Home

get cape

By Lana M.

“A process has not been the correct process or has not been run correctly, or has not been run long enough if there has not been in the preclear an increase in his ability to grant life to others and his environment.”  LRH Ability Magazine 6, 1955

There are many people in this world, and just as many individual beliefs.

I have no war against those who are anti-Scientology as such persons have a right to believe as they do, even if I do not share their views. They are welcome to their own ideas, thoughts and considerations, and to be able to communicate those to others, even though from my perspective much of what they say is incorrect, false information or twisted in some fashion.

There is no campaign to make everyone a Scientologist on this planet and peace and tolerance is built through communication and understanding – not by rejecting or attacking a person because of what they believe to be true.

I also have no war with those within the walls of the Church of Scientology who consider myself and others to be “squirrels” because we apply the tech outside the perimeters of the institution.  The purpose of this blog is not to attack the Church or to undermine or unstabilize existing Scientologists that are “still in” — as they do what they do based on what they know, what they have experienced and what they have learnt.  They are good people – albeit ignorant or unaware of what has been occurring. They are well-intentioned and they want to move up The Bridge, so they do all they can to make that happen. There are more plus-points with such persons than outpoints, and we cannot forget that.

There have been a few occasions when commentary on this blog has leaned towards natter about staff or executives, which is never good.  Having being an SO executive myself in the past, I can say without question that all Scientology execs do their utmost to help, build, expand and grow areas under their control, normally on very long hours, with little reward. That probably even applies to Miscavige, who is unquestionably a nutcase, but does what he does as he is convinced it is the right thing to do. Of that he is very certain.

Out here in the field, exterior to much of what goes on, it can be easy to individuate from the goings-on of others that are different from ourselves. It can be easy to sneer or speak poorly of others who are not here and now with us. People we have worked with in the past, or people we have never met but only heard of through long distance communication lines.

I am not  talking about being theetie-wheetie and sickingly, sweet and syrupy about people — I am just talking about granting beingness to others, regardless of their views, activities and actions.  Scientologists who are trained know about life, about the reactive mind and how to move man to higher states where he is no longer under the thumb of irrational reactivity and restimulation.  As a trained auditor, a Scientologist must grant beingness to others and use communication to help people – as that is the only way to expect any gain or change.

Even when people 3P myself or others within MS2, I do my best to not engage in a games condition by talking lowly about them in turn. It solves nothing and just creates entheta and enturbulation that then becomes an issue in itself.

The below has been a stable datum for me for a long time, and when applied across the dynamics and to all people (regardless of beliefs), it really starts to become a way of life that is so much more enjoyable and fun to live.

“It is a very funny thing — some fellow comes over the top of a hill and he sees a town lying out in front of him and he says, “What a horrible, ramshackle, mean, ugly, vicious place that is.”. And the next fellow comes over the top of the hill, and he takes a look at this town and he invests it with beingness and then he says, “There’s a town there.”

“Well now, the first fellow goes down into the town and nobody does anything for him, and if they show his horse or fix his car or do something for him, they’ll put the shoe on backwards or patch the tire up in some outlandish fashion that won’t last very far and things just kind of go that way — and he’ll be overcharged for it.

“And the fellow who has granted beingness to the town comes through, he finds everybody’s real nice to him and he gets a good room in the hotel and the chow’s good and everybody’s happy and cheerful about the whole thing. That’s what he runs into continually through life.

“Now, an artist can come in — a writer, a poet, something of the sort — and grant a new beingness to a town. Sort of out of whole cloth, he just tells the people all about it. They’ve never granted it any beingness at all. They’re so busy trying to keep each other from eating each other up, they’ve never noticed this; but this is something they can agree upon, this town. And the town comes to life, just to that degree. It is alive then.

“This is a capability which any human being has. And it’s easy to release this. It’s  not a God-given, untapped talent, one that an individual is unable to assume.

“You are here, you are alive. When you were small, you granted beingness to your dog, your wagon, a doll — in other words, you brought them to life — these things came alive. and to this day you grant beingness to a car, a favourite book, possessions. And something you have perhaps even run into this. You are wearing certain clothes when an unpleasant experience occurred and the next day, and maybe for three or four days afterwards, you didn’t care to wear that suit or you didn’t care to wear that dress – you put that aside. That’s because you imbued it with a certain beingness.

“One is really as alive as he himself is perfectly willing to grant beingness, can grant beingness and is willing to have others grant beingness. That’s how alive he is. He’s no more than that.

“And no artificial stimulant or love affair or anything else can present to an individual this level and characteristc of existence. Because that is life itself.

“One cannot become able in life by fearing to live it. Never. And he can’t be himself without being willing to grant beingness, because he’s the only one that can grant beingness to himself.

“Now, you take Shakespeare’s quotation in Hamlet: “To be or not to be”. That’s what man is fixed on — “To be or not to be.” That’ isn’t the question. That isn’t the question. To grant beingness or not grant beingness is the question he is hung up on all the days of his years.”  LRH excerpt from the Backgrounds and Ceremonies book

97 thoughts on “Granting beingness

  1. Lana,

    Totally get what you’re saying.

    I’d also like to add that those are excellent quotes by Ron.

    Personally I’ve got nothing against these Anti-Scientologists except when they try to elicit the Government’s support in violating our First Amendment rights by passing repressive legislation against our religious freedom or freedom of conscience.

    As far as:

    The purpose of this blog is not to attack the Church or to undermine or unstabilize existing Scientologists that are “still in” — as they do what they do based on what they know, what they have experienced and what they have learnt. They are good people – albeit ignorant or unaware of what has been occurring.

    Well I never felt that we were here to attack the church though as it is true that many are ignorant. That definitely doesn’t apply to all of them.

    That said. It’s true that some of us could be better at granting beingness to others other than obligingly granting beingness to the Preclear because it says so in the Auditors Code 🙂

  2. “A principal contribution of Scientology is the technology necessary to change people so that they progress into higher states of ability when processed on the exact processes required by an auditor qualified by training to apply the processes expertly.

    It is not only general ability that increases, but IQ, renewed livingness and the skill and ability to better self and conditions.” LRH

    HCO PL 5 May 65, Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart

  3. You know that Lana, she’s always being so… oh, well, er, uh, I mean… 😉

    All agreed. While there are many many things wrong with Miscavige, the Church, current management, and many enabling Scientologists, incessant droning on about it doesn’t help. Particularly when it arises out of HE&R.

    Love the story above about the town and the different observers of it. It’s remarkable how much difference it makes when one approaches life from the standpoint of granting beingness. Very true how children approach things. It’s one of the things you have to admire about kids. There was a time long long ago when most every thetan you met approached things that way.

    Paul

  4. I am going to be the devils advocate on this one.

    There is the reference where LRH talks about the right balance of force and intelligence for every action taken in the mest universe.

    Sometimes, one needs to exert more force than usual.

    We have plenty of intelligent people, and a hell of a lot that I would not want to get on the wrong side of, and meet in a dark alley, so what the hell happened?

    We have lost 35 years, (approximately), due to the nutjob currently running the joint. Not only that, but because the tech slowly got worse, instead of better applied, it would probably take another 5- 10 years just to handle all the arcxs and bypassed charge, of those who have had anything to do with it, If, and thats a big if, they would ever pick up the cans again.

    Then there is the need to handle the out PR publicly. It was bad enough when the powers that be just lied about us, now a lot of it is true, AND being labelled Scientology!!

    So lets say Dave leaves tomorrow, the 3 board system, as LRH intended, gets put in place and people genuinely start to win, we are looking at, at best, close to 35 years since LRH died, that the tech can even start to get back to what it should be on a broad basis. That is a great deal of time, for what is proving itself to be a tenuous society.

    I agree with you Lana, for the vast majority of people I will grant beingness to, but a small minority, causing major damage, nah!

    Sorry to be a downer on this, but the question at the top does say “What is your view?”

    • 4a,

      First of all Miscavige hasn’t run the Scientology Network for 35 years.

      It’s hyperbole.

      Also I doubt if getting rid of him will solve the problem Organizationally because he is not the why.

      Besides if one got rid of Dave chances are one would end up with someone much worse.

      Another thing is that the recovery would be rather rapid if the correct why was found and a handling based on it was implemented. Not five to ten years.

      Regarding the so called “PR” or more accurately Black Propaganda issued for the most part by the Main Stream Media.

      You know the same ones who claimed that there weapons of mass destruction literally littering Iraq. Personally I doubt if anyone takes whatever they generate seriously except maybe themselves and for the most part their deluded sponsors and regarding Scientology the ex-Scientologist and “Indie Scientologist” echo chamber.

      I mean if they had they had to rely on their paid readership in circulation they’d be bankrupt.

      Let’s not get carried away with the gloom and doom.

      The fact is people are still moving up the Grade Chart and new public are still being introduced to Scientology. By that I mean the real thing. Not the altered version they deliver at the Orgs these days.

    • 4a, I hear you.

      I think there is a misduplication. Granting beingness to another or others does not mean that one agrees with, is complicit with their actions, or supportive of their actions. Granting beingness does not equate to irresponsibility or a nonconfront.

      It is not ridging, it is not reacting against, it is not a games condition with, it is not PTSness. It is just granting beingness.

      • Lana, I agree with 971/2% of what you say here, give or take, and I can see I should have left the negative aspect out of this. I just know what a person with bad intent, can, has and will do, and thats when one needs to understand the beingness in front of you, and balance out that force and intelligence part of the equation.
        Just my opinion!

        • 4a,

          True I agree that we should increase our ability to confront evil but this doesn’t mean constantly railing against it and creating some kind of synthetic valence.

          Marty and Mike both went down that road and look where they are now.

          Personally I think someone like Miscavige is covered under the HCOB C/S Series 22 Psychosis and that he is insane per the following definition:

          INSANITY IS THE OVERT OR COVERT BUT ALWAYS COMPLEX AND CONTINUOUS DETERMINATION TO HARM OR DESTROY.

          That said. There are also other contributing factors involved. Those that tend to be ignored by fixating on one terminal.

          See the following quote from COHA, regarding R2-39:

          When interest becomes fixed we have attention. When
          attention becomes fixed we have an unawareness of other things
          than the object of fixation, and a decrease of Pan-Determinism
          down to ‘Self-Determinism’. When this fixity of attention goes
          to an extreme we have a lessening of Self-Determinism to a point
          of Other-Determinism. As Self-Determinism lessens, we find an
          hypnotic state of ‘total’ other determinism which becomes then
          Self-Determinism (dramatization). We discover in this last all
          the mechanisms of the engram and, as well, the mechanism of
          shifting valences. For the preclear assumes the valence of
          greatest determinism (winning valence) as being the valence
          of greatest interest.

          The process used to remedy a fixation of interest to the
          exclusion of self consists of broadening interest. By the
          broadening of, interest we do not achieve a liability which will
          again collapse, but a greater freedom. Broaden, do not contract,
          a preclear’s width of interest.

          To me this explains why someone like say Marty has gone into some “source” valence of some kind by constantly complaining that Miscavige was the source of all difficulties related to the Church from there he came up with some A=A relating to “Ron” i.e. equating Miscavige to Ron by his own twisted “logic” and after that as far as I was concerned he was gone.

          Mike as far as I can see is moving in the same direction. Only a slower decline. At least unlike Marty he hasn’t started his own cult but as far as I can see he is getting there along with his supporting cast of yahoos like Dan and Steve.

          Speaking of Dan.

          By the way I knew someone who had his TRs passed personally by Ron who had great TRs but was still a crim afterward. The only thing different about him was that he now was a criminal with great TRs 😉

          Anyway to sum up what I was saying. Despite all their natter about Dave and blaming him for the condition the Org is in and all that. They seem to view him as the “winning” valance.

          Like some of these guys who go on about how bad Hitler was. Many who turn out to be his secret admirers in some way 🙂

          • Robin,
            I’ve remarked on this before to you, several times now, and at this juncture, with the stark contrasting of your above comments with the tenor and spirit of the Opening Piece, I’m going to be quite frank.

            This is NOT a “natter blog”, mate. It’s not a “mutual out-ruds” blog. It’s not a via for any comm more properly directed TO various individuals, not chattering about them VIA this forum.

            Knock it off. This is the last time I’m going to say this. IF you continue it, then you will do it somewhere else. Your own blog is an idea. Better still, don’t bother with it. It is not an “ethics gradient” at this point, it’s DEV-T. Offline and entheta.

            P.S. As well, the “why” that has been obvious for years now and covered clearly on websites such as savescientology.com as well as countless observations on other sites, including this one, and even THIS thread is about as plain as could be: the organizational checks and balances have been un-mocked. The WHO (s) that did it is also plain.

            That is about as close to a Why that opens the door to a handling and a reversion to a closer approximation of the Ideal Scene, as needs be stated. It provides the means to sort out the most major departures from the Ideal Scene.

            The Ethics Why preventing handling is also plain.

            Part of that includes meaningless, useless, negative chatter about it all.

            DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? I sure hope so., as, if you don’t then I’ll take this opportunity to make it clear to you just what it is I’m getting at, if it isn’t crystal by now.

            • Jim,

              “This is NOT a “natter blog”, mate. It’s not a “mutual out-ruds” blog.”

              Oh please you and others natter about Miscavige quite often. About how he alone has taken Scientology down the road to perdition.

              And then when I move the spot light to other responsible parties and circumstances you either take a hissy fit or try to patronize me in some way.

              Much like Marty did before he 86ed me from his blog.

              “P.S. As well, the “why” that has been obvious for years now and covered clearly on websites such as savescientology.com as well as countless observations on other sites, including this one, and even THIS thread is about as plain as could be: the organizational checks and balances have been un-mocked. The WHO (s) that did it is also plain.”

              If this were true then the *situation* would have resolved by now. Not continue persist.

              Look at your Scientology Axioms particularly Axiom 38.

              “That is about as close to a Why that opens the door to a handling and a reversion to a closer approximation of the Ideal Scene, as needs be stated. It provides the means to sort out the most major departures from the Ideal Scene.”

              “Close” only cuts it in horse shoes and hand grenades. Thus a “why” that is close to being a why isn’t really a why just as an “item” that is close to being the item isn’t really the item.

              Also the site you refer to shows no evidence that a proper eval per the Data Series was ever done listing fully out points found as in the following example:

              POLICY: A course consists of a checksheet, theory and practical.
              To audit or even do courses requires an ability to confront and communicate and
              this is brought about on the TRs Course.
              People who can’t confront can have trouble communicating, reading meters, studying or even detecting what is going on.
              (See Cumulative Index, Vol X Technical Bulletins) SITUATION: TRs AND TECH ARE OUT INTERNATIONALLY.
              STATS: Refunds high .
              Majority of Sea Org staff with incomplete courses. Lots of blown students.
              DATA: Auditors pulled in for training couldn’t do TRs even though they were trained and had been auditors for years. (OMITTED TRs—COURSES THEY TOOK PREVIOUSL Y)
              Supervisors didn’t know key TR HCOBs, didn’t know that you cycle a student through the TRs, not stick him in on one TR for weeks and give him a lose, yet it is clearly expressed in HCOBs. (OMITTED INFORMATION, WRONG TARGET—TR SUPERVISORS)
              When I teach a course it takes a week or 6 weeks depending on the course. When it is exported the same course and the same materials can take up to 9 months. (ADDED TIME—SUPERS)
              Auditors who had supposedly been trained misread and missed reads on meters. (OMITTED CONFRONTS—AUDITORS)
              People who go to writing courses in college almost never become writers. (OMITTED PRODUCTS—COLLEGES)
              The common experience of students is they can’t do what they’re trained to do after they’ve been “trained” yet the civilization is spending countless billions on “education.” (CONTRARY FACTS—CONTEMPORARY TEACHERS)
              The “service facsimile” which is processed at Grade IV of Scientology grade processing handles the almost universally present aberration of making others wrong. (ADDED ABERRATION—TEACHERS)
              Few teachers are Grade IV Releases. (OMITTED SCIENTOLOGY— TEACHERS)
              Because their TRs and metering were out, auditors have not been producing uniformly spectacular results and have not been getting pcs smoothly through their grades. (OMITTED CONFRONT—AUDITORS)
              CS-4s who have the responsibility for making up checksheets for courses continue to export a TRs Course without a checksheet that had to be done first before doing TRs. (OMITTED CHECKSHEET—CS-4s)
              The identical situation of sticking students in at each TR and making them lose, instead of cycling them through TRs to a win each time was found on Flag some years. ago and remedied with an HCOB. Yet the HCOB is unknown, partially because there is no checksheet on the TRs Course. (OMITTED PRESERV A TION OF TECH- NOLOGY—FLB)
              TR Courses over the world uniformly have been taught without being preceded by a theory period. (OMITTED THEORY—TRs COURSE SUPERVISORS)
              OUTPOINT COUNT:
              OMITTED—9 SUPERVISORS—4
              WRONG TARGET—1 ADDED—2 CONTRARY FACTS—1
              TEACHERS—3 AUDITORS—2 PREVIOUS COURSES—1 COLLEGES—1
              CS-4s—1 FLB—1
              W H Y : THERE IS NO
              STUDIED BEFORE THE STUDENT DOES HIS TRs.
              not making it on it and TRs. 1. Compile the checksheet.
              CHECKSHEET
              FOR THE TRs COURSE WHICH IS
              ETHICS WHY: TARGETTING STUDENTS TOWARD A LOSE BECAUSE THEY ARE DRAMATIZING THEIR SERVICE FACS.
              WHO: MAJORITY OF PROFESSORS, TEACHERS, ETC.
              IDEAL SCENE: A TRs COURSE TAUGHT AS A COURSE WITH A PROPER CHECKSHEET AND SUPERVISED BY SUPERVISORS WHO ARE NOT DRAM- ATIZING A SERVICE FAC OR MAKING OTHERS WRONG AND TRAINING AUDITORS WHO CAN CONFRONT AND COMMUNICATE AND IN ADDITION TO HANDING THEIR PCs SO AS TO OBTAIN UNIFORMLY SPECTACULAR WINS, MAY ALSO EVENTUALLY REACH THE REST OF THE TEACHERS IN THE WORLD SO THAT THEY TOO WILL TEACH STUDENTS TO A WIN.
              HANDLING:
              BRIGHT IDEA: Do a checksheet of the TRs Course and retread all auditors who are

              HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1979 Issue I
              CORRECTED AND REISSUED 8 FEBRUARY 1979

              CHANGE THE CIVILIZATION EVAL

              “The Ethics Why preventing handling is also plain.”

              Not really.

              Just saying that it’s Miscavige dozens of times doesn’t make it so.

              You not only have to go back and find *who* is preventing it but how as in what way it is being prevented with the use of Roll Back tech.

              Not just taking the most *obvious* terminal and putting their head on a pike.

              This may bring order to a greater or lesser degree but it’s not going to resolve the situation.

              In fact this is the limit of the “tech” that the Church currently uses.

              Someone makes a lot of noise about how badly the place is being “managed” or about how out the tech is and bang their declared and expelled or discredited as being “disaffected”.

              Problem “solved”.

              Sorry been there done that in the Church.

              “Part of that includes meaningless, useless, negative chatter about it all.”

              I beg to differ and so did Ron according to Executive Director Comm lines and his advices relating to SO #1 he used what you call ” meaningless, useless, negative chatter” to sort out the scene.

              “DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? I sure hope so., as, if you don’t then I’ll take this opportunity to make it clear to you just what it is I’m getting at, if it isn’t crystal by now.”

              Save your heavy hussar ethics bluster for someone who’s intimidated by it.

              I’m not.

              • OK, let’s clarify some things.

                This “eval” you have brought up, that needs to be done, that hasn’t been done and has to be done with DS 23 write-ups for approval is needlessly pedantic in the present circumstance. That circumstance is this blog. The pertinent DS issues include DS 5 and perhaps DS 11 as well as DS 23. This type of use of the DS is practical, on-the-job and is the type of application that a person uses in daily existence, on their job, with Situations that come up on any Dynamic.

                The pedantry extends to the superfluous publishing of full issues, in this case, the formal eval LRH published as an HCOB i.e., a fully laid out sequence of the Data Trail et al, as some sort of example to others that they must do either this or nothing.

                This is nonsense. A person can evaluate any Situation by simply knowing and using the Data Series and then DO the handling, in the real universe, without ever having written a single word.

                Again, this is exactly per DS 5, DS 17 and various other Data Series issues.

                The evaluation of the present circumstance within Dave and Co.’s operation as it unfolded over the past few years does not require an “AuthVerifCorrection” line to be done, nor accurate. On the other hand, while you wax erudite and display tediously on and on about what you know about this and that, in this case with the dev-t of putting an entire issue up to somehow bolster your overweening rightness about this, you’ve somehow missed the salient facts among the relatively unimportant doo-dads and added inapplicable whatever it is you gratuitously post.

                Yet, this is not even the point I am making about you and your commentary. You use this blog to make remarks about individuals that should be made TO those individuals. Why don’t you write TO them and take up your own issues with THEM? Going on a via, rather than direct, is aberrated by definition. So, I don’t see why I and others should be subject to your aberration, rather repeatedly.

                I think you should buck up and if you have issues with a person, write to THEM, not splay your HE&R, A=A with me and whomever it is that populates your scenery and out-ruds on this public forum about them. It is OFFLINE. DEV-T.

                • ” You use this blog to make remarks about individuals that should be made TO those individuals. Why don’t you write TO them and take up your own issues with THEM? Going on a via, rather than direct, is aberrated by definition. So, I don’t see why I and others should be subject to your aberration, rather repeatedly.”

                  This is nothing but a baseless accusation since I do not use this blog for anything other then stating my *opinion*.

                  I suggest you apply the Creed of the Church and the Code of a Scientologist in this regard.

                  “I think you should buck up and if you have issues with a person, write to THEM, not splay your HE&R, A=A with me and whomever it is that populates your scenery and out-ruds on this public forum about them. It is OFFLINE. DEV-T.”

                  If you don’t think that I haven’t directly confronted these terminals with my *opinion* about them then you don’t really know me.

                  No matter.

                  The fact is that I include them as part of my commentary to illustrate my point which again is based on my own *opinion*.

                  Also accusing me of being aberated because I have an opinion which diverges from yours is an old trick used by psychiatry and is covered under Ron’s Freedom article on How to “Win” an Argument.

                  Moving on to another topic.

                  Oh sure I’ve been accused of being “pedantic” many times when I insisted that standard tech or policy be applied.

                  So be it.

                  But I’m not asking for the eval to be approved by AVC but it be done fully per the Data Series PLs which excludes naming a “who-there” such as COB RTC as the “why” per DS 39:

                  AN “EVAL” THAT ONLY HAS A WHO OR A WHERE AS ITS WHY IS INCOMPLETE.

                  Really as far as I’m concerned when I see Miscavige given as the “why”. Not only that constantly asserted as the “why”. I figure that someone somewhere has defenestrated the eval tech in favor of their personal agenda.

                  Again if you look at Ron’s eval in particular he doesn’t give a particular person as the “ethics why” but the actions taken by these individuals such as making others wrong which seems to be what you are doing.

                  • No Robin, it isn’t a baseless accusation as evidenced by reading your commentary. You chatter about various named people on this blog as a via. That’s off-line.

                    If you’ve “confronted them” with your opinion, and didn’t particularly like the response or lack thereof, then tweak your skills but don’t then go on to this public forum to talk to others about what you want to say to those original terminals. It’s off-line. It also doesn’t work.

                    Lastly, for the love of Sweet Fancy Moses, Dave isn’t a “why”. Duh. You’ve missed something somewhere buddy as you are incessantly on about him not being a “why” but a “who” as if this isn’t patently obvious.

                    Again, who are you talking to? Certainly nobody here as the bulk of the observers and contributors are very familiar with the Data Series and have not confused a “why” with a “who”.

                    I’m not “making” you wrong Robin as in you’ve woefully mis-estimated the efforts. You simply are wrong.

                    • Well let’s take a look at the website you’ve mentioned:

                      http://www.savescientology.com/existing.html

                      Looks like it’s all about Dave. In this case “DM” who is allegedly capable of doing all these thinks by himself. Yet the fact is that he can not take all these actions by himself without some kind of support network or agreement.

                      Also it is based on the false premise. One by the way that is used to justify the lie of “succession” regarding Ron’s alleged “one man rule”.

                      As I was saying to Merrell and now you. That one man rule or a dictatorship benevolent or otherwise never did exist in Scientology.

                      Ron’s policies and directives where always approved by some kind of board action. Especially when he resigned as ED Int in ’66 when he turned over the direction of the Scientology Network to the BDCS and other boards covered in the policy Founder.

                      The website in question also promotes the myth that Ron himself personally directed all activities taken by the Church which is a total fallacy.

                      Regarding those terminals I am allegedly trying to “communicate” to via this blog supposedly. That assessment is totally incorrect. In other words *wrong*.

                      If there is anyone I am seeking to communicate to is any lurkers who are deluded into believing their shtick and see these people as so called “OLs”.

                      Frankly I don’t give a damn what they think about it.

                      To them I am supposedly some “conspiracy theorist” or a “crack pot” supported by some OSA “agenda” to derail the conversation on their blog away from their favorite bette noir. In other words David Miscavige who has somehow all by himself Svengalied all the staff and public into obeying his every command.

                    • OK. I certainly hope you got the main point I was making. If not, and if it comes up again…well, I’m sure I’m going to see that it is dealt with summarily.

                      Now, about this savescn site and the Data Series, how about you look at something I think you’ve missed in the use of the DS to evaluate data.

                      You’ve honed in on an “error” on the site, NOT an “outpoint” as a technical thing.

                      The opinion of “one man rule” is just that, an opinion. Taking a DS look at the information presented on the site, what about the unquestionable illogic of the un-mock of the organizational structure – the checks and balances of the various Boards? THAT is an outpoint to be gleaned from the data presented. One can then look at the scene with DS 11 and count up the outpoints NOW visible. From that they will count up to be from a particular area – that is, there will be a preponderance of illogic that directs attention to AN area. That’s your zone of Situation. From there one can do a Data Trail to get “why” that Most Major Departure from the Ideal Scene etc.

                      You’ve altered importance in your inspection of the material which is a flunk. Picking out errors instead of outpoints is one obvious mis-understanding. You need to re-study, get some cramming, do some more drilling with this stuff.

                    • If I can just post one thing without getting too involved with this “correction cycle” on the Data Series, I just want to point out that in Data Series 11 Ron says that the situation will be the most major departure from the Ideal Scene. Ok, so then, how is this handled? Is it as-ised a la Axiom 38? Is the scene and situation fully handled and reverted? No. Here’s how Ron advises handling:

                      “Just as you proceed to the MOST MAJOR SITUATION – go big, when it comes to handling it usually occurs that reverse is true – go small!

                      It is seldom you can handle it all at one bang. (Of course that happens too.)

                      But just because the SITUATION is big is no real reason the solution must be.

                      Solutions work on gradient scales. Little by more by more.

                      When you really see a SITUATION, it is often so big and so appalling one can feel incapable.

                      The need to handle comes first.

                      The resources available come next.

                      The capability comes third.

                      Estimate these and, by getting a very bright workable (often very simple) idea, one can make a start.

                      An activity can get so wide of the ideal scene the people in it are just in a confusion. They do all sorts of odd irrelevant things, often hurt the activity further.

                      Follow the steps given 1-7 above and you will have grasped the SITUATION.

                      You will then be able to do (a), (b), (c).

                      That begins to make things come right.

                      In that way most situations can be both defined and handled.” LRH

                      So even though a correct Why opens the door to a handling, one must still follow the above and one must still have the resources and capability to do the handling. Things may in fact be improving, depending on what one envisions the Ideal Scene to be; but perhaps there’s just no program and resources and capability to handle it, no “bright Idea” yet with which to start.

                    • Jimbo,

                      What you call an “error” is actually a falsehood per DS 18 which is defined as:

                      FALSEHOOD

                      When you hear two facts that are contrary, one is a falsehood or both are.

                      Propaganda and other activities specialize in falsehoods and provoke great disturbance.

                      Willful or unintentional, a falsehood is an outpoint. It may be a mistake or a calculated or defensive falsehood and it is still an outpoint.

                      A false anything qualifies for this outpoint. A false being, terminal, act, intention, anything that seeks to be what it isn’t is a falsehood and an outpoint.

                      Fiction that does not pretend to be anything else is of course not a falsehood.

                      So the falsehood means “other than it appears” or “other than represented.”

                      One does not have to concern oneself to define philosophic truth or reality to see that something stated or modeled to be one thing is in actual fact something else and therefore an outpoint.

                      Since it is contrary to what Ron says in Policy. Particularly the policy I cited earlier Founder and LRH Relationship to Orgs.

                      So I recommend that you actually study these issues plus many others I could suggest from Vol 7 dealing with Ad Councils, Exec Councils, Staff Meetings, Issue Authority, Trustees, etc that indicate that “one man rule” is a fiction.

                      True it’s not part of the actual eval that was done stating the ideal scene regarding Trust B but you don’t want an eval which itself contains outpoints. At least that’s the I see it.

                      Anyway we can dance around on this issue for an eternity picking at each others “errors” and demanding that the other be sent to cramming and getting the kind of fire fight Ron discusses in the HCOB C/S Series 43 under Auditor Inval. Making ourselves right and I’d rather not do that.

                    • Robin, sorry I forgot this one; yes, OK let’s grant that “one man rule” datum is more than an error, let’s give it as an outpoint. It hasn’t to do with the area of the Sit. It’s an isolated thing assigned to the author of the article, not the Data related to what it is that is being evaluated.

            • Jim,

              As I said earlier:

              “True it’s not part of the actual eval that was done stating the ideal scene regarding Trust B but you don’t want an eval which itself contains outpoints. At least that’s the (way) I see it.”

              There are also other errors for example the site says the purpose of CST is:

              To maintain the purity and integrity of the “religion of Scientology,” which is not the same as the “Church of Scientology”

              When in fact that is specifically the purpose of RTC.

              According to the actual legal dox the purposes of CST are:

              More particularly, the corporation is formed for the accomplishment, without limitation, of the following more specific Purposes:

              a. To serve as a means of promulgating, preserving and administering the religious faith of Scientology throughout the World; and
              b. To regulate and conduct religious services, including services, [sic] for its parishioners; and
              c. To conduct religious and educational activities of various kinds; and
              d. To foster and enhance the spiritual welfare of its followers, which shall be deemed to be Scientologists throughout the world.

              The ultimate power it has over the Scientology Network is covered in its by-laws under Article II Definition of Terms particularly f:

              “Religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” shall not necessarily be co-terminal. That is to say, the terms “religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” shall be co-terminal only so long as churches of Scientology continue, in the opinion of L.
              Ron Hubbard during his lifetime, and in the opinion of all of the Directors and Trustees following the death of L. Ron Hubbard, to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.

              Of course as we both know. Efforts to place trustees within the CST with the following qualifications have been effectively sabotaged:

              Section 3. Qualifications.
              Qualifications Prior to Appointment:
              a. A person who has a good [production record];
              The authorized number of Trustees shall be three (3) until
              changed by a bylaw amending this Section 2 duly adopted by the unanimous vote of the
              Trustees; provided however that the Trustees shall not have the power to reduce the number of
              Trustees below three (3) or increase the number above seven (7). One Trustee shall be elected as
              Chairman and shall preside over all meetings of the Trustees.
              In order to serve as Trustees of the corporation whether as initial
              Trustees or successor Trustees, and in order to continue to serve as a Trustee of the corporation,
              Trustees shall be persons who possess and continue to possess, the following qualities and attributes. That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve, as Trustee of the corporation
              only so long as he is and remains:
              b. A person who has experienced excellent case gain and has attained the case level of OT III or above;
              c. A person who is well versed in the technology of Dianetics and Scientology and has applied this technology to help others, with excellent results;
              d. A person who is well versed in the administrative policy or organizations affiliated with the religion of Scientology and has a track record of demonstrated success in the utilization and
              application of such policy;
              e. A person who is an ordained Scientology minister, in good standing pursuant to those principles set forth in the Scriptures;
              f. A person who is a good student; that is to say, a person who is able accurately and speedily to duplicate and apply that which has been studied with a minimum of correction necessary; and
              g. A person who is well versed in the Scientology Ethics and Justice system.
              In addition to the foregoing qualifications, each person who is appointed to serve as a Trustee of the Church must attain the following qualities within ten (10) years after appointment as a
              Trustee:
              a. The person must have attained NOTS case completion or be on Solo NOTS; b. The person must have become a Permanent Class 8 Auditor;
              d. The person must have attained the status of a Data Series Evaluator.
              Continued Study as a Qualification for Continued Service as a Trustee:

              a. The person must have attained NOTS case completion or be on Solo NOTS;
              b. The person must have become a Permanent Class 8 Auditor;
              c. The person must have successfully completed the Organization Executive Course and the Flag Executive Briefing Course; and
              d. The person must have attained the status of a Data Series Evaluator.
              Continued Study as a Qualification for Continued Service as a Trustee:
              The initial six-month period will be calculated from date of appointment. Thereafter such periods shall be based upon the semianniversary or anniversary of appointment. Failure to satisfy the
              minimum study/auditing requirements during a six-month period, without a reason which is acceptable to the remainder of the Trustees, will subject any Trustee to review by the entire Board of Trustees and possible removal in the discretion of the remainder of the Trustees.

              The Board of Directors at that time consisted of Lyman Spurlock, Rebecca Pook , Maria Starky, Stephen Lenske, Sherman and Larry E Heller. The first three General Directors and latter three known as Special Directors who were basically lawyers from the law firm of Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magazine.

              It is interesting that the so called “Trustees” elected at the time seemed to have no idea what their hats were.

              Was this by accident or by design?

              Anyway it is no wonder that some Scientologists would form the opinion that CST was established by some Government agency the IRS in particular because of its ineffectiveness in reigning in RTC and taking over when it became pretty much obvious that “Religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” were no longer “co-terminal”. Leading to the following “conspiracy theory”:

              http://sc-i-r-s-ology.freiescientologen.de/index.html

              I don’t particularly agree with it since I can’t see what a bunch of “tax cruds” or the “Infernal Ravening Service” would want with the Church of Scientology or its technology.

              As far as I’m concerned Mead Emory was merely a stalking horse and that the conspiracy goes much deeper.

              Something the author of the above website seems to imply but doesn’t fully articulate.

              In closing though I don’t think the IRS is directly involved in seizing control of the organization. They are indirectly involved to the degree that they made David Miscavige the lifetime Chairman of the Tax Compliance Committee per the formerly “Secret Closing Agreement” thus keeping their main piece in play and making it difficult for anyone to form a coup or “regime change” without throwing the whole Tax Agreement in jeopardy.

    • Interesting viewpoint, 4a. I don’t know if it would take as long to repair once DM was gone, but still there would be some fixin’ to do.

      What I do find interesting is that reading your devil’s “advocacy” here opened up another perspective for me, and that is that Scientology is really the first major religion born in the digital age, where there is mass print, mass media, TV, the internet, etc. The impact this has had – communication in the global village – on the growth – and speed of growth – of Scientology as a religion (compared to say, Christianity or Buddhism, which was spread mainly through word-of-mouth) and the impact on Scientology’s demise as well, I think is amazing.

      Anyway, once suppression is removed, one’s gains come back and I think the same would go for Scientology on a 3rd Dynamic basis. I’m willing to find out! 😀

      • True Chris, the other thing I have noticed that can happen, is how quickly the reverse vector can kick in. For instance, I remember when aids was first detected, and gay men were targeted as the blame for it. Somehow, pr wise, this was turned around to a large degree in our social conscience, sure not in every sector of society. But enough so that they then had rights and werent just beaten up on someones whim.

        Actually when you look thru history there are so many examples. It would be an interesting exercise to find out what precipitated those 180degree turnarounds.

    • 4a,
      Well, this is an interesting question; whether granting beingness means one is “ok” with the goings-on with various valences.

      We invented “evil” including the “evil valence”. Fighting it has been and is a game.

      I suppose the question comes down to whether one is going to continue that game. Perhaps, winning it, which will end it, means un-mocking the “evil valence” by as-ising it, which is the consummate granting of beingness.

      • So, how about an even deeper thought or question?

        First, these datums:

        From COHA:

        “The concern of two viewpoints is attention. Each viewpoint is apt to be curious about or desire the attention of another viewpoint. The most valuable part of an attention interchange is admiration. Admiration is a special particle. It is a universal solvent. It is the very substance of a communication line, and it is that thing which is considered desirable in the game of the three universes. Admiration goes into the interplay of the universes in the form of made-up objects or even in the form of bodies. These made-up objects could be called ‘creative pictures’. These, as they become more complex in form, take on the aspect of a life of their own and become animated beings.

        The goal of seeking attention is to receive the particle admiration. One creates effects simply in order to create effects, but he is given the bonus of admiration when he creates sufficient effect or, what is most important, when he demands, commands and is able to effect admiration by duress.

        That which is not admired tends to persist, for the reactive mind does not destroy. One can become fixed upon producing a certain effect simply by insisting that it be admired. The longer it is not admired, the longer one is likely to persist in demanding that it be admired, which is to say exhibiting it, until at length it breaks down scale to a lower level and he realizes it will not be admired, at which time he becomes the effect of it.”

        (COHA, Chapter “The Triangle Of Certainty Of Awareness”)

        Factor 14 (excerpt): …But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence.”

        So the question(s) might be posed, “Is one willing to admire that which is continuing in the Church today, as well as admiring DM?” Or, “Should one withhold admiration in the hopes that the effect being created will not persist too long and that DM and group will eventually become the effect of their own Cause?”

        I wonder about the ability to truly admire the effect. I know it can be done, I just wonder about it.

        • Chris,
          Later in this thread you’ve quoted The Free Being tape. THAT is also a major part of this and something to embrace, that whole idea of responsible OTs – they are just that.

          Truly, responsibility isn’t shame, it isn’t blame, it isn’t regret. It’s this state of being where one is Cause. It’s such a heady, fun, powerful operating condition.

          We are recovering it and that is quite exciting in the scheme of things.

          • You got it, Jim. And I’m beginning to see truly how wide a sphere Cause and OT actually are. I mean, like you say, it’s “heady”. SO much there, I sometimes think I’ll as-is myself!

            I’ve been going over some materials of late and came across this definition of the 8th Dynamic in COHA:

            “The eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.”

            I tell you, that really gives pause to think in relation to what we are talking about here. Like…well, I think you know and I don’t want to go out-R here.

            You ever watch STNG? Remember “Q” (John de Lancie)? Immortal. Omnipotent. Outside the MEST universe. Yup. 😉

        • On the admiration…well, yes, that has been posed previously by others and is one of those nagging questions, in’it.

          DM and Co., are the effect of their own cause. That eventuality has come to pass. It’s really stupid too, covered in the materials over, over, over and over again but if you don’t actually crack the damn books, or play the tapes, and even understand the words and everything then it may as well be on Arse-lickus as sitting right beside you – Dave.

            • Personally I doubt if anything in Scientology which admonishes them against what they are doing has ever entered their mind.

              Just as Ron covers in his two PABs on Black Dns and as quoted in various lectures (the redacted yet relevant sections of PDC 20) their plans for Scientology don’t involve helping anyone but themselves and using what they do know of the Tech to manipulate and control others.

      • Jim, I think as one gets up the bridge the concern is less for oneself, because, thanks to LRH, we have the game pretty well figured out, which includes the wins available on the OT levels 1-7. The concern becomes for others, and to help them get out of the rat race and into a better game and evil valences cause a lot of randomity people find hard to deal with.

        So if I could admire an evil valence into retreating I would, otherwise, just smash the figgin thing 🙂

        • 4a,
          And honestly, it’s time we all got passed this fear of “bumping Joe” as well. Any thetan that can’t take a good punch is way too much suck to be playin’.

          I’m not much for this whole idea of “quiet” beings. G’head, my friend, kick some butt. Enjoy a good smack down of a righteous target, up front, in the countenance. Yep, yessir, uh-huh 🙂

          • AMEN!!! THANK YOU, JIM!!!

            I am SO tired of all the whining about this or that or how ‘orrible it all was. Ron didn’t invalidate or diminish you by treating you like some puny human – he understood that you are an immortal being and treated you as the thetan you are. It’s like he says, knock off all the doubts and maunderings. Geezuz!

            “Purpose only becomes real when it gets to the blood, sweat and tears, stage, you know? You have to suffer a little bit. If there’s no suffering involved at all, nobody knows he’s experiencing anything.

            Another thing that’s quite interesting about such an activity, it always requires a certain amount of sacrifice – always requires a certain amount of sacrifice – whether of time or of personal interest or even personal possessions, some slight degree.

            A big game always requires some sacrifice.” LRH (“Today’s Battle of Britain, 8 October 1956)

            • Hey, have you checked in to those suped-up go carts? We could get a train of them, all going along at top speed, say 8kmh, and scare the bejeebus outta Dave. They are very quiet too, so the element of surprise is ours.

  5. Lana, I agree with almost everything you said here. The only exception is when you said,
    “I can say without question that all Scientology execs do their utmost to help, build, expand and grow areas under their control, normally on very long hours, with little reward.”
    I would agree that this was true of MOST Scientology execs back in the day (and to a lesser extent as DM exerted his influence on the organization), but not all.
    Still, I agree with your main point that it is very important to recognize the good intentions and actions of people still in the organization as well as others.
    It is important to grant beingness to people.
    To do that one must be able to perceive and recognize the beingnesses that they are assuming.
    A few execs have chosen to assume the beingness of A-holes and they should be granted that beingness also, in addition to their basic beingness, which is good.
    My attitude on this subject is very well expressed in what is perhaps my favorite LRH policy:
    HCOPL 13 Sept 1978

    “There is so much bad in the best of us
    And so much good in the worst of us
    That it ill behooves any of us
    To talk about the rest of us.”

    But I still keep in mind that if evil is not viewed completely, it will not as-is.

    I also keep in mind that what is most important is not how awful DM’s betrayal was and is, but rather how wonderful and awesome LRH’s Tech is and shall always be, and what a great hope it promises for all Mankind.

    • I agree that it would not be ALL execs, Espiritu, and some definitely could use a hot poker enema, but I think that Ron meant that one grants beingness to the being – the thetan – not the valence. That would involve a different viewpoint when granting beingness. This doesn’t mean one not confront evil nor recognize the valence they’re dramatizing (Ron himself said to let them suppress a rock somewhere for a long while), just to recognize the being. The act of granting beingness – akin to admiration – may itself dissolve the case surrounding these characters. However, there are lots of others to handle first. 😉

      • I agree. I could give a long list of execs and highly trained tech terminals I have known who are just stellar beings, always kept the show on the road and pointed out where the road was. These people obviously are far more important than the “A-hole” valences.
        I am sure that they were a few around, but I didn’t notice very many of the latter until a few years before LRH kicked the bucket. It used to be that the higher up the org board one went, the more sanity one encountered. However, at this point in time……

    • E: “A few execs have chosen to assume the beingness of A-holes and they should be granted that beingness also, in addition to their basic beingness, which is good.”

      Something like this (lol):

      • Thanks for that one, Chris.
        I just printed it out on parchment paper and it is going up on my wall in a frame!

  6. Some other blogs & forums are equating the Co$ with Scn.
    According to them: the Co$ is the natural progression of LRH’s Scn; if MS2 grows big enough, sooner or later it will become somehow similar to the Co$; and people who don’t think so are just delusional.

    So, just writing about the wins of good and sane Scn is not enough. It is very important to also show the big difference between good and sane Scn and the Co$, and why there is a big difference. It is also very important to explicitly show no endorsement of the Co$’s @%&!!, and why. The optimum is maintaining the above as a low (but enough) percentage of the total comm. As an analogy, I would be very suspicious of a Muslim who explicitly does not condemn ISIS’ atrocities. (Would (s)he become a terrorist or not?).

    For the record, I don’t have any first hand horror story with the Co$. So my opinion is not based on my personal grudge or BPC.

    • “Some other blogs & forums are equating the Co$ with Scn. According to them: the Co$ is the natural progression of LRH’s Scn; if MS2 grows big enough, sooner or later it will become somehow similar to the Co$….”

      Some real A=A=A going on there, eh, MaBu? Funny how that aspect of the bank works. No reason.

      • Yea, there are a bunch of vocals out there who, to avoid thinking with the use of logic, jump on the “politically correct” bandwagon, and act like bullies backed by a mob. They don’t realize that they are as crazy as those they complain about.
        And Rinder does support them (in spite of what he says).

    • MaBu,

      Personally I think most people who are relatively sane don’t equate Islam to ISIS. Just as many don’t equate radical Zionism to Judaism or confuse Christianity in general with something like the IRA.

      Those who can’t as the quote Chris’ posted later on this thread in my opinion aren’t worth the time of day.

      Besides ISIS is a Terrorist Organization the Church of Scientology is not. No matter how much Mike tries to make this invidious connection to his buddies in the FBI.

      As an aside. I find it funny that some of the press has been calling Rinder a “Confidential Informant” when he hasn’t made his association with the Bureau any “secret”. In fact he brags about it.

      For some reason he thinks being a rat or stool pigeon or agent provocateur for the Feds gives him some kind of cred in the Indie community.

      It does to anyone who is totally oblivious, unaware or naive about such things as CoIntelPro who are for the most part the same people who medicating the population with pharmaceuticals is a good thing.

      As far as I’m concerned they’ve totally gone into the opposing valence or opterm by their constant condemnation of the Church.

      • RemoteViewed,

        You are right. My analogy wasn’t to compare the magnitude of ISIS’s atrocities with the Co$’s O/Ws. There is a huge difference between them. Other blogs & forums are making some structural analogy between Co$ and North Korea, etc.; but, at the same time, they are not showing the huge difference between the magnitude of their O/Ws.

        My structural analogy was that if somebody does not (explicitly) condemn the @%&!!, then (s)he may justify it. Many ISIS recruits come from mainstream moderate families. According to their scriptures, the Golden Rule applies only to fellow Muslims, everybody else could and should be suppressed and harmed. I, personally, heard somebody mainstream justifying the terrorists, when he didn’t realize that I was listening.

        We know the difference between Scn and Co$’s perverted “version”. However, if we don’t, sometimes, condemn the Co$’s @%&!! and we don’t show the difference and the why, then people who don’t know the difference believe that we may justify and we may be prone to @%&!! because it is based on Scn “scripture”.

        • MaBu: “My structural analogy was that if somebody does not (explicitly) condemn the @%&!!, then (s)he may justify it.”

          “The composition of what is an overt act contains omission seldom looked at, it’s omission…..not to do things for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

          That becomes an overt act; and one cannot maintain his freedom in the face of an overt act of that magnitude.

          A guy will only go as OT as he is responsible and can accept the definition of an overt. There is no other barrier to OT.

          I’m telling you this is shortsighted irresponsibility which will wind us up in the soup.” LRH (The Free Being, SHSBC 6307C09)

          • “The composition of what is an overt act contains omission seldom looked at, it’s omission…..not to do things for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.”

            “I’m telling you this is shortsighted irresponsibility which will wind us up in the soup.” LRH (The Free Being, SHSBC 6307C09)”

            This is exactly what I am talking about, except we have landed in the soup.

            Here is another reference from the tape The Free Being

            “The long-term win is achieved by a balance between force and intelligence. Now, intelligence alone in active action is not enough. The wise men of Tibet, were just a few years ago driven out of their mountain fortresses by the dumbest infantrymen the world has known for some time. Isn’t that interesting They were infinitely wise, and their infinite wisdom brought them total defeat.
            So, when you take these two elements, if you are sometime trying to solve the problem of whether you did right or whether you did wrong, take these two elements and look them over in relationship to what you did, and you’ll find out that there is an imbalance in any defeat. There was an imbalance of intelligence and force, and these two things were out of gear. You’re either using all force and practically grasshopper-intelligence or you’re using monumental intelligence and saying „God will protect me,“ forgetting at the same time that you were the only god around to do any protecting. “ LRH

            In my opinion, we have had and do have very intelligent people, but not enough force, and allowed ourselves to be overwhelmed by others using seemingly greater force.

            • I’m totally parsing with you, 4a. There’s a policy somewhere I recall reading when doing my OEC which speaks to this as well. And then there’s the Simon Bolivar policy which alludes to the convergence of intelligence and force. And Ron said (paraphrased) we may find ourselves in a similar pickle, but we won’t that stupid again. The tech (including the tech of organization and the tech of ethics) is our game manual. It’s going to be fun up the road. 🙂

            • 4a,
              Also, we’ve missed organizing up as associated terminals – that is, a group of OTs, not just one taking on the works. I think now that we’ve got reality on that type of thing, we’re slowly but surely finding out who is who among us, and those that are actually OT are associating with other OTs.

              I’m happy you’re among that group.

              • “The trouble with OTs in the past has only been lack of cooperation and commonly agreed upon objectives. Without these OTs eventually fall prey again to smaller beings with bigger organization skill. OT is an unstable state only when OTs are not cooperating with OTs but each one going his own way in the strong but fatuous belief he can single-handedly survive. The proof is, OTs have not survived as OTs whenever this super individuation collided with the super organization of weaker beings. The answer is to remain organized, mutual assistance and integrity and not lose touch with our responsibility for all levels of life forms and societies.” LRH

                (Excerpted from HCO PL 25 JUNE AD13, AN INTERNATIONAL OBJECTIVE)

        • MaBu,

          I totally understand. However this is handled by application of the Dissem Drill which is in Vol VI of the OEC Vols.

          Personally I don’t how not condemning something means that one justifies it.

          I suggest reading the chapter on Acceptance Level in NSOL and the data on Expanded GiTa (Give Take Processing) in 88008.

          Personally I find those people who tend to be so condemnatory all the time to be self righteous hypocrites or worse criminals (see HCOB on Criminal Minds).

          Take our Government that continually condemns terrorism while perpetrating their own acts of terror against innocent civilians.

          Maybe that’s a condemnation in itself but it’s how I feel 😉

          Sure there is a lot wrong with the Church but its nothing compared to the Inquisition for example nor what the Government has done under “fighting terrorism” or “maintaining law and order”.

          Regarding terrorism. Our Government recently copped to financing groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda in order to bring down Assad’s regime in Syria and before that to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

          What’s happening now is “blow back”.

          • RV: “Personally I don’t [know] how not condemning something means that one justifies it.”
            MaBű: “if somebody does not (explicitly) condemn the @%&!!, then (s)he may justify it.”
            The “may” in my statement means that not condemning something means there is a probability that one justifies it, it doesn’t mean (as an implication) that one justifies it.

            Anyway, when I wrote my original comment, I was also thinking that your sometimes ranting against the Co$’s @%&!! is spot on and needed for the lurkers. (Likewise, the optimum is keeping it a low, but not too low, percentage of the total comm, and showing the why based on real Scn “scripture”).

            • Roger that MaBu.

              True the Church these days give’s one an opportunity to rant on 🙂

              Especially those of us who consider ourselves tech and policy purists.

              Though I don’t remember making any comparison of the Church to ISIS or any other Terrorist group or that Miscavige was evil incarnate and could be compared to Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever.

              In fact I’ve always been of the opinion that Miscavige gave evil a bad name 😉

              Sure I make jokes about him being the Blofeld of Scientology and the Organization is somewhat like SPECTRE but I’m kidding 🙂

              Though the Freewinds does remind me of the Disco Volante.

              But anyhoo…

              Sure we need to point out that the Org is off policy and out tech for our lurkers here.

              Not just that though but what exact tech and policy is being violated which as far as I can see is an omitted step on what are affectionately called the “natter boards” like ESMB, OCBMB, ARS and the so called “blogs”.

              It’s like when one crams an auditor. One doesn’t just say they goofed but provide them with the correct reference.

              This same datum can be applied to groups like ISIS who obviously have quite a few Mis-us on the Quran especially the concept of “Jihad”.

            • MaBu: “(Likewise, the optimum is keeping it a low, but not too low, percentage of the total comm….).”

              Hard to do when some of us seem to run on hi-octane fuel! 😀

        • Mabu,
          I do agree with you that it is important to make a distinction between what we do (Scientology) and what the COS does (an altered version of Scientology, which some call Miscavigeology).

          In fact, doing so is actually a part of Step 2 of the dissem formula where one handles any attacks, upsets, etc regarding the subject. These days, when I am telling someone about Scientology, at the slightest eye roll or back off, I tell them that I have absolutely nothing to do with the COS, that the group was taken over by some self-serving people who altered LRH’s original teachings and that they really don’t practice pure Scientology any more. Then I tell them that the original purposes and practices of the subject are actually very beneficial to people and enhance people’s lives
          After I say all that I have found that people are much more receptive to what I have to say about the subject. In fact dissemination has become easy again.

          So, I agree with you that it is important in this day and age to make that distinction, because, unfortunately, there actually is a distinction between the Standard Tech that everyone on this blog sincerely works to apply and what is too often going on in the COS led by Dave.

          At the same time, I agree with Lana that this should only ever be mentioned briefly as an “aside” on this blog because what we are interested in is promoting LRH’s TECH.
          As Ron once said in some policy or other,
          “Damn the downstats and full speed ahead!”. 🙂

          • Espiritu, I also wrote “The optimum is maintaining the above as a low (but enough) percentage of the total comm.”

          • “Miscavigeology”

            Ahhh. Now you’re bringing up fond memories. I think it was me or someone else that coined that neologism way back on Marty’s blog.

            Actually the truth is that the Org is doing something else while calling it “Scientology”. A suppressive act BTW.

            A good handling by the way. People tend to understand how Organizations (the RC Church comes to mind) deviate from the faith or in this case Applied Philosophy they say they propagate.

            Unfortunately there are so many historical examples that it is hard to conceive that Scientology was supposed to be the exception to the rule.

            Oh well I take comfort in the following quote:

            I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.
            I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty- five.
            Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.
            No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising—another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.
            But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.
            Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine—and rumors no longer financed will some day die.
            172
            And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?
            Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.
            For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape.
            Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this—look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
            If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.
            I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.
            You won’t always be here.
            But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons—”The work was free. Keep it so.”

            Scientology: Clear Procedure Issue One
            December 1957
            L. Ron Hubbard

            • Thanks for posting this, RV. One of the things I love about this blog is that everyone seeks to present LRH’s quotes with no additives. This quote is a good reminder that it is OUR personal responsibility to keep the tech pure and free. If one recognizes what it is, one cannot with good conscience delegate that responsibility, only share it with others of like mind.

              If it was you who invented the term “Miscavigeology”, thank you! I wish I could claim credit but it wasn’t me. However, I have used the term often ever since I heard it because it duplicates and names what has been going on.
              Catastrophe that it is, the COS has for some time been overtly using squirreled materials and practices while calling what they do Scientology at the direction of an SP. LRH put his heart and soul into creating these organizations for the purpose of forwarding the Tech and keeping it pure. Their subversion and destruction has been a catastrophic betrayal of mankind as well as LRH. So, “Micavigeology” is a better term for what they are outflowing.
              Intelligence is the ability to perceive differences, similarities, and identities.
              Pure Scientology is what people on this blog sincerely seek to outflow and we look to LRH’s writings and tapes for guidance. We READ and LISTEN, keep our own counsel and select our own decisions about that rather than “believe” what some Authority tells us is true or false. And that is what makes the difference. If the COS ever reformed and it were possible to go up the Bridge and train there with these basics in, they would be an actual Church of SCIENTOLOGY and we all would probably reconnect with them in a New York minute. But until then, they have earned their new moniker…”The Church of Miscavigeology”.
              Whoever invented this term I want to thank you for telling like it is.
              That said, we SHOULD grant beingness to all of the people connected to the COS who have a sincere intention to apply LRH, even though they may have been kept ignorant of important parts of it or had their reality on things they have studied or gains they have had invalidated, or been discouraged from applying it.
              As Lana points out, there are a lot of good people there with whom we share a lot of reality. These people are still our brothers and sisters.

              • You’re too kind Espiritu.

                I can’t take full credit for the term since we were sorta kicking it around back then so I guess you could assign it to Marty’s informal Steering Committee at the time 🙂

                But anyway it seemed appropriate at the time.

                Like you. I’ve always said that if the Org got back on policy and began applying standard tech again I’d be back in a New York minute.

                In the meantime we can be thankful for the tech we have and the ability to apply it and despite the fact that the Org is as screwed up as it is there are still PCs and Pre OTs still making gains and moving up the Grade Chart out here in the Field.

    • MaBu,
      Here’s a difference between Scientology and these other things you reference – the real stuff runs itself out.

      “Why do you suppose that I include and will continue to include in any Security Check – there’s two reasons – questions about overts against myself. This seems an odd thing to do.

      “Actually, there’s two things: One, if a person has a lot of overts against me that he thinks is bad, he won’t get any benefit from Scientology. That’s quite obvious. He’s got overts against the source. That’s the thing. And you think basically that’s the only reason that’s there. No, there’s another much more subtle reason why you have to keep these overts off. The only way you could acquire a forceful, overwhelming valence called “Scientology” would be by piling up a bunch of overts and motivators on it. Think of it for a minute. Isn’t that the way, basically, you got into any valence you’re in? So this would be the first time that anyone was going along the track saying, ‘All right. Here’s what I say. Try it out. Run me out.’ Don’t you realize that? So there’s no overwhelm mixed up in this. “
      26 June 61, lecture, Dealing With Attacks on Scientology.

      • “The only way you could acquire a forceful, overwhelming valence called « Scientology » would be by piling up a bunch of overts and motivators on it. Think of it for a minute. Isn’t that the way, basically, you got into any valence you’re in?”

        Sounds pretty well exactly what’s happened in the Church.

            • You can see with this tape quote the inevitable “stuck to it like glue” that a number of people seem to manifest when it comes to Scientology – either “for” or “agin”.

              Ahh well, you can tell a horse where the water is, lead them to it, touch it to their lips, and still THEY have to drink – or not.

  7. What a wonderful, inspiring post.

    Granting beingness is a great way I can practise Scientology every day and it never surprises me how often the exercise results in me also gaining from it. The individual I am focussing on seems somehow to blossom and, at the same time, I am rewarded with new insights. One of my greatest cognitions since leaving the Church has been that non-Scientologists are, in the main, quite able in their own right and, when it comes down to it, we share many, many viewpoints on all sorts of things.

    I have learned valuable lessons and shared thrilling experiences even with those who are antagonistic towards Scientology. The granting of beingness to those people seems to provide them with an opportunity for a kind of release (usually just J&D about the OTIII material) which, once blown, provides an opportunity exploring other areas where we can find agreement (usually around things like how ARC works).

    I know this runs counter to the “silence = consent” type arguments above. But, as I learned from one antagonistic individual, while there may be conversations we can’t have, lets have the ones we can. I have found that by modelling Scientology (as best I can) in a positive way throughout the conversations some individuals come to express an interest in learning more about it.

    Your post encourages me to continue. Thank you.

    • Beautiful, Fiona. Sounds like you’re applying Scientology and being a Scientologist. And also being a compassionate and kind person at the same time. Bravo, and continue. 😀

      • KINDNESS: Our Most Valuable Asset
        (OEC Tape: Attitude and Conduct of Scientology, 3 November 1955)

        “The most valuable asset we have, actually, is our ability to understand, to be kind, to be decent.
        “Amongst us we have occasionally the feeling like: life requires that we be stern, life requires that we be ornery enough and mean enough to fire him: life requires that we’ve got to tell this preclear the next time we come that she must go, she must leave, she must never darken our door again. Life requires that. We must be stern, we must be mean, we must be occasionally ornery, and we must steel ourselves to take an unkind action. And we feel sometimes there’s something wanting in us, because we refuse to take this unkind action. We feel we are being cowardly that we are ducking back from our responsibilities. We feel the best way to solve the thing would be to be a little bit mean about it. Get the idea? We should be able to be tough…
        “And so our kind impulse is muffled by the fact that we ‘know’ we had certainly better tell this person off…
        “Well, I hate to unsettle a very stable datum, if it does unsettle it. But the only way anything ever does resolve is by letting your own kind heart reach through. That’s the only way it ever does solve.
        “And it never solves by being tough. And believe me, ladies and gentleman, here talks a guy who in his college days was a top sergeant of the reserve marines, who drilled battalions. And when I tell you that it doesn’t pay to be tough, I’ve had experience.

        “An officer in the war, and I can tell you that at no time, at no time during the entire war, did I ever see toughness win either in the field of discipline, the field of efficiency, or the field of getting a job done. I have never seen it win.
        “…There is no substitute for liking people like liking people. There’s no substitute for reality like reality. There’s no substitute for communication like communication with good affinity and good reality. And that’s really close to a static. Do you understand?
        “You go down scale from that you get into Dale Carnegie-ism. You ought to read that book sometime; it’s a real killer. It’s how to subvert ARC.
        “All right. What do we have then? What do we have in these organizations? What do we really have of value in the organizations of Scientology?
        “The only thing we have of value, actually, is Scientology, an understanding of life, increasing ability to communicate, a good concept and grip on reality, and the ability to like guys. That’s all you got.” – LRH

          • Yeah, this is right up there as my favorite LRH quote. It is very high up on the “importance scale”. If we Scientologists let kindness drop out in any of our endeavors, we just threw away “all we got”.

            In fact I added “be a friend” as a pre-step to the dissem formula just because I saw that a few people were looking at the formula as some sort of sales patter.

    • Very true JB.

      Typical humanoid response of anyone that they disagree with. Scientology just allows ’em to use new labels i.e. “suppressive”, “Type III” etc. Same ol’ song different chorus.

      • I didn’t disagree with Scientology. I made the mistake of telling my ethics officer (MAA) that I didn’t have any personal reality on the workability of the tech. I never suggested that others couldn’t benefit from it.

        There have been Scientologists who went all the way up the Bridge, left the church and then announced Scientology was all bad. I can understand why they are sometimes declared suppressive. They betrayed the technology by suggesting it doesn’t work for anyone.

        I told my ethics officer I had no personal reality on the tech because I hadn’t taken one step on the Bridge or completed any major service. Then I was declared a SP. Who is suppressing whom?

  8. Lana, loved your piece and reference. I have found all this to be very true in my life. Sometimes I find myself coming back to a failed scene and always find that it is easier and more productive to deal with by granting more beingness, especially where first it did not seem possible.

    And then I skimmed through some, but not all the comments here and have to shake my head. Perhaps I will later try and read them again, this time granting more beingness 🙂

    • Yes Bruce — the conversation went in a different direction. Nevertheless — I, like you, have worked to grant them beingness and we just move on 🙂

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