facebook from Bill Franks.  My first impulse was to ignore it from the accounts I had heard of when he was ED Int, back in the early eighties. But then I thought; many people who are today outside, were doing bad things back when they were on high pressure posts in the SO, so why not give him a chance.

So I looked at his profile and my attention got caught by a Blog article called “The real reason people leave Scientology – ARC Breaks” (Link supplied at end of article)

This is the part of it written by Bill Franks himself, and it appears he wants this to be spread, for many to see, so I have taken the liberty to copy it here:


“Firstly, I swear that this is the absolute and complete truth even though it occurred 37 years ago.

Secondly, a little about me which might put things into perspective as to why I saw what I am about to say as very significant and in a way horrific. I was in the SO for a little under 14 years. I attained the “rank” of Lt. Commander through promotions only by Hubbard.

I was OEC and FEBC (trained by Hubbard), HSDC, Class IX when I left in December 27 1981, as well as DSEC, NOTs auditor, plus assorted other stuff. I was OT V plus NOTs, plus sec-checked up the wazoo over the years. I also audited between 3-4000 hours conservatively speaking-probably much more, a lot of this was under LRH as the C/S.

I spent about 3 1/2 years working with Hubbard pretty directly on the ship at various posts. I got to know him as well as anybody did.  

Thirdly and to the point of all this preamble, on one night in 1974 I found myself in David Mayo’s office in the tween decks of the Apollo. It was very late or early in the morning. We were, I believe in the port of Safi, Morocco.

A student of mine, I was currently D of T and Mayo was Flag Senior C/S, had blown. Hubbard was extremely angry with us due to this blown student of mine on the FEBC program. In an attempt to show Hubbard what we had done to handle this guy we collected up all the sec-checking that he had received over the last 2 months, it had been a lot (poor guy), and presented it to him along with an outline of this student’s progress on the courses he had taken. We had also wanted to show him how we had been careful that he hadn’t gone by misunderstoods, etc.

We waited and waited and about 0300 hrs a messenger came down with a despatch written by LRH. My memory does not recall any folders being returned. The despatch was entitled Very Confidential underlined. He went onto say that “if you or Franks ever reveal any of this information that I am about to reveal, the consequences will be severe for SCN.”  

He then wrote “a person does not blow due Overts or Witholds. He blows only due to ARC BKs.  

“However, if any of this information ever became public, I would lose all control of the orgs and eventually Scientology as a whole.” Signed, LRH.

Both Mayo and me looked at one another completely incredulously. I cannot speak for Dave but I was completely flabbergasted as I realized at that point of digestion that he is talking about something that 75-80% of the tech is premised upon. Furthermore, the OEC/FEBC was currently anchored by the latest” development” at the time -being the L’s, L-10, 11 & 12. Which for those who don’t know is about OW’s. I don’t believe Mayo or I talked about this again until we were out where I saw him at his auditing facility in Montecito, California in 1983. I believed we were a bit shell shocked about this. 

As for me, I began to see more and more that Scientology was merely a big prison camp. I stayed in for another 7 plus years but I was always mindful of this and always had in mind changing this “tech.” I believe it is the key to what we have all seen and experienced as brainwashing.

That is all. I hope someone who wants to use this will do so as there is no doubt that there is good in the tech it is just a matter of where is it. 

How do you sort out the good and the bad and at the same time keep the good without throwing out the baby with the bath water. 

I regret that I could not fix this during my tenure.

Best, wogman Bill Franks”

 

I know this is not exactly South African news, but in the light of the Scientology scene in South Africa, I think this should be known. Well, I think we all know this already on some level, but we did not know that LRH himself admitted to this, and made the decision to keep it under lids.

Was that a wise decision, you think?

Kent Bengtsson

 

http://cofsexit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-real-reason-people-leave.html?spref=fb

 

Editor Footnote:

Before publishing this article, BIC made direct contact with Bill Franks regarding the authenticity of what is reported here. He personally verified this account, and added the following in his response to our query:

“I still think this revelation would be quite meaningful and helpful to people thinking about leaving……….. This will no doubt come across as hyperbole but, especially for the SO people who are subjected to hours and hours of “sec checking” and “roll back’, it really is not. This “hat” was greedily grabbed up by Miscavige who uses it to build his kingdom. I am not saying or inferring that confessing things to someone appropriate is not beneficial, but doing it under stress with everyone looking at your folder, though supposedly confidential, is “under stress” with many negative consequences, such as the RPF, the hole, etc.

Kind Regards, Bill”

Advertisements

150 thoughts on “The REAL reason people leave Scientology

  1. It was fairly obvious to me early on that people left because of ARC breaks. The idea that people left because of overts was absurd. I don’t ever remember meeting anyone in Scn who I thought was bad and had evil intentions, they were all just ordinary people doing their best.
    And the misunderstoods thing had its effect but I never believed people left because of it. People have a lot of misunderstoods in their jobs but they don’t leave. I don’t understand my wife but I don’t leave her
    People left because the reality was that Scientology didn’t deliver what was promised — and I thought that Scios themselves were noticeably unimpressive on all dynamics. I myself left when it became clear that my stats on all dynamics — money, sex, popularity, tone, etc. had actually gone down. Spirituality may have been the only exception, but in the main the glowing texts in the books, etc. turned out to be pie in the sky.
    If Scios looked good and could be seen to be prospering and the individual himself felt that his life was improving he would have no reason to leave. None of this was the case however — so common sense kicked in sooner or later and told the person that there was no reason to stay.
    The desired reality broke — maybe not suddenly, but over time there was a dawning realization that the thing was not what it was cracked up to be.
    But I’m sure I read somewhere in his writings that people left when what was promised was not delivered. No real mystery in my opinion.

    • I agree Barry, I looked around and wondered why such a small handful of scns were ever doing well, the rest of us just hung on in there hoping something miraculous would occur. I’ve seen people who would be doing very nicely for themselves if they had no involvement with scn – good jobs, good money but broke and in serious debt.
      Scn’s argue that you should use the tech to make things happen in life – my response to this is that I did, it had limited success, the money and time I plowed into the subject gave a pretty poor return on my investment.

    • Nice post Barry. I liked the part about not understanding your wife but you don’t leave her.. Lol. I also think there was major overkill on the subject of MU’s. I do think people have MU’s obviously, but the degree to which the cherch asserted that if you didn’t “get” the information then you have MU’s and that MU’s made you blow was pretty crazy.

  2. I do not necessarily agree with all of the above. When Peggy Morsehead, my wife at that time, and myself were being briefed on Flag to come to FOLO Africa and take over command there. another LRH mission was being executed on the Flag ship to get rid of all the PTS’s on board as the ship was becoming PTS.

    After arriving in Joburg and taking over the command there we received the latest Orders of The Day from Flag where LRH stated that the ship had not improved after the PTS mission but in actual fact is worse. He then also stated that “It appears that the PTS’s we got rid of were PTS to the SP’s on board.

    When Corrie, my current wife, and I blew from the Flag Land Base with our family in 1986, because of being ARC broken with Flag the ARC break was not the major reason. The major reason was the suppression. I was physically attacked by a fellow staff member and Corrie was forced to work 18 hour per day regging people over the phone from around the world and then made to baby sit for other registrars. It was pure suppression.

    Women were not allowed to wear makeup or perfume and started attacking Corrie as she did not believe in that bull shit. When we had liberty over the weekend we were expected to have liberty as a group and watch a movie as a group or do things as a group.

    The truth of the matter is THE FLAG LAND BASE WENT PSYCHOTIC WITH SUPPRESSIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS. FLAG HAD BECOME A SUPPRESSIVE ORGANISATION PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE SP’s THAT REMAINED ON THE SHIP AFTER THE LRH PTS MISSION FAILED.

    SIMPLE

    Travers

    • To add to the above, I don’t even think we were ARC broken we were just plain angry and revolted. When we got onto the plane at the airport we just felt ABSOLUTE RELIEF LIKE THE UNIVERSE WAS FLOATING FOR US.

      • To me it was really just as direct. Three months on internship with no coaudit and no PCs and I decided that I was going to leave. Just as i would leave a cow pile once I realized that I was standing in it. No ARCX, no O/W, no MU. I was just tired of standing in s**t.

    • Thanks Travers. This is a very important point. It is such a stretch of your wits to believe that you want to leave because of your own O/W’s when these other glaringly obvious reasons are staring you right in the face. And there is a tremendous amount of invalidation of the being that goes along with this “it’s your O/Ws” viewpoint – invalidation of the person’s perceptions, invalidation of the person’s intentions, invalidation of the person’s rightness. Again, very good point!

    • Travers ….””When Corrie, my current wife, and I blew from the Flag Land Base with our family in 1986, because of being ARC broken with Flag the ARC break was not the major reason. The major reason was the suppression. “”
      Travers feeling the “”Suppression”” is on ARCB…so is having a problem.
      Please allow me to share my reality what ARCB are. Here is part of a post from my blog..

      By the way my blog only contains COGNITIONS and there is over 260 major cogs written. I am a total believer in LRH’s Auditing technology.

      ”Rudiments, it’s Value.
      The simplicity of the Rudiments, why they work and daily use is so powerful and gives incredible case gains.
      Understanding what is their value when run daily= continually: one clears up ones daily ARCB’X with self and others, when that is done, handled than there is nothing re-stimulating and one just feels wonderful about ones universe.
      These new viewpoint-reality has come to me when I was well into solo auditing in early 1983. Not that I have not used the Rudiments the beginning of the sessions, but what I have become aware of I had continual cognitions every time I run them. The cognitions were so fantastic; they have Erased so much mass I could not go any further with that sessions since I had F/N, or F/T and Cogs VGI, and cogs were so profound life changing with that I seen everything around me differently.

      It was then I had the life changing Cognition, which made the Universe around me and how I understood it, what the Universe really was about and that cog. has brought back the simplicity into my life and I no longer worried about the sessions that I will mess up or over run. This new reality solved the mystery for me.

      COG: There was nothing more to my universe, how I felt, what was wrong, had too much of something or too little, the upsets, the angers toward self or others, the disappointments which were caused by losses, the dislikes: some things I was not willing to have in my universe, the frustrations because not attaining the goals… not having the postulates come in, the feeling of being defeated, the fears I have had which continually hunted me; in other words every aspect of my life [ and plus the communication was a big issue] all these things happened or not, simply because I had no idea, no understanding why those things what I continually experienced were happening to me.
      THIS COGNITION brought the understanding that I was in that mass because I had nothing more than ARCB’s with self, with others in general, with the Universe it self and these ARCB’x I have been piling up [they could not be as-ised because I did not know how!!!] for eons and everything existed in my universe because of me “not understanding, not knowing, and not having reality on what was happening in my life; in my universe.
      Best to you.
      Elizabeth Hamre.

  3. This data has been partly realized by many of us who have worked in the field. It is valuable data and I thank you for bringing it to everyone’s attention. Sec Checks have their place if correctly used. Overts certainly restrict ones abilities, awareness and perception. When you confront your own stupidities it as-is’s stops you have made to stunt yourself. However when the auditors code is violated {no.22] and the PC’s secrets have been used for any purpose other than to free the individual from his aberrations then such action is despicable. Regards David

  4. This is interesting conversation. Rings very true for me. I knew Bill Franks in D.C.and his wife Jeannie. As a public when I was getting service there for a bit. My own take on Bill was that he was a straight up guy. Very forthcoming and straight forward. I liked him. So did everyone else. He was sincere. Obviously Hubbard liked him too, he was the E.D. of the Founding Org and then got posted to some big post internationally by Hubbard. He was very competent, intelligent, and sincerely curious about and interested in other people. He was rather perfect I thought. Open and fearless. Really humble too in spite of his power. He was also one of the first people to stand up and speak out. He flew an auditor all the way up to New York to handle an issue I had after I left as a P.C.. His care factor for people on a scale of 1 to 10 was at 10. I would believe anything he said.

  5. I’ve come across this piece of information before now, a couple of times. It contributed to my decision not to continue as a Scientologist but to rather denounce the religion. Words cannot describe the enormity of such a relevation in terms of both the man and the religion. There are such words, of course, betrayal is one but there are much more descriptive words that describe what this really means to a Scientologist. I am just speechless, however, and hope that others are able to be more forthcoming and accurately eloquent than I’m able to be about this. Whenever, I try to word what this means in terms of pain, anguish, expense and wrong doing to other, I become speechless.

    I would not touch the OT levels with a barge pole.

    • Good article, Kent.
      Jonty, I agree with what you say. I have read this before, and like you, I was speechless. The level of betrayal on this one thing is enormous! And LRH was right – if this wasn’t there, he would lose control. Making the individual wrong about everything that happens to him, including bad auditing, training etc, and disconnection are the most powerful tools available to keep people trapped. So much of what is wrong in Scientology goes unreported and not talked about and this is because people fear the repercussions. If you are not getting benefits from auditing, you risk being labeled a no gain case. If you say your auditor is crap and this is interfering with progress, you are critical.
      This and disconnection cuts comm lines so that the truth is buried and an organisation can get away with abuse.

  6. Quoting Bill Franks: “I don’t believe Mayo or I talked about this again until we were out where I saw him at his auditing facility in Montecito, California in 1983.”

    I would be curious what Mayo had to say about it, since he was highly tech-trained (obviously) and I’ve never come across anything about this incident in any of his lectures or writings that are on the internet – much less any related corrections to the tech, although Franks says the LRH note contradicted “something that 75-80% of the tech is premised upon”.

    As far back as 1964, 10 years prior to the note as Franks interpreted and recalls it, HCO PL “Instruction and Examination, Raising the Standard of” described “second phenomena” – in which overts do in fact precede a blow. From the Tech Dict:

    SECOND PHENOMENON, the second phenomenon is the overt cycle which follows a misunderstood word. When a word is not grasped, the student then goes into a non-comprehension (blankness) of things immediately after. This is followed by the student’s solution for the blank condition which is to individuate from it—separate self from it. Now being something else than the blank area, the student commits overts against the more general area. These overts, of course, are followed by restraining himself from committing overts. This pulls flows toward the person and makes the person crave motivators. This is followed by various mental and physical conditions and by various complaints, fault-finding and look-what- you-did-to-me. This justifies a departure, a blow. (HCO PL 24 Sept 64)

    So another thing I would be curious about is whether anyone here has personally experienced this phenomenon or observed it in others – specifically, a blow that followed overts. Actually, it seems to me that ARC breaks, missed withholds and overts – and thus blows – are all related to each other. Your mileage may vary. Or your references! 🙂

    • p.s. I guess the basic question is, what was the context for LRH’s statement (in the note), i.e. what was his point in relation to the pc or otherwise?

      • Focus, glad you got ,my point. I have no reason to doubt Franks’ honesty or integrity, but it is quite possible he misduplicated LRH’s words (as anybody might) – or that he misconstrued exactly what LRH meant to say. And there is no context that would enable us to evaluate his words for ourselves.

        It seems to me there has to be more to it since, first of all, ARC breaks are always connected to overts – by definition. If you understand the concept of each, it’s obvious that the commission of an overt is based on a break in ARC – most basically, a break in agreement. This is why I would ask – what exactly did LRH mean where he wrote the following (assuming Franks has reproduced it accurately):

        “However, if any of this information ever became public, I would lose all control of the orgs and eventually Scientology as a whole.”

        Did LRH simply mean that an emphasis by the orgs on the ARC break aspect of a blow – even though ARC breaks are more basic than overts – would open the door to the overts, and subsequent withholds and missed withholds, not being pulled? As I say – we have no context, so it’s all a matter of conjecture.

        In the “Blow-offs” PL itself (written in 1959) LRH included in the definition of a blow that it is “sudden and relatively unexplained” – and also stated that “certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave.” Here are some relevant quotes from that PL:

        “Scientology technology recently has been extended to include the factual explanation of departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas.

        “…One can treat people so well that they grow ashamed of themselves, knowing they don’t deserve it, that a blow-off is precipitated, and certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave, but these are extreme conditions and in between these we have the majority of departures…

        “…before a person may draw his last paycheck from an organization he is leaving of his own volition he must write down all his overts and withholds against the organization and its related personnel and have these checked out by the HCO Secretary on an E-Meter.

        “To do less than this is cruelty itself. The person is blowing himself off with his own overts and withholds. If these are not removed, then anything the organization or its people does to him goes in like a javelin and leaves him with a dark area in his life and a rotten taste in his mouth.” HCOB 31 Dec 59R)

        (The whole bulletin can be read here. http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/2263 )

        I should have made it clear that I’m not talking about the so-called “blows” by people who have been mistreated and suppressed – which do not fit into the category of “relatively unexplained”. And it would be quite a stretch to consider that LRH himself was referring to such people – especially with no context to support that idea.

      • Marildi,

        Hi, again! The datum about treating people so well they feel they don’t deserve it is amusing (laughter) to me. Have you ever seen a guy try to approach a beautiful woman to introduce himself, and not be able to? Guys talk about beautiful women amongst themselves, and no one dares go near. *Well, I do, but hey.) I wonder if girls get a kick out of watching that? What I really would like to know is why girls put their hands to their mouths and whisper and giggle when they see some guy they think is “cute.” Or act like they don’t notice some guy they’re dying to meet? If there’s a trap to Scientology, it’s that LRH probably could have explained women, and did not. Intentionally. Son of a gun was smart!

        Treating people ‘properly’ gets into acceptance levels, I guess, in that similar to tone levels, you have to somehow get just above, or just below, depending on the effect you wish to create. Very evident principle in dress and manners. And I think it applies to an individual’s tolerance for randomity, as well, and to what he (or she) expects.

        Your take on ARC and its relationship to O/W and MWH is illuminating. This is probably definitely “squirrel” on my part (speculation) but I’ve wondered if cleaning O/W wouldn’t go more easily running ARCx’s which occurred prior to the overt, and then running the Flow 0 ARCx’s (with self) after the commission or omission (perhaps what is commonly known as “regret”).

        Seems like there’s some sort of consensus in this thread that the way people have been mistreated is at least one (big) reason for their leaving, and your distinction between “leaving after deliberation” and a “sudden departure” is very helpful.

      • Hi again, Nickname. Nice post. It’s great to read the comments of someone who can think with the tech and align the different pieces of it, as you did with acceptance level, tone level, expectancy, etc.

        Regarding your “speculation” about “running ARCx’s which occurred prior to the overt, and then running the Flow 0 ARCx’s (with self) after the commission or omission…”, that makes a lot of sense if we just consider the Grades line-up on the Bridge. That is to say, the pc’s Grade 0 (and Grade I) needs to be in prior to O/W’s being run on Grade II. And any Flow 0 ARCx’s, if not handled by running the O/W’s alone, would be cleaned up as needed by flying ruds – all part of the tech. You’re way of thinking puts you in good company – with LRH. 🙂

      • Hi Miraldi,
        I don’t think that all ARCX’s are because of underlying overts. I think this is a mental trap. I do feel that SOMETIMES a person MAY ARCX because he has an overt but it’s not that often in my opinion. This idea is a control mechanism. If you ARCX with the cherch then it is because of something “YOU DID”. Sorry but that is BS.

      • Hi Tony,

        Quoting you: “I don’t think that all ARCX’s are because of underlying overts.”

        I don’t think so either! I’m not sure what I said that sounded like that, but in my post just above, I was responding to Nickname’s idea that a person might have a flow 0 ARC break – an ARCx with himself – after having committing an overt. Not to say that even a flow 0 ARCx would necessarily be the case.

        In another comment of mine (a reply to Pip), I wrote that “ARC breaks do precede overts/sins if you consider the fact that there is minimally a break in reality (agreement) when an overt is committed.” But that would be the reverse of “ARCX’s are because of underlying overts.” Obviously, the CoS does operate on and push that idea, but it isn’t per any LRH reference – and it isn’t my view either. I would definitely agree with you that it’s a control mechanism.

        Btw, I’m glad you joined in on this discussion thread. I always enjoy your candid comments that show you aren’t afraid to say what you think (including some of your comments on Marty’s – and replies to Marty). Here’s one on this thread that I really liked and meant to ack:

        “I was thinking about all this today and I thought if I ever was in a real bind and needed someone to talk to I would still want to find an auditor that I liked.”

        I feel the same way. A good session with a good auditor is an amazing experience.

      • Nice quote. Don’t know what the context was.
        If you have the ability to lie, then you have a choice to make. Freedom is the ability to make choices.
        Having an ability does not mean one has to use it.

      • The statement made earlier in the thread which quoted LRH in a PDC lecture as saying “People should be able to lie” is another example of how misleading it can be to consider his words without the context.

        1984 wrote: “If you have the ability to lie, then you have a choice to make. Freedom is the ability to make choices.”

        I believe that’s exactly the point LRH was making in that PDC lecture. What I got was that if the reason a guy doesn’t lie is that he is worried about being criticized by society, then you have a person who is asking for a licence to survive – and who is not free.

        The title of the lecture is “How to Talk to Friends about Scientology” (PDC 61 Dec 18 52), which was the final lecture of the PDC series, and the overall idea was that you sometimes have to run a reverse vector on people in relation to their tone level, such as telling them “Scientology doesn’t work”. Here’s a quote:

        “…he is so sure that a lie is terrible, and that pretense is the most horrible thing; he’s got to have the truth, and the only truth he’ll assume is that truth which is fed to him on his level of the tone band, which is KILL, FEAR, DIE, FADE, OBEY. Great, big code he has to run on. So that’s the truth he buys. And you will have to sell him on a reverse vector by not selling him at all.”

        The whole transcript can be found here:

        http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes%20in%20order/5212c01%20Philadelphia%20Doctorate%20Course%20Lectures/5212C18D%20PDC-61%20HOW%20TO%20TALK%20TO%20FRIENDS%20ABOUT%20SCIENTOLOGY.pdf

      • “People should be able to lie” Well of course they should — truth is relative not absolute.If Anne Frank (not that I believe her story) runs in and asks where to hide and I say in the attic. Then the Nazis run in asking me where she is. If I say the attic she dies, if I say the cellar she lives. Do I lie?  Yes. Your answer as to what you would reply tells you if you think truth is absolute or relative.Isn’t that what LRH meant? Elaborate

      • Barry, I think the point LRH was making was that if the reason you don’t have the ability to lie is because you’re afraid of being criticized by society, then you aren’t free. This is a different issue from whether lying is relative or absolute, right or wrong. Those questions might come into play too, but LRH was specifically talking about how free or self-determined a person is as opposed to being other-determined (this is putting it in my own words).

        Using your example, telling a lie about where Anne Frank was hiding could either be self-determined or other-determined, depending on the motive for lying. In other words, if it was expected by society that the person not lie, even under those circumstances, and the person had the ability to lie anyway, based on his own view of what’s right, then he would be free/self-determined. But if society expected him to lie and he did so only for that reason, then he would not be self-determined in his lying – i.e. in this case too, it would have to have been his personal choice to call it freedom.

      • There was no context, Marildi. It was stated as a simple fact.

        If you haven’t heard the lecture, are you entitled to an opinion? Have you listened to the full set of PDCs? Well, I have. I’ve read and listened to the entire Basics and Lectures which I completed within two years of their release!

        So, until you’ve heard these specific lectures for yourself with your very own ears, you have to take it from whence it comes. I suggest you start listening.

      • Hadawakeup. I’ve done all those courses too. And I reviewed that whole lecture before writing a post about it. I also gave the link for the transcript – so you can review it for yourself. You’ll see there was quite a bit of context for what LRH was talking about when he said a person should be able to lie. He didn’t just say it out of the blue.

      • Hadawakeup. I’ve done those courses too. And I reviewed that whole lecture before writing a post about it. I also gave the link for the transcript – so you can review it for yourself. You’ll see there was quite a bit of context for what LRH was talking about when he said a person should be able to lie. He didn’t just say it out of the blue.

    • “This is followed by the student’s solution for the blank condition which is to individuate from it—separate self from it. Now being something else than the blank area, the student commits overts against the more general area.”
      I have never been able to make sense of this. “Now being something else than the blank area” – what does that even mean? And why on earth does it follow that you would then commit overts against the more general area? Seems like a bit of a leap from saying one thing and assuming one would start committing overts.

      • Draco, the same principles would apply in everyday life where people commonly back away (individuate, separate self) from something they don’t understand. That’s their solution for the thing that is not understood – which is the “blank area”. They also tend to back away from the people involved with whatever it is they don’t understand – and those people would be the “more general area”. They may even consider that these people who are “different” aren’t as good as they are and can be treated accordingly, which is where they justify committing overts on them (although they may withhold themselves from so doing, as stated in that same reference). Basically, all these things can be observed in bigotry and intolerance of any kind, whether on a very small scale or very large, This is an example of how I understand “second phenomenon” in study. The mechanics are the same.

  7. /derail

    I’m sure most here will be focussed on discussing the ARCX aspect but, with the moderators’ indulgence, may I just make a quick observation.

    Even if a quarter of what Bill Franks says is just half true, he has been there and done that when it comes to Scientology and his version of the history during a critical period cannot be ignored. Bill stayed silent for decades before popping up in various forums and this story about ARCX is one of the first ones I heard him tell. Bill eventually spoke out publicly in June 2010 when he gave a lengthy interview with Tom Smith from The Edge radio station. A lack of DOX makes it tricky to verify much of what he says but joining-the-dots and correlating his story with others he mentions presents a narrative that’s hard to dispute. What I like most about his contribution to the conversation is that he manages to annoy both ends of the the spectrum, leaving the KSW Extremists spluttering and the “Haters” (not my word) muttering for MOAR. Its that dynamic which, IMHO, indicates a lack any personal agenda which, in turn, indicates a certain veracity.

    Its one thing that we silly humans have the bad habit of failing to learn from the lessons of history, but we’re getting better, I think. On the other hand, Its quite another thing when we don’t even have those lessons from which to learn. With this in mind, and love him or hate him, I hope that Bill’s example in speaking out serves as a spur to the many others who were there at the time, saw what they saw but have yet to contribute. Its a harsh but simple fact: time waits for no one. Accordingly, now would be a good for the previously silent to speak out or, at least, take steps to have their stories recorded, facts preserved, DOX unearthed and their truth be told.

    • “Bill stayed silent for decades before popping up in various forums and this story…”

      That’s not entirely accurate. After being declared and kicked out of the SO and serving his own time in the Happy Valley prison camp, Franks was off the radar for less than one year before getting involved with several highly contentious court cases and becoming the go-to source for reporters at media outlets throughout the US. For almost a decade, he was the original “former high level executive in the CoS says…” quote giver, fact checker and all around expert the media turned to when some new, bizarre piece of information or church-related scandal was revealed.

      So, don’t just acknowledge the knee-jerk reaction former members have when his name is mentioned. Give credit where credit is due since that reaction stems from Bill Franks speaking the truth during a time period where “fair game” was at its most vicious stage of brutality. Breaking and entering, death threats, being setup for criminal investigations and sabotaging people with absolutely no regard for the law was commonplace. So Franks paid his dues in that regard in a age where you literally feared for your life if you spoke out about the abuses. An age of ruthless retribution that makes the modern day antics of “squirrel busters” and farcical Freedom Magazine articles look like a complete joke.

      Bill did his part in standing up and speaking out, and then he moved on with his life after doing everything he could to shine some light on what was going on at the highest levels of the organization in the early 1980s. And he did it at time when the people who speak out today were still fully in the bubble and believed the party line about perceived enemies. Then after approximately a decade of being out of the spotlight, he returned to the firing line when he got involved in the Lisa McPherson court cases in the early 2000s.

      For more of this history on what Bill Franks did to set the record straight in days gone by, see:

      https://androvillans.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/ex-scientologist-story-158-the-prisoner-of-gilman/

      http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?t=William+W.+%22Bill%22+Franks

      • You’re quite welcome. The name Bill Franks, and what he has to say, is no easy task to confront. And it is truly a beautiful thing to see this community being open minded enough to consider his words and decide for themselves if this has any value for them.

  8. It seems to me that one has to differentiate between a) auditing in session and b) living in real life. At some point the issue isn’t the ARCx, but WHAT the ARCx break is about. If you buy a used car and it doesn’t run, well you can run ARCx’s all day and it won’t fix the car. Fix my car for free or give me another one of equal value, and I don’t have anything to be “ARC-broken” about (do it NOW!). You repair that ARCx in the real world by living up to your agreements. That is ethics.

    I left the Co$ because I wasn’t getting what I paid for. Mistakes, errors, negligence, misrepresentations, incessant demands, palliatives, incompetence, insults – you name it. I found a better deal elsewhere with Scientologists who did deliver. Sure, I was “ARC-broken” when I left – I was pretty angry over a bunch of fools who said one thing, then did another, and thought that was all perfectly OK.

    Today, I just look at them with a mixture of puzzlement and pity. Do I have an “ARCx” with various people? I guess, maybe, but it is an ethical question, to me. It is “real world,” I take responsibility for spotting it, and if those people fixed it, maybe someday I might consider them again, but it doesn’t seem at all likely they’re going to fix it, so it remains an untenable situation – and I’m not going to walk back in knowing I’ll get angry and “ARC-broken,” because I’m not getting what I was promised in return for payment. Pffft. Ridiculous people. And that’s not LRH’s fault, either. It’s “their” fault (various individuals who ticked me off – it is always a two-terminal universe, always individuals, and a “group” is an illusion – you don’t ARCx with “a group” you ARCx with some select individuals in that group illusion).

    And if anyone thinks I’m “nattering” that’s their problem, not mine. You can run my ARCx’s, in my world, but that isn’t going to fix THEIR world and it isn’t going to stop them from creating the same out-ethics situations. See the difference? There’s my world, your world, and then there’s what’s right. It may be that in adverse circumstances those three don’t come together, but when they do, it’s usually all three of them in accord with each other. Then it’s easy to see that when those three things come together, any ARCx’s are likely MWH’s.

    There is Scn tech, it does work like a bomb, but you do have to use it right.

    But what would I know.

  9. I wonder how many notes like this were written.

    Related, but not as jaw dropping: by 1980, I’d completed the original OT levels through full OT7. When the new OT 4, 5, 6, and 7 were released, nothing was mentioned about those of us who’d already done those levels in their original form.

    LRH was alive at the time (1985), so I decided to write him about it. As part of my letter, I wrote that I’d completed the new OT4 and OT5 and was now on L-11.

    I’ve long since lost the letter I got in reply, but in essence it said: “Your achievements on the original OT levels are valid … keep auditing and training and enjoying the bridge”. It was a non-answer, but I let it slide.

    About couple years later (in early 1987) I left Scientology because of a long-term ARC break (thank you Bill Franks!). I left quietly and gradually, like so many do who want to avoid being declared. This meant I knew I was done before my friends knew.

    Not long after (about a year after LRH died), I was contacted by one of my former Scientology friends. She knew I’d done L-11 after the new OT5, and (said she) an issue had just been released advising that no auditing steps should be taken between OT3 and the new OT7, other than the OT levels themselves. She thought my lack of activity on “the bridge” was probably due to the “out tech” I’d received by being audited on L-11 when I was still in the non-interference zone.

    If the non-interference zone was part of “the tech” when LRH was alive, why didn’t anyone know it? Why hadn’t my letter at least raised some flags?

    IMO it’s because 1) LRH didn’t personally read or respond to my letter, so what it said doesn’t much matter; and 2) changes to the “tech” were part of the deal when I was involved (1970-1987) and from what I read, that’s still the case.

    Because of this, I agree with the sentiment that LRH made things up as he went along. Some of it can be helpful, but how can there be “100% standard tech” when there were hidden data lines, and portions of “the tech” now deemed necessary to be which weren’t released during LRH’s lifetime.

    I don’t believe “LRH tech” has ever been “standard”, let alone 100% and I can’t see how it ever can be.

    • Robin –

      If you would, I’d like to know if you had Dianetics, then full quad Grades, Power, R6EW, and the CC before moving to original OT I-III, and also, did you do Solo NOTs and for how long? I’m not asking to “C/S your case” or make any comments on your auditing, I’d just like to know what was being run in that time frame. If you have any data on others during that time frame and what they ran, that would be nice, too. (Also, when was NOTs introduced?! Sorry to bother you with all this, but I really am curious about what happened.)

    • Robin, Mary Freeman was a Class VIII trained by LRH. In this 10-minute video she gives a great description of what constitutes standard tech (which, btw, she still practices as an independent in the state of Idaho):

      • Marildi… I am late here, but still have a question for you… What makes you believe that you are the only one who really understand the LRH ‘s writing -its meaning? You only can have your interpretation accordingly to your own reality, You cant possibly know what LRH has meant.
        We only assume, but that assumption is our interpretation.
        And Your take on ARCB’s… I wonder where did you get that assumption about ARCB’s are based O/W’s ? Cant be from experience because if the person has enough auditing they will know that is not a fact.
        Break in affinity-reality communication is= equal not understanding what and why things happen or not happening.
        That means education is missing… that knowledge is missing which can be attained at the end of the sessions in the form of cognitions. Cognitions in the end of the sessions replacing the lies, and because we have had that lies in place at first that is the reason we had the ARCB’s!!

      • Elizabeth: “What makes you believe that you are the only one who really understand the LRH ‘s writing – its meaning?”
        “I wonder where did you get that assumption about ARCB’s are based O/W’s?”

        I don’t believe I am the only one who really understands LRH’s writing and never said such a thing. And I don’t know what assumption are referring to as regards ARCX’s being based on O/Ws. You are going to have to quote me so I can see what you’re talking about. However, Tony also misunderstood something I had said about ARCX’s and O/W’s, which he then understood when I clarified it here: https://backincomm.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/the-real-reason-people-leave-scientology/comment-page-1/#comment-16127

      • Oh..Marildi…. Not that you are wrong…. but neither I am… This leads back to the BLACK CAT thingy….hehehe.. You see that black cat through your filters and I …well same goes for me.
        as I said I have read thousands of your posts and I seen the same over and over again.
        But this I believe those who really understood what LRH meant they have continued after leaving the church and the rest of you still being hang up on concepts chewing it over and over and not walking the walk.

      • Marildi…. what I write here is beside the point in the above article.
        I was thinking about your comments here and the thousands of them you have posted in Isenes blog. You posts have collected many agreement from readers and that is a fact.
        My posting here now is about AKNOWLEDGEMENT, just had a realization: when we acknowledge regardless on what we only can acknowledge our own understanding, what we have read into, how we seen that article.
        When we went into scientology we stayed in because of our reality how we understood what scientology was about.
        We can not understand, comprehend the other persons universe but we assume we do and assumption is not duplication even if we know verbatim what that person has said or written.
        Example: we can half on apple and we both bite into and taste our half, yet we will have a totally different experience which even if described down to the smallest detail cannot give the other person the experience how it tasted, the sensations.
        Going by your describing your experience I can agree that sweet is sweet to me to but still you never will know how that sweet taste to me.
        So My Friend that is Agreement but I can agree only on my own reality.
        Thank you again… Elizabeth
        PS; By the way Maurice Green has attested to Native State, there is a write up in my blog.

      • E, good for you on your realization. You would probably also like what LRH said where he wrote that “What’s true for you is true for you.”

        And congrats to Maurice. A while back (I think it was on this blog and before that on David St. Lawrence’s forum), Maurice posted that he was doing the original OT VIII that came out in 1988 but was altered by DM after only a few months. Specifically, he (DM) removed the controversial “Student Briefing” bulletin from the original OT VIII, and I’m not sure what else he altered. It’s very interesting data that Maurice was using that bulletin somehow in his auditing, if I understood him right. In any case, it’s good to know he had such a fantastic result. Congratulations, Maurice!

  10. I’m sorry but I strongly believe that this Hubbard dispatch is not anything confidential. The idea that people blow due to OW is an old idea. From the seventies Hubbard wrote different issues absolutely non confidential, and it didnt threatned his leadership, it made him more popular!

    He said in an int/ ext issue from 1971 that people have a dramatization to leave due to out int.

    And in 1972 : Recovering student and PCs
    The 4 reasons PCs blow.
    Out list
    Invalidation of case or gain
    No auditing
    Made to attest someting not attained.
    (try those on yourself, it really works)

    Where are the overt? Nowhere! So when there was this dispatch, it was already well known that people don’t blow because overts.

    In another issue of around 1972, I don’t remember the title, he says that ARC break cause a desire to get even, and thus an evil purp (reverse of the OW theory).

    I’m sorry to for the lovers (or haters) of “ARC x and MWH” (1962), but even this idea that all ARCX stem from MWH was already made very variable in in 1963 in “Cause of ARCX” (a master piece) he says that ARCX come from BPC.

    So all this shit of blow and overt withold is just for idiots who can only understand that. Stalinian/fascist kind of being and their “free” opponant (oppterm) who resent any workable anything.
    As my mother tongue is not english I feel free to be rude : fuck all those assholes by pair! To be an idiot is a crime. Being a zealot or a hater!
    More they were idiot in the org more they liked ow theory. Poor homo sapiens misrepresenting scientology. Real moron who never could have any PC released of anything.
    Miscavige is a complete human shit, old fashion fascist, and of course he use this piece of tech to explain the world like a little excrement of nazi or communist he is!

  11. I want to disconnect , but it seems that I can’t yet.

    The only problem that I have with this allegation of LRH’s supposed “confidential” letter to Franks and Mayo, is that it is FALSE from a technical stand-point. To utter the statament of “people don’t leave due to overts, they leave because of ARCxs” is really for the birds , and just a plain generalization that, with just a glimpse at it, one can easily discard it as being any great “discovery” or “mysterious attempt to control a group”.

    In the first hand , it is technically incorrect to say that people only “leave because of an ARCx”. That’s just for the birds. Besides an “ARCx” encompass an incredible range of human manifestations , including the being’s own feeling of guilt about having violated his own Code of Honor by committing overts against his various dynamics. THAT’S an ARCx as well ; an ARCx with SELF. What I feel that many are trying to do here is to “divorce” the subject of ARCxs from that of overts and withholds, and I am sorry , but that is a marriage for life!!! Can’t be divorced.

    I just don’t buy that a man known for his technical details into things and his great ability at research would utter such a general and sloppy statement as if there was some mystery surrounding it.

    The fact is that : PEOPLE LEAVE FOR VARIOUS REASONS , and not only due to ARCxs. Let’s analyze each one :

    1. One can leaves because one have been treated too bad where too many unhandled unjustices exist. That’s an ARCx , it could be an enforced affinity (you need to like and admire something , i.e , any part of Scn or LRH , DM, the CofS, etc) , an enforced reality (being forced to violate our personal integrity and Code Of Honor) , refused reality (not accepting our disagreements with any part of the Tech, LRH, DM, policy, etc ; or any violation to fundamental Human Rights) , inhibited affinity (misguidedly forcing you to disconnect from terminals) , refused affinity (declaring you and “SP” and not wanting to do anything more with you) , etc, etc, etc.

    2. One can leave due to misunderstood words by totally losing interest in the activity or subject.

    3. One can leave because of O/Ws against the terminals involved which we are using to justify “separateness”. This reason is VERY real and factual, in spite of the supposed “confidential note” from LRH. I am not necessarily doubting Bill’s account of what happened. If LRH actually said so, then he was WRONG about it, period.

    Why it is that so many needs an LRH ref to determine Truth ? That totally escapes my understanding. It lack so much self-respect and self-esteem ; a TOTAL invalidation of self.

    If anyone doubts O/Ws as a reason for leaving, then I don’t know what kind of world such a person will be living at ; certainly not on Earth.

    4. One can leave due to unhandled Out-Int phenomena. Attempting to compulsively leave a body , a person leaves locations , terminals and spaces.

    5. One can leave due to an out-list. Out-lists can create an INCREDIBLE amount of HE&R , and a person just “wants out” ; plain and simple.

    6. One can wish to leave due to a long unhandled ARCx with life as such, which causes a severe sad effect (called “depression” in layman’s terms). A person at “Apathy” wants to “Withdraw” from terminals and spaces as well. Note that this restimulated ARCx could have happened days, weeks, months, or even years ago, and not be necessarily related to Scn at all.

    7. A person can be undergoing a very restimulative sit in life and fall into the state that LRH calls “Out-of” (see it in the Tech dic) where he “wants to stop things, cease to act, halt life, and failing this they try to run away”.

    8. A person can wish to leave due to a LOSS. The sens of loss can be a VERY powerful one indeed. A person tends to withdraw from the area or terminal that restimulate this loss in him/her. He just “doesn’t want to do anything with that.

    9. A person can leave due to “Failed Purposes”. He just grows too bitter and can feel degraded and incompetent. He can totally lose interest in the subject, terminal, or area and just wish to leave.

    10. A person can wish to leave due to “Unhatness”. He start feeling that he is not being useful to others and that he is not worthy of being where he is.

    And there might exists other reasons as well. This misguided Human attitude of attempting to seek for only ONE possible answer to explain the complexity of human behavior is for the birds. And the one of expecting another entity to offer explanations for ourselves to save us the trouble of OBSERVING things for ourselves, it even more misguided.

    Let’s not be in this frame of mind of needing an LRH ref for everything as if he were some kind of God or holy man : He WASN’T. All the answers that you need to explain things, YOU can get them yourselves if only you trust your own instincts and power of observation.

    And that’s all there is to it. No more complex than that really.

    Perhaps I can disconnect now.

    ARC,
    PETER

    • P.S.

      Actually all my listed reasons for leaving a terminal, area , or subject, can be described as some sort of an ARCx , as for i.e. , what is a person feeling guilty of his own O/Ws , and wishing to leave doing if not dramatizing some form of DEI, “no” , or “refusued” A, R, or C ?

      If he says that “somebody caused him some harm” , he is basically saying that he, for i.e. , is “against a reality” and so he attacked it (whether justified or not). That would be the “motivator” side of it ; the “being a victim” side of it. The flow 0 aspect of this, feeling guilty and being a dog about it, is an ARCx with SELF. All of the “having to leave” manifestations are actually some sort of ARCx with some terminal (any dynamic , or object) , lacation or space in ANY flow.

      Remember that life IS ARC in its various manifestations. Sometimes a Sec Check question asking generally for an overt can be just TOO general, and thus unworkable in handling a specific area one is trying to handle in a PC.
      We also have the problem of the reality level of the individual one is trying to straighten ; what exactly is he aware of, or can immediately become aware of ? These are not just “white and black” propositions as some of us are apparently assuming.

      The most workable approach would be a correction list (possible tailor made for the individual) with all (which are many) possible reasons for “wanting to leave” , assessing it, and thoroughly handling EACH reading item. The reason(s) that are real to the individual, or the ones which he can be made immediately conscious about , WILL read ; and you handle only those from a Tech stand-point. From a “Group Justice” stand-point it all depends in the cirnscuntances and the destruction being brought about by this “blow”. If this blow totally violates the rights of others, then it is wrong. It all is a matter of just sensible judgment really.

      ARC,
      PETER

      • Peter,

        We were remiss in not responding to your earlier announcement of your departure from BIC for the purpose of a personal sabbatical.

        BIC wishes you all the very best on your future adventures, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your wonderful contributions to this blog. You will be sorely missed, but know that you are considered as part of the BIC family and will always be welcome here. Feel free to pop in here from time to time, and we look forward to your return with great anticipation.

        With love, your BIC Family.

      • Thanks for your warm words and welcome, dear BIC Admin ; most kind.

        I shall miss my family. I have some very interesting games to play now to fully recover my beingness , but I shall see you all soon enough again.

        Until then.

        ARC, PETER

    • thetaclear: “Why it is that so many need an LRH ref to determine Truth?”

      Very relevant point, Peter. In addition to all the references about overts and ARC breaks (which should be looked at as a whole, so as to align them with one another) each of us should look at these datums from our own experience and observations. This is what I meant to say in my post above, where I asked people to consider what they have observed in life as regards blows.

      To me, it’s obvious that both ARC breaks and overts are related to blows (that is, actual blows – defined as “departures, sudden and RELATIVELY UNEXPLAINED”) – and that ARC breaks are basic to overts. On the other hand, ARC breaks not only precede overts but, in turn, follow overts because, as you basically indicated, a person can be ARC broken with himself, for one thing. Or, he can ARC break and natter about the person/group that the overt was done to, since people are basically good and feel remorse for their overts and thus want to lessen that person or group. Again, though, it isn’t just because LRH said these things but because they can be observed for oneself, in life.

      So many things in scientology start to be complex and significant when there is a lack of one’s own understanding. The datum that comes to mind is “There’s no substitute for understanding”.

      Thanks for your post, Peter – and yes, go ahead and “disconnect” (i.e. take your “sabbatical”) now if that is right for you.

      ARC,
      marildi

      • Marildi : “Very relevant point, Peter. In addition to all the references about overts and ARC breaks (which should be looked at as a whole, so as to align them with one another) each of us should look at these datums from our own experience and observations.”

        Peter : Correctly so, dear Marildi. As always, you are very wise and smart.

        Marildi : “This is what I meant to say in my post above, where I asked people to consider what they have observed in life as regards blows.”

        Peter : Got it ; yes, that’s how I had duplicated it.

        Marildi : “to me, it’s obvious that both ARC breaks and overts are related to blows (that is, actual blows – defined as “departures, sudden and RELATIVELY UNEXPLAINED”) – and that ARC breaks are basic to overts.”

        Peter : You got it, Marildi, that’s a fact : overts are always preceded by ARCxs ; otherwise , the datum concerning thetans being basically good wouldn’t hold at all. The only possible way that it can hold (be actually true) is if the ARCx is always prior to overts, and an M/U is a special case of an ARCx as well. Before out-ethics (overts) , there should be some out-Tech (which causes the ARCx) , then the being handle his “problem” with “wrong solutions” (by pulling in a motivator to justify his out-ethics”).

        When I used to handle Ethics cycles on others back in the ’80s , I had a completely different approach than just conditions formulas and O/Ws write-ups. I always found the Ethics Why first, ( no e-meter , just with plain 2WC) , then I determined what Tech was out PRIOR to that Ethics why. It always was a piece of Tech that the individual lacked, or some false data or assumption that he was using as his “safe solution”. Then I designed a program which usually incuded reading the workable Tech in the troublesome area and FDSing as needed, locating crashing M/Us, and general case handling to address what was found (a repair of some sort). And it always got handled.

        Ethics for the sake of Ethics is just unworkable. There is always a reason why somebody behaves erratically which is a job for Tech to handle, not Ethics. Ethics only helps to get others to keep their noses clean for enough time to let Tech do its job. Even an Evil Purp has a prior moment of confusion which makes it blow. The individual was confuse as he didn’t understand something, which means his Tech was out in the area.

        Marildi : “On the other hand, ARC breaks not only precede overts but, in turn, follow overts because, as you basically indicated, a person can be ARC broken with himself, for one thing. Or, he can ARC break and natter about the person/group that the overt was done to, since people are basically good and feel remorse for their overts and thus want to lessen that person or group. Again, though, it isn’t just because LRH said these things but because they can be observed for oneself, in life.”

        Peter : Exactly so, Marildi ; great observations indeed!

        Marildi : “So many things in scientology start to be complex and significant when there is a lack of one’s own understanding. The datum that comes to mind is “There’s no substitute for understanding”.

        Peter : “There’s no substitute for understanding” indeed! You certainly have a VERY free mind, dear Marildi.

        “Thanks for your post, Peter – and yes, go ahead and “disconnect” (i.e. take your “sabbatical”) now if that is right for you. ”

        Peter : Thanks ; yes, it is all right now.

        See you soon.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter, thanks for your description of all the ethics tech you utilized back in the day. That was uplifting to read, because I know that the tech when correctly applied is very workable and produces great wins.

        And if it’s true that I have a free mind, then all I can say is it must be true that “It takes one to know one.” 😉

        Yes, dear Peter – do come back whenever you can. Meanwhile, happy trails!

        ARC, marildi

      • Dear Mardi,

        Yes, Tech when correctly used with good judgment and understanding , does produce excellent results and wins.

        Thanks for your warm words and good wishes.

        See you soon.

        ARC, PETER

    • I think a person leaves for the exact reason they say they leave. If you insist it is for any other reason you are denying them an item or not accepting the item they gave you. If you think with such notions, and I do.

      If they leave because they can not afford it, and that is the number one reason in my experience, that is the reason.

      If they leave because they are no longer interested, they are no longer interested.

      If they leave because with holds, so what? If you are not having a good time doing what you are doing, that can be with hold.

      The bottom line is Scientology is a business. It is a store selling information and conversation. People usually need to to WANT that before they will pay for it.

      People leave when they feel they are wasting their time or being compromised in some way. The same way they leave a restaurant when they are not happy with the service or the food.

  12. For many years while in the church I had this worked out. I had studied this tech and could clay demo it and recite it verbatim.

    But my personal observation was that a total stranger like a burglar could come and rip off my stuff and destroy personal property. Perhaps steal the photo album of your kids or your wedding. I believed I had a right to be arc broken. And unless I had overts against this unknown individual way back on the track there is no way he missed a withold on me. Epic fail on this datum so I added in one of my own . Actually the idea comes from the rudiments. Anyone who has ever flown ruds has seen this. There is such a thing as refused affinity and a no reality and an enforced communication. The mechanism is laid out right there by the man himself.
    And if the reg continues lying to me and the ED has broken his promise for the third time I will continue to be pissed off and no amount of withold pulling is going to fix it.

    Of course this was my own personal take on it and not necessarily per LRH. Thus it was a secret I had which had to be witheld. Voicing this could only spell the beginning of the end of my Scientology career.

    This is described as cognitive dissonance. The more I am out of the church the more I see this and many other examples.

    I feel it would be impossible for anybody to practice 100% standard tech all the time because there are so many contradictions in the tech – particularly in policy letters. You get to the fork in the road. One policy says “go left” the other says ” go right”. Well you are on your own, pal.

    However one was taught to evaluate importances. And senior policy is service. Anything getting in the way of service delivery is of least importance. Also there is policy that states that if a policy is not working or applicable, throw it out. It only exists to keep things running smoothly after all.

    If your IQ is high enough and you can think and observe for yourself (ignoring the fact you are not allowed to per KSW) you can see this and do what works best.

    And this is where the whole issue of tech degrades, squirreling and bad, out tech can come from. If one tried something on your own was it because you misapplied the tech? Or the tech was not 100% correct in the first place? There is a minefield out there where it comes to these issues.

    Interesting exercise: read the Creed of the church and the Code of Honour. See the contradictions there. Now read KSW#1.

    So you have the right to your own beliefs and their practice. You must stick to what you know is right no matter what. But if you have observed a truth which is not the same as LRH tech you may not have it per KSW#1.
    If you try to sort this out you may look for misunderstoods you do not have and start doubting yourself and feel stupid. And now you have to choose whether to compromise on your own reality or leave the church.

    Many of us have compromised for up to 40 years and have finally left.

    • I’m a little late on the chain here, having just come by the blog for a “walk-around,” but I couldn’t help but stop and make a comment on this post from LMR.

      When I got into SCN in 1972, common sense was not left at the door upon entering a church. It was not a requirement. As time passed, it became one.

      You can point to the enforcement of KSW as a possible culprit, and I would raise my hand in agreement. Like so many things I read back then, there appeared to be a plausible back-story explaining why the policy was being released. Some were more believable than others, but for KSW there was always an element of doubt. Why was LRH or whoever else was involved, having such an incredibly difficult time getting people to understand what worked and what didn’t. This never fully made sense to me.

      In my opinion, there was only one true reason for all this trouble and I am defining this as a major influence over the subject itself, excluding MUs and other aspects of study phenomena. And that was Scientology’s obsession with Stats. Stats drove the alteration of the Tech during the early 70s. Stats were an underlying influence for almost every insane actions implemented by LRH and the legend of “executives” that followed him.

      With a show of hands, how many of us have a few ARCXs that occurred on or around Thursday at 2:00 pm?

      If anything KSW and its years of enforcement, made common sense and the fruit of our own observations, an unwanted influence over the practice of SCN.

      Anyway… a larger subject for another time. Just wanted to say — Good Post!

      Odd

  13. Book of case remedies (1963 ??)

    “Here, I only wish to point out that if a pc gets wins, he or she will get more auditing. If
    he gets enough steady auditing on standard processes, he or she will go all the way up. And
    only the PTP, Overt and ARC Break can prevent the wins and cause the blows.”

    “Pc’s who blow or cease to be audited do so because:
    (1) Nobody noticed the rising ARC Break
    (2) The proper action was not taken in time.”

    HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1960:

    O-W A LIMITED THEORY
    “You will not always have to be careful not to bump Joe. It would be a horrible
    universe indeed if O-W was its senior law, for one could then never do anything.

    Fortunately, it drops out, both as a governing law and a necessity in life”

    I read once a reference of 1964-5 where he wrote that Arcx are the main reason for blows but can’t find it anymore…

    • Roger from Switzerland wrote: “And only the PTP, Overt and ARC Break can prevent the wins and cause the blows.”

      Thank you, Roger. That reference is another one that indicates the statement supposedly made by LRH in the note just doesn’t add up since both ARC breaks and Overts (as well as PTPs) can cause a blow.

      JFYI, the pdf copy I have of the *Book of Case Remedies* (which I got from the website stss.nl , says “Copyright © 1964” and then says “This expanded edition Copyright © 1968”.

  14. Amazing data from Bill Franks. Thank you for publishing it. It makes sense and I have some closure on this personally. I am sure to some degree for anyone who did or tried to blow. I do believe in 100% standard Tech and it’s applications, but I despise robotism. Auditing IS ALWAYS for the pc, not the C/S, the Church or Management and that’s when it gets distorted.
    Those indie auditors who do apply Standard Tech will have pcs winning and will always endure.

  15. Nobody ever left scientology because they were pissed off that it made them give up family and friends, took their money, wasted their time in studying at night instead of spending time with the family and made them believe that the environment is dangerous.

    No, they left because of M/us and O/Ws not because they realised it is a ruse!

    “Now you say you have to absolutely truthful. Sincerity is the main thing, and truthfulness is the main thing and don’t lie to anybody … and you’ll get ahead. Brother you sure will. You’ll get ahead right on that cycle of action, right toward zero! It’s a trap not being able to prevaricate … This makes life more colorful!” – L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures

    ” IT’S A TRAP NOT BEING ABLE TO PREVARICATE” – Would you believe anything this man said?

    prevaricate. verb . speak or act in an evasive way.

  16. Personally, while on staff due to the heavy effort to keep us happy slaves chained to the misery wheel called the C of S, this datum of a person only leaves because of his own OW’s was soul destroying!

    Not because it wasnt workable. More because it was made to be an absolute! It so happens that DM and minions used this single datum to ruin, control and squash any dissent! I believed it for a long time. It was only when I finished my sec checks, felt good but still disagreed with all the injustices I saw execs commiting that it dawned on me how altered importances were being used by some to keep the sheeple in line and shuffling lock step to DM’s tune!

    I saw also how one could use the tech, or portions of it highlighted oh so cleverly to elevate oneself above others. I know because I tested it out a few times. Its wrong in every way. Heres why, you make yourself the go to person who has to think for everyone else. Power, prestige and perhaps collective control is nothing but a sordid game where no one wins, not even the big shot! Even he gets it from another ambitious usurper- eventually!

    I mention this because it all to easy to make someone a king or a god. But when he fails your expectations, how come no one takes any responsibility for helping put him there up on his pedastal in the first place? How come its all LRH’s fault or any other leaders? At some point we all have to simply take what we know and be certain enough to use it or disguard it at will.

    I grow weary of this contant LRH is good, no he’s really bad debate! Hell, he was both, who cares? So am I!!

    • Someone sharp commented somewhere once, that “full responsibility” INCLUDES allowing another to have and develop their OWN responsibility. To communicate, one must be able to inflow as well as outflow. To play a game or match, one must have an opponent (tech dictionary defines the components of a game). In common vernacular of life it falls into the category of allowing one’s children to make mistakes (within limits, I mean).

      • I get that. But this doesnt always feel like a game to me. More like a bloody watered feeding frenzy where the slaves are rallying to become the masters. No..more like the French revolution actually. Guillotines are being errected near every org on the planet is the feeling I get. Read the bunker or Mikes blog and tell me what you perceive? Dont know how this drama is going to unfold..perhaps scientology will be forced undergroundonce the church croaks?

        I was looking forward to going clear the documentary, still do but as the day nears perhaps it will be bittersweet afterall!

      • Sheeplebane, that is calling it like it is. Thanks for speaking up.

        I agree with all you say above. It seems to me that many of the critics do the exact same things they criticize the church for, including their hostility and their spreading of misinformation and disinformation in some cases.

      • :Sheeplebane” “…this doesnt always feel like a game to me. More like a bloody watered feeding frenzy where the slaves are rallying to become the masters. No..more like the French revolution actually. Guillotines are being errected near every org on the planet is the feeling I get. Read the bunker or Mikes blog and tell me what you perceive?”

        Perceptions similar to yours were stated today by Marty Rathbun. Here’s an excerpt from his blog post, but I recommend everybody read the whole post as it is well worth reading:

        “…Ultimately, haters hate, they wind up hating each other and the groups having no purpose beyond scientology’s demise accomplish little beyond steeling up scientologists to fight yet more battles.

        “You can see that same cycle playing out today. Scientology forums read more and more like scientology’s propaganda sheet ‘Freedom.’ They are replete with name calling, expressing glee at every enemy faux pas, assigning evil motives to any and every enemy utterance or move, pronouncing hyperbolic end of days scenarios for the enemy, even targeting for distrust and enmity anyone who does not exhibit its own culturally devolved standards of ridicule and hate. Their heaping praise and kudos on those mostly closely adhering to the company line verge on cult-like. The tone, intelligence and tolerance levels are no different than scientology’s itself. Their leaders have become as obsessed with scientology as scientology’s leading lights are. Their sense of right and wrong becomes nearly identical (albeit reversed in vector) to scientology’s.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/scientologys-vortex-of-hate/

      • Hey there Maridi,

        Wanted to thank you for your smashing debate prowess earlier yesterday but got life distracted. You are the queen of balance and the soothing balm of rationality which eases many a souls ARC/break with the Tech and LRH! Cheers for that and thank you for putting the out of context back into context for us hear! All too easy to load the buckshot and go on the shame, blame hunt! God I irritate myself when I find myself blaming DM for the sordid mess the church is in. It is not all his fault, neither is it LRH’s! Its a collective, co-created mass contrived action we ALL had a part to play in. Perhaps agreements laid in prior to our entry into this “Hunger Games” universe are the real basic basic?It seems to have wonderfull persistence does it not?

      • Thanks, Sheeplebane!

        I really like you South Africans. Not that you aren’t unique as individuals, but I’m beginning to get a feel for the general beingness of the culture – there’s an appealing forthrightness. ❤ 🙂

        I've been thinking for a while now that probably the best gain in awareness that we achieved in scientology was to be able to recognize the signs and pitfalls of a group becoming a cult. But one thing you wrote is an even higher awareness. You said:

        "It's a collective, co-created mass contrived action we ALL had a part to play in."

        That's taking the more responsible, pan-determined viewpoint – and you expressed it so well! I have come to see more and more that we do co-create our universe. Even quantum physics seems to have confirmed that.

        ARC, marildi

  17. One can leave after a rational review of the facts, decide to leave and then leave.

    That is a cause viewpoint. Power of choice.

    The rest, is an effect viewpoint. Not good or bad, just effect.

    If I am effect, I can say I had no power over this choice, it was an ARCx, an overt or something else. I was effect. I was inferior.

    We are very aware and capable. We look and know. Sometimes it takes a while, but we do eventually see.

    I believe we should validate our choices, not deny self, and take a win that we made the free choices we did.

  18. There are five main blow reasons:

    1. Misunderstood words (or no materials).
    2. No help or W/C Method 4 from the Supers (or no Super).
    3. Interference from the Supers that stopped them from getting on.
    4. Personal out-ethics resulting in a W/H.
    5. Simply booted off for reasons best known to God or Registrars (like suddenly saying, “You must now buy Method 1,” etc., thus violating the “deliver what we promise” rule).

    The interference and boot-off reasons are the ones you’d least suspect. Both generate a lot of HE&R (Human Emotion and Reaction).

    The reasons most pcs blow are:

    1. Out-lists.
    2. No auditing.
    3. Invalidation of case or gains.
    4. Told they’d attained it and hadn’t.

    (HCOB 25 Jun 72 Recovering Students And PCs)

    So, according to LRH many reasons exist for blows. To suggest 1 single item such as ARC are wholly and exclusively the reason for blows violates numerous LRH writings on the subject.

    And … Communist/dictatorial regimes as well as slaveowners may have their own list why their subjects blow, such as too much food, rest, sleep … even insufficient whippings, etc.

  19. I knew Bill and some bad experiences with him in the SO in the 70 and early 80s. I personally thought he was very arrogant and dis respective of those below him, but I will give him this he was far better than Kerry Gleeson. Jeff Walker was another I had several run in’s with and usually it had to do with Authority. Jeff recently passed away and I have come to terms with people I had bad experiences with in the old days of the Sea Org. We all had issues, everyone of us, including LRH. I am putting my bitterness aside. My reaction to the LRH despatch was the person who blew must have been very important to Hubbard. Would be nice if the name could be provided.

  20. Jane Kember in Merrell Vanniers’ new book, Arrows In The Dark, says that Bill Franks had “plant” characteristics. G.O. era.

    • So did I – I think anyone/everyone who ever worked in the GO (and even oon staff in orgs) were fingered as “plants” at some point – nothing’s changed. The “enemy within” (held down 7 computation).

      Any time anything got hot & heavy, out came the e-meters and the line-ups outside the B1 door were in evidence. We all had “metered plant” interviews when things got hot and heavy and some outside attack was on the horizon.

      In 76/77 (Before I joined staff) I had just got back from a school camp – little sleep, rough conditions and not feeling too good, but wanted to go out and have some fun with my boyfriend who I hadn’t seen a WHOLE week – horror of horrors! (Shit like that was VERY important when you’re a 14 year-old teen). So we planned to go see the latest release James Bond “Goldfinger” at the drive-in (yes, I am that old now – sad to say).

      But I had a whopping headache from too much sun, shitty camp food and VERY little sleep for a week, so I popped 8 painkillers and was all set to go out – (dumb move I know, but coming from a strict “no drugs” upbringing what the hell was I supposed to know? I thought the quantity of tablets needed were proportional to the pain I was in which was about an 8 out of 10, so I dosed myself accordingly!). A drive-in isn’t fun if you don’t have to lie about your age and smuggle in booze and I proceeded to guzzle red wine while watching strange 3D starships and other shit jumping out at me from the big-screen once the wine and pain-killers met each other in my brain, after which I passed out and awoke later in hospital having my stomach pumped and my brother-in-law (DGB1) arriving at the hospital in the dead of night to prevent them from admitting me to the Psych ward for being a “suicide” case. Can you imagine the headline “Dumb Blonde Scientologist Bimbo accidentally commits suicide by mixing 8 headache tablets with a litre of wine”………………. 🙂

      This caused all colours of shit flying in every direction in the GO. My sister, mother and sister’s husband were on GO staff and my brother-in-law head of B1 no less! (the investigations division – same as OSA black-ops dudes today)………………………..And here I was, little rebel teenager having popped too many painkillers and drank a bit too much wine, now a raving “Psych case” and a possible “plant”. I was put through a metered plant interview from hell for hours with a fucking hangover of gargantuan proportions and a thirst that had me eyeing out the plant in the corner and wondering if I could suck some water out of the soil – my mouth was SOOOO dry.

      Turned out I wasn’t a “plant” – just a ditsy teenager who had a bit too much fun and had the whole of GO AF running around in tight circles while I slept off my hangover. For about a week. 🙂

      Heaven knows what they put in the report to Jane Kember up-lines, but they obviously white-washed it because 2 years later at the age of 15 I was the Dir Comm on GO Staff!!!

      • Shelly you had me in stitches hahaha! Only because you remind me of me! Without true life stories like these how boring would life be? Granted we would never want to live through them again but sometimes the best lessons learnt ended up with a dry mouth and sore head to teach one hehe! 😉 🙂

        The ultimate fun I had with auditing pc’s was with the naughty hell raiser, good sense of humour types, they had lived where few others would dare to! Rock on!

      • Glad to be of amusement, Sheeple. Yes, us rebels lived life. And we still are. that’s why we are still here and communicating 🙂

  21. What an extraordinary variety of responses. I’m with ThetaClear on this. We should be just a little bit able to think for ourselves about this. Here is a simple straightforward example from my own life:

    I wanted to join staff at my local org. In order to do so I had to leave the best job I’d had to date. I loved the job and the people involved and the money and the conditions. Had no complaints whatsoever. No O/Ws, MUs, out lists, out int or any other reactive type of cause. I just wanted to move on to what I perceived to be a better place at the time.

    In the CoS it’s a bit more complicated by the word “blow” which means an unauthorised and/or sudden departure that might create a mystery in the minds of those left behind as to why a person just upped and left. O/W is a highly possible reason. But so might be a lack of patience… like when you have a plane to catch to get back home from Flag and you are put on a leaving R/F that serves no useful purpose for you. 🙂

    • Good point, IP. isn’t it funny how the Church never for a nano-second accused you of “blowing” your real-world job to join staff, but then, when you wanted to leave org staff the situation was entirely different, and you were treated like some deviant miscreant with evil purposes and overts up the wazoo?

      This issue of “routing out” also got to me. IMO the whole “routing out procedure” was actually designed (and I believe this is even acknowledged) to KEEP YOU IN and change your mind about leaving.

      So what happens, is that they delay, delay and delay and screw you around, pushing you from pillar to post on this never-ending routing form from hell and for months on end (and even years I have heard in some cases) while you dutifully try to “do it by the book” and try extricate yourself from staff – especially the SO. Many people just get tired of this shit eventually and leave mid-routing form because by that time they’ve grown a beard and roots waiting in the MAA’s office. And viola! You’re now considered blown, and that is proof positive you were crawling with overts all along.

      What horseshit.

  22. Another thought about a few of the stories I’ve come across about LRH that come as a shock and offer an “explanation” of something, usually calculated to leave a negative evaluation.

    This might generate some noise and heat but … whatever 🙂

    This story is startling and has a very similar feel to it as two other stories I’ve come across. The first was on Marty’s blog and was the story told by Sarge that painted LRH as somewhat insane, lost and floundering just before his death. What struck me about it was the omitted data and it was the omitted data that led my to dismiss the story as b/s. For LRH to want to electrocute himself with a meter or to (redacted – upper level reference) is simply bizarre. If he’d wanted to kill himself I’m sure he could have found a more efficient method. If he wanted to handle (Redacted) and was completely bewildered about how to do so then this seems like a very odd way of going about it. It’s also odd that he would have let Sarge know all about it.

    For LRH to have considered such a method as desirable suggests some kind of drastic change of mental state. Perhaps being under the influence of some powerful stupefying drugs. If that were the case; where did the drugs come from? who administered them? for what reason? And most importantly – why wasn’t this mentioned in the telling of the story?

    Another story is in the last Mayo lecture I listened to. Up to that point I found his talks quite interesting. Suddenly he presented the story of a session he gave LRH where LRH went exterior but had very poor perception. It was presented along the lines of “don’t feel too bad if you haven’t yet experienced exteriorisation with full perception because this is the same condition LRH was in. Now it might be a true story but for sure Mayo knew the effect it would have on those who heard it. If his only purpose was to reassure people he could, as the experienced auditor and C/S that he was, have given examples of many other cases of similar phenomena without naming any PCs. The reason it is suspect for me is that he would have known the profound effect his telling of the story of LRH would have on people that would go way beyond just reassurance about their auditing.

    And then there is this story from Bill Franks about the note from LRH. I just don’t buy it. With all the LRH references people have quoted above about reasons for people leaving that are not connected with O/Ws it just doesn’t make sense that LRH would pretend there had only been one. And isn’t it kind of convenient that it leads people to believe LRH was just manipulating everyone?

  23. I have no reason to doubt Bill Franks.
    The problem is, LRH said all of his tech was in writing, and if it isn’t written then it isn’t true. So if LRH really did say what Bill Franks says he did then LRH wrote a lie into his own tech and actually perverted his own tech in order to “keep control” over the group. Maybe he thought this was “the greatest good”? Obviously not. That was a total FAIL.

    • He said this in a lecture in the PDC series. I heard it myself.

      What I’m not seeing on this blog is OUTRAGE. This very important (an understatement) piece of “tech” was kept from us with deliberate and malice aforethought. It is so stupendous, it boggles the mind.

      Can you just imagine the hundreds (thousands?) of people given the wrong item of overts/withholds/ethics and make wrongs and the harm it has done?

      Can anyone even contemplate the damage done in addition to the thousands of rands/dollars spent unnecessarily either doing sec checks or correction lists for wrong indications and then the pc AND the auditor being sent to ethics because this was tolerated? And there are so many more ramifications to this that I don’t have the time right now to list them all out properly. I hope someone will do this.

      And what do I see? Theatie wheetiness – people trying to cover up, making excuses, even a discussion about whether the datum is true on not! Blaming Miscavige! Miscavige is a puppet. He follows LRH policy to a T. I know I’m in for the high jump saying this – but LOOK, people, LOOK.

      The theatie wheetie who excuses a man who committed a murder, saying. “Oh, you know, he’s actually a nice person. He had a rough childhood.” Or words to that effect.

      • Greetings Hadawakeup,

        First of all, you are assuming that Bill is actually telling the truth. It is highly unlikely that LRH ever uttered such a sloppy statement and with this “confidential” attribute to it. The Oldman could be anything but sloppy. He is not necessarily the saint of my devotion , and he OWE me explanations for fundamentalist policies. But LRH was a professional and I respect professional and competent individuals. Does anyone here really buy that LRH is going to write a supposedly “confidential ‘confession’ note” to just anybody and put himself into a delicate position ?

        He was overtly clear about how “SPs” ought to be treated and about the “attack the critics and dissenters by exposing their alleged crimes” , both of which are enough to see him as a sort of authoritarian cult leader, but felt the need to “confidentially” say that “blows” are really caused by “ARXs” as if that were some kind of mysterious datum that no Scientologists ever thought about ? Oh come on , that’s just for the birds. Bill Franks is actually trying to make a “case” that wasn’t ever a “case”.

        Does LRH is a true “Humanitarian” ? No, I don’t think that he ever was. Humanitarians, real ones , doesn’t contradict themselves. One either favors Humans Rights or one doesn’t. And favoring Human Rights only for your group is not being an “Humanitarian” at all , but actually a cult leader. I really don’t care a rat’s ass if the CIA itself wanted to do him in. There is no excuse whatsoever to EVER violate the fundamental rights of others , not ever ; not even at war. Period. These lame excuses from some friends of mine regarding the “political pressures” to which LRH was being subjected are just that, lame excuses. Go tell that to Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi. Go tell that to Lincon.

        Having said that, LRH was a competent researcher ; one of the most competent one that I have ever know, and I have study IN DETAIL most scientists being one myself. He was never sloppy at all. And that “confidential” note would make him sloppy and incompetent, something he NEVER wasn’t. That “datum” is scientifically untrue as a generalization as the ONLY reason for leaving. That’s just sloppy. That’s not LRH’s style.

        So conspiracy theorists , be competent yourselves and please come up with something smarter than that, and capable of at least be believed, would you ? I mean, if I intend to suppress anybody, I do it professional with a well thought out strategy, not with silly tales like that. Ok ?

        ARC, PETER

      • thetaclear: “These lame excuses from some friends of mine regarding the ‘political pressures’ to which LRH was being subjected are just that, lame excuses. Go tell that to Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi. Go tell that to Lincon.”

        Peter, if you’re talking about Abraham Lincoln, he differed from Gandhi and Dr. King in that he made the very painful decision of declaring civil war – which he knew meant the sure death of many at the hands of their own countrymen – for the ultimate purpose of granting freedom to one and all. Although LRH’s situation wasn’t of comparable magnitude to Lincoln’s, one could similarly view his decision to fight back when he saw that certain factions had in effect already declared war on scientology and were trying to destroy the organization and the freedom to practice scientology as a group.

        Now, don’t get me wrong, LRH’s situation may have been inherently different from Lincoln’s, but I ,don’t think it is just a “lame excuse” to say that he was under pressure, as there is clear evidence (documents in the FOI files) that scientology was in danger of being wiped out.

        LRH may very well have made a bad decision, and the better one might have been to allow the organization to be wiped out – especially if he considered that the ideas in scientology would never die. On the other hand, he may have sincerely believed there were too many forces against it and that scientology would be submerged for eons to come and may never surface again. We don’t really know what exactly was going on in his mind.

        I guess what I’m really trying to say is that this is all water under the bridge now and that it’s almost impossible to come to a provable conclusion about LRH’s motives or to second guess his decisions. The important thing is what happens from this point forward. Not that it isn’t extremely worthwhile to discuss whether or not LRH did make the best decision possible under the circumstances – or whether he was simply being an authoritarian cultist.

        Either way, the fact is that circumstances alter cases and future cases will have to be decided upon on their own merits, based on the best judgments that can be made in that new unit of time rather than on pre-established ideas about what is right and what is wrong.

        I think the most important principle to apply is “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”. As difficult as that often is, there’s no better operating basis that I can see. It’s even hard to even know for sure if what Abraham Lincoln decided was right, since his choice was one of violence.

        ARC, marildi

        p.s. I guess you should take your sabbatical after this most interesting discussion! 🙂

      • Dear Marildi, Lincon had no other choice but to go to civil war ; it was either that or just subject thousands to plain slavery and atrocities. Back then , there was no ONU or any workable legal mechanism to defend the African-Americans. Those were very harsh times of incredible violence towards African-American citizens. As I mentioned at another post , war is actually a Human Right , as incorrect as that might sound to others.

        In the case of LRH, I have never dismissed your viewpoint about the probable injustices to which he and Scn were subjected to. In fact, I know most of them. “Intelligence” is a subject I handle pretty well. But Dr King and Gandhi were thoroughly attacked and harassed by different governments and yet, they never resorted to violence or violations of Human Rights. They were TRUE Humanitarians ; LRH wasn’t at all.

        I couldn’t care less about LRH’s overts ; I probably have 100x as much myself. I am not a member of the “Puritan League” at all, dear Marildi. But I love my fellow beings ,and respect their rights enough so as to be an impartial, totally objective observer. I don’t buy those silly ideas so many Scientologist share about the alleged “grandiosity” of LRH.

        Just to let you in in something , I read daily no less than 4-6 hrs of LRH’s writings. I’ve been doing that (most of those writings 3-5x each) for the last 15 years!!! non-stop. This was after having left the Church , not taking into account all that I did before. With an 155 IQ and a 96 aptitude test score , I am a very competent unbiased researcher , thoroughly educated in Science and advance Mathematics. I’ve read and demoed (including clay demos) All the Data Series no less than 10x. I know every scn process in existence including the Ls RDs. I’ve audited thousands of well auditing hrs, and have cured people of terminal ills. I know every Scn Policy there is to know.There isn’t any subject in Scn that I am not fully familiar with. And I know the history of the Human Race.

        I guess that makes me a competent observer , and grant me the right to offer unbiased and objective opinions , every one of which lacks any HE&R. And my first rule in life is to never, ever take anything personal. So it is never personal with me in relation to LRH or DM, or whoever the hell is acting in a destructive way. I have no enemies as such ; my only enemy is IGNORANCE and Non-Understanding. So when I say, dear Marildi , that LRH was nothing more than a cult Leader and VERY far from being an Humanitarian, please understand from whom exactly that assertion is coming from. It is not coming from a “Hater” ; it it coming from someone with more care for Human Rights than the one that LRH ever cared to have.

        I don’t buy this stories attempting to make others “tone down” LRH’s overts. For me, that’s even disrespecful to all the victims of the many LRH’s fundamentalists and fanatical policies. I could never understand how incredible smart , noble individuals such as Scientologists are , can so ferociously attempt to stress more the imagined “repute” of one individual than the actual acknowledgement of the wrongful actions, and the emphasis in the redress of wrongs. Sorry, but that just totally escape my understanding , and for me only indicates that Scientologists are still very far from confronting what it really takes to rehabilitate the subject of Scn.

        As sad as this may sound ; there are so many that still cling to the ideal ; the false mock up that we were sold on for so many years. “The Tech is workable ; that’s the most important thing to consider” , one frequently hears. “He might have created policies where fundamental Human Rights were totally neglected and violated right and left, but hey , he left us a incredible legacy as well”. “He was only human”. “He was PTS to the CIA, and the bla, bla, bla…” Oh please, what a bunch of lame excuses.

        I have always had the balls to confess my crimes and accept them. Many crimes and silly and plain stupid acts. I probably have 5 PC folders just of O/Ws write ups. I KNOW about O/Ws, and I KNOW about consequences. I never felt the need to excuse myself.

        Dr. King and Gandhi never changed their basic respect for the dignity of the rights of others ; they never did in spite of all oppositions. They were really great individuals. This planet has had quite a few. LRH was put on a pedestal he never belonged to.

        ” Now, don’t get me wrong, LRH’s situation may have been inherently different from Lincoln’s, but I ,don’t think it is just a “lame excuse” to say that he was under pressure, as there is clear evidence (documents in the FOI files) that scientology was in danger of being wiped out.”

        That might be the case, and in fact, those suppressions DID happened ; I know the history of Scn, Marildi , since the AMA right after the release of DMSMH, up to PT. But you are just justifying him , and I am sorry to put it that way. Marildi, hundreds if not thousands of individuals got totally suppressed by LRH’s policies unadulterated at all. Hundreds of separated families. Hundreds of false “SP” declares. People working 14-15 hrs a day with a misery pay while he amased MILLIONS! A policy that if you publicly departed Scn would make you an “SP”. A policy declaring you “persona non-grata” if you failed to disconnect from any terminal arbitrarily considered an “SP”.

        People, young people Marildi , who committed suicide because of the psychological pressure regarding to whom remain loyal, to his “declared father” or to his “SO members brothers. Mothers being forced to make “Sophia’s Choice” regarding two of her children. Is it just me, or what we have here is A HUGE denial from Scientologists ?

        I’ll go directly to the ONU to defend the rights of those forgotten ones. To seek the redress of wrong and to repair general injustices. I couldn’t care less about the repute of LRH or Scn for that matter. I’ll show each memeber of the ONU each and every LRH policy that violate the rights of others. I’ll not make any excuses for him. I won’t just blame DM as he is only being a lousy and incompetent robot to LRH. I will tell the ONU that Scn is a very workable philosophy as TECH is concerned. That we have a right to practice it free from the unduly interference of anyone.

        I’ll tell them that there is a lot of wisdom in Scn and will show them how. I will make them understand that Scn has as well , VERY destructive parts, and that LRH totally lost it in his way. I will apologize for all the harm that Scn has also done to others. I will apologize for the fallen ones and honor their memories. I will apologize for all the individuals who lost their families , and I will tell them that there are thousands who believe that Scn has many workable parts, and that it is their right to practice their chosen religion in a way where respect for the fundamental Human Rights and for the dignity of the fellow human being be part of the rituals.

        Every one of you , dear posters, including you Marildi, has a right to keep your respect and admiration for LRH if you feel that he is worthy of it. I won’t ever attempt to take that right from you ; never. But I just don’t share those views, and never will ; plain and simple. For being an incredible competent researcher, and a VERY honest Scientist, he have ALL my admiration and respect. For being a failed Humanitarian, he totally have my scorn.

        That’s my competent and professional opinion.

        ARC, PETER

      • Dear Peter,

        Thank you very much for your long and articulate response. More than that, I can’t tell you how appreciative I am of being able to have such a hot-topic discussion with someone who continues to maintain a kind attitude towards the person he is in passionate disagreement with!

        Putting aside for the moment your point about LRH not being a humanitarian, I do agree with you that many of his policies were clearly authoritarian. Nevertheless, what his intentions were in those policies I am not so certain about. The answer to that might depend on what his overall perspective actually was, as I’ve already gone into. My question is still, did he truly believe – right or wrong – that his actions were for the greatest good.

        All I can say is that in the many criticisms and claims I’ve seen that are intended to show LRH’s self-serving inhumanity, such as the one in the above blog article, there are usually outpoints in the conclusion being drawn – either because the context is left out, or other applicable references, or because the interpretation of LRH’s meaning is faulty – at least from my point of view. Furthermore, I think he was betrayed by the ignorance and/or ev-purps of others, most especially DM but starting even before DM by those who misapplied tech and policy, unintentionally or otherwise.

        In a very real sense, LRH may – I say MAY – actually have been a humanitarian in that he worked very hard to develop a tech and philosophy that would do something for humanity never before achieved. Some people contend that he did it all for the money, power and fame, and they may be right – but again, I am not yet convinced of that. To me, so far, his writings and lectures indicate otherwise – they demonstrate a whole different beingness.

        That’s the main reason for my reservations in judging LRH – the beingness of his works doesn’t seem to match the petty, even evil, motives being attributed to him. I could be wrong.

        In any case, I really commend you for your attitude of not blaming or being bitter towards LRH, in spite of your views of his actions. And you may be quite right that the best approach to take now is to grant that LRH was not a humanitarian and that he made huge mistakes. I would certainly agree that such policies as disconnection and the horrific ways they were and are being implemented should be fully acknowledged.

        Many thanks again, Peter.

        ARC, marildi

      • Marildi : “Dear Peter,

        Thank you very much for your long and articulate response. More than that, I can’t tell you how appreciative I am of being able to have such a hot-topic discussion with someone who continues to maintain a kind attitude towards the person he is in passionate disagreement with!”

        Peter : :-))) Thank you dear , how can I not if I am debating with the friendest and most intelligent debater of all. :-)))

        You certainly remind me of the movie, “The Great Debaters” ; have you seen in ? I think that you would love it.

        I very much believe in friendly debates as you and me frequently engage in ; I’ll certainly miss that. Not only that ; these debates , many of which I purposely start here at this blog , urge others to get off the “superficial and automatic” button, and actually prompt them to inspect their ideas about Scn and LRH in a new unit of time , and in more profound ways.

        Marildi : “Putting aside for the moment your point about LRH not being a humaniarian, I do agree with you that many of his policies were clearly authoritarian. Nevertheless, what his intentions were in those policies I am notso certain about.The answer to tha tmight depend on what his overall perspective actually was, as I’ve already gone into. My question is still, did he truly believe – right or wrong – that his actions were for the greatest good.”

        Peter : I totally got that. One point I want to stress , though , is that “real intentions” are really inconsequential in this subject ; only products tell the tale. What is the outcome of our actions ? , that’s what really matters at the end. Intentions? Uhm, a mother that gives “Ritalin” to her “hyperactive” kid usually have the best of the intentions in mind, but yet the “VFP” of her actions are a “less self-determined kid with a reduced capacity and physical health level”. An original totally good intention with a disatrous end , nevertheles.

        Marildi : “All I can say is that in the many criticisms and claims I’ve seen that are intended to show LRH’s self-serving inhumanity, such as the one in the above blog article, there are usually outpoints in the conclusion being drawn – either because the context is left out, or other applicable references, or because the interpretation of LRH’s meaning is faulty –at least from my point of view.”

        Peter : I totally agree with you on that. I even commented earlier on in this thread, that I never bought not only that such a letter ever existed, bit if did , that it was taken completely out of context. I never bought as well, Sarge’s account about the “entity killing machine” that LRH allegedly asked him to build. I never pay att to stories like those. The “Suppressive Acts List” and KSW #1 , however, are pretty straightforward , and are not open to any “interpreations” or any “out-of-context(ness)” , as well as the “attack the cricts and dissenters by exposing their O/Ws” and “Fair Gaming” practices neither are.

        Marildi : “Furthermore, I think he was betrayed by the ignorance and/or ev-purps of others, most especially DM but starting even before DM by those who misapplied tech and policy, unintentionally or otherwise.”

        Peter : That may be the case as well ; but that’s very “late on the chain” to even be a factor in all of this. All of this has a pretty clear “Basic-Basic” : 1955 , “The Scientologist : A Manual On the Dissemination Of Materials”. Read it in full, and you’ll understand.

        Marildi : “In a very real sense, LRH may – I say MAY – actually have been a humanitarian in that he worked very hard to develop a tech and philosophy that would do something for humanity never before achieved. Some people contend that he did it all for the money, power and fame, and they may be right – but again, I am not yet convinced of that. To me, so far, his writings and lectures indicate otherwise – they demonstrate a whole different beingness.”

        Peter : I totally understand that, and I will never question your integrity to your beliefs ; you should remain loyal to what is true for you. I Wouldn’t have it any other way. Whether LRH did it for power, money , or fame, we can only speculate ; and any statement in that regard is only that : a speculation and opinion. However, the fundamentalist policies are there for anybody to read and word clear by themselves. They are clear enough, and do not require special interpretations. I judge others based on their actions and products ; “intentions” are a very tricky business indeed , and an intangible factor. Even LRH said “you can know them by their actions and their products”. Only actions and products tell the tale ; the rest are just complexities , and an “altered importance” in my perspective.

        Marildi : “That’s the main reason for my reservations in judging LRH – the beingness of his works doesn’t seem to match the petty, even evil, motives being attributed to him. I could be wrong.”

        Peter : I totally agree ; I don’t think that he was evil , only misguided and quite authoritarian ; but evil intended ? ; no, it just doesn’t follows with the workable principles that he discovered.

        Marildi : “In any case, I really commend you for your attitude of not blaming or being bitter towards LRH, in spite of your views of his actions.”

        Peter : Thanks dear. Blaming others, only elect them as Cause , and grant them power over us. But I do firmly believe in assigning proper authorship to ideas and actions, and in enforcing responsibility.

        Marildi : “And you may be quite right that the best approach to take now is to grant that LRH was not a humanitarian and that he made huge mistakes. I would certainly agree that such policies as disconnection and the horrific ways they were and are being implemented should be fully acknowledged.”

        Peter : Thanks for understanding dear ; that was my whole point all along ; as long as truth remain Not-issed and kept under the rug , no -rehabilitacion of the Subject of Scn would be really possible as too much BPC is getting in the way to that just by one point only : it is never correctly indicated and acknowledged ; and so, mass keeps building up in top of it. – Have you been able to notice how in the last 4-6 articles at BIC , we have had a multiplicity of opinions regarding Scn and LRH w/out any need to moderate anybody ? The different viewpoints have been expressed with altitude , respect, and in a friendly matter. Good arguments to support or oppose assertions have been put forth. Freedom of speech is being protected, supported, and fostered. People are in a much better frame of mind discusing Scn and LRH. This is the DIRECT result of opening the comm lines and letting people express their BPC , and getting acknowledged about ; a direct result of that.

        Notice how there hasn’t been any “extremist” in the lines as we used to have. This is because we let people express their opinions w/out fighting any viewpoint, except those where plain unsupported generalizations and unproductive hate was being expressed. We had a few of those, and handled them at the same blog by demanding facts and supported arguments, and we won.

        The fact is, that because these destructive portions of Scn and LRH have been thoroughly discussed, BPC of others have been indicated and acked. That’s why the general tone of the blog has increased a lot, and why BIC has become a true blog for “Getting Back In Comm”. That has been my whole purpose for posting here in the first place.

        So yes, a full and honest ack needs to be given to the fact that :

        A. LRH made great discoveries that offers a workable route towards higher levels of abilities and increased spiritual awareness , but that he also created VERY destructive policies that have caused great pain and misery to others.

        B. That he created a workable Bridge that if exactly followed does gives great wins and bring about many revelations, but that he also suppressed the self-determinism of others to decide w/out unduly interference whether they no longer wanted to continue participating in Scn.

        C. That he stressed the need to “think for ourselves” , and decide based on our own observations what is true or not for us, but that he also contradicted himself by becoming an “unquestionable ” Authority with his KSW #1.

        D. That he created a 3P effect with many of his policies specially the ones concerning “SP” Acts , and caused with that too much individuation and general conflicts.

        E. That he violated fundamentals Human Rights by his “Fair Game” practice with “SPs” and psychiatrists.

        Those things NEED to be confronted, accepted, and fully acknowledged. Then, we can get some place. Then the att of others on the negative will unstuck, and we can work on rehabilitating the subject. This has never been suggested neither attempted before. Well, I think we are ready now.

        It has been an honor and pleasure debating with you, dear Marildi ; I don’t mind disagreeing with you at all. You force me to improve myself everytime. You urge me to increase my competence level. You complement my intellect. You are a shinning sun.

        We’ll talk soon enough.

        ARC, PETER

        Many thanks again, Peter.

        ARC, marildi

      • Dear Peter, excellent post! You and I – and others too – may not be in agreement on every point that has come up, but I’d say we’ve come to a better resolution on many of them – and to a better understanding of each other’s views. That is a win. Also, I think Kent spoke well in his last comment where he wrote: “Follow what is true for you and do the best with it.”

        I would definitely agree with you that we have been prompted to inspect our ideas about scientology and LRH in a new unit of time.Thanks very much for playing a big part in the prompting. 😉 And, like you, I want to highly acknowledge the BIC blog for making this possible.

        Thanks too for your kind words in the last paragraph. I feel the same towards you! The exchanges we’ve had have been very beneficial to me. You are a one-of-a-kind, unique and special person.

        Looking forward to coming discussions. Meanwhile, do well and take care!

        ARC, marildi

      • Thanks for validation and warm words, dear Marildi.

        I agree, these discussions have been very productive and beneficial for me and for many others here, I am sure of.

        Thanks for your good wishes. Take care.

        ARC, PETER

      • Thetaclear, I think you missed this: “He said this in a lecture in the PDC series. I heard it myself.”

        With regards to LRH not being sloppy, how about “devious”, nothing sloppy about that. You speak with such authority of the man and yet it’s merely opinion. You have not done your homework.

        Unfortunately, and I’m sad to say it, you don’t hold any credibility with me with regards to your “knowledge” of the man – at all. You have still much to learn about him – when, that is, you can get off your high horse and have the courage to look. I recommend it. Not only for your sake but those others to whom you write with such “authority.”

    • I have much reason to doubt Bill Franks.

      In the 70s I watched the new OEC/FEBC trainees return to the org after being apprenticed under him dramatizing their evil intentions and being the most negative, nasty individuals I had the displeasure to deal with. Their complete lack of ARC and enforced entheta was such a contrast to their previous beingness before they went away on training. The Bill Franks management style produced a hostile environment.

      • Whether one believes or not what Bill Franks said is not really the main point here as I see it. The main point is what do you think is the reason people leave Scientology?
        It doesn’t matter that much what LRH said about it or anyone else. What do YOU yourself believe??
        I think people left for many reasons:
        1. Upsets
        2. Idiotic rules
        3. Suppression
        4. Some people were criminals and couldn’t stand to be around good people.
        5. Some thought it was too regimented.
        6. Some people wanted to live their own life and started to feel trapped in that group.
        7. Maybe some had MU’s.
        8. To get away from some lunatics.
        9. Stay away so as to save some money.

        The list could go on forever….

      • Tony 100% agree. Think you pretty much covered it with perhaps one exception which was very real for me – particularly with my most recent (and last) sojourn on staff in 2011/2012. And that was FAILED PURPOSE ON WANTING TO HELP AND BEING PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.

        To explain this would take an article in itself, but to give you some idea, there I was, the PES of Joburg Org having to contend with cross-orders, illegal orders, musical chairs, violation of every known Div6 Policy I could think of by Snr Mgment, ripping up my Div and removing EVERY competent staff member I had (musical chairs, PES Privilege violation) and replacing them with imbeciles that were not capable of pronouncing BOOK ONE let alone reading it (violation of Hiring of PE & Reg Personnel). And the “hey-you” org-board, verbal demands and endless hours and hours and HOURS of all-hands call-in EVERY SINGLE DAY for stupid fundraisers and other events that had NOTHING to do with the purpose of Div6 which was to BRING IN NEW PEOPLE. The story I have to tell would literally be unbelievable. I had a strong urge, purpose and desire to help and I failed utterly. This very nearly destroyed me.

        Yeah – I had BIG overts on that one. I wrote such a scathing 10 page report on the state of affairs in the Church and that action along with a couple of cycles where I dug my heels in and said “no further” to the Church who was failing to APPLY IT’S OWN POLICY resulted me in being declared.

        C’est la vie 🙂

      • Hi Shelley,
        Your post hit me like a ton of bricks.
        Your item was an item for me but on a couple of different flows. I partially received that flow you describe when I was a volunteer Chaplain for the Seattle Org and got tons of idiotic stops. I had people lining up to see me as the Chaplain and I was going to activate a couple of the people who I was helping and get them contributing. They were ready to start helping on a part time basis. The HAS got all upset with me because I had activated people that SHE had been “working on” but couldn’t get started. I told her once they started part time then we could ease them over to her and get them onto a different post. She would have none of that!! CRAZY!!

        The flow that really infuriated me was watching good people like yourself trying to build something over the years that was viable and trying to create a truly ideal scene. I had, over the years, witnesses so much rip off of staff, crazy cross orders, idiotic “planning” and so forth I truly believed nobody was “at the wheel” of the organization. Seeing these out-points coupled with my bad experiences on Solo Nots (not Clear R-factor after being on the level for four years, ad infinitum) and all the mind fucking of the sec checks and then reading the Tampa Bay Times Truth Rundown finally convinced me that not only was there “nobody at the wheel” but that the idiot driving as a friggin psychopath, swerving to hit old lady’s pushing their shopping carts and clipping kids on their bicycles just for the fun of it.

      • Tony – brilliantly stated. I get you totally on what you must have gone through as a Chaplain. I have a good friend who was in exactly the same boat. She was gentle, kind and took things on a gradient – like a true Chaplain should. She handled MANY cycles successfully – from people demanding refunds being turned around and happily willing to get back on service and even join staff!

        But oh no, that didn’t suit the Gestapo viewpoint (Joburg Org’s senior Mgment being run by Sea-Org). This friend got hammered, pushed around, treated as a “dilettante” and totally invalidated on her good works. She and her husband together served close to 47 years on staff – and they were wiped out in a nano-second (it was actually THAT cycle that tipped the scales for me).

        LOL on your analogy of no-one being at the wheel – think you hit that nail squarely on the head. I don’t think anyone has been “at the wheel” since LRH landed back on shore and went into hiding – it was all downhill from there. And DM, aided by some very equally eve-purposed despots saw their opportunity and took it the rest of the way down into the bilges……………

        Such a crying shame when one thinks what COULD have been.

      • Shelley,
        I think it is possible for the philosophy to have a resurrection of sorts after all the blood letting is over. 🙂
        Christianity did okay after the Spanish Inquisition.

  24. Here is the beginning of C/S Series 93 — where it is explained where O/Ws are on the Grade Chart. I FES’d, programmed and audited a number of Sea Org members in PAC in the mid 80s. Almost all of them were misprogrammed. They were given O/Ws and Sec Checks when they needed Int and List handling and/or their TA was high. Executive C/Sing was the norm and almost no SO staff were being programmed to go up the Bridge.

    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
    Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
    HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1974
    Remimeo
    Tech Secs
    C/Ses URGENT
    Auditors
    Registrars
    C/S Series 93
    NEW GRADE CHART
    The “NEW” thing to do is the Grade Chart. Everything you are doing should
    contribute to getting the pc up the Bridge. THIS is the Bridge.
    There is a new Grade Chart being prepared which has some changes in it, based
    on recent discoveries. It is urgent that you know of these in advance.
    DRUG RUNDOWN
    The effects of an omitted or incomplete Drug RD are severe enough to deny a
    person any lasting case gain.
    This is covered in HCO B 31 May 74, “Unhandled Drugs and Ethics”. Some
    orgs have taken this HCO B so literally however, that they have taken pcs off Adv Cses
    Grades, refused to do Assists on ill pcs and some showed pcs the HCO B and invaled
    their gains.
    This was not the intention of the HCO B. The C/S Series remain valid.
    The Drug RD belongs on the Grade Chart after Life Repair. A Drug RD cannot be
    done over out ruds and a Life Repair may be necessary to get in a pc’s ruds.
    Life Repair is not a prerequisite for the Drug RD, however, and if done is not to
    be dragged out intensive after intensive. In some cases a pc could not complete Life
    Repair without a Drug RD.
    Following the Drug RD is ARC S/W, then the rest of Dianetics to completion.
    EXPANDED DIANETICS
    Ex Dn by the way belongs after Grade IV Expanded.
    Some pcs R/S and have Evil Purposes to do others in. But no Grade 0 or Grade I
    or Grade II. What others? Martians?
    “Got to secretly do everybody in” probably applies to Apeville some long date
    ago and he’s never come up to PT.
    The answer is to bring the pc up the Grade Chart to Expanded Grade IV then do
    his Ex Dn.
    The prerequisites for Ex Dn are covered on HCO B 23 April 74, Ex Dn Series 22,
    “Expanded Dianetics Requisites”. Add to that Expanded Grades up to IV and you have
    it.
    GRADE II
    248
    Some orgs specialize in Grade II, especially on org staff. The pc is always getting
    Integrity Processing or his O/Ws pulled on so and so.
    If you look on the Grade Chart you will find Withholds and Overts are Grade
    TWO.
    Below Grade TWO lies Grade I (Problems) and Grade Zero (Communications).
    And below that is Dianetics and at the bottom end of Dianetics is the Drug Handling.
    Now how do you expect a fellow who has unhandled drugs (or omitted drug
    items because of “no interest”) to even know (no Grade 0) that other people are around
    or that (Grade I) he is caved in with problems he’s never cognited on?
    And he’s supposed to have enough responsibility to answer up on Grade II? With
    real overts and withholds?
    This does not mean you must never Sec Check. It does mean that Sec Checks are
    no substitute for auditing or guarantee of innocence.
    Grades are Grades and the Grade Chart sequence is correct.

    • Grace, thank you for your comments.

      Is it any wonder why so many former church members are bitter about their scientology experience when you consider how much out-tech went on. The bulletin you posted was a real blowdown. Thanks.

  25. Also, the C/S Series and many other issues were written in the ’70s. Many reasons for blowing were given, including misunderstood words, out-int, out lists, ARC Xs, wrong indications, and so on. I saw many people hobby-horse about O/Ws before and after David Miscavige came into power. I can’t say that Hubbard did. He wrote many issues stressing the breadth and scope of the tech.

    Here is a bulletin that almost never got followed. But it does exist!!

    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
    Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
    HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JANUARY 1971
    Remimeo
    ILLEGAL AUDITING
    Lists of withholds required of a crew member or staff member without proper
    sessioning are now illegal.
    Confessionals which do not F/N must be reported to Qual as a failed session.
    An Exam report is required after any Confessional.
    Any auditing outside of sessions must be reported and if failed may become
    actionable.
    Challenging people out of session as “having withholds” is illegal.
    Auditing is done by auditors who are trained and is done on regular lines.
    Contact Assists and Touch Assists are not only legal, they are mandatory when
    any injury occurs.
    They must be followed by Exam reports.
    L. RON HUBBARD
    Founder
    LRH:sb.rd
    Copyright © 1971
    by L. Ron Hubbard
    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

    • It’s so great to have “techies” posting on a scientology blog. This blog must be doing something right to attract them. 🙂

    • Another note of thanks for your two bulletin posts. And to Marildi on her tech posts. Scn isn’t hard when understood and used properly, but it’s a bit of a problem to get around the reactive mind to do that.

      Scientology assumed two things, really: a reasonable amount of intelligence, and that instructions for its use would be followed, with reasonable intelligence. I mean, if you buy a water filter to filter water to make coffee with, but then conclude that if you just dump coffee grounds into the water filter thing you kill two birds with one stone, you shouldn’t then blame the makers of the water filter and the providers of the coffee grounds because you didn’t get what you thought you might get.

      I think it’s a very safe bet to guess that ALL displeasures with Scn stem from misapplication – shallow and woefully incorrect excuses for “ethics handling,” auditors who cut comm, left lists undone, were rough and made the PC uncomfortable, C/Ses who didn’t catch errors, and more.

      I know I’ve had the experience of being really PO’ed about something, doing a session anyway, finding (TOTAL SURPRISE) some tiny little small inconsequential insignificant minute scarcely visible not really worth bothering with to begin with microscopic thing which was IMMEDITELY FORGOTTEN ALL ABOUT because it was such a “DOH!!” to begin with … that restored me to where I should have been all along to begin with, which is my normal usual natural and persistent unfailingly smiling and happy self. And of course I had to wonder if maybe I paid too much for something that, after all, just put me back to where I should have been and really, where I WAS, like originally … grumble, bumble … but hey, what the heck. That only happened once, of course, because I’m now totally clean and free to complain about everything if I feel like it. Like the fonts on this blog, ya’ know? I’m really surprised no one has noticed how small the fonts are and they’re just black-and-white … with the entire spectrum of the rainbow freely available everywhere but here you’d figure that some supposedly “smart” person would be “smart” enough to get something that was better than this inadequate black-and-white dinosaur thing. Dinosaurs were never really useful to begin with. Overgrown lizards. Glad we finally got rid of them all.

  26. I have read a few comments to understand that people leave the SO and Church of Scientology due to ARC breaks and suppression. The aim(s) of auditing is to free the person (being) so that he is more aware and operating on all dynamics. Then to dictate to him what he is to do is not in keeping with the aims of the game. But it appears that the church is not able to confront that they are suppressing and ARC breaking members and SO staff. Misunderstandings or undefined words are another reason for people “blowing” or leaving courses. Get words defined and miracles occur. Make Scientology auditing work by confronting the reasons it is not.

  27. If the tech is possible to duplicate, and if people have duplicated it successfully, then now that it can be applied outside of a suppressive environment, we should start seeing some amazing results.
    The one thing I didn’t like reading in the one C/S series that someone above posted was that it seems to assume that EVERYONE has all the problems or case related to any auditing level they haven’t had yet. If they are not Grade 0 then they can’t really communicate, or if they aren’t Grade 4 then they have ser facs. It asserts that you have case or abberations that you may or may not have. I have had many wins from auditing and I think the idea of communicating about different subjects is a great idea. I’m still not convinced that the Grade chart is the final answer or a perfected tech. Maybe it is a stepping stone towards something better?
    I did the OT levels up to Solo Nots and the odd thing is that I did get some wins from doing them. I never fully agreed with what I read on OT3 or above. I thought it could be possible but never fully bought into it. Mike Rinder posted an incredible article from Paul Haggis on his site today. I think it was the best article to date that I have read about the scientology experience.

    • Yeah Tony his article was wonderfully crafted. It was written for any person to understand the cult aspect of being enslaved by the church. Pity Paul felt the OT levels were nuts though. If I at any point felt I was doing
      something nuts, continued on despite ill feelings Im pretty sure the end result would be confusion and betrayal! Personal integrity counts more than what authority or LRH told ya right? You see, what I see is an an increasing swell of cry havok, let slip the dogs of war towards LRH these days. Its fashionable to take pot shots at the ole man in many circles. According to many its all his fault, DM, the church and all its atrocities are all placed at LRH’s door. I mean the good chap has been dead since 86, how is it he’s still responsible for a game he’s left already?

      All these interpretations of what LRH said or didnt detracts from my central purpose. Freedom, greater and greater amounts of. If I wasnt achieving that Id be hollering something profane and looking for any damn scapegoat I could lay my goddamm hands on!!

      • Well written. My sentiments exactly. The fashionableness of it all is a little disheartening – would be great to see as much time spent finding fault to be spent creating a better condition. Pointing out errors is a limited technology – there is a point where actually doing something is needed. I commend those who are continuing up the bridge despite all reasons to get caught up in the significances and upsets of the past.

      • Hi Sheeplebane,
        My wife and I were talking about this subject this morning. Some people say that LRH stole everything and they could have gotten the same wins elsewhere, etc, etc. My take on it is that LRH did invent and/or create some new things and ideas. It is my reality that auditing is to bring people up the tone scale and a lot of the time it does. If it didn’t then not many people would have stuck around. I do think there are some flaws but I also think that you must be willing to see both sides, the good and the bad to be truly objective.

        Currently the pendulum is swinging in the direction of exposing the bad. Mankind apparently is not that great on differentiation. It’s a bit much to expect everyone to fully duplicate all the toxicity of the organization and at the same time see the good points of the philosophy.

        The true test of this philosophy will be in the next decade or two. After being freed from the toxic organization can the tech stand, be used and get results?

        I believe that it will and I also think that it may morph into things as yet unsuspected and still be very workable. Mankind is a constantly changing thing, in the long scheme of things, and I think that LRH despite his flaws, contributed much towards improving it.

      • P.S. Sheeplbane,
        As far as someone continuing on with the OT levels even if they think it’s “nuts”, I think there are many reasons for that as well. I don’t know that I thought the ideas proposed on OT 3 were “nuts” but it sure surprised me and were to a very large degree unreal to me. I continued on with the OT levels largely because I had so many wins previous to them that I had no real reason to doubt the effectiveness of the OT levels. In fact I had sort of a mantra which was ” I will continue paying as long as I am getting results.” Well, I got some results on OT 3 despite my doubts about the theory. Why did I get results? I don’t really know. I also got results on OT4, OT 5 NOTS and also on Solo Nots. But the more I came into contact with Flag the worse things got for me.
        As time went on and I moved onto Flag lines, it became gradually more punitive to originate doubts about the tech or procedures. You would be sent through what I like to call the “gauntlet” or “meat grinder” of the metering course room and have to fight to get check outs from the supervisors and get passed on calling f/n’s which seemed to change almost every 6 month check. Then there was the expenses of it all, literally cost me about 30 K USD to stay on the level every year. Lots of duress on finances and on the “refreshers” getting sec checked every 6 months , it was horrible. I hung in there largely because of my earlier wins and I still had some wins despite the suppression on my lines. Also it is sort of promoted that “what turns it on will turn it off” and “the way out is the way through”, so if you bought into the earlier tech then now you want to tough it out so you get the full EP of this supposedly mind blowing action. Also I had Nots sessions where I went in session with the auditor feeling like dog crap and came out feeling like super man. I really can’t explain some of the results that I got. I’m not a spiritual scientist but mainly a consumer. 🙂

        Anyways, back to the original point about staying on an action despite “not believing in the theory”, I think a lot of people do it. Who would think that touching a bottle and describing it’s temperature over and over could be beneficial? Some might not believe in past life , some might not think repetitive questions worthy of doing. I don’t necessarily think “agreeing” with the tech is a prerequisite to receiving some of the tech and/or getting some benefit from it.

        I would say though, that if a person is protesting doing an action and doesn’t like it or isn’t winning on it, then they should get debugged or do something else. Either another process or something else entirely if they have major disagreements with the Scientology philiosophy.

  28. This so called dispatch is a Hidden Data line. You don’t need that to evaluate importances. That all people leaving comes from overt doesnt make sense even if it might be true in some cases. There are many Hbbards’s bulletins explaining many reason for people leaving, starting by the right of a thetan to leave a game.
    All that to make believe that Hubbard is develish. Then there would be tech for the sucker and actual tech hidden. This is Miscavige or SPs like him.
    There are a lot of shit said about Hubbard, but for my part, most of what he wrote is honorable. Except those infamous SP act list s and other fair game and SP stuff which should be canceled as well as everything he wrote after 1981 that I strongly believe he didn’t write himself starting with “PTS ness and disconnection” and the RJ from 35 to 39.

  29. I’m not taking this revelation by Bill Franks quite as hard as others here. In my opinion, the data revealed (that people leave groups because of ARC breaks) is a no-brainer. Who among us hasn’t seen that exact thing play out countless times in life? Times when we knew for a fact, that we (or another person) departed some group, because they simply were in too much disagreement to stay?

    In fact, there’s a bulletin or policy somewhere where LRH states that a person can be treated so horribly by group members, that they choose to leave.

    At the same time, I’ve also seen people leave groups because of their own transgressions against the group, or against the individual members of groups. A guilty conscience sorta makes a social personality withdraw from those he’s harming. Not so, with anti-social personalities (looking at you, Dave).

    In my observation, both of these conditions can cause a person to leave a group. Both are true. If LRH did indeed communicate what Bill Franks claims, then his only fault is that he didn’t indicate that it’s the OTHER reason that people leave.

  30. I was thinking about all this today and I thought if I ever was in a real bind and needed someone to talk to I would still want to find an auditor that I liked. My idea of psychotherapy is that they might listen but would then try to give me certain indications that I might not like, or worse yet, try to put me on drugs.

    I didn’t like running repetitive commands all that much, except on objectives. I had huge wins running that stuff.

    I really enjoyed running rudiments and items off of prepared lists. I love to talk and have people listen without interrupting. I suppose most people enjoy that. I also like running things earlier similar. I have had great success with that. That is probably why I do feel more certainty of past life and incorporate that into my own personal philosophy.

    There is much good about the Scientology philosophy if you are allowed to pick and choose and you don’t have some psycho trying to enforce ideas on you. Scientology isn’t for everyone, nothing is for everyone.

  31. I must say that I have enjoyed this article and more specifically, the debate and communication being put forward by everyone – all the interchange of opinions and musings, good bad and ugly are in my view, a positive thing.

    From my own standpoint and having been born into the subject, I actually never cared much for the “fundamentalist” view of SCN. Even at the age of 14 and having to star rate KSW1 (and from thereon at the beginning of every other course – yawn) didn’t change this for me. Maybe it was because I was a rebel, I don’t know – but I was quite well known for digging in my heels and refusing to do something because “so and so” ordered it. In fact, one very good way to get me to do something was to tell me not to do it and vice versa.

    If it didn’t feel right, I didn’t do it. Most of the time that is. There were times I was forced to do something (while on staff) that I disagreed with, but I voiced my objection strongly and loudly and made a bloody good point of screwing it up so badly that I was never asked to do it again (and got into tons of trouble in the process – ha ha).

    I pretty much stuck to the basic and one of the FIRST things I ever learned (and was probably taught to me by my parents before I even did my first course in SCN at the age of 6) and that was “what is true for you, is true for you”.

    I never agreed with the “Leaving = overts and missed W/H’s”. It simply didn’t make sense to me, so I refused to abide by it. LRH said I was allowed that right, and I exercised it. I remember many arguments with the MAA or E/O trying to get me to read various policies proving that blow=overts and such, but blowing and leaving are entirely separate things. And in that same policy, it also states “of course you can make a person’s life so miserable that he feels he has no choice but to blow” (or something similar). Funny how they seem to be blind to that sentence? There were many other references I found that covered this area of O/W’s not being the sole reason for departures from the org (many already referenced by others on this thread).

    Besides which, there is a HUGE glaring disparity and MU on the whole issue of “staff leaving sec-checks” vs “staff leaving confessionals” – these two actions are entirely different animals and it took my son who had literally ZERO Tech training to shove that one in the E/O’s nose in 2012 when my daughter-in-law was routing off staff and they were putting her through hell with a tailor-made sec-check containing an open-ended question personally CS’d by none other than the LC JBG Day. The question was “what does the LC JBG Day not know about you?”. Hours and hours of this shit until I got wind of what was going on and blew my top. I directed my son to hit the Qual library and what to look for – he found it and the game was up. The E/O and the C/S were dumfounded. The E/O admitted he had a CRASHING MU and yet was a Flag Trained Scientology Magistrate! The sec-check was stopped dead in it’s tracks and my daughter-in-law was off staff the very next day.

    The problem is that everyone can find ANYTHING to justify EVERYTHING in the tech – good, bad ugly, criminal and indifferent. Show me a policy that states one should not use black boot polish, and I’ll show you 10 others where this is debunked in some way or another. In my opinion, it depends on one’s point of view and the intention (good or bad) of how one chooses to apply said policy/order or whatever issue.

    I also feel that one needs to use some common sense when viewing SCN. “Will applying this policy/issue/order/routine result in a positive and happy outcome?” If the answer is YES, then great – go ahead and use it. If the answer is no, then throw it out with the trash. If it isn’t working, change it. And keep changing it until it either works, or you walk out the door. You have that right, too.

    And to those who have and are using it in a manner that they know will produce a bad result or cause harm, well their fate awaits them at some point down the road. Many have fallen over that cliff, and more will follow.

    It is my opinion that if one wants to remain a Scientologist, then it’s time to come up into PT and realise that LRH is long gone. A blind-faith approach to everything he ever wrote, muttered or directed is just stupid – it clearly hasn’t worked and there are glaringly obvious problems, loopholes omissions and arbitraries that are not workable – and this is the mess we sit with today. So let’s work together to make it work for those who want to stay true to the subject, and at the same time don’t deny anyone the right to walk away from it entirely. It’s their choice, and we should respect that.

    That’s why I like blogs like BIC. Good, healthy debate and discussion – even if it derails occasionally – we’re grownups and can and should be able to handle it.

    My hope is that all of this will result in a positive change for everyone’s future – whether they choose to remain connected to SCN or not.

    • Wow!!! , this is the most sane, balanced, highly truthful, intelligent, honest, corageous, kind, and greatly insightful comment that I have ever seen written in this blog.

      It never ceases to amaze me your great wisdom, dear Shelley. A really true “Applied Philosopher” indeed. :-)))

      ARC, PETER

      • Thanks, TC. I appreciate the ack very much. My respect & admiration for you is mutual. You’ve made many comments here at BIC that have given me that “aha” moment 🙂

        Love Shelley

  32. It’s very gratifying to contribute to this blog as it is a relief to listen to people who are unapologetic ally Scientologists and who are so well read in the subject. My Facebook page is inundated with anti-Scientology posts. So much so that the group around the Alex Gibney documentary have taken on cult characteristics.

    • I’m finding this also one of the few blogs which is worthwhile to stop in and share views. Unfortunately elsewhere, uptone and creative comments get quickly absorbed and diminished by the amount of anger and hate. People using the tech to help themselves and others unapologetically is refreshing.

  33. I didn’t want to post until I had read what other people had to say about this revelation by Bill Franks who must have been at St Hill East Grinstead when I was there.

    I found what Bill wrote most revealing firstly because I have always believed that an ARC break precedes an overt act. Let me explain. Back in the ‘60’s I used to both hitch hike and pick up hitch hikers. My first task was to get into ARC with them. This was never difficult because I am naturally interest in people, but my main reason for establishing ARC was as an INSURANCE POLICY. I have always intuitively known that it is impossible to harm another human being without first DISASSOCIATING from that person. If I ever met someone who answered me in “mono tones” I would start to get uncomfortable and look forward to when we could each go our separate ways.

    It is my conviction that the whole downward spiral started with an ARC BREAK.

    The other reason I find what Bill Franks wrote credible is that for the past 35 years I have been very involved with Christianity, and I am personally convinced the major reason it has been able to keep mankind in bondage is by enforcing the centrality of the OVERT-WITHHOLD phenomena which it calls SIN and down plays the ARC BREAK phenomena which is called CHOOSING AUTONOMY from our true SOURCE.

    SIN IS THE RESULT OF SEPARATION NOT THE CAUSE OF IT.

    Love with ARC
    Pip

    P.S. I am still not receiving posts automatically here in England. I have to keep checking the main blog to find out who has been posting what.

    • Hi Pip,
      Have you selected the “follow” option on our main page by entering your email address and then clicking on the follow button? We haven’t received any notification that you’re following our blog. Please try that again, and if it doesn’t seem to come right let us know at scnafrica@hushmail.com so that we can look into it further. Regards, BIC Admin

    • Hi Pip. I think you are right that “SIN IS THE RESULT OF SEPARATION” – at least in an ultimate sense, as ARC breaks do precede sins/overts if you consider the fact that there is minimally a break in reality (agreement) when an overt is committed.

      However, the overts themselves can cause also a person to blow. I think most of us (especially the experienced auditors) know of instances where a person who blew was recovered by getting off his O/W’s – as well as instances where ARC breaks/misunderstandings were handled.

      I’m not talking about the type of ARC break that LRH indicated was the exception where he wrote in the “Blow-offs” PL that “certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave” – and that situation wouldn’t even fit the definition of “blow”, which is “relatively unexplained” per the same PL.

      For that reason, I don’t believe the LRH note quoted by Bill Franks was referring to ARC breaks due to bad treatment, assuming LRH even wrote the quoted note – which is doubtful as there are a number of earlier references that indicate it isn’t just overts that cause blows. ARC breaks and other things can cause them too, as per the earlier references some posters have quoted.

      There’s been a lot of confusion in this thread where people are looking at ARC breaks due to mistreatment – even though leaving for that reason doesn’t fit the definition of “blow”. That situation is a whole different subject from the point about overts causing blows the way “blow” is defined by LRH.
      .

      Btw, I have had the problem with not receiving email notifications a couple times too, on a couple other blogs. I think it’s a WordPress glitch that happens sometimes, as these were WordPress blogs and so this one. The way I handled it was to post another comment but use my other email address, and then click again on the “Notify me of new comments” option. After that, I started getting email notifications.

      • Thanks for your reply Maraldi. I still maintain that overs always are preceded by DISASSOCIATION, what in Scientology is called an ARC Break. In my experience the only way a person will give up an over/withhold is if they will come back into A.R.C. The only exception to this would be the sociopath who by definition was never in A.R.C. in the first place. As Ron says they will confess to the most alarming crimes without taking the slightest responsibility for them.

        Love with ARC
        Pip

  34. I am really glad to see the amount of interest and comments on this subject. I can barely think of anything to say that has not been well said above already.

    I only want to comment on one thing. This is regarding those of you that are upset about the withholding of the datum Bill Franks tells about and the pushing of “If you want to leave, you have overts” line by the Church terminals.

    To me, the most senior datum in Scientology – the one that is the foundation of the whole philosophy and subject, is “If it is not true for you it is not true”. I do not know how many times I have heard LRH pound home that message in writing and in countless lectures. It is the filter through which all other datums should be viewed.

    This brings to mind the old Roman Maxim “Let him who will be deceived, be deceived”.

    It might be wonderful if we lived in a world where no one acted out of self interest, but considered the greatest good for all, in all their actions. Perhaps if everyone applied the Golden Rule, or LRH’s version “Two Rules for a happy life” at all times, we would have some more uptone games going on instead of this pathetic civilization of dog eat dog.

    If you just do what you are told, without taking personal responsibility for your life and actions, then I find it hard to feel too sorry for you if you end up financially broke and ARC broken. Who knows the ins and outs of your life better than you? Are you not the captain of your own ship?

    Life is a game or stage as proclaimed by many philosophers through history. A game consists of freedoms and barriers. It seems some just want the freedoms, but not the barriers (maybe they have had a bit too much of the barrier part lately).

    Maybe we ended up in the physical universe, because we were bored with being the God of our own universe. Maybe we longed for some randomity and adventure – some unpredictability. Maybe here and now is the perfect place to be – no matter what it looks and feels like.

    Are we not “Viewpoints of dimension” or even part of the “Before the Beginning, cause”? How far from that is being upset over what “others make us do”?

    See this short little video:

    PS. Today is a special day for me. The lawyer for Church of Scientology( England and Wales) send me a copy of my SP declare. Yeah!
    Now it is more than just a rumour. Now I can prove what a “Bad-ass” I am.

    Interesting what a letter to the right terminal can accomplish, with maybe a hint or two as to what the law says and possible consequences if they decide to ignore it.

    I promised to not publish it anywhere, but that is all right. It does not say much of interest anyway.
    What I think is more interesting is the letter that made this happen. I have put it at the end of the comment for the article about my declare:

    https://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/kent-bengtsson-declared-for-applying-scientology/

    • David Miscavige’s S.P.declare is just a few days away. It is being broadcast on HBO to millions of viewers,millions. Possible the president will be watching it with his wife. Lawyers, judges, police officers, teacher preachers and people from all walks and all echelons of life will be informed of what a suppressive person he is.
      His declare is being televised world wide.

      • David Miscavige brushed aside the ethics policies and procedures advised by Hubbard, and instituted his own ethics methodology. It was a rundown called “The Hole”. The tone level of the administers was “punishing bodies”. It has resulted in scandalizing the Church and bringing the Church into international ill repute.

  35. Kkkrraaak BOOOM!!!

    My needle just flew off the pin and tore through the metre innards like a bullet!!

    Shelly thats it!! These fuckers did precisely that to me too! I went from the infamous PES post with all its attendant psychosis trying my best to help my fellow man, messed up royally, sec checked, put on a month full time call in then finally relagated to the Intro auditor post. What a game changer for me that was. The execs thought, what possible harm could he do there? Ha..hahahaha! Soon I had audited and recruited more raw meat into staff, cured cancer, and had Div 6 booming! 3 additional intro auditors humming along, great Div 6 support staff and we were in business! Then came the department pillage, out tech push of newbies onto resign majors, off beat regging, exec interference that unmocked everything we had built. Once HGC unsolvable cases started trickling through my auditing door somehow and people were raving about the results from simple off the metre intro auditing I was shark bait!!

    Christy Colbran saved my ass initially and ran interference. Once she left I was fair game! Before I knew it Execs were wanting me to film my sessions to see what I was doing to show up the HGC! I mean really now? Tried to tell em the obvious. Infinite care for my pcs, no regging, love of helping ones fellow man and intelligent application of basic Dianetics tech – thats it!

    They hated me more than the devil for saying it. I was comm eved brutally for trying to leave and they even tried to get me to sign away my parental rights to my son so my wife would stay in the DSA office on staff! Theres some punishment for a job well done right there. All I wanted to do was have glorious fun creating miracles with this miraculous tech. It was a true wonder to behold while it lasted. My pcs taught me more than they ever knew. I thank them graciously!

    So yeah, Shelly I get you and wow!

  36. Some forty-eight years ago I set my life’s goal. It was soon after I became involved with Scientology. I had come to align myself with the fundamental datum that “Communication is the universal solvent”. From the day I realised the truth of that datum my life’s goal was “to help L Ron Hubbard clear the planet”. Forty years later the goal remains the same, the only difference is I no longer think Scientology has all the answers to bring the goal to fruition.

    I still think “communication is the universal solvent” but now see that an essential ingredient is missing in the Scientology understanding of communication, and that missing dimension is PRAYER.

    Communication in the Scientology idea is always in a horizontal direction, L Ron Hubbard to Scientologist, hence Auditor to PC and PC to Auditor, and as such has much workability. The missing factor is VERTICAL COMMUNICATION.

    One of the most successful programmes I know of is Alcoholics Anonymous which in the past 50 years has morphed into an almost endless number of 12-step groups to handle any addiction, even being addicted to RELIGION!

    I find the 12-step programme most compatible with Scientology, the major difference being that it starts from the other end of the spectrum of life, what we would refer to in Scientology as the 8th dynamic is not delineated and each person is invited to choose a “higher power” based on their own understanding.

    Just as with the dissemination formula in Scientology the person has to recognise “their ruin”. Step 1 is “We admitted we were powerless over our ‘situation’ that our lives had become unmanageable. “Bring to understanding” Step 2: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity”. Where in the dissemination formula the next step would be to bring the new person into “the org.” the third step in the 12-step programme is “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him”

    So here is the basic difference between Scientology and the 12 step programme. A Scientologist has “made a decision to turn their will and their life over to Scientology as understood by the founder L.R.H.” hence the “Billion year contract”.

    When I first got involved with Scientology in the front of all Scientology books there was a list of many of the great names of history that Ron acknowledged he has “stood on the shoulders of” in order to develop the subject of Scientology but as the years went by these names were removed and no longer acknowledged. It is as if the more popular Ron became the more he distanced himself from those who had been his inspiration. I think it could be argued that Ron violated the POWER FORMULA – DON’T DISCONNECT.

    Love with ARC
    Pip

    • Pip, my friend,

      In all the comments I’ve seen of yours, here and elsewhere, I don’t think you expressed your views better than in the above. I think the semantics were getting in my way before. Glad you posted this!

      ARC ❤
      marildi

    • I think communication in the Church is pretty vertical. It goes from high to low (DM, his underlings, continental offices, orgs and last public) and not much flows the other way. I think they call it Command Intention. I understood that as LRH intention, but that does not seem to be the case these days.

      I tend to reject any “Higher Power” both on a spiritual and political basis. If something created me as a thetan, I know not of it, and probably never will. I see theta/life as a higher order than MEST, and I am theta/life.

      To me, what makes prayers work is not that they address a higher being that watches over us, but the fact that someone focus on something he or she wants. And if a group does it in unison, the greater the effect. Positive postulates or Law of Attraction.

      But that is just my viewpoint. Follow what is true for you and do the best with it.

      Peace

      • Hi Kent

        When I say that communication in Scientology is horizontal rather than vertical I am referring to the idea that communication is possible between TIME and ETERNITY, in Time it is horizontal, in Eternity it is vertical.

        If you view the universe as a “closed system” then all communication in time and space is horizontal communication. The majority of the human race at the very least entertain the idea that there can be communication that originates from outside the MEST universe.

        Perhaps you and I are using the words “higher power” in different ways. I would see anyone who has more expertise in any subject as a “higher power”. For instance if my car will not start and once I have exhausted my knowledge of fault finding on the internal combustion engine, I then consult a higher power by taking it/towing it to a garage. On this basis I am content to concur that there will be a “higher power” that has superior knowledge to me as to the origin of the physical universe.

        One of the first concepts that I resonated with in Scientology was L.R.H.’s understanding of THE TRUE STATIC which I have never seen “as a higher order than MEST” not even a THING but the creator of things, and hence quite distinct from MEST. The fact that you acknowledge that you are “theta/life” confirms to me that fundamentally you are in touch with a “higher power” even if it is your true self, which must by definition exist outside of space and time.

        A group postulating the outcome of an event is something quite different to prayer although I agree that the two can get confused. Prayer and “positive postulates” are two different things. That is why very few can get the desired results from the Law of Attraction which I believe was originally “channelled” material, as per Wallace Wattles book “The Science of Getting Rich”.

        I appreciate what you have written is “just my viewpoint” however the wonder of wonders is that as a “THETAN” we have the ability to have or not have a viewpoint at will.

        Love with ARC
        Pip

    • PIP… if prayer would be the answer than this planet should have been cleared hundreds of years back!
      Since those of you who pray and that is millions walking daily on your knees with hand clasped asking for help…. well.. outside of making lots of doctors happy and rich because many of you need knee replacements I dont see that prayer had done much good….oh… of course you all have clean finger nails because you all deep them into that holy water.
      If you would truly understood LRH’s intention and the workability of the Auditing Technology you would not gone back to what has not worked before fore you and that was PRAYER, but you would have confronted that subject in session and come to your conclusion that it was on implanted crap in the first place… than you would now be solo auditing instead spreading heavy duty lies.
      You have not duplicated LRH’s material =its meaning. the haze of implanted crap of prayer did not allow that to happen.
      But this is my reality as always.

  37. Another reason why some may have left could also be attributable to the fact that as per the Scientology Dictionary the true state of Clear and the true state of OT have not yet been realized by anyone after 65 years, which could appear to be treasonable. Or am I mistaken??????

    • No , I am afraid you are not, dear Mike ; those levels as fully described in many LRH issues are not a reality at all regardless of the incredible wins that DO get achieved by doing them. Wins that are way beyond what any other Earth’s spiritual route to increased spiritual abilities is able to bring about. But I do firmly believe that the answers to those states as described in Scn can be researched and made a reality using Scientology’s own basic principles and fundamentals.

      Let’s not also forget the “Original OT levels”. When NOTs came out it was intended as a remedy for bogs in successfully achieving the full EPs of such levels. Any NOTs completion fully knows what those bogs are. But with the NOTs case out of the way , many Solo-NOTs completions are ready now to do all these “old” levels at the Field.

      There are quite a few of original OT levels completions (up to old VII) here at the Field. But there are no , to my knowledge, any Solo-NOTs completion who THEN completed the original levels. That’s a VERY interesting pilot proyect to engage upon ; VERY interesting indeed. We have now quite a few Solo-NOTs comps out here, and many others who are already very advanced at that level. WE ARE READY NOW. Volunteers?

      ARC, PETER

  38. “Firstly, I swear that this is the absolute and complete truth even though it occurred 37 years ago.”

    I disagreed with almost all of the SP declares that year except his. IT was the only one deserved.

    This so called rubbish about him and Mayo. I met Mayo in EG in 83 and to be honest was not overly impressed with his lecture which mostly went on about how OT levels could not be done blah blah in a lifetime.

    For him maybe. Anyway he took the money and ran did he not?

    So much for integrity. Screw you Mayo!

    I found the then C/S of the ACC far better and more forward looking.

    Gains are about making TA and most of these guys simply don’t do this.

    No wonder LRH blasted people and screamed blue murder at times. I would have given some of these idiots a sound thrashing as well!!

    • Dear “Wonderful World” , it is a wonderful day today , isn’t it ? Now , why would anyone here has to  just believe in your generalizations and plain un-supported arguments about Mayo ? ; Just because you says so ? I think not. I think that you should get your facts straight before shooting in all directions.

      Was you part of the court proceedings in the Mayo case ? Did you know what went down there at the court ? Do you have any evidence of that ? Do you ?  As to the OT levels “not being able to be completed in a lifetime” – some comment I don’t remember from Mayo’s lectures – how can you possible know ? There are 7 levels! beyond New OT VIII , a totally useless “OT” level and a complete fraud. The only recovery of “whole track recall” you get is the exact moment when you decided to pay for that totally incomplete and quickie rundown , and the exact moment when you said to yourself , “what the fuck is this ?” , when you realized New OT VIII was for the birds. 7 more levels to go , and OT IX and X are unlikely to be released any time soon , if the do exist , which I am sure they don’t except perhaps in in-decipherable note form incapable of being put together by any terminal still-in as Ray ,the only one who even stand a chance, is completely degraded in The Hole. So how exactly do you plan to finish them in whatever remaining time you have left in that body? Enlighten me please. Talk facts please ; this is a public forum but you can’t just come here to make silly attacks on anybody with just opinions. Aren’t you a scientologists ? Have you ever heard of confronting the accused with the accuser and the evidence in a proper Justice scenario ? You can find it in the ITSE book ; I can e-mail a copy to you. I’ll cost you nothing. I provide free cramming services too. ARC , Peter

      • Peter, I have been informed by many that there is ”only one blog on the internet” which it is written by ex-scientologist who has left the church in 82 as full OT7, and NOt’s under her belt + Integrity Rundown which those days dealt only with O/w’s and her in this blog she only posts major Cognitions and she runs that blog as a Diary.
        Elizabeth .

    • THE GAINS ARE ABOUT COGNITIONS, Cognitions are the new reality gained in session and by attain them the persons reality changes.
      Long as the person still counting levels that person haven’t even entered into kindergarten.

      Levels dont exist for Entities.

    • it would be a good practise for those who claim know the auditing technology to take that subject in your case Mayo in session and confront your own doingness on him… locate what have you done on the track than you would not be harping about that individual.
      Only our own sins hunt us… Take care my friend… Best to you. Elizabeth

    • PS: ”’No wonder LRH blasted people and screamed blue murder at times. I would have given some of these idiots a sound thrashing as well!!”””
      in your care he would have punched your light out. , I though I point out the same remedy for you.
      Your own evaluation so please dont be offended. 🙂

  39. All ARCX’s are due to overts? NO – people leave because they are upset. Scientology is out exchange and practices covert invalidation and nullification every day. That is a trap and very convenient to keep people focused on themselves while the “cherch” gets away with crimes everyday.

    If I got a hamburger at McDonald’s and the meat was rancid and rotten, did I “pull that in”?

    Imagine a world run by Scientology? Yikes!

    Pay up front for everything – then NO REFUNDS (a dirty word)

    You sign a 10 page contract after giving a ton of money for services at a SPA and then if the practioners mess up – the SPA can keep all your money unless you do a routing form that keeps you in the SPA.

    Lie to get people in and then trap them. Tell them it is in the “best interest” of all dynamics with no scientific proof for 60 years!

    If you leave your phone carrier – you did something to that phone carrier?

    If you talk about what the phone carrier did to you – (ripped you off and did not provide service as promised), you pay for a Sex Check. Your admissions of sins are blackmail for you to always be with that carrier…you are NOT ALLOWED to talk about it. “Take it up in Auditing where you pay $400 per hour to find out what your crimes were to phone carriers along the track….

    Oh boy…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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