Why you can’t get case gain in the church

Discontinued

Article by Morris Adams

 

WHY YOU CAN’T GET CASE GAIN INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Probably the most telling failure of RCS (Radical Corporate Scientology) or what is today laughably still called the “Church of Scientology”, is that a person cannot get any significant case gain while he or she is a part of it.

Tremendous gain is available from doing Scientology – beyond your wildest dreams. But you can’t get it by receiving auditing or doing training as a member of the Church of Scientology. The best you can do there is get just a small taste of it.

Here are the reasons:

  • The church is being run by an SP. All staff are PTS, Sea Org most of all. If you are on lines at an org, you are, or soon will be, PTS. “And may you never be the same again.” This used to be a good thing, but today in the “church” it means you will never be yourself again.

  • Everyone’s case is being C/Sed by David Miscavige. Not only is he an SP but he is not trained, does not audit others, and does not himself get any auditing. LRH got continuous auditing. Miscavige gets no auditing. Auditing is not valuable to him, and neither is training. C/Sing is not based on the person’s individual case state, analyzed by highly trained C/Ses. It is the same for everyone, and is based on Miscavige’s whim. (Well not really Miscavige’s “whim”. It is well thought out to keep the money flowing in, while making sure no one really goes up the bridge)

 

  • Out-tech is rampant in the church. It is the squirrel organization to beat all other squirrel organizations. David Miscavige is a fountain of verbal tech. He has misunderstoods on the tech that would make any word-clearer cringe. A prime example of this is the “three swing F/N”.

 

  • The church uses “reverse scientology”, not real scientology. David Miscavige has no intention of applying the right tech correctly.

 

  • Church auditors do not follow the Auditor’s code (explained in more detail below).

 

  • Auditing in the church is not “for the PC”. It has many other intentions. But helping the PC is definitely not the main one, and not even a major one. Some examples are: to bring in money, to get people under control, to keep people thinking badly of themselves (which is the end result of continuous, unnecessary sec checks), to have “up stats” (although their stats have absolutely no validity).

 

  • For people on OT levels III through to VII: A person auditing on these levels cannot get the real wins available from them without an ever-increasing ability to grant beingness, but the granting of beingness is absent from the thinking and actions of the church today. It is even frowned-upon and ridiculed. So it is not possible to get the real gains available from these OT levels while being a part of the church.

 

The current “Church of Scientology” is a monumental betrayal of LRH and everything he worked for – the millions of words of writing, the thousands of lectures, the countless hours of research.

Regardless of the things LRH may or may not have done wrong, he has left a body of technical material that can give you and me personal insights, feelings of well-being, increased love and compassion, increased understanding of self, life and others; hugely increased abilities; deeper appreciation of the things we like; plus much, much more – beyond what was ever available before.

The gains and wins of Scientology and LRH Tech are still available if used in the right way, as described by LRH in tremendous detail.

But Scientology is no longer available within the “Church of Scientology”.

Here are some places I know of where it is available today, in the independent field:

The Dror Mission in Haifa, Israel, run by Dani and Tami Lemberger. All Scientology auditing is available, including the Solo levels.

Trey Lotz, field auditor in Los Angeles. Trey delivers all audited actions, including NOTs, OT Review and the L’s. He has continuous great success with all of these.

Ronit and Yossi Charny in Portland, Oregon.

There are many more all over the world. Every continent on Earth has many Independent Groups and Auditors. The ones mentioned above are just the ones I personally know most about.

 

HOW THE AUDITOR’S CODE IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED IN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY

Regarding auditors in the “church” not following the Auditor’s Code, what is happening is that “Command Intention” conflicts with points of the Auditor’s Code. And it is always Command Intention that wins out. Although there are some auditors who still try to do the best for their PCs, if an auditor ignores Command Intention in favor of the Auditor’s Code then that auditor will be removed as an auditor or if an SO staff member, sent to the RPF – which is what happened to Claire Reppen for example.

 

Points Of The Auditor’s Code That Are Violated In The “Church” Today

(2)    “I promise not to invalidate the preclear’s case or gains in or out of session.” VIOLATED WITH GROSS CASE INVALIDATION VIA GAT 1 AND GAT 2 AND OTHER ACTIVITIES.

(3)    “I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way.” THIS IS NO LONGER DONE. “STANDARD TECH” IS BEING REWRITTEN BY MISCAVIGE. IT IS NOT STANDARD TECH THAT IS BEING ADMINISTERED, BUT MISCAVIGE TECH.

(5)    “I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.” EXCEPT IF THE ORG NEEDS TO GET THEIR STATS UP, IN WHICH CASE IT IS TOTALLY OK TO DO THIS.

(11)   “I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.” VIOLATED IN SEC CHECKS. (No excuse that the auditor makes the statement first: “I am not auditing you.”)

(13) “I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.” TOTALLY VIOLATED WITH THE “THREE SWINGS”  NONSENSE.

(14)   “I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.”  CHURCH EXECS DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. GRANTING OF BEINGNESS IS COMPLETELY GONE FROM THE CHURCH.

(21)   “I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.” NOT BEING DONE. THE CASE IS ESTIMATED BY MISCAVIGE’S WHIM AND APPLIED TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF THEIR ACTUAL STATE OF CASE.  STANDARD CASE SUPERVISION DOESN’T MATTER.

(22)   “I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.” GROSSLY VIOLATED FOR PC’S BOTH IN AND OUT OF THE CHURCH.

(27) “I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of “mental  treatment”. GROSSLY VIOLATED BY GANG BANG SEC CHECKS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

(29) “I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane. VIOLATED: DAVID MISCAVIGE IS INSANE. DAVID MISCAVGE IS THE NUMBER ONE   PRACTITIONER IN THE CHURCH TODAY, SENIOR TO SNR  C/S INT.

ARC,

Morris Adams 

 

Editor footnote:  Our thanks to Morris for contributing this article.

It is a well-established fact the major focus of the church has to do with MAKING MONEY. This has been the case for years.  The constant attention on fundraising accompanied by an utter failure to deliver standard SCN has been a massive betrayal to both the parishioners of the Church AND to LRH. This is what he has to say about what orgs should be doing: 

“Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products.

One is well-trained auditors. The other is satisfied pcs”.

(LRH ED 131 INT, LIFE REPAIR BLOCK).

 

We’d like to hear your views, comments, observations and any personal experiences you’ve had in relation to the issues raised by Morris.

Advertisements

108 thoughts on “Why you can’t get case gain in the church

    • An excellent synopsis. Thanks Morris. Scientology is being routinely delivered in the Independent field. Take advantage of this. The tech is available at reasonable costs in a high ARC, theta space.

      Take a service in the Independent field. Be surrounded by friendly, happy people who have five minutes for a chat and a cup of tea. Adjectives to describe my recent movement up the Bridge? – progress, progress, progress, progress, progress, progress, progress. (Even with the chats and tea!)

      The C/S works diligently to get you through your levels. Fellow Scientologists help out with drilling and coaching.
      Do not delay, for another minute, the fun and wins waiting for you. Get onto solo auditing and get moving.
      We have a strong, theta group – come and join us.

  1. Dear Morris – thanks for your comment on Dror Center and the other Indies groups/centers/individuals.
    I agree with every word you’ve written, we have experienced it all in recent years while still bring in the church.
    We are now experiencing the true joy of being able to apply LRH Tech on all flows and get all the abandance if Theta releasing all over!
    Thanks
    Ml
    Tami Lemberger

  2. I had same observation. Actually the idea of case gain is gone. And the worst part is that many ex scientologists are blaming it on LRH. Actually the idea is that Miscavige is straight line from LRH. While it’s obvious, he is an SP who threw out every actual scientologists since 1982. As an SP he specialized to get rid of good staff and legitimate exec. Starting with Marie Sue Hubbard, David Mayo and Bill Robertson in 1982. And then he blew off all existing mangement to become the only “ecclesiastical leader” and acted as a source.
    Now the treason of Miscavige has made scientology failed, and many ex scientologists are buzy destroying the church, and the subject of scientology, and the repute of Hubbard.
    We have to reintroduce wins, we have been for so many years accepting the out tech.
    Every one of us should audit, help, create some wins for himself and others.
    And never forget to have justice : Miscavige total obliteration.

    • Completely agree, FG.

      “We have to reintroduce wins, we have been for so many years accepting the out tech. Every one of us should audit, help, create some wins for himself and others.”

      And I don’t think Miscavige has much time left.

  3. Morris, since I’ve been catching up for a few years, you’re the first person to write about “my time.” I was lucky enough to have single grades, before the early Class VIIIs brought quickies to the orgs, and they really bit hard. I also revisited the grades 2 more times with each flow-change. Fun sharing similar history, would love to chit-chat.

  4. Interesting post Morris — thank you.
    When I was last getting auditing in the church, which would be throughout most of 2005, I had the displeasure of being at a transitional point within the church. At least as I saw it. There were people there that I knew back in the 80s and 90s or had even been on staff with, earlier still. So I had a glimpse of who these people were, when the external forces involved in pulling them off source, were much less invasive. In 2005 I could see them being pulled in two directions; The first to help someone and the second, to do what command intention dictated.

    You could see the confusion, embarrassment and rising anger in their faces and demeanor. Their lack of compassion grew each month. Their desire to help others was replaced by a more sordid desire to have public do what they were told. It was as uncomfortable as it was suppressive and it was growing.

    The safety and sanctity of the church was bleeding out and what was left was a glossy, well-manicured corpse. It was hard to deal with as a PC, as I had to fight to stay on task every day and it was exhausting. And it’s only gotten worse in the past ten years.

    (A relevant segue)

    There was a deli slash bakery on Geary Street in San Francisco, back when I was on staff there. It’s still there today. They had great counter food and excellent baked goods. Some years later I returned and noted how every item in the showcase looked wonderful. Neat, clean, expertly designed and prepared, I couldn’t wait to try some of the desserts — of course.

    That’s when the disconnect struck me. They looked fabulous, but they tasted like wax replicas, completely devoid of flavor, except for the heavy note of sweetness, used to mask the cheap ingredients.

    This is what I think of when I think of the church. Glossy promo and new Ideal Orgs. Designer furniture and expensive accessories to mask the services that are now completely devoid of value.

    A sad affair. But the real “stuff” is in the field. Please, don’t believe it’s all gone, it isn’t. You just need to look in different places. It’ll be worth it.

    Odd

    • Thank you, Odd. An extremely interesting comment. My last sojourn at Flag was in 2002, and I happened to get some very good auditing. I also got some poor auditing a few years prior to that. Your description of the transition is very interesting and rings true.

      • Morris: “My last sojourn at Flag was in 2002, and I happened to get some very good auditing.”

        That’s an honest admission, Morris. I haven’t seen that type of comment made on any other blog of the several that I more or less follow.

        Not that I don’t see Miscavige as utterly corrupted by power and highly suppressive – but aside from his highly criminal activities, there seems to be some small intention on his part for people to have wins, at least to a certain extent. His overriding purposes are undoubtedly to promote his own power and importance, but he may still have some small desire for the well being of others.

        I say all that because I have a couple of friends who are still on org staff, who I don’t believe would blatantly lie to me, and both of them have said that people are still having good wins – even now with GAT II. One of the two friends recently completed Grade 0, the “new way”, and I observed for myself some nice changes in her comm level and beingness! Now she’s on the new Survival Rundown and still having good wins, according to her (although I haven’t had much comm with her about it up to now).

        The other friend has been on a tech post for years and is well up the other side of the Bridge too (OT V). In answer to my question to her about how there could be so many changes in the tech since LRH was around (specifically, GAT II) she explained that the changes were based on a thorough study of all LRH references, and that all these references are included with the new courses.

        I think the changes are mostly based on lectures, and if so that would violate what LRH wrote about HCOB’s being the actual source of tech. And I haven’t forgotten about DM’s “3-swing F/N” or the perverted use of sec checks. Nevertheless, it seems that DM is not entirely making it up as he goes along.

        All that said, my point is that I think it’s wise to recognize that at least some people in the CoS are still having wins, as those of us outside the CoS who are speaking out about it should know what we’re talking about. It not only affects our credibility but our own full comprehension of what has happened to Scientology as a movement.

    • So true Maridli. Nothing is black and white. The idea of editing student hat lectures on GAT 2 come from the robotic attitude of some sup and student who would spend hours to clear vintage photography, or clearing definition of GPM which is contrary to the essence of evaluation of data for a new student.
      But they are propitiative to their education and consider misunderstood words like a virus! They are just sort of obedient stupid, I have seen so many like that. Writing on a copybook with a school girl handwriting, all the definitons they have cleared. Not advancing one inch on their course, with the blessing of robotics supervisors.
      So to edit thoses parts is a clever idea. I don’t think GAT2 is that bad.
      What is really wrong is this idea to make money as the basic intent.
      Regarding out tech: OT eligibility cannot have been written by LRH as it contradict the basic policy which says that you don’t inspect before the fact. I never believed Hubbard wrote it.
      And the cancellation of the blow by inspection on Not’s is penalizing any fast PreOTs. And auditing Ned on pre OT as a blanket CS, this is criminal.
      So, sometime you have an auditor or a CS who apply the basic tech and you have wins.
      I had a repair PGM at Flag on late nineties (less than an intensive), just before GAT 1. It just changed my life for the better. Such a take care, by the book (CS serie n°3) Auditor had such smooth trs and granting beingness. And when the EP poped up, Dof P asked me if I wanted to attest. No overrun!
      The tech pefectly applied with the desire to help the PC, is a wonder. We should always remember that and always dream to reinstate such an ideal scene. In the independant field it’s nice but we need qual and I’m sorry to say sometimes ethics.
      We should speak about our wins. I’m not a kool aid, quite the opposite but I don’t fall for extreme.
      Even Miscavige has a plus point : he knows how to make money!

      • “Nothing is black and white…I’m not a kool aid, quite the opposite but I don’t fall for extreme.”

        FG, thank you for duplicating my post. You gave some good examples of improvements that have been made by DM, such as better application of the study principle “evaluation of information” as well as the principle of correct gradients – both of which have definitely been “out” in the church for many years.

        Obviously, we should still be wary of DM’s actual intentions, since it’s quite possible that he only wants to make himself APPEAR to be standard so as to further his control over church members. He may be more standard in certain ways while continuing to be ultra non-standard in others, as you pointed out.

        In any case, the main point was that in order for us to maintain credibility (with wavering church members, especially) and to make correct evaluations regarding the long-term situation with Scientology, we should be operating on true data and not on assumptions – which would just be a new version of “group think”.

        The tendency of people towards “group think” is one of the lessons we’ve be taught and need to bear in mind if we aren’t going to repeat the same mistakes all over again. There are no doubt additional lessons to learn from the whole history of the church, and DM’s part in it specifically, and to do so have to be willing to confront the situation as it is.

        Thanks again for your reply.

      • Marildi,
        very wisely stated and written especially on the “group think”!!!
        I can attest that practicing as an Indie gets me to “group think” less and less, while “Hemi think” goes up all the time. And wonder of wonders, my group connections and ARC, inspite of this, also go up and up. Because I am free in this group (Indies) or any other group, so I can be an individual with full integrity, and part of the group. And that, of course, as long as that group, or any group, suits my agenda. And since this creates a win win state of affairs, it is charming and nourishing and…truly valuable. Hence:
        🙂
        Hemi

      • Thank you, Hemi! It’s always so heartening to read about your experiences in Independent Scientology. In your comment above, you reminded me of what LRH had to say about a team member. I can’t give the reference but from having Chinese schooled it I remember this part:

        “The trick is to be a team member and an individual at the same time.”

        Wow, a world of wisdom in a simple sentence. And you and Dror center are proof that it can be done. Back atcha: 🙂

  5. Great article Morris. I am so glad to see Ronit Charny, Trey Lotz and The Dror Mission get the acknowledgment they deserve.

    I traveled to Portland to see Ronit and she got me through a Life Repair, OT 5 and some months later The Cause Resurgence RD. I won all the way with Ronit and really felt she was always working to make sure I would make it. Ronit inspires confidence that she won’t quit until you’re absolutely happy and technically sorted out.

    I understand Ronit travels now to those who can’t make it to Portland-How perfect is that?

  6. Thanks for your well written statement.

    It brought back to mind the first time I did the Bridge and how good I felt about it most of the time.

    The second time I did it? Hmmmm.

  7. I come and go from SCN Orgs as I see fit as I am not SP declared. So my information about GAT 1 and 2 is first-hand as I have read its materials and pretty well know about about all the changes made. So I’ll list some of those changes so that the true data about them can be properly evaluated. For more inf about that , please visit the “Friends of LRH” website. It is full of factual data about why the changes since GAT 1 are totally off-Source. Please, don’t buy this idea that because some public are experiencing some gains , that it makes GAT 1 and/or GAT 2 “not ‘that’ bad”. Believe me they are bad enough, and are an obvious suppressive act once one understand the mechanics involved here. But as I said, “Friends of LRH” (FOLRH) website has everything incredible well explained with Source data.

    1. GAT 1 was totally based on a “Wrong Why” as evidenced by the downtrending “auditors made” Stat since its release. Scn Orgs has 2 main products : “Well-trained auditors” and “Satisfied PCs”.

    Here is some sections from the FOLRH website. I am copy pasting them, so I hope that the letters come out all right at the blog itself. In my e-mail, they look fine :

    “Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products.

    One is well-trained auditors. The other is satisfied pcs.”

    LRH ED 131 INT Life Repair Block 8 December 1970 (OEC Vol. 4, p. 145)

    “The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs.”

    HCO P/L 17 June 1970RB KSW Series 5R, Tech Degrades (OEC Vol. 0, p. 14)

    Of these two products, one is senior:

    “Auditors will always be senior to Clears. Always.”

    Ability Mag. Issue 70 Late March, 1958 (Tech Vol. IV, p. 311)

    “The individual statistic of any organization (except SH) is:

    HOW MANY TRAINED AUDITORS EXIST IN ITS AREA.

    The individual statistic of Saint Hill is:

    HOW MANY TRAINED AUDITORS ARE THERE IN THE WORLD.”

    HCO P/L 4 October 1967 Issue I Auditor and Org Individual Stats (OEC Vol. 4, p. 118)

    “Of course you should mainly be training.”

    LRH ED 145 INT 4 July 1971 Why Something New (OEC Vol. 2, p. 553)

    The “Auditors Made” international Stat has been in a danger trend since more than 15 years ago, and in some specific classifications like class VI and specially VIII, the trend is Non-existence. That’s the direct result of a Wrong Why which only depress stats even further. “A wrong Why, corrected, will further depress Stats”. (HCOPL 13 Oct 1970 , Data Series 19 , “The Real Why”).

    DM’s “Why” , “The Blind leading the Blind” , and “Lack of Enough drilling to achieve perfection” , are Wrong whys and only stupidities. Your evidence ij clear on that ; just take a good look at International Stats. You can get them from the FOLRH site and from Rinder’s as well. I also analyse quite a few Scn magazines myself to stay informed.

    With GAT one , the short route to academy training was gone, and replaced by a “program” which made the path TOO long which only amount to fail purposes and loses.

    DM totally misinterpreted and took completely out of context LRH’s lecture, “A Talk On a Basic Qual” in which most of GAT 1 was based upon.

    LRH DID talked about the importance of “DRILLs” to achieve certainty on the Tech, but the drill binders he referred to in the lecture, belonged to QUAL and not to Div 4 , as a tool for the cramming officer to use on Interned auditors AS NEEDED , on a one-to-one basis, not as a general blanket TIP (Technical Individual Program). Those Drills binders IF revised, as many have wrong data in them, is not a bad idea if used as originally intended by LRH when he gave that lecture.

    Orgs worldwide started to deliver academy courses demanding a proficiency level only expected at the class VI and VIII level after a student has obviously gained a lot of experience as an auditor, and has cronologically study the development of the Tech resulting in a conceptual understanding of it. The net result ? VERY few auditors graduating. Not only the route became too steep, DM basically cancelled ALL previous training demanding of veteran auditors with proven records to start all over again from the bottom up ; a total arbitraty which further depressed the Stats internationally and caused many blows worlwide.

    2. The “Basics” even though not a bad idea in terms of having a chronological research path to follow , was based totally on a LIE : That LRH’s books were riddled with “alrerations” , “M/Us” from the transcriber, and not LRH-approved “edits” from others. For more than 40-45 years Scientologists got trained using the Original books, resulting in a lot of well-trained auditors who REALLY could audit. And now magically, out of nowhere, and mysteriously having been bypassed by the Author himself, his books were worthless.

    Go to the “TRUE LRH” website, and find out by yourselves how LRH’s original books are actually more accurate than that “squirrel” version called “The Basics”. I have read BOTH versions myself and can attest that what the “True LRH” site allege is true.

    In fact, DM had stated EXACTLY the same, regarding having put ALL LRH’s book totally “On-Surce” back in 1991 with the release of A LOT of Technical materials at the Auditor’s Day event when the General Anmesty was offered. You can find the data on it in the RTC Bulletin 451. Perhaps I still keep a copy somewhere. So what does this mean ? It can only mean either that DM lied to all of us at the “The Basics” event (my choice) , or that he is the most incompetent “Leader” that Scn has ever had.

    Then he made The Basics a MANDATORY course, making it the longest Scn course after the SHSBC. Not only mandatory, but you was supposed to leave whatever course you were doing to immediately enroll in “The Basics” study program. It was made a pre-requesite for auditor training making it even more complicated to become an academy level auditor. A complete introduction of an arbitrary as a chronological study of the Tech was always meant for Saint Hillers (SHSBC students) , and NOT for academy level students still stumbling with the Tech.

    The introduction of “The Basics” as a pre-requisite for academy levels training only depressed the “Auditors made” graph even furrher, taking it to an almost Non-E trend.

    3. GAT 2 was an attempt to “correct” the mistakes created by GAT 1 , even though that DM never put it that way. It was mainly based on the “The End of Endless Training” LRH ED INT. DM “found” that training was taking too long because of the introduction of “suppressive” arbitraries. He just forgot to mention that the SP who brought those changes , and introduced those arbitrairies in the first place was HIM !!! Can you believe that much insanity?

    So the Student Hat was stripped of advance tech terms like GPM and other terms from the SHSBC era from which the SH lectures were taken. The photography terms remain as they were , and a New SH Dictionary of Hard to find and technical words was released ; an EXCELLENT product , by the way, really excellent.

    The idea to strip those class VI terms away from the SH was LRH’s. But I am sure that the New SH has also been stripped away of many “political term” and many “out-PR” terms as well. But only by comparing the New version with the original will we really know all the editing done.

    The “Metering Course” was made a lot simpler, and those dreadful drills that so many had such a huge difficulty passing, were eliminated from it. The standard of passing was relaxed a lot as well, as it should be at that level.

    The Grades became “Quickie Grades” again as DM wanted, as always, to litterally interpret LRH (Specifically “From Clear to Eternity” RJ), and decided that the Grades should only take an intensive each ; a total arbitrary. They take what they take. They apparently did an “evaluation” and “survey” to find out what processes from the list of Grade Processes the PCs were getting run on with most frequency, and many processes from the 1987 lists were taken away. I got to confess that I am not 100% sure of this datum as I have not read yet the new “Grade Processes Handbook”. But my sources are reliable. Nevertheless, I will confirm this by myself in the next few weeks when I go down to the Org to see ALL events.

    Another big change was the change from the previous “Objectives Co-audit course” to the new “Survival Rundown course” or SRD for short. The SRD had been developed in the early ’80s and more than 12 HCOBs on them appears in the 1979 Tech Vols. Later on they were all cancelled in the latest 1991 edition as allegedly they are not LRH’s but were written w/out his authorization or revision by Melanie Murray (perhaps I have mis-spelled her name).

    As an interesting fact, LRH refers to the SRD in several HCOBS that are NOT cancelled. The original SRD was basically a FULL battery of Objectives processes (the same from the Objectives co-audit) plus a few added processes intended to familiarize the PC with the MEST of his work and his personal belongings and bacome more Causative over them. The checklist “Order vs Disorder” was also part of the original SRD program. The EP was not only “Oriented in the PT physical universe” but with an increased control of One’s mind, environment and body. To me, the original one looked quite LRH(ish) , and quite sensible and logical. I mean, Mary Freeman has been successfully delivering her LRH-based “Personal Integrity program” , so I don’t see really the technical out-point in the original SRD.

    DM’s SRD, however, is nothing more than an “Objectives co-audit” run not with your basic HCOBs on them, but with refs out of books and lectures from the ’51-’56. So the most closer HCOBs on EPs, O/R, Rehab, etc, are totally discarded. He took the “Purpose section” of each CCH and turned them into the “EPs” for each one of them. So if in this “Purpose section” LRH talks about 4 possible purposes for a certain CCH, in the new SRD, a PC is required to almost verbatim originate EACH one of those 4 points before he can be considered EPed on the processes. This regardless if the PC had a HUGE big win, realease, VVVGIs. Still, he is kept on it (w/out stopping not even till next day) until he makes the EXACT origination covering each of the 4 points in the example that I brought up. So you have O/Rs by the ton. I just wasn’t told about this ; I was there to observe it.

    Not only were “New EPs” arbitrary introduced ,totally discarding the most recent HCOBs on tjem, and all that LRH discovered about bypassing F/Ns, O/R , and Rehab Tech ; but a new book of “Undercut processes” was released, and the C/S just determine which ones a certain PC is going to run on. And EVERYBODY is required to run some undercuts totally violating LRH’s HCOB “Objectives Not Bitting” , where he clearly explains the ONLY reason why one would run “Undercut Objectives” on a PC. And to make it worse, according to dear COB, NO PC ever had his Objectives fully and correctly run, so EVERYBODY (even OT VII and VIIIs) are blanket C/Sed for them.

    Now, it is not a mystery for trained auditors that the Objectives has been a Program VERY quickied in just too many instances. That’s just a fact. And it is also a fact that the Objectives processes are among the most effective and workabke processes of all Scn. They can even be considered as “unlimited processes” (see Scn 8-8008 for a description of this) were it not for the fact of the inherent impulse from thetans to stop flows that has been going too long in one direction.

    That being said, the thing to do, would have been to thoroighly check each case INDIVIDUALLY, do a through FES of his Objectives noting down each process run with its result. Determine which one were O/R or unflat, and as a small Advance programm handle that. Some would have to be rehabed, some flatten. But many in PCs they would be found already flat. Besides, if a PC is really winning on the Grade Chart, and progressing along, you DON’T repair anything. One only repair when a case is not running well and as expected. So all this was just a HUGE arbitrary and blanket C/S , which is commonly called “Executive C/Sing” as well.

    Now dear posters, an individual who does all that is either incredible crazy , incredible stupid , or incredible suppressive. Take your pick. And crazy = destructive purposes = suppressive. So crazy and SP are synonyms for all practical purposes. So that leaves us with “incredible stupid” , or “incredible suppressive”. And let me point out to you, that “incredible stupid” borders in the suppressive.

    ARC,
    PETER

    • Ah, I forgot to mention one small detail ; on GAT 2 ,because dear COB discovered that “SPs” had “altered” basic LRH, and made the route too long and full of arbitraries (he was apparently looking himself at the mirror) , he required of ALL trained scientologists (no matter if an experienced VI or VIII) to start again from the bottom up (from the new SH) for the SECOND TIME! after GAT 1. Now, what can that possibly be called if not plain suppression ? So please, I don’t want to hear any more “perhaps DM is not ‘that bad after all’, and still has goodness in his heart”. That’s just plain bullshit.

      ARC,
      PETER

      • Thanks for the round up of DM out tech. This man is a riddle, and even more a riddle is how anyone can follow him. One has to be unable to look .

      • You are most welcome, dear FG. I think that it is just a matter of giving up the willingness to think for ourselves , and abandoning power of choice over data. If every being had himself as the only Authority there is, a cult(ish) approach to knowledge wouldn’t ever be possible. But humans seems to love “Authorities” just too much ; it is so much “easy” to have knowledge delivered to us already “digested” and “evaluated”. Then the responsibility is always “Other-determined”.

        “Critical Thinking” is a skill no longer taught in our education. We are subjected since early childhood to various “Authorities”. We are just expected to accept and believe everything that is presented to us in our textbooks ; w/out no evaluation whatsoever as to the workability of the data or lack thereof. We are trained to become obedient sheeps ready to submit to the Authority of the “Know Best(s)”.

        A VERY interesting book that covers this subject in detail, and a most to understand the underlaying reasons of all of this , is Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt’s “The Dumbing Down Of America”. An incredible book indeed, for lovers of Truth.

        ARC, PETER

      • Wow, brilliant detail and references. That’s why I am thankful for Independent Scientology and Ron’s Org. Thanks Peter.

    • Very good points, Peter. I liked how you ended off too, with this:

      “And let me point out to you, that ‘incredibly stupid’ borders on the suppressive.”

      That hits the nail on the head, IMO. DM is really a mixture of both.

    • Peter, you are incredible! And so damn thorough…!!
      What is the going rate for meeting you?Touching you? Sample of your hair?
      Let me know when there is a sale… 🙂
      Thanks for your efforts and insights mate!
      Love,
      Hemi

      • Hemi: “Let me know when there is a sale … 🙂 ”

        Perhaps, you might be interested on some confidential pictures of young Pedrito (little Peter) 🙂

      • You are most welcome, dear Hemi ; I feel unworthy of so much praise , but thanks a lot for your kind and warm words mate! :-)))

        ARC, Peter

    • Peter, ALL of your darts went straight into the bullseye, everyone! Most of us would be pretty impressed with ourselves for hitting that red sweet spot only once!

      In fact, I dub thee “Bulls eye Pete” from here on mate! I almost felt myself get reasonable with COB for a second..almost! Then you came a long and put them scew thoughts straight – cheers! 🙂

      Quick question though, how do keep a straight face hiding in plane sight amoung the churchies without wanting to shake em outta their DM hypnosis? Once I figured it out, all I wanted was out of there. I tried my best to get through to a few I cared about the most. In the end I felt sick with guilt knowing I had aided and abetted that little wanker! The final straw was admitting to my sister I had been getting brilliant auditing in the field which sealed my fate.

      • “Peter, ALL of your darts went straight into the bullseye, everyone! Most of us would be pretty impressed with ourselves for hitting that red sweet spot only once!”

        Peter : Oh dear Sheeplebane , I feel totally undeserved , but thanks for your validation and warm words.

        “In fact, I dub thee “Bulls eye Pete” from here on mate! I almost felt myself get reasonable with COB for a second..almost! Then you came a long and put them scew thoughts straight – cheers! 🙂 ”

        Peter : You are most welcome. I perceived that some posters were going down the “reasonable road” , so I decided to offer a quick “reality adjustment” (not the COB’s “severe one” , to make that clarification) based on factual data. :-)))

        “Quick question though, how do keep a straight face hiding in plane sight amoung the churchies without wanting to shake em outta their DM hypnosis? ”

        Peter : Oh but I do want to shake them out of their hypnotic trance ; it is just that I know exactly what it takes to do so , and that my best virtue is PATIENCE. It is just a matter of flowing a lot of ARC to them and becoming a stable datum for them , instead of an enemy to fight with. As I had written before in an earlier post at another article’s thread, this is all about gradients of awareness. Each still-in basically goes through the same phases , if one let him/her do it. Truth assimilation of , works best in gradients of confront much similar to how the Grade Chart works in relation to increased awareness levels.

        By assuming the “valence” of “a churcie with disagreements with Int Management’s strategies” , I can keep close enough to the actual “Battle Ground” so as to keep myself informed about the actual arbitraries being introduced by dear COB instead of just reading anyone’s interpretation of them based on some still-in friends’ version. I for one, like to have my data first-hand so that a correct evaluation can occcur.

        How can we Deat Agent anything about which one doesn’t have the exact data on ? That’s unworkable. The more actual data I get directly from their New Releases materials and Implememtation Programs , the more I can work on Dead Agenting COB’s falsities and false allegetions. There is no better strategy against our opponents than understanding them fully. To defeat DM one has to A) Be totally willing to become DM , and B) Be willing to be as crazy as he is so as to fully understand how the guy thinks.

        See, I have the ability to totally be having a chat over coffee with DM , as easy as chating with a real friend. “INTELLIGENCE” (as in “military” sort of practices) is coverly” , parraphrasing LRH. Walking among your enemies is the best strategy of all.

        “Once I figured it out, all I wanted was out of there. I tried my best to get through to a few I cared about the most. In the end I felt sick with guilt knowing I had aided and abetted that little wanker! The final straw was admitting to my sister I had been getting brilliant auditing in the field which sealed my fate.”

        Peter : Got it ; Sorry about your sister, dear friend ; I totally understand what you mean.

        I can’t avoid thinking that those churchies were once teammates working with me on the lofty goal of a Cleared Planet. I clearly remember those glorious times when my existence had purpose and meaning. I was so out of this humanoid game of striving for the mortgage, the good car , having to have a family, the bills, the cat and the balloon ; that I had totally forgotten how one was supposed to live in “The Real World”. It has been almost 20 years and STILL I can’t adapt. I see so little purpose out-here , so many petty datails. Perhaps the “having a biological body” game was never meant for me. I feel as a stranger is a strange land ; lost and bewildered. “The Spirit of Play” that so much characterized my existence in my past , is nothing more than a ancient recall of something that was a inherent part of me just as described in the PDC lectures.

        Being on staff kept those sensations alive. So I can’t totally understand the Churchies and to what exactly they try to desperately hold on to. I was there myself not that long ago. Waking up to a new gruelsome reality is never an easy thing ; all your stable datums in which your whole existence was based upon, are suddently totally shaken down leaving you in a state of total confusion and very much angry at EVERYBODY. One wants out ; desperately out , and even feels many times, the desire to throw the baby out with the bath water. Fortunately, good friends points to you other angles from which to view things, and you adopt new stable data to create a new space with.

        For me the only honorable thing to do is to try to save as many as I can. Not only it can be done, IT SHOULD be done. What is required is the willingness to never disconnect , and becoming a stable datum others can trust in. The rest will follow. But it won’t be done with a big revolt necessarily ; it’ll get done mostly with 3 things over a period of years :

        1. A lot of patience 2. Never disconnecting even if others attempt to force you to. 3. A well thought-out strategy based on gradients of confront and gradients of exposure to Truth.

        Thanks for the comm , amigo ; always a pleasure exchanging comms with you.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter and Sheeplebane, it isn’t necessarily being “reasonable” to recognize that even a psychopath like DM is capable of doing positive things for a group if he considers the group to be part of his identity – since in that case, he’s actually doing the good things for himself, to promote himself.

        I think this possibility with regard to DM should be acknowledged so that people don’t get confused – due to the fact that wins are actually occurring with GATII – and thus they might wrongly start to think DM is not a true SP after all.

        This would apply to those of us who have already left the church as well as to the churchies who are on the fence, or are under the radar, or are lurking here as readers. They probably know about the wins being had and would therefore think the posters here (and on the other “forbidden” blogs) are just spreading false rumors – or that, at best, we don’t know what we’re talking about. Not presenting factual data would be a bit like what the church itself has done and is doing, with regard to all the libel and propaganda it puts out, and this would be a wrong direction to go in as it is less than truth – a lesson the church never learned, but we can. IMHO

        ARC, marildi

      • Dear Marildi ,

        Your points are understood.

        Now, I think that a little clarification is of the essence here. First of all , I have direct access to the CofS. As I said before , I am not even in “bad terms” with the Church ; they call me all the time to attend to events and seminars, etc. So my data about GAT 1 and GAT2 is first-hand. I mean, I KNOW about the GAT 1 and 2 materials. This isn’t something somebody just told me.

        Second of all , people are not experiencing wins because of GAT 2 per se ; that’s a totally false assumption. The wins ocurring , just as with the wins that ocurred with GAT 1 as well , are wins coming from application of the Tech per se. Now, parraphrasing LRH, Scn Tech is so good that even badly applied is capable of wins.

        Third of all , I never said that there weren’t any wins ocurring with GAT 2 ; such a comment never came out of my mind, and was never expressed in written either.

        All that having been clarified , there isn’t anything “good” about an actual SP ; I think that you might want to review your PTS/SP data. Of course that many “good” things are expected, Marildi ; what good of an SP would DM be if he started changing everything and anything ? He wouldn’t be an SP worth even 2 cents. Being an SP has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence. You have mediocre SPs, and you have genius SPs as DM is. I mean , the guy is DAMN smart. If he were to change the Tech in a “too obvious” way for even Kool-aid drinkers to notice , he would be out of his throne in no time ; I guarantee you that.

        The “smart” thing to do , and what I would have done if I was in his position , is to change key Technical points here and there , and make the road long and hard to travel ; EXACTLY what he has done so far. He always allege that a “new” and “hidden” by an “SP” LRH ref was found , that totally invalid the previous Tech courses and programs. Then he cleverly get others to buy his new “100%-On-Source” releases , as doing anything else would of course be “out-Tech”. Then he keep the copyrights alive and makes a LOT of money in the way. He is just being VERY smart Marildi , not “good”. The faster you realize that , the more you’ll increase your survival potentials.

        SPs doesn’t help others that they considers part of his group ; they just don’t. They have a masked hatraed for everybody. As I said , review your PTS/SP data because it is all in there.

        I posted an in-depth analysis of why exactly GAT 1 and 2 are wrong and not LRH based. I referred to specific LRH issues. I even R-factored that additional Source data that fully explain all of this could be found at the “Friends of LRH” website. It is all in there. I DID presented the factual data ; I never deal in opinions, dear Marildi. I leave that to others.

        I WAS there at the Survival Rundown (SRD) seeing with my OWN eyes how lots of PCs were being grossly overrun by the application of arbitraries by someone who isn’t even auditor trained. DM flunked on his class IV intership at Saint Hill when he was 15!!!

        A dear friend of mine got so overrun , and so “Out-of” (clear it in the Tech dic) and “sad-effect(ed)” , that he just wanted to die ; he just wanted to start all over again and leave some kids behind. If I hadn’t interfered and handle his PTSness and got him to the Independent Field to get corrected , he would probably be dead right now. Instead , he rekindled hope.

        Another veteran public was so upset with her objectives (SRD) that she started to scream very loudly in the middle of the academy. Another went type 3 for almost 2 months!!!

        So when you come with such weak arguments, and you know that I respect you and admire you a lot , I just can’t help it but getting upset ; and I am really sorry for that, but you need to wake up and smell the coffee dear ; you do. Are we going to become reasonable about DM as well ? Are we ?

        People are required to start all over again , Marildi , from the very bottom up (the new SH) even if they are veteran class VIIIs with proven auditor records, and who also did everything again from the bottom up at GAT1. I saw a veteran class VIII C/S being all happy about having finished his metering course!!! And he said something in the order of, “I can’t wait to beging with my GAT2 academy levels!!!

        Do you know that there is such a thing as being a Robot to an SP ? One follows the SP’s orders, suggestions, and directions , and QUITE happily I may add. How can it possibly be a win to have to start all over again after having trained up to class VIII , and at your OWN cost ? It just ISN’T ; it is only your typical cult(ish) manifestation, and reaction to being a robot with no mind of their own. They can keep those “wins” as far as I am concerned, cause I don’t want them. I want real wins, coming from a totally self-determined application of the Tech with the Power of Choice over data fully IN.

        No Marildi ; I had explained everything just fine before this post that I am writing now ; it was clear enough, and sensible enough. It needed no claifications whatsoever.

        Sorry dear , but this one was something that I just couldn’t let go by. I have a duty to perform. There are many who look up to me for advise and guidance. And I am not about to let them down. If anyone feels that I am being too extreme, so be it. I am not in a beauty contest here, nor I am here to make friends. I am here to do an effective job, something that I am very good at doing. So there you have it.

        ARC, PETER

        t

      • Hi Peter,

        First let me say again that I appreciate this blog for making it possible for anyone to express what might be a “minority opinion” – and not be piled on with personal attacks. That’s how it should be, where different views can be put out there for discussion rather than everybody just chiming in with the general consensus (the way it is on many other blogs). And I appreciate you in particular, Peter, for not letting the comm level deteriorate in spite of your disagreement with my views.

        I’m certainly not in disagreement with most of the points you’ve made – such as the out-tech and out-policy of putting everyone onto Basics, as a prime example. However, some of what you say is based on your personal interpretation of the tech, which should be kept in mind by other posters and readers. Obviously, no one should be looked at as the “tech expert” with everybody else just assuming his or her assessments and interpretations are always correct – even though that person, like everyone, is free to express his/her views

        As an example of a different viewpoint, you’ve indicated that the more recent LRH references are being violated on the Objectives Co-audit, whereas my staff friend – who has been a Cramming Officer for a number of years – tells me that this new Co-audit is totally based on LRH references. It is pretty hard for me to imagine that she would go along with what you described where you wrote that “if the PC had a HUGE big win, release, VVVGIs”, he would be “kept on it”. That would be very obvious out-tech and violate basic references. It’s possible that a green student auditor would make such a gross auditing error, but I can’t imagine a C/S not catching it and handling it.

        All that said, you may be right in your general assessment of the Objectives Co-audit – but for now, I don’t know if either one of us has enough overall data, since we’re only looking at particular instances of application in particular orgs. And, as I said before, I leave my mind open to the possibility that – at times – DM is actually pushing correct application of the tech in order to keep himself up on a pedestal and to maintain his power over church members. Btw, I never said that HE was good, only that he may have done some good things, based on an ulterior motive – so please don’t misquote me. 😉 My further point was that we should be factual and truthful about any plus points, for various reasons. But I would have to say that it’s probably even more important to be factual and truthful about the outpoints, and I don’t mean to discourage that. So do carry on with that too! 🙂

        ARC,
        marildi

        p.s. You mentioned that GAT 2 was discussed on the Friends of LRH website. I went there to see which specific references are being violated, as I am interested, but there is nothing about GAT 2 that I could find – only GAT 1. Can you give a specific link?

      • Marildi : “First let me say again that I appreciate this blog for making it possible for anyone to express what might be a “minority opinion” – and not be piled on with personal attacks. That’s how it should be, where different views can be put out there for discussion rather than everybody just chiming in with the general consensus (the way it is on many other blogs). And I appreciate you in particular, Peter, for not letting the comm level deteriorate in spite of your disagreement with my views.”

        Peter : You are most welcome dear. We have no disagreements on the your comment above.

        Marildi : “I’m certainly not in disagreement with most of the points you’ve made – such as the out-tech and out-policy of putting everyone onto Basics, as a prime example. However, some of what you say is based on your personal interpretation of the tech, which should be kept in mind by other posters and readers.”

        Peter : I am afraid that you would have to be more specific as to what exact parts of my previous posts were “my interpretations” of the Tech to be fair about it ; so please , be specific.

        Marildi : “Obviously, no one should be looked at as the “tech expert” with everybody else just assuming his or her assessments and interpretations are always correct – even though that person, like everyone, is free to express his/her views.”

        Peter : No disagreements on that neither. I am not expert at all ; but I DO know what I know, and my long list of excellent products are available for anyone to see.

        Marildi : “As an example of a different viewpoint, you’ve indicated that the more recent LRH references are being violated on the Objectives Co-audit, whereas my staff friend – who has been a Cramming Officer for a number of years – tells me that this new Co-audit is totally based on LRH references.”

        Peter : Just forget about what your friend told you for a moment, Marildi ; have you actually read the new GAT2 materials on the SRD ? I have , and I even have the SRD course pack and checksheet in my posession. Do you ? Are you neglecting my comments that I am actually in good terms with the CofS, and that I come and go as I see fit ? It seems to me that you haven’t duplicated that point. Should I send a photo of me in there ? I can as long as you keep it private. You would finally meet the self-righteous Thetaclear sort of in the flesh.

        Marildi : “It is pretty hard for me to imagine that she would go along with what you described where you wrote that “if the PC had a HUGE big win, release, VVVGIs”, he would be “kept on it”. That would be very obvious out-tech and violate basic references. It’s possible that a green student auditor would make such a gross auditing error, but I can’t imagine a C/S not catching it and handling it.”

        Peter : Gee Marildi, I don’t even know how to take that comment of yours. For practical purposes (and I know it probably wasn’t your intentions) you are calling me a liar in a public forum. That or you really failed to read my previous post to you in detail. What part of “I WAS THERE” didn’t you understand ? What part of “I had to DE-PTS a friend of mine who wanted to kill himself due to a 50hrs overrun didn’t you understand ? Frankly, with all due respect, your comments are beginning to arise some suspicion.

        First you attempted to defend LRH tooth and nail , in spite of the obvious human rights violations that some of his policies were guilty of. I wrote VERY detailed articles about it with the exact quotes and applicable refs and laws against those policies, and instead of validating my efforts as practically everybody did, you only concentrated on analyzing the “reasons” why LRH did what he did. You Q&Aed with ALL my Qs to you regarding the issue, and was never clear, open and direct as to your exact thoughts in regard to those policies and the misguided effort from LRH to implement them by force.

        Then you come and try to infere that DM’s GAT2 is not “that bad” after all, and that perhaps there is still some “goodness” in him at least towards what he considers his “group” obviously violatiing all the KNOWN data of the PTS/SP course regarding SPs. Then I explain. , WITH refs , why GAT1 and GAT2 are totally NON-LRH based, and refer others to the “Friends of LRH” site to get straight Source data on that.

        I then fully explain my PERSONAL experience with GAT 1 and 2 , a FIRST-HAND experience. Then you try to “Dead-Agent” my inf by saying that “your staff friend” allegedly said that the new SRD is based on Source refs , totally neglecting my OWN observations directly from the place of application, and with the SRD refs and checksheet at hand. I mean , put yourself in my position ; would you be a least a liitle suspicious about all this ?

        Marildi, hear me well, The C/S of my Org (a Class V C/S specially trained on the GAT2 program) told me this with her OWN mouth, “The Objectives process can’t be overrun”. They were running EVERYBODY for more than 30-40 hrs in many instances in ONE particular Objective process until the pc cognited on ALL points of the “purpose section” in spite of ANY other wins. I have successfully run hundreds of hrs of Objectives in others Marildi ; how many have you run ? I have fully W/Ced each and every Objectives refs in existence at least 20x. I have audited more than 50 different Objectives processes on others. You are not addressing an amateur here dear.

        As I said I HAVE the course pack and checksheet, and they say what they say. Your friend is dead-wrong about his assertion ; I am afraid.

        Marildi : “All that said, you may be right in your general assessment ofthe Objectives Co-audit –but for now, I don’t know if either one of us has enough overall data, since we’re only looking at particular instances of application in particular orgs.”

        Peter : God, you make simple things so complicated. Talk for yourself, and not include me in your “I don’t know if either of us…” analysis. I am a professional who thoroughly analyses the data at hand before making any judgments. It seems that you always fail to understand that point.

        Marildi : “And, as I said before, I leave my mind open to the possibility that – at times – DM is actually pushing correct application of the tech in order to keep himself up on a pedestaland tomaintain his power over church members.”

        Peter : But of course he does Marildi ; I mean, what is he supposed to do, push all the wrong things and get totally caught by others ? I already fully explained that point on my previous reply to you. No point in repeating it all over again.

        Marildi : “Btw, I never said that HE was good, only that he may have done some good things, based on an ulterior motive – so please don’t misquote me. 😉 My further point was that we should be factual and truthful about any plus points, for various reasons. But I would have to say that it’s probably even more important to be factual and truthful about the outpoints, and I don’t mean to discourage that. So do carry on with that too! :)”

        Peter : I am always truthful and factual about outpoints dear. It seems you miss that all the time. But to each its own. There are always going to be plus-points at any given scene. I have in more than one ocassion discussed about plus-points contained in many programs from the CofS. The new SH dictionary and the “coached e-meter sessions” recorder are two of such items. Having a chronological path to follow is another one , though the lectures have been edited arbitrarily and many of them have been even taken off their original Lecture set. But frankly Marildi, for each of those “plus-points” there is at least 100-200 outpoints. So I can’t even understand the point of even bringing that up. It heps in NOTHING at all, but only “justifies” things away.

        ARC, marildi

        p.s. You mentioned that GAT 2 was discussed on the Friends of LRH website. I went there to see which specific references are being violated, as I am interested, but there is nothing about GAT 2 that I could find – onlyGAT 1.Can you give a specificlink?

        Peter : Perhaps I expressed myself wrongly ; I was referring to the refs covering most of the arbitraries. Of course most of the refs in there covers GAT1, as that’s the time period when the site was created. But most of those refs applies to GAT 2 as well. Which ones? I’ll be more than happy to write a whole article about GAT2 with the EXACT LRH refs that make most of it off-Source. I’ll do it if I see here enough interest beyond just one poster. I like to have products achieved and “fame” is not part of any of them. So if I see enough “petitions” I’ll do it then. If not, why even bother ? I will even post the checksheet and the course pack sections applicable. But what exactly will I get in return, that’s the big question. What would YOU do with the data. Attempt to “Dead-Agent” it ? You already attempted it, even if unwittingly.

        Tell you what, If you publicly agree to answer just 10 Qs from me, no Q&A allowed, but DIRECT answers (no personal details, of course), I promise to write that article with exact factual data verifiable by anyone. Are you in ?

        Friends of LRH are working on updating their website. They already did as regards to the original content. They’ll fully cover GAT2 as well in a near future. The CofS suit them, and they are keeping a low profile.

        Take care.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter, I’m sorry if my comment came across as calling you a liar. I honestly did not think you were lying about anything. Or that my friend was lying either. I totally got that you were THERE in the local org and saw the things you described – and so is my friend “there” in her org, seeing what she sees. What can I conclude except that one of you, or maybe both, must not have all the data. And neither do I – which is why I am not wholly accepting either assessment, or anybody else’s, for now. But neither am I rejecting what you have said. I actually appreciate your data and will keep it in mind as I get more data from you and others. (The same goes for the views you expressed in our discussions about LRH.)

        By the same token, however, I think you are getting a bit defensive and thus overreacting a little. For example, you wrote: “I am always truthful and factual about outpoints dear. It seems you miss that all the time” – which you wrote right after quoting me as saying for you to “carry on” doing that! See what I mean?

        To answer your question about “interpreting the tech” – in general, the things you are interpreting as out-tech are of course based on your interpretation and understanding of the tech – as would be the case for anybody. The same is true for my Cram Off friend, obviously. And I’m not saying that she is right and you are wrong – for example, with regard to whether or not recent issues are being violated. I am just saying that it IS your (and her) interpretation of the references. It’s also your/her interpretation of what you are observing – and, based on that, whether the references are being applied or not. Basically, my whole point was that none of us should assume that ANY particular person, whatever their qualifications, is necessarily right in their interpretations.

        For now, my friend, I’m not interested in further discussion of this with you, because at this point we have both stated our views and are just going round and round. Let’s try again another time, okay? In the meantime, take care. 😉

        ARC,
        marildi

      • Dear Marildi ,

        I got and understood all your points, thank you.

        You might have missed my second reply to you right after the long one. If you did missed it (due the the expected comm lag posting comments due to the differences in the time zone) , please read it. I am not in disagreement with anything that you wrote in this reply of yours. As I said in that second post , I am not who to tell you , or to anybody else for that matter , what to think about anything. Doing our own evaluations about things , just as you do , is the safest and more sensible way to go.

        I rather disagree a hundred times with you than attempting to change your free and self-determined way to look at things. We are all right dear.

        ARC, PETER

        P.S. I’ll get all the actual GAT2 refs (including the checksheet and applicable refs directly from the SRD course) , fully analyze them against specific LRH refs, and turn that into an article. That way every poster can have the benefit to make their own decisions about it based on data directly from the sources. Sort of an “LRH v/s COB” kind of comparison just as the one from tje Friends of LRH site.

      • Thanks very much, Peter 🙂

        You wrote: “Doing our own evaluations about things, just as you do, is the safest and more sensible way to go.”

        Doing my own evaluations was a lesson I learned in Scientology – and after Scientology. LRH promoted that principle (at least in the early days) – and it is probably the most valuable one of all. We might rely on a teacher for a while, as a sort of stepping stone, but there comes a time when we are capable of making our own decisions and need to do so.

        Just knowing about the principle of evaluating for myself wasn’t enough, however, I eventually came to see that I was assuming everything LRH said was true and right. THAT realization was one of the best lessons anybody could learn, IMO, and I think you would agree. I left the church knowing that it was no longer using basic Scientology – but I hadn’t yet realized how much of a “true believer” I was!

        Actually, the way I learned that I was not evaluating for myself was from participating in blog discussions! I have also learned a lot about people (including myself!), and one thing I got better at was looking through their words to their intentions. Your words may have been a little harsh, but I already knew your overall intentions. So yes, Peter, we are all right. ❤

        And I'm very much looking forward to your article about GAT 2!

        ARC, marildi

      • Marildi : “Thanks very much, Peter :)”

        Peter : You are most welcome dear!

        You wrote: “Doing our own evaluations about things, just as you do, is the safest and more sensible way to go.”

        Marildi : “Doing my own evaluations was a lesson I learned in Scientology – and after Scientology.”

        Peter : Yes, you can tell !

        Marildi : “LRH promoted that principle (at least in the early days) – and it is probably the most valuable one of all.”

        Peter : I fully agree with that ; is the best maxim of all.

        Marildi : “We might rely on a teacher for a while, as a sort of stepping stone, but there comes a time when we are capable of making our own decisions and need to do so.”

        Peter : That’s right ; as I told you before , you an another dear friend (actually a mentor to me , thought he might not agree with that assessment ; he is very humble) , are so incredible alike that the same “wavelength” emanates from you both. Sort of reminds me of the LRH comment about other copies of ourselves existing elsewhere. :-)))

        Marildi : “Just knowing about the principle of evaluating for myself wasn’t enough, however, I eventually came to see that I was assuming everything LRH said was true and right.”

        Peter : Wow! , the exact same thing happened to me as well. So much that I almost threw the baby out with the bathwater. But that same mentor pointed me out to the right direction , and made me realize that I had to take full responsibility for my OWN knowledge. I was VERY upset with LRH for quite some time , but I am pass now already. We are friends again (well, sort of). :-)))

        Marildi : “THAT realization was one of the best lessons anybody could learn,IMO,and I think you would agree.”

        Peter : Yes dear ; 100%.

        Marildi : “I left the church knowing that it was no longer using basic Scientology –but I hadn’t yet realized how much of a “true believer” I was!”

        Peter : I totally understand what you mean.

        Marildi : “Actually, the way I learned that I was not evaluating for myself was from participating in blog discussions! I have also learned a lot about people (including myself!), and one thing I got better at was looking through their words to their intentions.”

        Peter : That’s great , Marildi ! I am aware of your very interesting discussions at other blogs. I just had not participated before till recently. I was always very curious about you.

        Marildi : “Your words may have been a little harsh, but I already knew your overall intentions. So yes, Peter, we are all right. <3"

        Peter : Thanks dear, you are a very good judge of character.

        Marildi : "And I'm very much looking forward to your article about GAT 2!"

        Peter : You should have it, my friend. It'll take me a little while though, to compile the GAT2 refs. I need to go down to the Org first. The last time I enturbulated quite a few terminals with my well known "Dead-Agenting" style. But they are really in need of public, so they will have me back. Besides, I play my "kool-aid drinker" character quite well. You should see me. :-))) But all for the greatest good.

        Take care my friend. Thanks for your great, great kindness.

        ARC, PETER

      • Hi Peter,

        Thanks for the very nice compliment of comparing me to a dear friend of yours. And for the other compliment about my “interesting discussions” on other blogs. Some of them I later wished I could have edited! (lol) As I say, though, I’ve learned a lot.

        By all means, take the time you need to do the research on GAT2. It would great to know what the checksheets and course materials state as compared to the relevant LRH references. This is going to be a wonderful contribution on your part!

        Btw, my friend, the fact that you would come back and openly apologize for having been too harsh – more than makes up for any harshness. I really had to admire you for that. 😉

        Much ARC,
        marildi

      • Thanks for your kind and warm words, dear Marildi ; the admiration is mutual.

        Take care amiga! , “Vaya con Dios” :-)))

        ARC, PETER

      • Dear Marildi ,

        In reviewing in a new unit of time my reply to you ; I noticed that I had been too harsh which is not really my style. I immediately tried to get the BIC Admin to delete my whole post while it was still in “awaiting moderarion” mode , but when I checked it had already been posted. So I just R-factored the BIC Admin to just forget about it , that I would probably post a comment below it for clarification, and this is it.

        You are most than welcome to hold your own views about anything dear. I am not who to tell you what to think about anything. Perhaps my little paranoia got the best of me when I felt that you were attempting to be reasonable with DM’s programs.

        I’ll just get the true data for you with the checksheet and course pack included so you can make your own evaluation of it. I’ll present my compiled data , and will include the LRH refs that support any allegations that I migh have against GAT2. Then you can make your own decision about it. Ok dear ?

        My apologies for being an asshole.

        ARC, PETER

      • Thank you, Peter! Apology accepted. And I already knew that wasn’t your “style”. 😉

        ARC, marildi

      • Thanks dear ; you are always so balanced. You are a living evidence of what it means to have our Expanded Grades REALLY in. Just the fact of putting up with a grumpy self-righteous guy like me, and with such a finesse I may add , is worthy of a medal. :-)))

        ARC , PETER

      • Dear Peter, nice of you to say these things! But as i indicated on the other comment just posted – you are A-OK in my book. 😉

        ARC, marildi

      • Dear Peter

        Your post to “sheeplebane” made a lot of sense. Just one point that confused me, what is the significance of “the cat and the balloon”? I am struggling to see a connection between CAT and BALLOON.

        I completely agree that “DON’T DISCONNECT” (the Power formula) is an essential first step. Who said “keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer”? That was my big mistake! 40 years ago I tried to get off my B.P.C. over non-optimum procedures at St Hill and ended up getting expelled.

        However following the LRH adage “Never regret yesterday, life is in you today and you make your own tomorrows” we soldier on confident of success.

        When the CofS finally gets resurrected from the pile of ashes it has become, I am going to volunteer to be the Chaplin!

        Love with ARC
        Pip

      • ” Dear Peter

        “Your post to “sheeplebane” made a lot of sense. Just one point that confused me, what is the significance of “the cat and the balloon”? I am struggling to see a connection between CAT and BALLOON.”

        Peter : Thanks for the comm , dear Pip. The “cat and the balloon” comes from an expression that my mentor and friend (the one who started me in the route to real OT) used to tell me back in the early ’80s. His full expression was, “The wife, the dog, the cat and the balloon” , referring to the “normal” life that Humans live , and specially to excuses for getting something done. Like a comment such as, “I can’t really come to course because blah, blah, blah ……” , to which he frequently replied, “Yeah, yeah, I know that you need to handle the wife, the dog, the cat and the balloon ; but arrive to course anyway and we’ll sort everything out once you are here”.

        Of course he was referring to the fixation (what I thought then) in just living the “normal” life that everybody is supposed to live – getting married , have a dog, a cat palying with the balloon while one is happily seeing TV, have a $200k morgage, and drive a brand-new car – as opposed to just getting off the “middle-class thing” and concentrate on actual things that matter like spiritual salvation.

        He always made me laugh a lot with it. I guess that it is an american concept. He is american and I am Hispanic. WE the Hispanic are less “traditional” even thought that we have been “americanizing” more and more with the passage of time.

        “I completely agree that “DON’T DISCONNECT” (the Power formula) is an essential first step. Who said “keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer”? That was my big mistake! 40 years ago I tried to get off my B.P.C. over non-optimum procedures at St Hill and ended up getting expelled.”

        Peter : Sorry that you got expelled ; you seems like a very kind individual. I am of the opinion that I am not to be forced to disconnect from anybody. Those that just accept it like that w/out putting up a good fight against it, are violating their personal integrity. It is not a matter of petitioning to the “International Justice Chief” (there hasn’t been one for decades anyway) or anything like that. It is just a matter or never giving up on your contacts. If I were declared (which I am not), I would just keep sending out communications to every scientologist in my list of contacts and friends regardless of anything. If they don’t answer , so be it ; just keep sending out letters to them and never cut down the comm line. Fuck the Church ; fuck them all ; they don’t own me neither they own the rest of the parishioners.

        “However following the LRH adage “Never regret yesterday, life is in you today and you make your own tomorrows” we soldier on confident of success.”

        Peter : That’s right my friend ; that’s an excellent maxim to live by.

        “When the CofS finally gets resurrected from the pile of ashes it has become, I am going to volunteer to be the Chaplin!”

        Peter : I am sure that you would make an excellent Chaplain with your great Christian traits.

        Love with ARC Pip

        Take care dear Pip

        ARC, PETER

      • In my previous reply to Sheeplebane, the parr. 13 which reads : ” Being on staff kept those sensations alive. So I can’t totally understand the Churchies and to what exactly they try to desperately hold on to. I was there myself not that long ago” ; should have read, “So I CAN totally understand ……” , instead of “can’t”.

        Sorry for all the grammar horrors ; still battling my English.

        ARC, PETER

      • Pedrito (ThetaClear): “I noticed that I had been too harsh which is not really my style.”

        ML with dulce de leche

      • That was a VERY nice quote Pepito, thank you. And very true, very true indeed. :-)))

        “Mucho amor y dulce de leche para ti tambien”.

        Peter

  8. Hi Morris

    Thank you for your article “why you can’t get case gain inside the church of Scientology”. I thoroughly agree with your first paragraph under “here are the reasons”.

    I became a Scientologist in 1968 and enthusiastically joined staff. I had great gains on ARC Straight wire and enjoyed learning the basics of the subject. My gains got less and less as I went up the grade chart and by the time I got to ‘Clear’ I was really struggling. I had an S & D at St. Hill and was given my item ‘IT’ but was deemed to still be P.T.S.

    Ron had arrived in Southampton with the Royal Scotsman (later the Apollo) and I wanted to join the ship as carpenter but when I told Ron I was declared P.T.S. even after having a S & D at St Hill, he asked me what my item was and when I said ‘IT’ he said IT was a generality and invited me on board for a new S & D.

    The auditor used the process “Who or what has unmocked you” and still it ran to ’IT’. My folder went back to Ron and in my next session the listing question had been changed to “Who or what has ATTEMPTED to unmock you” and my item was found to be SCIENTOLOGY. My S & D was now complete and I was routed off the ship. Ron had written in my folder “Give the P.C. his item and get him out of the area”. That was my last auditing session.

    I have written this event up before on Marty’s blog and I write it again because it is pertinent to this statement “The church is being run by an SP. All staff are P.T.S.”

    Ron Hubbard has said “all organisations are SUPPRESSIVE and there is a very good reason for this. The fact is that all organisations are MANMADE and man in his “natural state” is driven by his EGO, and the ego is always in competition”. I believe that LRH started out with the best of intentions, but because he never acknowledged a power greater than himself the technology was bound to fail.

    Ron never knew “who he truly was” hence the ENEMY FORMULA is dealing with REALITY not TRUTH. His greatest work was expressed in The Factors, the preamble being “Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between AD 1923 and 1955”, and then it opens with:- 1) “Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of Effect”. Right there Ron is acknowledging God, what else can precede everything. BEINGNESS which is basically what Scientology is about is the Second Postulate. 2) “In the beginning and for ever is the decision and the decision is TO BE”. Here is the missing data in Scientology. THETA precedes A THETAN. Theta is God – SPIRIT. A thetan is BEINGNESS a SOUL.

    The Factors complete with number 30 “And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these things there is the playing of the game ……”

    To speculate on the nature of the CAUSELESS CAUSE is absolutely essential in holding the technology gently and this is what is missing in Scientology. That which precedes all creation and stands eternally at CAUSE is in truth UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. I love that final remark by L.R.H. “Humbly tendered as a gift to man by L. Ron Hubbard, 23 April 1953.

    I predict that Scientology will never be able to deliver the gains that are available through the technology until it ceases to be an ORGANISATION and becomes A BODY.

    In an organisation the units that make it up are expendable. In a body every part works harder until the deficient part has recovered. When the body is viewed as an organisation of cells then rogue cells such as cancer have to be destroyed by any means even if it means that the whole organism has to cease to exist. Many people can attest to miraculous healings by seeing every cell in the body as precious and loved, and working together for the good of the whole body.

    This though can only happen when we acknowledge that there is One that created each of us, that endowed us with the same attributes of our creator, however these attributes can only be realised when we reconnect with THE SOURCE, and for want of a better word that SOURCE is GOD.

    You mention The Dror Mission in Haifa, Israel where there is obviously a large amount of FREE THETA flowing. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the Israelites have the idea of God pulsing through their veins, that the idea of one Supreme Being is part of their D.N.A.

    You ask for our views, comments, observations and any personal experiences and I hope my post ticks all those boxes.

    Love with understanding
    Pip

    • Hi Pip!

      Haven’t seen you much on the blogs lately, but your post above does “tick all the boxes”. 🙂

      Question for you on this subject of “unconditional love” – how would it manifest in scientology if it were there?

      ARC,
      marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        I’m so glad you asked me that question, “how would ‘unconditional love’ manifest in Scientology if it were there”.

        One of the major problems in Scientology, if not the biggest, is the whole idea of DISCONNECTION.

        In the 12 step groups (started with Alcoholics Anonymous) it was realised that persons who were dramatizing an addiction could be very disruptive to their loved ones and it was sometimes necessary to DETACH WITH LOVE, this is vastly different from DISCONNECTION.

        To harm another being it is necessary to first DISASSOCIATE with that being, which is what is happening in the disconnection policy. No wonder the “suppressive” goes on the attack since they see the act of disconnection as an attack on them.

        “Detaching with love” is an act of unconditional love (sometimes referred to as TOUGH LOVE) but this is only possible if one has SURRENDERED to a HIGHER POWER known universally as God or in Scientology as the 8th dynamic.

        Disconnection is an OUT ETHICS solution (unusual solution) since it breaks the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” whereas DETACH WITH LOVE truly solves the problem and fulfils the ethical solution.

        Disconnection also violates the “two rules for happy living” whereas detaching with love brings about the abundant life that fulfils the two rules.

        I get very excited as to the possibilities with this BIC blog. Please accept my sincere apologies for my lack of comm. recently, but some of the stuff that is happening on the Scientology scene can get a bit enturbulative and I need to step aside a little to re-establish my serenity. Maybe go and play on my barge, especially in this nice weather we are having here in England.

        Lovely to hear from you as always.

        Love with understanding
        Pip

      • Thanks, Pip. I got a better sense of what you’re saying, and I think it describes a very high-toned approach. In fact, I believe it’s actually a scientological approach, which I’ll explain.

        First though, I think the problem with trying to communicate this idea to scientologists is that you can immediately go out-R with the use of the words “surrender” and “a higher power”, as they seem to conflict with scientology fundamentals – unless you include one’s “higher self” in the category of higher power and also communicate a conceptual idea of “surrendering”, such as “giving way to”. The idea would then be “giving way to (or putting into play) one’s higher self”.

        You do say that the higher power is “known universally as God OR as the 8th dynamic”, and it seems to me that one’s OWN 8th dynamic could be viewed as one’s higher self, based on the fact that each individual does have his “OWN dynamics” in addition to there being THE dynamics. (The reference for that is Esto Series 14, which describes “exchange by dynamics” and “conditions by dynamics”.) It makes total sense that one’s own 8th dynamic would be one’s higher self, as that dynamic would take ALL into consideration – which, as I see it, would manifest as the highest level of love, since it couldn’t help but be just that.

        In other words, the basic ethics tech of “optimum solution” does involve all of one’s own dynamics, and it seems to me that correct application of this tech would naturally include the idea of unconditional love as an 8th dynamic principle, since love for ALL would indeed be present on that dynamic if one has taken that high/pan-determined viewpoint, rather than narrowly considering the lower dynamics only.

        Obviously, the above isn’t what has been practiced in the CoS – far from it. In spite of the fact that LRH says none of the dynamics is more important than the others, the church has basically put itself as the most important – in fact, above all other dynamics put together – even though it is only part of just one dynamic, the third. The disconnection policy has been applied in this highly alter-ised way, so of course it is highly out tech and highly unworkable.

        Basically, I do believe that true scientology has the POTENTIAL of creating highly ethical behavior, including the idea of practicing unconditional love as I’ve described it above. Thanks for getting me to look at this, and let me know if I’ve misinterpreted your own viewpoint in any way.

        I very much agree that this blog offers exciting possibilities in that we can freely discuss various topics and issues – and are free to not communicate as well! (lol) Good for you for taking a break to “reestablish serenity” – highly ironic when you contrast that with the restrictions on church members as regards even being unable to come and go as they please, let alone having a choice in disconnection.

        Love and ARC,
        marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        Thanks for your reply. I do take your point about the word “surrender” and in fact the Government here in England banned the song “Lay down your arms and surrender to mine” (back in the 1950’s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaKq8iXGSxE for a similar reason, that in the military the word is definitely an “out R”. When I use the word ‘surrender’ I am reminded of the old Scientology adage “The Bank is bigger than the P.C. The Bank is bigger than the Auditor, but the PC + the Auditor are bigger than the Bank”. Hence it is a mutual agreement that productive change can happen, in fact it is the resistance to the bank that causes it to persist. Equally with the concept of a higher power. Auditing only occurs when the PC is confident that the auditor knows more about the process than the PC does. So in a successful session there is both SURRENDER and the concept of a Higher Power involved. I hope that gives those two ideas some MASS and consequently changes an out-R to a reality factor.

        In many of the 12-step groups, the most popular understanding of “a higher power” is the collective group conscience. In fact the very essence of a “HP” is whatever that is to the individual, the only stipulation being no one has the right to insist what another’s higher power should be.

        I find it helpful to consider the Self as Zero and the causeless cause as INFINITY, then all NUMBERS fall between these viewpoints, in fact mathematically these two points give numbers their significance.

        As you know one of my “hobby horses” is differentiating between THETA and A THETAN. That is between SPIRIT and SOUL which I see in the opening two stanzas in the Factors “BEFORE THE BEGINNING THERE WAS A CAUSE (THETA – SPIRIT) IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE DECISION AND THE DECISION WAS TO BE (A THETAN – SOUL).

        I don’t know if you are familiar with the “Serenity Prayer” I find it very insightful – it goes like this:-

        GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE
        THE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN
        AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

        Someone else commented on the constant impending doom of 2 o’clock on a Thursday afternoon when it was stats. time.

        I was once an extra in a film (The Hiding Place) playing a German guard at Auschwitz concentration camp and over the main gate was written “WORK BRINGS FREEDOM” what a joke that was. It is all very well to say PRODUCTION EQUALS MORAL but that very much depends on the necessity of SELF DETERMINISM, something sadly outlawed in the CofS, hence disconnection must always be a matter of free choice and rather than disconnection (period) DETACHMENT WITH LOVE, and that is only truly possible when ministered with much UNDERSTANDING.

        Love with ARC,
        Pip

      • Hi Pip,

        Thanks for duplicating my problem with “surrender”. You also wrote:

        “Auditing only occurs when the PC is confident that the auditor knows more about the process than the PC does. So in a successful session there is both SURRENDER and the concept of a Higher Power involved.”

        It’s true that a pc “surrenders” to the auditor in the sense that the auditor is in control of the session and the pc has agreed to this. But as for the auditor necessarily “knowing more about the process than the pc”, there have been many successful sessions where the auditor doesn’t know more – such as in co-audits or when the pc and auditor have similar training levels. So I don’t see that it’s necessary for the auditor to be a Higher Power, or considered to be a HP by the pc.

        That would go along with what you said about a “HP” – that it can be whatever that is to the individual and that “no one has the right to insist what another’s higher power should be”, I have no problem with this concept of Higher Power – it’s a causative and self-determined thing. Actually, a pc has causatively chosen/agreed to be “effect” during the session – which means he is still ultimately at cause.

        Yes, I’ve noted your “hobby horse” (using your word for it, ha ha) regarding THETA and THETAN, SPIRIT and SOUL. I like the analogy and also like the analogy between each of those and “A CAUSE” and “the decision to be” (as in The Factors). Personally, I don’t necessarily see the “viewpoint” (the beingness created with the decision to be) as “lower” and the Cause being “higher”. For me, the viewpoints (thetans/souls) ARE the Cause – which has decided to be and is now “being” many viewpoints – made in the image of Cause (to use a familiar phrase!). What do you think?

        Well said on this:

        “PRODUCTION EQUALS MORAL[E] but that very much depends on the necessity of SELF DETERMINISM, something sadly outlawed in the CofS, hence disconnection must always be a matter of free choice and rather than disconnection (period) DETACHMENT WITH LOVE, and that is only truly possible when ministered with much UNDERSTANDING.”

        On the above, you and I are in total ARC!! 🙂

        Love and ARC,
        marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        I hope you liked that video of Ann Shelton singing “Lay down your arms”. I don’t know why but just hearing that song reduces me to tears. I think it is the realisation of the power of love even if in this case it is romantic love.

        I always think it is a great pity that LRH felt it necessary to put the word LOVE in the “waste paper basket”, just because there is no definition for it. Thus the thing about love is, it’s “better felt than ‘telt’”.

        My understanding of the auditing tech. is one should not be audited by someone that is lower on the grade chart than their case level, granted that would preclude someone on a similar level, but usually when having professional auditing one’s auditor has a greater understanding of the procedure than the P.C. does.

        I could visualise a situation in a co-audit where each is at a similar case level while one is experiencing a moment of pain and/or unconsciousness the other is fully aware and to that extent could be viewed as an H.P.

        I like that, “it is a causative and self-determined actuality the P.C. has causatively chosen/agreed to be “effect” during the session – which means he is still ultimately at cause”. You could not have put my family motto better “WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE” this is why I get off on the word SURRENDER.

        Take the contact assist for example. I used to be a carpet fitter on occasions (if not in PT) would hit my thumb instead of the carpet tack. To then gently touch the hammer back onto the now very painful thumb needs surrender, but when that somatic dissipates the feeling of relief is nearly worth the original pain – just a thought!

        I do get your point about the CAUSE verses the DECISION TO BE, I also do not see them in terms of one higher than the other, however THE CAUSE does precede THE DECISION.

        Having said that I find it interesting that it is A CAUSE and THE DECISION, the indefinite article as opposed to the definite article.

        The Factors do not say that the CAUSE has decided TO BE, in fact it says “The sole purpose of THE CAUSE is the creation of effect”. That for me confirms that TO BE IS EFFECT, could it be when TO BE surrenders to CAUSE through a self-determined choice, that being becomes cause.

        There is an interesting verse in the Bible “I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men …..…” Psalm 82:6-7. Jesus quotes this in John 10:34 when his attackers accuse him of making out that he is God.

        This idea of WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE has a lot of mileage for me.

        Lots of love as always.
        Pip

        P.S. “Total ARC” that is beautiful, which supports my affirmation of “you and I together for ever”.

      • Hi Pip,

        You wrote: “The Factors do not say that the CAUSE has decided TO BE, in fact it says ‘The sole purpose of THE CAUSE is the creation of effect’.”

        That would fit with the Christian view that God (as Cause) created souls and thus the souls are God’s creations, God’s “effects”. My interpretation of that sentence has been that the way Cause accomplishes the creation of effect is VIA the beingnesses which LRH called “viewpoints”.

        Thinking about it now, however, I’m not sure that “Cause” should be understood as some sort of beingness at all (as God is commonly thought of) but rather that “Cause” is simply a potential and exists as such, and that the viewpoints came into being as a result of this “Cause” potential to make decisions to be.

        (Incidentally, I think it’s great that we can now freely discuss things like The Factors. This is one point I think LRH made a mistake on when he wrote the policy about verbal data. It’s true that false data and verbal tech can result, but I think if we are aware of those possibilities the benefits outweigh the potential pitfalls. Sharing viewpoints can be enlightening, and False Data Stripping can be applied as needed.)

        You also wrote: “You could not have put my family motto better ‘WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE’…”

        I actually thought of that too! (when I wrote, as you quoted, that the pc has causatively chosen/agreed to be “effect” during the session – which means he is still ultimately at cause).

        Then you added “…this is why I get off on the word SURRENDER.”

        I really get why you like the word “surrender”. I like it a lot too, now that I have a fuller understanding of it. But I still say that if it runs too much into the buttons or preconceived ideas of others, rather than try to get them over those reactions – which might take quite some doing – I would just “surrender” to this actuality and use a different word. 😉 Your mileage may differ, however.

        LRH saw a somewhat similar problem with the word “love” and decided to use the word “affinity” instead. Here’s what he said about it in *Science of Survival*:

        “In view of the fact that the word ‘love’ has at least two outstanding meanings in the English language, a misunderstanding could result if it were employed to represent this factor in theta.

        “‘Affinity’ is a broad term and means simply a sympathy of feeling, an affection, the feeling of one person for another, as we use it in Dianetics. Affinity, in the theta sense, Dianetically, might be compared to cohesion and adhesion in the physical universe, as applied to energy.” (SOS)

        So as you can see, it wasn’t that “love” had no definition – rather, it had too many definitions and thus could easily be misunderstood as to which definition was meant.

        I liked what you said about love being “better felt that telt” – “telt” meaning “told” about it. Good application of the phrase. 🙂 And yes, I also liked the video of Ann Shelton singing “Lay down your arms” – and liked what you wrote about it even more:

        “I don’t know why but just hearing that song reduces me to tears. I think it is the realisation of the power of love even if in this case it is romantic love.”

        This was very good too: “’Total ARC’ that is beautiful, which supports my affirmation of “you and I together for ever”. ❤

        Lots of love as always in return,
        marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        Yes indeed the fact that we can discuss Scientology openly is great. This is the essential difference between Spirituality and Religion. Spirituality is from whence viewpoints are created, Religion is the protection of those viewpoints. In fact it was you as I recall that posted a video, I think by Tom Campbell, pointing out how most conventional scientists will not entertain speculation on what occurred before the BIG BANG. It is like the big bang is the starting point, don’t even think of what might have preceded it. The same attitude exists with regard to BEINGNESS. However the Factors end with “30) And above these things there might be speculation only, and below these things there is the playing of the game”. I am so glad Ron did not write “and above these things there must be no speculation, and anyone so doing will be guilty of a HIGH CRIME” Religion is about RULES and all games need rules, that is why all games are aberrative and why the knack is “To be in the world but not of the world”.

        Yes I do see a correlation between what the Bible says and the tech of Scientology, in this instance the open stanzas of the Factors. I agree with you that God is fundamentally not a beingness, but is more than the CREATOR of BEINGNESS and strictly speaking does not exist as such since God IS EXISTANCE.

        This is why Bishop Zizioulas at http://www.leithart.com/archives/003435.php is saying something very significant when he says PERSONHOOD PRECEDES BEING, hence THETA PRECEDES A THETAN.

        After mentioning Tom Campbell I Googled him to check the spelling of his name and what a guy! What he is saying validates my understanding of Scientology. You can catch it at https://www.youtube.com/user/twcjr44

        Going back to the Factors, if God is the original CAUSELESS CAUSE and we are God’s effect, and if God has given us freewill as part of our nature, then it would follow that if we choose to be WILLING EFFECT of God as OUR CAUSE through, dare I say it, SURRENDER, we are restored to our rightful inheritance that is CAUSE OVER MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE and TIME, across all eight dynamics.

        I do understand that SURRENDER is a button and possibly more restimulative than HELP since both reveal our true nature. Surrender reveals our nature of LOVE, and HELP reveals our desire to UNDERSTAND. Ron’s issue was how to incorporate the incorporeal into his world view.

        This quote from Ron “In view of the fact that the word “LOVE” has at least two outstanding meanings in the English language, a misunderstanding could result if it were employed to represent this factor in theta.

        I am not sure what these “two outstanding meanings” are that Ron refers to. The only two loves I know of are NATURAL LOVE and DIVINE LOVE, but I don’t think this is the division LRH is referring to. I have just Googled “what is the difference between human love and divine love” there are some very beautiful sites. I think I preferred “The Way of Truth” http://thewayoftruth.org/teachings/divine-and-human-love.html#.VTvzDCFViko So I agree with Ron the human meaning of love has little to do with THETA, but equally neither does AFFINITY, both of which most certainly apply to A THETAN but in truth only DIVINE LOVE can be used in relationship with THETA.

        Natural love and divine love are in the same relationship as NUMBERS and INFINITY. Infinity will always embrace all numbers, but numbers can never embrace infinity.

        I love that you are willing and able to pick up the other end of the rope (as in a tug-of-war) although it is more a “tug of love”.

        Thanks again for your friendship.

        Love with ARC
        Pip

      • Hi Pip,

        Yes, it was probably me who posted the Tom Campbell vids – he is one of my favorites. The link you posted is the first of a series of lectures and workshops he did over a 3-day weekend at the University of Calgary in Canada (he has done these all over the world). And yes! He does validate Scientology – in many ways. It’s amazing how many modern thinkers and researchers have come to the same conclusions as LRH did decades before. Bruce Lipton, the famous biologist, is another one that comes to mind. He has shown in his study of genes and DNA that these can be manipulated by thoughts and belief – i.e. “function monitors structure”.

        “Ron’s issue was how to incorporate the incorporeal into his world view.”

        Didn’t he do that with the 7th and 8th dynamics and the Optimum Solution – which is supposed to be a basic guideline in life, isn’t it?

        “I am not sure what these ‘two outstanding meanings’ are that Ron refers to.”

        I don’t think he’s talking about human vs. divine love – he’s just referring to the usual definitions found in a dictionary. Here are the first two of ten from thefreedictionary.com:

        1. A strong feeling of affection and concern toward another person, as that arising from kinship or close friendship.
        2. A strong feeling of affection and concern for another person accompanied by sexual attraction.
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/love

        But as for “Divine love” – how is that different from being the 8th dynamic and having a pandetermined viewpoint of the “allness of all”?
        .
        “Going back to the Factors, if God is the original CAUSELESS CAUSE and we are God’s effect…”

        I would have to stop you at that first big “IF” because, as I said before, I can’t accept – as it would be “on faith” – that we, in any sense, are “God’s effect”. Actually, to many people, it’s more like we ARE God, all of us. And if “God is Existence” (as you stated, and I kind of like), then I would say that all of us – along with all our creations, including the physical world – make up Existence.

        Over to you in this “tug of love”. 🙂

        And thanks for your friendship too!

        Much ARC,
        marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        O.K. the Factors say “Before the beginning was a cause”, surely that is saying before anything existed existence already existed. Since the original cause was not the effect of something else it must be a CAUSELESS CAUSE. Now my dictionary defines GOD with a capital G as the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes …..” That is from COLLINS CONCISE DICTIONARY, that leaves me no option but to say that the cause the Factors open with is in fact GOD.

        The next part tells us what the purpose of GOD is, note God does not have many purposes as per the Factors there is only one – THE CREATION OF EFFECT. It must surely follow that EVERYTHING IS THE EFFECT OF GOD.

        Now most sentient people acknowledge that each of us is a human being, the most important part of being human is BEING, so without exception each one is BEING A BEING. We have already established that God’s only purpose is the creation of effect, so it logically follows that EVERY BEING IS PART OF GOD’S EFFECT. The issue now is are we willing to be part of the effect of God.

        When a P.C. is running an engram, for that engram to erase the P.C. must be willing to face the pain and unconsciousness, but to do that it is necessary for the P.C. to become WILLING EFFECT of the pain and unconsciousness, in fact thinking about it, it is really the unwillingness to FACE THE PAIN that brings about the unconsciousness in the first place.

        The same applies with an ARC break. What holds it in place is our unwillingness to be the effect of an ARC break. ARC breaks are painful and the unwillingness to be effect is what holds the ARC break in place. Willing effect handles all ARC breaks.

        We all have an ARC break with God and the pain of that ARC break beings about UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF GOD which brings about the unconsciousness of our TRUE SELF and in turn the unconsciousness of every other true self.

        The belief in DEATH comes about as a result of our ARC break with our Creator hence it is only by confronting death that we can be reunited with God but it does mean we have to confront every lie, both ours and others. The biggest lie is “we ARE GOD” it is so nearly true but in fact is a total deception, there is a saying I like “The counterfeit of Good is good” just as if you were going to counterfeit a $100 bill you wouldn’t print it for $99.

        We were created spirit and then became souls at the beginning of TIME. Only THETA (SPIRIT) has NO MASS etc. A THETAN the moment it considers itself located in SPACE and TIME has MASS. In fact the more a thetan considers itself located in space and time the more MEST they manifest, so to restore a thetan to their native state would involve them deciding to relinquish all identities which of cause would include both Christian and Scientologist.

        The reason LRH did not know the significance of Divine Love is because if he had he would have assigned the cause spoken of in Factor 1 with the attribute of DIVINE LOVE every type of love from BEING onwards is NATURAL LOVE which is the A in the ARC triangle.

        I note you kind of lump the 7th and 8th dynamics together and yet they are distinctly different. To start with the 8th dynamic is more properly explained as the infinity dynamic and only fits in as the 8th by rotating the symbol for infinity. I think all Scientologists would agree that Spiritual beings exist in TIME and SPACE and in this respect the 7th dynamic is definitely part of the finite world.

        This is not so with the 8th dynamic which by definition must be outside of the finite world. Hence Ron had no working concept of God other than it embraced the concept of INFINITY so the idea that INFINITY, FIRST CAUSE, THETA, SPIRIT and PERSONHOOD are all one and the same thing or more exactly all the same NO-THING. There is nothing more rewarding than to share your NO-THING with another NO-THING.

        I am so glad we have NO-THING in common.

        Pipx

      • Hi Pip,

        The Collins Concise Dictionary definition of God is just one of many concepts of God. And none of them have any universally agreed-upon or proven claim to authority – other than the authority granted to one or another of them by the individual due to his/her FAITH and/or DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

        Obviously, LRH’s concept of creation/God is also just one of many. Nevertheless, we should at least be able to come to an understanding and agreement regarding what is being expressed in those first two Factors:

        “1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.
        “2. In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.”

        From the above, what I get is that the decision TO BE could only have been made by the Cause itself, since this was all that existed until that decision was made. In other words, it was the Cause that decided TO BE – and apparently, that decision has been made many times resulting in many “viewpoints” having come into being. This is why, per The Factors, I see the viewpoints as being Cause itself – or we could say they are, in all senses, viewpoints of Cause.

        In support of this interpretation of the viewpoints as “units” of Cause/God are the claims of many people – through the ages – to have direct knowledge/experience of the notion that we are all One, or that all of us together comprise God. I guess the fact that this is agreed upon by many doesn’t prove anything, but to my mind it at least makes it a very plausible possibility.

        Also, dear PIP, you may have an MU on “thetan” if you are equating it to the Christian idea of “soul”. Here are a few definitions from the Tech Dictionary (emphasis in all caps is mine).

        2. the awareness of awareness UNIT [a “unit” of theta] which has all potentialities but NO MASS, NO WAVE-LENGTH AND NO LOCATION. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 3. the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) 4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space EXCEPT BY CONSIDERATION OR POSTULATE. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55)…10. a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )

        Per the above, the thetan is pure spirit but BY CONSIDERATION can have physical properties. Actually, in a PDC lecture, LRH stated that a thetan is “in a very, very small amount of mass” – but being “in” mass is different from HAVING mass as a property, or BEING mass.

        Much ARC,
        marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        Thank you for your reply. I know you have a high regard for Tom Campbell, and thanks to you I now also hold him in high esteem. In fact I find what he is saying is so similar to Scientology that his “BIG TOE” and Scientology are complimentary.

        He says that we are each “units of consciousness” and that these units of consciousness are involved in a “virtual reality” that is made up of probabilities. He further goes on to say that these units of consciousness are real and also FINITE and are finite rather than INFINITE because that which is REAL cannot be infinite. However he also acknowledges that there is an overall controller that sets the boundaries to The Game.

        I hope I have understood him correctly, I have spent several hours listening to his “YouTubes” and it seems to me he is saying exactly what the first two statements of The Factors are saying. Namely that there is a Cause that we can only speculate about because that Cause lies outside of BEING, and every “thing” is the result of that CAUSELESS CAUSE.

        As for as we can know this cause is INFINITE but the BEING that is the result of the purpose of the Cause is EFFECT. So A THETAN is an individuated unit of consciousness and is REAL and therefore FINITE, and in Tom Campbell’s paradigm its purpose is to reduce the entropy and it achieves this by love, whereas as I would believe it reduces it with UNDERSTANDING which as we know is composed of ARC, and without the Affinity (“love”) there could be no Understanding.

        Incidentally I realised strictly speaking THERE ARE ONLY SEVEN DYNAMICS since the eighth should strictly be called the INFINITY DYNAMIC. If man is a finite being he can never attain the infinity dynamic, this is the ceiling on Scientology because the infinity dynamic by definition is ABSOLUTE and one of the tenants of Scientology is “ABSOLUTES ARE UNOBTAINABLE”.

        I remember many years ago thinking about a railway line and how the apparency is that there is a point where the two parallel lines meet, and it appears that if one were to walk far enough down the track then one would eventually arrive at the place where the two rails meet. That isn’t going to happen. And so it is with “The Bridge to O.T.” you can get nearer and nearer but can never arrive and finally we will all realise the only thing to do is to SURRENDER to that CAUSE, to realise we are EFFECT and be WILLING TO BE EFFECT that is O.T.

        Lots of love
        Pip

      • Hi dear Pip.

        I don’t think we can compare Campbell’s ideas to the first two Factors because not only does he describe an “individuated unit of consciousness” as “finite” but what he calls “Big Consciousness” is also described as being finite – which the Cause is not. Additionally, rather than the individuated units being created by Big C as its “effect”, Tom considers them to BE Big C – i.e. to be portions of it.

        You also wrote that “the infinity dynamic by definition is ABSOLUTE and one of the tenets of Scientology is ‘ABSOLUTES ARE UNOBTAINABLE’.”

        I don’t recall the reference but I believe that the full context includes “…in this universe”. And as for your comments about the 7th dynamic and 8th dynamics, have a look at this intriguing quote from *Fundamentals of Thought*:

        “The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety, one will only then discover the true Eighth Dynamic.”

        Lotsa love,
        marildi

  9. We forgot to mention, Arbitraries Cancelled, and the insane raft of new arbitraries which were introduced shortly after.

    One of my pet bugs is The Basics: not only were they hideously expensive (the first new edition of DMSMH alone cost me £70) and flogged remorselessly (I was getting incessant phone calls day and night from all over the world), and the whole study course would take years to complete at additional personal cost.

    But the worst aspect of The Basics is that it is all theory: there is not one single drill or demo or exercise or practical or clay table in the whole blinking lot. And it’s all bundled together; Ron covers a vast array of subjects in considerable depth; for example, just the history of the research line of Scientology would constitute a sizeable course in itself. So one minute you’re studying ARC, then you’re studying how to run a course, then you go on to a discussion of Public Relations, then on to the Time Track, and so on. That’s not Ron’s fault, that’s the madness of piling everything into one equal chunk, as if A=A=A with no differentiation of importances or relevance. You’d need to make your own cross-indexed notes to keep tabs on the separate subjects Ron covers. There isn’t a checksheet, a spreadsheet, a database, nothing.

    All these fascinating things that Ron talks about, and you don’t get a chance to try any of it out; you’re not expected to demonstrate any understanding or competence or any degree of skill from what you’ve learned, let alone run a process on somebody – the whole purpose of Scientology. You’re not even required to twin, and incredibly, you’re not required to do any kind of Student Hat first.

    You’re expected to inflow this absolute torrent of words, and all you’re allowed to outflow is Student Points: possibly useful information turned into specks of MEST on a wall, a round of applause, then thrown into yesterday – yes, a hearty ack can as-is almost anything.

    Furthermore, How to Live Though an Executive, the PABs, Ability and other significant publications, as well as important HCOBs, all of which round up and qualify the topics Ron talks about, are not included, as well as the wholesale removal of other public lectures, notably from the HCL series.The ACCs aren’t included at all, nor are the transcriptions of damaged reel-to-reels published in the R&D series; so when are these to be studied? On top of that is the disingenuous altering of texts, particularly the definitions (most of which appear to have been written by barely literate and often hectoring children). Therefore, as a chronological, complete and accurate study it is nothing of the kind; it is a folly.

    One receives a Certificate of Humiliation at the end of it.

    • Brilliant summation and analysis of the tragic failure known as The Basics, Richard. You may not comment often, but when you do, it’s a doozy!

    • Great post, Poet13!

      On your point regarding the Basics, I am even aware of o a lot of public who having finished the ACCs 1-3 , for i.e. , doesn’t even know anything about the SOPs (“Standard Operating Procedures”) and those ACCs are all about them!!!

      I bet that 70-80% of the non-veteran public that finish the PDC lectures doesn’t have a clue or conceptual understanding of its contents. Gee, I had a very complete Scientific background before Scn, and I had to listen to them at least 3 times! to get them. The PDC are the most difficult to comprehend LRH lectures of all ; even harder than the data on the GPMs and the running of them that so many doesn’t have a clue about. It took me months! to really have conceptual understanding of what exactly is a GMP and its entire mechanism and composition.

      As you well put it , w/out drills (not memorizations drills, mind you) and Clay demos ; it is just imposible to deal with that data, specially for recent arrivals to Scn.

      A cronological study of the research line is the most fascinating adventure into the study of life and the thetan. But it takes years! to master it ; I mean to REALLY master it connecting all the dots, and becoming aware of exacty how it all fit together.

      This “cronological” study from the CofS is just a huge glibness with no real understanding at all , and is only an attempt to make money and keep the copyrights from expiring ; that’s all. The commissions made from books and lectures sell is quite large. There is , and never has been , a real intention to get parishioners closer to Source , but just the opposite : with each release Scientologists are farther and farther away from Source. At the end, Orgs will be basically teaching something resembling something closer to phychology than to Scientoligy.

      ARC, PETER

      • That’s right Peter, it’s a nonsense to consider the PDC a basic course. I believe the material covered in the PDC outclasses a standard university course for range and depth, and well deserves the Doctorate name. Ron makes it entertaining too, it’s full of jokes 🙂

    • You are so right. The Basics was such a wrong target.
      Tie up Scientologists for months with theory, while making them reg targets in the org instead of getting them onto Solo Auditing and erasing case – thanks for the post Poet13c

  10. Hello Morris,

    I am happy to meet you again on BIC. Your article, again, is spot on. The points you make are accurate and totally valid for what is occurring in the church and among “indie” auditors. Thank you for mentioning Dror Center together with Trey and Ronit Charny. We are honored to be in the same group and there are many more in South Africa, Europe, Australia and the U.S. who do a great job delivering standard LRH Tech, with love and care.

    Scientology can only work when delivered for the individual. Ron coined the term “Suppressive C/S’ing” when the programming is done based on “organizational needs.” And thus, like you say, all the auditing in the church is done for the organization, not for the preclear.

    Scientology can only work, and does indeed produce miracles, when done for the individual, totally under his own self-determinism. This can cause difficulty for the C/S, when the preclear asserts he wants some action or has attained a certain state. This can only be bridged over with a lot of care, patience and instruction. This we do daily, but we never resort to pressure or force or threats.

    We have a constant flow of public arriving, after being battered in the Church. Their stories are similar and shocking. I’ve heard them so many times and am still left dumbfounded, how could such a wonderful subject been twisted to such an evil monstrosity.

    Our results, and those achieved by the many other free practitioners, prove that the Tech is invaluable when applied sensibly.

    Thank you, Morris, for your articles that shed light on the truth. Thank you, BIC, for being the blog for those who treasure LRH’s legacy.

  11. Hi Pip,

    Good grief, I had no idea that others had questioned point 1 of the Factors and arrived at a similar conclusion:
    “To speculate on the nature of the CAUSELESS CAUSE is absolutely essential in holding the technology gently and this is what is missing in Scientology. That which precedes all creation and stands eternally at CAUSE is in truth UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. ”

    I don’t see Hubbards failure to look beyond the first point as a flaw on his part, as he “borrowed” the Factors from Aleister Crowleys’ “The book of Thoth”. But both men missed unconditional love or as I prefer – harmony or a oneness, which existed prior to the creation of the Physical Universe.

    I like your comments. 🙂

    • Thanks for your reply Old Timer, and your validation of my point of view.

      There is a saying in Christian circles “If you don’t give God the glory the Devil will take it”. I find this very much in line with “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” although I like to re-word that one to “power corrupts, the more power the more propensity for corruption”.

      If Scientology became corrupted we have to take some of the responsibility for it was us that flowed power to LRH. If we hadn’t treated him as a ‘god’ maybe we would have been able to observe his “feet of clay”.

      I agree the oneness that existed before the creation of the physical universe is the setting in which the precious gems of Scientology are arrayed, which when unacknowledged reduce the tech to a collection of not very applicable facts.

      It is good to be singing off the same page.

      Love with understanding
      Pip

  12. “Now the treason of Miscavige has made scientology failed, and many ex scientologists are buzy destroying the church, and the subject of scientology, and the repute of Hubbard.”

    RE: Ex scientologists are “buzy [sic] destroying……..the repute of Hubbard”

    Several websites have published US Government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act regarding LRH. Some LRH-related documents have been provided over the years by the Church of Scientology itself. Comparison of some documents reveal glaring discrepancies. In particular, Hubbard’s service related Form DD214 – the official separation document – as provided by the church does not contain accurate information.

    Other documents related to Hubbard’s life which have been obtained include marriage documents, birth certificates, and divorce information – all of which are public documents.

    LRH wrote letters to J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI and even to President John Kennedy. These also have been released under the FOI Act.

    Truth is truth.

    I would hope that in stating that ex-scientologists are “destroying the repute of Hubbard” you are not including the publication of legitimate documents.

    Thank you.

      • Thank you for this link. The author seems to have been diligent in obtaining documents. Sadly, the author makes far, far too many unproven speculations when assessing the documents. Only small portions of a document are shown when the entire document was available. In addition, “facts” – which are not supported within documents – gleaned from Hubbard’s lectures, writings, and accounts of friends and others – are inserted into the author narrative. “Schrapnel in right hip”? “Schrapnel falling out from under Hubbard’s shirt”??

        Hubbard’s “blindness” at the end of the war is acknowledged in the conclusion – with the word placed in apostrophes by the author. What exactly is THAT meant to indicate? The medical records show his visual acuity upon testing. He was obviously not blind by any medical definition of the term.

        Some of the author’s speculations were so outlandish they made me laugh. Like the one that the US Army could have awarded Hubbard, a Lt jg in the U.S. Navy, the Purple Heart (with palm) for actinic conjunctivitis.

        While an interesting read, the article sheds little light on where Hubbard’s claim of 27 medals earned during WWII comes from.

      • Deeana, you click on “the small portion of the document” to open it up.
        Speculation by definition is not proven. It is a probability.
        There are much more sides to this story than 2. (And she does a good evaluation of it , all round. In-spite of facts missing all round.)
        Different govt groups, different critics, and the church all have their own agendas to push. 40 % disability was acknowledged, but they all can’t even agree on his rank?
        27 medals? (who actually made this claim?)

  13. Morris,
    A short comment – I am so so busy having such a full, challenging, interesting and fun life AS A RESULT OF SPIRITUAL WORK DONE AS AN iNDIE, that I have little time these days… 🙂
    But, I must state that your article is spot on, and thanks for writing it!! And I have experienced fully and can confirm what you write, both in the RCS and as an Indie. (Dror center in my case).
    Cheers, got to rush, life is calling… 🙂
    Love,
    Hemi

  14. Add to the list the IRS, at least in the USA. If you are not completely honest and in total compliance with your taxes you cannot even step foot into an Org. I was denied auditing and then a few days later while on course told by the EO at LADay, was informed by the DSA I couldn’t be on course either or even on the premises! Facts were I was in touch with the IRS and had communicated with them to get a couple of years taxes filed. The Org and the IRS knew this and that I had shipped a couple files to LA with me to work on while on service, but that wasn’t good enough. Pure Nazi style “command intention”.

  15. Great post. I have come to the conclusion that David Miscavige is a DB. He alter ises everything constantly. And the Sea Org members still in the Church do the same. They alter is facts in media releases. They alter is the tech. They alter is policy to suit their wants and needs. They have alter ised to the point that the place is no longer recognizable.

    If you can forget about everything you have been taught about the “Sea Org”, and think with the policy “alter is and degraded beings”, you can see it in glaring technicolor.

    Registrars that do not register anyone for anything but have been alter ised into beggars. The books, the GAOT, everything, has been alter ised to hamburger!

    Once I got the viewpoint that what was left there is a lot of DB’s, it all made perfect sense.

    And it is not confined to the Church. But there are less out here in the Independent field for sure.

  16. Do you have a handle on the basic fundamental of why Scn should and can work (apart from all the things wrong with Orgs) ??? I believe its concisely worded by Ron in one of the definitions of Scn: “outward form by which inward thought exists”. You take a look at touch assists or spotting spots or even “what could be worse?” or isene’s “So what?” and you can start to get an initial handle on the functional epistemology of it, but the way its gened-in, folks get to be believers and ethics becomes “damnation” by force. Ron says in early cassette “the only thing I’m trying to teach you is look”, but because of all the rules and instructions and axioms such is lost. Thats why I think it could’ve worked by having a balance of 7th & 8th dynamics instead of just enforced 7th alone, time for contemplation, which is what I gave myself to have it all make practical sense, in such manner, why be concerned like xenu.com antagos when one has “it” themselves.

  17. Great article! Very much appreciate the publication. Came across something today that highlights the insanity of today’s”tech”.

    Someone wrote into one blog explaining the Survival Rundown they are on. This is one section:

    “A couple of the processes do have time associated with them like in the recording. I was on one that has a time requirement and when I was happy, bright, keyed out, I mentioned being keyed out to my auditor who called over the supe and was told “my wins were great but we need to keep going.” Of course I was enraged. I lost it on the auditor.

    I was told by the supe that the one I was on had to be a certain number of hours. The EP of that process is (I’m paraphrasing) “when the PC is doing the process without protest or upset, is relaxed and self determined regarding orders.” It was a process specifically about receiving and executing orders without upset.”

    What a GPM! How is it “self determined” to receive and execute orders without any personal consideration?

    In fact, on the product debug checklist, some of the items that hang people up are, “needing orders” and “waiting for orders”.

    The entire technology is being alter ised in the Church just like the purpose has been.

    Miscavige is not just an S.P., read, Alter Is and Degraded Beings.

    • Dear Oracle,

      Where did that incident happen, if you don’t mind of me asking ? I am conducting a research into the GAT2 program which include, as its most precious “pet project” , the “Survival Rundown” (SRD) , I am trying to compile all data that I can from other places besides my own Org. You can get with me privately if you wish ; just ask the BIC Admin for my e-mail address.

      Take care, and thanks for your insightful comments as always.

      ARC, TC

      • Hi Peter,

        I think that quote was from a recent article on Tony Ortega’s blog. When I read it, I remembered another blog post of Tony’s a while back, where he featured some guy who was describing his TRs course and said things like – it’s a staring contest and you have to suppress your emotions, etc. Since we do know what should actually be going on in drilling TRs, it was obvious that the guy was suffering from MU’s at best – even if the MU’s were due to the way the course was (mis)sup’d and (mis)coached. At worse, this person was intentionally spreading disinformation.

        Having the above in mind, I took that recent article on Tony’s about objectives with a grain of salt. For all we know the guy might have been saying he was keyed out but didn’t have the other parts of the EP, such as no floating needle, for example. But it would still be good if you were able to contact him to get more info for your research project. Here’s the link to the blog post that featured him: http://tonyortega.org/2015/05/08/a-voice-from-inside-the-church-of-scientology-yes-the-survival-rundown-drives-you-insane/

      • I wouldn’t take another human beings suffering with a grain of salt. If someone is having a loss, that is not cool. Doesn’t matter what the justification is. When you pay for someone to give you a win,you should not be set up for a loss.

      • I am afraid I am not following you hear, dear Oracle ; I fully agree with this reply of yours. What was it that you understood by my previous post? I am trying to get factual data so that I can inform others of the failings and faults of the GAT2 program in order to “Dead Agent” whatever false assumptions about it others are holding on to. By your reply to my post, I am not sure if we understood each other. Please, clarify.

        ARC, PETER

      • I wasn’t talking about anybody’s loss, just his description of how a particular process was run on him – which may or may not have been the way it was SUPPOSED to be run. It might have been like the guy’s description of his experience with TRs, which we happen to know isn’t how they are supposed to be done.

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