Home

going places

By Chris Black

In Basic Auditing Series 2, “The Two Parts of Auditing”, Ron says:

“In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person.

“Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly.

“Processing goes in two stages. 

  1. To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.
  1. Do something for him.

“There is many a pc who will go around raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for the pc. All that has happened is that a tremendous communication line has been established with the pc and this is so novel and so strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous has occurred.

“Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed that communication line in the first place. He formed it in the first place to do something for the pc.

“He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his having formed one, with having done something for the pc.

“There are two stages.

  1. Form a communication line.
  1. Do something for the pc.

“Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (1) Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don’t drive off you never go anyplace. 

“It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of Scientology to some.

“But you see that’s just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace.” LRH

While the above reference is specifically addressed to auditing, as in most things Scientology – dealing as it does with LIFE and being a study of LIFE – these datums are applicable in everyday life as well. For instance, we are often confronted with issues in our environment, such as at work or in local or regional politics or when we frequent blogs and forums. Oftentimes, we end up “walking up to the bus” and “communicating” about the situation to whomever might be within earshot – or web-shot– and then forgetting to drive off, or, in other words, DO something about it.

This communication (which can sometimes, unfortunately, end up being more griping, bitching or nattering than “communication”) is often rationalized as “blowing off steam” or “itsaing BPC”. Well, the proof is in the pudding – did it work?

In actuality, while forming a comm line does provide relief, removing BPC on an “itsa line” is properly done in session, the only guarantee one will be able to run it back to basic. REALISE THIS:

“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.” LRH (C/S Series 7, C/S Q&A)

IF it is not blowing, it is either the incorrect charge, or, there is an earlier similar! So one will be apt to continue to “itsa” and “itsa” on and on and on (just go to some of the many forums and blogs abounding on the internet for ex- or disenfranchised Scientologists) trying to find the correct charge or the basic on the chain. It really does make this line from HCOPL 19 August 1967, The Supreme Test, make sense:

“People who explain how wrong it is all going and who have reasons why and WHO AREN’T PUTTING IT RIGHT are the real crazy people in the universe.” LRH

Another example is the area of training and auditing: many walk up to the bus, but few get on it and go someplace. They communicate about the need and want of training and auditing, but what do they DO about it? People “communicate” about the lack of facilities or the imposition of time and space and energy between us and an auditor or group. But what did we do when we were in the Church? How did we get trained or go up the Bridge then, especially the OT Levels?

If one were to take a hard and, in my opinion, honest look at it, it might be said that it is a lack of responsibility for ourselves, our dynamics and our future. We are letting what happened with our Church affect us now. In essence, we have gone “effect” and have permitted our affinity with ourselves and our dynamics to be alloyed. So it is no wonder we seem to have trouble getting audited or trained, or in life on any of our dynamics.

So what can be done about it? Well, the simplest way to change that is to get on the bus and GO someplace – disagree with any agreement that you can’t, and you will. Assume a point of Cause and Responsibility and it will occur. The ability to disagree is one of the highest abilities there is. And it leads towards Responsibility. And Responsibility leads to total freedom.

As Ron says in HCOB 2 May 1985, Responsibility, Definition Of:

“RESPONSIBILITY: THE NONRECOGNITION AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION BETWEEN ONESELF AND ANY BEING, IDEA, MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME OR FORM, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF FULL RIGHT OF DETERMINATION OVER IT.” LRH

So practice this and communicate to someone – a friend, a professional auditor, a group – and then go someplace. Get audited; get trained.

The MEST universe succumbs to postulates. Make it happen!

62 thoughts on “Going places

  1. Just two days ago my CS had me restudy the Basic Auditing Series to perfect my auditing comm cycle. The one you quote here and the others contained in the series underpin what makes Scientology work. And they can applied on ALL dynamics.

    Because it is communication that is our interaction with others and the world around us, these references are a ticket for smoothing out and improving life with family, at school or work, in the community, with animals and plants, and dare I say, even with your car and the broader MEST universe.

    Found in the tech volumes you can read them in under an hour and use them endlessly to help sort stuff out.

    Very cool.

    • I agree, Lana; probably one of my most favourite series is the Basic Auditing Series. And excellent set of reference materials (and tools) for any auditor.

      And funny you should mention their applicability across the dynamics. While I’ve had a few times on my course up the Bridge (most notably on the VIII course) where I (re-) discovered how Scientology interrelates with life because it is a study of life (Life’s manual, you can say), recently while auditing others (50% of gains come from “doing”) and also on Solo NOTs solo auditing myself, I’ve come to realize at a higher level how this is all a “User’s Manual” and all these issues and tapes and books and stuff from the old man are tools to apply ON our dynamics. As you suggest, take communication for example, and apply it as a tool (just like you would a wrench) on a dynamic – 3rd, 5th, 6th, whatever – and see how one, as a static, creates using that tool on that dynamic.

      Seriously, the idea is blowing me away and makes me as giddy as being at the top of a roller coaster. It is one hellluva concept and deals with pure create as it was in the beginning (aka The Factors).

      And seriously, sometimes I think my body is going to disintegrate from this much awareness! Yow!

      • Chris you have just communicated and duplicated my own personal experience too.

        I was talking to Jim about it last night. I have been auditing full-time for the last week, with a bunch of people here, and I am making as many gains as those being audited.

        Yesterday I was helping a pc understand what an ARCX is, and helping them resolve if it is a break in affinity, reality, communication or understanding, and then spot in even more detail the make up of that break with the CDEINR buttons, which dissolves it, entirely. And if not, then we go earlier similiar and find earlier charge that is keeping the current ARCX from as-ising. As someone who had received little to no auditing in the past, helping this pc get an understanding and then a reality on how to apply this tech to give relief, is amazing.

        I was reflecting, late in the evening, how I could not count the number of times I have had my ruds flown, and I had forgotten, strangely enough, how lucky we are to be able to have a technology that resolves life’s upsets and problems COMPLETELY. It is truly a powerful tool to be able to help someone sort out the things they have their attention caught up on, and to teach someone how to use the tech themselves and get them to look at how it applies in their lives and across their dynamics, is as cool as hell.

        It worries me that the C of S has tried to pigeon hole and control the use of Scientology to an auditing room — when it is absolutely the tech of life, made up of 8 dynamics (urges).

        Auditing others while doing SOLO on NOTs is enough to generate a persistent FN! My postulate is to help others achieve the same gains and wins. 🙂

        • “It worries me that the C of S has tried to pigeon hole and control the use of Scientology to an auditing room — when it is absolutely the tech of life, made up of 8 dynamics (urges).”

          I totally agree, Lana. What is occurring in the Church (and even in it’s VMH programs) is not what LRH intended AT ALL. Scientology is the Tech of Life and was meant to be used daily, in life, not just in an auditing room. LRH explains that quite well in the Code of a Scientologist, and the issues “What It Means To Be A Scientologist” and “What We Expect of a Scientologist”.

          “My postulate is to help others achieve the same gains and wins.”

          I can agree with that! As LRH said:

          “My purpose is to bring a barbarism out of the mud it thinks conceived it and to form, here on Earth, a civilization based on human understanding, not violence.

          That’s a big purpose. A broad field. A star-high goal. But I think it’s your purpose too.”

          AMEN!

  2. Get what you’re saying Big Guy. But as far as I can see.

    Commenting and posting on blogs or anywhere on the internet for that matter such as in various discussion and newsgroups or Facebook ,Linkedin or any kind of as they call it “social”(which in many cases is just the opposite) media is not “Live Communication” per Axiom 51.

    Also discussion (unless it is guided by the rules of 2WC) and auditing are two different things.

    Though I do agree that various blogs have become sources of to put it bluntly *entheta* as covered in the book Science of Survival. Heaven forbid that we should fall into that same trap ourselves.

    That said according to the Creed of the Church and the Code of a Scientologist we should be promoting freedom of speech which according to my Oxford American “is the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint”. Not inhibiting it.

    What is an opinion. Well according to the same source:

    noun
    a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge: I’m writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance | that, in my opinion, is dead right.
    • the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing: the changing climate of opinion.
    • (opinion of) an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something: I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved.
    • a formal statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter: seeking a second opinion from a specialist.
    • Law a formal statement of reasons for a judgment given.
    • Law a lawyer’s advice on the merits of a case.

    I’d say in most of cases much of what is posted here falls under definition one and at times two.

    Now I know that there are certain rules about posting one’s opinion here as there should be. Just as there is on any blog that anyone commenting agrees to abide by.

    But other than that people should be free to post what they want as long as they are not violating the rules and that the Creed and the Code of a Scientologist should be applied IMHO.

    LR

    • I don’t disagree, Robin. I’m only pointing out, within this one narrow viewpoint (there being others I tried to make in the article as well), that only posting opinion and not doing anything else effective but that (and, as you say, there are innumerable blogs filled with such), is, IMO, insane. At the least, it’s a stuck flow. Again, IMO. Take BIC for example, or ESMB – what is being DONE on that dynamic? So, I agree, but with qualifications to my view. 🙂

      • >I don’t disagree, Robin. I’m only pointing out, within this one narrow viewpoint (there being others I tried to make in the article as well), that only posting opinion and not doing anything else effective but that (and, as you say, there are innumerable blogs filled with such), is, IMO, insane.At the least, it’s a stuck flow. Again, IMO. Take BIC for example, or ESMB – what is being DONE on that dynamic? So, I agree, but with qualifications to my view. :)<

        I'm glad Chris that we can find agreement on this point.

        Again in my opinion the reason why there has been as you say a "stuck flow" on sites and blogs like ESMB, OCBMB, Moving up (which should really be moving down), Nothing can be done about it, BIC, etc is that they get eventually get into nothing but lies and as Ron says in the PR series that lies eventually dead end and this could be the reason for the stuck flow you've noticed.

        I think the best thing we can do is create some ARC here.

        BTW I notice since most of us are a bunch of Techies is although there seems to be high ARC for the Tech which is expected. ARC seems to be low on the Policy IMHO. Yet policy is the Tech that directly addresses the 3rd Dynamic.

        Don't get the idea that I've always been pro policy. Back in the days when I was in the Org I disregarded its importance and is probably the reason why I tolerated such flagrant violations of under the mistaken belief that the tech would sort out the scene or more accurately the situation eventually.

        I remember when I found out about the Mission Holders Conference in what would now be ironically called "KSW News" and saying to myself something like "gee…huh ….maybe …that….ya know that they maaaaay have violated the policy on Franchise and Ethics there….but…I'm not..ya know …sure…" and going on to my next folder in the stack."

        Or trying to get the DoP who was always to oblige to scheduled with as many PCs as possible so I didn't have to confront the madness and insanity of the Organization.

        Needless to say we've all played our part in small and big ways that eventually led us down this road to perdition.

        Whether it was some dark government conspiracy or some guy named Miscavige we either failed to act or in someway contributed to it.

        But I digress.

        I think that policy is important. Maybe not as important as getting the tech applied but still important on a 3rd Dynamic basis.

        As important I think to us as Scientologists as those of us who live in America knowing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

        • RV: Nothing can be done about it, BIC, etc is that they get eventually get into nothing but lies and as Ron says in the PR series that lies eventually dead end and this could be the reason for the stuck flow you’ve noticed.

          Spot on, that’s the way I see it too, no survival value. Many have come and gone. From what I have been able to ascertain from observation is that your average Natterblog participant drops off after about 5 years, then a few new CO$ blows come onto the scene to reincarnate another one. Revolving door.

          Perhaps … and I may be a bit naive here, but as long SCN services are delivered out here my attention is pretty much off the CO$ and on doing things that need to be done, so there may be a correlation. Keep the enturb out, things go well.

          • FM: “Perhaps … and I may be a bit naive here, but as long SCN services are delivered out here my attention is pretty much off the CO$ and on doing things that need to be done, so there may be a correlation. Keep the enturb out, things go well.”

            Not naive, FM, just spot on the money. Enturbulated theta (entheta) per LRH includes:

            “embroidered reports. Data is data. It is not opinion. Data, not entheta, brings about action. All entheta does is cut the lines. (HCO PL 26 May 58)”

            “means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to
            communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group (Scn AD); anger, sarcasm, despair, slyly destructive suggestions. (HTLTAE, p. 88)”

            And per Magic of Good Management, I think you nailed it.

        • RV: “…they get eventually get into nothing but lies…”

          Well, I think in actuality it’s alter-is, which includes outright lies and falsehoods, misinformation, false data, incorrect data, the illogics, etc. Many of these blogs (and yes, even here on MS2 at times) get snarled up in this and so the flow sticks as we thetans try to identify and indicate the correct BPC, usually done in a “hit-and-miss” fashion.

          RV: “BTW I notice since most of us are a bunch of Techies is although there seems to be high ARC for the Tech which is expected. ARC seems to be low on the Policy IMHO.”

          How did you come up with that evaluation, Robin? I’ve seen a lot of policy being quoted or referred to – especially by you (thank you). And personally, I’m Staff Status IV and would have completed the OEC if I didn’t get found by Reggie at ASHO on the course and yanked out by my ear. (I intend on finishing the OEC, too). I also held Tech Sec, Qual Sec, OES and D/ED posts, not to mention the input at Ad Council as Senior C/S> Jim refers to policy a lot. I’m just saying I don’t see it, but as they say, each person has a viewpoint. 😉

          RV: “But I digress.”

          Don’t worry about it, it’s to be expected. :p

          • Chris,

            Mainly I learned policy as a means of self defense. Some senior would tell me to do something that I objected to and I’d already come to the conclusion that if I objected to it it must be wrong so I’d find the policy where Ron basically stated my objection per Policy and quote it in my Orders Query, Job Endangerment, Ethics Report, etc.

            I eventually went through the whole OEC and pretty much the whole Management Series in this manner 🙂

            I found it as an effective means of getting seniors off my back and interfering with my post 🙂

            BTW my favorite post were in Qual where we had this big sign posted that says “Qual Takes Orders From No One.”

            Anytime some Exec would run in to “C/S” some case either me or the Qual Sec would point to it and smile.

            Eventually they’d go away and not come back 🙂

        • RV:

          You’d THINK knowing the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be important to Americans, but you’d be wrong. Ask ten random Americans (or a hundred or a thousand), and you’ll find their knowledge of basic civics so lacking that it’s shameful. For example, ask which amendment grants freedom of speech. It’s a trick question. NO amendment grants freedom of speech. The first amendment protects your inalienable right to freedom of speech from the abuse of Congress. Etc. That’s your tax dollars and public schools at work.

          I agree. It ought to be of paramount importance. And the truth is, it is. It’s just that most Americans have not been taught this. And so, to them, it’s not.

          Paul

          • I agree Scat.

            Unfortunately there is a parallel situation occurring in Scientology where most staff, never mind the public are woefully ignorant of basic policy. It’s no wonder they get away with the crap they do like for instance “willful misapplication of tech and policy” and other various and sundry High Crimes, Crimes and Misdemeanors.

            And yes agree that there is a big confusion between whether the Bill of Rights protects or grants these rights.

            Ron actually covers the above points in Essay on Management and also a Freedom article entitled Cultural Destruction plus one of my favorite lectures The Deterioration of Liberty.

            • RV:

              Very much agreed on the public’s knowledge of basic Scientology policy. One could hope that, had they known how the system was supposed to work, they never would have put up with “Ideal Orgs”, the IAS and other disasters.

              I don’t know what staff are taught these days about basic policy. But I can say that even in my day (when the Staff Statuses included a great deal of material), rampant breaches of basic policy were tolerated by staff. This was my favorite way of getting in trouble at the time: pointing out where policy was being violated, and then getting hit for it. My least favorite quote was, “Purpose is senior to policy!”. Yeah, but if you’d followed policy in the first place, you wouldn’t be forced to abandon it in favor of purpose now.

              Paul

              • Scat,

                Back in the ’70’s and I think into the early ’80’s they used to put most public onto the HQS Course which covered basic organizational policy and had the student Org board their lives.

                Also remember that the Scientology Org board used to posted in reception with the name of each staff member and what post they held along with their training and case level like it says in policy.

                During my last days at ASHO I found the their Org Board tucked away in some broom closet in the back of their Div VI area.

                Also most of the public is diverted away from any basic policy by such courses as the “Basics” and seminars on how to make money so one can give it to the Org.

                Personally I doubt if any of the public have actually read the policy “The Ideal Org” or they would suffer from what the psyches call “cognitive dissonance”.

                Either that or if they have read it they form a synthesis of some kind as Ron explains in the HCOB on False Data Stripping.

                As far as Staff. They may have done their Staff Statuses but most of them are unhatted for the post that they are holding and have never been product or post purpose cleared and thus tend to be Robotic as covered in the HCOB on Robotism and rely on orders ironically from some senior who is usually as unhatted and untrained as they are who in turn tends to be Robotic and thus it moves up the so called “Command Channel” until it runs into some SP at some higher level who’s actual intention is the destruction of Scientology and thus who issues destructive and illegal orders that carry out this objective.

                I mean these guy’s don’t need policy to tell them what to do since they are pretty much dominated by the bank which tends to be reactive.

                Anyway I could go on Scat but I’m sure you get the picture 😉

                • RV “Back in the ’70’s and I think into the early ’80’s they used to put most public onto the HQS Course which covered basic organizational policy and had the student Org board their lives.”

                  What checksheet was that, Robin? Because it wasn’t on the one I did in 1977 or ’78 nor was it part of the 1971 or revised or 1982 checksheets, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t on the newer ones in the mid to late ’80s when I was suping in Vancouver. I wouldn’t think that was a function of the HQS, especially the organizing board for their lives (though that was done on the LOC). And most public don’t come face-to-face with policy outside of the required KSW issues and one’s pertaining to the course they’re on. Unless, of course, they are doing a specific admin course.

                  Re staff, no, they’re not all robotic; some are pretty aware and most are caring individuals. However, in a climate of constant pressure and hill 10s and chaos, policy often does tend to get thrown out the window in orgs, not to mention a hundred other reasons for buying “executive rationale.” I just don’t think you can blanket them with a broad brush stroke like that. IMO.

                  • Chris: What checksheet was that, Robin? Because it wasn’t on the one I did in 1977 or ’78 nor was it part of the 1971 or revised or 1982 checksheets, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t on the newer ones in the mid to late ’80s when I was suping in Vancouver.

                    Correct, it wasn’t on the original Dianna Hubbard checksheet approved by LRH.

                  • >What checksheet was that, Robin? Because it wasn’t on the one I did in 1977 or ’78 nor was it part of the 1971 or revised or 1982 checksheets, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t on the newer ones in the mid to late ’80s when I was suping in Vancouver. I wouldn’t think that was a function of the HQS, especially the organizing board for their lives (though that was done on the LOC). And most public don’t come face-to-face with policy outside of the required KSW issues and one’s pertaining to the course they’re on. Unless, of course, they are doing a specific admin course.<

                    It was the final section of the Checksheet written by Mary Sue in the early to mid 70's which included references on FSMing as well.

                    BTW I think familiarizing every Scientologist with the Organizational policies of the Organization and the functions of the Org board even on a rudimentary level should be the function of an actual Hubbard Qualified Scientologist course.

                    The proof is in the fact that most Orgs back then were expanding and then in the '80's began to contract.

                    "Re staff, no, they’re not all robotic; some are pretty aware and most are caring individuals. However, in a climate of constant pressure and hill 10s and chaos, policy often does tend to get thrown out the window in orgs, not to mention a hundred other reasons for buying “executive rationale.” I just don’t think you can blanket them with a broad brush stroke like that. IMO."

                    All of them were not necessarily robotic per that HCOB yet many of them were due to the fact that they were unhatted and untrained.

                    Thus were very unstable.

                    True some tried to do their jobs but many felt they needed orders or directions by someone.

                    • RV: “It was the final section of the Checksheet written by Mary Sue in the early to mid 70’s which included references on FSMing as well.”

                      Ok. I did some deeper research and found one checksheet written in ’71 by Diana Hubbard and revised in Oct. 77 by Sally Miscavige that included BPL “The Organizing Board of a Scientologist” (but no practical) and BPL “The Statistics of a Scientologist” (again, no practical), and that was all. This checksheet was later cancelled by HCOPL 25 Nov 81R (Rev. 18 Feb 82) “HQS Checksheet”. Those BPLs were taken off and the course reverted back to its original format.

                      The interesting aspect to all this is that the March ’77 BPL version of the HQS course (no revision) was approved by David Mayo as Senior C/S and John Eastment as C/S 4 & 5. And that that BPL checksheet was later cancelled by the Oct. ’77 BPL revision of Diana’s original 1971 checksheet, and revised by “Sally Miscavige”. Interesting how it appears the game started earlier. I wonder if Sally was Ron Sr.’s wife (i.e., the father of David and Ronnie). Never did find a checksheet written my MSH, even the 1972 version.

                      RV: “BTW I think familiarizing every Scientologist with the Organizational policies of the Organization and the functions of the Org board even on a rudimentary level should be the function of an actual Hubbard Qualified Scientologist course.”

                      Possibly, but IMO it would be better if new Scientologists did SS0 which was an orientation to the org and took a half hour. That would also help get them interested in policy and admin. Maybe even SSI as well or a combined format. But I think the HQS course, written by Diana or Mary Sue and approved by LRH, was exactly what they wanted it to be.

                      RV: “True some tried to do their jobs but many felt they needed orders or directions by someone.”

                      From my observations, it was the reverse: many tried to do their job, and only a few needed orders, being robotic.

                    • Chris,

                      The HQS I did as I remember it was issued as an HCOPL by Mary Sue and had a study of the actual Basic Books such as POW, FOT, NSOL and Dn 55,clay demos on how each TR related to the com cycle and ARC, each TR done to a pass, objectives CCH 1-7 then Op Pro by Dup run to full Exteriorization which was the only EP that was accepted back then the HCOB on How to Make a Person Sober then a practical of making some drunk sober which was a good excuse to hang out in many fine drinking establishments and the occasional strip joint (of course as part of the getting that requirement accomplished and no other reason 😉 ) then a study of some of the FSM materials after which you had to go out and sell a book then there was a study of the Org Board after which I had to make a personal 7 division Org Board at which point I graduated the course.

                      BTW it was a hard covered green pack that was legal size very nicely done with the policies, HCOBs, BTBs and BPLs all in the correct color scheme according to policy.

                      Also as every course in Scientology did back then. It started with KSW and Tech Degrades. The reason I remember it so well was it was probably one of the best courses I’d done in Scientology and actually at the time really made me a Scientologist.

                    • Robin, all the HQS checksheets back then and into the ’80s had those same items on them, including starting with KSW (although I think there was one where it was put at the end of the course) and then study data and then TRs and the books, etc. And there was a PL from the early 70s too, but ti was Diana’s, not MSH’s. Whatever, the HQS was a good course for sure.

                    • Well yeah!

                      Actually I thought it was a great course.

                      Chris I’m pretty sure that somewhere on the PL not BPL that Mary Sue’s name was on there.

                      I know that Diana was CS 6 at the time but I don’t remember her name being on the Check Sheet.

                      Anyway it would be nice to have that pack which had the original check sheet in it.

                      Then again I could be thinking of the EDSEC and thus have two or more check sheets confused 😉

      • *** FROM MODERATOR: MWestern: Thanks for writing. MS2 does not ‘look down’ on people, and the views expressed by readers/subscribers are not necessarily the views of MS2 crew. Readers here are entitled to their opinions, based on their own observations, and they can communicate those if they stick to the basic moderation policy of this blog.

        Glad you have found those other blogs helpful, and good luck to you. Contrary to your statement, “ex-churchies” as you call them, are entitled to read, research and discover for themselves what they feel is true, and they are welcome to choose whatever path in life they wish, based on their own self determinism. The inference that MS2 holds some arrogant view of others, or demands respect is inaccurate and a falsehood.

        Heck… it’s almost Christmas. Let’s get a little more tolerant and a little less antagonistic. Spread some Christmas cheer and let’s look at raising ARCU on all sides of this game.

        I don’t understand. These so-called “natter blogs” (a rather juvenile term, imho) have helped hundreds, if not thousands, extract themselves from the church’s mental prison. Communicating is effective! Sharing opinions is effective. Learning (and being able to see from) a multitude of viewpoints regarding the Co$, Hubbard and his “tech” has, for me at least, been incredibly therapeutic and has undoubtedly helped me to grow as a being. Some of their successes, I assume, now frequent this blog. Isn’t that rather fantastic? I don’t get why people like Marty, Mike, the Saffas, et al, are looked down upon by certain people here. What more do you want from them? Must every ex-churchie join an Indie group to command your respect? Seriously don’t get it.

        • I don’t understand. These so-called « natter blogs » (a rather juvenile term, imho) have helped hundreds, if not thousands, extract themselves from the church’s mental prison. Communicating is effective! Sharing opinions is effective. Learning (and being able to see from) a multitude of viewpoints regarding the Co$, Hubbard and his « tech » has, for me at least, been incredibly therapeutic and has undoubtedly helped me to grow as a being. Some of their successes, I assume, now frequent this blog. Isn’t that rather fantastic? I don’t get why people like Marty, Mike, the Saffas, et al, are looked down upon by certain people here. What more do you want from them? Must every ex-churchie join an Indie group to command your respect? Seriously don’t get it.

          MW, You’re right – communicating is effective; sharing opinions is effective; and of course, learning through discourse and being able to broaden one’s viewpoints is effective. I don’t think that’s in dispute, anywhere. I think most on any of these blogs are against or in opposition to where the Church management is these days and how it treats its staff – and parishioners.

          What does seem to raise some ire is what team one is on in this game.There’s the pro-LRH and pro-Scientology side, and then there’s the anti-LRH and anti-Scientology side (and a few shades of gray in-between). MS2 and a very few other blogs and forums are pro-LRH and pro-Scientology; Marty is anti-Scientology and anti-LRH, as is ESMB and many of the other forums on the web (and I’m sorry, I don ‘t know who the “Saffas” are). And really, both sides criticize the other. It’s not just one way, for either side.

          People get a chance to blow off some steam and perhaps shake off some shackles; but then in many cases, they continue to find fault and the O-M Sequence kicks in. Their charge doesn’t really get fully handled. And this can be apparent on either side of the game. So for people who are pro-LRH and believe in the tech and it’s workability, seeing someone like Marty pull people off a good route is like reading LRH in Safeguarding Technology. And many people end up buying into it.

          And honestly, a lot of these blogs or forums are really just hang-outs where people can sit and criticize and blow off steam or find fault with the way things are or find others who support their views and that makes them right. To really grow as a being, IMO, one needs to move on and seek further spiritual awareness, either in Scientology, or some other philosophy or belief system. Then they really do grow and really do leave behind the past.

          At least, that’s how I see it.

          Merry Christmas. 🙂

          • MWESTERN – Your comment has been put through as it is polite and you ask questions which we are sure some of the readers will want to respond to. PLEASE, however, as notice to all, don’t now use this as an opportunity to debate the rightness/wrongness of the subject of Scientology or LRH, but use it as an opportunity to answer his questions, honestly, and with the appropriate reasoning. If it goes off track, the discussion will be canned. So heads up. Signed — Moderators.

            Pro, anti, this side, that side? To me, that seems such a reductive and divisive attitude to have. (Isn’t there only ever a shade of grey, per Logic 6?) What of people who value some parts of the tech but deem other parts to be harmful? Or those who apply scientology (at least in some capacity) despite a low opinion of LRH? Is it “anti-scientology” to encourage non-LRH theories of why processes work, even if it makes the subject more interesting and accessible to a wider audience, potentially helping significantly more people? Is it “pro-scientology” to infer the tech is perfect and undeserving of criticism even if this appears “extremist” and limits its appeal? You see how absolutes can become confusing 😉

            “People get a chance to blow off some steam and perhaps shake off some shackles; but then in many cases, they continue to find fault and the O-M Sequence kicks in.”

            But didn’t LRH himself say that Scientology was imperfect? If so, is that not another way of admitting there are flaws? Why is fault finding such A Bad Thing™? Is there no such thing as valid criticism? If I continue to find fault with corporate greed and capitalist elitism, does that mean I have O/Ws? What about LRH and psychiatry?

            I do wonder if there’s a middle ground where everyone is “right”.

            Thank you for replying to me, anyways. And to the moderator also. Have a lovely, lovely Christmas!! I’m in charge of feeding the family this year despite the fact I’m a truly terrible cook! Hah! Should be interesting 🙂

  3. This is one of my favorite references. This put me over the top as an auditor long ago. “Get in comm and then do something for the pc.” This is where, auditors who do not get gains off of pcs, fall short. And they quit auditing because “It doesn’t work”. I’ve turned around lots of auditors as a Cram Off just getting the auditor to understand the Basic Auditing Series. I’ve actually gotten some of them do a clay demo of what it means to get in comm with the pc.

    This is not only miraculous tech, it is simple and basic. Duh! Get in comm with the pc and then do something for him. Great stuff.

    ML Tom

    • Tom, I’d love to hear some of your cram off stories. I used to be a cram off for a while as well and know how interesting those cycles can be, so if you have some time, love to hear about one or two.

  4. Let me make one point, not necessarily aimed at anyone here. It is an attitude most often exhibited by those who are highly admin trained, highly tech trained, those in the SO and those on staff. It is an attitude of superiority and a certain impatience with those who are not well on their way to arriving at the same height as the speaker. The best that could be said of such an attitude is that it’s less than generous.

    There is such a thing as “granting beingness”.

    While many may wish to train as auditors and subsequently audit (for example), there is no requirement that you hang out a shingle and operate your own HGC. Perhaps you’d rather design buildings or play music. And someone has to run the power plant.

    LRH never expected everyone to be “career Scientologists”. He did wish for every Scientologist to better conditions in their environment. Perhaps that would be straightening out the comm lines at your architectural firm. Perhaps it would be writing up your hat as you leave each job in your company (you’d be surprised how little that gets done and how much it means to bosses and your successor when you do it).

    When you are confronted by this superior attitude, realize it is at odds with LRH’s attitude, and that the person displaying it needs some handling on the subject.

    A second point I would make is this: I have often said that we all share responsibility for what has happened to our Church. What I don’t often stress is that the higher you were in relation to the proximate source of the damage, the more responsibility you had for current conditions. If you were a weekend student on your Dianetics course, there isn’t much you could have done to stop Miscavige and others from ruining things. Conversely, if you were the No 2 guy in Scientology, you could have stopped what happened dead in its tracks, maybe even by yourself.

    So although, yes, you are responsible for what happened, your share of the responsibility depends greatly on where you were and what you were doing at the time.

    My point is simply this: don’t beat yourself up over current conditions inside the Church, unless you truly deserve to be beaten up. Just handle whatever there is that needs to be handled in your own ethics. Pay particular attention to what went wrong and why. And then vow to keep those lessons in mind going forward in the Field.

    Some day, there will be a real, honest-to-goodness Church of Scientology again. And it would be best if all of us, top to bottom, work hard to ensure that no one could ever subvert it this way again. It will be up to all of us, together and individually.

    Paul

      • RV:

        Yeah, I know. As I was writing it, I knew I had read something several times where LRH said almost exactly what I was saying. I just couldn’t think of the exact reference.

        Paul

        • Well there they are in Read & White.

          There are also other policies in Vol 7 that cover such things as Ad Councils which have pretty much vanished and the actual functions of OT Committees which as you probably know already has nothing to do with begging for money so they can build a huge empty edifice called an “Ideal Org”.

          Also in such volumes as OEC V & VI and in an earlier Tech 1 or 2 (I’ll have to dig it up) covers the policies and purpose of Memberships which has nothing to do with acquiring various statuses or as some kind of “war chest” used to fight legal battles on various fronts (this is actually the purpose of the Building Fund Account) and such things.

          Ironically the IAS follows the pattern of the old Safe Environment Fund which Ron himself personally canceled because it violated actual policy.

          BTW before this there were such things as the “Freedom Fund” a similar idea to SEF and IAS which was to create a “war chest” against the FDA that was cancelled. Not to mention the ideal to have HASI issue shares which was unworkable.

          Fact is these types of off line and off policy Fund Raising efforts go back a long way and aside from the obvious violation of Treasury policy regarding exchange is fact that these actions divert public away from Scientology services which as you can see is exactly what happened.

          Personally though Mike disputes this I think the IRS granting Tax Exemption accelerated this effort to acquire what are called “straight donations” because they give no tangible benefit which seems to be the mantra of the IRC 501 Ciii and distinguishes what is called a “charitable donation” from those received in exchange for some kind of service.

          In fact one of the key disputes between the Church and the IRS was the fact that the Church charged fees for services that the Church claimed produced tangible through their literature (the same books and articles illegally taken by the FDA) benefits beyond that warm fuzzy feeling the person who gives a donation feels.

          In other words the Church was being penalized by Dave’s “friends” in the IRS because they were or at least claimed they were capable of getting a tangible result.

          That and their phony case regarding “inurement” set up the Battle Royale between the Church and the IRS.

          In my opinion the IRS was nothing but a stalking horse and the so called “War” wasn’t really over but had shifted into a new phase. One that is achieving the same result which they’d working toward since the beginning which is basically the destruction of the Church.

          • RV:

            My longest post in the Church was Treas Sec, back in the latter 70s. So I’m familiar with how the finances were supposed to be handled. I don’t know much about our tete a tetes with the IRS. That’s a story for another day. The HASI would probably have provided about enough money to buy everyone at St Hill a cup of coffee.

            I did (and still do) question the need for an FBO in every org. The FBO bypassed an org’s FP committee. By the time the “Network Coordination Committee” was instituted, I realized the end was near; we officially had way too much management going on, and way too many networks and too many programs being issued by too many authorities who were not familiar with the individual scenes at individual orgs. In most orgs, you’d probably be lucky to get the “Staff Take The Trash Out” program, much less the plethora of programs the Coord Committee was supposed to coordinate. Staff were too busy just trying to keep their heads above water to worry about these silly, unrealistic programs issued from on high. Visits from the FR three times a day to find out if you did this or that targets on the latest Flag program. Like I don’t have anything else to do. Humbug!

            (You trained Tech guys had your headaches to deal with. And so did we trained Admin folk.)

            And I also remember the SEF. I was also aware that there were not insignificant amounts which disappeared off the top of our GI for whatever secret reasons the FBO network had. In fact, I, as Treas Sec, was not even privy to our org’s actual reserves and their disposition. They were simply reported to me by the AG Finance every week so I could report Cash/Bills. But I knew no more than that. There were probably millions and millions stashed in bank accounts all around the world which were not known to the Treas Secs of orgs, but which came from their orgs’ income.

            Ah well.

            Paul

            • Paul,

              I agree. So called “management” wanted us to institute a 9 Div Org board when there barely enough staff to comply with the RED Org Program No #1.

              My first thought was “are they kidding?”

              Anyway it seems that Tech and Qual was pretty much left alone because Ron had come back on those lines after Mayo had screwed the pooch.

              RTC believe it or not back then was doing what it was supposed to do back then and ensuring that the Tech in the Orgs complied with the PL on Violation of Copyrights as covered in RJ 38.

              Ron was doing various pilots in the Pac area at the time I started the Briefing Course and working in the ASHO HGC on a Part Time basis. FPRD, the Running Program and the one I eventually ended on working on myself the CCRD.

              But on the Admin Side it was easy to see that no one had a frickin’ clue and that musical chairs was constant back ground music.

              What they were calling various “evolutions” and such which looked to me more like total confusion.

              First it was Bill Franks who was ED Int then Kerry Gleason then eventually Guilliam Leserve who was a nice guy but didn’t seem to know what was really going on.

              Despite that the stats seemed to be going up. Personally I think as I’ve written before that it had more to do with the drop in prices, Service Completion Awards and the Dianetic Seminars being personally run out of Diana’s office for a while until she was busted off post and of course Jeff Hawkin’s Central Marketing Unit pushing Dianetics than anything new management actually did.

              Yet as I wrote they seemed to take credit for it. In my opinion Ron was just looking at the stats and not the actual scene which was the correct application of Organization the Flaw but as we know there were probably a few hidden factors and no doubt false reports were going up lines and a lot of no reporting being done to make management look good and give Ron the impression that they were actually doing their job and that they were a “clean team”.

              And that as that shyster Earl Cooley would say several years later at Ron’s requiem that the org was “in good hands”.

              As we know. It took a while for the truth to out but it eventually did.

              • RV:

                I also participated in a pilot at ASHO somewhere in that period, called the “Livingness Repair Rundown”. Part Method One, part Conditions and Exchange By Dynamics, as I recall.

                LeSevre was somewhat of a relief to many of us, because Franks and Gleeson were complete ciphers. LeSevre was from Europe, and we’d all seen Europe win time and time again in the Birthday Game. We figured someone finally figured out that you should put someone with proven stats on as ED Int. My wife actually got to meet him on her OEC/FEBC training, and she says he seemed to be a very nice guy. Whether he could manage anything, I can’t say.

                I’ve never been convinced that CMU was all that. Steve Hall tends to promote that HIS campaigns made the difference. But as I recall, there was NO campaign before and none after. So I have my doubts about the actual QUALITY of his campaign(s). I do remember counting the outpoints in his ads as compared to “Seven Points of an Ad” HCOPL.

                Paul

                • Paul,

                  Yeah I thought Guillame was a nice guy when I met him back in the late 70’s early 80’s when he was on tour for the new Dissem Org or something like that and again when I met him at the Pac.

                  Anyway worked with Jeff Hawkins for a short time at CMU and during that time DMSMH made it back onto the NYT Bestsellers list again.

                  As the story goes according to Jeff it was because of CMU’s Campaigns but then again there was a pretty strong grass roots movement at the time that started with the release of the RED Ridge on the Bridge and Dianetic Seminars being staged all over the Continent. One I supervised with several others that had close to 300 people attending it.

                  So this may have been the actual or at least a major contributing factor. Who knows?

                  Not that International Management was wont for taking credit for things like that.

                  Before I did a short stint on Project Squirrel. They falsely took credit for shutting down the California Dianetic Auditors Association yet from some of the reports coming in they were pretty much back in operation. Along with Aprinistics, Dianology and other squirrel groups.

                  Worse years later they went after Mayo, Wollersheim, Fishman, Gertz, Lerner et al and through incompetent legal wrangling managed to get the Advanced Course materials on public record.

                  Thinking back I wonder if the AAC was actually attacking the Church or if it was some form of provocation initiated by OSA that had gone sideways.

                  Anyways like you say I could have been CMU falsely taking credit for the second Dianetic boom when in fact there may have been other reasons for it like as I wrote the RED Ridge on the Bridge.

    • Paul: “While many may wish to train as auditors and subsequently audit (for example), there is no requirement that you hang out a shingle and operate your own HGC.”

      Good point, Paul. Personally, I think one of the best reasons to train is to make it up the Bridge oneself and perhaps be a better solo auditor, not to audit others necessarily. One might also want to audit family and friends. But I think Ron said it best in HCOB “What We Expect of a Scientologist”:

      “A Scientologist is the being three feet behind society’s head. And society runs on eight dynamics, not in a sick room. Some of us, of course, would become professional practitioners. But a professional Scientologist is one who expertly uses Scientology on any area or level of the society.

      A housewife who does not have professional level skill in Scientology could not expect to run a wholly successful family or keep order in her neighborhood and keep her family well. A factory foreman could not possibly handle his crews with full effectiveness without professional Scientology skill. The personal assistant to a corporation executive could not do a fully effective job without being a professional Scientologist. A corporation president without a certificate will someday fail. And the head of a country would go to pieces if he didn’t know Scientology from a professional angle.

      Now, we don’t expect everyone in the world to become a trained auditor. But we expect the people who are making the world go to have a knowledge of how to make it go.

      A trained Scientologist is not a doctor. He is someone with special knowledge in the handling of life.

      A full-time Scientologist makes life better wherever he is. And that is enough pro activity for anyone.” LRH

      P.S. Liked the comment about writing up your hat when leaving a job – so true.

      • CB:

        Preeecisely.

        Hat write-ups: I’ve engendered a great deal of professional admiration and good will over the years by making a habit of this. (And withheld it if a company tried to screw me on the way out.) And it’s amazing how screwed a corporation can be when the one person who knew how to do something never passed the knowledge along when they left. The knowledge is often never recovered and the corporation limps along. My wife works for Megacorp, and has to put up with this all the time.

        Paul

  5. >A second point I would make is this: I have often said that we all share responsibility for what has happened to our Church. What I don’t often stress is that the higher you were in relation to the proximate source of the damage, the more responsibility you had for current conditions. If you were a weekend student on your Dianetics course, there isn’t much you could have done to stop Miscavige and others from ruining things. Conversely, if you were the No 2 guy in Scientology, you could have stopped what happened dead in its tracks, maybe even by yourself.<

    Excellent point Scat.

    Seems easier for some to blame it all on Miscavige or worse blame it all on Ron than confront and accept one's own responsibility.

    Much easier to run motivators than overts.

    Regarding the 3rd Dynamic the Policy Orders Illegal and Cross Applies. Whenever I chaired a Com Ev, been a member or at times been an interested party. It boils down to what you did or what you failed to do. Not who made you do it or what justification or reason you had for doing it.

    That said and I've said this to several Sea Org members that Miscavige should be Com Eved but that he wouldn't be the only interested party.

    These Execs who either went willingly or were coerced into going into the hole would be on that list because aside from being accessories of any other High Crimes, Crimes and Misdemeanors they have been long absent from post and they all accepted an illegal and destructive order.

    Regarding staff at lower echelons. They again were accepting illegal and destructive orders if they were doing anything other then the post or hat they were assigned.

    The public.Well they are remiss in failing to demand standard Tech and policy and accepting some shoddy substitute instead.

    Actually you can consider many public more guilty then many of the staff for distracting other Scientologists from the Grade Chart so that they can line their pockets with commissions from promoting the IAS, "Ideal Orgs" or supporting and in many cases urging any other money making racket.

    Or using such status to gain special favors of some kind. For example Tom Cruise comes to mind as the grossest example but there have been others like the Feshbachs as well.

    In other words there is really nobody who has clean hands at this point.

    That said it is very fortunate. That before Ron left he gave us all the Tech and Policy to handle this scene.

    But in order to handle it it has to be applied.

    Personally I'd say we are better off then we were over half a century ago when we had only a few auditors auditing in the field with only a few PABs sent to them by the HASI.

    I know because I was there.

    But just as it was in 1952 when Don Purcell was able to basically practically steal Ron's copyrights we still survived. Back then there was absolutely no organization at all because the HDRF was stolen right from under us by an Oil Magnate with connections.

    Yet we not only were we able to survive but prosper as well.

    While Purcell faded into history as a footnote which is where someone like Miscavige and his so called "friends" will end up eventually.

    Someone like Miscavige has already sold out his future like those FBI agents who like to smash up Scientology Ron talks about in the NOTs bulletins he is going to that same place eventually.

    I figure the only reason that he has lasted as long as he has aside from his connections. Is because a lie begets persistence and the lie is in my opinion that he is any more than an SP and that he has any real power.

    As Ron says the PL about Writing an Ethics Order:

    Suppressives can only restim people’s banks. They have no power at all. To infer one could do much to Scientology is silly.

    As far as I have seen is that the only power he has is what he has been granted by others.

    Or as Miscavige says in his own words:

    “People keep saying, "How’d you get power?"Nobody gives you power. I’ll tell you what power is. Power in my estimation is if people will listen to you. That’s it.”

    So what I recommend is just stop listening to the guy. In my opinion what he says has really nothing to do with Scientology anyway.

    He can call himself the "COB" or the "Pope of Scientology" or "a different kind of leader" whatever off the wall megalomanic adjective he wants to use.

    But you'll note that whatever he calls himself has no position on the Org Board even when he claims that he is "Department 21".

    Department 21 of what?

    Probably hell if the devil had an Org Board.

  6. As usual I have much to agree with on this blog. I used to think that KSW was the cold, uncaring, supposed tone 40 intention, that somehow never accomplished the stated intention. I thought I was just one of the many who were not chosen, and I was ok with that. So long as the job was getting done by those “better” than me!

    But the job wasnt being done, in fact we were going backwards, somehow it was being botched, big time, and I had to re evaluate what KSW was and is. Because it wasnt what was being advertised!

    I was an admin guy and I remember on my training reading a PL, that was being done 180 degrees backwards in my org and I thought to myself, “thats just the way they do it in my org”. That was the very first time I justified out policy in my org and it just slipped further from there.

    I at least recognized the outness, and I recognized many more over the years until I realized the problem was endemic and got out, and went the public route. But as the saying goes, I didnt stand up for policy or ethics tech and eventually it hit the auditing tech, no one else was doing it, and here we are!

    I believe Jim got it right the other day, when he said, its the intention behind the use of the Admin, Ethics or Auditing Tech that decides the outcome of its use. This problem didnt start with dave, but it definitely should end with him.

    No matter who is in front of us, be it staff or public, if the intention is not for that persons dynamics to improve we should take a hard serious look at what we are doing there and damn well insist on that intention for ourselves and those who service staff and public. Its what we have to do!

    • That’s a roger on that big 4a.

      You speak sooth.

      Dave well at some point he’ll either run out of track or as Ron says in Ethics the Design of someone will “put a period” to his activities by com eving his sorry ass and anyone who went along with this travesty.

      Then who knows maybe there’ll be an amnesty and Dave can start from the bottom up as in A-E and maybe make up for the damage he’s caused which could take centuries.

      I’d suggest part of his doubt formula should be to determine who his “friends” really are which in my opinion does not include InterPol and the IRS.

      The IRS are not anybodies “friend” they exist as an agency under the US Treasury to enforce Income Tax as covered under the 16th Amendment that is called a “Service” but like the Secret Service services the US Government not the people.

      InterPol is basically a fascist police organization that was taken over by bunch of Nazis prior to WW II and as Ron says in the RED Today Tomorrow the Future is now basically the tool of the CIA.

      Some “friends”.

      As I’ve posted before I’d be happy to work with an Organization that held the form of the Org, followed policy and applied Standard Tech and actually practiced *Scientology* as Ron says in KSW.

  7. Thanks RV!
    Also RV, in reading your posts, you have an enormous amount of detail of history of the church that I, for one, would be very interested to read. Ive checked out your site but much of what Ive read on Lanas blog is not there,(that I could see).

    Also, I understand that a portion of what you write may be theory or conjecture, but thats ok, it can be labelled as such. Have you thought of writing up a history as you see it?

    • I may at some point 4a. Currently like every on else here in LA. I am working on a screen play. However I may devote some time to one.

      Mainly I’ve done the research now it’s just a matter of lining things up per the “Chicago Method”.

      LR

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