Home

best of the best

By Milestone Two crew

There are over 300 articles that have been published through the Milestone Two blog in the last 18 months.The topics of these articles vary greatly, as do the authors, and there are a number of articles that are particularly significant in terms of content.

Some of these articles detail out-tech that is occurring within the C of S. They give the exact source references so people who have experienced out-tech can understand what occurred and get some relief. They also alert auditors, C/Ses and Cramming Officers in the field on what to look for (so it can be corrected technically). And of course, they are good resources for people who are still within the C of S, providing them with the exact specifics, and the exact LRH references that they can read and demand are applied.

There other articles that give basic references on technical delivery in the field, what to expect, what to look out for, and how to find an ethical auditor. There are also articles that help people who are under the radar to have some stable datums and direction.

Since we launched our newly upgraded website five weeks ago, there have been 4000 page views. The website contains a still-growing library and archive of valuable articles and we are very happy with its steady progression.

Our next plan is to include some key articles that give historical information that deal with the various 3D engrams that people have experienced over time. This is planned to be in place by the end of the year.

Please do take the time to check it out, and also recommend the site to friends and family, through links, emails or letters. You can find it here.

It is the best of the best.

157 thoughts on “Best of the best

  1. Nice thing about these historical articles is that they can be discussed from different viewpoints which hopefully will blow some charge.

    Also this will counteract the Church’s effort to rewrite the history of Scientology like the sample attached under “L Ron Hubbard’s Trusted Friend”:

    http://www.scientology.org/david-miscavige.html

    Notice how they attempt to change a plural to a singular?

    Also Marg Lake deserves many kudos for actually researching Ron’s 201 that’s his military service record for those who don’t know gov speak.

    http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm

    Which counteracts the drivel coming from such unreliable sources as Russell Miller and others who echo his so called “bio” which is just a thinly veiled character assassination.

    Speaking of Russ.

    I think my friend Michel does a fine job of deconstructing the myth of Miller’s unbiased “research”

    http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-c.html

    Though I’m a bit hesitant with his theory about Ron having some sort of doppelgänger .

    Another good site is:

    http://rundbrief.org/kd0044/archiv/sc-i-r-s-ology/

    Not that I think that a buncha Tax Cruds are actually running Scientology but still there is some good data on that site.

    Finally one of my favs when I was lurking on ARS. The sexy Librarian who’s posts are preserved here for posterity:

    http://english.freiescientologen.de/archiv/arscc/index.html

    • RV: Which counteracts the drivel coming from such unreliable sources as Russell Miller and others who echo his so called “bio” which is just a thinly veiled character assassination.

      Exactly, and overlook other data which contradict their agendas. If LRH’s monumental works do not speak for themselves and supposed ‘clarity’ is needed to explain and find blame for some condition in search of a target for finger pointing, their loss drowning in front of the steps to OT. (Oh yeah, they tell OT don’t exist, but I experience these gains and benefits daily, so I guess it must Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics talking.)

      • Formost,

        Ain’t it funny how they deflect away from the workability of the subject and go after the author.

        An analogy would be to denigrating Robert Oppenheimer and by doing so “prove” that nuclear physics doesn’t work.

        I say ol’ Russ or whoever gave him the hatchet has one or two outpoints in his or their “think”.

        Though he’s probably not as stupid as the people who suck it up as Godspell “truth” with out inspection. Stalin’s “useful idiots” in action.

        Of course if one has an an agenda any “document” even if it’s obviously been forged. Any data forwarded by a “witness” who is about as reliable as a junky’s promise to go straight is considered “valid”.

        I noticed this when many “UFOlogists” jumped on the MJ 12 band wagon.

        • Kinda like …

          Benjamin Franklin liked to bang women of elderly concubines, Thomas Jefferson sexed his slaves.

          therefore … the US Constitution is perverted and must be invalidated.

          • Yeah I know FM.

            Anyway you know what the Ol’man says in SPs and Admin.

            Usually I find those who attack Ron are bunch of pompous self righteous hypocrites who don’t have a life but wished they had.

        • If Ethics is out, Tech won’t go in.

          So the PTS, SPs, and other ethics bait that attack the Tech and LRH have no prayer of experiencing OT, tech won’t go in on them. No wonder LRH has eligibility requirements, as Ethics cases won’t make it.

          The statement “There is no OT.” should be properly qualified as “There is no OT for ME.”

          • I remember getting into a debate with some RC priest who was going on about Scientology’s alleged “cosmology” in an article for one of those Catholic rags and so I quoted Genesis from the bible.

            Never heard a peep after that 😉

            Yeah the Eligibility requirements were to keep NCGs and R1 R/Sers like Dave out. Too bad they weren’t applied in his case.

            Anyway the Gov and their media choir knows damn well that Scientology works that’s why they helped put Dave in charge.

  2. IMO, the primary purpose behind “blowing charge” or “finding the Why” or “running out the group engram” would be (or should be) to enable one to progress up the Bridge, to enhance survival through application of Scientology in one’s life, specifically to becoming more trained and audited. Otherwise, it’s just another exercise in yap-yap-yap. MS2 should never become just another blog “like Murray’s” (not that I think it will, just stating a viewpoint).

    “The Spirit of Scientology is one of help, a flippancy for the Authorities Who Know Best, a hope of getting onward, the one possible escape from the condemnation of this place. It doesn’t include doubt and ‘I’ve an open mind’ or reasonableness about those who would stop us. It’s an aura of new horizons, a better life, an invitation out of the muck of all the misspent yesterdays. It’s an offer to be born again. When it is discounted, played down, put alongside of psychology, medicine or self betterment Carnegies, it’s being betrayed. The door is being closed on the millions. Omit playing my tapes, omit remembering why we’re here, go into agreement with the idea we’re just another org like Murrays and you’ve had it. The atmosphere of Scientology is a lot more important than new buildings and modern furniture.” LRH (HCOPL 27 Dec 63, The “Magic” Of Good Management)

    • “. It doesn’t include doubt and ‘I’ve an open mind’ or reasonableness about those who would stop us. It’s an aura of new horizons, a better life, an invitation out of the muck of all the misspent yesterdays”

      Totally agree with you Chris but you are talking about us, people who have 100% certainty on the tech. Is there a place on this blog for those people who have experienced out tech/ethics/admin to the degree where they are in doubt about Scn itself?

      Of course any group that gets attacked has the right to defend itself, and so do we, but I believe there are people who just need to work thru their own doubt condition and a certain amount of tolerance and understanding on our part will go along way to helping that for them.

      Lana should be able to see from a stat analysis of the postings what actually gets people in comm. That would be interesting to know!

      • I don’t know if there’s any specific place, 4a, but I do know that all one has to do is to communicate and then that person who may have doubts or such can be directed to the LRH reference(s) on the matter so they can see what the source said to do, or they could be directed to a number of people (e.g. Jim, Lana, Tom, or myself, etc.) to discuss it in private, if that’s better for them. Or to see Jim in “Qual”. That could be one solution.

        But I still feel that the bottom line, IMO, is to find out what the issue is for each individual and what they feel they need help with to sort it out, and then help with that. And then take any additional steps to get that person in session if needed to fully handle any BPC. In my opinion, it’s better to make a decision when not influenced by bias or false data or BPC. At least then any decision will be made on one’s own recognizance.

        I agree re the stat analysis as well. That would be interesting. 🙂

        • “But I still feel that the bottom line, IMO, is to find out what the issue is for each individual and what they feel they need help with to sort it out, and then help with that. And then take any additional steps to get that person in session if needed to fully handle any BPC. In my opinion”
          Ideally Chris, I absolutely agree! But if the individual is not willing or unable due to distance or BPC or whatever, for the time being, to get back into a formalized sort of auditing, getting them communicating is better than not, imo.
          I think this because on other blogs I have read some posters who start off critical of LRH or the tech for one reason or another but end up again, seeing the rightness of the techs, if applied with common sense. I love to see this, and am very happy for that person.
          It is my opinion, due to the unmocking of the church and yet again for help to become betrayal, that we foster a sense of initial, tolerance of opinions about Ron and Scn that may be a little hard for us, after all, when the Ruds are run it is the ARCxs that are run first.
          I found, for myself, after I had gotten over the charge of the ARCx, I started to look at what responsibility I had for this mess. Yet again the brilliance of LRH to figure out the natural progression of these things 🙂

          • Hi 4a,

            I agree with you regarding communication helping out and being able to voice some BPC may help relieve some charge – maybe. I’ve seen many people continue to piss and moan forever about how bad it all was/is and NOT get better. Of course, technically I wouldn’t consider that communication, really. And I think the old man said it well when he stated in C/S Series 7:

            “This doesn’t mean the pc is always wrong. He is generally right when he says he’s overwhelmed or upset. He’s almost always wrong when he says what overwhelmed him or what BPC was out WHEN SIMPLY SAYING IT DOES NOT CORRECT THE CASE OR PRODUCE F/N VGIs.”

            So perhaps a multi-stepped approach is required: general comm to get someone back into comm (like from BCR); then maybe some references so they get true Source, not DM; maybe some help in handling some life stuff; then into session to find, as you say, what the issue is for each individual. As long as these actions lead to rehabilitation of one’s original purpose in an auditing session (if one is willing) and removal of suppression that has obstructed one’s gains from true Scientology, then it is worthwhile, IMO.

            Re tolerance of opinions about LRH, I’ve never seen ANY cause to attack, criticize, blame, and otherwise malign and impugn LRH. I personally went through extreme hell as a result of writing up GAT as a technical degrade when I was Snr C/S of my org, but I never lost my integrity and affinity for the old man, nor his tech. All the reverse sec-checking, imprisonment, wrong indications, etc., never alloyed my affinity. So I’ve little tolerance for that or badmouthing Scientology. Plenty of blogs and forums for that. I’ll give that a person might have BPC and that in looking for a correct target often wrong targets (hell, that tends to happen in relationships), so I understand. But I also apply a lot of 1961-62 tech in regards to criticism and such and continual carping, critical remarks only indicate one thing IMO, and that’s covered plenty in the tech.

            So, I can see this blog facilitating people getting back in ARC with Scientology, with the tech, or with themselves. I can see it helping to achieve that and more. And I even don’t think they must decide on being a Scientologist, in a similar wise to marriage counseling. People have a right to their own choices in life and to creating their own lives, their own paths. I just think that any choice that is made will be better when there is no bias or BPC sitting on the decision. So I hope – as you do – that the ARCxs (and other out-ruds) can be somewhat handled on here, and that it brings about a willingness to go further, for those that need that.

            Cheers

    • Chris,

      Seems you are being what you accuse me of 😉

      The psyches call that projection though we have another name for it.

      Magic of Good Management is a great PL and if the Org actually applied it we wouldn’t be here discussing this. I’d be in your Ivory Tower somewhere and you’d be having your C/S assistant 86ing me out the door 🙂

      Anyway we ain’t even got an Org.

      (Now don’t get me started how the brain trust in management had us all convert to a 9 Div org board when we only had two people in Div 6.)

      But I digress.

      As far as I see it. We are a Safe Point and thus the following PL would apply:

      Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
      HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 APRIL 1982
      PR Series 19R
      THE SAFE POINT
      (In late 1972, the Founder gave a briefing on the subject of PR area control to CS PR Area Control and LRH Personal Communicator. This policy letter is compiled from notes on the briefing.)
      Ref’
      HCO PL 21 Nov. 72 I PR Series 18
HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPAGANDA
      Under “Application” of Rule 1 (Fill the vacuum) of PR Series 18, the in- struction is given: “Get in a safe place and speak up.”
      It is necessary of course to have a safe place to get into, from which one can in safety speak up.
      One cannot defend himself in a point that has no defenses.
      Without some consideration of security in the first place, any attempt at PR area control is folly.
      Thus the safe point takes consideration over active defense.
      One can be in the situation of attempting to sell and deliver a product or service and suddenly find it necessary to defend himself in the same place from attack. The attack can make the point dangerous to such a degree it becomes impossible to deliver from. One might even be forced to act from a totally hidden point.
      Thus the safe point takes consideration over active defense but takes even greater consideration over delivery operations.
      Where possible, PR area control makes the point safe for the production activity, before any production occurs.
      Sometimes funds are lacking to expand over a long period on a non-income- producing PR area control operation. In this case one is forced into production to make money.
      Whenever it is necessary to go into delivery operations without the prior step of making the safe point, a special unit must be set up and run at full steam to make a safe point and gain viable PR area control over all publics in the area.

      Preparing the Safe Point

      You cannot operate without a base to operate from. You cannot deliver with- out somewhere to deliver it. You cannot sell what you cannot deliver.
      The optimum action is to send a PR area control team to the area you want to operate in, and have it establish PR area control first.
      A new group or company should be established first as a safe point and then as an operating point.
      There is a formula here just a hair lower than Non-Existence: “Find a point from which to put out a comm line.”
      The PR area control action in a new area can go so far as to create in the area a whole past and future track for the activity being established. It can make it sound old-established, stable, reliable, expert, productive, and with continuing expansion before it-when the delivery activity arrives and gets into operation.
      Everything that accompanies an actual delivering unit is put there. Except the delivery. With established PR area control, delivery is put in, without a ripple, and it is all perfectly natural and acceptable.
      Basic Essentials

      The most important action to undertake when going about making a safe point is to carefully and painstakingly find out who exactly are the top dogs in the area in financial and political circles, and their associates and connections, and to what each one is hostile.
      A handful of allies with impressive-sounding titles and positions is not enough. Viability depends on having all areas and persons who could affect or influence the operation under PR control. Most important are the groups who survey out to be the key, real powers in an area. These persons mayor may not be those who occupy high political or social positions. They mayor may not be the titular heads of large economic concerns. Research and survey alone can determine this.
      One must learn carefully his Ps and Qs with regard to these people and take care not to step on their toes. Otherwise one can get tromped on hard, and will. This data must be learned and USED.
      Without a safe point established as above, it is a waste of time to rush into dealings with a government or to promise them anything. It is too easy to step on hostile toes and to arouse suspicion of you or make you difficult to account for. Build your PR area control on a well-researched, surveyed and solid gradient.
      To maintain your safe point when you have started delivery, it is vital that you be able to detect the SP/PTS characters on your delivery lines and HANDLE him, be he high or low in station, and get him out of the road. One such person acting against you in the midst of your safe point can undermine it totally.
      One of the reasons for this is that violations of study tech in a person’s education can turn him into a seething mass of BPC. This is very easily stirred up by an SP or PTS, and at the slightest chance he will do so. A whole class can explode like a powder keg, and with it the safety of your delivery point and its whole PR area control.
      Thus SP/PTS tech is a basic tool of PR area control for the operating activity.
      Delivery of excellent results is of course a vital necessity in any activity, no matter what the degree of PR area control, once it is established.
      Follow this procedure to make a safe point and the rules of PR Series 18 to make it safer.
      But make it safe first.

      L. RON HUBBARD Founder
      Assisted by
LRH Pers Comm

      Note Ron says:

      “One might even be forced to act from a totally hidden point.”

      So this is where many of us who are “under the radar” are.

      Now about handling the third dynamic engram. You and I know this is covered in Group Dianetics (in Notes on the Lectures a book which the Church no longer publishes interesting enough.)

      Ron says:

      A group will deteriorate in exact ratio to the number of engrams and locks
      it receives and will revive in ratio to the number of engrams and locks which
      are picked up out of it.
      There has never before in the history of the world been an opportunity for
      groups, since they did not know these things, to rehabilitate themselves and
      free themselves from the continuing concatenation of arbitraries. Thus, every
      group, once initiated, could thereafter experience only a dwindling spiral.
      Following these tenets, there is no reason why the tone of a group cannot
      continually rise or, whenever it is depressed, to be brought back up the tone
      scale again. It has been stated by a past writer that the group’s highest point
      was when it was formed, since at that moment its ethic, ideals and rationale
      10
      were intact. One can readily see that the ideals, ethic and rationale of the
      group can be improved, though in the past this was not understood. Thus its tone
      scale can now go up from the point of formation. Further, emergency statuses can
      be reached and met, individuals can take command of various functions of the
      group for these emergency statuses, the engrams can thereafter be sorted out and
      resolved — or run, in other words.
      We have the opportunity here of having a group which can be easily cleared
      since it is very young, and thereafter can remain clear simply by being
      processed by an auditor to the group. The tone level of this group, then, cannot
      deteriorate. The group cannot sink into a state such as that we observe in other
      groups and nations. (end quote)

      Personally I think we should use this tech as well.

      LR

      • “Chris,

        Seems you are being what you accuse me of 😉

        The psyches call that projection though we have another name for it.”

        I have no idea what you are talking about, Robin. But this is seriously getting close to a games condition. I don’t play those. So tell you what…we’ll take a breather. I won’t comment on your digressions and you don’t comment on my “projections”. Deal?

        Fuck.

        • Chris,

          Don’t believe in “breathers”. We have a point to settle here.

          This is what you said to me yesterday when responding to one of my comments:

          “Geez, Robin, you really are full of it and yourself today, at least more than normal. Lol. Or perhaps it’s just you’re long distance obnosing needs a refresh.”

          Also calling my comment a “digression” is nothing but inval plain and simple.

          If you don’t understand what I am saying then ask for clarification.

          However the main point I am making. Is yes applying the tech on a PC to PC basis is all well and good but there is also a 3rd Dynamic engram involved here and this should be addressed as well.

          Did you actually *read* the issue or the quote from NOTL that I posted?

          All the other stuff was my effort at levity and to avoid being serious.

          So lighten up!

          Or do I have to come over there and kick your ass?

          • RV:

            You know, I don’t mind discussing OSes and motorcycles, and I don’t really care who wins or loses; we’re all friends here and it’s just opinions. (Though we probably shouldn’t undertake these things on the blog.) And I don’t really care for it when things degrade into penis measuring contests. Mine’s bigger than all yours anyway. 😉

            But this business of 3D engrams isn’t a matter of opinion. Your reference was helpful in clarifying my thinking on this. I don’t understand Chris’s reasoning. It seems to go something like: Clearing up the group engrams is okay (for you guys) as long as it serves a purpose in relation to auditing PCs. But obviously LRH considers handling group engrams a good thing in an of itself, regardless of anything it has to do with auditing a PC. PC auditing is a separate thing and a “good” by itself. The difference between them is a matter of the 3D versus the 1D. Both are part of the make-up of our lives, and both deserve attention.

            Maybe it’s just that Chris doesn’t want the 3D discussions to take place here on the blog (though that’s not what he’s said). If so, fair enough. But if that’s the case, I would expect him to say so. Instead, the last two times it’s come up, he’s simply pooh-poohed the idea outright, and served up arguments that don’t really make sense.

            In any case, just to say I agree, regardless of any 1D factors, we also need to handle the 3D history. And your reference was a good one on this point.

            Paul

            • Hi Paul,

              This is one of the drawbacks of the written blog/forum scene as a form of “live” communication: it is often mistaken or misobnosed. Your take on my comments as well as Robin’s.

              I’m not going to do a rehash of it all, but assumptions were made that had nothing to do with my comm. It has happened before and like before, I don’t engage in it but state my observations and walk away. Same went here. Now again you’ve assumed facts not in evidence.

              I don’t care what is discussed, as long as – IMO – it doesn’t degenerate into non-communication and games conditions or enforced opinions. There are too many places where these already exist. No need to add to it. IMO.

              As to Group Dianetics, personally, a 3D engram running would be good, IF IF IF it was done per the tech (see NOL or DAB Vol. 1 No. 7, January 1951). I’m a little reluctant to wholly support it because I’ve seen supposed attempts in the past become nothing more than a natter-fest or church/Scientology attack, and in some cases an LRH-bashing party, such as FB Indie Scientology (although this has mainly been addressed), the blog Back-In-Comm (which had these altruistic purposes of group engram running as well and is now mainly a viper pit), and many other similar forums and blogs. There is an EXACT tech of how it is to be done, and it should be done on a separate thread, and if all the rules for it being done are, then sure, I’m behind that.

              Oh, and it should contain facts, not conjectures or hypotheses or opinions, as those will not blow charge. Sure, one can clarify views and opinions and conjectures, but to as-is the charge, correct data is required. At least, as far as I am aware.

              I still think that outside of running the 3D engrams, it does phase over into 1D handlings as this is vitally important to the 3D as well. I’ll leave a quote at the end here. But as we know, a group is made up of individuals and if those individuals are doing well with strong ideals and integrity and ethics, then the group will be well also.

              So, I hope this clarifies my arguments for you. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification. :-p

              “If we are doctors (by which might be meant ‘repairers’), then we are doctors on the third and fourth dynamics, the dynamics of groups and mankind as a whole, and we handle the first (self) and the second (sex and family) only to achieve better function on the third and fourth.” LRH (Scientology 0-8, Book of Basics)

            • Scat babe,

              Not really into a pissing or a penis (though if it’s big as you say it is there is plenty of work in the Valley doing porn ala Boogie Nights 😉 ) contest.

              Like all games discussing OSes, Motorcycles, Sex Stars etc. is fun but a distraction and would be consider “OT” in the other sense as in Off Topic.

              Nothing wrong with using the above or anything else as analogy though IMHO.

              Anyway running the 3rd Dynamic engram *is* applying the tech and would fall under group auditing.

              Personally I can understand auditor trepidation of handling anything other than the 1st D. Personally I avoided 2D Co-audits like the plague would rather handle a case in a psychotic break with homicidal tendencies than do one of those.

              Yet limiting auditing to only the 1st dynamic in my opinion is a limited view of the power of the subject.

              Note even auditing on the 1st isn’t limited to the 1st. I remember auditing a PC at AO whose spouse had a heart attack and as we audited problems of comparable magnitude the spouse actually got better.

              Then there is the Tech of the SPRD where I’ve seen the end result many times in my time auditing in various HGCs.

              So as the 1st can affect any other D. So can any other D affect the 1st. Group auditing affects all the 1st Ds involved.

              Strange though I used to run for the hills when someone wanted to put a 2D co-audit in my rack I didn’t mind doing the occasional Group Processing Intensive for Div 6.

              Again in my *opinion* auditing on the first is a very limited view of the potential of auditing.

              Besides not every one can afford to get auditing on a one on one basis. So what’s wrong with giving them some case gain at no charge by discussing the 3rd if done correctly per the section in NOTLs?

              Another thing is the section on the three types of valid processing in SOS regarding raising the PC’s tone.

              You raise the PC or Pre OT’s tone enough then suddenly they have the wherewithal to get professional auditing and so everyone as far as I see it benefits from doing such an action.

              Also again IMHO discussing arbitraries which is what a 3rd D engram basically addresses also brings up purposes and I believe rekindles them which is very powerful tech.

              See the OT Orgs PL.

              Anyway I see so many pluses (as long as we avoid allowing it to turn into a natter session about how anyone was so “victimized” like we see on ESMB and other places and stay on topic) that what could be wrong with doing it?

              My view Scat.

              • RV:

                I’m replying to one of your last comments but having to do so on an ealier comment. Confusing, yes, but we appear to have reached the end of WordPress’s limit on “nesting” comments. Frustrating. Yes, if you have a copy of the REDs send them along. I have something that *appears* to be a copy, but I’m not so sure. Email address is (we’ll try this first) editors AT scnhistory DOT org

                Please and thank you.

                Paul

                • SJ/RV: check the “Notify me of new comments via email” and then you can reply right from your email and it inserts it properly under the post you want it to be under.

                  • Chris:

                    I’m betting that won’t override WP’s built-in “nesting depth”. You can send off an email hoping it will get there, but if it’s above that nesting threshold, I believe WordPress silently (or not) simply discards it.

                    I just did some brief research. It appears this depth setting is controllable by the admin. Five appears to be the default.

                    Paul

                    • Paul, replying from your email takes you the MS2 site and your reply is embedded at the proper place. But don’t take my word for it, give it a try. :p

                    • CB:

                      Bug in the software, then. As designed and advertised, it should do what I described, regardless of the source of the comment.

                      I’m not in the habit of checking the box on “tell me about replies by email”. I’ll have to get in the habit. Normally my “G-whatsit” avatar tells me there’s a reply.

                      Paul

            • Scat: But obviously LRH considers handling group engrams a good thing in an of itself, regardless of anything it has to do with auditing a PC.

              Hi Scat.

              I think the keyword here has been “Handle”. I’ve also witnessed what Chris mentioned discussing 3D engram issues on blogs run off on other tangents down the toilet of no benefit to anyone. Lots of exact LRH tech exists in dealing with that, but endless bloggie-blog discussions is not one of them. They are more akin to AA meetings than anything that resembles SCN tech.

              • FM:

                And perhaps that’s part of the issue for me. I haven’t seen this happen, and can’t conceive of it happening here, as tight as Lana has been in monitoring content (kudos to Lana). All the natter-fests I’ve seen were already that way before I got there, and as far as I know were always that way.

                I agree that this blog is probably not the best forum for historical discussions.

                Paul

                • Scat: I agree that this blog is probably not the best forum for historical discussions.

                  Hey Scat.

                  I love historical discussions, and also 3D engram tech administered standardly ought to be done. I really can’t see how blog posts have anything to do with on-source 3D engram handlings. Secondly whatever comes up, has already been harped on to death on other venues which tells you right off the bat it’s merely persisting, not as-ising, not handling.

                  Most certainly others have been at the forefront of CO$ 3D aberration and they’ve been hit, not denying that, but that hasn’t happened to me. And they just keep yapping about the same thing year in, year out, but not going into session, on auto natter-pilot … yawn, I no longer pay any attention to any of that, I have better things to do with my time.

                  • Personally I think if BIC moderated their 3D Engram handling and kept it on topic it probably would have worked but instead it turned into a typical natter fest which probably generated more BPC than it may have handled.

                    The references say what they say and as far as I know there is no restrictions about having to be in the same location as the rest of the members of the group which would be difficult because we are international.

                    I think the key point here is that arbitraries are discussed which includes the possible reasons for such arbitraries.

                    What happened to BIC was they never stayed on topic and basically let the failed cases and SPs take over.

                    Anyway I was at one of these 3D Engram handling during the change in management and it was well worth it from my POV.

                    • RV: Personally I think if BIC moderated their 3D Engram handling and kept it on topic it probably would have worked but instead it turned into a typical natter fest which probably generated more BPC than it may have handled.

                      Plus the trash they’ve recently seemed to have weeded out did help things any.

                      RV: I think the key point here is that arbitraries are discussed which includes the possible reasons for such arbitraries.

                      Add to that people being untruthful in their various forms such as questionable perceptions, exaggerations, hype, embellishments and outright lies served by other agendas … I question any therapeutic benefit derived. I generally find myself feeling more agitated than relieved. Fortunately LRH has laid it all out …

                      RV: Anyway I was at one of these 3D Engram handling during the change in management and it was well worth it from my POV.

                      Cool. 🙂

                    • Very cool.

                      I went ext during the damn thing but that End of the Endless Int is pretty miraculous tech 😉

                      FM,

                      I haven’t really been back to BIC after that they allowed Shelton to pompously bloviate on in a vid about “Operation Snow White” where he sounded like he was reading an FBI press release.

                      Then there was the Group Engram fiasco that probably laid in more of an engram than it handled.

                      So yes as you say “people being untruthful in their various forms such as questionable perceptions, exaggerations, hype, embellishments and outright lies served by other agendas …” pretty much described the crowd that showed up and wasn’t weeded out.

                      Basically as we both know an SP’s big thrill is to stop others from making case gain and I’d say they achieved it there.

                      That said I think we can do a lot better here at MS2 because we don’t allow the same crowd.

                    • As you say, Robin, there is an exact tech on how to apply “Group Dianetics”. There are exact procedures. It is not just thrown out for mass discussion; information is gathered by an appointed few who will be the group auditors, and once they have collected all the data, including from those that called the “emergency” in the first place, thus instilling the engram into the group, they then publish it and distribute it to the group members for discussion. There is more – and all should read the issue – but here are some salient excerpts from LRH:

                      “No amount of rules or directives can create a group. A group consists of perpetuating and perpetuated ideas formulated into a central mores and ethic, in other words, a culture. This culture has an identity of its own. It could be compared in its highest essence to a segment of pure Theta. It becomes modified by the MEST which it has under attack whenever a turbulence area comes into being as a result of an unreasoning attack by a group upon the MEST which it is seeking to control. The group is as effective as the reasonableness of its ideas and the height of its ethic, plus its dynamic in attacking and controlling MEST.

                      The maintenance of rationale in the body of group ideas is paramount in importance and the group becomes aberrated and needful of clearing each time the rationale of the body of ideas is penetrated or deranged by an irrationality.

                      The problem here is the problem of the introduction of arbitraries. Each time an arbitrary rule is entered into the group ideas and rationale, the group tone deteriorates. The group tone depends upon the agreement (reality) amongst the members of the group, on the ideas and ideals and rationale of the group, upon the intercommunication of members of the group one with another, and upon an understanding by the members of the group of the rationale and problems of the group. An emergency situation as faced by the group may occasionally make it impossible for some member of the group to communicate all the reasons of his actions to the rest of the group. At such moments the group is called upon to supplant communication and understanding with an instantaneous compliance. The group instinctively does this only when it has faith in and belief in the rationale and ideals of the member who is demanding the instantaneous action. As soon as instantaneous action has ceased, however, all such rules and orders should be clarified and explained and discussed by the entire group for their understanding and their further communication.

                      Here then is the cycle of a group receiving an engram: the group ideas and rationale in handling or attacking MEST receive a shock from the MEST which it is attacking, making an emergency situation exist. There is a turbulent area created between the ideals and rationale of the group and the MEST. The emergency status of the situation has to do with the compressed time—something obviously is happening so swiftly that a full use of communication is not possible and must be supplanted by arbitrary rules or commands. As soon as the emergency is over, it can be seen that an engram has been implanted in the group.

                      The clearing of this engram consists of an examination by the whole group of the arbitraries, which is to say the orders and commands which were issued without explanation and which demanded instantaneous action on the part of other individuals
                      in the group. The person issuing these orders, or persons issuing them, should demonstrate how the situation existed and the why and wherefore of these orders. In this way the engram is cleared out of the group. Rational discussion of this situation and communication of the situation restores the ideals and ethics of the group.

                      Processing the group should be the special trust and charge of selected members of the group itself. The processing is done by the examination of emergency situations and the complete detail of them by this selection of the group. Such examination and publication and discussion of these moments of emergency should not be colored in any slightest degree by any thought of protecting the public idea concerning the ethics of this particular group. Information cannot be masked, either from individuals of the group or to other groups examining this group, save as that information may apply to the emergency status of the situation which may still be existing, as in the case of disposition of troops by a general during a time of combat.

                      The people selected by the group to be auditors to the group, or an auditor to the group, discover the existence of engrams by the existence of arbitrary commands. They then proceed to discover the basic-basic on the chain of engrams and, after due examination not only of the arbitrary orders but of the entire status of the turmoil, publish for the discussion and information of all the members of the group everything which can be discovered about the situation with all evidences which can be collected. This is not done with a view to introducing punitive action; it is done with a view to acquainting the group members with the situations as they existed. It takes, you might say, a bunched-up time track—bunched up by a moment of emergency or a moment of fancied emergency – and straightens it out, arranging all the data upon it.

                      This effort at processing will be utterly defeated should the auditor of the group pay any attention whatsoever to the consideration the public or other groups may have for the group, to the reputation of any individual involved in the moment of emergency, or to any idea that members of the group itself may be grossly upset by the discovery of certain facts about its members.

                      The characteristic point of this turmoil or turbulence, the engram of the group, is that it contains suppressed or out-of-sight information. If at any moment the auditor to the group suppresses information or colors it in any way, some of that engram is going to remain, and actually a situation is entered here where the engram is left in a state of restimulation where it can do more damage than it could have done had it never been run.

                      The auditors of the group must be individuals fully schooled in the ideals, rationale and ethic of the group, whose integrities are not questioned by the group. The whole keynote of the group auditor is honesty and truth—uncolored, unvarnished and unsuppressed data. In this way a good auditing job can be done. The auditor to the group is discovering what has been done to the group and is running it. There is no need of going over and over one of these engrams beyond exposing the information thoroughly and competently to the view of all and permitting all members of the group to discuss that information as they wish. The group itself may then decide upon certain actions but so long as the group itself is doing the deciding, not an individual or just a few individuals in the group, no engram is created.” LRH (DAB Vol 1, No. 7 Group Dianetics)

                    • Chris,

                      You’re not going to get any disagreement from me on how Ron says to do it.

                      And on that note I elect you as one of the Group’s Auditors.

                      Anyone second this motion.

                    • Sorry, I got other fish I’m frying.

                      But anyway, I wasn’t looking for agreement or anything other than to make the point that there is an exact tech on how to go about it; it’s not just something that is an open discussion or something, until all the data is collected. Now, perhaps Paul’s “Historical Project” might be a good place for that?

                    • Well think about it big guy.

                      Just ’cause your nominated doesn’t mean you have to accept the nomination.

                      Paul’s History Project may or may not be the place to go. That depends a lot on how Paul feels about it and also whether this discussion of arbitraries will help produce a viable history as a sub product.

                      It might then again it might not.

                      Maybe Lana has some idea on how we go about getting auditors to lead this discussion.

                      I hear Jimbo’s doing nothing but painting his toe nails various colors so maybe he could be a likely candidate 😉

                    • RV: I haven’t really been back to BIC after that they allowed Shelton to pompously bloviate on in a vid about “Operation Snow White” where he sounded like he was reading an FBI press release.

                      For me it was allowing their blog to be run over by squirrels and ESMB vermin. These trolls generally change the topic and nature of the discussion which again always becomes pro vs. anti SCN denigrating into fights, exactly where they want blogs to be at.

                      RV: Basically as we both know an SP’s big thrill is to stop others from making case gain and I’d say they achieved it there.

                      That said I think we can do a lot better here at MS2 because we don’t allow the same crowd.

                      Yup, exactly, RV. If one counts up all the blogs and the nature of their moderation and commentary, it clearly and overwhelmingly points at anti-Scientology in all facets, not just folks who have legit grievances. Very pretentious, lots of BS. Very few discussion forums stick with pro-LRH and standard tech. One could get a stat on that. Should they ever succeed knocking the CO$ down, they’ll be coming after those delivering SCN here in the field next. Don’t be fooled, they are 1.1s through and through, and all concealed by incessantly motivating getting others to do the same.

                    • Exactly FM,

                      This is pretty much the way NGs, DBs and Blogs go if they are not moderated correctly. They start out with rational discussion then a few SPs hit it and then it goes into group bank overdrive like the Organization.

                    • For Robin,
                      Painting my toes is havingness. Since I don’t have to wash my hair, I find toenails are fun. I also count pine needles.

                  • FM:

                    I would not be possible to do a “standard” 3D engram handle at this point. Such a handling would require those involved in the “emergency” and “arbitraries” to, immediately after the event, explain the chain of events and how the emergency came about, etc. Almost all the events which need to be cleared up are long ago. Many eye witnesses are either lying SPs, or they’ve been paid for their silence, or they’re dead. Few are those left who were there and able and willing to tell the actual truth.

                    The reason you’re not seeing a resolution is that 99% of the info out there is lies, and that’s all that ever gets repeated. It’s virtually all I’ve ever seen in this Field. And so far, there are only spotty instances of actual facts showing up. Worse, at this point, virtually every “fact” is disputed by another “fact”, also purported to be true. And there’s virtually no way to determine the veracity of either “fact”.

                    And in our Field we have an abundance of people, who, even in the face of true facts, will deny them, because they’re SPs severe PTSes, etc.

                    Paul

                    • Paul: “99% of the info out there is lies, and that’s all that ever gets repeated.”

                      True dat. So how would/could it be different here?

                    • CB:

                      My hope is that, being one of the few non-scumbag places to hang out, we would attract those who could provide real facts. In fact, I know that’s the case. We’ve had some historical postings here which I’ve lifted, and as I recall I don’t think there was a lot of hateful, sniping commentary accompanying them. (Again, kudos, Lana.)

                      Paul

                    • I understand, Paul. But then, we’re not talking group engram running, but just historical revelatory discussions and blogging. Fair enough. But then, maybe that might be best on a separate page under your Historical Project? Also, there’s a plethora of info on the Scientolipedia website. Do you need the link?

                      Chris

                    • CB:

                      Nah, I’ve been there. And yes, that’s what the History Project is for. It should be a repository of the best information we can find to answer questions that arise out of engramic (and other) 3D occurrences.

                      Perhaps this whole subject of “running out 3D engrams” has been badly referred to. I don’t think anyone is in a position “run out 3D engrams” in any technically conforming way. I believe what we’ve been talking about is really just the accumulation of the true data to combat all the false data out there, and some attempt to sort through what is and isn’t true.
                      We make it available so that later on, someone can read it and go, “Oh that’s what happened when X did Y to Z.”

                      In fact, frankly, I don’t think “discussions” about history or any other topic ever produce much of any value. Debate is vastly overrated as a way to come to realistic conclusions about anything. Discussion is fun and occasionally someone says something that makes you cognite about something. But it rarely resolves anything. Online discussions also have a value in knitting together a community. In our case, we can’t all descend on the corner bar and have beers together. The best we can do is get together here. Before MS2, I had heard of Robin Adair (I knew the name but nothing about the person). Other than him, I hadn’t heard of any of you folks. Now I know of a variety of trained and reliable “with-LRH” people. And hopefully more will follow. Because God knows, there are few enough of us out here as it is.

                      By the way, in contrast to this place “discussion” on the History Project website is discouraged and heavily moderated. I’m not interested in what people think of history. If you have additional facts or clarifications, feel free to comment. If you want to “discuss”, I would refer people to a place like this one.

                      Paul

                    • Paul, we could always try this old, old methodology for working out a solution to any conflicts:

                      *grin*

                    • Hi Paul.

                      I would be participating in a 3D engram handlings, as I don’t have any. I suggest what RV and Chris have mentioned doing so by standard tech.

                    • FM:

                      “… as I don’t have any.”

                      Umm, that’s the kind of bait that gets us into heated discussions. I’ll pass.

                      But I’ll clarify one thing. When we’re talking about 3D engrams I personally don’t mean instances like: “… and then after they comm-eved me, they threw my withered bones to the desert scorpions to pick over!” What I mean is things like the Wollersheim case, Ron’s death, the mission holders’ conference in 1982, the weird conflicting issues “clarifying” the SO#1 line in the mid-80s. That sort of thing.

                      In fact, every time I read KSW, I see the passages about “quickie grades” and I wonder, what really happened there? Okay there were these things called quickie grades, for which I know the obvious definition. And I sort of vaguely know how they came about (7,8, 9 and 10). But there are a lot of missing details. How and where did they actually come about? How did LRH find out about them? Did someone from Keokuk Org write to Ron, saying, “Gee Ron, I got my grades here in 15 minutes, but I’m still ARCXy and ser faccy.” What was done immediately thereafter to remedy the situation? The kind of info that I’ve read about events like these is almost as bland as, “The Bijou Tribes invaded the Golgothan empire in 742 and captured half their territory. The end.” That’s history? Jeezus! Why did the Bijous invade? How did they manage to win so much territory, since there were only 300 of them? They’re not there today, so what ultimately happened to them? How long did their reign last? Are there any surviving artworks or artifacts from the period, depicting the battles?

                      And the inevitable answer from the smart alecks will likely be, “Jeez, Foster, whaddaya wanna know all that crap for? Just let it go, Dude! It’s history, Dude. Get over it. No one cares.”

                      Riiiight…

                      Paul

                    • I don’t think you’re going to find all those reasons, Paul. But that’s just my opinion. Although I will say that some of your answers are found in the Tech and OEC volumes.

                      C.

                    • If anything curses me on post, it’s usually the omission of the word “BOT”. I would NOT be participating in any 3D engram handlings.

                    • Paul: And the inevitable answer from the smart alecks will likely be, “Jeez, Foster, whaddaya wanna know all that crap for? Just let it go, Dude! It’s history, Dude. Get over it. No one cares.”

                      Riiiight…

                      Hi Paul.

                      No more significance than exactly what I stated in my post. Just because I may not know all the ins and outs of certain data as you’ve delineated above, doesn’t mean I have anything on it. I do not need to know in order to continue to function 100% effectively in any group setting, nor is any charge or confusion connected with it.

                      Whatever data about Wollerscheim or other points you mentioned can be googled for, the rest obviously isn’t available and in my view is completely irrelevant to me. One oddity I did notice though is after quite a few people left the CO$ they started to frequent natter blogs and then determined they had 3D engrams because they agreed with it. Lots of folks out there who no longer subscribe to Scientology but are still yakking about 3D engrams. As I mentioned before, it seems to me this 3D engram is more mock-up than reality, some people seeking to explain some condition they conceive themselves in, but then I don’t want to give any wrong indications to those who do feel a handling is needed, just do it using standard tech.

                    • A lot of this also goes back to the anatomy of GPMs – terminals, opposition terminals, intentions, counter-intentions, etc. Some snap terminals. Some key into the OM sequence. It’s also the Theta-MEST theory in action in some regards – theta trying to disentangle itself from enMEST. But it’s salvageable, if that’s what is desired.

                    • Personally from my own observation the group manifests the same phenomenon that is covered in the Theta MEST theory thus the group as in the 3rd Dynamic can be subjected to engrams.

                      I mean you look at Scientology today and you can see that it was hit hard and hasn’t recovered and the Organization these days is totally reactive and so is much of the Field in my opinion.

                      All ya gotta do is look at some of the blogs and discussion boards.

                      As far as I’m concerned this is probably the only place currently where a sane and rational discussion about how we got to where we are now can occur.

                      Scientolipedia was mentioned which at one time I considered a valuable resource.

                      Now I question its validity after they posted a questionable article about Sara Northrup and then one about Yvonne and now they got a video series going with some Old Time Dianeticist who left back in the ’50’s who passes on salacious disinformation about Ron and Mary Sue.

                      Sorta like the old guy who claims Ron said something like if you wanted to make a lot of money start a religion which is just total apocrypha aside from the fact that it was probably Heinlein who said it as a joke.

                      To me it doesn’t seem that they bother to verify or vet their sources. Being a wiki and all that. I haven’t read the computer series in quite a while but I believe there is something in there about allowing allowing patently false “information” into data files which is unfortunately an endemic problem with the Internet FKA ARPAnet which was developed by ARPA NKA DARPA who’d have a vested interest in insuring as much disinformation and discreditable information was released probably because he blew their plans for world domination by using various methods of mind control back in 1951.

                      Then you have the Church with their bunch of little Winston Smith working overtime in their little Ministry of Truth they call a “website” and gave us these totally altered editions of the Basic Books and Lectures.

                      I’d say it’s time for a little bit of real truth.

                      Maybe some of us here might think it’s a waste of time but personally think it is.

                    • RV: “As far as I’m concerned this is probably the only place currently where a sane and rational discussion about how we got to where we are now can occur.”

                      Which is what was said on many other blogs and forums. However, as has been stated, Lana (and Jim and Tom – MS2) run a tighter ship, so perhaps it might not devolve into similar entities as these other blogs and forums. But then, I can see that it could devolve into a GPM due to the nature of discussion and human beings.

                      So, if it’s to be a discussion, let’s not confuse things by calling it “running out group/3D engrams” as a discussion of historical occurrences is not group engram running. Therefore, being a discussion, I think it should have it’s own thread so it doesn’t keep popping up in the middle of other subject threads. I think you’d get a lot more travel out it that way as well. And MS2 could bump it as necessary to keep it current.

                      RV: “Maybe some of us here might think it’s a waste of time”

                      I don’t think anyone is saying this, Robin; at least, I can’t recall this being said. In fact, those engaged in this discussion have only pointed out the differences between “discussion” and “group engram running” but have for the most part – IIRC – supported it, conducted properly or in a proper forum. So that statement is a bit of an hyperbole.

                      RV: “Scientolipedia was mentioned which at one time I considered a valuable resource. Now I question its validity….”

                      As with any source of information, one needs to apply the Data Series as well as Study Tech. That way one can ascertain its importance, its validity and veracity, as well as its worth and placement in historical perspective.

                      IMO.
                      C.

                    • Chris,

                      “(P)erhaps it might not devolve into similar entities as these other blogs and forums. But then, I can see that it could devolve into a GPM due to the nature of discussion and human beings.”

                      That was kinda what I was implying.

                      I mean who woulda thunk the Church woulda gone in the direction it has.

                      Vigilance, which means keeping careful watch should include an understanding of what one is being vigilant of or it could lead to vigilantism.

                      “As with any source of information, one needs to apply the Data Series as well as Study Tech. That way one can ascertain its importance, its validity and veracity, as well as its worth and placement in historical perspective.”

                      Well of course.

                      Duh.

                      Don’t tell me!

                      You’re with the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Department 😉

                      Yet we have people claiming to be HDSEC Grads saying stuff like Miscavige is the “why”.

                      Not to mention their grasp of study tech being kinda tenuous to make such a statement,

                      Maybe it would have been more accurate if I had written that I currently question Scientolipedia’s validity as a reliable source.

                      Probably the best advice one could give is yes use the DS and Study Tech but also evaluate these sources.

                      So I guess the article on Personal Integrity would apply as well which would also include one’s certainty as covered in JOS 26 G I believe “Science of Certainty”.

                      I mean how could any one who has actually applied the Tech and gotten miraculous results and/or has actually attained the abilities given on the GC believe that the Ol’man was some kind of con artist or that Scientology is a fraud?

                      True there is a difference between writing an accurate history of Scientology and running the 3rd Dynamic engram (not to be confused with a Group Engram Intensive which is an entirely different process) but in many cases you may get similar results. That is a rise in tone. One that comes when a person realizes they have been lied to. So it does disenturbulate Theta to a greater or lesser degree.

                      IMHO.

                    • P.S. Nothing wrong with an historical discussion, as long is aware of the liabilities of it – given much precedence of similar attempts- and if it’s conducted within it’s own thread (IMO, many pluspoints for this).

                    • Well good.

                      I’d say we’re on the same page here.

                      Personally I think it’s up to us since there are so many Winston Smiths running around in the media, in Scientology and in the so called “Independent Field” trying to rewrite history.

                      Much of this so called “history” comes from former Execs who like former Generals rewrite history to justify their failures and defeats.

                      Probably the best book I ever read on American History was Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States because it wasn’t solely written from the perspective of the high and mighty but included multiple viewpoints which included the lowest of the low.

                    • Paul,
                      You gave an example of the whys and wherefores of “quickie Grades”, and how that came about, what the background was etc.

                      Chris gave an answer, that the story is revealed in the Tech Vols and the OEC. That’s quite true. For example, there is a sort of “precursor” issue to the points of KSW that you mention, and even more so the reasons described for weakness in those points. That issue is HCOB 6 Sept 63, Instructing in Scientology Auditing. Background to this HCOB is covered in the Briefing Course lectures at the time, and continuing up through to say September 63. During this time period the technical meaning of “itsa” was developed, as well as the development of the materials related to a Service Facsimile, including the concept of it being a “Service Computation”.

                      A Ser Fac comes about in a situation where a person couldn’t “itsa”, that is, observe, describe, perceive, identify accurately some part of life, and couldn’t therefore “itsa” it. Not being able to say “it is” this or that easily, by direct observation and ability to permeate, to have full ARC for this situation, the person “computes” an answer, a “solution” that is a stable datum for that confusion, in lieu of being able to tolerate it, identify all the factors, and say what it is.

                      This idea, the computation/conclusion about the area, then is used to “observe” that area, and similar areas. The idea is substituted for looking and seeing – for “itsa”, from there on. Only thing is, it isn’t.

                      This isn’t a “short course” in Ser Facs, but is meant to communicate that the subject IS recorded, it is written down. In fact, the basics of the subject are contained in the full research line that is the REAL “basics” that DM was supposed to put together. LRH intended fully, and left a series of orders to get the materials of Scientology made completely available to all, since a full study of the subject is part and parcel of the Bridge.

                      The above material on the milieu of KSW in terms of Ser Facs, is one example of this. Another is where did the Grades come from in the first place? That too is answered in the written and spoken materials that are the legacy of L. Ron Hubbard.

                      I’m not trying to patronize here either. My OWN reality on Scientology has come up so far, it seems absurd to me what I knew yesterday, compared to today, sometimes. That’s by a full study of the thing.

                      I agree with Chris, that the technical details of running a 3D engram are applicable to a thorough go of it. Yet, I agree with the idea that a well run, disciplined, discussion of things, a la “itsa” about them, is also part and parcel of the application of the tools we have to bring about changed conditions. It could be said that would fall under Scientology Zero” i.e., a basic destimulation of the dangerous environment. Scientology auditing (again, as described in that series of 1963 tapes I’ve mentioned above) includes a destim of the person’s present life, as well as the tools to get him past all the restim of his track.

                      I’m putting in a plug to all, to study, fully, this subject. It is THE Bridge, and for those of us who have persisted on this given course, the whole of this adventure takes on a different aspect.

                      Sincerely,
                      Jim

                    • Jim: “…a well run, disciplined, discussion of things, a la « itsa » about them, is also part and parcel of the application of the tools we have to bring about changed conditions. It could be said that would fall under Scientology Zero » i.e., a basic destimulation of the dangerous environment.”

                      I can see that. I think it should have it’s own thread as too often this subject has taken over other threads. I also think that anyone discussing it – as you say, itsaing it – understand that this isn’t an “Itsa” as in response to an auditing question (a “Whats-it”) in an auditing session – i.e., no long rants of BPC which rightfully belong in a session. While I also think it should be run “live” – i.e., someone running it in real time, so that moderation can be beneficial – I don’t think that’s possible, so it again becomes a discussion, a la every other “discussion” on the matter. :p

                      I trust Jim and think he should oversee this, if it is to occur. I think it would be fruitful then. Meanwhile, I’m going back to auditing and C/Sing; you guys keep the bogs at bay, hey? 😀

                    • JL:

                      I wouldn’t worry too much about sounding patronizing, at least as far as I’m concerned. I’m of a mind that there’s always more to learn, and when someone who knows more than you do about a subject, you never know what you’ll pick up. Even people who know less than you do can sometimes give you perspectives you hadn’t thought about.

                      I wondered if perhaps there weren’t “tracks” or details about quickie grades that would show up somewhere in the lecture/written line. But my supes always discouraged my questions on the subject (probably because they didn’t know themselves).

                      I don’t doubt there were orders from LRH to make the whole kit and caboodle available. Whatever one has to say about the Basics, they were at least a first step toward this. We had a massive collection of tapes in my Org, but it probably wasn’t all of them and having them in tape form in the Academy isn’t the same as “making them publicly available”. Some of those early lectures probably hadn’t been listened to by hardly anyone in decades.

                      Umm, yes, I’ve often wondered about the Grades. They are quite a departure from where I’ve left off (end of the PDCs, 1953 or so) and the early 60s when the Bridge was ultimately put together. But I figured that would be covered as I listened to more lectures and read more materials.

                      This is another beef I have with the people who run down the Basics. However badly you think they were executed (and the fact that they were arbitrarily made prerequisite to everything else), they have served to enlighten thousands of people that there actually is a research track, and here’s what it looked like. Most people had no earthly idea how we went from DMSMH to Scientology, to the Bridge, to the OT levels. But once you start studying the Basics, you begin to see how LRH’s mind worked and how one thing lead inevitably to another.

                      Example: On SOP V (introduced late in the PDCs), you were trying to get people up to the point where they could create their own universes. But one of the things you often had to run out was the anchor points on the places they lived when they were kids. WTF? Where did that come from? Who knows? But LRH clearly saw it come up when researching the techniques of SOP and made it an optional part of the handling. And you can almost imagine how it came up. Something was holding people back. What was it? And LRH was probably casting about for what it was. Some probing, some meter investigation, some questioning of auditors who were auditing the material, and this anchor points thing just dropped out. So it became a step one might have to handle before getting someone onto the real work of mocking up their own universes. Listening to the lectures, you get to see how the reasoning and observations progressed. You’re not doing the research yourself, but you’re right up close to the guy who’s doing it, because he’s giving you daily lectures on how it’s progressing and changing.

                      You know, if you put together this idea of lack of ability to itsa leading to Ser Facs with the idea of third dynamic engrams, you can see how they could well contribute to one another. Some emergency on the the 3D occurs, details of which were not immediately made available, could yield a great many people unable to itsa on the subject. Ser Facs result (of which we’ve seen a ton in the Field involving the third dynamic and groups). Or the circumstances act as late locks on Ser Facs which were already in place on the 3D (again very visible in our Field). Interesting.

                      Anyway, thanks for your contribution. Always appreciated.

                      Paul

                    • Paul,

                      This is for your last comment.

                      God knows where it’ll end up in the comments section. The way WP’s comment structure is which is designed for the occasional comment not for lengthy threads.

                      But anyway to be more specific much of the data covering the period of Quickie Grades is not in the Tech or OEC Vols but more specifically in LRHEDs of that period.

                      If you don’t have a copy of this Pack of EDs I’d be happy to send you a set. Just give me your e-mail address.

                      Now about the so called “Basics” that they are promoting at the Church. Many of these are not the *Basic* texts or lectures on the subject since they are above the average person’s ability to grasp the subject.

                      There is a PL which I’ll have to dig up that covers different levels of dissemination which is being totally and completely violated by the Church.

                      There is also various REDs on how to train auditors which you will find in the RED packs around the period of ’68 to ’69.

                      In my *opinion* since I don’t have the references to hand.

                      One does not need too much of a philosophical, theoretical, theological or any other deep understanding of the subject in order to *apply* it.

                      This deep understanding is reserved for levels like Class VI and VIII.

                      As far as *I’m* concerned approaching the subject in a historical linear path is a waste of time at lower levels.

                      Since none of the levels were designed in that manner. In fact you’ll find many processes for 0 later than problems and even withhold and overt processes and vis versa.

                      Processes for each grade were picked for what level they applied to from various periods of Scientology’s development.

                      This is covered in the HCOBs C/S Series 2 and the HCOB Dn & Scn Current State of Materials.

                      Sure there are *basic* books and lectures but each of these books is assigned to the level it pertains to or was on any check sheet that was ever approved by Ron himself.

                      I’ll tell you the reason behind quickie grades.

                      Back in ’68 Ron wrote an HCOB on what should be the major processes for each level and auditors only ran these instead of all the processes necessary for each Grade.

                      In fact these processes were never canceled and are still known as “Triple” or “Quad Grades”.

                      What happened was that many cases arriving at Flag to do their OT Levels weren’t making it and the biggest factor other than resistiveness was *out lower grades*.

                      Again this is covered in those RED Packs which a study of will answer your questions better than I can.

                      LR

                    • Robin,
                      Good point on the LRH EDs as part of the running commentary on goings on at the time. I’ve got them for you too Paul if you don’t have them.

                      I did a cramming cycle at the Int Base once, on Fast Flow and what it was relative to study, that included among other things, Method 2, 4 and 9 on some LRH EDs that came out at the time Fast Flow study was introduced. Coupled with the HCOBs and PLs which are the standard, cleared ‘er right up it did.

                    • RV: One does not need too much of a philosophical, theoretical, theological or any other deep understanding of the subject in order to *apply* it.

                      This deep understanding is reserved for levels like Class VI and VIII.

                      Nice post, very informative, helpful. 🙂

              • The other aspect to this, is this discussion about the history is just communication, and its comm people either find interesting or not and can join in on or not. The problem as I see it is that the history has been so clouded, that those of us who are interested, are really interested!

                Re criticism of LRH or the Tech(s), personally I dont like it, and with some people I have engaged in comm countering their arguments.
                But there is one thing I would like to point out and that is Per HCOB 11 August 78 Iss 1 RUDIMENTS DEFINITIONS AND PATTER “It is elementary auditing knowledge that auditing over the top of an ARC break can reduce a graph, hang the pc up in sessions or worsen his case,–”

                If there is one thing dave has done really well it is the above. Im assuming by graph Ron is talking about the OCA graph. So a guy comes in relatively happy, responsible, appreciative, personable etc and then leaves in worse shape than he came in. If he is untrained and has no idea the tech has been squirrelled he is going to think this is Scn and worse still, Ron wrote this stuff, he must be responsible.

                If that guy can be taken into session with a standard Auditor, after what he has experienced, then great, that is definitely the way to go, IF, he is willing to go in session. Otherwise the only way he is going to find out that he was f—-ed over, is by the comm on these blogs. And in all of this, I am not saying to skip obvious natter just use good judgement!

            • Sometimes, a historical discussion, in the proper historical context, made by knowledgeable people who stick to the facts might be interesting. However, a public blog like this one, may attract many natterers who are more interested in spreading their own opinions than the truth, and they are not interested on receiving proper auditing, etc., to handle their charge.

              PSA: http://www.thevisualiser.net . Cheaters are not welcome. 🙂

      • RV, Nice references (and links). Thanks.
        This works for me very well, as I see trying to calm the environment down as a start to regaining forward progress.
        (IMHO, the 3rd Dynamic has been deliberately attacked, and needs to be dealt with.)

    • Chris: IMO, the primary purpose behind “blowing charge” or “finding the Why” or “running out the group engram” would be (or should be) to enable one to progress up the Bridge, to enhance survival through application of Scientology in one’s life, specifically to becoming more trained and audited. Otherwise, it’s just another exercise in yap-yap-yap. MS2 should never become just another blog “like Murray’s” (not that I think it will, just stating a viewpoint).

      Very eloquently stated. 😉

      Handle it, but don’t use it as an explanation or SerFac to compel persistence.

  3. Begin PSA:

    Hi Everyone.

    This is for all of my friends in the US.

    Right now we have a chance to get rid of the odious unconstitutional “Patriot” Act:

    /Users/robin/Desktop/Patriot-Act-FB.jpg

    You can contact your Senators at the following number:

    202-224-3121.

    Thanks Lana for allowing me to digress on an issue that I feel is very important.

    LR

    End PSA:

    • Hey anyone out there who phoned their senator take a win.

      Just got this in my email:

      Earlier tonight, the Senate rejected cloture on the USA Freedom Act, which at the time of the vote still renewed key and controversial provisions of the so-called “Patriot” Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

      This is yet another blow to the security statists, who tried to get their extensions through without being dragged into a public debate over how much the “Patriot” Act has infringed on our liberties.

      And this victory is only thanks to grassroots voices like yours!

      See.

      As the Ol’ man says:

      “Something can be done about it.”

      LR

      • Maybe possible ’84 but probably not with the WP notification center text editor though.

        Seems pretty primitive. Unlike the section used for posting which uses a full text editor.

        Actually all I did was drop the jpeg in from my Desktop and hoped it would show up.

    • MB,

      I doubt it.

      Personally I don’t think we are big enough to be too much of a concern to them.

      Max on the other hand has put a crimp on their operations in Russia and Europe.

      In fact all the execs at Denmark Org switched over to RONs back in ’05 and I think a lot of Orgs and Missions in the FSU followed suit.

      Having worked in the original “Squirrel Busters” as a tech consultant back in the early ’80’s I noticed they tend to fixate on one target which at the time was Mayo’s AAC at the exclusion of any other squirrel or splinter group.

      • I’d just like to add that there are pros and cons to blowing operations like this. The pro being that people see what OSA is actually up to and thus exposing the lie that OSA is not anything like the old GO. At its worst I might add.

        The con is that exposing such ops makes people paranoid and start looking for “OSA Ops” on every Blog ,MB or NG sorta like McCarthyism on the web where anyone who disagrees with current party line is denounced as an “OSA Bot” of some kind.

        In other words something like this turns into a good excuse for a “witch hunt” of some kind.

        I myself have been accused of working for OSA because I don’t go along with the “lone Miscavige theory” which is currently in vogue.

        Just like back in the old days on ARS when anyone who came out in support of Scientology was accused of being a “plant”.

        I’m just saying it may be good to know these things but I might also add that it is to a greater or lesser degree entheta and therefore has a tendency to enturbulate.

        In other words another Group Engram.

        • But isn’t this more historical information, especially when factual as that OSA program on that link seems to suggest?

          • True but these so called programs are actually late on the chain.

            OSA has been involved in this kind of activity pretty much since its inception.

            Dirty tricks or what they call “fair gaming” has been their MO since the early ’80’s when they replaced the GO.

            Whereas this was a sideline activity of the GO with OSA it is their Raison d’être.

        • You are right; my observation is similar to yours. Unfortunately, everything has pros and cons. I think it’s very important to be aware of their tactics to preempt them. (I’m preaching to the choir: I assume MS2 has people knowledgeable about preemption.)

          Bay the way, at least one of MS2 members has already been subjected to OSA program(s):

          • Chris: Bay the way, at least one of MS2 members has already been subjected to OSA program(s)

            This has nothing to do with M2, it’s a Lamberger issue no matter whom he signed up with, and they were already on his tail long before M2’s inception. He has a large member group with a specific location who pose a direct threat to the CO$ gig down the street. He’s high-magnitude material. If M2 had a large physical center with a sizable public also operating near their orgs, you bet they’d also be running after it too.

          • MaBu,
            Do not be concerned. There are no heavy attacks (covert or otherwise) on MS2. Delivery is happening in many locations around the planet, unhindered.

            MS2 has no games condition with the C of S and we are just getting on with production of standard Scn.

            And you are right — there are many within MS2 who are well familiar with OSA tactics. In fact, the OSA tactic with MS2 has been to spread rumours that are actually an OSA Op, or run by OSA, or some such crap — which is an interesting twist and game. By leading people in the Indi field to fear that we are OSA I guess they try to create conflict and scare people away.

            The problem with this is that we use LRH tech and get it applied standardly, and that results in people winning, and that proves that we can’t be OSA (or the C of S), as they can’t follow a technical bulletin even if they try. And it is very hard to claim we are squirrels — when we can be easily seen to be following LRH, while they are…. well… they are not. They follow Dave-Tech and evaluations.

            So… let’s just get on with getting more people audited and trained. That’s what it is all about, and even these OSA people will learn that, some day.

            • “So… let’s just get on with getting more people audited and trained. That’s what it is all about,”

              Couldn’t have said it better, Lana. 🙂

            • “In fact, the OSA tactic with MS2 has been to spread rumours that are actually an OSA Op, or run by OSA, or some such crap —”

              Ironically this is the same tactic CIA uses when they want to discredit someone. By claiming they are working for the CIA.

              This what caused the “Rock Festival” on the Apollo.

              OSA like CIA must know how highly they are regarded (note the sarcasm) to pull a stunt like this.

              I agree Lana. If we keep auditing and training and getting results which is something the Church no longer does.

              We will eventually come out the other side.

              The original HCOPL Attacks on Scientology would apply:

              HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
              HCO POLICY LETTER OF IS FEBRUARY 1966 Remimeo Francbise FSMs
              ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY
              (Cancels all Sec Eds and Pol Ltrs to the contrary)

              Having had some time to think this over and having studied the matter with great care, I have isolated the most successful response to meeting any and all attacks on ScientologY, its organizations and Scientologists and as of this date this becomes policy.

              ADVOCATE TOTAL FREEDOM

              That is the policy-advocate total freedom.

              There are technical reasons for this which an auditor will recognize.

              To discharge later incidents from a mind, one must get the first or basic incident of that kind. In this case the basic aberrated incident was the suppression of freedom of the being. Just before that there must have been freedom. Thus advocating total freedom hits the true basic incident.

              This is also the basic purpose of Scientology and the basic purpose of people, so it all agrees well.

              This is also easiest to do. It is easier than fighting Parliaments or building up cases against people who attack us.

              The only liability of using this policy (total freedom) is that it releases energy (a Scientologist knows this as “blowing locks”) which looks disturbing but is weakened.

              No other approach we have used worked. We are alive not because we fought but because we went on doing Scientology in spite of anything.

              So never advertise an attack. Just advocate more strongly “Total Freedom!” and show how Scientology can attain it for the individual.
              Careful summary of our past actions in the face of attacks and an analysis of various changes in human history show that the best and only effective thing we did or anyone ever did was advocate freedom. The precise practice of Scientology obtains total freedom so never advertise anything else but total freedom and the Scientology services and steps that bring it about. Courses, processing are the gradient scale to total freedom.

              That’s the answer no nation or person can stand up to-if we keep saying it long and loud. SCIENTOLOGY IS THE ROAD TO TOTAL FREEDOM.

              Used in argument one can invent -reasons to baffle the attacking agency or person-but all these reasons should add up to everyone has rights to total freedom.

              I think this alone can move mountains.

              LRH:mi.rd
              Copyright @ 1966
              by L. Ron Hubbard
              ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

              L. RON HUBBARD

          • MB

            This is against Dror Center in Israel not MS2.

            You can understand why OSA went after them?

            They at one time where a high profile Scientology Mission or Franchise that went over to what *they* considered was the “dark side”.

            As I wrote earlier one of the key reason that they are going after Max Hauri is because the whole Denmark Org back in ’05 went over to RON.

            Also the program written in ’07 obviously wasn’t that successful since the Church in the FSU is now under the watchful eye of Moscow Center while Max’s group operates practically unmolested in the Former Soviet Republics and even in Germany.

            In other words another major foot bullet for OSA and the Church.

      • RV: “I doubt it. Personally I don’t think we are big enough to be too much of a concern to them.”

        I wouldn’t bet on that, Robin. Just ask Michael Moore who founded APIS over a decade ago, an earlier and similar construct to MS2 (although MS2 is different in many ways). He had some trouble from OSA and was hounded and harassed. I’d bet MS2 is on OSA’s radar and even if there’s no long program, there could well be projects or generic targets that would encompass this organization as well. Best to be vigilant and constantly alert to insertions, plants, dupes, etc. But I’m preaching to the choir. 😉

        • OSA Ops have an easy task enturbulating and running a discussion forum off the deep end if moderation is slipshod. That’s the front-line as stalking each member has no bearing on this site, as we are in other places too, a bit too fabian. Sure they’ll keep their eyes peeled for anything that gives them an angle, but I doubt any ongoing operation that calls for a stat or product on time machines is likely not going to work here. As long as people are looking for auditors and training centers, I suspect at this point not much they can do but watch and report.

          If you are going to make everyone retrain for a third time, running a circular bridge, reging bonanzas around every other corner, sec check city before any new OT level, well … lol … we’re gonna be busy. The CO$ has been the best totally free FSM system in history for the FZ/Indies. 🙂

          • There are other ways than enturbulating a group and subverting its purpose, or stalking individual members. A primary OSA op is legal harassment. As MaBu has said, it’s wise to be knowledgeable. Price of Freedom and all that. 😉

            • Chris: A primary OSA op is legal harassment.

              Yes, although I did not mention that particularly, that would be included as one of many ways of harassing us. Fortunately not much of that lately for of us here, and hopefully it stays that way. 🙂

            • Chris,
              On the legal line, one of the things we did at MS2 was to get in our legal ruds. They are maintained. On that topic, when it comes to an legal teeth that DM used to have, they are all so chipped and worn right now, that he really only capable of gumming, which is just slobbering in actual fact.

              I am a Scientologist, a practitioner of the Applied Religious Philosophy of Scientology, as expressed in the written and spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard.

              I do my level best to train and audit others applying the exact materials of LRH’s Dianetics and Scientology in the practice of my applied religious philosophy – Scientology.

              I study, cram, correct and work to enhance my grasp and ability to apply the subject, daily.

              Finding that in large measure the various Churches of Scientology, under the direction on one David Miscavige, no longer adhere to LRH’s Scientology on key issues, I decided to continue to practice Scientology outside of the domination and nullification that is dramatized by that same David Miscavige, in his pursuit of his Bank orientated goals.

              Having continued the practice of Dianetics and Scientology publicly now for some years, openly and with full knowledge by DM, the concept of “laches” is in effect, and he can but gum about trademarks. Should he take a direct approach, say by suing me, then of course the legal concept of Unclean Hands follows in my potential response, and that with some expert legal advice from the get go mind you, is that. DM sure don’t wanna go to court about what all he’s been up to, that I ain’t part of, that led to me practicing my applied religious philosophy outside that ‘not-co-terminal” with Scientology thingie he has going.

              Unclean Hands. It’s really a basic idea. It’s covered well in Scientology, and is a very well known concept in the courts, too.

              Again, I give a rat’s ass about OSA, legally, on the many vias they operate (witness the use of dupes, on lots of via, as expressed on the various blogs) or other wise, other than to know should that as it comes to pass, there is ample experience based wisdom in many LRH policies, to deal with this nonsense. We here at MS2 are versed in the various technologies of Scientology, and apply them, including the data related to this subject.

              Like you say repeatedly Chris, the game is auditing and training, not a Q&A with the barks of dogs. Though, for some healthy awareness of what’s going on down there, yapping, it’s OK to look and catch a glimpse as we go on down the line and notice – itsa that.

              🙂

              • Jim: “I am a Scientologist, a practitioner of the Applied Religious Philosophy of Scientology, as expressed in the written and spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard.

                I do my level best to train and audit others applying the exact materials of LRH’s Dianetics and Scientology in the practice of my applied religious philosophy – Scientology.

                I study, cram, correct and work to enhance my grasp and ability to apply the subject, daily.”

                Jim, I know you are, and I know you do. And it’s because of that – and what you do and ARE with it – that I count you as a true friend, a rarity in my universe.

                (What? What did you expect? LOL)

          • I agree FM.

            OSA has actually been working the ‘net for years ask Tory Magoo.

            Nothing new here folks.

            Don’t take it personally.

            Like you say FM. The Church has best our best FSM 😉

        • Yes but it was originally called the International Freezone Association even though it was never associated with Bill Robertson’s Freezone which later became Ron’s Org Network.

          And OSA being OSA tends to be reactive.

          Did you also notice in the program that they have the Freezone conflated with RON. A=A=A.

          RON stopped calling themselves the “Freezone” in the 0’s because the term was highjacked by other groups or individuals who practiced Scientology outside of the Organization.

          So the person who wrote up the program never really studied the actual scene.

          Also as I wrote. OSA tends to be reactive. They react usually against those who they feel are attacking them.

          They also consider a published disavowal an attack which is why they go after these people who have published these “doubt formulas” denouncing the Church.

  4. In this discussion of the validity of observations made on this blog, or others for that matter, the fundamentals of Scientology can be applied. For those of us who are “fundamentalists”, the one I’m talking about is from the Axioms of Scientology, the points of observation, to “as-is”, or “alter-is” etc.

    Dianetics and Scientology are addressed to the being’s ability to look at something as it is. To enhance the being’s ability to say, from directly observing as a being, with full ARC, that such and such “is”. It is this. Itsa that.

    On the other hand, “alter-itsa”, well that’s the stock in trade of the Bank.

    Having had it mentioned that another blog, the “backincomm” blog, had published a purported “OSA Op” from 2007 I had a look-see.

    Whether this thing they’ve got is an actual OSA Program or not is open to question, as to its authenticity. It seems odd to me personally, that such a “sensitive” program, held in strict confidence as defined in the very program, would somehow find its way to the South African blog, that itself is a target of an actual OSA Op, as described by new OSA sites, going after a couple of people in S.A., that are now Ron’s Org.

    It is also odd to me, that in the blog posting this program, the very tactics described IN the program, are in full dramo ON the blog. In other words, the comments section itself contains all manner of “alter-itsa” about the non-sactioned-by-DM “field”. Including us here at MS2. Willy nilly, the aim of the OSA Program, if it is an authentic program, is being accomplished on the very blog exposing it.

    I’m not saying the S.A. blog, IS OSA. Nope. They aren’t. But, with the commentary, they have done exactly what OSA wants them to do nonetheless.

    What does OSA want?

    They want noise and distraction from the actual application of L. Ron Hubbard’s legacy, the points of KSW, occurring in the non-sactioned-by-DM field. (Frankly, DM doesn’t want anybody practicing actual Scientology in or out of the org, but that’s just cause he’s suppressive.)

    In contrast, at MS2 we have firmly in mind the idea communicated in KSW that it isn’t an “over there” that’s the issue. It isn’t the government ogre. It isn’t DM. It isn’t OSA. It isn’t a myriad of factors that will foil the aims and purposes of Scientology and Scientologists. It is the failure to get results by delivery of Standard Tech.

    The onus here is on delivery, results, wins, and the use of Scientology Tech per KSW. With that, who gives a rat’s ass about “OSA”, other than a healthy use of LRH’s policy to deal with any goofus ploys to distract from what we do – USE LRH’s Scientology as written, spoken, and described in the body of work.

    The real challenge is to know and apply our Scientology. In that light, I’m going back to study. The 20th ACC is absolutely amazing.

    🙂 Jim

    P.S. For info: I am indeed an OSA agent. I have been since oh, say, 1990, when a marriage was arranged, to put me under DEEP, DEEP cover. It was to include of course a sham declare, a sham blow of the wife, a subsequent “recovery” of the woman, incarceration, cave in and eventual death from cancer, all the while to keep my cover intact so that I, at the already hypnotically implanted point, could foil the attempts at applying Scientology in the non-sactioned-by-DM field while cleverly disguising myself as a “fundamentalist Scientologist”, and of course none of this is in my conscious awareness, since I was implanted by DM, using myself and granola prepared in the Massacre Canyon Inn kitchen by none other than Lana Mitchell, after she tried to murder Tom Cruise with a prawn (all part of HER cover).

    I am counting on the incredulity of the above revelations to keep me under cover, even unknown to myself. In fact, I don’t know that I’m actually writing this.

    • Jimbo

      Ah so you’re saying that you’ve been the Miscavigian Candidate all along?

      Has anyone from OSA asked you to play some solitaire lately?

      All kidding aside, Jim.

      Loved your comment.

      Very sane, very rational.

      Until you got the part about Lana and yourself being remote mind controlled covert ops. I mean that even goes beyond anything even I’ve ever written 😉

      As for the veracity of the doc posted. From my own personal experience it is probably authentic. True highly sensitive and all that but the fact is OSA is leaking like a sieve.

      They have no idea on how to apply the policy on Counterespionage.

      Nor do their actions align with any of the refs that they cited. For instance in Amprinistics Ron’s quote they use is an *observation* not a course of action to take and other actions that that OSA takes, ones that got the former GO into a lot of trouble like setting up or framing people with the help of turned operatives which is *not* what Project Squirrel says to do.

      Anyone who has read and word cleared any of those issues should know that the program while pretending to align with them is actually violating them.

      The fact is that OSA to a large degree are former GO who joined the SO. Many the same ones who covertly got Mary Sue and other good execs into a lot a of trouble and like Miscavige were never properly weeded out by RB or Sec Checking because the tech was never properly applied to them.

      Just so we know what we’re dealing with here look at the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation at the level of Covert Hostility.

      (This is to the rest of the audience Jimbo because I know you know this data)

      And therefore nothing would make these guys and gals happier than to have one of their leaked docs cause consternation and dissension in the field.

      So don’t give ’em a “win”.

      • Robin,
        You are right, these fools have no idea how to do what they should be doing, and what they do, they don’t do well. It is also kind of ironical i.e. having or showing the quality of ironicalness, that the fools that ran this OSA thing and also off the rails, have demonstrated clearly of late, they have no idea either how this whole thing should go. Now they suffer what they created. If that isn’t ironical, i.e., having or showing the quality of ironicallness, then neither is the core of earth – ironical, i.e., having or containing iron.

        Alas, this is.

        It really is a farce.

        • Jim,

          I’m sure there are a lot of quotes from the Ol’man that would apply but I’m particularly fond of the following:

          “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

          Karl Marx

          Which pretty much describes the trajectory of OSA’s current operations in relation to GO 1361.

          I mean one could take the GO seriously even one of the Federal Prosecutors grudgingly stated that their Intelligence and Espionage capabilities rivaled those of CIA and other Government agencies.

          While OSA always reminded me of CHAOS in Get Smart 😉

          Farce accurately describes these bimbos. Irony, blow back, sideways and the ever popular foot bullet pretty much describes the result of their operations.

          Really they have been as effective as to paraphrase what Ron said in the RED on the Birthday Game as a sling shot against a space ship.

          Personally I think we’re lucky we don’t have a worthy opponent like the GO to contend with. We can thank the coup and their infinite wisdom for that.

          Oh well.

          I’m going to post the following PL because it is very instructive and actually shows why OSA has never achieved any form of intelligence coup of any kind in the past, nor the present, nor will they in the future:

          HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF I SEPTEMBER 1969

          COUNTER-ESPIONAGE

          No country or company has ever solved espionage and intelligence actions within it.

          Industrial “espionage” is a very prevalent activity.

          As our policy letters and materials are often found in wrong hands we must be subjected to internal espionage on occasion. We certainly are subjected to intelligence externally.

          Intelligence actions internally in a company or organisation take five main courses:
          1 . Theft of documents or materials.
          2. Executive actions contrary to the company’s best interests if not outright destructive.
          3. Administrative enturbulation including messing up files, addresses, facilities or communications.
          4. False reports or false advices to customers or staff to bring about apathy or defeatism.
          5. Perversion or corruption of the product (in our case, technology).

          Motives

          Financial gain is the primary motive in almost all cases of infiltration.

          A very experienced European Intelligence officer stated that he had never failed to buy any person he had ever approached in any government, and this in a lifetime career in the field of espionage.

          Governments and many companies have amongst them people who are in or who can be forced into heavy financial trouble.

          By offering surprisingly small sums of money, any one of the five actions listed above could be effected by an enemy.
          The practice is so common as to be commonplace but the harm done is all out of proportion to the effort employed.

          A Solution

          Guarding against infiltration is a vital action for survival and nations and companies spend huge sums on counter-intelligence, the action of foiling the efforts of enemies.

          In studying the extensive literature of this subject an inexpensive effective solution has occurred to me which 1 do not think has ever been used.

          If finance is the motive, then of course one should reward successful Counter-Intelligence actions.

          An enemy seeks those in debt or forces persons into debt so they can be bought. If the person being baited were assured of a safer reward, the person would usually incline toward his own country or company.

          CenOCon Guardian’s
          Office
          Asst Guardians

          The Placard

          An org should therefore display in an area mostly frequented by staff, near the staff bulletin board or in the W.C., but not necessarily to the public, a placard worded somewhat as follows:

          REWARD

          As Industrial espionage is an ordinary occurrence in most companies, the staff is requested to be alert for
          I . Any theft of documents or materials.
          2. , Orders or directions which will result destructively.
          3. Any disturbance of files, bills or addresses.
          4. False reports or advices to staff or customers or preached defeatism. S. Willful corruption of tech.

          Anyone detecting any of the above should report the matter at once to the nearest Guardian’s Office with names and full particulars.

          Should further investigation result in the disclosure and apprehension or arrest of persons attempting willful harm to this organisation

          A REWARD OF S250 (f, 100) will be paid by the Guardian’s Office.

          Should a staff member be approached and asked to attempt any of the above actions he should promptly seem to agree, should accept any money offered (which he may keep) and should quickly and quietly report the matter to the nearest Guardian’s Office so that the instigators can be traced and arrested, at which time the $250 (.f, 100) reward will be paid.

          Another reward of 9 100 (f 30) will be paid any staff member or person in the field who should hear of or be subjected to any provocative anti-organisation activity in the field and who then forwards the criminal background and connections of the provocative person in such form that it may be given to the police by the Guardian’s Office.

          Should any staff member have knowledge of any financial irregularity within the organisation and furnish proof of it to the Guardian’s Office promptly along with evidence sufficient to prosecute he shall be given 25% of all monies recovered.

          BLACKMAIL

          Any person or agency attempting to accomplish any of the above five points by reason of attempted BLACKMAIL of a staff member is liable to arrest. In this case the reward is also paid to the staff member on the arrest and, conviction of those attempting it and the Guardian’s Office will defend the person even before law and excuse the misdemeanor or crime being used in the blackmail attempt.

          Amnesty

          An amnesty of all such actions before 15 September 1969 is fully granted providing the matter is reported promptly to the Guardian’s Office.

          Staffs are requested to cooperate fully to help continue to make an org and area a safe environment from which freedom may expand.

          Alertness is the penalty we pay for living in an aberrated society. Truth cannot live in an atmosphere of deceit.
          The Guardian WW.

          Org’s Protection

          Our Dianetics and Scientology orgs are fortunate in that where tech is “in” very little infiltration can occur since persons cannot benefit from things they try to harm.

          Our primary protection is “in” tech and well processed staffs. It follows that when tech is out, ethics will be found out also.

          Persons who have no or little case gain are the only ones we have any trouble with.

          No other organisation and no country has as good a chance as ours to be free of infiltration.

          One other thing worthy of note in connection with Counter-Intelligence is that countries and companies which do not have a high cause, a high allegiance, have need of tremendous counter-intelligence forces.

          If we keep our integrity high and give staffs good and valuable government, we will have maximum Counter-Intelligence effectiveness with minimum effort since our staffs would themselves militantly defend their executives and the org.
          LRH:ldm.rs.ei.rd
          Copyright (D 1969
          by L. Ron Hubbard
          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

          L. RON HUBBARD Founder

          • I’m in very good comm with an oldtimer who worked closely with Ron. Ron told him that there are plants in our organization. He witheld from Ron that Ron might be paranoid-He has a completely different VP now-he now feels Ron was not paranoid enough!!
            A little more on BIC-look at their blogroll-why would you have Marty’s blog on your blogroll??

            • That’s a good question Ingrid.

              I personally had a falling out with Marty sometime back about the time he wrote “What is Wrong with Scientology”.

              The guy in my opinion is a disinformation agent of some kind especially when he wrote in his later opus “Scientology Warrior” that he studied all the files relating to Michael Meisner and concluded definitively that he wasn’t a plant.

              Yeah anyone who believes that might be interested in some ocean front property in Arizona.

              Personally I suspect that Mark AKA Marty is either a witting or unwitting agent of SMERSH. Like some cop regarding such red flags as Meisner and such he’s telling us to move along folks ’cause there’s nothing here to see.

    • OMG… I am.speechless but have to get off the floor after a terrible case of the giggles. No wonder you liked that granola so much Jim…. AND keep eating it daily.

      • Lana,

        Ya gotta tell the story of trying to destroy the Church of Scientology’s secret dissemination or insemination( if you happen to Katie) weapon Tom the Cruise missile with a prawn 😉

        • Oh that story is old now…. and I am over the whole thing.

          In summary, I was booted off the Int base after 13 years of service there. TC had been there as a guest of COB and got food poisoning after consuming a shrimp (prawn) cooked by John Willoughby, the VIP Chef. They needed a clay pigeon, and John was married to COB’s chef, so I was there and was a perfect target.

          I was ex-RTC, so I had the X on my forehead which had been written in permanent marker (and no matter how many hours of amends, or number of liability formulas done, the X would never come off) and COB said “Off with her head!” and so, my head rolled and that ended my dedicated work at the Int base…

          That is a short version. It was probably the best thing that could have happened to me as it woke me up to how completely off the rails the place was, and gave me a chance to get my integrity back.

          🙂

    • Jim: “Having had it mentioned that another blog, the ‘backincomm’ blog, had published a purported ‘OSA Op’ from 2007 I had a look-see. Whether this thing they’ve got is an actual OSA Program or not is open to question, as to its authenticity. It seems odd to me personally, that such a ‘sensitive’ program, held in strict confidence as defined in the very program, would somehow find its way to the South African blog”

      It looks like you forgot (as a deep-deep OSA cover agent 🙂 ) that Marty had published this same program on 2010/03/18, and you had made a lengthy, as usual interesting, comment there.
      Jim Logan, March 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm:
      “I just re-read PR Series 18, How to Handle Black Propaganda, in light of the above OSA program. The subject of ‘attack’ is part of this issue. It says: ’The basic characteristic of extreme madness is perpetual attack, attacks on anything, attacks on persons or things which contain no menace.’” …

      • So this is the SAME program that was posted before? I didn’t realize that. As I recall the earlier posting was the one to do with Chuck Beatty and this one had to do with EU.

        I’m just a slacker when it comes to reading these things.

        • Yes, this is the same.
          On March-18-2010 Marty posted OSA’s 17-Feb-2007 FZ (EU) Program, where Jim Logan commented.
          On Jan-6-2011 Marty posted OSA’s 21-Feb-2006 Beatty Program (where Jim Logan also commented).
          On Nov-21-2014 BIC (re)posted OSA’s 17-Feb-2007 FZ (EU) Program.

          Anyway, I’m glad you (deep-deep OSA covert agent 🙂 ) are well versed in OSA tactics.

          By the way, I’m amazed with your time control powers: this, your latest posted comment, is time-stamped (Nov 24, 2014 at 9:13 am) before your previous comment (Nov 24, 2014 at 9:31 am). 🙂

      • I just scanned back, and this one, the recently posted one, is to do with EU in 07. The other was Chuck, and involved Barbara Schwartz as a dupe. I suppose the similarity of using a “type” to forward the aims is there.

        • Not to beat this to a pulp, but if one is familiar with the tactic of “dupe”, then the similarity betwixt the one used for Chuckie, and the ones being used now, then the ploy becomes clearer in its manifestation on the backincomm commentary.

          • To be more clear; the use of a dupe to forward lines, to enter disruption, attitudes, enturbulence is an old tactic. The “disinformation” type thing, “defeatism” et al. DM’s OSA has used this in terms of a reverse “roll back” tactic. They have vias to dupes, so the dupes get fed the lines, and they show up on these blogs as one place of appearance.

            There is a particular case type that is easily duped, and will carry forward the most alarming, alter-ised, and outrageous stuff. It’s a classic ploy that Dave and his ilk have carried on for decades. It’s along the lines of the earlier use of nutters to go in and disrupt HGCs.

            Those who have done this for years, are now hoist by their own petard. That’s ironical i.e., having or showing the quality of ironicalness.

            • Jim,

              I believe I made a comment about this earlier using “useful idiot” instead of “dupe”. Ron talks about this in the PR Series somewhere I believe it’s the policy on Black Propaganda regarding whispering campaigns.

              MB makes an interesting point about the OSA Op “exposed” on Marty’s Blog being similar to the one later posted on BIC.

              As if they’re written from some kinda template which displays the amount of independent thought available at the Orgs these days.

              Also waxed nostalgic when Barbara Swartz was mentioned who like Lady Chatterly the bot was a celebrity on ARS.

                • Thanx for posting this MB.

                  Pretty much what I figured which is that OSA is using some kinda template for their “covert” or not so covert actions as the case may be which indicates their post GAT lack of original thought.

                  Who knows how many useless hours were spent reciting their actions to some wall then doing some equally useless “what do you do?”

                  Or it’s a forgery of some kind that was reproduced to enturbulate the field.

                  Anyway either 1) or 2) would cause the same detrimental effect which I’ve seen on too many boards to count of self righteous indignation followed by the usual comments of how evil Miscavige and/or OSA is/are with absolutely nothing accomplished other than the usual “bombastic consequences” mentioned in a certain HCOB.

                  Sigh

                  As far as I’m concerned there is such a thing as constructive criticism which most C/Ses, Qual Terminals and Data Series Evaluators use and there is carping criticism which means just being critical but really having no intention of doing actually something about it.

                  At least MS 2 by auditing and training people most importantly and by viewing the 3rd Dynamic Engram are actually are doing something about it.

                  Something effective instead of signing some hoocky “petition” to have the (in)Justice Department “investigate” the Church or calling in on their remote controlled “media” sources or gnashing our teeth and wailing about how evil they all are.

                  ‘Nuff said.

                  • “Pretty much what I figured which is that OSA is using some kinda template….”

                    I’m confused. I thought both Jim and MaBu established it was the exact same program, not one based on a template, but the same one reblogged years later. Is there other data somewhere that supports templated programs?

                    • Chris,

                      There have been several programs that have basically the same structure against Tory Magoo, Chuck Beatty, David Mayo etc that have been posted.

                      I’m saying template in a sense that these programs are pretty much the same with almost the exact sequence of steps.

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