Home

shades

By Lana M.

Some years back, when I was on the RPF, I had an interesting debate on the RPF.  New to the RPF I was taken to the Mill, where the RPF were building furniture for the LA Org. I was handed a chair and some sand paper and asked how long it would take me to sand it.

I did not know, as I had never done woodwork before. So I asked how long should it take me?

You are the person that needs to set the “TM”, I was told. You tell me how long it will take you.

I was puzzled by this use of the term “TM” (a Time Machine is a 7 basket system that LRH devised for Dept 3 to track orders within the org and find out why things are bugging or slowing. An order is placed in the first basket, and then progressed to the next one each day, till at the end of the week it falls out of the basket system and is then looked into by Dept 3 to find out why it never got done).

I gave a “TM” of 10 minutes.

Well I was wrong. It took me longer to sand that chair – and 10 minutes later there was someone standing next to me asking if I was done. “No – not yet”, I replied. “Take a lap!” (a lap is punishment for noncompliance and in the PAC RPF this meant running down to the basement and then running around the tunnels and then back up the stairs again – taking about 5 minutes).

Confused, I took the lap. There was no effort to find out if I was hatted, having trouble with sanding, or even knew what the hell I was doing on that chair – just assigned to “take a lap”. As soon as I returned I was asked “What is your new “TM”?” Now a little more educated on what was going on, I replied “20 minutes”. “No – that is too long. You have 10 minutes. Get it done!” So again, 10 minutes later, I took another lap.

I am still not a great person at sanding woodwork. I wish someone had given me a little more education on the subject.

But what followed this was even more interesting.

I did a query on the use of the term “TM” – asking for an LRH reference or a policy or anything, that would explain why it was being used as a synonym for the word “target”. I wrote up a report and a query to the RPF I/C, and also to RTC – but no one could give me a reference. Instead I was targeted as being a trouble maker and trying to disrupt the system.

I applied the Verbal Tech Checklist to resolve the situation, and after doing that, I concluded that the use of the term “TM” on the RPF is verbal tech, and I refused to use it or follow it. My efforts to get its used cancelled were checked, and the term is still used to this day – even though it is not in alignment with the LRH policy on the RPF.

“VERBAL TECH CHECKLIST

1. If it isn’t written it isn’t true.

2. If it’s written, read it.

3. Did the Person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?

4. If you can’t understand it, clarify it.

5. If you can’t clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.

6. If the Mis-Us won’t clear, query it.

7. Has it been altered from the original?

8. Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.

9. IF IT CAN’T BE RUN THROUGH ASABOVE IT’S FALSE! CANCEL IT!

And use HCOB 7 Aug. 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING, as needed.

10. Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.”  LRH

Since leaving the Sea Org, I have started to see and spot a lot more verbal tech which is thrown around by management, and just accepted by the general public. But like my experience on the RPF, if you question or challenge the terms or use or policy being followed, you are then targeted as an ethics particle, or as disaffected.

When management says “LRH said …”, then why don’t people ask to see it in writing?

When staff are told “This is Command Intention” , why don’t they ask to see the LRH on it?

The creation of “ideal orgs”, the “Golden Age of Tech”, and even terms such as “COB” must be challenged with the verbal tech checklist, as outpoints abound.

Recently I was talking to some friends who are under the radar, and still in the Church. They were explaining to me how anyone who is practicing Scientology outside of the church walls is a “squirrel”. I pointed out that squirrel is not the right term.  The correct LRH term for people using Scientology outside of the church is a splinter group.

“SQUIRREL:  1. A squirrel is doing something entirely different. He doesn’t understand any of the principles so he makes up a bunch of them to fulfil his ignorance and voices them off on a pc and gets no place. 2. Those who engage in actions altering Scn, and offbeat practices. – v. change and invent processes.” LRH Tech Dictionary

“SPLINTER GROUP:  Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a number of members of an organization, political party, etc., who split from the main body and form an independent association, usually as the result of dissension  Collins English dictionary

Even the definition of “entheta” has come to mean any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of Scientology or management.  A report on an off-policy situation has been redefined as “entheta”, and is therefore deemed bad.  The term is thrown around to mean anyone who is looking, reading or communicating anything that is not a church issued publication. But this use of the term is also wrong.

I am coming to see that in each instance where there is conflict, confusion or outpoints, the Verbal Tech Checklist is a great tool to sort out what is actually happening – and where things have gone off the rails.

The best example of this is the use of the term “The Dark Side” – which is the management term to describe anyone who is no longer within the control of the Church.

You won’t find this term in any LRH policy, bulletin, dictionary or lecture.  It is a term used to spread fear to parishioners – using the Star Wars term to create the air of a dangerous environment for those that dare leave the safe perimeter (and control of management).

Again – use of the verbal tech checklist on just this term, and you will find it is BS.

In fact, there is so much sunshine out here in the “Dark Side” that I have to wear shades!

19 thoughts on “Have to wear shades

  1. I tried something like that once. In a class V org, I was told something, so I asked to see the reference. They showed it to me. In the top left hand corner was only one routing, “S H only”. I queried it and was told to word clear it. (I refused it and sent it back up lines twice.) Org staff actually agreed with me on the sly, but would publicly only go along with management. They were all incapable of handling even this minor problem.
    Over time, I tested their ability to handle big problems and small problems. (This was one of the small ones.) They failed to handle all problems, so I removed my support.

    It would seem to be part of the Orwellian effort by the C of S to control the thought process of everyone.
    So much for “Think For Yourself.”
    Asking for the reference is now considered trying to use policy to stop, and is considered counter intention to the stated command intention. (Actually not immediately recognizing command intention and jumping right to it is considered counter intention.)
    The C of S has indeed come a long way down the dwindling spiral.

    • Yes, 1984. “Thinking for yourself” leads people to observing the obvious. And the outpoints abound. Asking for a reference creates all sorts of interesting reactions these days, and is something people should practice more often 🙂

  2. Lana,

    Thank you for this revealing article. The use of derogatories and rumormongering is rampant in the Church, totally anti-LRH Tech.

    Years ago I was labeled “disaffected” at Flag. This meant I could never complete OT 7. Tami, my wife, couldn’t attest to OT 7 because she was married (well, still is) to someone who is “disaffected”. It dawned on me one day that this is spreading through Flag by rumor, no Ethics order was issued and I never saw an LRH policy on “disaffected”.

    When I queried why they’re saying this and based on what, I was sent to clear “disaffected” in an English dictionary. When I asked for an LRH reference, they finally admitted there was none.

    The trick of distorting words and interpreting the law is the operating basis of tyrants. They feed the masses with lies based on twisting acceptable terminology which is used to justify their crimes.

    Thanks for bringing this up, Dani

    • Hi Dani — yes, the term disaffected is used to describe anyone that does not agree with DM. It is used to “out” people who disagree or are not hanging off DM by strings of drool.

  3. Thanks, Lana for the background, and same for 1984 and Dani too
    .
    IMHO, definitely warranting a place in, “Ripley’s Believe it or Not”, we find, a non-fictional, real life version of “The Pied Piper of Hamlin!.” in a modern day version, “The Hype Piping Pope of Scientology.”
    The details, especially the unprecedented handing over, of billions of dollars from his erstwhile “followers”, to unquestioningly please his worship, “The Hype Piper”, has to be one of the most brazen, unbelievable, feats of fraud & deception, ever perpetrated under an induced spell of a modern day, “Ecclesiatical Leader” (his term!)

    (update; The courts may soon be deciding the Ripley’s conundrum.)

  4. This checklist is another example of the actual spirit of Scientology: the return to self of self and from there the heights of pan-determinism.

    That road may be rocky at times (see what Dani went through above for example) but with persistence, and maybe taking the finest of “shellacings”, one comes at last to such ARC and KRC and truly such a heady spirit of play…well it’s a completely different deal.

    Real Scientology. Nuttin’ like it.

  5. Lana, you are correct about the distincton between “squirrel group” and “splinter group”. However, I would take minor exception with the term “TM” (time machine). There was an issue, I believe, on my Staff Statuses in the mid-70s defining the Time Machine. After reading that issue, I was clear on what a Time Machine was (which is as you described it above). However, the term “TM” was also in widespread verbal use at the time, meaning roughly, how long something was expected or scheduled to take. This usage may not be sanctioned in the Admin Dictionary or even known about by LRH. But it was common slang in Orgs. Using “TM” this way did not and does not invalidate the policy-defined “time machine”. Its lack of support in LRH writings or recordings doesn’t invalidate the term. It is simply another definition evolved in slang over time. Much of Scientology terminology originated this way, not by LRH but simply in the slang in use by students and auditors at the time. LRH would often adopt the common usage rather than whatever formal term was in use prior. (Call my assertion verbal data if you like. I don’t recall a reference and it doesn’t really matter whether it’s true or not.)

    Language changes this way all the time. Common usage adds to definitions over time. It doesn’t invalidate older or more established definitions. It’s one of the reasons why there are multiple definitions to so many words, and why we’re instructed to clear them all.

    My point is that, saying something is a “squirrel group” for propagand purposes (or because you genuinely don’t know the difference) when it’s actually a “splinter group” is one thing. Calling any disagreement or criticism “entheta” is similar. Asking for a “TM” (meaning an estimated completion time) on something while being fully aware of the structure and use of a formal LRH-defined “time machine” is a different thing.

    Perhaps a real-life example would better serve. You’d have to find a relatively recent dictionary to find a definition of “gay” which gives as a definition, “homosexual”. Up until very recently, the word “gay” simply meant “happy or care-free”. Reading only old dictionaries, you could object to and refuse this more recent definition of “gay”. But that would be silly and put you out of communication with the majority of the English-speaking world, which recognizes “gay” as now also meaning “homosexual”. (I’m ignoring the political aspects of how “gay” was forced to mean “homosexual”.)

    Regardless, I see and agree with your overall point about verbal data. And this business about “The Dark Side” is just pure propaganda on the part of Church personnel. (I wonder what would happen if we all dressed up at the Star Wars emperor and walked into our nearest Org. Can you imagine if hundreds of people at each Org did that all across the planet?)

    • Scatjappers — Point well made and I agree with everything you say here. Yes, there is slang Scientology terminology, and I am certainly not one to claim that slang is somehow the same as a re-defining of a word for propaganda purposes. I guess my main point was one of our willingness to just go along with what we are told, without ever questioning or looking for ourselves.
      Thanks for your views on this. Appreciated.

  6. Actually what Lana did was the correct action. She wanted to have it in writing to be sure that she is not participating in a squirrel RPF (it’s bad enough it exist, you know). And a “slang definition” is no justification for inadequate implementations. She just didn’t want to be reasonable with her integrity. Good for her.

  7. Rereading all this reminds me of being ‘disaffected’.
    Years back, I was accused of being disaffected several times, and I had the distinct impression that I had to accept the term on myself, before it could be used against me. Since I smelled a rat, I refused the distinction, and instead insisted on being ‘disabused’. – “Your disaffected! No, I’m not, I’m disabused.”
    My accusers could not think with this (I actually had the impression that they were trying not to think). I guess that this definition did not have a ready handling formula.
    It really seemed to screw them up, that they could not pigeon hole me. It would have been nice if they could think for themselves, but that is the nature of the beast.

  8. Thanks Lana, I loved your story. I like the way your blog is laid out and I simply picked something to read and this was first. I don’t have a lot of time for this but reading Xes stories seems to be a certain amount of relief for me. Did you write a book of your time in? I’m reading Jon Atack’s now – I NEVER dreamed I’m be reading these experiences from anyone who had left. We were all supposed to be DBs – I read it myself. Now I’m kinda still studying it all to see what exactly I should DO with all this last 40 years of lessons! Thxs for being there and communicating 🙂

    • Hi CeCe, Thanks for popping in. You are welcome here any time. We now have some 200 articles and virtually all take up application of LRH in life. I am ex Sea Org but not an ex Scientologist as Atack is. My experience is that there is a hell of a lot of BPC that exists particularly for those who have been in for many years. I found relief when I spotted that I had made gains and had many wins with the tech, but had many bad experiences with the group which seems to continually alter and pervert the tech, and is influenced by a management run by Miscavige. I have found that standard application of LRH outside of Corporate suppression and perversion is incredible and gives amazing gains.

      Thanks for your comment and feel free to pop in again some time.

What is your view?

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