Home

group dianetics

By Lana M

I was in the Sea Org for 17 years, leaving in 2005. In that time, the technology of Group Dianetics was not applied — and instead I observed that group engrams were run in, not out.

As a third dynamic technology, we have the capacity to repair a group, when it has run into an emergency situation and had to take urgent actions.

When catastrophes occur, when unexpected disasters happen, when people are removed from post, when heads roll, when policy is implemented in a crisis  — the group must later go back and review (thoroughly and carefully), what occurred and sort out what was correct, and what was needs to be remedied.

Why the heck is this not done?

How is it that the group, as a group, has not insisted that basic technology is applied to keep it running right — or it is assumed that that is already being done by others, “at the top”?

I for one, always assumed that others were handling it. Boy did I have that wrong!

I know of many major “incidents” (engrams) at International Management between the 90’s and 2005 that have to be sorted out at some stage. One of these was the IAS event of 1994. Another was the Golden Age of Tech (in 1995) and the New Era of Management (in 1996) and then Golden Age of Tech for OTs (in 1997). And of course there was the removal of all of International Management and the implementation of “The Hole” in 1998/9.

I am sure there have been more since then — particularly with the Ideal Org program being rammed down everyones throats.

And before that, in the early 80’s, there were some significant engrams that were never revisited, yet policy from that time period has become all that most staff members have known. There was the Guardian Office criminal activities (and the jailing of MSH). There was the Mission Holders Conference. There was more.

Just a few of the policies implemented as a result of group emergencies include:

  • Sea Org members who have children must be sent to a “small and failing org”;
  •  Freeloader debts were changed from a set small sum to a calculating every course and auditing they receive and then handing them a bill totally tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on departing staff;
  • Mission Holder ‘packages” were implemented that come at vast cost and with a bunch of arbitraries that have killed the Mission Network;

I am firmly of the view that resolving the current situation with this off-the-rails Corporate Scientology church, must include, at some point, going back to every one of the engrams and sorting them out, with an honest review and with no vested interest or fixed ideas.

It means locating arbitraries, locating the consequently  implemented policy that was based on a Wrong Why – and getting these cancelled.

How do we do that, when the vast majority of people who were involved in past incidents are no longer within the group (either deceased, ex-Scientologist, off-lines, or simply disappeared)?

There has been no Evaluator Corps on post since the late 90’s — so all Why’s found since that time, are from Miscavige directly, who has been part and parcel of every group engram since the mid 70’s at least.

At least since 1988, all significant Int levels evaluations were ordered/approved/modified by the same individual.

The point of this article is not to go on about Miscavige– but more to look at the fact that we, as a group and community, must have resolve to:

a) As possible, dig in and sort out engrams for the group, from the past, and

b) Make sure that future engrams in our own community are taken up and fully reviewed for consequent arbitraries and wrong policy.

And we need to do this in a way that the information is recorded and made public, for all now and into the future, to be able to review. Us communicating about specific incidents and then having that information buried in the archives of a blog is not going to suffice. We need to get smart about how we can do this, and make the information constantly available.

Maybe this is where the Scientology history project comes in?

“The toughness and resilience of the ideals, ethic and rationale of a group – that is to say, the group itself – is enormous and should not be underestimated in any degree.

“Any group can embark on the most arduous enterprises which would seem fraught with all possibilities of creating moments of pain; but so long as it is understood that whenever an emergency status occurs and a selected member of the group issues arbitrary orders to take care of emergency situations, and that this issuance of orders must be scouted down in an effort to find the engram and the engram run, the group can then under no circumstances suffer any enduring harm save only whatever harm may have been done in the actual conflict itself, and this harm would not be to ideals and ethics but would be to individuals and MEST in the group.” Dianetics Auditor Bulletin  Volume 1, Number 7, 7 January 1951 GROUP DIANETICS

 

 

13 thoughts on “Lost tech of group Dianetics

  1. yes wow IT seems that we as a group went into apathy but I believe we are rising up stronger than ever to battle the evil in the church we have to We must!!!! KEEP our older bodies Strong and HEALTHY to fight NOW!! This post is so valuable and should be Viral to All scientologists THANKS 🙂 I will share it in more groups!! Lana

    • Carla,
      It is real to me that “killing” this group, our group, is going to be a pretty difficult task, considering this group has the means to restore life force, including the life force of a group of individuals directed on a pro-survival, theta line.

      What I see is the individuals that have been part of this group have experienced group engrams. Some of those individuals are taking on the auditor hat, and working to run them out. As more members are cleared of these engrams, more life force is put back to the theta goals. They are rehabilitated, and once more “into the breach” as my friend, and fellow group member Tom Martiniano says 🙂

  2. I fully agree that this is needed. I’d say wanting to resolve these past group engrams has been a major interest in the blogs, especially if by those higher up on the org board.

    A couple other notes and questions: The exampled bullet points would, from my perspective, be pure arbitraries rather than a result of an emergency. Maybe I am missing some info?

    I would also put the effective end of the Eval Corp much earlier, as from what I saw of their output, they had long since only published pre-determined results that fit someone’s agenda.

    It would be a huge project to put together, but there are certainly those of us who knew what had actually gone down on those occasions. Likely needs its own blog site.

  3. This is a big job, and the quote from Group Dianetics would have to be run on a multitude of circumstances. This quote assumes, to my mind, that the group is generally in the right and only the odd group engram would need to be run. But that is not the case with the church, as it has become.
    It would take a full time board of trusted individuals who seek out the truth, and only the truth. It would also be good to have access to church files,( yes I have seen pigs fly.)
    Definitely something that needs to be done, thanks for the link to the history project page Lana!

  4. You are right and I would add a few items. We are fully in the subject of arbitraries as covered in the Logics of “Advanced Procedure and Axioms as well as HCOPL Third Dynamic Deaberration.
    One of these is the Birthday Game. The result of it was litteral cancellation of the most basic Policies like Service or VFPs or Quality count, KSW, Technical Degrades, on and on — a complete inversion of the Admin Scale. Instead of making auditors able to audit, we made points and stats. It might be a why, may be may be not.
    Then we have one: Responsibility means “it is mine and I care for it”. Something like that. Now we had “It is theirs and we follow”.
    Of course “they are taking care of it”. “They” meaning the Top Management or RTC or later COB.
    This is the old system of animal organisation. There is the Chief ou the group and the rest of the group. The Chief evaluates, decides, gives the orders and the group follows. This is the same systeme as was used by kingdoms and now by Republics. The chief decides and the people just obey. No responsibility of any kind.
    This is the same in orgs whereas LRH intended individual staffs to be responsible and to take decisions even if they had to be hung for it. It is in OEC 0.
    Finally we had a système per which Scientology did not belong to us but to the “Management”.
    Why did they shoot the field with the Mission Holders Network beginning 80′s? They were not under control of the Chief!
    Can be something there.
    So if you want we can team up with others interrested.
    Best
    Joseph Le Sanglier
    Internet site:

  5. The definition of what makes a “group engram” is given in issues from the early 50s. One in particular is Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin, Vol. 1, #7, from January 1951*. This defines the “group engram” succinctly as orders arbitrarily entered in to the group to deal with a present emergency, and without full ARC for the why’s and wherefore’s of the emergency, or the orders/actions taken to deal with it (the orders/actions usually taken by those who are “management” for the group.) NOTE: (please see this ref for the full explanation and the “from the horse’s mouth” description) .
    * Also see An Essay on Authoritarianism, DAB Vol 2. #5, Nov 51.

    Handling this introduction of orders/actions taken to deal with the emergency is by review of all of the circumstance, and the orders/actions taken, by the full membership of the group after the fact, to restore full ARC by the members on the whole situation, i.e., with the Axioms gain full ARC and thus Understanding and as-is the kit and caboodle.

    Inspired by this article, I just looked through the “old Tech Vols” and the 91 re-issue Tech Vols and found several later references to a “group engram”, including an exact series of steps to be taken on a person as a “Group Engram Intensive”.

    These are, HCOB 27 Feb 70, Group Engram Process; HCOB 11 Mar 70, Important Note on Group Engram Intensive; HCOB 23 Aug 71, Auditor’s Rights (CS Series 1). ALL three issues are written by L. Ron Hubbard.

    Both the 1970 issues had a distribution to the UK Station Ship. CS Series 1 refers to the “Group Engram Intensive”.

    The 1970 issues are NOT in the 91 re-issue of the Tech Vols. CS Series 1 STILL refers to the Group Engram Intensive.

    I have seldom seen the original procedure of the discussion of the group engram, disclosing the emergency fully, the orders/actions taken, and regaining a full ARC for the whole affair, taken. In fact the only time I’ve seen this approximated was in small group talks, or a vague sort of similarity conducted at a Staff Meeting occasionally. In other words, I’ve never seen this technique done to sort out a group engram, on a Scientology group.

    The Group Engram Intensive, which refers to the earlier materials from the 50s in it’s theoretical underpinnings, is gone from the body of Tech as issued by David Miscavige in 1991. Don’t know why that is. There is a “group engram” connected with the seemingly arbitrary removal of a piece of valid technology.

    • “The Group Engram Intensive, which refers to the earlier materials from the 50s in it’s theoretical underpinnings, is gone from the body of Tech as issued by David Miscavige in 1991. Don’t know why that is. There is a “group engram” connected with the seemingly arbitrary removal of a piece of valid technology.”

      Wow, just when I think Ive heard and read it all. But then again I would have to be stupid to think there are not more dead bodies around.

  6. Indeed this is the province of the Scientology History Project, and thank you Lana for identifying the correct repository for this information. This is one of our major purposes.

    Up until now, the (only partial) resolution of these group engrams has only been possible by gleaning tidbits from the comments and some of the postings of community blogs. And unfortunately, some of the information contained there has been clearly fabricated.

    If you have information which would materially assist in identiifying and resolving any perceived group engram, we would be glad to hear from you. Here’s a link:

    http://scnhistory.org/history/contact-us/

    If you send us substantive information, we will acknowledge your communication. If you have any difficulty in contacting us, please feel free to contact me directly at paulmfoster at gmail dot com.

    Paul M. Foster for The Scientology History Project

  7. I think this site has almost all of the history covered already fyi
    http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/

    far as group engrams, to me what indicates is maybe arc breaks, but mostly pts or ptp due to the fact that the church will try and stop you from practicing, i’d try not to backtrack but just charge forward and up the bridge asap, should be fast and easy with the church’s devt, suppression and bureaucracy off the lines

  8. ” How do we do that, when the vast majority of people who were involved in past incidents are no longer within the group (either deceased, ex-Scientologist, off-lines, or simply disappeared)? ”

    The answer to that, Lana, lies in the HCOPL 6 Dec ’70 , ” Third Dynamic De-Aberration”. This PL is erroneously thought of as only being about the “Admin Scale”. Nothing could be further than the truth. For some reason it is called that way : “Third Dynamic De-Aberration”. I quote from the PL :

    ” The exact mechanism of 3rd dynamic (group or organization) aberration is the conflict of COUNTER-POLICY” end of quote.

    Notice how LRH capitalized all letters in the final composite word. In the original PL it is also bold-faced. So he definitively wanted to emphasize it. This PL contains in it, all steps necesary to “clear a group”. It even has a section tittled that way : “Clearing A Group”. Handling groups’s engrams are done this way using Tech developments about management of groups from the late sixties and beginning of the seventies. It is all on the “Management Series”.

    There is also a PL “Organization Misunderstoods” of 20.) Nov ’70. In it is a list of words to be cleared in an E-meter (not just M-6(ed) them )
    “……until one knows each can’t mean anything else than what it does mean” (LRH).

    “Unless one at least knows these words completely so that they can be used and applied, they will not buffer off confusions that enter into the activity ” (LRH ,same PL). I want to emphasize the phrase “used and applied” from that quote.

    Group DNs and the methods of the ’50s are still valid. But LRH developed
    the whole of the “Management Series” in the late ’60s ,beginning ’70s to handle all kinds of group sits. Attempting to use Group DNs methods would be like trying to clear somebody with B-1 ( which CAN be done, by the way) instead of Expanded Lower Grades followed by NED. What would be the point in doing that ? Or to try to run the PC’s actual GPMs (actual Goals) instead of the implanted GPMs everyone has (CC, OT II). Surely you could do it if you were a LRH trained class VI from the early ’60s but why mess with it ?

    Locating ALL counter-policies set and making people AWARE of each one of them will do the trick. FDS ,as needed, will go to the bottom of it and clear it all. A little O/Ws pulling before accepting the false data, for the ones that bogs and won’t get clean will do the rest. Plus your standard PTS handlings. But applying “Third Dynamic De-Aberration” PL steps will just handle the hell out of if for most people.

    If it were up to me, I would get 5-6 veteran ex-SOs, highly Tech and Admin trained and get each one of them to M-8 the above two PLs, and clay demo EACH key element on them. Then get FDS on them. And TRUTH will dawn on them.

    • By the way, what this blog and others have been doing can be categorized as “running group’s engrams”. By exposing and making it known, all squirrel Tech applications ( counter-policies) by the Church, we have been, indeed , clearing the group of engrams. That’s why so many scientologists feel much better when participating in this and other blogs and sorts of “forgets” about Church matters.

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