Home

Building-Communities-e1357833226641

By Milestone 2 crew

Hey, we have a question for everyone out there…

In the OEC Volume 6 there are a series of policy letters written in December of 1968 that initiate Gung-ho groups. A Gung-ho group consists of Scientologists, friends and general public within a local community, who pull together to make a better society for all. Β They discover what purposes and targets the local citizens, as individuals, consider most desirable to improve the area (by actual survey of individuals) and then they coordinate these targets into long-range community objectives and publish these to arouse interest and participation. Using and applying Scientology, a Gung-ho group works to build and improve the local society.

Gung-ho groups still exist on the LRH Div 6 org board, but no sign of any groups has been visible for well over 20 – 30 years. Certainly not in any ‘ideal orgs’ or anywhere else.

But maybe they exist and we simply have not heard of them?

Has anyone out there applied the Gung-ho group policy letters since December 1968?

And to what result?

Any and all feedback would be appreciated.

114 thoughts on “Helping society

  1. I have never seen that PL applied and I was Dir Bridge Control at AOLA (supposed to handle all lower Div Sixes. Gung Ho ended up being any ground that decided to meet like OT Committees etc.

    • Thanks Richard. When I was working in PAC in the early 90’s I did not see any work to get Gung-ho groups either.
      Interesting, OT Committees are run directly by DM, with orders issued at each Maiden voyage and then TR3ed throughout the year. And they don’t do anything in the actual local community, do they?
      Aren’t they simply glorified Flag and Freewinds and IAS regges now?

    • From what I know WISE was Ron’s bright idea after he did the ConEvil Eval which found that some shady business owners were disrupting Org Lines.

      (ie raiding Org staff, tying up ethics and the chaplain’s section with business disputes, being involved in criminal activities, corrupting execs etc, etc,

      Not exactly the image that is currently being presented by the Orgs these days of “ethical ‘upstats'” (bribing) “contributing” to them.

      Personally I always considered them a bunch of power hungry suits but again that’s just my personal opinion.)

      When they were under the GO they were kept away from other SoCo activities such as Narconon, Criminon, CCHR, Applied Scholastics because of their corroding influence but now that they’re under ABLE the Orgs bow and scrape to their every psychotic request.

      • RV:

        One additional impulse for starting WISE which you didn’t mention was LRH’s business consulting hat, which he carried on for some years in the background via SO #1. There were selected Scn businesses who consulted others, and LRH acted more or less as a C/S for the consultant businesses. This was a hat he wanted to offload and which fit with the objectives of WISE. I have copies of many of the SO #1 replies sent back to one consulting business in particular.

        Paul

        • SJ,

          This is basically covered under Hubbard Consultant Tech which is based on the HCOB Scientology Zone Plan.

          However the reason for WISE is was the ConEvil eval and the PL on Field Ethics.

          As far as I’m concerned WISE totally perverted Ron’s actual intent behind getting Scn and Dns accepted in the Business Community.

          • RV:

            Although this may be true, WISE was at one time the best performing sector at getting people onto and up the Bridge.

            I will say this, though. As one of the few at WISE whose job it was to consult the consultants at “Category A Groups” (those groups/companies who consulted others), the consultants at Category A groups were dismally unqualified and inept. Most of them were ex-staff who knew about as much about the admin tech as any other random ex-staff member. Which isn’t really enough to go around and consult others.

            BTW, if you have a copy of the ConEvil eval or a link to it, can you please provide that? I’ve never heard of this.

            Paul

            • It’s about as easy to access as the materials relating to Con Evil as it is finding anything related to Op Z SJ.

              BTW not everything is available on the Internet.

              Regarding getting people on the bridge.

              Sterling Management and other WISE entities didn’t really get that many people onto training and mostly got them onto processing.

              I FESed and audited many people who came through WISE channels and in a word many would be described as lunatics by definition.

              In other words I wasn’t too impressed with their “products”.

              As far as I was concerned the best sector for getting real Scientologists was through Div VI and the Mission Network before it was totally destroyed.

              Much of what came through WISE was a lot of PCs who required a lot of hand holding.

              But that was my own personal observation.

    • Thanks Pazooter. WISE is a sector I am very familiar with, and no, there was nothing resembling a Gung-Ho group there. Yes, there were management consultant companies, and they paid royalties, but you will notice in the OEC Vol 6 Gung-ho policies there is no mention of royalties or anything of the like. The group can charge what it wants and can run a number of different kinds of courses, including on management organization.

      I suspect that the whole project/action was shunted away entirely as the group is not focusing on actually assisting, building or working with local communities, and is instead driven on a money push that (as DM quotes all the time) is achieved by simply putting the bulldozer into high gear and ignoring the squeals as it progresses.

      • Thanks, Lana. In retrospect, I think I meant to refer to ABLE instead of WISE. But certainly WISE could have been a factor in cleaning up dishonest capitalism…. Could have….

        • I getcha Pazooter.

          When I was working in WISE in the late 80’s there was an iron fist on WISE groups. There were new contracts that were written and implemented that enforced royalties and kept a very tight control on them and what they could do. Certainly WISE came into being as there were many businesses that were found “on the backs of orgs” using them as as a way for the business to success (to the detriment of the org).

          • Lana,

            That was the way it was for all sectors of Scientology. IHELP was the same way. Demanding 10% even though they didn’t do a damn thing to earn it. Same with SMI who sold these overpriced “Mission Starter Packages” and was behind the push to drive out successful Franchise Holders by actually demanding more than the 10% required by the original Franchise Charters for their latest promotion scam.

            Never mind that. There of course were the Orgs that had to pay 15% in *Mis* “Management” fees and not only that but owned Flag and ITO for *Mis* “Training” their staff.

            Not to mention the outrageous amount of money ASI and Bridge demanded for overpriced book stocks ,meters and insignia.

      • LM:

        I haven’t read all of the LRH advices on WISE, so I don’t know if “royalties” were part of the original picture. I do know that IHELP collected similar amounts from field auditors and groups, and none of them (IHELP auditors or WISE groups) were happy about the idea. It may be that SMI was involved in the same type of collections. Considering the hostility toward the idea, I suspect some better idea for financing should have been dreamed up.The Field tends to have the idea that the Tech should be free to implement as one sees fit. I suspect that LRH would agree. Perhaps a pay-as-you-go for services rendered would have been a better idea. Just speculating. Collecting “royalties” in this fashion from Field people and groups is a lot like the Catholic church insisting all Catholics (and their businesses if any) pay the Church X for being allowed to apply Christian principles to others.

        Paul

  2. The only time I saw anything like these policies being applied – and they were actually trying to follow the Gung-Ho policies – was when I was on staff at the Edmonton Org in the late 70s. There were a couple of years we had a good PES and a good ED who reached out into the community; but then cross-orders coming out of the GO and CLO CAN kiboshed any in-roads made. But it was there, and that was a wonderful, light, insouciant time.

    β€œSeriousness is solidity. Did you ever hear of a “solid citizen”? If you want to get anything done, don’t get any of these serious boys.

    There’s nothing that succeeds like Insouciance. Plain flippancy will actually get more done in less time than anything else you can name.” LRH (The Spirit of Play)

    • So it was cross-ordered? Typical!

      Per the PLs the whole Gung-ho system was based on a really successful project in Scotland, run by the then-HASI. There were two gung-ho groups that were working and functioning in Scotland, and with such success locally that LRH wrote the whole series of PLs to implement elsewhere…

    • CB:

      Kinda makes you wonder, if something is getting a product, and the environment of the activity is “light, insouciant”, then you must be on the right track.

      Paul

  3. From what I understand CCHR started out as a gung ho. Also CATS (Citizens for an Alternative Tax System) and various other groups such as Citizens for Responsible Government which started out as Div VI activities then were moved under GO’s Social Coordination or SoCo and later OSA ABLE and were slowly killed off.

    As far as I’m concerned the Church’s public outreach activities became totally dismal in early ’80’s after Management seized control of the Franchise Network and Div VI and replaced the GO with OSA.

    • that is interesting RV! So they start as a Gung-ho group and then are moved over to another area where they can be better controlled. As a note, there is no such thing as OSA ABLE. ABLE is a separate sector which as Applied Scholastics, Narconon, TWTH and Criminon. All a social betterment programs along the lines of Gung-Ho groups but far more controlled and also laden with royalties and strict controls.

      My folks ran an Applied Scholastics group in the mid-80s and it was very successful — but every effort they made to create new courses, write new checksheets or get materials approved for secular use were knocked back. They had government contracts and were delivering Comm Courses to whole departments, but it all fell in a heap and they had to close the centre after 5 years, heavily in debt. Their experience is similar to another person’s efforts in APS currently. Seems things haven’t changed a lot.

      Gung-ho groups were local Scientologists delivering their own courses, checksheets, on organization management, on study, on tech to apply in a family or as a parent, etc. Very loose — and then overseen by Div 6 in the local org (just with comm, direction and assistance — not demands for stats, royalties or insisting on new people for Div 6. LRH’s vision was very different.

      The program was to actually HELP society, starting with the local community. You know? All about bringing people to cause across the dynamics and improving conditions? Sounds like something I heard LRH say Scientology was actually about…

      • Exactly Lana,

        According Ron in HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 DECEMBER 1968 GUNG-HO GROUPS

        GUNG-HO GROUPS are composed of local Scientologists in the field, any friends who are interested and general public members. First a Captain, Secretary, Treasurer and Public Officer must be elected by the group. When the group is formed, it must contact the Group Officer of the nearest org and give its address and the names of its officers and members, etc and apply for a GROUP CERTIFICATE.
        GUNG-HO means “Pull Together” in Mandarin. It pulls together other groups in the community to work towards the betterment of society and of the area.
        The Groups Programme works on the motto:
        A COMMUNITY THAT PULLS TOGETHER CAN MAKE A BETTER SOCIETY FOR ALL.

        So what you’ve written here would basically be a Gung Ho group.

        The Div VI and the GO to an extent pretty much practiced benign neglect or extreme “Fast Flow Management” πŸ˜‰

        Same with any other field activity and they pretty much thrived.

        Then as you know when the SO “moved in” they began to micromanage the whole operation and began demanding their 10% like a bunch of Mafioso running a protection racket of some kind.

        Worse they started injecting all this BOTWO Squirrel “tech” .

        (I remember back when I was working a short gig at NN back in the ’70’s that the GO wanted us to “secularize” our materials and we nicely told ’em to go f_k themselves.

        Now they write up all these squirrelly books and packs as if the public wouldn’t catch on or whatever to fact that we were using Scientology and Dianetics which is such a scam.

        But anyway…)

        Pretty much when the Org gets involved and GOLD moves in for a photo op ya can pretty much kiss that activity goodbye πŸ˜‰

      • LM:

        Absolutely, in a nutshell. The last thing LRH wanted to do was control people. If people wanted to do outreach in poor black neighborhoods, let them do so and get out of their way. If people wanted to do outreach to local business opinion leaders, same answer. Orgs, as the centers and bastions of Standard Tech, needed management (though less than they got). But those in the Field needed to be left alone and given moral support.

        Paul

        • It seems so simple, looking at it from an external view. When we were in it was so clouded and confused, and so disconnected from the society and communities that Scn helps.

          • LM:

            I know. We in the Field, away from the fray and with 20/20 hindsight, can make all kinds of noble pronouncements about what coulda shoulda woulda happened. It’s easy when it’s not your spiritual future and your friends and family involved. It takes a lot of guts to ignore orders, to do the right thing in the face of overwhelming opposition, and/or to leave. It takes a lot of guts even to step away temporarily to sort out what you should do versus what you’re being told to do. And it’s even tougher when you’re not a public, but a staff or SO member who has joined up to help forward the cause.

            But here we are, free again and able to survey the devastation. And our efforts now, however pitiful compared to what they would have been when magnified by the power of the Church behind us, are still important, if not even more important. We’re the ones keeping the flame lit out here on the frontier, waiting for the rest to join us some day, hopefully soon.

            Paul

  4. if they should *publish* per reference and there can’t be anything found … the web cannot be ignored … there seem to be no.
    None of the size which would be neccessary.

    • I do know that anyone who wanted to publish anything has been directed to the WISE Issue Authority Officer, and the person/s on that post have for the last 30 years rejected anything that gets submitted.

      Mark Shreffler had a superb book on sales which uses and disseminates LRH tech and it was on Issue Authority lines for something like 20 years (Mark you will have to give specifics). He is now in the field and has produced and is selling the book, giving up on the “approvals” that he could never get.

      The Gung-ho groups were to be able to publish their own materials (god forbid!) and then use these to deliver courses, and generate money (OMG!) that went into their own pockets for the group to survive and expand. I suspect that, along with the mission network doing the same, the idea of people in the field, making money from the tech was something that gave Scn management nightmares, so they closed it down.

      It is ironic that when a local Australian asked a local Ideal Org reg for any LRH policies that justify the regging of donations for the group, he presented a quote from Hymn of Asia (huh?) and a quote taken out of context from the Gung-ho groups PL. So it seems they will use the Gung-ho groups policies to justify forcing parishioners to pay for their local org, but won’t implement the actual policies that LRH stated needed to be used to reach out and help local communities and society.

      • LM:

        I was at WISE Int in the early 80s when it was at 34 N. Ft Harrison in Clearwater. There was one girl working the I/A lines at the time. The folks in the field hated her and for good reason. It wasn’t enough for her to okay the use of quotes and passages from LRH works. She insisted on okaying the typesetting, fonts, book covers, anything and everything having to do with the presentation of the materials. Where she got the idea that this was her hat or even the business of WISE, I do not know. Accuracy of quotation and proper citation should have been her sole interest.

        Paul

  5. We are looking into this whole area of Gung-ho groups as they were what came up as NEEDED AND WANTED in the massive international survey done in 1968 by LRH.

    He wanted to know what would make Scientology more acceptable in local communities and the response was along the lines of Scientologists helping to handle issues that need to be dealt with. You can see other groups and organizations doing this all over the world — such as the Lions Group. Here in Australia the Lions Group has thousands of people who unite to do good work, to raise money for charity and local needs, who help the elderly, assist young or disabled, and so much more.

    Excuse my frustration but where the F___K@$# are the Scientology Gung-ho groups?

    Here in my local community I am personally involved in several groups — including the Scout movement (working with kids aged 7 – 10) and with a local Community Association that takes up all manner of matters from sewage systems, to local economy, new developments, and more.

    It seems natural to me that Scientologists do these kind of activities all over the world, and when I go on Facebook I am always heartened when I see people like Lisa Hamilton distributing petitions for good causes, Tom Martiniano working to resolve Veteran issues so returned vets are looked after, Shreff working to get basic Tone Scale, ARC and the Comm Formula used by salesman around the world. There are so many of us, and each person is (hopefully) taking on local issues and working with the community to improve things.

    Gung-ho groups were a pro-survival way for Scientologists to demonstrate their goodwill and to disseminate and work with ACTION in the local community.

    Seems they never really got off the ground at all (immediate cross ordered) as they do not get stats up for Thursday at 2pm?

    • “Excuse my frustration but where the F___K@$# are the Scientology Gung-ho groups?”

      Same place as where standard tech, standard admin, correct application of tech and policy, standard ethics applied to help the individual, correct assignment of cause to Source, correct source, etc., etc., etc. are – in DM and cronies’ garbage bins.

      • Chris,

        I think the only Policy they apply in the Orgs these days at its highest levels of management is “the ends justify the means” and keeping the public in line so they can be fleeced of every last cent.

        They do this by taking any quote Ron made and quoting it out of context. That old saying that the devil will quote scripture to serve his own ends pretty much applies to the Government Approved, Tax Exempt Squirrel Group over there.

        Gung Ho groups like actually training people. They probably don’t consider are activities that are profitable enough. Unlike say selling them on the pie in the sky idea of “Ideal Orgs”.

        Now some patron up their annus elitist can clear their conscience of bilking customers and not paying their staff by giving the Church a Tax Deductible write off.

    • LM:

      Aside from the cross-ordering and such, the other problem here is that, even among Scientologists, there are leaders and there are followers. It’s an inescapable part of life. Just like there are explorers (e.g. LRH) and there are documenters. I would have made a terrible explorer, but a good documenter.

      In any case, it takes a certain kind of person to volunteer to lead any effort. And they are exceptionally rare. And valuable. And by the way, it’s a thankless job for the most part. Followers never know how much actual work and sweat there is in leading. And the skillful leader makes it look easy.

      Paul

      • Thanks Paul. I am a firm believer that the solution to the situation we find ourselves in is a simplicity, not a complexity. It will be through the use of basic LRH to handle BPC, lies, and originations. In other words, it is the application of the tech and it’s workability that we can get things turned around. Plans are brewing and will hopefully be something that the many can embrace and be involved in… more on this soon.

        • LM:

          That quote, “Solve it with Scientology”, comes to mind. There is always a tool in Scientology to help whatever situation. Often more than one. One only needs to find and apply it.

          Paul

    • Lana,
      with a situation of such magnitude I would suspect a multiple situation situation. I would try to isolate single gradients and single steps and actions that led to it.
      From an individual viewpoint I can say that my social contacts went down when I became a staff member. My time was absorbed completely with staff and post activities. Dedicating time for personal other contacts was considered close to “having other fish to fry”. And without the communication lines the knowing what was felt to be needed and wanted went down.
      From a wider view I would say today that the attention of the people around me was to narrowly focussed on immediate post production – kind of like a long distance runner who started out with a sprint.
      In my case such lack of appreciation could have been handled with policy or PR or other tools – if its long term consequences had been noticed.

      • You are so right Worsel! I realised when I routed out of the SO how insulated and microfocused I had become. Such little contact with my local communities that I was almost arrogant and disassociated from them. It was awful. And you are right that caring about those outside the direct group was considered other fish and somehow out – ethics. Even though this makes no sense and is not supported by any LRH references ( unless twisted)

        • I’d dare say that at some point a cult mentality had infected Scientology. Especially in the early ’80’s when the new management took over which was dominated by CMOI. Many of who didn’t have any real world experience of any kind who gained their experience of “managing” orgs from certifiable insane whack jobs like FBI Franks and Stormy abNormy.

          • Re cult mentality, first, I didn’t experience that, not up north, Robin, maybe a few here and there in the org that had that mentality, but most of us, well, we were just ordinary people trying to do the best we could under the circumstances; maybe it was that way in LA or where you were, but I don’t know, just doesn’t seem like a right item, and leads to my second point. Second, to me, labeling like that is just a brush-off on understanding people who went through it, and is likely a wrong item (or could be) and is akin to calling one a victim, IMO. I think the term just rubs me the wrong way because it absolves one from taking responsibility for their life and what they went through. Just my take on it.

            On another note, ever think there might still be some BPC there on what went down and with these guys you mention or the Church and the whole scene? Just wondering.

            • I noticed a change in terminology in some circles of independents. Through this the view on possible handlings can get out of sight. For instance instead “de-ptsing” is called “decompression”. While the term “de-ptsing” relates to an entire tech of causative measures to help anyone concerned from a PTS-C/S-1 to a Suppressed Person Rd if the antagonistic terminal is still around and can cause trouble. “Decompression” makes me rather think of a sponge that decompresses after being squashed. It It appears to be some passive automatic action and the word does not associate to me some active handling.
              The term “cult” does something similar. I look at it as a PR-trick to coin a label or use a label. If one would call it a “group-like structure influenced and controlled by mutual out-ruds, false data, omitted understandings, overwhelm and other types of bypassed charge” this would sound clumsy, but it would point to a whole lot of measures to do some active handling. To be in or out of a “cult” does not only contain that generality “cult”, it occludes the view to to solving it.

              • W:

                The term “decompressing” is apt, at least from the viewpoint of those exiting the Church. There is more involved than simply de-PTSing. There are betrayals, injustices, false data, dynamic misalignment, etc. Each should be dealt with by the tech for that particular thing. I agree that de-PTSing is or should probably be part of the handling, but likely not all. In fact, were I C/Sing this (and I’m not a trained C/S) I would create a list to assess first, and throughout the process to determine what does and doesn’t register on the PC’s case. It may well be that RPEC, properly run and adequately EP’d would eliminate the need to run PTS handlings on a given PC. As a C/S or auditor, I wouldn’t want to give the PC an item they didn’t want.

                People who step away from the Church (particularly high profile staff and SO members) are likely to find themselves in a complete state (if not ethics condition) of confusion. So ethics might enter in as well, as a first step, before attempting to apply the Tech.

                Not to say those who exit are complete victims or not responsible for their own condition. But at some point, you have to skip the debate and simply apply the Tech/Ethics to the situation. I would even imagine that if you took someone freshly free of the Church and gave them a nice long locational as a first step, you’d probably do more good than anything else.

                Paul

                Paul

                • “The term Β« decompressing Β» is apt, at least from the viewpoint of those exiting the Church. There is more involved than simply de-PTSing. There are betrayals, injustices, false data, dynamic misalignment, etc. Each should be dealt with by the tech for that particular thing.”

                  I totally agree, Paul. They should all receive “Exit Counseling”. πŸ˜€

                  • CB:

                    Some time back, on my blog, I suggested that the Field should come up with a “rundown” which would take care of all these things for exiting church members. It would include all the potentially needed pieces, each optional as determined by the C/S as dictated by interviews or a list assessed on the PC. Naturally all parts of the rundown would be pieces of LRH tech. Now remember, I said I suggested the Field come up with such a rundown.

                    At the time, I had not yet been blessed with a declare from C of S. Well, someone over there apparently read my blog, because almost immediately thereafter, they issued my declare letter (not an actual goldenrod, of course). One of the crimes I was supposedly guilty of was coming up with my own “squirrel” rundown (as above).

                    I about laughed my butt off, because I had done no such thing, and clearly whoever was in charge of issuing these declares couldn’t read.

                    But then my perverse sense of humor took over, and I did in fact detail my own rundown on my blog, entitled the “Paul Rundown”, just to make them right. There were a variety of steps involved, such as “running with scissors”, “swimming right after eating”, “drinking from the garden hose”, “crossing your eyes until they got stuck like that”, and “eating fruit from a tree without washing it first”, etc. You got bonus points if any of the actions made you sick or killed you. The motto of the rundown was: “The Paul Rundown: When you’re tired of getting better.”

                    I had hours of fun making that thing up and laughing at it when I was done. Here’s a link to it for anyone who’s interested:

                    https://scatjappers.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/the-paul-rundown/

                    Paul

                    • The C/S 53 would likely handle pretty well all charge, and any other could be handled via TWC.

                      Funny thing is, Paul, about your story, LRH himself said any competent C/S could mock up a list of questions to assess for BPC. So what you even proposed was, to most extent, on source anyway. You got declared for advising they follow Source. Ha!

                      Fact is, it should be done in the CoS. That’s what the leaving sec check was supposed to do – protect the church while at the same time relieve the individual of any charge cause by overts and withholds. To that could have been added an assessment for BPC on services, regging, ethics, etc. The Class VIII C/S 6 prepcheck comes to mind, one I’ve often used with added subjects to address this area.

                    • CB:

                      As to the technical specifics, I accede to your superior training.

                      Of course, we all know why the Church would never do such a thing to/for outbound public/staff– they don’t care about protecting the Church; they’re the ones destroying it. And the only relieving the Church wants to do is relieve you of your pocketbook. And so it falls to us. πŸ˜‰

                      Paul

              • These are valid points, Worsel. These terms have especially been pushed by the same crowd that pushes a wrong use of “thought-stopping” and other psychoanalytic terms. Same as you noticed with “decompression”. I find the terms tend to carry an attitude or some other consideration about the intended target and thus are a form of hidden suppression and it prevents using Scientology tech to address and resolve the situation. Thanks for bringing it up.

                • I agree with you there Chris. Actually the person that the coined the neologism “thought stopping” was actually an acolyte of Marg Singer who is currently big on the anti-cult circuit these days. Much like his deceased mentor.

                  Also I see many former or “ex” and even so called “Indies” embracing unworkable tech like the Psychopath Next Door as “Tech” that Ron hadn’t discovered.

                  “Decompressing” is just another word for destimulating by those obsessed with creating new terminology. As far as I can see there is no difference between the two since they both involve leaving a restimulative environment.

                  I think they use these new terms to give others the impression that they are no longer following their supposed “indoctrination” or being “brain washed” by the alleged “thought stopping” terms that they left and have “deprogramed” themselves or whatever.

                  In my opinion it is nothing but an effort to be politically correct and blend in with the sleaze balls they call their “friends” like Tony Ortega, Mark Bunker, Larry Wright, Alex Gibney and other trash “journalists”.

                  Back to cult. I think the reason many find the term offensive is that it is used offensively by the media because it doesn’t fit the narrow parameters offered by the talking pin heads.

                  • By the way a term like “thought stopping” is insidious in the fact that if accepted as a stable datum like “critical thinking” which is nothing but an exercise in what’s it can undermine an individual stable data and throw them into a state of confusion.

                    At least that’s my take.

                    • “Critical thinking” is like data evaluation (which I like better, as it is more exacting at identifying outpoints, and, pluspoints), but it is a highly skilled application used in many fields, especially learning at higher levels. It’s a required course in many different university programs and higher degrees, and while that may not say much, the courses I took on critical thinking when I went back to university made complete sense in application to the field of study one was undertaking. Just my view on it. Like in Short Circuit, “Data, data, data!” πŸ™‚

                    • Just a short note on that, if I am reading that right (and I am not sure I am), critical thinking, by other terminology is what is now taught in public schools (mostly primary) to (positive spin) compensate for not comprehending the meanings of words. Negative evaluation of the practice (My POV) is that it is population control.

                    • Bruce:

                      “Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

                      understand the logical connections between ideas
                      identify, construct and evaluate arguments
                      detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
                      solve problems systematically
                      identify the relevance and importance of ideas
                      reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.”

                      (Source: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php)

                      And here is a good two-page synopsis of it from the University of Toronto:

                      https://ctl.utsc.utoronto.ca/twc/sites/default/files/CriticalThinking.pdf

                  • “Actually the person that the coined the neologism Β« thought stopping Β» was actually an acolyte of Marg Singer who is currently big on the anti-cult circuit these days.”

                    Actually, Robin, the concept of “thought-stopping” originated much earlier:

                    “Thought stopping, a procedure suggested by Bain (1928) and popularized by Wolpe (1958, 1969), is a simple but effective way to disrupt unwanted thoughts.”

                    From: http://uwf.edu/wmikulas/Webpage/behavior/chapternine.htm (sub-section “Thought Stopping”)

                    “Β« Decompressing Β» is just another word for destimulating by those obsessed with creating new terminology. As far as I can see there is no difference between the two since they both involve leaving a restimulative environment.”

                    True enough; however, I’d rather use Scientology terminology as it leads to a tech that is highly workable rather than the confusion that is psychology today.

                    Re cult, see my last post.

                    Good points, thanks for bringing them up. πŸ™‚

                    • Maybe true regarding the earlier definition but I believe Steve Hassan uses it in a more negative context.

                      For example the thought that one is a spiritual being “stops” one from considering the “scientifically” accepted datum that man is mud.

                      I guess one could call it “reverse psychology” πŸ˜‰

                      Regarding decompression. I’m with you buddy. Personally I find destimulating or destimulation much more accurate and more encompassing.

                      Unless of course one considered themselves a sponge then I guess decompression would be more applicable πŸ˜‰

                    • Agreed re reverse psychology…that’s what they (we know who “they” are) attempt to do, or, more appropriately, Black Dianetics and Reverse Scientology. Yup. πŸ˜‰

                    • Thanks for the link that gives origin of the word “thought stopping”, Chris. It’s interesting that the originator or the term actually recommended that the “thought stopping” technique could be used in conjunction with electro-shock treatment! People spreading venom about the subject of Scientology point out that the COS uses this technique to prevent people from thinking for themselves and observing what is right before their eyes.
                      There many be some truth in that assertion, however, I agree with you that I would rather “use Scientology terminology as it leads to a tech that is highly workable rather than the confusion that is psychology today.”
                      I find it interesting that the curators of the blogs that seem to be so bent on attacking the works of LRH by refusing to recognize a distinction between the subject itself and actions of the COS, use a lot of words like “thought stopping”, “critical thinking”, and “deconstruction”. Probably many of their readers will not go to the trouble of clearing these words thoroughly which creates even more about the subject.
                      Anyhow, thanks for the very complete definition of “thought stopping”. If anyone wants to see a video demonstration of what this kind of psych therapy is like, here’s one by comedian Bob Newhart:

                    • (Seems this slipped through the cracks….)

                      You’re welcome, Espiritu. And thanks for y our astute observations. πŸ™‚

            • First of all Chris Scientology is not the first and probably won’t be the last organization to acquire a cult mentality.

              See Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks’ book THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE:

              http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.ciacultofintell.toc.htm

              Also look at the following definitions particularly 2 of “cult”:

              a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief:
              People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.
              β€Ί A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior:
              a cult movie
              the cult of celebrity

              So it doesn’t have to be a religious organization. For instance Marty, Mike, Tony and his blog the “Underground Bunker” could be considered a cult. Same with ESMB, ARS, OCBMB, 4 Chan, etc could be considered cults as well.

              Funny how they continually accuse us of being cult members which in this case is definitely a case of the overt doth speak loudly.

              Also these people like for instance the late unlamented Marg Singer and Jollie West and a lot of their friends in the intelligence community who were former Mk Ultra alumni through such organizations as the AFF and CAN had established a cult which opposed what they called “cults”.

              BTW they pretty much backed and defended their true martyrs to their cause Paulette Cooper and Ron DeWolf but this is probably not a story which be hitting the mainstream media anytime soon especially when they like Tony want to play up the “victim” aspect of the whole scene involving “Miss Lovely” which was allegedly the code name assigned to her.

              (I can tell you that many of the GO members I knew called her a lot of things but “Miss Lovely” wasn’t one of them πŸ˜‰

              But I digress….)

              Anyway my point wasn’t to insult anyone but to point out the fact that once CMOI took over led by a group of snot nosed kids who were being egged on by psychotic nut cases who definitely had “other fish to fry” that the whole dynamic in Scientology had changed to that which could be called a “cult” by definition accompanied by an unflinching *believe* in a chosen cult leader i.e. David Miscavige which thus changed it from what could be considered an empirical heuristic religion based on personal observation and experience to a “faith based” religion of some kind believing or forced to believe in the unquestioned (if you knew what was good for you)eternal wisdom of their current “leader”.

              • Thanks for the edification, Robin; however, I long ago cleared all the definitions of “cult”. I still disagree and find that the use of that phrase, as I said to Worsel, tends to make less of those in the Church and IMO, buys into those seeking to rip down the church. Also, as a phrase, it’s meaning is somewhat different than just the word “cult”, as can be seen here:

                http://psychologyofcults.blogspot.ca/2012/05/cult-mentality.html

                Also, I found a couple of other definitions of cult which get used when anti-Scientologists talk about Scientologists, the CoS, its members, and those who still believe in the tech and follow LRH’s teachings:

                “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.” (Dictionary.com)

                “a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents.” (Collins English Dictionary)

                Now, I didn’t think your intention was to insult at all, but sometimes one can use a term without thinking that doesn’t really fit the bill or is belittling or emasculating of one’s power and ability.

                P.S. You make some good points and have much of interest to say, but…IMO, you lose a lot of strength by the overuse of pejoratives such as “snot-nosed kids”, “unlamented”, “certifiable insane whack jobs”, “idiotic ravings”, “monied elitists”, and so on (and that’s not even getting into your comments on Marty and Mike). I just think that that kind of ad hominem is beneath you and your arguments would hold a lot more weight if you didn’t continually add in all these “added derisive inapplicables”. Just my two cents, now a penny because of inflation and foreign exchange. πŸ˜‰

                • Yeah what I say about Marty and Mike probably send DHS and NSA into a tizzy πŸ˜‰

                  True it seems that cult has been loaded with a lot of derogatory meanings.

                  Here’s the actual etymology of the word:

                  1610s, “worship,” also “a particular form of worship,” from French culte (17c.), from Latin cultus “care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence,” originally “tended, cultivated,” past participle of colere “to till” (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning “a devotion to a person or thing” is from 1829.

                  Also another definition which is quite useful and probably applies more than any other:

                  Cult. An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you disagree. [Rawson]

                  πŸ˜‰

  6. When I got into Scn my literacy level was not up to reading straight LRH. I got in thru Ruth Minshells “How to Choose your people”. An excellent book and introduction.

    LRH was, is, and always will be the source of the information.
    The paranoia about having to keep it all LRH just didnt make sense to me. Who could possibly find the time to duplicate what he did? Or do it as well. There are brilliant people in Scn who have been able to duplicate the data and provide that data in an easily read fashion, they should be let loose and allowed to do their thing!

    I always found that people coming in on say Ruth Minshells books just started going on to LRH as a matter of course, so what was the problem? Of course, if the reason was to sabotage, then it makes perfect sense.

    • My brother gave me Ruth’s “Ups & Downs In Life” book and then HTCYP, after I was in. So Ruth helped me as well, 4a. And I didn’t do too badly afterwards. *grin*

    • 4a,

      I tend to agree with you on a public level and as an introduction that these books are fine. Like for example Ruth’s How to Choose Your People and Ups and Downs in Life but they shouldn’t be sold in Scientology Book Stores because they violate the PL on Tech and Policy Distribution.

      Personally I was never a big fan of BOTWO publications myself.

      I was one of the few that fought my way through Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health and I’d rather fight then switch πŸ˜‰

      But yeah if you’re trying to reach the public at the lowest levels. Sure. Just as like as it is made clear that it is someone else’s interpretation of the subject.

      Better still. In my opinion is method 7 on very basic books like FOT, POW and NSOL if needed.

      Problem is the Church itself has gone over board with all these squirrel interpretations like those Life Improvement Course and the Squillotologist Handbook and the mother of all alterations the Golden Age of Tech.

      I mean the basic reason that I left the Church is because of RTRC’s efforts to make Scientology for Dummies.

      I mean why dumb the subject down when you can pretty much increase anyone’s IQ by applying Scientology?

      Personally if someone was having trouble grasping the basic subject then they need KTL or achieve Super Literacy first via the Primary Rundown.

      • It seems to me that the policy you refer to, Robin (HCO PL 4 March 65RA, Rev. 7 July 63, Technical and Policy Distribution), is speaking about mimeo issues of HCOBs (Technical) and HCO PLs (Policy), not books, and with which I also agree. But Ruth’s books had LRH’s approval and were sold in orgs under LRH’s watch and brought in a lot of new people. True, best is straight Source, but the others could be purchased and used to interest a relative or family member or friend who had not (and might not) step into a church. I also agree re the BOTWO as that was just a pure bastardization of LRH and should themselves be burned (the books, that is, although….).

        Excellent policy, btw.

        • Thanks Chris,

          Like I said. Nothing wrong with those books as an intro to the subject.

          I thought he made mention of books. Maybe I’ll have to reread the PL but anyway.

          Nothing wrong with Ruth or Peter or Reg’s books which are based on Ron and we know who the authors are unlike the org these days who has a bunch of nameless authors for hire who are never mentioned squirreling up the tech.

          Never been much on the burning books thang. Personally I’d leave that sorta thing to the Nazi SD and RTC πŸ˜‰

          Probably a better idea is use ’em for toilet paper or maybe mulching ’em up and recycling the paper and using them for Standard Tech and Policy issues.

          To save on trees and that πŸ™‚

      • Hi RV, I can only go from my experience, that How to Choose Your People was a great 1st book for me. You are right, in that I latter had to fight my way through literacy barriers to be able to duplicate straight LRH, and I am glad I did.

        With a well done PRD and KTL this should set someone up very well. Many of us, unfortunately, didnt have these courses. I didnt even get a Method 1. I can see that in the future these courses should be heavily used.

        You say, “I mean why dumb the subject down when you can pretty much increase anyone’s IQ by applying Scientology?” and it is true that that is what Scn does. But you have to reach people where they live to begin with, otherwise you wouldnt have the pleasure of my company now.:)

        I will read the PL that Chri mentioned, is that the one you are operating off?

        • Right 4a,

          That’s the PL.

          BTW I totally understand. Like I said at the public level. One has to present Scientology at a level it can be understood and these books you and Chris mentioned are fine at a Div VI intro level.

          As Ron says in a RED WIS wasn’t written by him but all and the the original as opposed to the later edition is a good way to introduce people to the subject. So is HTCP and Ups and Downs.

          Mainly I was writing about dumbing down the subject at the Academy Levels and beyond.

          For instance there is nothing wrong with someone like Shref giving his tone scale and ARC lectures to sales men as an intro. Same with Ruth’s books.

          But now when the guy has a few wins and now asks for Scientology or Dianetics. It’s time to give him the real deal.

          That’s all I’m sayin’

          Seems the Orgs gone totally crazy on dumbing it down like L Kin and his stupid Clear Bird BS.

          • Nicely said, Robin.

            Re L. Kin, I don’t believe he’s Clearbird. I’ve had correspondence with Clearbird and it wasn’t L. Kin to my knowledge. Just trying to lessen the confusion and chaos out here. πŸ™‚

          • P.S., BTW, it wasn’t an attempt to “dumb it down”, just an attempt to get around what was at that time thought to be threats from the CoS around copyrights.

            • Personally I feel that’s problematic in itself.

              I mean altering the tech as far as I’m concerned is altering the tech.

              As far as I know the RTC or CST hasn’t been able to prevail in any copyright infringement case that I’m aware of since the early ’80’s when they took down the AAC.

              So this seems to be either a needless worry or a false flag to justify squirreling.

          • I have found something of interest. I looked at the PL Chris mentioned “HCO PL 4 March 65RA, Rev. 7 July 63, Technical and Policy Distribution” and there was this sentence in it:

            “Books may not be advertised for sale or the advertisement paid for from the HCO book fund except LRH books.” LRH. End of sentence.

            Just for interest I checked out the original policy “HCO PL 4 March 65Issue II Hat Material Division 1 (HCO) TECHNICAL AND POLICY DISTRIBUTION” In the OEC Vols of the ’70s and here is the original sentence with a qualifier after it, not put in the revised policy.

            “Books may not be advertised for sale or the advertisement paid for from the HCO book fund except LRH books. To advertise and sell any other book requires HCO Sec WW clearance in writing for that one time.” LRH

            This policy was apparently revised in 1983. I am not quite sure what to make of this, did LRH authorize this revision? As I said my first contact with Scn was thru Ruth Minshell, she may have made a couple of dollars on book royalties from me, but I spent a hell of a lot more than that in various orgs, plus being on staff etc. So why cut that contact line out? Doesnt make sense! The more I find out, the dirtier it gets!

            • 4a,

              There were some interesting “revisions” around that time such as PTS and Disconnection which was originally issued as an HCOB but later became a PL allegedly canceling the Canceling of Disconnection Policy and then there is the HCOPL Confessional Tech Policies which supposedly canceled the Pl Sec Checks Abolished.

              The only problem was that the above PLs that were canceled were part of the original Reform Code per RJ 68.

              Lest we forget that the HCOPL Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists was revised to include anyone who continued to associate with someone who was considered an SP to be an SP as well.

              I mean even the original PL only labeled such a person PTS and made them ineligible for training or processing until they either handled or disconnected from the SP.

              Personally I noted a pattern that the new management had basically thrown the Reform Codes under the bus and whether they got the Ol’man to go along with this operation seems questionable to me.

              Regarding the PL on Tech and Policy Distribution. One can see that the Orgs are continually violating that PL themselves by including the video of Miscavige’s idiotic Shermanesque ravings he gave to those stuffed suits and swollen evening gowns at a CCI “Gala” on What Scientology was (as if he and Sherman had a clue) as a book store item and all the other BOTWO BS they’ve been palming off on the public since the late ’80’s like that abomination called the “‘Scientologist’ Handbook” which is basically a BOTWO bastardization of the Volunteer Ministers Handbook.

                • Yeah I just posted a comment to Lana about this.

                  Regarding the whole Disconnection thang which seemed conflict with references on the condition itself and also the development of the SP RD.

                  The only reason why it was instituted as far as I can see was solely for political control.

                  • Yes, and the timeline is; bring down the GO, get LRH off the lines, smash the Missions, sabotage Div 6,make Ethics untenable, squirrel the Admin Tech, sabotage and add to the training lineup, a=a auditing with sec checks, overrun and underrun the Bridge, get it so that even Scns are pissed off with the subject. You got to give it to dave. Im sure somewhere, someone thinks he is an upstat!

                    • Probably in the eyes of the CIA, the Builderburgers, the Illuminati or whoever you can name as Global Enslavement Inc. probably has given the guy a secret award of merit of some kind πŸ˜‰

                      Just kidding πŸ™‚

                      Maybe with the exception of the CIA.

                      Dave reminds me of the type Ron discusses in KSW about the person being dumb and of no use to anyone or something to that effect being the cause of endless trouble etc because Scientology never got home to them etc.

                      Personally I always wondered how anybody could anybody that was so stupid seriously.

                      Yet there are at least hundreds who have bought into the incredibly stupid idea that if you build an “Ideal Org” they will come.

                      So why am I surprised?

                      I think it was Mencken who said you’d never go broke underestimating the American public.

                      I guess one could apply that same datum to Org public and staff.

  7. I have had a reach-out to my community here in our small, central Washington state since we’ve moved here in ’07. We too have our Lion’s Club and many more civic oriented groups. I have learned these things as a trained Scientologist: that an individual operates best with a team; that VSP (Very Serious People) tend to deny any betterment across the Dynamics, except for themselves; that any efforts towards progress (increased survival for all) will encounter counter-intention; and that rumor, cabal, and back-stabbing seems to somehow be acceptable.

    That might all seem discouraging, but I’m merely pointing up that it’s the world we live in. Fortunately, we have the tech to overcome each of these obstacles. As Ron once said, Scientology will go as far as the tech is workable. Translated, that means he believed in us.

  8. Very interesting discussion. You probably don’t know but I am writing a book. It is a project I had in mind since a long time. I had 3 projects on which I wrote essays. The fisrt one was “Project Planetary Depollution”. I started on the basis of the 7 div org board and developped a theory based on some basic PLs.
    Then I did an analysis of middle class french society which is right now getting owerwhelmed by taxes. Then I wrote various essays on Scientology. Finally I came back on my original line which was the Dianetic Logics and Axioms. I am demonstrating how to build a line of reason from the Logics. The book is called “Objective Clean Planet”. It is all about cleaning up the waters, the air and the soil and getting man into an harmonious relationship with the 5th and 6th dynamics. I found a good definition of Democracy: “The governement of the spirits by the spirits for the spirits.” It is all intended to show to non Scientologists what we all coud do with fondamentals. I really believe this Gung Ho stuff is our key to expansion. The key is to get to non scientologists what THEY could do with some tech.
    Of course LRH books and tapes are the real stuff but this does not mean one cannot take specific materials and develop a piece of theory or program designed to handle specific situations.

    • Thats great Joseph! I love hearing what Scns are up to, they are so inventive. Its one of the reasons I used to enjoy going to Flag. I met one guy once who was publishing a science magazine. The end product being that when someone invented an engine that could replace the internal combustion engine, they would back and support him/her.

      • Thanks 4a. Scientology is actually a lot of fun. It is like these master cooks. they know their basics and once that is in, they have a lot of fun inventing new receipe or do the standard gastronomy for the great pleasure of the customers. Once the broad public will know what we can create together with them using Scientology, they will only want to do it. Really a lot of fun. Definitely Gung Ho groups is the real stuff for us.

  9. In 61 Ron worked out the Pre-Havingness Scale to get people up through to Havingness. He’s been working Havingness for years at this point and finally observes that it’s duplication.

    A thetan’s ability to duplicate/have what’s there is a “make-break” point, so he’s worked out how to up that ability and so the Pre-Have Scale.

    Part of that scale is Help and Failed Help. With Failed Heip the next level down is O/W, and so on down scale.

    After O/W comes Leave. This is individuation, isolation.

    The Gung Ho idea is REACHING, with help. O/Ws keep one from reaching.

    Scientology is, if anything, help and reaching to the environment to lift it up to a higher plane of being, doing and having.

    If the MS2 viewers, out there, were to do something they personally wanted to do to make life better around them, whatever it is, we’d be richer and living life larger.

    When Lana brought this Gung Ho thing up the other night, I realized there are some incredibly able beings reading this blog that have skills, interests and abilities that played out into the culture would be f’in A cool as.

    • Sorry Jim/Lana, I have Q&Ad with the subject of the post. For myself I have seen too many good meaning people, trying to apply Scn, go down in flames to get too involved, and the way the orgs have been run, the money grubbing, heavy ethics etc, it has been hard for me to justify bringing people in. I have wanted to audit for a long time, but couldnt train in the orgs, (for reasons mentioned many times). That is what I am working on now, learning to audit. Now I am out of the church, Scientology is something I will talk about openly to anyone. Its new ground for me and very exciting.

      • I totally hear you 4a. I have also seen so many well-intentioned people go down in flames, and I have seen mismanagement, heavy ethics, theft and coercion that has made me cringe. I keep looking at what LRH tools we have to be able to sort the situation out, from the field, and how to enable people to get involved and apply Scn, even if they are not trained auditors. How to enable well-meaning people to be part of the action, to do what they want to do, in their neck of the woods – and not be considered out-ethics or engaged in “other fish”. And how to, at the same time, help get them trained and audited, while the larger mess that the C of S has created gets resolved.

        A very smart (and highly trained) friend gave me advice which I am following. He said, just take one step at a time. Simplicity is the answer. Work to continually build across the dynamics and increase capacity, train to be a competent auditor, and move steadily up the Bridge. There is no race or competition. There is no pressure to get it all done NOW NOW NOW. There are instead many compelling reasons to enjoy the journey, the learning, the growth and the wins. And to get heavily involved in building, helping and assisting our local communities and society. πŸ™‚

        • LM:

          I thoroughly agree on this “one step at a time” idea. It’s the central thing that I got out of Problems of Work. It is the way to solve a confusion. You pick out one thing and resolve that. Then the next and the next. Confusions (and you’d be surprised how many everyday situations involve that and that alone) will just stymy you and defy any attempt to resolve them at times. But this datum is like the universal solvent when it comes to them.

          Paul

      • 4a,

        What you’ve mentioned is historically what happens to any group that allows a suppressive element to infiltrate it and corrupt its original goals and intentions.

        Ron covers this in the PLs Infiltration and Counter-Espionage. Also in various GO Directives on Covert Action.

        Such actions didn’t stop with the “abolishment” of the GO. In fact in my opinion they probably accelerated.

        That said.

        The whole purpose of the Organization is to provide auditing and train auditors. This is covered in the RED How to Raise Stats and the Orgs seem to be doing other things i.e. regging money for the IAS and building “Ideal Orgs” with are counter to its intention as an organization.

        In other words the Org as a group is totally out ethics. Probably in a condition of confusion.

        Personally when I realized this. It blew a lot of charge for me.

        This is probably why in my opinion you were never able to complete your training. Being distracted by all these other things which seem so much more important. Trying to study in a course room that in many cases violated What is a Course and Courses Their Idea Scene.

        Personally I remember myself in the student admin area looking for a reference when two missionares dragged me off without any objection from the “Course Supervisor” for a “Special Project”.

        There were others I knew who the “Course Supervisor” allowed to be regged by the IAS while they were in the course room.

        PC’s who were sec checked because some “exec” ordered it. Thus interrupting their auditing program.

        With factors like this occurring. It is actually amazing that the Orgs managed to get any products at all.

        Anyway as Bill Clinton used to famously say “I feel your pain.” πŸ˜‰

        Thing to remember though is there are always people like Chris, Jimbo and others like myself who can help you handle any BPC you may have per C/S Series 96. If you feel that’s needed.

        Or you can pick up a Dianetics book or Self Analysis or whatever and just start auditing people. Nothing is stopping you from applying Scientology to your friends and family.

        In the meantime let the Org do what thou wilt. Currently from what I’ve seen. It isn’t much of a threat these days.

        • “Thing to remember though is there are always people like Chris, Jimbo and others like myself who can help you handle any BPC you may have per C/S Series 96. If you feel that’s needed.”

          Thanks RV, I have done that and it worked very well indeed!

          “. Nothing is stopping you from applying Scientology to your friends and family.”

          The trouble before while in the church, is that the complaints about Scn from public were very often true, from personal experience, and hard to dismiss. But now, after seeing the extent of the abuse of KSW it is very easy to explain to people how those abuses are not Scn, and this is easily backed up by references.

          I had one non Scio ask me about the OT levels. I told her I had promised not to talk about them and felt honor bound to respect that promise, I told her that there are many strange things in Scn, different to what she has ever known before but that they make sense and better still work. This totally handled her, she is interested in getting auditing now.

          So to me, the road is open!

          • That’s great 4a πŸ™‚

            Well then carry on!

            Funny thing is that most of my non-Scientology friends assign very little credence to the Mainstream Media so I’ve never had the opportunity to handle any antagonism.

            There is only one person who takes Faux News seriously and unfortunately he happens to be a Scientologist.

            I won’t say who it is. Because I don’t want to embarrass them πŸ˜‰

            Anyway I figure a lot of these “Indies” who take all this black PR seriously are making mountains out of mole hills.

            The thing that causes people to accept Scientology is the fact that it works and nothing else and the only trouble that the media has caused is to restimulate BPC and cause people who have since left the Church to justify that or in many cases their own overts against the subject.

            Because in many cases they seem to be the biggest promoters of this black PR campaign.

            • RV: Anyway I figure a lot of these β€œIndies” who take all this black PR seriously are making mountains out of mole hills.

              I have found much the same. At best those I’ve touched on with SCN was “Isn’t that the Tom Cruise/John Travolta thing?”. Rarely do they know much more than that. Maybe 10% – 15% who keep up with all the latest news have any faint idea storms have been brewing, and probably why the church can continue to disseminate unimpeded for the most part. If they get 1/2 percent response, they’ll do OK. But also, like the existing field, the CO$’ll route them off lines in due time for their never quenching thirst for your wallet. I mean, who the hell wants to to be harassed for money constantly?

              • FM,

                It sorta proves the point about Ron says about the Church’s stats being caused internally and that if they delivered Standard Tech and actually cared for their public and staff.

                Instead of being only interested in their wallet and using the staff as slave labor. They’d do fine. Even with all this bad media.

                All it does is justify that those who left did the right thing.

    • Right on, Jim, right on. Interesting take on Havingness. Goes along with the HCOB What We Expect Of A Scientologist of around the same era.

    • Interesting point Jimbo.

      Probably one of the reasons why Ron developed L-10 for execs on the original FEBC and why Scientology’s public outreach and Div VI activities were so successful back in the ’70’s.

      Of course those in management who were actually interested in dissemination and distribution tried to replicate this boom with the OEC/FEBC program at ITO but they omitted the vital step of having the outer org candidates get the “Executive Rundowns” particularly L-10.

      So the whole effort inexplicably “failed”.

      Funny how an action can seem to “fail” by omitting certain actions.

      Be that as it may. Personally I think we find ourselves in the same position we were back in the ’50’s with no real central organization to guide our actions.

      Fortunately we have more tech and policy then they did back then.

      That said. A study of the actions done back then by founding Scientologists contained in the PABs and other articles would probably be quite instructive.

      Also such issues such as the one mentioned later “What we Expect of a Scientologist”, “Scientology; Zone Plan” and of course “Scientology Can Have a Group Win” which specifically mentions the factor of OW.

      Of course it is not just the factor of OW but also general antagonism generated against the subject by Gibney, Wright, Miller, et al which is handled by skillful application of the Dissem Drill.

      Regarding Gung Ho groups. I guess MS2 would apply as a virtual Gung Ho group.

      • “…they omitted the vital step of having the outer org candidates get the Β« Executive Rundowns Β» particularly L-10. So the whole effort inexplicably Β« failed Β».”

        Definitely part of it, but from what I’ve ascertained in discussions with a number of OEC/FEBCs and others, it failed because they didn’t fire back as a team per LRH FEBC tech: ED, EstO and Org Off. That was the main outpoint. Likely a combination.

        • That was definitely another factor. In fact one of my PCs was a FEBC grad and aside from that there were also interminable “internships” as well which seemed to be a “standard” practice at the time.

          Not just on admin lines but in tech as well.

          Though I have no actual record. I suspect Qual was adding these “interns” to their QTSM and HCO was including them as part of their QSH.

          Anyway there are many things that they did wrong like for instance they never bothered to get the Exec Series 40 quals done before firing them back. Nor did they compensate for the possible turn over of execs per Personnel Series 3.

          In other words it almost seems that they intended the program to fail. So they could do something else like the endless Staff Statuses program they came up with and the silly “Golden Age of Management”.

        • Robin,
          I just went through a tape on the 3rd South African ACC, Organization lines, where Ron lays out the rationale of lines in the org. The fundamental datum is what WILL people actually do.

          The testing line for instance is based on this; people WILL do a test.

          So, looking over the situation today, a simple expedient of finding what people will actually do, working out that as a “line”, can resolve any dissemination issues, any org issues, any issues at all to do with establishing a practice, a mission, an org, or any other sort of program to do something with others.

          This basic rationale could be taken and the current scene evaluated and the facts determined about today’s circumstances and what people will do. Perhaps this simple datum is what’s missing. It opens the door to re-thinking the lines and reach of a person, an org and various other activities.

          It put the OEC/FEBC that I did in much sharper perspective and what LRH was trying to work with policy. It’s sort of an Action Definition for formulating working programs.

          • I can vouch for that Jim.

            Back in the late ’70’s we did the Test Eval Script just as given in OEC with the meter like it says and signed up 8 out of 10 for Div VI just like the policy says.

            Personally I always have a new PC do an OCA prior to auditing them and haven’t run into a problem even with Scientologists.

            In other words testing works when done correctly.

            BTW as far as I’m concerned OCAs, IQ and Aptitude tests are much more accurate then these stupid drug tests that test “positive” on a poppy seed muffin.

            Or these inane back ground checks.

            You know the ones that ensure that only the slickest criminals are running the Government πŸ˜‰

  10. What a great subject! Gung Ho Groups!
    I first read these policies when they first came out and have done my best to apply them wherever I have lived ever since.
    It is really quite simple. All one need do is to find out what is needed and wanted by the people in one’s environment, and then “do, produce, and/or present” those things as advised in the Nonexistence Formula while enlisting their help. Of course there is much more detail in the Gung Ho Group policies which is very helpful and well worth reading and applying. But applying these is really quite easy.
    People generally want things to get better and many would like to help do so.
    If people have buttons on the Church, cult, whatever I just let them know that I have nothing to do with THAT group because it doesn’t really practice pure Scientology any more as it was intended. Then I just go about my business.
    Gung Ho group activities always improve the PR of the subject of Scientology because people see that real Scientologists are really OK and make things better. My neighbors used to hate Scientology and shunned me for that reason. Now they like me and know that Scientologists who practice Scientology in their own lives do good things.
    Sometimes in the process people might get personally interested in learning more about the subject, and so then it can also become a Promo activity even though this is only a “side effect” these activities.
    Applying Gung Ho Group policies is just a win-win-win activity.

    I hadn’t really thought about these policies for years. Thanks for posting this and disseminating this tech which has been ignored for decades.

    • Ain’t that the truth Esp.

      Seems applying the precepts of one’s religion works better then talking about it πŸ˜‰

      Who knows?

      Maybe the Org will get that memo. Though I doubt it.

      You’re right though applying Scientology works so much better’n just talking about it.

  11. “Maybe the Org will get that memo. Though I doubt it.”
    I have to agree.
    The COS could be doing this with their “Volunteer Minister Program”, if it’s primary purpose were really, sincerely, and simply to make the world a better place. However, it’s real primary purpose is to generate revenue for the IAS and provide PR sound bites. The public senses this. I don’t think that will be changing as long as DM and ilk are running the show, because they don’t have making the world a better place as their sincere primary purpose.

    • Esp,

      Personally I don’t think the mob who took over and placed Dave at the top of the heap ever had the intention of making the world a better place.

      I think they just hoodwinked us all into believing that they were while they seized the reigns of power.

      • Yeah, and they hoodwinked Ron too while he was distracted with his research and also getting on in years. They were and are betrayers of mankind

        • ESP,

          Personally I think he trusted them to do the right thing which is what they didn’t do.

          A simple matter of betrayal after trust or more accurately treason which is what they should be assigned.

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