Home

solonots repair

By Ingrid Smith

I just did a repair of someone who was on Solo NOTs for many years in the Co$ and in the process we debugged a major bug of what she runs into out here on Solo. The mis-training in Church is pretty gross. However, even though this caused much grief we both laughed so much over what was discovered that we had tears coming out of our eyes!!

Success Story

This recent auditing has uncovered a problem I was having for many years.

I have handled the charge and I really laughed so loud!!

I know that my new awareness will make my future auditing go so much better.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!!

38 thoughts on “Solo Nots Repair

  1. Ingrid — thank you so much for providing this. We have posted several articles on the MS website that talk about this very situation.

    For those who have not read them, they are:
    1. http://milestonetwo.org/ots-and-fns/
    2. http://milestonetwo.org/nots-off-the-tracks/
    3.http://milestonetwo.org/tech-corruption-on-fns/

    It makes no sense to me that within the C of S a SOLO auditor is placed onto SOLO NOTs without first being able to read LRH’s NOTs issues, instead being given just a handful of LRH issues and then told to study and apply a bulletin written by RTC on how SOLO NOTs is to be run.

    When a SOLO NOTs auditor from the C of S is handed the NOTs issues and studies them, all the false data and altered tech comes to the surface and can be sorted out with word clearing and drilling.

    The solution for SOLO NOTs is just do what LRH says in the actual NOTs bulletins. Easy peasy. Don’t go squirrelly and decide that maybe Capt Bill had the answer, not LRH. Don’t blow from the level. Don’t go off into weird unusual solutions.

    Just get the LRH references and read, study and drill.

    SOLO NOTs is just incredible! SO much fun! So life changing!

    • So So true Lana. I did the checksheet in 1989 and had tremendous wins. I know Dave changed it in 1995 because I experienced it. I had to get off the level as I could no longer audit on it, and I wasnt the only one. I know you guys have the original material, as I have seen it. Anyone who wants to do it, do it, it is there, as LRH originally wrote it!!

      • The other thing that was obvious about doing this level, is that Dave had no idea of what the ep was/is due to the continued change in the amount of time it was required to keep solo auditing. Or if he did know, he was happy just to recycle us to keep the stats and money up!

        • 4a,

          It was easy for RTC and RTRC to alter NOTs using the justification that David Mayo “author for hire” had somehow altered the materials when he transcribed Ron’s lectures and compiled his notes on the subject.

          Instead of going back to actual *source* and verifying the HCOBs. They decided to get “inventive” by issuing the “Golden Age of ‘OT’ which like the “Golden Age of Tech” was a dismal failure.

          Not only that they used the “six month check” as a means extorting money out of those currently on the level.

          • “Instead of going back to actual *source* and verifying the HCOBs”
            To think that RTC would do anything other than this was just not contemplated by Scns such as myself RV. What it shows up, I am sorry to say, is my lack of training and certainty, out KSW basically, to have not screamed about this when it happened. Instead I just assumed it was some sort of fault in me. But then RTC/Dave, is good at getting people to introvert.

            • “But then RTC/Dave, is good at getting people to introvert.”

              Another reason for the six-month check, 4a: control, and of course, domination.”

              • Originally from what I understand from reading the original FBO way back that the six month check was done to ensure that the Pre OT was winning and to correct any errors with review and cramming if needed that eventually “evolved” into an endless Sec Check cycle of some kind.

                Actually there are PLs in OEC Vol IV which were used for the original Pre OTs on the Clearing Course who were for the most part auditing remotely on R6 that could be applied to Solo NOTs.

                My opinion was that Ron instituted the six month check to verify the results of Solo NOTs for himself. As many of the original NOTs completions like Betty Filisky for example had their folders personally inspected by him before being sent to declare.

                That said Policy supersedes any Base Order and the only Policies I’m aware of which discuss Pre OTs solo auditing remotely are in Vol IV.

                Anyway it sure beats an issue which was never broadly issued to the public.

                The only reason why Dave or anyone else gets away with this crap is because the public is kept ignorant of Standard Lines which have already been established by *Policy*.

                It used to be that the public was introduced to lines and policy by having the Org Board posted in reception and having do an HQS Course which covered rudimentary policy and the Org Board.

                Now it seems the Orgs these days like the Government works on the “Mushroom philosophy”:

                That is keep ’em in the dark and feed ’em nothing but BS.

                • BFO (Base Flag Order) 46 came out of telex traffic between the Flag Solo NOTs unit and LRH in regards the first Solo NOTs auditors. The telex to Ron relayed info that some of the solo NOTs auditors had fallen off the line and what should be done about it. Ron said to “get them in, get them cleaned up, and keep them cleaned up.” Out of that arose BFO 46. And from that came the infamous six-month checks, much worse these days by all accounts. The six-month check is someone’s”think” and misduplication of LRH’s telex and violates numerous PLs and HCOBs. It again is a “blanket C/S” and isn’t applicable to all Solo auditors.

                  As an aside, I’d give a telex order direct from Ron similar importance to an HCO PL, if not more urgent.

                  • “As an aside, I’d give a telex order direct from Ron similar importance to an HCO PL, if not more urgent.”

                    Actually any policy is senior to an order per Seniority of Orders, Policy; Source of, Types of Issues etc.

                    Personally I think one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. Is that staff SO and Non SO gave greater seniority to direct orders then followed policy.

                    For instance. The reason for GAT was given as a direct order by Ron which never did exist. In fact it was only a recommendation that Ron gave to Quals as part of the lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”.

                    Yet this lecture and the alleged order was given as the justification for squirreling up the Tech under the guise of “drills” in direct violation of the PL Drills Allowed.

                    Nothing wrong with cleaning up and reviewing Pre OTs who have fallen off of Solo NOTs. In fact this was covered in the extant revision of C/S Series 73 regarding the Non-Interference Zone.

                    It is also covered in the the Solo Auditor and C/S series as well in the case of unhandled drugs in particular.

                    The problem is when they establish is when they establish it as an arbitrary for *all* cases since it totally violates Organization the Flaw and is basically “inspection before the fact”.

                    • “Actually any policy is senior to an order per Seniority of Orders, Policy; Source of, Types of Issues etc.”

                      This may be true, and quite theoretical when one receives an order from LRH to get something done. If the order doesn’t violate policy, but supports the policy purpose, then one would be wise to carry it out. Probably forthwith, as well. Also, the extant issue of C/S Series 73 at the time didn’t cover this except to “keep the pc winning”, and as this line was probably still under LRH’s watchful eye, the telex exchange makes sense.

                      “The problem is when they establish is when they establish it as an arbitrary for *all* cases since it totally violates Organization the Flaw and is basically « inspection before the fact ».”

                      Yup. As I said.

                      “For instance. The reason for GAT was given as a direct order by Ron which never did exist. In fact it was only a recommendation that Ron gave to Quals as part of the lecture « A Talk on a Basic Qual ».”

                      I’m not sure of all the machinations leading up to GAT’s release by DM in 1995, nor how it all came about as I wasn’t there. But I was there for the Senior C/S-only briefing by DM and RTC entourage at Flag and well remember the importance given about it. Of course, it was hogwash, but DM was firmly in control of running the programs.

                    • Chris,

                      In my opinion the “machinations” behind GAT probably had something to do with Lisa McPherson’s unfortunate death and that instead of apply proper ethics and standard tech they tried to “handle” the situation with an unusual solution which seems to be the SOP of the current “management”.

                      Of course this is purely speculation but it seems that the above incident coincides with the release of GAT.

                    • RV: “In my opinion the « machinations » behind GAT probably had something to do with Lisa McPherson’s unfortunate death and that instead of apply proper ethics and standard tech they tried to « handle » the situation with an unusual solution which seems to be the SOP of the current « management ».

                      Of course this is purely speculation but it seems that the above incident coincides with the release of GAT.”

                      Lisa McPherson died Dec. 5, 1995. GAT was “released” in May, 1996. However, the investigation and research that led to GAT began mid-1995 (http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo2_gat.html). I personally recall the order for orgs to send trainees (supervisors, word clearers) for this new program back in 1995. I don’t see any coincidence between McPherson’s death and GAT or the release of GAT (six months after her death).

                      For a good analysis of GAT and how it came about, see: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo2_gat.html#fromwheregat.

                    • Well I wouldn’t dignify blatant squirreling by calling it “investigation and research” 🙂

                      But OK.

                      Anyway then this only indicates that GAT may have been a contributing factor to poor Lisa’s demise.

                      Aside from other factors possibly external which is covered in the PAB Psychiatrists which was written about the time that Mk Ultra was shifting into high gear.

                      See PAB 62 9/30/55 and I recommend the following books:

                      http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/marks.HTM

                      https://wikispooks.com/w/images/a/a0/Acid_dreams.pdf

                      Personally I never got involved with GAT until the late ’90’s when they reissued the BC with the GAT drills which I literally wrote a truck load of Out Tech Reports on while doing what was called the Class VI “Certainty” course that is until I rediscovered HCOPL 16 April 65 Issue II Drills Allowed and wrote an Orders Query on the whole action.

                      For which I was awarded with Roll Back and the Truth Rundown for my efforts to keep Scientology Working 🙂

        • There are plenty of LRH issues on achieving EPs, including the EP of OT III and (Solo) NOTs. C/S Series 6 definitely comes to mind, as well as C/S series 7, 8, 17, 77, etc. No need for any “RTC opinions” on the EP, just LRH thank you.

      • There are definitely some added issues and procedures that RTC implemented, that’s for sure. That and restrictions on how to audit it, in violation of LRH issues. It blew many people off, as you say.

    • I don’t know if I agree that they should be privy to ALL the NOTs issues, just as they aren’t privy to ALL the tech on numerous rundowns. However, If there is a sparsity of tech on the Solo NOTs Auditor’s Course (6B) these days (there wasn’t when I did it in 1990, so I’m just going by what is being said), then that should be augmented for sure. And the issues used for correction, cleaning false data, and hatting, drilling, etc. And definitely, there should be no non-LRH (read “RTC” and “DM”) issue saying how it should be done. That’s a given – well, it used to be.

      Hatting of the pc or pre-OT is always key to success in auditing. And of course, the best hatting one can get is to become a bona fide auditor themselves, confident in their ability to handle cases.

      “When we consider this further, we see that the ability of the auditor to control minds and mental reactions is dependent upon his getting results in preclears. The preclear’s results simply stem from the preclear’s gained ability to control his own mind and its reactions. Thus, of course, we have entirely different values.

      An auditor who does not consistently get good results is going to have his own case cave in on him. The only way an auditor can keep his case up is to get continuous and predictably excellent results upon preclears. Thus an auditor, to have his case in good order, would have to be in good order as an auditor; he would have to be able to get results upon those he processed. In view of the fact that he could get results upon other human beings, he could then, of course, know continuously that he could control human reactions and mental reactions; and so, with this confidence and this control, be completely unworried about his own case and be able to do actually anything he wished with his own mental machinery.

      The case of the auditor actually depends upon his successes in auditing.” LRH (PAB 42, Six Basic Processes, 24 December 1954)

      • Chris, I didnt see all the issues in the field, just the ones I did on 6B back in ’89. I agree regarding training and that the pc be fully setup to go onto the level. Definitely vital!

        But in saying that, I feel there have been too many cant haves run on people getting up the levels, from many areas as well as Scios themselves, when in actual fact it is not that hard, very doable and well worth the effort, as you would know. Dave has just been a walking, talking arbitrary, necessitating further arbitraries such as the Golden age of whatever.

        The way I see it, the “why” and “who” have been found, we have got the tech, I would love to see people just go for it! Once that is done, there is the original OT levels ready and waiting. This could be a very exciting time, there have been too many stops already!

        • 4a,

          True we know one of the “who-there’s” for sure but I’d venture that the actual why hasn’t been found since no proper Data Series Eval has ever been done on the situation as covered in DS 11.

          • RV I agree with you!!!

            My thinking is just for the purposes of getting the orgs back on source. All that needs to happen is for the management lines to be cut. They just get back on policy, using the policies that apply to them. Keep any monies made. Back door the RTC, IAS and Ideal Org reges. All until the 3 board system is put back in place, and management can do the job it is supposed to.

            I know it is a big ask, but maybe a concerted campaign, flyers where the SO and Staff guys walk. Banners across the way from their buildings, all with a website and phone no. Figure out the buttons that would hit home with the staff and execs.

            Hell, not very long ago, no one thought a whole mission would defect, but it happened. Its just ARC, KRC, those guys on staff dont know what is going on until the knowledge is put there by communication. But it has got to be put there in a form they can accept and duplicate.

            Just an idea 🙂

            • 4a,

              Actually that was what Ron was working toward with the Multiple Viewpoint System of management which meant only having a senior Org step in when there was a problem that couldn’t be handled by a local Org.

              I doubt that Ron would have developed the Class VIII Program then later the FEBC if he expected the Orgs to be managed or more accurately *mismanaged* from the top down in true corporate or military “style” where some General Staff or Corporate HQ issues some nebulous orders from their version of Mt Olympus or in this case Int Base which many of us began calling the “Magic Kingdom” usually because they didn’t and still don’t have a fricking clue what was or is occurring at lower echelons of the Scientology Network.

              This is why Orgs are supposed to hat and train staff and the public as well. So one can operate on what actually is Command Intention which is covered in the following policy:

              HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
              HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 MARCH 1971 Issue I1
              (Also issued as Flag Order 2804, A POST HATTING DRILL)
              COMMAND INTENTION AND YOUR POST
              (Originally written by LRH for the Apollo OODs of 12 Mar. 71. Issued as an HCO PL on 2 Oct. 80.)
              Have you worked out what command intention (not orders but intention) is for your post?
              If you’ve done this, then work out-do the orders you give line up with com- mand intention?
              And then if you have worked that out, are the products you produce accept- able in volume, quality and viability to others of the group and command?
              If so, you’ll have pushed it through the whole cycle.
              1. Command intention for your post.
              2. Do you push command intention forward from your post?
              3. Are the products of your post acceptable to others and command?

              L. RON HUBBARD

        • Hi 4a,

          No problem in this quarter with removing the can’t haves and stops from the lines. The point being, there is a specific way of mocking up a checksheet to give one the ability to do what one is taught – in this case, Solo NOTs. Too much and it’s too long a runway; too little and it opens the door to arbitraries and other “think”. So giving one all the issues might be just as incorrect as not giving any. That’s all.

          Definitely agree with you on the original OT Grades, that’s for sure! 😀

            • Hey 4a, I wanted to ask you – you mentioned earlier on that you had to get off the level due to the arbitraries introduced onto the level. Did you get back on it? Are you complete, or still auditing, or needing to resume? If you need to resume, let me know if I can be of help (or are Lana and Jim going to help you)? 🙂

              • Hi Chris,

                No I didnt get back on it,( I think Dave did me a favour). I am in a very good place in regard to the level and my life in general. Many thanks to Lana and Jim for that! To be honest, I am more interested in training and auditing, a goal I am working on in pt.

                Its a main reason I enjoy this blog so much, as you trained guys and other posters, who have been through the hoops, have references and reliable background information I cant get anywhere else, that kind of experience is invaluable!

                For me, one of the great things about Solo Nots, is that your own case, after a while, is not something you worry about. Your attention extroverts, the dynamics expand. Its a bigger game, exactly as LRH says. 🙂 He even writes about keeping on the level, even though life looks interesting. And that is exactly what happens.

                Thanks for the interest and offer for assistance, it means a lot!

                • Hi 4a,

                  Well, I’m very happy to know that Lana and Jim have been there to help you reach that “good place” in your life. They’re special and valuable, those places. I’m happy you’re doing well. I’m very very happy to hear you’re training – and auditing! Hoot, hoot! And one day, I expect I’ll be happy again when I hear you’re back on the level or progressing on another level. In all, I wish you the best of journeys. As Lana has said, and I concur, it’s a fun ride with lots of thrills and adventures. 🙂

                  “Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, champagne in one hand, strawberries in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming ‘WOOHOO – What a ride!'”

    • There’s definitely enough false data and altered tech on the level, Lana, that’s for sure! And anyone who is trained to audit or C/S this zone will have to know this as they will come across NOTs pre-OTs who are balled up case-wise due to this on the level.

      But, I am really responding to this:

      “The solution for SOLO NOTs is just do what LRH says in the actual NOTs bulletins. Easy peasy. Don’t go squirrelly and decide that maybe Capt Bill had the answer, not LRH. Don’t blow from the level. Don’t go off into weird unusual solutions.”

      I have seen this time and time again, very much so on NOTs and Solo NOTs, but on lower OT levels as well. And these “pre-OTs”, rather than addressing their confusions and Mis-Us (i.e., HCOB Technical Queries, and HCOB Confused Ideas), end up falling right into the pigeon holes of KSW, seemingly not able to get results from what they *think* is standard tech, but buying some otherism, telepathically derived or otherwise, and blowing the level. And this, of course, goes back to your original premise of incomplete and altered Solo NOTs checksheets and squirrel remedies on handling the NOTs case.

      These people do not know the gains they are missing out on.

    • Well yeah 4a they’re trees but it’s also the name of a National Park in Northern California.

      (Actually us Los Angelenos consider anything north of Santa Barbara “Northern California” even San Francisco and San Jose which they claim is more central but the fact is we know better since we’re the center of the universe 🙂 )

  2. Just as a side comment Lana.

    Personally I think we shouldn’t get into too much technical discussion of the Advanced Courses and Levels.

    As far as I see. Discussing actual OT Phenomena and the results attained is totally ok as what was done in the Advance Mag as it generates interest but as Ron says in the following quotes:

    *You must realize that we suffer, all of us, from the misuse of knowledge concerning the mind at a very early period. To place this data near such people as psychiatrists or even states places them in a position to enslave people or repeat the original action and cave people in. A very small minority, receiving incorrect data did promptly use it harmfully on others after April 1964.*

    (emphasis added)

    Until we ourselves have climbed well out of the hole, we must safeguard the materials. Our case gains depend on it. And others could make our salvage of people impossible.

    We do not safeguard these materials from any commercial consideration. Our futures, those of each of us and those of all Scientologists, depend on our keeping this material under lock and safeguarded from abuse until we are well away as a group and can handle things better as individuals as well as a group.

    HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I AUGUST 1971 Issue V
    (Replaces HCO P/L of 10 Nov 66)
    ADVANCED COURSES MATERIALS SECURITY OF DATA

    Also:

    Any person found to be connected to a Suppressive Group may not thereafter be enrolled in the Saint Hill Solo Audit Course or the Clearing Course.

    Suppressive Groups are defined as those which seek to destroy
    Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of Mankind.

    It does not matter whether the person so connected disconnects or handles, or whether the connection has been previously severed.
    The reason for this policy letter is to make it extremely difficult for suppressive groups to acquire data they could then pervert and use to harm others.

    If a person was a member and left, it still remains such a person must have had some basic agreement with the motives of the suppressive group.

    If we do not hold this rule we may find our task made harder by the abuse of data. We do not want, ever again, the epidemics of implantation to recur and will do all in our power to deny data to any who might pervert it to such use.

    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JUNE 1968
    Div I – Dept 3 – Ethics Section
    ENROLIMENT IN SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS
    (Amends HCO PL 28 Dee 1965 of Same Title)

    I’m posting this comment because I’ve noted that Mike and Marty’s blogs now include detailed discussions of what is considered Confidential Material.

    True much of this “discussion” for the most part contain interpretations mostly due to complete unreality, false data and concepts generated mostly as in pretty much exclusively by false IIIs as defined:

    FALSE III, an OT who gaily went up the grades without doing them. You don’t have to know more about it than that. (HCOB 24 May 69)

    I write this because I’ve come across PCs at lower levels who have been exposed to much of this twisted data which makes my job difficult. Not impossible though. But still this should be a safe space where Scientologists can come and not be exposed or have to worry about being exposed to Confidential Data.

    We should leave that to the ingrates and cretins like Marty and Mike who as far as I’m concerned are digging their own graves.

    OK rant over back to rescheduled programing 🙂

    • Good points, Robin, for sure; however, I don’t think we’re going down the road that M&M have (wasn’t this discussed once before on MS2?), nor do I see any violation of policy, nor any exposition of confidential material here, or did I miss it? IMO, the discussion on Ingo Swann would be closer to this:

      “You must realize that we suffer, all of us, from the misuse of knowledge concerning the mind at a very early period. To place this data near such people as psychiatrists or even states places them in a position to enslave people or repeat the original action and cave people in.”

      than anything posted on this thread. I think, at least IMO, we’re all well aware of this aspect of the Bridge and take care not to cross over that line.

      • I don’t know if it was discussed earlier or not but I thought I’d bring it up since we are discussing NOTs and repairing NOTs etc.

        Personally I don’t see how discussing Ingo’s involvement in Remote Viewing or discussion of the subject would be construed as exposing confidential data as much of this data is contained in the Phoenix Lectures particularly those where he discusses R1 and phenomena related to those processes which is pretty much broadly available and as far as know was never reclassified by Ron as such.

        After carefully reviewing what was considered Scanate, Gondola’s Wish, Grill Flame, Center Lane and various other cryptonyms related to the program eventually known as Stargate that has since been declassified under that name there was any effort by the Swann, Puthoff, Price triad to release confidential data to the CIA or the Military.

        In fact the manual issued under the DOD’s Inscomm for Remote Viewing by Ingo Swann as far as I can see doesn’t contain any such data in its seven steps.

        For the most part it only shows what results can be achieved by applying the phenomenon of Exteriorization to acquiring intel.

        The only thing that be considered to be suppressive is that later they claim to be able to achieve these results with something other then Scientology or attempt to cover up the fact that application of Scientology was responsible for the initial spectacular results of the program.

        Or to discredit the results achieved using so called “skeptics” from CSICOP etc for the most part employed by CIA.

        At least that’s my view.

        • Sorry, didn’t mean to touch off another lecture on the various programs run by the CIA, FBI, and ABC. 😉

          Anyway, we were just discussing issues on a checksheet. I think we’re fine. As I said, good points, but I think we’re all pretty well aware of, and responsible for, this area on this blog.

          Cheers

          • I’d say program run by ABC is probably more insidious and mind numbing as anything conceived under Mk Ultra 🙂

            But seriously.

            The “check sheet” that seems to be under discussion here is what is known as “New OT VI” which is “Limited Dist” “Confidential” etc. and is considered an Advanced Course. So it’s not just any check sheet.

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