Why Auditors Have Stopped Auditing
grace...@gmail.com
sent many messages of invalidation and discouragement to the
Scientology field and even to Scientology staff members. The Golden
Age of Tech was instituted based on the misconception that auditors
were not auditing because they lacked the certainty to audit. Earlier
training was resoundingly repudiated, including training done by
Hubbard himself. All you need to do is read over the Scientology
publications from a few years ago or watch some of the videos about GAT
to verify what I am saying.
If a patient went to the doctor complaining of chest pains and the
doctor removed his/her appendix you would think that was crazy,
wouldn't you? Telling auditors who have been auditing for many years
that they can't audit is like saying that we're winning the war in
Iraq.
Well, most of the auditors I know stopped auditing because:
1) They were continually pestered by Scientology staff members.
2) They had their certificates suspended or cancelled for no good
reason.
3) They can't audit until they complete Golden Age of Tech training up
to their level and because they don't have the money and can't earn any
money auditing, they have to go off and find another livelihood. Then
they don't transition back to auditing.
4) They can't make a living auditing anyway because if they do the
registrars will find out about it and force them to do services they
don't want to do and take as much of their money as they can get.
5) Sea Org members are forced to audit for long hours, are punished
for minor errors and are not treated with respect as used to be the
case most of the time in the hey-day of Scientology -- the '70s.
Scientology was rapidly expanding then and is rapidly contracting now.
6) And then, of course, there is the fact that many auditors have
simply been declared suppressive for one reason or another.
There are many more reasons, but this is a start. Reply and add your
own to the list and maybe we can make a nice correction list.
And if you hate Scientology, which is your right, you'll probably post
here and let me know that I'm a stupid fool for giving any validity to
the subject. I have really absorbed that communication but it hasn't
moved me much in my opinion. Probably because there is often nothing
specific in the posts, just categorical repudiation. I freely agree
that there are many flaws in the subject and much to be criticized.
But I don't agree that the entire subject is valueless. And I think
that I have had a heck of a lot more experience with it than most of
you.
I do appreciate your toleration of my viewpoint, though. We all seem
to agree here that freedom of speech is the highest sacrament of
'alt.religion.scientology'.
suzicue
If you will allow me to slip back into the scn lingo for a moment (I've
become anti-scn
since I left), amongst the reasons auditors have stopped auditing is
because they get
losses from poor results due to the fact that the GAT is squirrel.
grace...@gmail.com
Of course!! But the reasoning behind GAT was that auditors stopped
auditing BEFORE GAT and GAT was the remedy. A case where the cure is
worse than the disease.
In the 1970s lots of auditors were making a decent living auditing --
mostly at Missions (then called Franchises). I recall auditing at
Scientology Fifth Avenue (Howie Rower's Franchise) in 1973-74. I was
making $12 an hour and auditing about 25-30 hours a week. That's the
equivalent of about $35-$40 an hour today. We had a full-time Case
Supervisor there and about 8 auditors, probably 5 full-time and 3 or 4
part time. Let me see if I can name them: the C/S was Bruce Levinton,
Class 8, HSST, the auditors were Patty Gordon, me, Carol Gluchaki,
Wayne Pullen, Susan Becher, Mark Dobson, Jerry Chromoy, and probably a
few others I can't remember.
There were several other franchises that had auditors working for them
in NY City as well. At the same time. Geltman's and Celebrity Center
NY -- a Mission at that time. There was Karen Deschere and Tom
Deschere, Pat Connolly, Nancy Kalish and a few others. And there was
also Scientology North Manhattan, a little Mission run by Nathan
Hightower.
Also, at one time people were auditing at the NY Org and there was so
much demand for auditing that non-contracted auditors came back to
audit on an hourly basis. Like Don Freedman, Glenn Genovese, Pete
Specker, etc., etc. I can't remember them all and I can't remember who
was contracted and who wasn't. Under Scotty Regensberg (Milligan) as
C/S at the Day Org and a fabulous D of P (can't remember her name right
now) the NY Day Org alone was doing 600 well done auditing hours a
week. Then a true crazy woman from Flag came down and declared Scottie
suppressive (get this -- the highest ever HGC stats in NY and they
declare the tech C/S!!! Unbelievable!!) The D of P left after being
heavily invalidated and was never heard from again. Scottie got
'undeclared' about 6 months later but the damage was done and the NY
Org never had stats that high again.
Similar things happened in L.A. I think I may have posted about them
before.
The Sea Org used to hone in on booming areas and crash them. I never
saw an example of the Sea Org helping an area. But my experience may
be limited. Please give examples of positive Sea Org management if you
have any. I can only remember negative impacts.
bb
grace...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 1) They were continually pestered by Scientology staff members.
I've heard it was the redefinition of the F/N, by Miscavidge, that
led to
auditors ande examiners not being able to get an "F/N" and this then
led to GAT.
The new def was something on the lines of 4 movements of the needle
to qualify as an actual F/N.
bb
http://www.freewebs .com/techoutside thecofs
http://internationa lfreezone. net
For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of
these subjects. The forum website also has a couple of
dictionaries of scientology terms.
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Freezone10 1/
Lulu Belle
> 3) They can't audit until they complete Golden Age of Tech training up
> to their level and because they don't have the money and can't earn any
> money auditing, they have to go off and find another livelihood. Then
> they don't transition back to auditing.
>
> 4) They can't make a living auditing anyway because if they do the
> registrars will find out about it and force them to do services they
> don't want to do and take as much of their money as they can get.
I have always believed that the reason training has never "taken off"
in Scientology orgs in the last 30 years or so, even before the GAT,
was that reason.
Why would someone spend hours a day for weeks and months and years to
learn something they couldn't make any money doing?
If a field auditor actually does become successful enough to make a
living auditing, he will get attacked by Scn management for "ripping
off org pcs".
So he spends all this time and pays all this money to Scientology to
learn to do something he ultimately gets in trouble with Scietology for
doing.
Ball of Fluff
news:1165642815.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Grace,
My husband and I have noticed for a long long time, that CofS doesn't seem
to want auditing taking place. They've done everything they can to stymie
the progress.
This seems to have commenced, perhaps, around the time LRH turned over the
reins of power and went on the run, a few years before his death.
They give reasons but it's artificial. They do not want auditing to take
place.
What they want is to just milk people like cash cows. I'm not saying Hubbard
didn't do that- he did. But not to this extent.
The 30k apiece for the super power building, the redoing of the training
because it wasn't GAT, the have to be IAS Patron to go do OTVII, the IAS
patron fee having gone up- that's all discouragement of auditing.
So many people have been told they're illegal pcs or aren't clear after all.
So many AOLA auditors and CSes have been demoted.
And tech degrades everywhere.
I remember hearing about this conversation between a friend of mine and a sr
staff member at an Org. He told her that her friend needed his Objectives
run. She said she could do it. He said not til you've completed Academy
Level 0. She told him that she'd done a CofS course that used to have the
Objectives on it. She said that this other woman was running her pc on the
Objectives, so why couldn't she? And he said that "she's on a course that
has those." Well, so was this friend of mine. Only differences were: She
finished hers. And- that course no longer has the Objectives on it so it's
now been downgraded.
This is what Hubbard called a "tech degrade". And they do it all the time.
If people want Scn or Dn auditing, they should not look to CofS for it.
C
grace...@gmail.com
What you're saying is so true!! The redefinition of the F/N -- to what
is really a large theta bop and is rarely ever seen as a needle
phenomenon.
But that's so late on the chain, don't you think, BB?
Most auditors stopped auditing way before that. In the mid to late
'70s there were literally thousands of experienced auditors. It wasn't
super easy, but they could make a living so they got trained and DID
make a living at the many missions and even as field auditors. But I
think most worked at missions, which were the most efficient way of
making $ and getting auditing and training delivered.
Earlier than the F/N redefinition was the high crime of missing a WH on
a pc. I doubt Ron wrote that. Punitive Sea Org C/Ses got rid of a lot
of field auditors that way. Same thing with the high crime of
falsifying worksheets. It made it so that if an auditor ever gave up a
WH in session or wrote up overts and witholds he'd probably be putting
his or her certs in jeopardy.
The impossibility of getting a cram done. That also stopped a lot of
auditors. If you were OT 3 or something you had to go to an AO to do
your cramming because your ruds had to be flown, etc., etc. Stop,
stop, stop. Nothing but stops!!
The Sea Org has been on almost a campaign to rid Scientology of
Scientology for a long time.
In the '70s the Sea Org was small and only capable of limited damage.
The Guardian's Office was doing most of the harm back then. But they,
too, were too small. Once the Sea Org got bigger, well, you all know
the rest of the story.
grace...@gmail.com
I agree with you totally. The bottom line is why spend all that time
learning to audit if you can never make a living doing it?
All the other reasons are very secondary to that one.
Freezone auditors are starting to make $ again. And with little or no
interference, Scientology may have a revival.
grace...@gmail.com
I TOTALLY agree with you!! If you even want to audit friends and
family you have to sneak around and do it 'on the sly'. I know a
friend who had lots of wins auditing family members. He had to be very
covert about it because there were all sort of traps he didn't want to
fall into, especially doing GAT training. So he would quietly do the
grades, etc., to good result and not let anyone know. Of course, it
got sticky when he went to Flag...
His name is Frank Davis.
antisectes
"Grace Aaron", bravo to your excellent post.
To the points you lifted here, I'd add an essential one: auditing does
not run like Hubbard says, neither for the causes that he gave.
Auditing is indeed a placebo effect combined from many different
attempts to control the preclear.
That's why any sort of auditing could in fact "function" on a person, as
long as she has been convinced she got the result AND has not been
abandoned during some sessions when running wild on some charge, whether
imaginary or real.
I've observed personnaly dianetics by the book "functioning" even in
wild/non-standard sessions; I've seen many sort of R3R (last was R3RE
when I was there, if my memory serves) functioning. I've seen 'results'
even from such brainwashing sessions as the Op Pro By Dup of sinister
repute. etc, etc, etc. I've even seen "results" from running stupid BTs
sessions!
But I've seen the reverse happening for NO valid "technical" causes. In
fact, when I think to most sessions I've had, most sessions I audited,
and most sessions I've C/Sed, I think they had "no results" except some
really minor cogs, accompanied with ANY sort of F/N. Same for the Purif
Rundown (I C/sed some 100 of those).
I'd say that apart from the TRs and some insistance to get the
significance of words when studying (being able to better recognize
which words are possibly mis-Us), scientology is mostly dangerous and
damaging the people when it proceeds for some time.
Possibly, another "positive" result that the society at large would
appreciate is the fact that people are much more
disciplined/controllable after some time and courses in the scam cult.
But that's not really a pace toward Todl Freedom, no?
r
Iggy
"Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
news:12nlmo8...@corp.supernews.com...
> <grace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165642815.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Grace,
>
> My husband and I have noticed for a long long time, that CofS doesn't seem
> to want auditing taking place. They've done everything they can to stymie
> the progress.
>
> This seems to have commenced, perhaps, around the time LRH turned over the
> reins of power and went on the run, a few years before his death.
>
> They give reasons but it's artificial. They do not want auditing to take
> place.
>
> What they want is to just milk people like cash cows. I'm not saying
> Hubbard didn't do that- he did. But not to this extent.
Sometimes you seem intelligent, except when you perpetuate total BS like
this. It's common knowledge that LRH started Scientology to *be* a
money-making cash cow, and to milk it's followers for all they were worth.
>
> The 30k apiece for the super power building, the redoing of the training
> because it wasn't GAT, the have to be IAS Patron to go do OTVII, the IAS
> patron fee having gone up- that's all discouragement of auditing.
>
To have the exhorbitant fees *at all* is proof in itself that Scn is not a
"religion"
> So many people have been told they're illegal pcs or aren't clear after
> all. So many AOLA auditors and CSes have been demoted.
>
> And tech degrades everywhere.
>
> I remember hearing about this conversation between a friend of mine and a
> sr staff member at an Org. He told her that her friend needed his
> Objectives run. She said she could do it. He said not til you've completed
> Academy Level 0. She told him that she'd done a CofS course that used to
> have the Objectives on it. She said that this other woman was running her
> pc on the Objectives, so why couldn't she? And he said that "she's on a
> course that has those." Well, so was this friend of mine. Only differences
> were: She finished hers. And- that course no longer has the Objectives on
> it so it's now been downgraded.
>
> This is what Hubbard called a "tech degrade". And they do it all the time.
>
All "tech" is degrading....because it's based on pseudo-science.
> If people want Scn or Dn auditing, they should not look to CofS for it.
They shouldn't look anywhere for it....period. It's called
brainwashing....and you continue to promote it. It's all the same
bullshit, whether you charge $30k for it or not.
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
>
>
>
Muldoon
Once again, you are giving the Bazooka-bubble-gum-wrapper-sized version
for something that requires a lengthier more detailed explanation.
You can shout "It's bullshit" all day long; it really doesn't help,
because you fall down when it comes to providing details.
Fact: Hubbard's Scientology is sneakier than you are smart.
That's not because you're not smart, you are smart; it's because
Hubbard's Scientology is very very sneaky, and is built on the pattern
of a covert operation, complete with a thick and many-compartmentalized
"defense perimeter."
The counseling portion of the subject, about which this thread is
concerned, is several compartments at the middle to outer fringes of
the Scientology operation.
Some people have a difficult time seeing the black-core of Scientology;
you, on the other hand, are blind to key (benign) aspects of its
outer-coating (defense perimeter).
And it's alright. Don't panic - I'm here to help you.
Lulu Belle
When I was last in, most of the Class VIIIs who were "doing Scientology
for a living" weren't auditing.
They were the Professional FSMs who FSMed all the onlines Clears and
OTs. They were basicaly being regges.
Like Barry Klien, Ty Dillard, Mitch Talevi, Tony Falcaro, Doug Nagy.
Most of the other Class VIIIs were doing NOTHING that had anything to
do with Scientology.
And most of the VIIIs I knew were extremely disaffected with
Scientology.
Even before GAT.
ladayla
grace...@gmail.com wrote:> The Sea Org has been on almost a campaign
to rid Scientology of
> Scientology for a long time.
>
god this is so true! It boggles my so-called mind the lengths to which
*they* have gone to erase Scn from Scn. From what I could see from my
auditing chair at ASHO, the Mission Holder's Conference was the thing
that shut most of us down. I realize now that the FEBC ( starting in
the 70's primary thrust was to reduce the Orgs to money - making
factories. FEBC ( Frantic Effort to Be Cause) made greedheads out of a
lot of kids who had no clue. Then the sorry sorry tech releases. The
watering down has progressed now to the point that no scn is being
delivered.
I have a friend who just told me of an incidentat CCLA. She had been
getting the 'call-ins' heavily. They wanted her to come in to see what
it was like to be audited by an OT8. Her entire Bridge had been
delivered by a Class 8, so she was curious about the auditing by an
OT8. She went in. The OT8 for some reason couldn't set her on the
meter. ( I grant that she always came on with high TA, but after a
minute of pre-sessioning, her TA would blow down into range. I never
allowed it to be a problem, and she prolly wasn't even aware that her
TA was high. Whatever.) Anyways, this OT8 got out the footplates. He
got her on the footplates, and started some kind of session. She said
that she didn't know what it was. It was not rudiment questions. (?) I
wonder if they thought that she was a Journalist, or the FBI, orEST, or
something. Anyway, what she does remember about it was that the OT8
tried to sell her "the Congresses". She was just pissed that they had
called her in and then tried to reg her. Her story just reminds me of
what scn is all about now. SPIT!
la
Ball of Fluff
Iggy wrote:
> "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
> news:12nlmo8...@corp.supernews.com...
> > <grace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165642815.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Grace,
> >
> > My husband and I have noticed for a long long time, that CofS doesn't seem
> > to want auditing taking place. They've done everything they can to stymie
> > the progress.
> >
> > This seems to have commenced, perhaps, around the time LRH turned over the
> > reins of power and went on the run, a few years before his death.
> >
> > They give reasons but it's artificial. They do not want auditing to take
> > place.
> >
> > What they want is to just milk people like cash cows. I'm not saying
> > Hubbard didn't do that- he did. But not to this extent.
>
> Sometimes you seem intelligent, except when you perpetuate total BS like
> this. It's common knowledge that LRH started Scientology to *be* a
> money-making cash cow, and to milk it's followers for all they were worth.
I was discussing why the amount of auditing in CofS dropped off, why it
went from lots and lots to very little and how they are discouraging
auditing from taking place ~when~ ~they'd~ ~ formerly~ ~encouraged~
~it~ ~and~ ~what~ ~ changed~ ~in~ ~that~ ~organization~.
I was not discussing why it was founded.
Ball of Fluff
suzicue wrote:
>
>
> If you will allow me to slip back into the scn lingo for a moment (I've
> become anti-scn
> since I left), amongst the reasons auditors have stopped auditing is
> because they get
> losses from poor results due to the fact that the GAT is squirrel.
Auditing processes are not GAT-ified. The courses teaching them are,
but the processes remain the same.
Either someone knows how to run "From where can you communicate to a
(blank)?" or they don't.
The GAT courses mainly just create a "too long a runway" situation.
They are added drills, is all. The courses still have many if not all
of the same practicals that were there before, one still has to know
how to fly ruds, read a meter, know what VGIs are, know how to deliver
a command, know how to run something to its origination point.
Auditors in CofS haven't gone on strike saying "hey! I can't get
results!" For one thing, CofS members don't have that freedom. Anyone
questioning anything is seriously fucked with and even ruined.
No, staff, taking their instructions from above, are discouraging
auditing by making people redo their training, by demoting tech staff,
by telling people they really aren't Clear after all or are illegal pcs
or that their ethics aren't in enough to go to Flag, by making people
cough up an IAS Patron fee to go do their OTVII, when such was not
going on before.
Those are roadblocks.
People who are interested in getting auditing in CofS aren't ever going
to get very much.
C
Ball of Fluff
antisectes wrote:
> grace...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "Grace Aaron", bravo to your excellent post.
Grace is a class act, all the way.
C
ace
this was LRH and Organized Scio was committing continuous PT overts
(harmful acts) and had continuous PT M/W/H's (secrets).
This set up an "afraid to be found out" situation.
Thus the Tech began to be mis-directed. It was mis-directed downward.
Everyone on planet earth audits!
Auditing is basically running a process.
A process is a sequence of actions that lead to an end result.
A positive result means you ran a positive process.
A bad result means you ran a negative process.
A squirrel process is any process that is out of ARC. = Negative
process.
It was obvious LRH was not making case gain in 1963. He began to
exhibit a continuous upset state. ARC Broken with life.
Technically he began to omit positive processing. The end came when he
banned asking people for their goals.
I could go on for weeks writing about the steady erosion of workable
processes.
But I would like to end on a high note: This is a success story from
someone I helped in in 1961.
JOHN NEWCOMBE
Title: "Newk"
ISBN: 0-7329-1155-9
Publisher: Pan Macmillan Australia
Published 2002
Following is the excerpt where Newk speaks of his 'sessions'. Page 13
"My parents were always keen to explore anything that might give me an
edge, so when, in 1961, a pioneer in sports psychology telephoned our
house out of the blue offering to help me, we accepted his invitation
to visit him at his home in Kings Cross. He said he'd watched me play
at White City and felt that some mind-training exercises could help my
game. I ended up spending 18 hours or so with him. He was right -
some of the things we tried together did improve the way I played
tennis, and they made me want to know more about how my mind worked and
the role it could play in my physical performance.
First of all, he sat me in front of a machine that registered my fear
and anxiety levels. A bit like an old-fashioned lie detector, it
comprised two can shaped handles electronically connected to a monitor
with a needle. As I gripped the cans, the psychologist would name
different tennis players or mention situations that happened in a
match. My feelings about these players and scenarios were transmitted
thought the cans onto the monitor, and the needle would react
accordingly. That way, he (and therefore I) knew what made me anxious,
and we talked over ways to solve my problems and mental blocks. I used
to have a phobia about old tennis balls, for instance. I believed I
couldn't attack with them. So he made me handle old balls and then
handle new balls and imagine myself being as proficient with the old as
with the new. My inhibitions ended.
The sports psychologist also taught me how to visualize. I'd imagine
myself on the eve of a big match, at say, Wimbledon, where I'd go up to
the top of the grandstand and look down at Centre Court: then I'd reach
out my arms as if I was claiming the court, drawing it into my body,
owning it. Years later, I tried the technique at Wimbledon for real -
and it worked for me. My anxieties were banished and I felt as one
with the fabled arena. The greatest lesson I learned with this guy was
that you have to bring your worries to the forefront of you mind and
deal with them. If you leave them locked away in your subconscious,
they'll never go away.
Another thing I learned to do a little later was sit down after a loss
and slowly replay the entire match in my head, facing head on the
reasons why I was beaten. I always learned more from a loss than a
win, because I was prepared to honestly evaluate where I'd screwed up.
And I mean an honest, painstakingly arrived at evaluation, not a
bullshit evaluation.
My mental strength was one reason for my success. Knowing that I knew
my game (and myself) very well indeed gave me the confidence to compete
at any level. I could tough out the grueling matches, cope with crowds
that heckled me, and face down tennis's worst sledgers, bullies and
mind-game operators. If things were going wrong for me, I had the
ability to go into another mind zone, clearly consider the problems I
was facing, then reprocess my body and mind to overcome the adversity."
No.1 player in world 3 times (1967,70-71); won Wimbledon 3 times and
U.S. and Australian championships twice each.
John Newcombe was the last amateur to win Wimbledon in 1967 and won the
tournament again as a professional in 1970 and 1971. His other grand
slam tournament victories include two US titles in 1967 and 1973, two
Australian titles in 1973 and 1975, and 17 doubles titles.
It was in singles, though, that Newcombe made his name. He and Rod
Laver are the only players to win the men's singles at Forest Hills and
Wimbledon as amateurs and pros. Newcombe was the last amateur champion
at Wimbledon in 1967, and repeated in 1970 and 1971 during the open era.
grace...@gmail.com
ladayla wrote:
> grace...@gmail.com wrote:> The Sea Org has been on almost a campaign
> to rid Scientology of
> > Scientology for a long time.
> >
>
> god this is so true! It boggles my so-called mind the lengths to which
> *they* have gone to erase Scn from Scn.
Well said. Erase Scn from Scn!! You know the prep check buttons?
Well, we could start a new set of buttons about what they're doing to
Scientology:
nullifying
eradicating
obscuring
hiding
suppressing
invalidating
making less of
unmocking
etc., etc.
>From what I could see from my
> auditing chair at ASHO, the Mission Holder's Conference was the thing
> that shut most of us down. I realize now that the FEBC ( starting in
> the 70's primary thrust was to reduce the Orgs to money - making
> factories. FEBC ( Frantic Effort to Be Cause) made greedheads out of a
> lot of kids who had no clue.
I agree totally!! A bunch of FEBC grads came back to the NY Org in the
early '70s and just ripped that Org apart. They diminished the status
of the Class 8s and Class 6s at that Org, added a lot of cruelty and
'pressure to produce' that made it so hard to function sanely as a
staff member that there was an exodus of valuable staff. The worst
FEBC grad was, by far, Susan Rubio Krieger, followed closely by Ken
Krieger. She began a reign of harsh handling of staff that was very
unpleasant and counter productive. She later joined the Sea Org, rose
rapidly to the highest levels and became a member of the board of one
of the C of S entities, if not several. I believe Ken Krieger did,
too. I think they were both on the Watchdog Comittee. As an aside,
Susan, Ken Krieger and Mike Rubio (at one time Susan's husband) were
having a 'menage a trois'. Not sure if they all did it together, but
Susan was alternating between the 2 of them as sex partners for a
while.
Then the sorry sorry tech releases. The
> watering down has progressed now to the point that no scn is being
> delivered.
Yep. Maybe that's the plan.
> I have a friend who just told me of an incidentat CCLA. She had been
> getting the 'call-ins' heavily. They wanted her to come in to see what
> it was like to be audited by an OT8. Her entire Bridge had been
> delivered by a Class 8, so she was curious about the auditing by an
> OT8. She went in. The OT8 for some reason couldn't set her on the
> meter.
A gross auditing error, wouldn't you say? Not able to get and keep a
pc in session. It's unbelieveable how ham handed these GAT auditors
are!!
( I grant that she always came on with high TA, but after a
> minute of pre-sessioning, her TA would blow down into range. I never
> allowed it to be a problem, and she prolly wasn't even aware that her
> TA was high. Whatever.) Anyways, this OT8 got out the footplates. He
> got her on the footplates, and started some kind of session. She said
> that she didn't know what it was. It was not rudiment questions.
Who knows. Usually what they do is 'assess and indicate' which I have
found rarely sends the person out very happy.
(?) I
> wonder if they thought that she was a Journalist, or the FBI, orEST, or
> something. Anyway, what she does remember about it was that the OT8
> tried to sell her "the Congresses". She was just pissed that they had
> called her in and then tried to reg her. Her story just reminds me of
> what scn is all about now. SPIT!
Yes, just one bid reg cycle.
>
> la
Nice to know you're still out there!! Happy holidays to you and your
family!!
Verminius Lardiculi
antisectes wrote:
> I'd say that apart from the TRs and some insistance to get the
> significance of words when studying (being able to better recognize
> which words are possibly mis-Us), scientology is mostly dangerous and
> damaging the people when it proceeds for some time.
I agree that scientology is dangerous, and the more so the longer
you're in the cult. However, I'd include the TRs as one of the most
damaging interventions used by the cult.
On a purely mechanistic level, if the 'auditor' is thinking about the
quality of his communucation, whether his acknowledgement is
appropriate, if his commands impinge, etc., which he will be if he is
concerned about keeping in his TRs, then he will not really be in the
session with the pre-clear, and so his critical faculties - vital to
any real therapy - are sorely attenuated. But it's not just mechanistic
-- it is also hypnotic.
TRs are extremely hypnotic; fixating on one's 'communication'
predisposes the 'auditor' toward greater suggestibility and hypnotic
euphoria, both of which subvert critical thinking. TRs are the reason
why in scientology, both the person receiving 'therapy' and the
'therapist' are hypnotised. This does not happen to anything like the
same degree in any other practice, it's almost unique to scientology,
and I feel that it's a big reason why the victims of scientology in
particular find it so difficult to shake off the thought-reform of the
cult.
Verminius Lardiculi
antisectes wrote:
> I'd say that apart from the TRs and some insistance to get the
> significance of words when studying (being able to better recognize
> which words are possibly mis-Us), scientology is mostly dangerous and
> damaging the people when it proceeds for some time.
I agree that scientology is dangerous, and the more so the longer
grace...@gmail.com
Thank you, Roger.
>
> To the points you lifted here, I'd add an essential one: auditing does
> not run like Hubbard says, neither for the causes that he gave.
I don't know, Roger. Even though I have no vested interest in
maintaining a belief in the efficacy of Scientology, I still look back
at my own application of Scientology and my personal experience has
proven to me that Scientology has, indeed, been very workable as a
method to help people and lead them to some degree of spiritual
enlightenment.
That being said, I know of many people who were not able to audit and
get a decent result. Scientology is a complex subject that demands a
degree of intelligence and common sense in the practitioner.
After having audited, mostly to good result, several hundred people and
having done many thousands of hours of auditing on myself and others, I
have to disagree with you about your conclusion of it being just a
placebo effect.
On the other hand, even if it were just the placebo effect, if someone
is suffering and because of a placebo effect gets significant relief,
well, then, perhaps that is a valid technique.
>
> Auditing is indeed a placebo effect combined from many different
> attempts to control the preclear.
I think that what you're saying is true of security checking when it is
done for the good of the group exclusively and not the person. I also
agree that auditing can be used negatively and have negative results
including reducing a person's ability to be self determined. And,
indeed, I have seen that done much more on staff and, especially Sea
Org staff.
But auditors at Missions and field auditors usually use Scientology to
better the individual. That has been my experience. I audited at a
variety of Orgs and Missions over at least 30 years, have audited
people who are not Scientologists, have audited myself and have vast
experience with the subject.
Have I blindly accepted everything in Scientology? Of course not!! I
have never used auditing techniques I found unworkable. Back when I
was on staff at the New York Org, we used to take bets on how long it
would take for certain tech fads to be cancelled. This applied
especially to 'blinkless TRs'. My husband refused to do them because
he thought it was anti-Scientology to have such a body oriented goal.
He was a high up exec at the time at the NY Org. We never felt that we
couldn't criticize Scientology or Hubbard. We did and we never got in
trouble for it. As a matter of fact, there was a whole musical review
that was a satire about Scientology that was produced by Scientology
Fifth Avenue and perfomed at the NY Org that was extremely irreverent.
It included skits with new words to old songs such as:
"If I were an OT" (to the music of 'If I were a Rich Man' from Fiddler
on the Roof) performed by Mark Dobson who later became a Class 8 and
then got declared SP.
"I've Grown Accustomed to Her Case" (to the music of 'I've Grown
Accustomed to her Face' from 'My Fair Lady') performed by my husband,
Ken Aaron, as the character Art Decco.
Some of the words were:
"I"ve Grown Accustomed to her Case, her keying out and keying in, her
ups her downs her, her smiles her frowns, are second nature to me now,
...
sorry I don't recall all the lyrics.
"Fish Gotta Swim, Birds Gotta Fly" that continues: I'll be on this TR
til I die!
Also, here are some lyrics:
"Dianetics, where the wind goes whistling through your brain
And it sure feels sweet
When that piece of meat
Is free from every ache and pain!"
So, we had a lot of fun back then!
I don't think I am either brainwashed, negtatively effected by
Scientology, crazy or deluded. I am a very productive person. I am
very active with other groups outside the Scientology world and have
not felt that my Scientology views have limited my viewpoint or
hindered me from effectively operating in life.
>
> That's why any sort of auditing could in fact "function" on a person, as
> long as she has been convinced she got the result AND has not been
> abandoned during some sessions when running wild on some charge, whether
> imaginary or real.
>
> I've observed personnaly dianetics by the book "functioning" even in
> wild/non-standard sessions; I've seen many sort of R3R (last was R3RE
> when I was there, if my memory serves) functioning. I've seen 'results'
> even from such brainwashing sessions as the Op Pro By Dup of sinister
> repute. etc, etc, etc. I've even seen "results" from running stupid BTs
> sessions!
>
> But I've seen the reverse happening for NO valid "technical" causes. In
> fact, when I think to most sessions I've had, most sessions I audited,
> and most sessions I've C/Sed, I think they had "no results" except some
> really minor cogs, accompanied with ANY sort of F/N. Same for the Purif
> Rundown (I C/sed some 100 of those).
Hmm. I can't repudiate your personal experience. I can accept the
idea that your experience has been almost opposite to mine. What can I
say. To come to the conclusion that I am somehow incapable of
observation goes against the fact that I am a highly functional person
with many responsibilities who is respected in my community.
>
> I'd say that apart from the TRs and some insistance to get the
> significance of words when studying (being able to better recognize
> which words are possibly mis-Us), scientology is mostly dangerous and
> damaging the people when it proceeds for some time.
Hmm. Again, this is your experience. I certainly agree that whatever
whacko application is being done in the Sea Org I think most of that is
negative. I've seen Sea Org members devolve in many ways -- lowered
self esteem, lowered ability to think critically, etc., etc.
>
> Possibly, another "positive" result that the society at large would
> appreciate is the fact that people are much more
> disciplined/controllable after some time and courses in the scam cult.
> But that's not really a pace toward Todl Freedom, no?
I agree. It's just that Scientology is a very broad subject. There
have been many incarnations of it over time and at different locations.
Some whole areas have practiced it one way and other areas another
way, despite protestations of standardness.
I saw Scientology quickied to the point where it became unworkable.
Other times when everything was overrun. Other times when security
checks were being used on new people and that didn't go very well. And
I even FESed the folders of many solo auditors for a while and the
mystery of why some people didn't get too good a result on them was
evaporated for me. I recall looking over a folder of a solo auditor
who watched TV while auditing! Whacky stuff like that. One sad solo
auditor kept indicating F/Ns to herself that were really ARC break
needles. That is a common error in all levels of Scientology -- people
can be profoundly upset but not look it on the surface. They smile but
are still ARC broken and when that is indicated as an F/N the person
just gets worse. No doubt about it.
So, do I think Scientology is an easy subject to apply? NO!! It is
complex. Much could be done to create better workability for it. I
think because I was extremely literate and a college graduate before
doing my Academy Levels I brought a high degree of critical thinking
ability to the subject. It takes a high degree of literacy to really
absorb the philosophy of Scientology and add that understanding to
every aspect of application.
>
>
> r
Thanks for your viewpoint, Roger. Maybe if and when I come to France
again we can meet over lunch or dinner. And if you ever are in Los
Angeles, I hope we can spend some time together.
If you are interested in my life outside of Scientology, you might want
to take a peek at our website that's mostly about political issues:
Yours in peace,
Grace Aaron
grace...@gmail.com
What you're saying is partly true. Partly not. Barry Klein is one of
my least favorite people. Ty Dillard lost his D.C. mission that was
very successful, I was told, through some Sea Org insanity. Tony
Falcaro was not an auditor, or at least not highly trained. I don't
know Doug Nagy.
But you leave out a lot of auditors who are STILL auditing, or were
trying to audit up until recently:
Harold Lieberz -- Class 7 or Class 8. He used to do all the Power
processing in Los Angeles. He also used to be the Interne Sup at ASHO.
He's been auditing for years at the Beverly Hills Mission. Susan
Becher, Grad 4 auditor with MUCH experience was auditing at the BH
Mission along with, off and on, Rochelle Goodrich, Class 6, Martha
Carl, Class 6, etc.
Isabelle Parsons, who did many, many OT reviews at AOLA many years ago,
was auditing off and on, although she may have been caved in by Sea Org
insanity.
Susan Salaman has been either C/Sing and auditing off and on for about
35 years!! She's a Class 8. She has breast cancer. I hope she
survives it.
Then there is the field group in Beverly Hills. I can't remember the
woman's name right now. She's a Class 8, married to one of the people
who went to jail around the Mary Sue fiasco.
Then there's Joe Hochman, Class 8, and Michael Lewis, Class 8. They're
still auditing, I think, even though they do some FSMing as well. I
don't know how they hang in there and I question their ethics in
jumping through the insane hoops the C of S puts them through. And
what about Trey Lotz? I think he's still doing his thing, as well.
Of course, I also know at least 20 Class 6's, Class 8's and highly
experienced Grad V auditors who stopped auditing and are either wholly
or partly disaffected. But I know a few who still audit -- but in the
Freezone. I won't mention who they are for obvious reasons. Los
Angeles is just chock full of Scientologists and X-Scientologists. I
run into people all the time.
I have found that there are many degrees of viewpoint re: Scientology
among those who took it very seriously and were highly trained. I know
Class 6's and 8's who still swear by it and others who think it's a
con. One little group actually did a book burning back around '82!!
They were that disgusted!! That was a Class 6, and 2 grad 4s!!
Because I have been a Scientologist for such a long time I obviously
know many, many Scientologists. And my peer group was fellow auditors.
Those were my closest friends and co-workers. In my experience, and I
can name names, the attitude currently about the subject that they have
is all over the spectrum. Some are loyalists, some hate the subject,
some like some of it, some use it, some don't, some use only one part,
etc., etc.
Does this all make sense?
Even the loyalists, though, amongst themselves know that DM and high up
Sea Org management is destroying Scientology. And that includes Susan
Becher -- I've engaged in long conversations of the 'loyal' at her
house in the past talking about how suppressive DM and company are.
Among the natterers were Steve Huelsman, Wayne Pullen, Rhoda Moore,
John Moore, Scott Saks, etc., etc.
Harold Lieberz -- same thing. As well as Rochelle and George Goodrich.
They are very discreet. Michael Lewis -- the same. As well as people
like John LaRocca, etc. Although they may have submerged their
criticisms to avoid long sec checks during their 6 month checks.
grace...@gmail.com
Thank you!!!
grace...@gmail.com
Wow!! I couldn't disagree with you more!! I never audited in the way
you describe. So maybe you should speak for yourself. And if you ever
audited the way you describe or were audited that way it is no wonder
that there were no results.
Fixation on one's 'performance' as an auditor would be the epitome of
OUT TRs!!! It would make the auditor 'interesting' not 'interested'
and thus incapable of helping another.
It's amazing to me how people can get it so wrong.
Scientology is best applied with a deep understanding of the underlying
philosophy and basics of the subject.
Please give me your training level and experience as an auditor so I
understand where you're coming from.
ace
As I read the posts, it hit me hard how destructive, the untrained
management had submerged the tech......making it unworkable.
What stopped most auditors from continuing was - it became an overt to
audit and send people up lines.
The Missions and Field auditors resurected a lot of the early tech,
(Life Repair) and produced great gains for people.
A.
Muldoon
When I audited people I never "did TRs."
Then, I was never a robot-style Scientologist.
(Also, years after no longer being involved with Scientology - and
while being aware that Scientology, per Hubbard's design, was a
Destructive Cult - out of curiosity, partly as an experiment, I audited
people.)
This may seem strange to you, since most (all?) of the non-robots left
before you found out about Scientology.
(And, yes, Hubbard even "tainted' the word "robot" by writing about
"robotism" as something to be prevented, when he was earnestly
attempting to make people into robots - a standard pattern for the dark
trickster Hubbard. So, I know Hubbard stenciled his name, *even* on
that word, but I have a big bottle of stencil remover...)
Sorry that you got the "Reefer Madness" version of the subject.
Hubbard had a self serving hidden agenda, used deception, was ruthless,
and incorporated thought-reform into the neutral medium (the "benign"
portion) of the subject.
But there is a "neutral medium" - it's an essential component, for
Scientology to be an effective trap. Part of the reason why Hubbard's
carefully crafted "psychological-political operation" has mostly empty
"Orgs," is that the "neutral medium" has been largely destroyed.
Originally (1958), TRs were used so novice auditors could accomplish an
auditing session - to accomplish the basic "neutral medium" **through**
which **then** many things could be done - good or bad.
At the time, they were not robot people TRs.
I only mention this, as on multiple occasions I've had to deal with
people who did a weekend "TRs course" at a "Mission," or at someones
house (in the 1960s or 1970s), had fun, found it to be interesting, and
later read that TRs were (and **must** be) "hypnosis." Except **for
these people** TRs were NOT hypnosis, any more than water skiing is
hypnosis.
What actions preceded the TRs, how the TRs were done, the environment
in which they were done, and what followed the TRs, are important
factors. This is ignored by those who insist that anything with the
label of "TRs" on it **must** always be hypnosis.
Most people who who did a "TRs" course (often over a weekend), never
did anything else in Scientology - others were involved in Scientology
for less than a year, and then often at the fringes. Most of these
people were not hypnotized while doing TRs. Each case is different.
People are different. Not everyone is a classic hypnotic subject. And
situations vary.
It's important that people be warned about Destructive Cultism. Telling
someone that they were (*must* have been) hypnotized, when they
weren't, is not a good way to begin a conversation.
(And, of course, **in** Scientology, *anything* and everything - good
or bad - is used to forward Scientology's people-abusing cult agenda.)
In Scientology, there is a "Cheese/trap ratio" - up to the early 1960s,
the Cheese predominated. Through the sixties, the Cheese began to
shrink. By the mid 1970s, it was not only shrinking, but getting stale.
By the 1980s, it was becoming rotten. And what you were given as
"Cheese" - well, I can only imagine.
Lulu Belle
> > When I was last in, most of the Class VIIIs who were "doing Scientology
> > for a living" weren't auditing.
> >
> > They were the Professional FSMs who FSMed all the onlines Clears and
> > OTs. They were basicaly being regges.
> >
> > Like Barry Klien, Ty Dillard, Mitch Talevi, Tony Falcaro, Doug Nagy.
> >
> > Most of the other Class VIIIs were doing NOTHING that had anything to
> > do with Scientology.
> >
> > And most of the VIIIs I knew were extremely disaffected with
> > Scientology.
> >
> > Even before GAT.
>
> What you're saying is partly true. Partly not. Barry Klein is one of
> my least favorite people. Ty Dillard lost his D.C. mission that was
> very successful, I was told, through some Sea Org insanity. Tony
> Falcaro was not an auditor, or at least not highly trained. I don't
> know Doug Nagy.
Yeah, you're right about Tony. Doug Nagy is a Class VI, I think.
>
> But you leave out a lot of auditors who are STILL auditing, or were
> trying to audit up until recently:
>
> Harold Lieberz -- Class 7 or Class 8. He used to do all the Power
> processing in Los Angeles. He also used to be the Interne Sup at ASHO.
> He's been auditing for years at the Beverly Hills Mission. Susan
> Becher, Grad 4 auditor with MUCH experience was auditing at the BH
> Mission along with, off and on, Rochelle Goodrich, Class 6, Martha
> Carl, Class 6, etc.
>
> Isabelle Parsons, who did many, many OT reviews at AOLA many years ago,
> was auditing off and on, although she may have been caved in by Sea Org
> insanity.
>
> Susan Salaman has been either C/Sing and auditing off and on for about
> 35 years!! She's a Class 8. She has breast cancer. I hope she
> survives it.
Almost eveyr person, if not every person, that you mentioned above,
used to be NSO (Non Sea Org) tech people in PAC Sea Org orgs.
This used to be the primarly way in the 80s that highly trained tech
people could make a living as auditors.
When the NSO were kicked out of the SO orgs it was pretty hard for a
lot of them to survive finaicially.
>
> Then there is the field group in Beverly Hills. I can't remember the
> woman's name right now. She's a Class 8, married to one of the people
> who went to jail around the Mary Sue fiasco.
I know who you mean. He worked for Disney. I can't remember their names
either. I think his name was Rick something-or-other.
Wasn't the place called The Enhancement Center?
>
> Then there's Joe Hochman, Class 8, and Michael Lewis, Class 8. They're
> still auditing, I think, even though they do some FSMing as well.
As far as I know, both of them make their living PRIMARILY though
FSMing. Or at least they used to.
I don't even think they would be allowed to field audit any more. Isn't
there that rule now about field auditors who live too close to PAC or
Flag?
I
> don't know how they hang in there and I question their ethics in
> jumping through the insane hoops the C of S puts them through. And
> what about Trey Lotz? I think he's still doing his thing, as well.
He was another pro FSM, from what I recall.
I heard something about him, but I can't remember what.
>
> Of course, I also know at least 20 Class 6's, Class 8's and highly
> experienced Grad V auditors who stopped auditing and are either wholly
> or partly disaffected. But I know a few who still audit -- but in the
> Freezone. I won't mention who they are for obvious reasons. Los
> Angeles is just chock full of Scientologists and X-Scientologists. I
> run into people all the time.
>
> I have found that there are many degrees of viewpoint re: Scientology
> among those who took it very seriously and were highly trained. I know
> Class 6's and 8's who still swear by it and others who think it's a
> con. One little group actually did a book burning back around '82!!
> They were that disgusted!! That was a Class 6, and 2 grad 4s!!
>
> Because I have been a Scientologist for such a long time I obviously
> know many, many Scientologists. And my peer group was fellow auditors.
> Those were my closest friends and co-workers. In my experience, and I
> can name names, the attitude currently about the subject that they have
> is all over the spectrum. Some are loyalists, some hate the subject,
> some like some of it, some use it, some don't, some use only one part,
> etc., etc.
>
> Does this all make sense?
Oh yeah.
I remember the girl who ran - or tried to run - the Class VIII project
in LA.
She said that she never in her life ran into a more disaffected group
of people than the VIIIs.
>
> Even the loyalists, though, amongst themselves know that DM and high up
> Sea Org management is destroying Scientology. And that includes Susan
> Becher -- I've engaged in long conversations of the 'loyal' at her
> house in the past talking about how suppressive DM and company are.
> Among the natterers were Steve Huelsman, Wayne Pullen, Rhoda Moore,
> John Moore, Scott Saks, etc., etc.
>
> Harold Lieberz -- same thing. As well as Rochelle and George Goodrich.
> They are very discreet. Michael Lewis -- the same. As well as people
> like John LaRocca, etc. Although they may have submerged their
> criticisms to avoid long sec checks during their 6 month checks.
I'm not surprised.
ladayla
Lulu Belle wrote:
> Why would someone spend hours a day for weeks and months and years to
> learn something they couldn't make any money doing?
>
I asked my Cl 8 course supervisor that very question, and she referred
me to the policy that says ( loosely) that a person " is going to be
auditing himself on the upper levels, and he should be the best auditor
that he can be".
la
grace...@gmail.com
I agree, Ace. For a long time the upper orgs have been like a
minefield.
There were earlier tech changes that made training less workable.
Eliminating the requirement that supervisors must be trained auditors.
Not requiring a lot of auditing at each level which was what made
earlier training successful. At the NY Org which trained some of the
best auditors in the world auditors sometimes audited for 50 or 100
hours on Level 0 before they went on to Level 1. I remember auditing
about 75 hours on Level 0. After 5 hours I had had a total loss
auditing and would never have gone on if I hadn't been urged to
continue. By the time I finished Level 0 I WAS an auditor. I recall
auditing Richard Reiss, who trained at the NY Org, on either ARC SW or
Grade One while I was on Level 0. Richard Reiss I think is still the
Senior C/S at Flag, no?
There were lots of other changes. To many word clearers and too much
word clearing have made courses a nightmare. The student is pestered
incessantly in many places. Overrun people enough on word clearing and
they start to believe they can't understand anything. Which is absurd.
I could go on and I and I'm sure you could, too!
Lulu Belle
Yeah, that was a common response to that issue (HCOB/PL "Training and
OT").
But, in reality, very few, if any, people are going to put in ALL that
time and ALL that money and go through ALL the shit one has to go
through with ALL those courses and internships just to be a better Solo
auditor.
(Which is the reason, by the way, the Solo Course is so much bigger and
longer now than it was in the 70s. It is taken for granted that the
person is not only not much of an auditor when he goes onto that
course, he's also not much of a Scientologist. Hence all thse books you
have to read on it.)
If people get trained to audit, they do it to audit. And they generally
don't invest that much time and money into doing something to do it for
free.
However, not much of a chance that a whole lot of people are going to
want to try to make a living as an auditor these days.
It's 1) too difficult and 2) too dangerous.
Lulu Belle
> > Then there is the field group in Beverly Hills. I can't remember the
> > woman's name right now. She's a Class 8, married to one of the people
> > who went to jail around the Mary Sue fiasco.
>
>
> I know who you mean. He worked for Disney. I can't remember their names
> either. I think his name was Rick something-or-other.
>
> Wasn't the place called The Enhancement Center?
Rick Merwin? Nikki Merwin?
Does that sound right?
AK Myers
triangle actually was employed.
Since I was not independently wealthy I opted to take the training route
and co-audited most of my lower bridge. Somewhere along the line I
joined mission staff as an auditor and watched the steady decline of the
$cientology scene from the perspective of a “tech trained” individual.
Early on, it was apparent that the missions were the only safe place to
do $cientology. The orgs were downstat, filthy, and the staff was
unwashed, rude and “out-ARC”. Most of us had to go there for training,
but we got out of there as soon as we could.
Senior tech and admin people would tend to reflect their “training” when
they returned to the mission, usually upsetting people with their
“sea-ogre” manners. I recall one C/S who came back from training that
crammed the HGC so severely, half the staff ended up leaving their
posts, despite glowing reports from the public.
Back in the early days when auditing was $35 an hour and intensives(12.5
hr blocks) were even less, there was never any shortage of people to
audit. Most of us were auditing 40-60 hours a week and times were good.
Most of the upsets we had to deal with were based on real life experiences.
Then came the infamous “Solution to Inflation” policy which instituted a
5% per month increase on all books and services. While it did motivate
people to “buy now” it eventually raised the price of auditing so high
that sales actually dropped. Less auditing hours were being sold and so
most auditors stats were crashed. Of course, we were blamed for causing
this drop. However, endless hours of lower conditions and endless hours
at the cramming desk did not seem to put any more preclears in the
chair. By this time the primary upset we had to deal with was the high
cost of auditing, which was a catch twenty-two, in that we were wasting
the preclear's expensive auditing hours handling the upset of wasting
the preclear's expensive auditing hours.
Then, in the early eighties, one local mission holder returned from
doing the Data Series Evaluator Course at Flag. He did an evaluation
that rocked $cientology to its core. It correctly pointed out the source
of upset was the “out-ARC” that had crept into staff as a result of
exposure to the sea-ogres. This was Kingsley Wimbush's infamous
“de-dinging program” that revitalized the mission network and shot stats
(including gross income) through the roof.
This is when top management got involved and held the mission-holders
conference where they issued mass declares and forced the rest of them
to sign away their rights (and eventually their missions).
DM in one swoop killed the goose that was laid the golden egg. Without
the mission network to bridge the gap, the transition from WOG to SEA
OGRE, was much too great.
A.K. Myers
Old OT7 CL VI
In da freezone since 1983
Done with "the tech" since I found www.xenu.net
Lulu Belle
Thanks for posting this.
Muldoon
As a side note - In late 1983, I had a conversation with Kingsley
Wimbush, and asked him if he had found the "who" in his evaluation,
searching for *the* "SP," to whom Scientology - over-all - was "PTS."
His answer was, yes he had, and it was L. Ron Hubbard.
Well meaning people in Scientology thought Scientology was about
"counseling" and "helping others," etc. In fact, it was about L. Ron
Hubbard. People around Hubbard knew this; but well-meaning counseling
types were always baffled as to why they were so shabbily treated. They
hadn't realized that Scientology, primarily, wasn't about them, their
good intentions, or the potentially beneficial aspects of *some* forms
of counseling.
It was about Hubbard's ego, his craving for power, and the
implementation of his plan to use "mental healing" to "assert and
maintain dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of idividuals..."
ace
> As a side note - In late 1983, I had a conversation with Kingsley
> Wimbush, and asked him if he had found the "who" in his evaluation,
> searching for *the* "SP," to whom Scientology - over-all - was "PTS."
> His answer was, yes he had, and it was L. Ron Hubbard.
> It was about Hubbard's ego, his craving for power, and the
> implementation of his plan to use "mental healing" to "assert and
> maintain dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals..."
Put destructive Execs in there as well.
The above is the exact answer of WHY the Tech stopped working.
The use of Ethics to make someone's answer wrong.
I remember when John McMaster and I were researching S&D's and we
realized it could be taken to a causative answer and end running cases
at effect of SP's.
LRH vetoed it.
Both John and I had the same realization: He did not want this tech to
go any deeper, if it had it would have blown the then Scio to pieces.
There is so much causative Tech omitted from Scio it is scary.
Almost everyone by the use of mis-directors, has been stopped from
finding out the truth.
A.
LordXenuCruise
therapy and it has been around for a long time. The reason auditing
works for some and not for others is because there is no therapy that
works for everyone. Different people have different problems that need
to be addressed in different ways. It is like tryng to put a screw in
the wall with a wrench, if the head is the right shape it will work but
if not it is not the screws fault. They just need a different tool to
get the same effect. And telling someone with problems that reason
auditing isn't working is beacuase it is their fault is just wrong.
ace
LordXenuCruise wrote:
> There is a another name for scientology auditing and that ia regression
> therapy and it has been around for a long time.
It became regresion therapy in 1965.
Prior to that it was a combination of positive creative processing -
which sometimes collided with past incidents...the main intent was to
keep the client on their OWN goals and interest line.
Much more future processing than past processing.
Up to Mid '63 ALL sessions began with: "What are your goals for this
session?" then "What are your goals for life and livingness?"
Positive actions.
The objective processess are designed to stabilize the client in
present time so that they can create the future that they want.
A.
> The reason auditing
> works for some and not for others is because there is no therapy that
> works for everyone.
Thats for sure! : - )
> Different people have different problems that need
> to be addressed in different ways. It is like tryng to put a screw in
> the wall with a wrench, if the head is the right shape it will work but
> if not it is not the screws fault. They just need a different tool to
> get the same effect.
> And telling someone with problems that reason
> auditing isn't working is beacuase it is their fault is just wrong.
Could not agree with you more!!!
A.
ladayla
Lulu Belle wrote:
>
> However, not much of a chance that a whole lot of people are going to
> want to try to make a living as an auditor these days.
>
> It's 1) too difficult and 2) too dangerous.
That is so true. I went " underground" in 1984. The only guys I was
auditing were ex-scn'ists who had been dumped by the church. Some of
them in the middle of their OT3, and totally caved in that they were
not allowed to complete a level that they thought was vital to their
life.Some others were NOTs people who were disenchanted with the level,
but knew that they had to finish what had been started. Strangely
enough, one of those NOTs people had a spouse on NOTs at Flag, but the
checks for the Field auditing were being sent to me by the Flag PC.
As soon as I left LA, I again started auditing new and/or newer PCs,
but it was all word-of-mouth referrals from people that I knew and
trusted. To this day, I would not, as some in the FZ do, announce to
public that I was in practice. I confess to paranoia on that. But that
doesn't mean that auditing outside the church isn't dangerous. Have you
ever though that OSA might want to group all the ex-scn auditors
together in one group ( such as the FZ), and then one day file a class
action suit against each and every one of them based on copyright
infringement or some other phony-assed legal term? Yeah, yeah, I
know...Conspiracy theories. Right. But the other option is to allow the
tech to be lost to the Field. And they might not care. They may have
all the money stashed, and hidden in RE investments and such, and the
practice of the tech would await LRH's return. Bwahahahaha. Rainy
Monday mornings bring out my wordy twin....
la
ladayla
ace wrote:
Hi, Sweetie, I'm so happy that you are posting here. You and Gracie
have managed to keep a thread going without its' going PTS. It's sorta
like the earlier days of ARS when scn was discussed without the
deflection and distraction that marks the NG now.
I hear from my relatives down there in Texas that it's cold as hell,
and that hay ( for horses....my people own a ranch) has gone up to $
70.00 a bale. They are trying to think of a solution to having to shoot
some of their horses. They are trying to feed about 30 horses. No one
will buy them because everyone knows the high price of feeding them.
When you talk to Dean, please pass it along that I made that trip to
Costa Rica that we used to talk about.
Big love,
La ( jana)
Lulu Belle
ladayla wrote:
> Have you
> ever though that OSA might want to group all the ex-scn auditors
> together in one group ( such as the FZ), and then one day file a class
> action suit against each and every one of them based on copyright
> infringement or some other phony-assed legal term? Yeah, yeah, I
> know...Conspiracy theories. Right.
Oh, hell.
They'd do it right now in a heartbeat if they 1) had the resources and
2) thought they could make it stick.
bb
ladayla wrote:
> Lulu Belle wrote:
I would not, as some in the FZ do, announce to
> public that I was in practice. I confess to paranoia on that.
Oops. :)
But that
> doesn't mean that auditing outside the church isn't dangerous.
I've been promoting the FZ for 6 years, and connecting up those
who want tech to those who deliver. never has an OSA terminal
showed up at a tech terminal from this. There have been two auditors
with high profile who have had some nuisance. Tommy Thompson
and Rey Robles. They have not been stopped.
OSA regularly Picket the RO training camps in Bern Switzerland.
Its light relief for those concerned. :) Last they asked why they
didn't
have a big neon sign, "Scientology" on the building. :)
They have pestered our RONs org UK personell, including myself,
in connection with the pro FZ tech UK Channel 4 program " Beginners
guide to L Ron Hubbard. "
The student pretending to be a private eye was terribly nervous and I
chased him away basically. Police have been informed and have a file
on the visits to some of our members in particular with regard to black
PR sent to someones business contacts.
Have you
> ever though that OSA might want to group all the ex-scn auditors
> together in one group ( such as the FZ), and then one day file a class
> action suit against each and every one of them based on copyright
> infringement or some other phony-assed legal term?
This would indeed be wonderful promo for the independant field!
http://www.freezoneamerica.org/Prometheus04/index.htm
Note the bridge up to OT 4 is here, and has withstood the minor
attacks presented. Done by Class 8s and above. Rewritten, and
techniques
can not be copywrite violations.
Skipper
as hell. And I mean every single one of them I ever met.
Since being disinvolved from the cult of $cientology, I've learned to
origins of all of the material that was workable and it DID NOT come
from Hubbard.
Find me ANYTHING in your so-called "technology" that actually works and
brings permanent lasting relief to any single person you've dealt with
other than the total BULLSHIT "wins" bb posts here.
You can't.
Dianetics? Abreaction.
Creative processing? Psychology, ancient practices like the Hopis
"sitting in pictures," Buddhism
There's stuff from Hinduism
There's a LOT of hynposis.
So you can play your little games of "auditing works, I'll just do it
over here." After all, if you invested your entire life in the cult and
that's the only thing you know how to do to make a living, that's
probably the only choice you think you have.
$cientology in any form SUCKS. I'd say the majority of people who post
and read here realize they were taken in by a madman.
It's a hard "cognition" (realization for non-$cientologists) - I hope
you have it some day.
In article <1165868349.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, bb
grace...@gmail.com
Yes -- in my experience Missions were a lot more in-ARC with their
public than Orgs. Although I have to say that I had many positive
experiences at the NY Org. Some negative, of course, also. I still
have friends from the time I was on staff their (early '70s).
>
> Since I was not independently wealthy I opted to take the training route
> and co-audited most of my lower bridge.
That's what I did, too.
Somewhere along the line I
> joined mission staff as an auditor and watched the steady decline of the
> $cientology scene from the perspective of a "tech trained" individual.
Sad, but true.
>
> Early on, it was apparent that the missions were the only safe place to
> do $cientology. The orgs were downstat, filthy, and the staff was
> unwashed, rude and "out-ARC". Most of us had to go there for training,
> but we got out of there as soon as we could.
Sad, but also mostly true. Someone I know recently did the Purif at
the Los Angeles Org and complained about the unsanitary conditions of
the sauna there. That sauna, though is really awesome. Possibly the
largest sauna on the west coast.
>
> Senior tech and admin people would tend to reflect their "training" when
> they returned to the mission, usually upsetting people with their
> "sea-ogre" manners. I recall one C/S who came back from training that
> crammed the HGC so severely, half the staff ended up leaving their
> posts, despite glowing reports from the public.
Harsh handling of auditors has always been a bad thing, in my opinion.
I have to admit that Hubbard was one of the worst regarding this. This
is one negative thing that definitely trickled down.
>
> Back in the early days when auditing was $35 an hour and intensives(12.5
> hr blocks) were even less, there was never any shortage of people to
> audit. Most of us were auditing 40-60 hours a week and times were good.
What year was this? Can you tell me the geographical area? You don't
have to, though, if you wish to stay anonymous.
> Most of the upsets we had to deal with were based on real life experiences.
>
> Then came the infamous "Solution to Inflation" policy which instituted a
> 5% per month increase on all books and services. While it did motivate
> people to "buy now" it eventually raised the price of auditing so high
> that sales actually dropped.
Yes, I remember that. Stats peaked and then collapsed.
Less auditing hours were being sold and so
> most auditors stats were crashed. Of course, we were blamed for causing
> this drop.
Staff can be so mean -- scapegoating vulnerable staff to hide their own
bad actions. I've seen that happen over and over and in my experience
Sea Org members do it the most -- scapegoating, I mean.
However, endless hours of lower conditions and endless hours
> at the cramming desk did not seem to put any more preclears in the
> chair. By this time the primary upset we had to deal with was the high
> cost of auditing, which was a catch twenty-two, in that we were wasting
> the preclear's expensive auditing hours handling the upset of wasting
> the preclear's expensive auditing hours.
Somewhere around there was the 'crush regging' era, too. High gross
income and then shortly later very high refund statistics. Just plain
goofy!!
>
> Then, in the early eighties, one local mission holder returned from
> doing the Data Series Evaluator Course at Flag. He did an evaluation
> that rocked $cientology to its core. It correctly pointed out the source
> of upset was the "out-ARC" that had crept into staff as a result of
> exposure to the sea-ogres. This was Kingsley Wimbush's infamous
> "de-dinging program" that revitalized the mission network and shot stats
> (including gross income) through the roof.
Yes. I was sort of on the other side of that. The whole de-dinging
thing seemed pretty squirrel to me at the time. But I'm sure if senior
management was sane it would have handled it with correction and ARC --
not just the usual hatchet job, hamhanded over reaction.
>
> This is when top management got involved and held the mission-holders
> conference where they issued mass declares and forced the rest of them
> to sign away their rights (and eventually their missions).
They killed the gooses that laid the golden eggs.
>
> DM in one swoop killed the goose that was laid the golden egg.
Yep.
>Without the mission network to bridge the gap, the transition from WOG to SEA
> OGRE, was much too great.
>
> A.K. Myers
> Old OT7 CL VI
> In da freezone since 1983
> Done with "the tech" since I found www.xenu.net
Good post, A.K.!!
grace...@gmail.com
Dear Muldoon,
See my responses below:
>
> As a side note - In late 1983, I had a conversation with Kingsley
> Wimbush, and asked him if he had found the "who" in his evaluation,
> searching for *the* "SP," to whom Scientology - over-all - was "PTS."
> His answer was, yes he had, and it was L. Ron Hubbard.
Many people have said this. However, I knew a number of people who
knew Hubbard personally. I think the majority had a very positive
viewpoint. And I'm talking about people mostly very 'out' of the
Church. Like Dottie Semlich, who got into Scn in 1950, worked with Ron
in D.C., became a Class 6, etc. She was a wonderful woman, my best
friend through a very rough time I had. Her earlier name was Dottie
Waller. She had mostly a positive view of Ron. She died a few years
ago after a long battle with emphysema.
I also spoke with a woman who was Hubbard's personal secretary and was
in the Sea Org. She also says that her experiences were mostly
positive.
I have spoken to a few people who had negative views. But most have
been positive.
>
> Well meaning people in Scientology thought Scientology was about
> "counseling" and "helping others," etc. In fact, it was about L. Ron
> Hubbard. People around Hubbard knew this; but well-meaning counseling
> types were always baffled as to why they were so shabbily treated. They
> hadn't realized that Scientology, primarily, wasn't about them, their
> good intentions, or the potentially beneficial aspects of *some* forms
> of counseling.
>
> It was about Hubbard's ego, his craving for power, and the
> implementation of his plan to use "mental healing" to "assert and
> maintain dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of idividuals..."
You know, I respect your right to your opinion, which I'm sure you have
developed after much inspection of Scientology and Hubbard. I have to
respectfully say, however, that my opinion does not correspond with
yours. Although I freely acknowledge that Hubbard had many faults, I
think that his accomplishments far outweigh his poor performance in
many areas.
grace...@gmail.com
Thank you for this very interesting viewpoint. I'll have to ponder
this for a while.
grace...@gmail.com
LordXenuCruise wrote:
> There is a another name for scientology auditing and that ia regression
> therapy and it has been around for a long time. The reason auditing
> works for some and not for others is because there is no therapy that
> works for everyone. Different people have different problems that need
> to be addressed in different ways. It is like tryng to put a screw in
> the wall with a wrench, if the head is the right shape it will work but
> if not it is not the screws fault. They just need a different tool to
> get the same effect. And telling someone with problems that reason
> auditing isn't working is beacuase it is their fault is just wrong.
This is, I think, a gross over simplification. All of Scientology is
not regression therapy. My experience with the subject is that it is
really vast! Besides the more commonly used and known parts of
Scientology, there are probably thousands of less well known techniques
and philosophical and spiritual theories from which could be generated
other tools for self-betterment and/or spiritual progress.
To be pedantic with you, there are technical bulletins that stress that
it is NEVER the preclear's fault if the auditing doesn't work. I
believe the reference I'm thinking about is about the fact that there
are 'no dog pcs'. Do you recall that issue? I have to admit that the
preclear is OFTEN made wrong. But this is a degradation in practice
from times when targetting the preclear was less common.
grace...@gmail.com
ladayla wrote:
> ace wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Sweetie, I'm so happy that you are posting here. You and Gracie
> have managed to keep a thread going without its' going PTS. It's sorta
> like the earlier days of ARS when scn was discussed without the
> deflection and distraction that marks the NG now.
Yes, sigh! Thank you, also, for posting.
> I hear from my relatives down there in Texas that it's cold as hell,
> and that hay ( for horses....my people own a ranch) has gone up to $
> 70.00 a bale. They are trying to think of a solution to having to shoot
> some of their horses. They are trying to feed about 30 horses. No one
> will buy them because everyone knows the high price of feeding them.
> When you talk to Dean, please pass it along that I made that trip to
> Costa Rica that we used to talk about.
Wow! Did you enjoy Costa Rica? It's a place I'd like to go to.
ace
memories....I would have no problem rating the NY Org of 1968 as the
best Org that ever existed.
The three top Execs were the three highest trained Tech people - Class
VII's. Between them, Bob Thomas, Dave and Lee Ecker, checked every
student and pc on lines to see they got what they were
promised.....every staff member cared for each other, the students
helped any way they could.
Sure there was much wrong as the NY Org was growing so fast.
I remember arriving in NY in Jan '68, I was SO Lt. at the time, and was
on Mission to expand the Mission network and run my Missions which were
Boston, St Louis, and Dallas, (can you imagine the jealousy and envy
that created, for I was senior to the GO, all Orgs world-wide.)....any
way I offered to do an impromptu lecture.....gave them a couple of
hours to promote it......520 people turned up.
We had a great time.....so I offered to do another lecture that
night.......gave them another 3 hours.....and more than 1200 people
turned up....
Amazing!!!!!
BTW Bob, Dave and Lee and I became very good friends - a friendship
that has lasted all these years.
A.
ace
After the events, the stats had gone out the roof, all time highest
evers world-wide.
I sent a telex to LRH and relayed the news.
I left and went back to Dallas - a couple of days later I get this
enraged phone call from Bob Thomas.....calling me a sorts of names.
It took a while for him to cool down - what had happened LRH had
telexed all the Orgs and said the SO and I had created these incredible
stats.
Of course completely making nothing of the Org.
I had Bob telex LRH;
Christ Ron - are you trying to get me annihilated?
I was just the messenger...Bob Thomas, Dave and Lee Ecker, Frank
Geltman and all the NY staff and students made it happen....please
correct your previous Telex and include the NY staff.
Bob sent the telex....LRH corrected the previous telex....phew!!!! : -
)
A.
bb
ace wrote:
> Grace, your mentioning the NY Org. brought back many great
> memories....I would have no problem rating the NY Org of 1968 as the
> best Org that ever existed.
>
> The three top Execs were the three highest trained Tech people - Class
> VII's. Between them, Bob Thomas, Dave and Lee Ecker, checked every
> student and pc on lines to see they got what they were
> promised.....
How appropriate that senior policy was actually being dilligently
applied by
this most successful org, and from the top!
It has for sometime been my opinion that the decline of COS can be
plotted
against the degree of reversal of First, Senior, and Service PLs.
I commented on this some years ago, and have realised it may have
been
your last act as a scientologist in good standing. My Twin on the 81/2
FEBC
evolution as part of a practical set up a talk by you to public etc at
flag. Shortly after he, with extreme VBIs, told me you'd been declared.
Never
saw anyone look so sick before or since.
bb
ace
bb wrote:
> ace wrote:
> > Grace, your mentioning the NY Org. brought back many great
> > memories....I would have no problem rating the NY Org of 1968 as the
> > best Org that ever existed.
> >
> > The three top Execs were the three highest trained Tech people - Class
> > VII's. Between them, Bob Thomas, Dave and Lee Ecker, checked every
> > student and pc on lines to see they got what they were
> > promised.....
>
> How appropriate that senior policy was actually being dilligently
> applied by
> this most successful org, and from the top!
What destroyed the integrity of the tech was the "Examiner Line."
Before that was introduced you could check the pc to see if they had
truly attained the full EP of the process.
The Examiner Let the unhatted pc go by with unattained basic EP's and
consequently introduced "pretence" and false attests.
>
> It has for sometime been my opinion that the decline of COS can be
> plotted
> against the degree of reversal of First, Senior, and Service PLs.
>
Definitely.
Control freaks use policy as a weapon to control and subjugate.
> I commented on this some years ago, and have realised it may have
> been
> your last act as a scientologist in good standing. My Twin on the 81/2
> FEBC
> evolution as part of a practical set up a talk by you to public etc at
>
> flag. Shortly after he, with extreme VBIs, told me you'd been declared.
> Never
> saw anyone look so sick before or since.
LOL!! Correct item found!!!
A.
>
> bb
ace
One of the things that contributed to destroying the integrity of the
tech was the "Examiner Line."
Before that was introduced you could check the pc to see if they had
truly attained the full EP of the process.
The Examiner Line let the unhatted pc go by with unattained basic EP's
and
consequently introduced "pretence" and false attests.
Now you had the intolerable situation of invalidating the pc's state. :
- (
A.
bb
ace wrote:
> What destroyed the integrity of the tech was the "Examiner Line."
> Before that was introduced you could check the pc to see if they had
> truly attained the full EP of the process.
>
> The Examiner Let the unhatted pc go by with unattained basic EP's and
> consequently introduced "pretence" and false attests.
I don't recall this ever being commented on before. In fact a friend
told
me how way back in Washington DC, on finishing grade 0, she got
interrogated by then ED Bill Franks, who'd check things out. I'll see
if I
can find the mail. Was an amusing story, she got a bit stroppy with
him,
and he told here " Your doing fine honey."
How and why did this line get introduced? I've never thought to
question
this before. Its one of those " Everybody knows" things.
bb
bb
Here's the story. bb
http://www.freewebs .com/techoutside thecofs
http://internationa lfreezone. net
-------------------
I personally knew Bill Franks. I'd like to have the link here when you
can pass it on. Bill appreciated honesty in a big way. I was pretty
rude to him on occassion and he backed right off, went mute. From my
experience Bill could not tolerate anything synthetic. And he was a
very simple man. One night in D.C. Org he sat across from me in an
ambivilant way, kind of bored. He was the E.D. and he had something in
a plastic bag under his hand. He took a big breath and went on a
recruitment rap for about three minutes to get me on staff. I had just
finished level O and was completely frank then about my disinterest
about joining staff. No excuses or anything like that, I just said
"this looks like torture, I have NO interest, sorry but that's the way
it is." He was so cool. He said, "Thanks for being honest. You
know...you're the first woman I ever met that looked me straight in the
eye." He got really humble then and he pulled this steak out from
underneath his arm. Yes, you know, a rib eye or something in a plastic
bag. He said "Someone gave me this and I'm going to go home and eat
it." I said something like "wow, great looking steak have fun eating".
Then he said, "You really are not into food are you?" At that time I
think I was 5' 5" and about 100 pounds. Actually same as his wife
Jeannie at the time, who was my c/s. I said "I guess not" or whatever.
"I'm annoying you aren't I"? He said. I had just an hour before
attested to grade 0 and I couldn't believe the words coming out of my
mouth but I said, "Yes, kind of". He said, "Yeah well this is how I
qual our grade 0 completions here and I'm pretty happy with you honey"!
And he got up and walked out the front door. He was a real down home
guy. I became friends with my auditor there and the reg, later they
moved to New York and moved in on me and the celebrity center there.
Very talented people, artists. I found out from them Bill could get
real mean. He broke one of them's ribs (the reg) and I was told he beat
up his wife in the c/s office once. (Jeannie). Jeannie I met up with
again in L.A. in 1993. She came down from up lines to take over L.A.
day org, she was Sea Org then. She married a reg in AOLA, a young
handsome fellow. She looked 25 I don't know how............just
beautiful. I also heard stories about Bill Franks shooting his gun in
the desert. He was rough but the the staff loved him. I remembered when
LRH died knowing he had been posted by Ron as ED Int and feeling good
about it.
To Be
ace
> I commented on this some years ago, and have realised it may have
> been your last act as a scientologist in good standing. My Twin on the
> 81/2 FEBC evolution as part of a practical set up a talk by you to
> public etc at
> flag. Shortly after he, with extreme VBIs, told me you'd been declared.
> Never saw anyone look so sick before or since.
LOL!! Correct item found!!!
The truth is I had sealed my fate several days before.
On the eve of the 2nd Mission Holders Conference I had Bill Franks
hiding out in my room.
He had just escaped from being locked up at Gold. Made his way back
from Hemet to Clearwater.
Down stairs we had several hundred people from all over the world
waiting for Bill to get things going.
Imagine the missed withhold I had knowing things were just as bad as
the were during the old GO regime...
The people were there because I had promised things were going to
change for the better....duh!!
In my room I also had all the top CMO people, DM, Starkey, Reynolds,
Fager?, Reisdorfs, Mayo and a bunch more.
DM and the CMO were terrified as to what was going on.
We had this meeting to see if we could align things.
Well I and my big mouth was a tad outraged at being put in this
position.
So I came out swinging...How dare they imprison Franks in a locked room
at Gold was my opening statement.
DM explained what had happened....Franks had an out 2d situation prior
to being made ED Int. Franks had gotten the withhold off in session.
Mayo had read this and told DM.
Off course this pissed me off even worse...I launched into
Mayo..calling him a treacherous bastard, etc. Violating session
confidentiality
Any way things grew progressively more intense!
Franks told what he had occurred - BTW he was not just imprisoned, he
was tied by rope to a chair, how he had escaped from Gold - How a
Highway Patrolman had picked him up on the highway outside Gold and had
taken him to the airport.
Anyway I ended up calling DM "a treacherous twit!!!" He said
don't say that again...of course I did. He threaten to obliterate me
if I said it again...I said "Fuck off."
I know how to make friends : - )))
It was obvious to me that LRH was too sick to be on lines. That the
Game was probably over. I looked at that sorry bunch of Execs and
thought to myself...."you're gonna let this bunch determine your
future...no way!!
It was about 5 weeks later I was declared.
A.
ted_c...@hotmail.com
> Correction:
>
> One of the things that contributed to destroying the integrity of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> tech was the "Examiner Line."
Thank you for the correction. :-)
And prior to the perceived need for an Examiner there must have been
some elements of distrust connected to the auditors. I have FES'd some
folders from the time of Quickie Grades. Oh, boy -- a relatively few
minutes and a fleeting F/N per each Grade then on to Solo. Who
instituted Quickie Grades? I would trace it to LRH unless you can throw
more light onto the period.
And behind that there was the ever constant organizational push to make
stats. Who had to have stats going up, up, up while the pc hadn't much
opportunity to live a bit and explore his new abilities or come back in
to say he hadn't make them yet?
And where did this idea of a gain being permanent come from? The pc
becoming more alive gets into more and new stuff he never attempted
before. Grades can go in and out. Clear comes and goes. It isn't
important that the cowboy never again gets thrown from the bronc. That's
an unlikely condition. What's important is that he can recognize when
he's down and get back up on the horse.
Anyway... Good thread! Carry on!
--
Ted
ace
it was to check for F/n's.
The target being 100% F/n's.
If your pc did not get an F/N at the examiner, you got thrown
overboard.
The ship was docked in Corfu, Greece.
The overboards were very dangerous as many could not swim, also it was
at least 40 feet to the water.
The overboards occurred at 8.00 am in the morning, it was very chilly.
the water was putrid with raw sewage from the ships floating
by....usually there were 10 or 12 overboards every morning.
I remember diving overboard to save some poor old lady who could not
swim....she also broke 2 ribs hitting the side of the ship.....anyway
as I helped her up to the dock, there was LRH with a camera filming
us......I looked into his eye's....he was truly demonic at that moment.
So the stat was F/N's.
We were all terrified - it was a horrendous Course.
The Quickie Grades started from that time......more because the stat
was F/N - not EP's or acheived states.
Also if you went by an F/N you were comm eved and lost all your certs
and had to retrain.
That was also the beginning of abuse of Auditors.
Yes....LRH instigated quickie grades. It started on Oct 16th 1968.
A.
Skipper
At every moment. Too bad it took so long to find out.
Who was it that came up with the "Mankind's Greatest Friend" bullshit?
LOL
In article <1165962920....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ace
bb
I must say Alan I take your omments on the examiners line seriously.
But see what I've just broadly posted below. This " delayed win" is
also part of my experience, and I'm sure also of many.
As it happens this person has posted many wins on the duration of the
program.
If not though How might this be handled by a tech organisation. Lol!
I
probably know your answer. Would like it spelt out in detail. :)
bb
------------------------
TECH outside COS: Success from Ethics Program.
This is delayed. This is so Scientology, delays in wins. Because you
have to live for a while to realize sometimes that something IS AWFULLY
DIFFERENT!
I never would have mentioned this as a goal, never saw it as a
handicap!
But I have noticed since my ethics program I do not need people.
I don't know what this is connected to or why, but my avid craving for
people is gone.
If I never saw another one when I awoke in the morning it would be just
alright with me.
I only at this time think it would be hard to live without the music.
T.I.
For more information on services in the Freezone,
mail me, Terril Park, at bbafzao@hotmail. com
This address can also be found in the next URL.
To find out more about us and to join our
forums see our websites at :-
http://www.freewebs .com/techoutside thecofs
http://internationa lfreezone. net
For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of
these subjects. The forum website also has a couple of
dictionaries of scientology terms.
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Freezone10 1/
Skipper
<basic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I must say Alan I take your omments on the examiners line seriously.
> But see what I've just broadly posted below. This " delayed win" is
> also part of my experience, and I'm sure also of many.
I had an enormous "delayed win" from $cientology - when I walked away
from it. At a certain point I realized I was no longer covered in
bullshit!
ace
Skipper wrote:
> In article <1165966170.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, bb
> <basic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I must say Alan I take your omments on the examiners line seriously.
> > But see what I've just broadly posted below. This " delayed win" is
> > also part of my experience, and I'm sure also of many.
>
> I had an enormous "delayed win" from $cientology - when I walked away
> from it. At a certain point I realized I was no longer covered in
> bullshit!
Thats wonderful!!! Skipper......so then what sort of shit are you now
covered in? : - )
A.
ida...@aol.com
Skip is one who didn't pretend to leave the cult-- He left -One can
see
by this post there are several who talk of leaving but are still deeply
engrossed with the old con artists cult.
I have a call from a lady in Maryland whose son is thinking of signing
the contract. Thankful that there are areas on the net that I can point
her to where she can get honest help.
Ida Camburn
It's too bad there isn't a 20th Century Charles
Dickens to write about the terrible destruction of
these 20th Century fagins who make themselves rich
while they destroy the psyche of so many.
Cong. Leo Ryan
Dec. l0, l976
realpch
You know, it's threads like this that keep me reading ARS.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
ace
I'm heartbroken......
ML, (use)
A.
Muldoon
> Verminius Lardiculi wrote:
> > antisectes wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say that apart from the TRs and some insistance to get the
> > > significance of words when studying (being able to better recognize
> > > which words are possibly mis-Us), scientology is mostly dangerous and
> > > damaging the people when it proceeds for some time.
> >
> > I agree that scientology is dangerous, and the more so the longer
> > you're in the cult. However, I'd include the TRs as one of the most
> > damaging interventions used by the cult.
> >
> > On a purely mechanistic level, if the 'auditor' is thinking about the
> > quality of his communucation, whether his acknowledgement is
> > appropriate, if his commands impinge, etc., which he will be if he is
> > concerned about keeping in his TRs, then he will not really be in the
> > session with the pre-clear, and so his critical faculties - vital to
> > any real therapy - are sorely attenuated. But it's not just mechanistic
> > -- it is also hypnotic.
> >
> > TRs are extremely hypnotic; fixating on one's 'communication'
> > predisposes the 'auditor' toward greater suggestibility and hypnotic
> > euphoria, both of which subvert critical thinking. TRs are the reason
> > why in scientology, both the person receiving 'therapy' and the
> > 'therapist' are hypnotised. This does not happen to anything like the
> > same degree in any other practice, it's almost unique to scientology,
> > and I feel that it's a big reason why the victims of scientology in
> > particular find it so difficult to shake off the thought-reform of the
> > cult.
>
> Wow!! I couldn't disagree with you more!! I never audited in the way
> you describe. So maybe you should speak for yourself. And if you ever
> audited the way you describe or were audited that way it is no wonder
> that there were no results.
>
> Fixation on one's 'performance' as an auditor would be the epitome of
> OUT TRs!!! It would make the auditor 'interesting' not 'interested'
> and thus incapable of helping another.
>
> It's amazing to me how people can get it so wrong.
>
> Scientology is best applied with a deep understanding of the underlying
> philosophy and basics of the subject.
>
> Please give me your training level and experience as an auditor so I
> understand where you're coming from.
There is a view that all activity that is described with the word
"auditing" must be - and can only be - an hypnotic procedure in which a
hypnotic euphoria is obtained.
The problem I have with this assertion is that it is usually made in
absolute terms. (It *must always* be so - exceptions are not possible.)
Additionally, the word "hypnosis" is sometimes used with its broadest
possible meaning. (Earlier, I used the occurrence of a person water
skiing as an example of an activity that involved some degree of mental
focus, but was *not* "hypnosis." However, there are those who would
insist that water skiing does involves an auto-hypnotic state, and that
even reading these words requires a form of auto-hypnosis. So
"hypnosis" is a word that has multiple meanings.
(My view is that the deceptive and manipulative aspects of Scientology
have already been described, and without reference to the problematic
(multi-defined) term "hypnosis," and that the struggle has been to have
what has long been described become understood. Simply inserting the
word "hypnotic" in front of anything having to do with Scientology does
not necessarily increase understanding. BUT, it is a valid area of
exploration, and I am grateful to those doing the exploring, but the
area (and word) needs defining, not dogmatic insistence, or buzz word
status.)
Also, Hubbard, who practiced self-hypnosis in the 1930s and 1940s, and
who was confident in his ability to have "hypnotic influence" over
others, made a point of de-emphasizing the notion that "hypnosis" is
ever used in Dianetics or Scientology, even coming up with the term,
"Pain Drug Hypnosis" to distract from the possibility that he may -
himself - have been using forms of hypnosis, or suggestion, on others.
(Much the same way that he circulated his "Brainwashing Manual" -
partly - to convince others that he could never be involved in any
activity that might constitute "Brainwashing.")
Yet, as this and other discussions would indicate, the subject called
"auditing" is not *all* one thing. Obviously, other things can occur in
"auditing" besides "hypnosis induced euphoria."
Unfourtunately, a discussion on this topic between those holding
contrary views is difficult.
Camp A cannot talk (except briefly) to Camp B, nor camp B to Camp A.
Since I visit both "camps," I can see that each could learn something
from the other.
Since we are all on the same side - and for exposing the Destructive
Cult of Scientology, and assisting others to free themselves from its
influence, at least we can understand each other. Certainly, on some
issues, we will never completely agree with each other, which, at
times, may seem annoying, but is actually a natural occurrence.
One of the things that baffles the Cult is that people can honestly
communicate with each other, in a civil fashion, while also *not*
agreeing. The Cult has "PR," but it does not have honesty. And, when it
is "honest," it rapidly turns nasty.
So we will never all agree, but we can, hopefully, get along, short of
general mayhem. At least, until computers come equipped with Zen poking
poles, which can be activated at the other end of an electronic debate.
Until that time, at least, the more viewpoints expressed, the merrier.
Jommy Cross
<1165925788.0...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>To be pedantic with you, there are technical bulletins that stress that
>it is NEVER the preclear's fault if the auditing doesn't work. I
>believe the reference I'm thinking about is about the fact that there
>are 'no dog pcs'.
A true pedant would have the reference, imho.
>Do you recall that issue? I have to admit that the
>preclear is OFTEN made wrong. But this is a degradation in practice
>from times when targetting the preclear was less common.
Hubbard seems to have some kind of fascination with dogs, possibly caused
by his hatred of Pavlov. The word appears often.
Perhaps you mean
BLAMING THE PC
Never blame the pc. Many it is true are dog cases.
But even dog cases can be handled.
When you find auditors (or feel yourself) blaming the pc, get the overts
and withholds run out.
L Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1971 CS Series 42 C/S RULES
or
But a lot of "dog cases" are just unsolved cases that can be solved. Some
are very difficult, true, but the difficulty is finding the bug.
L Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 8 AUGUST 1971 C/S Series 55 THE IVORY TOWER
or
AN AUDITOR WHO CANNOT AUDIT, WHOSE TRs ARE OUT, WHOSE
METERING IS BAD AND WHO NEVER KEEPS THE CODE ALWAYS SAYS HIS
PCs ARE DOGS.
[...]
Every "dog pc" investigated traced to incompetent programming, C/Sing, out
TRs, bad metering, Code breaks and bad lists.
L Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JUNE 1972 C/S Series 80 "DOG PCs"
So when the undeliverable promises are undelivered, it's *somebody's*
fault, but it's *not* the Holy Tech. There are no dog pcs while their
credit's good.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------