From inside Geir’s head while on OT 7

(An ordinary day while I was solo auditing [doing spiritual counseling on myself] on the second highest spiritual level in Scientology.)

Crap. I just may have forgot to turn the knob. Or did I do it? No… no I didn’t… I think. Shit. Gotta call Katrine and tell her to turn it a few times. I don’t want to know if I left the safe unlocked. Cause if I did, there will be havoc on my next Refresher at Flag. Another Intensive of Sec Checking worth some USD 7500. And they will find out. No way to hide the truth. If I did mess up and leave the safe open, and the auditor asks that question about “out security”, the e-meter will pick it up. And the auditor will dig and dig and dig until I cough up my blunder. My crime. After all, I have the most secret of secrets in my safe back at home. The OT 7 materials. I can’t even imagine what would happen to a person not at this level on the Bridge getting his hands on those materials. I mean, the correction list contains every secret on this level. It was a close call when that Indian security guard at the airport demanded I unlocked my briefcase so that he could inspect it. He actually took out some of the material and looked it over. Thank God he didn’t actually read it. No, no. Got to fend the thoughts off. Can’t think about the procedures, the content of the material outside of session. Frak, back to focus. Call Katrine.

Hi, it’s me. You need to go down to the safe and turn the knob a few times. Don’t ask. Need to be 100% sure about the security. … You done? OK, thanks. Love you, bye.

Ah, that felt good. But did I leave it unlocked? Did I go “out security”? Thankfully I will never know. She didn’t check to see if it was open. Nobody will know. Not Flag, not me, not Katrine. But what if she DID check to see if it was open? Maybe unintentionally? Maybe she moved the door a tiny bit and discovered it to be open. Would she have noticed? Would she tell me? I should call her and ask… But if I don’t, then I won’t know if she knew. But that thought of doubt may just show up on the e-meter when I go to Flag. Maybe I should take it up in my next solo session… Just run it out as a rudiment. But heck, then my Case Supervisor will know and then the Director of Processing and then the Ethics Officer. Fuck. I got to forget it. It’s probably not important. It probably was locked after all. I’m sure I turned the knob when I put the material into the safe. I must have. Or?

Focus, man! The road. Cars. Nice Porche. Wonder what model… See – I am forgetting already. Damn, thought of it again. Car, car, car… Will I get my 4 sessions today? I need two more to reach that target. Yeah, I get off at 16:00, be home at 17:00, go straight into a session after grabbing a bite. Session lasts 10-15 minutes. End of at approximately 17:30. Chill and eat some more. Take a bunch of vitamines and back into session around 18:30. End the last session at 19:00 max. Get kids to bed and head for the bed myself – at around 20:30. Have to be at sleep by 21:00 to get up at 5 in the morning to get my two morning sessions. Yeah, I should be able to get four every day this week. Nothing to distract from my main quest.

Wonder when I’ll be done. I’ve been on for less than a year by now. Probably takes me two or three years more to finish The Level. Ah, that will be soooo damn good. I should be able to get an average of four sessions per day. Hell that’s 1450 sessions per year. And if I complete the level in four years, that will be more than five thousand sessions total. That’s a lot of auditing. And with the wins and gains I’m having, I’ll be freakin’ Superman before I’m done. I’ve never felt this awake, this potent, this on top of life before.

Except for this security thing. Crap, that thought again. Was it really locked? Yeah, it must have been…

216 thoughts on “From inside Geir’s head while on OT 7

  1. Hilarious!!

    I had to laugh as I read the first sentence.

    I knew exactly what it was like – had some of the same thought too.

    Hell, I’d be getting ready to start session and immediately after ‘Start of Session’ …

    … ‘Did I really lock that door?’ 🙂

    Yes, the security stress was always there.

    I remember finishing the OT 1 materials – stayed late – real late to finish. I accomplished a lot that day and was proud 🙂

    So, the staff had gone home so I left my OT 1 pack & checksheet dead center on the supervisor’s desk.

    Nope, he wasn’t going to miss the fact I finished the checksheet – yippee!!

    Early the next morning (yes, I always was 1st in and last to go) I walked in ready to get my briefcase and start auditing.

    The Board I/C (also the supervisor) looked up said ‘Good Morning’.. I said I was there to get my case. I was wondering why no congrats …

    He looked at me and said, ‘Okay, let’s check out that checksheet you finished’, and he held out his hand.

    Yep, one big facepalm …

    He reached under the counter and pulled out my Student to MAA Routing Form … wouldn’t ya know it – he already had it filled out!!

    Lucky me! Speed of particle flow 🙂 Hahahaha

  2. You’ve put it down to security stress, but I think there may be a more general curse in auditing that this falls under. Sometimes I would feel that my privacy, my space, my beingness was being invaded and that the meter put me in an utterly helpless position. I didn’t WANT to tell the auditor that I noticed her feet smelled! But I had to – obviously she had seen the needle manifestation. That’s just one example.

    You have hit upon the one big thing I found to be competely baffling and ironic about the e-meter aspect of auditing – I felt at times it took away my freedom of choice, And I hated hated hated that. There must be whole track earlier similars on this kind of thing – too much BPC on it.

    But there are also utter miracles to be had that seem to require the use of a meter, so it’s sort of a double-edged sword. I hope there’s an answer to this conundrum that someone knows of and that it doesn’t have to be this way.

    1. Very good post. I totally get what you wrote. For me, you’ve written a clean statement of what one must confront, as in the statement “the way out is the way through.” And as Geir previously posted that when one feels urges in an area, then to that degree, one loses freedom in that area. As the urges evaporate, then so do the feelings of vulnerability and “helplessness.”

      The gross heat and discomfort and urges that one feels when sitting “in the hot seat” dissipates as one confronts and confronts and confronts. In my opinion, the uncomfortable aspect of being asked and answering introvertive questions dissipates in a trustworthy setting. Operative word being trustworthy and this setting has several cardinal elements to become trustworthy. So I feel that there is not a conundrum except as it relates to having wholesome intentions on the parts of both PC and auditor and also as it relates to Auditor’s Code and professionalism being engaged fully. Hard to bring all these together? Why yes it is, but the miraculous results that you (Marildi) promote are the result of these unlikely pieces coming together in model session.

      In the absence of model session, both PC and auditor can have a really rough time and Scientologists can conclude that auditing is disharmonic and forceful. For those promoters of yoga, I think that “model session” might correctly be described as quite an advanced yoga position.

      1. Chris: “…‘model session’ might correctly be described as quite an advanced yoga position”.

        I burst out laughing when I read that, picturing those extreme pretzel poses. But I got your comparison – a good one. (Hey, this is a switch for you and me – I am criticizing the tech and you are sort of defending it ;)) Actually, I didn’t quite mean what you are talking about. I’m in full agreement with the principle of “the way out is the way through” and did fine in that respect, even when it took some confront.

        The example I gave is in a different category. The auditor had slipped her shoes off and I noticed that her feet smelled and immediately thought, “Oh no – I hope my needle doesn’t react – I don’t want to tell her that!” The smelly feet was no big deal – the big deal was when she asked if I had any considerations (the dirty needle question) and I had to tell her. Of course, as it was a criticism she also then checked for MWH and there wasn’t one, but it would have been fine if there had been – that wasn’t the point.

        The point was that I felt my freedom of choice had been denied, that my private thoughts that had nothing to do with case should be mine. Not that there were too many instances of this kind, and it truly wasn’t a big deal, but I felt “invaded”. And Geir’s vivid description of his experience seemed like a similar kind of thing, in a way. He tried not to have certain thoughts but couldn’t help it, and the security issue was given an importance that it shouldn’t have been.

        But you know, I think you answered the question – it was a matter of model session being out. There is even a specific point on that to do with smells in the auditing room. And most likely, other instances where I felt the same way were probably a matter of out-tech too. Thank you, Chris!

    2. I know just what you mean about the smelly feet! I hated having to tell stupid stupid things like that the auditor had yellow teeth or was fat or or or… And once you go down that road, it becomes more and more solid and more and more things come to mind. It is unproductive and introverting and nothing about what auditing is supposed to be about.

      1. I brought this up to the independent auditor that I had for my last auditing and he told me I did not have to tell him my thoughts. Then they become less and less important. They become what they are and that is truly insignificant random thoughts that deserve zero attention.

        1. Grateful, thanks for that. I knew I couldn’t be the only one. You described it well where you said “…unproductive and introverting and nothing about what auditing is supposed to be about”. And Geir’s calling it “the Flag thought police” also expresses just the feeling I had at those times.

  3. The upper level tech should be available and free to check on line with a good ilustrated glosary. Avalaible and with no copyright reserves as regards reading it by any human being with the purpose of not creating a mistery sandwich or PTPs. Any interested person will seek for it and the uninterested ones will seek whatever else thus no law demands for the church.

  4. At AOLA, they still make the solo auditors jump through security hoops. Even have a fingerprint ID system and a lockdown of the entire floor if an OT pack passes a trip wire in the floor or ceiling.

    This, even though the OT 3 material has been online for a few decades.

    I think it is more about the pageantry of doing the OT levels than actually the security of it.

    1. I agree. I will post another insight soon about my thoughts while jumping the security hoops inside the FLAG OT VI/VII area. It’s pretty intense.

  5. I agree with katageek and wanted to say that too – this is a great read! Like the beginning of some high suspense novel or movie where a guy is involved in some insidious mind game that he’s forced to play and can’t escape, Or some similar plot with everything to gain but at an excruciating price. Sorry if I’m exaggerating – one thing I do know is that your story has a happy ending! But the writing style is so fast-paced and REAL. I was living it with you 😀

      1. Hi Tor Ivar. Did you know that Geir is writing an autobiography? He said that it’s going to be in Norwegian and didn’t know if it would be translated to English. So if it isn’t we’ll have to find someone who speaks both languages and get an unofficial translation. Know anybody? 😀

  6. I’m so glad I never got onto OTVII or OTVIII, especially after seeing too many good friends die…did you know Ole Boskov? OTVIII completion, died from liver cancer last year. Very sad.

  7. Your experiences are yours.

    You have a right to say what you did, and what all your thoughts and feelings are about it.

    But you already knew that, didn’t you, G?.

    Judging from what you left out of your post, here is my comment: There is no danger to anyone in revealing anything on the OT Levels. The danger is in allowing the installed phobias that L Ron Hubbard created in Scientologists to continue to control their minds.

    http://alanzosblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-l-ron-hubbard-tricked-you-ot-levels.html

    Tell it all, Geir.

    Don’t hold yourself, and your friends, back.

    Alanzo

    1. I give an insight into my thoughts when I was doing OT 7. The thoughts were all I thought at that time – nothing more, nothing less. That’s all.

      1. All right. I can totally accept that.

        It’s just that when you titled this: “From inside Geir’s head while on OT 7” I thought that it could include a larger sampling from inside your head while on OT 7.

        But again, that’s okay. It is a very well written piece and I don’t want my comment to distract from that. You show very well how crazy the environment is when you are on OT 7 in the Church.

        Alanzo

        1. You expected it to be “Everything that went on inside Geir’s head during the 3,5 years while ha was doing OT 7”?

            1. It’s the joke of the day 😉

              Those who get it should find it quite funny. Those who don’t would go “uh?”.

            2. uh? 😀

              Okay, I guess one of these days or years I’ll think back and laugh 🙂

            3. “It was the best of levels. It was the worst of levels …”

              KG, that was an amusing line :). But you, Alonzo, Vinaire and others amaze me that you almost always pick right up on the negative and run with it, and seem not to be able to even SEE the positive. Or you put it down to brainwashing or cult effects or some other cynical viewpoint. But you guys know Geir and you know that he is quite forthright about the outnesses in Scn, as much so as the positive, and has even put some things in a category of more harm than good (like admin tech, for example).

              He’s even said that for all he knows he may have been able to make similar gains on some other path than Scn. But also says that from what he knows, it is the best we have. And you also know by now that he is honest. Personally, what I found to be the most notable thing in this blog post (even though it wasn’t his main point) was this:

              “I’ve never felt this awake, this potent, this on top of life before.”

              Who doesn’t yearn for that kind of self realization? And to this day Geir continues to feel that way about his gains – it wasn’t just a momentary illusion (much as critics would like to make it into). You’ve seen his stats.

              As a critic, you are unique and it’s interesting that you hang out with us, as you yourself have said. I can’t help but wonder if that’s because you are basically of like mind to “our kind” and that you really want to be convinced that there actually is a soul and free will. But on the other hand you won’t let anything or anybody convince you! No matter what strong evidence or amount of it may be in front of your nose.

              Okay, kindred soul, that’s your little lecture for the day 😉

            4. Marildi.

              What I’m here for is to be…

              1. A butterfly in a forest flapping its wings to STOP a tornado. And …

              2. See if it is possible for leaders of a religion to confront the religions cult mechanics when politely and consistently pointed out by a person who is GENUINELY trying to be a friend to people who don’t share my religious beliefs.

              That is all.

              Such actions have labeled me “OSA.”

              And, from what I see, the answer to 2 is not looking good. I had hope that a few Scientology leaders could see my point about being open about the “secret sauce” in courses like HQS and the Com Course, but it is time to be honest and say my efforts have failed.

              No religion has EVER done this and I don’t see an exception soon.

              And that’s okay. I’ve learned a lot in the process. What you see as interest is the effect of “Cognitive Dissonance.” When we humans see two things that don’t connect and conflict, we try to find ways to make them fit.

              In short, we drink our own kool-aid more often than not. One just needs to recognize it and deal with it.

              There is a method to fix much of this. It’s a committed Science-based mindset.

              Not perfect. But a better kind of wrong.

            5. Thanks, KG. I actually don’t doubt your genuineness as regards trying to point out the cult mechanics in Scientology. Not at all!

              It’s just that there seems to be a 1-way flow where you only want to communicate your convictions and do not seem to be willing to accept or even receive what others – who have been there – are saying. Not trying to put you down, but much of your understanding of Scn principles and practices is flawed. It seems to be based on hearsay and/or misunderstandings of what you’ve read or how you have interpreted that, based on no direct experience. And when this type of thing is apparent to those who know the data it will make you less than convincing, believe me – except to the critics choir.

              The critics will tend to strengthen such distorted ideas since they are inflicted with the same. It is obvious from most of their comments that they have misunderstood the materials and have experienced gross misapplications of it. That’s my perception after reading many of those comments and attempting to discuss various points with them.

              It’s not that I’m unwilling or unable to see the outpoints in Scn – I too have had to change my views. There was a time when it was very hard for me to even entertain the idea that there could be anything wrong with the tech or with LRH or his intentions. Now I actually question these as a matter of course (although some people here will find that hard to believe, LOL). That is a fairly recent viewpoint, but it’s true.

              Yes, you could say that I was a victim of cult influences, and so is anybody who is fixed in their views, Scn or otherwise – including those who are striving to get others to become unstuck, like both you I. Drinking our own koolaid (good one!).

              I am very sure that you have done some good, maybe a lot. I just wish you had the correct data about Scn along with the truths about the heavy cult potential. You could do even more. So don’t go away, Zen butterfly manny! 🙂

            6. Okay. You think I don’t have all the data and accept or receive the opinions of others.
              .
              Thanks for the feedback. I’ll work on my clarification skills.

            7. You may or may not have been influenced by the opinions of others, it just seemed possible. But the thing I am sure of is that you don’t have correct data about Scientology itself. I would be happy if you were just open and willing to “hear” when someone like Dennis or Maria try to set something straight as regards something you or someone else has said about Scn principles or tech. Both of them are well versed on the data and both have received a lot of the Bridge. (And of course you should also listen to ME :D)

              Better yet, re-read the materials in the light of what’s been said by those who have good backgrounds in Scientology. Best of all, see for yourself how it works. 😉

            8. And …

              With all the changes in the Mother Church, I have tried to be a terminal to help people look at Scientology and awaken from the cult effects within the tech and encourage them to look at things honestly and own their own eyes.

              It took me TEN YEARS. I hoped to quicken the curve for some.

              I’ve tried to not be too snarky and sometimes I have not done so well.

              I’ve been able to do this because I lost my job awhile ago and my wife’s career soared and created a life so busy for her that our family requires me to be a manny to get by with our kids.

              So Marty’s “OSA Agent’ is just a Zen Manny!

              Anyway, I’m getting more freelance work and that is good. And I’ve reconnected to my Zendo and am doing an all day sit tomorrow. I’ve used the time off to go vegan, lose 35 pounds, study everything I wanted to know about the Universe and all the possible ways a “Me” can exist that either does or doesn’t have free will or being.

              And now it’s on to something else. I’ve flapped my wings in the forest. Hopefully, it helped.

            9. Marildi, I have the data.

              It’s all on the web for free.

              I’ve read the books without anyone to “guide” my opinions about the words.

              I’ve viewed ample videos and books by people who knew Hubbard personally: Hanna Whitfield, Gerry Armstrong, Mike Goldstein, Helen O’Brian. John McMasters, Newspaper articles concerning claims by LRH’s wife …

              It’s huge.

              I’ve communicated with people like you for over two years and tried to not be obnoxious. I

              So I have the data and the viewpoints of the people who are “Pro” and “Con.” Now I know you may think I’ve been influenced by the data I received by these clears and OTS but I think I can see beyond their bias.

              I know how to evaluate data. It’s called “Do claims align with results?”

              And Geir, you can’t hang around a group without picking up terms like “Terminal.”

              “I mean after swimming in Scientology as long as I have, you get an ARC on the subject and find that you can reach and withdraw from it and see how people get stuck in group engrams that need to be addressed …”

              blink … blink … Yeah. I need to return to my zen practice. Damn that cognitive dissonance.

              And Geir, the badge Marty gave me is … no big deal. Just proof of my views about the subject.

              Imagine what such a label would do to someone who really wasn’t OSA. How would that change their view of the subject matter? So no. I seek no exoneration. Why would I?

              IF I wasn’t OSA, it would be the ultimate proof to me that the tech DOESN’T work wouldn’t it?

              My purpose here has been clearly stated from the beginning. I’m here to help the Leaders (OTs) who have left Scientology to understand how cult dynamics work and honestly see for themselves how they fit with Scientology, and how they can choose to fearlessly address them in the future versions of the subject. THAT THEY CAN HONESTLY ADMIT THAT THEY ARE THERE AND STILL BE SCIENTOLOGISTS.

              (flap, flap)

            10. Katageek, I’m not trying to get you to stop doing something you feel is a needed and worthwhile contribution – and I don’t say it isn’t needed and worthwhile.
              Let’s look at it this way. If someone had only read Zen writings but had little or no personal experience with Zen, should that person necessarily believe the conceptions and conclusions of others who also had little or no experience? Shouldn’t they pay more attention to what Zen teachers and masters had to say, even though those expressed something different from what this person had themselves understood from the materials? Let’s also say that those Zen masters with their great amount of experience generally shared with one another the same conclusions and conceptions about Zen – that might mean something too, wouldn’t you agree? I doubt that you yourself have chosen as your personal Zen teacher someone who fits in the first category.

              Anyway, the main thing I was trying to say is that it might help you with your cause if you came across more as someone who knew what he was talking about as regards Scn. The Independent leaders that you are trying to convince about the cult aspects do have a very good amount of study and experience, and if you were to improve on your understanding of Scn I think they would pay more attention. Namaste.

            11. MARILDI: “Anyway, the main thing I was trying to say is that it might help you with your cause if you came across more as someone who knew what he was talking about as regards Scn.”

              Tao Te Ching – Chapter 13

              Accept disgrace willingly.
              Accept misfortune as the human condition.

              What do you mean by “Accept disgrace willingly?”
              Accept being unimportant.
              Do not be concerned with loss or gain.
              This is called “accepting disgrace willingly.”

            12. Thanks for that, kg, Here’s the Scientology “Code of Honor”:

              1. Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble.

              2. Never withdraw allegiance once granted.

              3. Never desert a group to which you owe your support.

              4. Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.

              5. Never need praise, approval or sympathy

              4. Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.

              5. Never need praise, approval or sympathy.

              6. Never compromise with your own reality.

              7. Never permit your affinity to be alloyed.

              8. Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.

              9. Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.

              10. Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.

              11. Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.

              12. Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.

              13. Don’t desire to be liked or admired.

              14. Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.

              15. Be true to your own goals.

            13. Yes, but it’s written so drably, don’t you think? This type of language describes for me the lower harmonic of a higher-toned understanding.

            14. 1. Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble.
              (NEVER? Even at the danger of the greater group or yourself or to get help?)

              2. Never withdraw allegiance once granted.
              (NEVER? So if you find out your business partner is a mobster and criminal …)

              3. Never desert a group to which you owe your support.
              (NEVER? Again, I can see times when I owe support to a group and need to leave anyway ether because of ethical or personal reasons.)

              4. Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.
              (NEVER? When dealing with self talk, this makes sense. But regarding higher “dynamics” then I want to point out that Sun Tsu was a master of making himself look weak at strategic times.)

              5. Never need praise, approval or sympathy
              (NEVER? This allows a person to be totally ungrateful to you and you feel guilty for failing the code even though they were being obnoxious. THESE ARE BASIC HUMAN NEEDS. We all need praise. We all need approval. We sometimes need sympathy.)

              6. Never compromise with your own reality.
              (I like this one. Scientology DOES have some good ideas!)

              7. Never permit your affinity to be alloyed.
              (NEVER? This is impossible to maintain and creates guilt for not being able to do the impossible)

              8. Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.
              (Again, this is impossible to maintain and creates guilt for not being able to do the impossible)

              9. Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.
              (This can be spun from people above you to put your life at risk for your own “self determinism and honor.)

              10. Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.
              (Potentially abusive to your body if another defines what is “Integrity to yourself.”)

              11. Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.
              (Again, this is an emotional response that we cannot control. It creates guilt from a basic human emotion – regret. I will ALWAYS regret not spending more time with my dad. Regret isn’t guilt.)

              12. Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.
              (NEVER? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? So if I can freely use #12 to make you lose your social status then you have to use #13, fail #7, fail #5, keep #3, and keep #2? Also, wouldn’t this make the most just person the most injurious person? Why is “just” aligned with “hurt?”)

              13. Don’t desire to be liked or admired.
              (Again a basic human need made sin. WE CAN’T OBVIATE BASIC HUMAN DESIRES BY ADOPTING A CODE)

              14. Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.
              (Yay! Great Idea!)

              15. Be true to your own goals.
              (Yay! Great Idea!)

            15. Kg, Geir pretty much allows the conversation to go where it will, at least when the thread has gone on for a good while.

              I appreciated your taking a close look at the Code of Honor. I myself had similar queries but found that where one point on the Code didn’t seem to always be applicable, it was because another point had come into play. See if you can tell what I mean by that.

              And here is something LRH said about the Code:

              “No one expects the Code of Honor to be closely and tightly followed.

              “An ethical code cannot be enforced. Any effort to enforce the Code of Honor would bring it into the level of a moral code. It cannot be enforced simply because it is a way of life which can exist as a way of life only as long as it is not enforced. Any other use but self-determined use of the Code of Honor would, as any Scientologist could quickly see, produce a considerable deterioration in a person. Therefore its use is a luxury use, and which is done solely on self-determined action, providing one sees eye to eye with the Code of Honor.”

            16. Tor Ivar, since no one has spoken up they are probably like me and haven’t read those things. But I get that you are relating them to the Code of Honor and the comparison would be interesting. Say a little about it? 🙂

            17. Bull’s Eye, marildi …

              Yes I really do relate those to the above mentioned Code of Honor.
              OK, I know I’m distant to this as I have not been “inside” and do not have friends or family who have been or is “inside” …

              … but I am surprised at how much dust that one thing has stirred up. Really, it’s not that different from any respectable code for anyone being in charge or in guidance of of other people, I guess I could argue FOR most of them without relating anything at all to Scn …

              I won’t do that unless KG and Alanzo would want me to … … but Alanzo, no code like that would ever survive unless it could withstand the most brutal questioning and dissectioning …

              I could spice up a bit with some extincts from my sources mentioned above but that would have to be later as I don’t have them here in my office. The Birka Code though is described in a text from the age of vikings called “The King’s Mirror”. Worth reading actually, surprising how civil and sophisticated ideas they had about leadership and business, especially in contrast to the rather brutal and raw more “popular” pictures of the vikings’ era … 😀

            18. Tor Ivar, thanks for your thoughts. You have reminded me of something LRH said – that there is no monopoly on truth. Lucky for you ;), I no longer have trouble believing that there could be much truth outside of Scn, and I can easily accept the idea that this Viking code was civil and sophisticated and comparable to the Code of Honor. Unfortunately, in spite of that LRH statement about no monopoly, the attitude in Scn has evolved (I should say devolved) to a belief that Scn has such a monopoly.

              But don’t get me wrong, I’m still indoctrinating you, little by little :D. Seriously though, I imagine you would find a lot of things in Scn to your liking. Not the organization and how it’s run, of course, but the philosophy and the tech. Since you are a big reader, you should read some of the stuff. For example, there’s a book called Problems of Work that, even though it’s on the subject of work, actually includes the basics of Scn, which are basics of life. Those basics are connected to any sphere and have to do with success at work or in any other part of life. Oh, and that’s another thing LRH said – that there wasn’t anything he could teach us that we didn’t already know (deep down) :).

  8. “tried to be a terminal”… will not get that OSA sticker off your jacket more easily.

    Oh my god that is funny!

    It sucks to be you right now, KG. Some day though, things will get better!

    1. Al. Life cannot be better! I have a great family and they are all healthy.

      And we laugh a LOT.

      And yesterday my knees and back were sore.

      1. I didn’t mean “it sucks to be you right now” in your whole life.

        I’m just saying that Marty and Mike outing you as an OSA Agent was such a curious thing that has such weird effects in this environment that it is quite funny. Plus Geir’s image of an “OSA sticker” on your jacket is also very funny.

        Yesterday, Marty “outed” another OSA agent on his blog, and he also assigned quotes to that agent in order to “dead agent” him that were found to be not authored by the OSA Agent. So who knows what Marty is doing. He sure doesn’t seem to care very much about the truth. I think he cares more about the number of “beans” he can get in return for the information he dribbles out on his blog than he does about exposing cult abuse.

        It’s good to know that even OSA Agents laugh and get rug burns in their personal life. I’ve often wondered about that. (:>)

        1. I haven’t read Marty’s blog in like two years or something, giving up after having been censored 5 times. I only get scraps of bits like this from others who repost and KG being an OSA agent is really funny to me. “Zen manny” LMAO at that as well . . .

            1. Did you besmirch the name of L Ron Hubbard or something?

              Or did your reputation as a 1.1, low-toned SP critic precede you?

            2. I don’t think he had any pre-approach information on my suppressive nature.
              More probable that he didn’t agree with my 2.0 criticisms of his role as DM’s enforcer and right-hand man.

              My attitude toward Marty Rathbun and his ilk had oscillated for a time between blame and forgiveness. I audited my own rudiments on the matter and once I had leveled my own disagreements with myself, I stopped looking at him for “reasons why” and he became a non-factor in my view of myself and my view of Scientology.

              Said another way, I became interested in Scientology for reasons. I joined the Sea Org for reasons. I left for reasons. All of these reasons belonged to me. Understanding to take ownership for it all was key in my own “healing process.” What I mean by healing is a returning to a mental state of owning my perceptions and experiences. As my pointy feelings leveled; as I came to own my experiences as an iteration of myself; I felt much better and found that I could think more clearly and think with the materials of Scientology more clearly.

            3. That sounds like a good way of handling having been in Scientology.

              Probably many “Independents” could benefit from it.

              Probably why you were censored 5 out of 5 times.

              Even my record of being censored by Marty and Mike is not as good as yours.

              Bravo.

  9. Marildi –

    The dire and terrifying “confidentiality” of the OT levels, and the warnings of pneumonia and death are outright, and very cruel, mind control techniques that Hubbard used on Scientologists.

    It is not right. I got involved in Scientology because I was told that Scientology was supposed to make you freer, not more enslaved. So when the enslaving part of Scientology is still happening, I am going to be talking about it.

    And no, I will not stop talking about it.

    Alanzo

    1. Hi Alanzo,

      How about meeting me half way? I hereby accept your mission to enlighten people about the various gross outpoints in Scn and acknowledge the merits of doing so. And I will consider with an open mind what you have to say.

      In turn, you have do your best at being receptively open to what is pointed out to you by posters who perhaps have more experience than you do. It’s one thing for someone to read about tech, for example, and/or have a limited amount of experience with it, and it’s another to have examined it much more fully and personally, especially from both sides of the meter.

      I think if we both took these open-minded approaches, it would actually help our respective “causes”, as others would be more receptive to what we have to say and not just consider us biased and blind to anything that tends to go against our basic viewpoint.

      This is the same kind of thing I was saying to katageek – including the idea that if you keep demonstrating that you are badly misinformed about Scientology philosophy and tech, no one will take seriously anything you have to say on any subject to do with either tech or admin/management.

      I think It would also help greatly if we differentiate Scientology of the different time periods, especially as related to how DM has grossly altered Scn more and more over the years. Again, not making such differentiations just weakens the argument. The same thing happens when we exaggerate a point. I’ve done it too, but as an example, you said:

      “The dire and terrifying ‘confidentiality’ of the OT levels, and the warnings of pneumonia and death are outright, and very cruel, mind control techniques that Hubbard used on Scientologists.”

      Instead of going a bit overboard and calling the confidentiality “very cruel”, if you had said something like “conniving and unfair” – and instead of “mind control techniques” just left it as “controlling” or even “controlling for material purposes”, it would have gone over much better. Too much exaggeration creates a ridge big-time, and you defeat your purposes.

      So there you go – you and kg caught me in lecture mode 😉

      Btw, I like your new avatar. What’s the story behind choosing it?

      1. Marildi wrote:

        How about meeting me half way? I hereby accept your mission to enlighten people about the various gross outpoints in Scn and acknowledge the merits of doing so. And I will consider with an open mind what you have to say.

        In turn, you have do your best at being receptively open to what is pointed out to you by posters who perhaps have more experience than you do. It’s one thing for someone to read about tech, for example, and/or have a limited amount of experience with it, and it’s another to have examined it much more fully and personally, especially from both sides of the meter.

        There is something that appears to me right now to be a strange arbitrary inserted in here that I have to clarify. In order for me to accept your deal here, I need to understand more about what you are asking of me.

        I’ve asked you this before but I never saw your answer:

        How much training, and experience “from both sides of the meter”, does a person have to have in Scientology before you will accept their opinions, facts, and experiences about what they have observed in Scientology to be true?

        Please name the level they have to have been trained to, and give me other concrete and specific credentials a person has to have achieved in Scientology before you will say their data are valid.

        I’m not trying to be difficult here. I really want to be able to meet you half way. I just don’t know where half way is though until you clarify the standard that you are presenting to me.

      2. Marildi wrote:

        Instead of going a bit overboard and calling the confidentiality “very cruel”, if you had said something like “conniving and unfair” – and instead of “mind control techniques” just left it as “controlling” or even “controlling for material purposes”, it would have gone over much better. Too much exaggeration creates a ridge big-time, and you defeat your purposes.

        Even though I understand that the term “mind control” has taken on many emotional meanings, there is an exact definition to the term. And so when I use that term, I am using its exact definition and not exaggerating:

        “Mind control … refers to a process in which a group or individual “systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated”. The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Jacques Ellul maintains that the “principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man’s habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control

        There really is a technology to mind control. It has been used and documented, taught and learned, by various governments in the past such as North Korea, the Soviet Union, China, and others, and it is still in use today by the US in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. It is a very specific and real technology of how to break down a person in order to gain control of his thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.

        So when I say that the use of installed phobias by Hubbard is a mind control technique, that’s what I mean exactly. I understand that the term can cause bad feelings, but I am not exaggerating when I use it.

        Similarly, when I use the phrase “very cruel”, I am also not exaggerating. I use it in a context of understanding the vulnerabilities that human beings have when they approach spiritual matters. When a human being looks to a spiritual leader it is very much like a small child looks to their parents. Small children are vulnerable to what their parents teach them. If a parent lies to a child and installs terrifying phobias that they will get sick and possibly die – just so they can use the child for their own material purposes – I think that is very cruel.

        In the same way, Scientologists look to Hubbard to tell them about the dangers that lurk in their own minds – because Hubbard has “researched” them, “risen above the bank” etc. And so when Scientologists lay themselves open, sincerely seeking the wisdom their spiritual teacher (Hubbard) has learned about their own minds, and Hubbard knowingly lies to them, instilling terror of sickness and death into them in order to control them for his own material purposes, I think it is very cruel.

        And the reason I use the phrase “knowingly lies to them” above is because Hubbard was the C/S over all OT levels when he released them and for many years therafter. He knew for a fact that no one caught pneumonia or died from being exposed to the OT levels “before they were ready”. Knowing this, yet saying the opposite, means he knowingly lied. So that’s why I use that phrase.

        You may disagree right now with what I am saying.

        But, as above, I have very sound reasons to use the words and phrases and terms that I use.

        My purpose is to present information so people can make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology. The above information, I believe, is crucial to making informed decisions about Scientology. That’s why I present it.

        In doing this, I am not defeating my own purposes. That people naturally perform cognitive dissonance reduction techniques when this information is presented to them is a barrier I face. But no one has ever presented a better way to me to get this information across to Scientologists who are being controlled with these techniques.

        So how would you do it?

        If you knew the technology of mind control, and you saw it being used on people, how would you make this information known to them?

      3. Marildi wrote:

        Btw, I like your new avatar. What’s the story behind choosing it?

        It’s actually an old avatar I used many years ago. I like it too. I think it gives me “ethics presence”.

        Don’t you? :>

      4. Marildi wrote:

        I think It would also help greatly if we differentiate Scientology of the different time periods, especially as related to how DM has grossly altered Scn more and more over the years. Again, not making such differentiations just weakens the argument.

        I see what you mean here.

        But what I find is that a Scientologist is taught that the only way to get rid of a problem is to go to its source. To just treat the symptoms of something is to leave the source unaffected and thus allow the disease to continue.

        What is curious to me is that Independent Scientologists refuse to see DM as a symptom at all and want him to be the entire source of anything that is wrong in Scientology. I believe that while DM, as the violent psychotic that he is, has sent Scientology in directions that have made it worse in many areas over the years, the source of the cultic abuse in Scn – and even of DM’s violence as an “Admin solution” – comes from Hubbard and his orders, writings, and lectures. (See Jesse Prince’s first hand stories of LRH’s orders to DM to carry out violence on senior staff)

        While it will certainly be helpful, I don’t believe that getting rid of DM will fix the problems in Scientology. I think that would only be like treating the symptoms and not the source of the disease. So I try to emphasize what I see as the source of the problems in Scientology.

        Here’s a question on the immediate specifics of our present discussion: when it comes to the discussion of the mind control techniques used on Scientologists on the OT Levels, do you believe the source of those techniques are actually DM?

        If so, why?

          1. No, Al, not hiding. Just letting Maria pretty much represent my viewpoints, since she basically has been doing so with a lot more knowledge and ability to articulate ideas – and point out your “spin”, etc. – than just about anybody I can think of. But to your credit, this was especially good:

            “And truth be told, I find the interplay between you and I to be very fruitful in terms of really getting people to see the good truths in Scientology with plenty of caution going the other way.”

            Also, I haven’t expressed it quite this way but I think Maria hit the nail on the head with this: “As far as Scientology goes I have pretty much isolated what I consider to be the two factors that screwed up the C of S. Monopoly and abuse.” And she also echoed my sentiments with this: “And I really don’t care one way or the other who started it…”

            Now, to answer your earlier (loaded ;)) question, there is no certain level of training or auditing that gives a person credibility – it is whether or not his/her comments generally show duplication. But that is usually due to having had a fair amount of study and experience. It’s just a good rule of thumb.

            1. Now, to answer your earlier (loaded ) question, there is no certain level of training or auditing that gives a person credibility – it is whether or not his/her comments generally show duplication. But that is usually due to having had a fair amount of study and experience. It’s just a good rule of thumb.

              Duplication with what?

              With your own “spin” on Scientology?

              Because I can give you a list of Class 4, 6, 8 and Class 9 auditors ( I think I can find a class 12 even) who you would classify as “hard core critics” of Scientology, the tech, and everything else you would call “spin” from me, or KG (or anyone else who disagrees with your own “spin”) and who you could not dismiss as “not enough time on both sides of the meter.”

              OK?

              Just give me the go ahead, and I’ll print the list for you, with links.

              See, the problem Maridli, is that LRH was not always doing what he was telling Scientologists he was doing. He was often doing something else. And so when you show that he was doing something else, this does not often “duplicate” with the lies he was printing for the consumption of a Scientologist.

              So seeking duplication with the materials of Scientology will often keep you missing what was really going on, and what L Ron Hubbard was really doing. As I’m sure you know by now, you often have to go outside of Scientology to understand Scientology.

              This has been a huge obstacle for Scientologists to find out what Hubbard was actually doing for a very long time.

            2. Hot diggity!

              You will respond yourself, right?

              You won’t make Maria do all the heavy lifting for you again will you?

            3. Here’s a list of 300 ex Scientologists who each answered a set of questions about their Scientology experience. They have their training credentials listed at the top of each interview. At the bottom of the page you will find the links to the next interview. I estimate that way more than half of these people would fulfill your requirement that they have sufficient experience on both sides of the meter.

              http://alley.ethercat.com/cgi-bin/door/door.cgi?1

          2. This is the Declaration of Bill Franks, who was in the SO for a little under 14 years.He attained the “rank’ of Lt. Commander through promotions only by Hubbard. He was OEC and FEBC(trained by Hubbard) , HSDC, Class nine when he left in December 27 1981, as well as DSEC, Nots auditor, plus assorted other stuff. He was OT five plus nots, plus sec checked up the wazoo over the years. He also audited between 3-4000 hours conservatively speaking-probably much more, a lot of this was under Hubbard as the C/S. He spent about 3 1/2 years working with Hubbard pretty directly on the ship at various posts.I got to know him as well as anybody did.

            Bill Franks’ last position was Chairman of the Board and ED Int both by directive of LRH personally.

            http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-franks-1985-04-03.html

            http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?22265-Bill-Frank-s-story-about-brainwashing-(thread-merge)

            1. Bruce Hines is also a very highly trained auditor who has much experience as an auditor, as he was the auditor for Tom Cruise and many other celebrities in Scientology.

            2. Let me know if you need more, Marildi.

              I hope I have shown you that it is not true that only people with little experience with Scientology as an auditor end up being critical of L Ron Hubbard and his technology of Scientology.

            3. Al, my statement was that “there is no certain level of training or auditing that gives a person credibility – it is whether or not his/her comments generally show duplication.” I was obviously talking about duplication of the Scientology materials that have to do with the training and auditing – that definition of Scn. This list you provide could very well have included people like Dennis and Maria, even Mike and Marty – even me!

              For crissakes, I’m not talking about critics of management or anything else about Scientology other than the philosophy and tech. Is it really possible that you didn’t duplicate that? Most recently I have been referring specifically to yours and katageek’s comments about TR 0 – two untrained or little trained critics. There are plenty of those – the vast majority. And that’s my point.

              I expected you to give me some direct data about critics of Scientology philosophy and tech who are also well trained and experienced. Not a list of 300 names that I would be the one who had to search for comments even relating to Scientology tech. And not one or two as there are always exceptions to anything. You inferred there are many. But I guess you yourself haven’t been able to find any and give specifics rather than glutting the line with a big broad generality. You can do better than that.

            4. Wow Marildi –

              I don’t think you really looked at these.

              Bill Franks, Caroline Letkeman, Hanna Whitfield, Jesse Prince, and Bruce Hines are very highly trained people with lots and lots of experience, who have most definitely “duplicated” the tech. LRH would not have personally promoted Bill Franks, Hana Whitfield and Jesse Prince to the positions he did if they had not.

              You will find many direct criticisms of the tech from them. But that would take effort on your part to find those. And why would you expend that effort if you have decided that Scientology was your religion and that you are a Scientologist?

              Oh well. This was a kind of unfinished communication with you that I wanted to finish up. Now that it’s done, it’s done.

              Good luck with Scientology in your life.

              Alanzo

            5. Nice try, Alanzo, but this is a cop out. You are the one who claims that these people are criticizing the tech – where is the evidence of that? And now you’re trying to say you have “finished up” – what, you think you can weasel out so easily?

              I haven’t seen this evidence that you claim to have. And said you could present. So why not do so? Instead you are now making it into something I should be interested enough to search for. Logical fallacy abounds. 😉

            6. Marildi –

              These highly trained people most definitely criticize the tech.

              In one link I gave you, Bill Franks talks about when LRH told him and David Mayo that people do not leave because of overts, they leave because of ARC breaks, and he says that LRH told him not to tell anyone that because he would lose control of orgs if he did.

              Caroline Letkeman talks about the “left-hand path” of Scientology. She talks about LRH’s use of transference in auditing, etc.

              Hana Whitfield talks about trance states in use in the TRs, and Bruce Hines talks about the FPRD as outright brainwashing and how it is designed to make you believe that you are evil.

              All these people are very highly trained auditors with lots and lots of experience with the tech. In the time they were in the Church, they were actually some of the very top technical terminals in Scientology.

              Each of these people have spent a lot of time trying to explain to people many of the points that I make here on Geir’s blog. They have many links on many websites all over the Google search results for their names. They have appeared in court as expert witnesses, and their affidavits are available for you to read. But you are not going to see any of these things. And I am only willing to spend just so much time showing you.

              Really Marildi. You truly can believe whatever you want. But your own cognitive dissonance reduction technique of “only untrained people, and people ignorant of Scientology, are critics of the tech” is false.

              I have presented you with enough data to prove that. You can do whatever you want with it.

              It’s your life.

            7. Al, you promised links, not YOUR interpretations of what people had to say. (And your claim didn’t involve me searching for myself, so please don’t try going there again.) You originally made it sound like it was easy to find specifics for your claim that MANY trained people criticize the tech, so if that’s the case why you don’t you just cough up a bunch?

              Also, you completely misquote me as saying “only untrained people, and people ignorant of Scientology, are critics of the tech”. It doesn’t take a lot of intellectual integrity to differentiate that from what I have repeatedly said – that I personally have found that the critics of tech are not trained.” Key words there – “I PERSONALLY have found” and “critics of TECH” (at least you seem to be sticking to that last part now).

              Other than your own interpretations, you are still giving me nothing but generalities of “many links and many websites”. I don’t doubt that there are a few people that there are links for who directly show their criticism of tech – but you said there were many. And that’s what I find hard to believe, considering the cross sampling I have come across. So my conclusion stands – those who have trained and know what they’re talking about and are experienced generally (the vast majority) do not criticize the tech.

            8. Another way of looking at this Marildi would be to observe that almost everyone who has ever had anything to do with Scientology is now out. There are perhaps 10,000-25,000 Scientologists worldwide including Sea Org. Out of the millions who have read a book or done a course, this is also a criticism of the Tech. The statistic falls on the critic’s side. The people voted with their feet, trained and untrained alike. The “duplicated Tech” argument is a “True Scotsman.”

              The gate has opened and continues to swing out. The last few old timers are leaving not in a trickle but four-abreast. The penalty of expulsion doesn’t carry the weight that it used to and there is support that didn’t used to exist for those who do leave. You and Dennis don’t have to be swayed by this and are welcome to your own feelings, considerations and loyalties on the subject, but I’m not sure why you both are arguing with Al. I think he made his point.

              One of the most common exclamation points of ex-Scios is the lack of anxiety and fear that Geir described as going on inside his head while trying to comply with the arcane and unnecessary rules of Scientology. I believe that both you and Dennis can relate to this. I can.

            9. Al,

              ” Caroline Letkeman talks about the “left-hand path” of Scientology. She talks about LRH’s use of transference in auditing, etc.

              Hana Whitfield talks about trance states in use in the TRs, and Bruce Hines talks about the FPRD as outright brainwashing and how it is designed to make you believe that you are evil. ”

              ***************************************

              Really Al …

              I watched Stacy’s video and went over this with you I believe on the Scn Forum site – same ‘trance state’ that you and a few others claim.

              When I looked at Stacey’s video, it was laughable … and as you say – these people were trained? FPRD ‘ designed to make you believe you’re evil’ ? Oh yeah …

              I’m sure there are as many or more people claiming the ‘workability’ of tech too … does it make either group ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ?

              No, it is individual viewpoints.

              You can repeat all these old posts but it doesn’t make it true or untrue being that these drills & processes are quite subjective.

              It doesn`t matter what group you look into, there will be loons in all of them – but if you want to believe every one of them as sooth, by all means go for it.

            10. Hi Dennis. On that point of “FPRD designed to make you believe you’re evil”, I have come across data that a certain aspect of it has been altered, to the detriment of pcs – something to do with asking justifications, I believe. Do you know about this? In any case, perhaps some of these people Alanzo is referring to are talking about tech as it has been ALTERED. That’s another way to misrepresent the tech – and a way to confuse critcism of it with criticsm of what is actually out-tech. I know that Bruce Hines is highly trained and experienced and his criticism of FPRD is likely a criticism of altered tech, from what I’ve heard of his statements. But this, and other things like it, is where these discussions get complicated, IMO.

              I just know this, take this one blog for example – I’ve observed that those who criticize basic tech have little to no training, and those who are trained do not criticize it, except for its alterations. And again this is generally speaking. Geir, for example, has some criticisms of tech but generally speaks highly of it but just because of those isolated criticisms might be referred to as “a critic” – when judgement isn’t being used.

              Anyway, I won’t be waiting by my keyboard 😉 because I have to go out now – but I’ll check back later for your answer. 🙂

            11. I believe Al was not arguing which of the pro or con tech groups were right. He was simply refuting a claim that only untrained critics were objecting to the tech itself. And I believe he has done just that successfully.

            12. Marildi & Geir,

              Yes,’Justifications’ are asked for. This is providing the PC answers ‘affirmative’ to the question. My clarifying this point was to point out that it is the PC that is answering the questions. The process itself is not ‘designed to make you believe you are evil’ as Al put it. It would be different if the auditor asked ‘Tell me about the time you went partying with Billie the Burro 🙂

              Geir, yes-I agree with Al that there are likely tech trained individuals disagree with certain aspects of the tech. I guess my thinking was that the examples given were not the best to illustrate this point.

            13. Here is Robert Vaughn Young saying and demonstrating how the training routines are control techniques. Robert Vaughn Young held Mike Rinder’s job.

              Here is Stacy and Jesse’s demonstration of TRs as control techniques:

              And here is Tory Christman’s BRAND NEW VIDEO ON HOW CULTS WORK. It’s like … days old. She states that experts consider the two most effective mind control groups are The Moonies and … um … some … other … group …

              http://www.youtube.com/user/ToryMagoo44?ob=0&feature=results_main

            14. Kg, thanks for posting some things that show specific criticism of tech (finally someone did). Now do you have any links that tell the training level and tech experience of those people? Sorry, but I really don’t know. RVY, for example, I only know of as having held a high management post.

              Alanzo, where is it that “Bruce Hines talks about the FPRD as outright brainwashing and how it is designed to make you believe that you are evil.” I would find that very interesting indeed and that would be the kind of thing I thought you were going to post links to – or anything else like that, which indicates both the training level and what the criticism is exactly.

              Geir, no one was claiming that “ONLY untrained critics were objecting to the tech itself”. I was disputing Alanzo’s claim that there were MANY critics who were also trained and experienced, and I said I found that hard to believe considering the cross sampling I have come across, here and on other sites. And btw, I’m talking about early Scn, “core”, as you call it, not the altered versions of it.

              Chris, what you say about those high numbers who have left Scn being the thing to look at makes no sense to me when you consider all the other factors involved with that, which you are as familiar with as I am. That video of Bruce Hines you recommended is about the gross outpoints in the Sea Org, isn’t it? We have already agreed plenty about that.

              Dennis, I got where you were coming from in objecting to the examples being given as “not the best to illustrate this point”, and that would be the kind of thing I’ve observed too. I still would be interested in any trained critic who has something plausible to say about tech outpoints. Actually, Geir indicated something of this sort on a comment today and I replied that I am highly interested in hearing about it. But anyway, thanks for jumping in – right in the crossfire, you brave soul. 🙂

            15. Marildi, I’m with you.

              If it’s not “core” Scientology, it isn’t worth looking at. And the most important witnesses and tech critiques are from people who were pre 1978.

              And I’m pretty confident that if I joined Scientology in the early days that I would STILL be in “Trying to make it go right.”

              Yup.

              You don’t think I’m a critic because everyone ELSE is dumber than me do you?

              HA-HA-HA!

              Oh no, my dear. I’m thick as rock and have drank SO MUCH kool-aid that if you look at my face, you can still see the purple kool-aid smile extending onto my cheeks.

              But I didn’t join. There was no mission where I grew up.

              And I can look at the subject as an outsider. As an outsider, the first job is to get the hard data from the INSIDERS.

              Here is a book titled “Dianetics in Limbo” by Helen O’Brian. She was the first “Marty” and trained directly with Hubbard in the very early days. It’s a short book and easy to read on a screen and cheap to print if you want hard copy.

              And you’ll want to do that because copies go for $ 600,00 on Amazon.

              http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/dil/Dianetics_in_Limbo.txt

            16. And I think the worst thing said about Hubbard came from Helen O’Brian in “Bare Faced Messiah” where she is quoted about the time she got boinked by LRH.

              She said the act was very “matter of fact.”

              That’s a nice girl’s way of saying. “It was wham-bam-thank-you-mam.”

              Now, I can forgive Hubbard for the kid in the chain locker. I can over look the bullet in Ms. Meisner’s head on the Apollo. I can breeze over Quentin’s suicide, I can look the other way regarding the attempted murder of Paullette Cooper and her emotional destruction. And stealing a room mates’ girl AND his money AND his boat? Well, let’s face it, his roomy was was a satanic geek. Physically abusing Polly? Sure. We can always blame the victim right? Endorsing genocide in his Ethics book? Well, that’s kind of edgy but to each his own. What’s a few million dead SPs anyway?

              I can EVEN forgive his squelching of scientific authentication of his claims …

              OOH. THAT LAST ONE IS HARD … GOTTA WORK ON IT … GIVE ME A SEC…

              ((DRAMATiC PAUSE))

              Okay. That’s better.

              But being a … a … BAD LAY? Hubbard was … A BAD LAY TO HIS NUMBER ONE EXEC?

              Well …

              “I can’t abide.” – Lt. Aldo Raine

            17. Kg, very entertaining, as usual. If only you and Alanzo and others had spent as much time studying Scientology as you have all the anti-Scn and LRH material… But before you tell me how much Scn you have read, don’t forget that I had also included with my observation the point about a lot of experience along with the training. That is central to my conclusion that if you have a good amount of experience with the tech (and with that you do get correction in your understanding and application errors) and you then see the results on pcs, you don’t get big confused ideas about it, like critics of it generally seem to have.

              Just as I suspected there were only a few people in the links Alanzo posted who fit into the category of trained and (maybe) experienced. With Bill Franks and Jesse, there was no data about their actual experience auditing pcs. I know that there was a period of time when you could go at least up to Class 8 never having done a single internship let alone have lots of additional experience with pcs. Stacey was the only other one – a Class 4, but again no data about her experience. (By the way, even DM is a Class 4 – not interned.) The other links posted were criticisms of management and policy and propaganda.

              LRH wasn’t the subject but here’s a quote I noticed when skimming that person’s book you linked: “Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was in actual fact an enormous benefactor of mankind” ;).

            18. Here’s another Class 12 for you, Marildi:

              David Mayo Class 12

              From Russell Miller’s 1986 interview of former Senior C/S International and Class XII, David Mayo:

              “He [L Ron Hubbard] could be capable of incredible cruelty. On the ship there was an old man on the Royal Scotman [later renamed ‘Apollo’] who he made push a peanut round the decks with his nose. He had to get down on his hands and knees, he had to go round the deck, quite a long distance in a race with one or two others also in trouble. The first one back got let off and the last one got a double penalty.

              “It was really tough on this old guy, Charlie Reisdorf. The surface of the deck was very rough wood, prone to splinter, so after pushing peanuts with their noses, they all had raw, bleeding noses, leaving a trail of blood behind them. I not only saw it but the entire crew of the ship was mustered – a mandatory attendance – we were required to watch this punishment, to make an example of it for the rest of us. Reisdorf was in his late 50s probably. His two daughters were messengers, they were 11 or 12 at time and his wife was there also.

              “It was hard to say which was worse to watch: this old guy with a bleeding nose or his wife and kids sobbing and crying at being forced to watch this. Hubbard was standing there calling the shots, yelling, ‘Faster, Faster!’. It was indignity, degradation and breaking a person’s will, and making people watch. It was disgusting…

              “They used to have people locked in the chain locker, including small children. It was very dangerous because if the anchor started to slip and started running out, it would probably turn a body into a pulp in no time at all…

              “He [LRH] had a birthday party on March 13, 1968; there was a woman who he ordered locked in the chain locker. During the party he had brought her out. She was filthy, covered with dirt and rust, and had not been allowed to wash or change clothes – she had been in there for a week… he brought her out to the party. He said he was giving her a reprieve and permitting her to come to the party, as if that was a nice gesture. She wasn’t allowed to change. She was brought to the party and had to stay, and later was returned [to the chain locker]… it was flaunting her degradation…

              “From time to time, Hubbard would cancel such activities like the chain locker, and blame it on someone else… He would start such pronouncements with, ‘It has just come to my attention…’

              “The length of time for children would vary, but no one was less than a day…

              “Reisdorf [peanut pushing] affair – if someone tried to do something, it would have made it worse. Hubbard said that maritime law prevailed… He said that under maritime law, he had total power over everyone on the vessel…”

              And one brief excerpt concerning events from the late 1970s:

              “He told me he was obsessed with an insatiable lust for power and money. He said it very emphatically. He thought it wasn’t possible to get enough. He didn’t say it as if it was a fault, just his frustration that he couldn’t get enough.”

              http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm

              And from a 1991 article by David Mayo on Clear:

              “It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were ‘clear’ at a certain point…”

              http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

            19. Alanzo, this is off the subject we were on but just so you know, I no longer find it hard to believe stories about LRH’s character flaws or policies that do deserve criticism. And the reason I can believe some (not all) of those accounts is that they came from reliable-sounding sources and are relayed in an intelligent, not fanatical way, and don’t show basic MUs. And besides that, where there is so much smoke there is probably some fire. But as I said in my earlier comment, I don’t care much about that – essentially it is ad hom.

              And I actually am interested in criticisms of the tech – again, IF they are plausible, and that is up to me to decide whether they are or not, just as it is with anybody. That’s why I was interested in what you said about Bruce Hines’ comments on FPRD – I know that he is both well trained and experienced and I wanted to look (not listen) at what he had to say. You went to the trouble of posting all this data unrelated to our discussion – why don’t you follow through on what you claim Bruce Hines stated? Also, I intend to read what Mayo wrote about Clear but, again, it doesn’t seem to actually be talking about tech but marketing and LRH’s aberrations.

            20. THE TRUE BELIEVER’S ALGORITHM FOR WHEN FACTS OF A RELIGION ARE PROVE BOGUS.

              TECHNIQUE #1.
              Discredit and invalidate an unwanted claim by seeing the person a “poor victim” and act/feel sad and concerned and/or KIND OR COMPLIMENTARY while stating or insinuating that they are weak, or ignorant of the religion’t TRUE nature. Encourage them to learn more so they can see and enjoy the truths you know SO YOU CAN BYPASS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FOR THEIR CLAIM IN THE NAME OF THEIR HOPELESS PLIGHT AND IGNORANCE.

              TECHNIQUE #2.
              Discredit and invalidate an unwanted point of view by calling the person EVIL, CRAZY, STUPID or INCOMPETENT and attack with strong resolve to prove they are incompetent and tell them they better get right or else! AND THEN USE THEIR PERCEIVED INCOMPETENCE TO BYPASS ANY NEED TO SEE THEIR EVIDENCE,

              TECHNIQUE #3.
              When you cannot bypass the evidence any longer, CHANGE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTH AND FIGHT TO A DRAW, Change the topic or invalidate the evidence in any way possible to maintain the religious tradition.

              TECHNIQUE #4.
              When you cannot fault the person and change the data to play to a draw, go back to steps 1 or 2 and alternate back and forth until you can get the opponent UPSET. When that occurs use their emotional outburst as proof that they are at fault and SHOVE them into the “blame box” created by TECHNIQUE 1 or TECHNIQUE 2.

              THE GOLDEN RULE OF DENIAL: NEVER CONFRONT THE EVIDENCE WITH COMMON SENSE OR RELIABLE DATA OR DIALOGUE. DON’T ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AND ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS BYPASS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FOR THEIR CLAIM.

            21. Kg, don’t know how much of that you were insinuating applied to me but I will tell you this – the whole discussion started when I said to both you and Alanzo that your claims about the tech showed you hadn’t duplicated it. And my main point was to get across to you that if you were going to actually achieve your purposes, which I granted had merit, you should present a better understanding – otherwise, your credibility to the very people you are trying to enlighten will defeat those purposes.

            22. Bunkai,

              I guess one of the criteria should also be to determine if the ‘evidence’ is true and valid or not.

              I can say anything on this blog … is it necessarily true? No.

              It is simply a point of view; and even so, it may be said knowing full well it is an untruth.

              While it may appear to be factual to one, it is not necessarily factual to another.

              An example:

              In Stacy’s statement she says:

              “Some people say they have made gains from their Dianetics or Grades auditing, and I won’t dispute that. But many others have told me it didn’t work for them. I don’t dispute that either. ”

              So we have multiple viewpoints here. Does this mean that Dianetics or Grades is workable? Unworkable?

              How about the whole subject?

              When I see some of the leaps in ‘logic’ here, it is another reminder of the Pleasantville phenomena – fanaticism resulting in blindness and an inability to assume another’s viewpoint.

              Like I mentioned earlier, the fanatics will gravitate to one pole or another and they are the nuts of this world – like either end of a dichotomy on automatic.

              They each have the inability to discuss (make-wrong mechanism in full bloom) and the inability to see differences, similarities & identities.

              Sanity is fluidity in being able to assume both positions both as Cause and Effect and move as one chooses.

            23. Obviously, any claim of workability must be treated with the same attitude as any claim of unworkability.

            24. @Dennis.

              The point is HONEST EVALUATION OF CLAIMS.

              AND HEY, I’M WRONG A LOT! I know I’ve been wrong at least twice today!

              In fact, a real skeptic gets all excited when he/she is proven wrong.

              Usually, the most difficult thing is to get people (and even myself) to actually do critical evaluation of data. The problem is that people usually ignore it or spin it in some way or another. Even if a person still disagrees with the data, you at least know if they have duplicated the data.

              Even Scientists do this. Double blind studies exist because Scientists CAN’T be objective!

              DOH! If THEY can’t do it. HOW CAN WE?

              I think you know that I have pointed out the things that work in Scientology. I think people CAN find meaning and purpose in it. Many of my posts have something to do with confronting the control mechanics within without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

              That’s the point I make ad-nausium to the point that Geir and you are probably heaving into a barf bag right now.

              @Marildi.

              It was rude Marildi. I apologize. I need better internet manners.

            25. Kg, no apology needed (but I appreciated your saying so :)). I actually took your comments as a version of “logical fallacy”– perfectly permissible. And what you say about “honest evaluation of claims” is something we are all getting better at – albeit slowly! Yes, let’s not throw out each others’ babies. 😉

            26. Marildi, the piece that holds together the True Believer’s Algorithm is Cognitive Dissonance Theory.

              IT’S AN EMOTIONAL THING NOT A LOGICAL THING.

              The hardest thing for me to learn (and I’m still learning) is that thinking is and always will FIRST be emotional.

              We are emotional beings that think. We’re not thinking beings with emotions. Affect Theorists believe EVERY thought has an emotional basis.

              Science goes AGAINST our brains tendencies. It’s a meme designed to outsmart our biases.

              Much of the Buddhist definition of ignorance fits Cognitive Dissonance Theory. It’s not a LACK of knowledge. It’s knowing for sure what aint so.

              Unhacking THAT is a lifetime process for all of us.

            27. Kg, I felt the sincerity and A-R-C in it your comment so much that I am finding it hard to do anything but agree with every word. (Said as a joke, but true :)).

              You said: “…thinking is and always will FIRST be emotional.”

              I’m sure you remember that line in The Godfather – “It’s just business.” Ha ha!

              Actually, I do agree with your comment. However, ironic as it is to be saying this to YOU, it happens to be the TRs in Scientology that give one the ability and skill to be senior to emotional bias. 😉

            28. Marildi –

              Maria Pia Gardini is an Italian Class 9 auditor who is also an OT 8. She won Best Auditor of the Year in both 1989 and 1990.

              In this youtube video, she and another Italian Scientologist explain Scientology on an Italian TV show. There are English subtitles.

              At around 2 minutes into the video this Class 9 auditor with tons of experience on both sides of the meter says that “Clear does not exist” and about 3 and a half minutes in, she says, in her opinion, the OT levels are a hoax.

            29. hey Bunkai,

              Thanks for the reply.

              i had to laugh at the barf bag picture … yes, I would have used that emoticon a couple of times along with rolling eyes & banging head against wall. I tried to look for them … no luck.

              But, I *do* understand what you are saying.

              I guess I get a bit bored when I see the same circle of arguments put forth by both sides … I tend to sit right in the middle and willing to change my viewpoint.

              I have no doubt there are some who are unhappy with their auditing and some who are pleased. Over all I was very pleased with mine despite a couple wrong indications. But, I do know what worked for me from my viewpoint and did see many other have some great experiences.

              Maybe I just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

              But, after writing that, is there really a ‘right’ place or time? I think not … I am even glad to have gone thru some pretty rough times over the 40+ years – some pretty nasty stuff, most of which I can have a good laugh about and some astonishment that I made it thru. The experience to me is invaluable.

              It’s all good and part of the continual evolution on this little mudball called planet Earth 🙂

              Thanks again,

              Dennis

            30. Me too Dennis. These arguments seem like an island to itself and I’m being carried away by the current. I continue to think the island is relevant when in fact I can hardly see it anymore.

            31. isene says:
              2012-03-29 at 23:22

              Obviously, any claim of workability must be treated with the same attitude as any claim of unworkability.

              ********************************

              Totally agree Geir

            32. Alonzo, I had just posted my own thoughts about Clear, not much different from what this Italian lady expressed on the video, or from what Mayo said. And what aesthetic*randomity just posted about his personal experience on OT 3 tends to validate the idea that some individuals will have reality on it although it has no reality or validity to others – and that is entirely conceivable.

              You should be getting the idea by now that I am not fixed on LRH’s tech necessarily being the be-all-end-all or always being infallible, and I am definitely interested in different experiences of actual tech (not out-tech). I do have my own positive experience and that of many others, which I think is quite valid, and I completely agree with the comment Dennis just made.

              Btw, that lady mocked the idea that her body was supposed to be translucent, pointing out that it wasn’t – however, I have understood that on OT VII the body becomes translucent TO the person him/herself. Bottom line that I’ve realized on this most recent discussion, is that there are many factors involved with the question of whether or not someone’s testimony is valid or the tech is workable – too many factors to have a very intelligent discussion about as there are no scientific parameters for it.

            33. Marildi –

              At about 3 minutes in Bruce Hines talks about his FPRD experience in this video.

              I do understand that you would have wanted me to say that he said the FPRD was APPLIED to make him think he was evil. Knowing what I know about confession in mind control, though, I still stand by my statement that the FPRD was DESIGNED to make you think you were evil.

              But this video shows that Bruce Hines did not say there here.

            34. Alonzo,

              I just listened to the Bruce Hines section.

              Yes, he was on the RPF and FPRD was part of that in the later years

              Now, after listening to it, from *your* training, does it not sound like he initially answered the question and his answer was NOT accepted by the auditor? As he put it … ‘after some hours’

              This is NOT standard as you know.

              It is a squirrely method intended to suppress.

            35. Alanzo, in addition to what Dennis points out you have now changed what you said earlier – that Bruce Hines was the one who said FPRD was designed to make a person think he was evil – to now saying that you are the one saying that. Let’s resolve again to having a straightforward discussion and being willing to accept data contrary to our own viewpoints. As I implied on my last comment, it doesn’t mean we have to change our viewpoint, although at some point we might.

            36. Additionally Al,

              in using this example of Bruce Hines as an example of how FPRD CAN BE designed to … blah blah, that is correct.

              Is it the way it was intended or Standard – a definite NO.

              There are gross auditing errors, crap C/Sing, and one helluva ARCx there.

              Yes, in this instance someone wanted him done in.

              For you to forward this as normal or a properly done FPRD is false and misleading.

              I know you know this.

            37. Marildi and Dennis –

              Did I detect that each of you are willing to acknowledge now that many highly trained auditors with lots of experience on both sides of the meter HAVE criticized the technology of Scientology?

            38. Why would I, Al? I still haven’t seen “many”. At best only a few, and even with those there was no data about their actual experience – the crucial part of my whole point. Didn’t you read all my comments? This is like déjà vu from the last discussion. Well, I’m not going to repeat myself but you can re-read my comments for more specifics if you really want to know.

              Sometimes I get that you really believe in what you’re saying (sincerely), but other times it seems obvious that you are intentionally skewing things. If so, that’s another way you just hurt your own cause. I will tell you this, though. I appreciated that you went to all the trouble you did and got me to look at those links – I now have more data on what’s out there because of that. 🙂

  10. Geir, I well remember my anxiety about out-security when I was doing up to OT4. But more than that I remember my sense of utter isolation from others, even fellow OTs, that came from the restriction on speaking about my experiences to anyone. I wanted so much to talk to someone, anyone and share my new reality but the penalties were so extreme that I never said a word to anyone until after I had left the Church. I became extremely careful. Very careful. I seldom spoke of my personal state to anyone and kept all conversation extremely superficial, good roads and good weather at all times. I rarely expressed an opinion, curbed all criticism and tried never to complain or speak ill of anyone. In fact, my inner world was a riot of rich and often powerful feeling and concept and creativity, but those who knew me knew only my outward appearance, which I would describe as blandly cheerful.

    1. For a guy who wrote so much about communication and beingness as Hubbard did, to then place people into positions where they have to isolate themselves, and NOT communicate about so much, I can’t help thinking that he knew what he was doing to them.

      The basic reason you were told that you could not communicate your feelings and experience to others was because you could make them sick and die from what you knew about the OT Levels which they were not ready to hear.

      Because I believe Hubbard knew that no one actually got sick and died from hearing about the OT Levels, I believe this was a very cruel and manipulative thing to do to you, and to all Scientologists, who paid him to do the OT Levels.

      But you don’t have to believe what I do about it. You can believe that Hubbard was only thinking of the best for you and for all Scientologists, and all mankind, when he did this to people who came to him as their spiritual leader.

  11. In retrospect, the amusing aspect of this is that I reserved my bland cheerfulness and good roads approach for fellow Scientologists and especially for staff members. And I never discussed Scientology experiences with anyone at all. I guess I didn’t make that clear in my post.

    So in reality, the only damage done was to my relationships with the Church and Scientologists. I hardly think this was conducive to a campaign to grow the Church bigger and bigger and make more money. Quite the opposite. As time went on the ARC went down and down, and then one day I walked away — oddly, it was a disconnection process — a slow, slow disconnection from the Church and from what little community of Scientologists there was.

    In fact, in my day to day interactions at work and with family and non-Scn friends, I found that I really could freely communicate on many different levels and about many different subjects. I found this was tempered by the deep empathy I came to feel for others, and that included respecting their point of view and ideas. Over time, my rich and very meaningful relationships replaced all my relationships with my Scientology “friends” and all my work activities became focused outside of that community.

    I never felt any need or desire to discuss my OT levels experiences with anyone other than those who had also experienced them too — and that’s still true now.

    I never did and still don’t consider criticism, backbiting, complaining, slurring others, and putting people down to be any kind of virtue. I still don’t like to express opinions when I know little about something but when I feel that my conclusions may be of value in an area I actually know something about, I do express my opinions — its just that I try to do it in a non-demeaning way.

    What I do consider to be good and valuable is “positive” critical thinking aimed at dislodging bias and erroneous ideas. I do not find sweeping comments and grand conclusions to be useful at all. By positive I mean leading towards greater knowledge and understanding in terms of depth of information and comprehension.

    1. Would you consider it positive to dislodge bias and erroneous ideas about mind control techniques as used in Scientology?

  12. You mean like you bring up with Marildi? “Here’s a question on the immediate specifics of our present discussion: when it comes to the discussion of the mind control techniques used on Scientologists on the OT Levels, do you believe the source of those techniques are actually DM?”

    There is a policy and a culture that says if you discuss the materials with others, don’t behave in a prescribed fashion, and don’t uphold security then you will not be permitted to continue. The problem is not mind control. The problem is monopoly.

    Looking from a different point of view, if I could choose between cable TV networks in my area, I would change service providers in an instant. But there is only one, and if you refuse their service, then you have no cable TV. If you mess up on your payments with them, then you also have no cable TV service. The alternatives are rapidly becoming more cost effective so pretty soon I will be getting rid of my cable TV company!

    Bottom line: if there is no monopoly and people know that then there is no method of controlling people and they can simply say, the hell with you, I’m going to do my OT levels with the ABC Church of Diversity.

    If you want to be a truly effective crusader, these are the two pieces of information that people need to know:

    1. The Church no longer has a monopoly on any level of the auditing materials.
    2. The Church uses threats of disconnection to enforce their policies.

    To my mind, what the Church engages in is abuse. Calling anything else is whitewashing it. Its an open door for excusing abusive behavior i.e. the devil made me do it. BULLSHIT. People bloody well know that it is abuse — but they excuse it, some excuse it by extolling the sky high goals and purposes and other excuse it by seeking ways to say they couldn’t help it — they were just a victim of someone, something, etc.

    As regards mind control, as far as I am concerned, the entire concept of mind control is seriously flawed. It is so flawed that the APA will not endorse the idea and neither with the courts. Neither will reputable scholars of the New Religious Movements. My in-depth studies of the area have given me a very good understanding as to why the APA and the courts have taken that position and why the scholastic community refuses to use the term cult any more, along with mind control and brainwashing, which they consider to be biased and derogatory terms used only to scare, marginalize and propagandize.

    1. Maria wrote:

      As regards mind control, as far as I am concerned, the entire concept of mind control is seriously flawed. It is so flawed that the APA will not endorse the idea and neither with the courts. Neither will reputable scholars of the New Religious Movements. My in-depth studies of the area have given me a very good understanding as to why the APA and the courts have taken that position and why the scholastic community refuses to use the term cult any more, along with mind control and brainwashing, which they consider to be biased and derogatory terms used only to scare, marginalize and propagandize.

      Let’s take it out of a religious context then.

      What would you call the techniques used on prisoners of war in Asia, and now on terror suspects in North America, to gain control of their thoughts, emotions and behaviors, to break them down for interrogations and to make them more amenable to the goals and purposes of their captors?

      How should those techniques be classified, and what should they be called so they can be identified and discussed?

      Do you believe that techniques like these exist and are used for the purpose I described?

      1. Maria –

        To clarify:

        That last question, “Do you believe that techniques like these exist and are used for the purpose I described?” was meant to refer to the non-religious purpose on prisoners of war.

      2. I read an extensive collection of declassified materials on prisoners of war in Asia. The conclusions are that the only useful application is to break a person down. Done incorrectly or with too much abuse, it isn’t even useful for interrogation as the individual will get to a point where they will say or do anything to make the abuse stop. And they will only continue to say it so long as there is a threat of continued abuse. If there is no continued abuse, torture or control of the individual’s environment, or some kind of ongoing threat, there is no permanent change of belief systems or continuation of subscription to the captor’s agenda. The individual returns to their own core belief systems when the abusive situation is no longer happening. The correct name for this kind of activity is assault, battery, torture and abuse.

        Monopoly
        Abuse

        Bad combination.

        1. So there are no techniques of mind control. Whether effective or not, they don’t exist.

          North Korea, the Soviet Union, China and the United states do not use it and it is all a lie.

          Is that what you are saying?

          1. I said what I said. There is abuse, torture, harassment, and so on. They can be put to use to force people to do things they would not ordinarily do. I call it coercion. I call it criminal behavior when it crosses the line to activities that violate the human and legal rights of others and clear cut laws. I really don’t care if it a government doing it, a preist, or your or me. They can justify it by calling it “mind control” but as the government studies have indicated, it is not effective. Vicious, yes. Effective, no.

        2. It’s funny.

          I thought about this part of your answer in terms of someone leaving the Church:

          And they will only continue to say it so long as there is a threat of continued abuse. If there is no continued abuse, torture or control of the individual’s environment, or some kind of ongoing threat, there is no permanent change of belief systems or continuation of subscription to the captor’s agenda. The individual returns to their own core belief systems when the abusive situation is no longer happening.

          I think we see the truth of this when people begin saying to themselves “I am no longer a member of the Church of Scientology”.

  13. And when they do, they may choose to keep what they learned that was valuable to them or they may choose to reject and condemn. The keyword here is CHOICE.

    That’s why I say that monopoly and abuse is a really bad combination. Both reduce choice.

    1. Excellent point about choice, Maria.

      One last question. If LRH installed a phobia in you that you would get sick or possibly die if you were exposed to the OT Levels “before you were ready”, and that was not a mind control technique, then what was it?

      1. Lets look at your proposed IF statement.

        “IF lrh…”

        Okay, so this is hypothetical. IF. You want me to respond to a statement formulated with concepts that I find to be fundamentally flawed as if they are not flawed.

        “installed…”

        The assumption here is that reading a policy letter or listening to someone causes that idea to be “installed.” I am reading your ideas right now. I am paying very close attention and I notice that you are not INSTALLING anything. You are not INSTALLING anything even if you think you are. Even if I accept your idea as a right or good idea, you still are not INSTALLING anything. Millions of people read, watch and listen to millions upon millions of ideas throughout their lives.

        ” a phobia…”

        From medline: a phobia is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger. People with phobias try to avoid what they are afraid of. If they cannot, they may experience panic and fear, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, trembling and a strong desire to get away.

        From the non-clinical definition found in Wikipedia: Terms for prejudice or discrimination
        A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are used non-clinically but have gained public acceptance, though they are often considered buzzwords. Such terms are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of “phobias” are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the “phobia”.

        Fact: Experimenters have tried to create phobias by using aversion therapy. They tried to get monkeys to respond adversely to evolutionary irrelevant stimuli (e.g. flowers and artificial rabbits) using conditioning. It did not work. You can read about this in Wikipedia.

        “mind control technique…”

        Once again, and I do tire of this, I consider this concept to be seriously flawed. I am not posting everything I have studied about this concept again.

        1. Maria –

          I am completely confused by your three answers to my questions this morning.

          I can not tell what you are saying.

          Do you believe that it is the truth a person will catch pneumonia and possibly die if they are exposed to the OT Levels “before they are ready”?

          1. What you have done here is reworded the information and presented as if it is an accurate presentation of what was said, and then asked your question.

            I see no point in answering your reworded question.

            The only quotation I have been able to find about what would happen if you READ or someone TELLS you the DETAILS of the materials, from RJ67:

            “This material I’m talking about, of course, is very upper Level material and you will forgive me if I don’t describe it to you in very broad detail because it’s VERY LIKELY to make you sick, too.”

            VERY LIKELY. This is a possibility. It is not a promise or assurance. And it is only VERY LIKELY if given in VERY BROAD DETAIL.

            He also said that the materials were rigged to kill anyone who discovered their exact truth. At that point he is talking about RUNNING the materials. He is not talking about reading the materials. Reading the materials is quite different than RUNNING them, correctly or incorrectly. And he is talking about how the materials are rigged, not about a certainty of killing everybody.

            Now somehow, that gets twisted to an assumption that reading the materials and discovering the exact truth are the same thing. And that the knowledge that the materials were RIGGED in certain way means that everybody dies or gets sick. Well, LRH said he got sick when he ran them. But he obviously didn’t die. And I’m sure that there are people who got sick when they ran them too. Did they all die? Well, there seem to be a lot of people alive who ran them. Are there people who have read the materials on the Internet who got sick? I don’t know. How exactly will we trace it to this exact trigger given how often people get sick in our society? But I think its pretty clear from his release on Revolt in the Stars that he didn’t think everyone was going to get pneumonia from watching his screenplay!

            He thought they could make people sick. He made a policy that they should be kept confidential. Nothing new in the area of mystical teachings on that one. You really ought to study a bunch of religions for there were lots of religious materials that were kept secret to protect the uninitiated, the most famous of them being the Elysian mysteries. Is it true? I don’t know.

            You hate that he did that. You think he did it out of maliciousness. You are so sure that you have the inside skinny on what his hidden intentions and motivations were when it is entirely possible that even he couldn’t have answered that question himself. Its you who believes in an omniscient Hubbard. I don’t. I never did.

            1. Thank you for clarifying, Maria.

              Let’s examine the exact claims Hubbard made about the OT Levels and the exact likelihood of their dangerous effects on people if they should come into contact with the materials, or the mechanisms in the mind that the OT Levels supposedly audit out.

              Excellent work on finding the quote from RJ 67, when he first broadly promoted these OT III for sale to the public.

              LRH said in that lecture: “This material I’m talking about, of course, is very upper Level material and you will forgive me if I don’t describe it to you in very broad detail because it’s VERY LIKELY to make you sick, too.”

              So describing the upper level material in very broad detail is likely to make you sick, as it had made him sick in discovering it.

              First, let me ask you: Do you believe this?

              Do you believe that describing the upper level materials – in this case OT III – in very broad detail is very likely to make a person sick?

    1. So you believe that a person will catch pneumonia and possibly die if they are exposed to the OT Levels “before they are ready”?

      You believe that is the truth?

      1. It is my opinion that reading any material ( scientology OT meterial included ) has not a dangerous effect on persons. Psychological conditioning can cause some discomfort. But what really kills a person is grinding badly the psychological case as happened to Lisa McPherson in the scientology mecca, the FSO. ( no OT levels present ).:
        http://www.lisamcpherson.org/

        1. I believe that an anti placebo effect can affect a person quite strongly. Believing that something can hurt you and then compounding that with a worry that it will – that can have dire effects on a person.

          1. I agree.

            The reverse placebo effect can be achieved in cult members by what Steven Hassan calls installed phobias:

            Phobias are a typical symptom which present themselves in the cult member’s makeup. Hassan (1988) says “Phobias are an intense fear reaction to someone or something” (p. 45). He continues to explain that they form a negative cycle which is made up of worrisome thoughts, negative internal images, and feelings of dread and being out of control. Cult members are systematically programmed with phobias so they will be in terrible fear of leaving the cult. They are enslaved by this mind control technique in thinking that there is no other way for them to grow–spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally (Hassan, 1988).

            Sometimes these phobias, if uninspected, can last for decades – even after leaving the cult environment.

            The question is – is the belief or worldview which lies as the basis for the above reactions true or not?

            Are you going to get sick, or make others sick, if you expose them to the OT Levels before they are ready?

            Is this true?

            1. If I remember correctly, the actual issue says one ‘MAY’ not that one ‘WILL’.

              I have seen various reactions to reading materials before one is at that level – most have no reaction at all.

              After all, most of this data is in the basic books and student read it all the time – awareness of certain phenomena varies from individual to individual

          2. As far as I have come to know (though not being a medic), this is also a known phenomenon within standard medicine, that somebody can initiate or provoke an illness in themself from believing that they actually are sick …

        2. You are right Geir, but there is a vaccinations for this anti placebo effect. A written authorized issue, stating very clearly the fact that reading this material can´t harm but trying to run this unproperly ( as any badly applied psychotherapy will do ). The inaction from the CoS to clarify this can result in real harm to suggestible persons being exposed by the media to this material ( i.e. south park episode, news ” investigations “, talk from antiscientologists, etc. ).

          1. Well, you have to make the distinction that Hubbard made, and which Maria clarified above.

            The exact claim is that by describing the upper level materials – in this case OT III – in very broad detail is very likely to make you sick if you are not set up for it.

            And he also claimed that the materials were rigged to kill you if you learned the exact truth of them.

            If you really examine these claims closely, they were left very vague in Scientology since 1968.

            These claims have caused a lot of terror in Scientologists for a long time.

            Are they true? Is the terror deserved?

            1. I don’t think the terror is deserved. On the quotation “rigged to kill you” obviously the rigging isn’t effective from reading and hearing about it. Otherwise, there would not be a screenplay “Revolt in the Stars.” And as far as making one sick, well, psychosomatic illnesses are still on the books and there are plenty of those going around.

              I think the terror is not about the materials themselves. It never was for me. I just didn’t want to have to pay for even more expensive auditors, didn’t want to have to have a bunch of sec checks, didn’t want to have to do all kinds of “ethics handlings” up to and including possible disconnection. If I had any fear that was the fear, that and being told that I couldn’t continue and was banned from doing the OT levels. It was a big relief and very liberating to learn that they were available outside of the Church.

              I have heard no reports out of the freezone area that people have died from reading or listening to the materials. And they have been out in the freezone for at least 30 years. Surely we would have heard something by now on this out of the freezone. I have definitely heard of people getting sick, but then people get sick from all kinds of causes and it is possible that all sickness really is some kind of discord or as the holistic people say, dis-ease. On the other hand, there are reports of people who have done the OT levels incorrectly (a matter of opinion, I think) who have gotten really sick and apparently died from that. How one traces this cause is beyond me though. Its not like taking a cyanide pill and you can go in and do an autopsy or anything.

              So it probably comes down to it depends – it depends on the individual and the individual state of mind and the individual awareness and so on. I mean, the definition of a hypochondriac is that they read about something and they get sick – so they would likely get sick. But someone who has been doing extensive self work or doesn’t put much attention on it, well, probably not.

              In any case, its pretty much irrelevant now, for these materials are no longer secret and if someone wants to read them, they are not hard to track down and read. So the Church’s draconian strictures seem to be rather ridiculous at this point.

            2. I have scheduled a blog post for tomorrow that goes into my thoughts about exactly this while I was at Flag, in the secured Solo NOTs area. Stay tuned.

            3. Maria –

              You have a huge amount of intellectual honesty and integrity.

              You continue to amaze and impress me with your curiosity and very sharp critical thinking skills.

              Thank you for playing along with me.

              Alanzo

            4. G wrote:

              I have scheduled a blog post for tomorrow that goes into my thoughts about exactly this while I was at Flag, in the secured Solo NOTs area. Stay tuned.

              Hot Dog.

              I think you are on to some awesome stuff here, Geir.

  14. Do you really have something in your mind, that if you look at it, can make you sick or kill you?

    Because this is the underlying claim and worldview that Hubbard created for Scientologists.

    Is it true?

    Are there things in your mind that, if you look at them, can make you sick or kill you?

      1. Are these people Scientologists?

        Or have they had no contact with Scientology and Hubbard’s claim that there are things in your mind that can make you sick or even kill you?

    1. Alanzo, “Do you really have something in your mind, that if you look at it, can make you sick or kill you?”
      Sure you have, but it only exist if you put it there in the first place.[ and you just”forgotten” its there]. It Your universe, no one can put there anything without your agreement and who said scientologist will live forever and not drop their bodies?

  15. Are they true?, may be yes. Is the terror deserved? may be not. The only thing remaining clear here is: in our super-communicated world today, the attempt to hide and not-is the existence of these matterials is silly and may be criminal in the part of the CoS ( given the anti placebo effect alive here ). It is my opinion that an ilustrated booklet on the wall of fire materials sold to the interested parishioners and general public could handle this problem immediatly. The same with R6 and individual implants tech. Well done it is a necessary and preventive step for the public at large. The option of remaining silent on this is the wrong way in my view and leaves the scientologists particularly in the effect point from the surrounding comm on the subject.

  16. This is the entire premise of MENTAL illness, that there is something in the mind that can make you sick, ill and lead to an escalation of illness. One example is clinical depression, which has a range of mental and physical phenomena that manifest as illness. Another example, broken heart syndrome, which has now been acknowledged as being every bit as powerful as any heart attack can kill you if the agony and physical effects of the broken heart syndrome are not addressed. And this is also the premise of many medical treatments that use drugs to alter states of mind. As well, the medical system has acknowledged the existence of psychosomatic illness pretty much from day one. It is now referred to as psychosomatic medicine, behavioral medicine, and neuroimmunology, just to name a few of the fields that think the mind definitely can make you sick or even kill you.

    This is definitely not something you could attribute to Hubbard. It is definitely not his invention.

    1. Yes Maria, but you are now changing the context.

      We are talking about exact mechanisms in your “reactive mind” “r6 bank”, etc, as specifically described by L Ron Hubbard – non-confidentially – in RJ 67 and in many other confidential materials, that are claimed to be addressed on the OT Levels of Scientology.

      These are the things in your mind that Hubbard told you could make you sick or even kill you if you looked at them improperly or were not ready – Scientology-wise – to look at them.

      Are these specific claims by Hubbard true?

  17. I don’t give credit to Hubbard for the concept of the reactive mind. My studies indicate that discussion of engrams and so on were well underway long before he ever began his researches. It would be better to say that he extended research along that line and developed a particular model. But invent it? Nah. I’ve found numerous discussions of mental image pictures. Of old traumatic events that are psychicly charged. Of long forgottens “stains” and terrible memories with the power to harm. And so on. I’ve even found the dichotomies in earlier works. No, he extended and refined that work, moving along his particular line of reasoning and organization. Some day you should delve into the works of the the New Thought movement, the Spiritists, and delve deep into the tantric practices of Buddhism — I think you would be very surprised. There is a huge, earlier legacy that cannot be ignored even though these days it has been relegated to the back burner by modern day science. But the fact is that psychology, psychiatry, even medicine are based squarely on this enormous earlier body of work from many, many people in the fields of metaphysics, science, religion, spirituality, and so on. And BTW you should see the warnings of danger from shamanism. Spectacular!

    1. Yes Maria, but you are now changing the context – and now even the subject.

      We are talking about exact mechanisms in your “reactive mind” “r6 bank”, etc, as specifically described by L Ron Hubbard – non-confidentially – in RJ 67 and in many other confidential materials, that are claimed to be addressed on the OT Levels of Scientology.

      These are the things in your mind that Hubbard told you could make you sick or even kill you if you looked at them improperly or were not ready – Scientology-wise – to look at them.

      Are these specific claims by Hubbard true?

      1. If I look at them improperly? I don’t know. I am struggling to comprehend this idea of looking improperly.

        But I will say that I have gotten very sick as a result of mishandled auditing, the sickness disappearing almost immediately when the problem was isolated and corrected.

        If I was not ready? Again, I don’t know. This never came up for me.

        But you know, I can really only answer for myself.

          1. Now I will pose some questions that make sense to me, and that are answerable and answer them:

            1. Do I think the mind plays a major role in health and well being? Yes, absolutely.
            2. Do I think that traumatic events play a major role in health and well being? Yes, absolutely.
            3. Do I think that a single mental image picture can make someone sick? No. I think that the triggering of a series of related mental image pictures precipitates a particular mental and emotional state, which coupled with a physical state can and does result in illness.
            4. Do I think someone could become ill by viewing certain materials? Yes. But this may be a matter of triggering a series of mental image pictures and decisions that in turn trigger emotional states which impinge on physical states and vice-versa.
            5. Do I think that an individual can have traumatic incidents triggered by outside stimuli or persons deliberately or otherwise, which then precipitate illness? Yes.
            6. Do I think that a person can be treated in a fashion that triggers distressing emotional states that trigger physical and mental responses that can devolve into illness? Yes.
            7. Do I think that abusive actions against people can produce reduced emotional, mental, spiritual and physical states that result in illness or incapacity? Yes.
            8. Do I think that reading or listening to or looking at materials are capable of installing phobias in people who are not traumatized or have no past history of being traumatized? No.
            9. Do I think that threats against a person can trigger emotional, mental and physical states that precipitate illness? Yes.
            10. Do I think that past trauma can be hidden from view, be triggered in a way that the person does not recognize that the trauma has been triggered? Yes.
            11. Do I think that the person has to believe in any of the above for it to happen? No.
            12. Do I think that triggering fear, alarm, despair, shame, etc. can result from abusive actions of others and do these triggered emotions trigger mental states, decisions and repressed memories that are interconnected and thus result in lowered capacity and a reduction of healthy response and healthy states? Yes.
            13. Do I think some people can talk themselves into being sick? Yes.
            14. Do I think some people can talk themselves into being well? Yes.
            15. Do I think all of the above will affect different people identically? No. It is going to vary from person to person, vary from day to day and vary between people. What may be monumental to one person may be trivial to another. That is because we all have our own unique experiential tracks, but we also have common fears and mechanisms that go into play. i.e. starve several people and you are going to see similar states appearing among the different responses.

            1. 16. Do you think that the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the human mind, that you so brilliantly detailed above, can be exploited by someone who has been placed in the position of spiritual leader over someone?

              17. And if that spiritual leader, knowing all these weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the human mind, did this on purpose and for his own gain, and to the determent of his own followers, would you call that mind control?

            2. 16. Do you think that the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the human mind, that you so brilliantly detailed above, can be exploited by someone who has been placed in the position of spiritual leader over someone?

              Attempts have been made to exploit them throughout history. But those same weaknesses and vulnerabilities have a natural backlash against the would-be exploiter. Sickened, ill, and crippled individuals quickly become a drain on others and destroy the very power the exploiter is trying to garner unto himself, the triggering effects are extremely unpredictable and even volatile, and the manipulated individual inevitably reverses the process on the would-be exploiter either by flipping to an aggressive rebellion or by destructive action or non-action that appears to be co-operative. The recoil is substantial. The reverse side of that weakness and vulnerability is an extraordinary strength and tenacity that remains present down to the last breath and beyond.

              17. And if that spiritual leader, knowing all these weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the human mind, did this on purpose and for his own gain, and to the determent of his own followers, would you call that mind control?

              No. I would call it stupidity. Such a leader might be able to persuade or even coerce an individual to act in ways inimical to their own sanity and interests for a time. But the triggering effect is unpredictable. The only circumstance under which it could be called mind control is if the leader could control what exactly would be triggered, what series would be triggered and all countering thoughts and impulses. That is an impossibility.

            3. What if the spiritual leader developed a system to marginalize and isolate those “flat ball bearings” of his mind control system like the PTS/SP technology, which is designed to discredit and quarantine those who catch on to the mind control and who try to warn the other paying customers what is being done to them?

  18. Geir wrote:

    The OT 7 materials. I can’t even imagine what would happen to a person not at this level on the Bridge getting his hands on those materials.

    Re-copied here just to re-place the baseline that underlies so much of the Scientology worldview.

    The worldview is that there are things in your mind that can make you sick and even kill you if you are not set up properly on the Bridge to view them, standardly and in the correct auditing environment.

    Further, Hubbard taught Scientologists – non-confidentially – that these mechanisms in your mind that can make you sick or even kill you were implanted there by ancient alien civilizations which intended to imprison you on Earth so you never fully became aware of your own power and immortality as a spiritual being.

    I ask again: Is this true?

    1. No. It is incomplete. It is slanted. It is out of context. It is deliberately reworded to spin a view that forwards your agenda.

      For example: ancient alien civilizations.

      — a more accurate depiction is that there are immortal spiritual beings who have played many different roles throughout time. These are identities adopted in earlier times and in different scenarios, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes mediocre, sometimes victim, sometimes perpetrator. Its thee and me and the many others just like thee and me — and Shakespeare said it best — all the world`s a stage and aliens r us.

      And these same mechanisms can be used to empower yourself AND others so that you are no longer the effect of these cycles of victim and perpetrator. In fact, the simple maintenance of good physical health, creating environments that support constructive activities and responses, supporting activities that build respect, virtue and character and increasing knowledge through shared information can and does proof one up against further repeats of the victim and perpetrator cycle.

      1. Maria –

        Have you ever heard the non-confidential 1951 lecture entitled “The Role of Earth”?

        Have you ever read this passage from the 1951 book “What to Audit”, later renamed “A History of Man”?

        A THETAN is somewhat bound-in here on Earth because of the existence of other system forces. Probably, with a few THETANS active, this planet will be much less calm and orderly. Probably homo sapiens will use electronics some day to re-trap thetans who are bothering him but if homo sapiens has the techniques for getting free himself, some miracle might avert this. Possibly a handful of thetans will someday become alarmed at the worries and efforts of homo sapiens and try to throw the remaining race into a super-controlled slavery. All that is speculation but it is not a speculation that life will become much more interesting on this planet. It is doubtful if the thetans will pull off the ultimate trick—simply knocking out the atmosphere of the planet—that “clears” everybody after a fashion. There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth. And it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late. Its incredibility is its best safeguard, so you needn’t bother to convince anybody who doesn’t want to believe it. It took the medical profession two and a half years to catch on to prenatals. People getting cleared of bodies don’t need any such time lag. And so, may I make this simple request—don’t get spectacular until a few of the boys make it. You don’t want to be lonesome—and you’ll need reinforcements if a war gets declared on thetans here. The preclear may think he can do it alone if he gets cleared of a body—he’ll need more help and company than he thinks. So, again, as a final note on this chapter, let’s not go upsetting governments and putting on a show to “prove” anything to homo sapiens for a while; it’s a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away and get into the rotogravure section and the Hearst Weeklies—but you’ll just make it tough on somebody else who is trying to get across this bridge. Let sleeping sapiens snore in the bulk for yet awhile. Then meet some place and decide what to do about him and his twopenny wars, his insane and his prisons. Tell people who want to invalidate all this, “Your criticism is very just. It’s only fantasy.” Cure up the lame and halt and the incompetent with whatever display of technique you need. Protect theta clearing until there are a few.

        You even quoted the following passage on November 29, 2011 here on Geir’s blog:

        “We’re not now in this for play. Our personal futures depend on keeping going and making no major flubs. It isn’t a question of is there something else. There isn’t. Nobody can be half in and half out of Scientology. Scientologists are Scientologists no matter what they do for a living.

        The prize is regaining self and going free. The penalty for our failure is condemnation to an eternity of pain and amnesia for ourselves and for our friends and for this planet.

        If we fail, we’ve had it. It’s not just a matter of getting killed. It’s a matter of getting killed and killed and killed life after life forever more.

        Those guys up there mean business. We’ve got to match or better their energy level and dedication or we lose.

        We’ve been given a priceless chance. We must make good. We haven’t any time for doubts or maunderings.

        We’re the elite of Planet Earth, but that’s only saying we’re the not quite gone in the graveyard of the long gone.

        Somehow, despite our condition and the degraded environment we’re in, we’ve got to keep the dedication and the guts to carry through no matter what comes.”

        (HCO PL 30 July 1963 CURRENT PLANNING)

        https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/on-l-ron-hubbards-administrative-technology/

        So I don’t understand why you are saying that my summary is incomplete, out of context, and slanted to fit my own agenda. L Ron Hubbard himself laid in this worldview for Scientologists since the very beginning of Dianetics – even before Scientology.

        So can you please explain?

        1. Al, what you love to do is create little blurbs that are very general, lacking in any nuance, with a decided spin. And then you ask a question framed within that. That is what I am talking about.

          What`s missing here is that after writing the materials in History of Man, LRH created a category called para-Scientology and dumped this entire book into that category. Also missing is that he was often laughing and being tongue-in-cheek as he spoke of these fantasies.

          And 1963 was a very weird year.

        2. I might also add that I really have little interest in all that. I`ve worked my way through what I consider to be important and valuable.

          The rest is entertaining and a tribute to the incredible diversity and creativity of individuals real or imagined. And the dark side of the force is darkly but possibly even more entertaining, even riveting and a sad testimony to the flip side of the coin. Sometimes I think it is like being dropped into a horror flick set. What will they think of next? How many different ways can you chop off someone`s appendages spraying blood and gore in every direction?

          I have people in my life who are convinced that the Queen of England is secretly a lizard queen, and that the government is controlling us from cell towers. They also have seen numerous UFOs. I have no idea what to think about all that. Sometimes I feel kind of left out. I have never seen a UFO and curiously they never show up even when I am with people who have seen UFOs. Go figure.

          1. Maria wrote:

            I have people in my life who are convinced that the Queen of England is secretly a lizard queen, and that the government is controlling us from cell towers. They also have seen numerous UFOs. I have no idea what to think about all that. Sometimes I feel kind of left out. I have never seen a UFO and curiously they never show up even when I am with people who have seen UFOs. Go figure.

            Yes, other people think things, too.

            But that is not proof, nor is it even evidence, nor does it even address, that LRH installed this worldview into Scientology for Scientologists to adopt and to internalize.

            LRH did this, and I have shown it.

            So the question remains: Is what LRH told you about your mind – that it has the power to make you sick or even to kill you because of what alien civilizations have placed in it – is that true?

            1. I told you what I think and I have responded on my own terms. And that is the only way that I am going to respond. How about you re-read what I have said instead of constantly rephrasing the question in your own terms? Capiche?

  19. Yes, I capiche.

    It’s just that sometimes you will write responses to my posts that you yourself do not even appear to believe, just to oppose what I am saying.

  20. I think that you may be right about that opposing element — for some reason I feel a need to balance everything out. Don’t take it personally, I do it on just about everything in my life — I suppose it is my own effort to keep my own thinking on an even keel and avoid blind spots. I can tell you that it sometimes irritates some of my friends who would dearly love to just pass a quick judgment and move on!

    The other thing that you are encountering is that I am quite willing to allow people to believe whatever they will and I am willing to let them change their minds as well. It doesn’t mean that I have to believe it. It doesn’t mean that I do believe it either. I am quite willing to allow that they might be right and that it is entirely possible that I simply cannot or will not see it. So very often, my real answer is I don’t know or jury’s out. Its not supportive of the idea, but it is supportive of the idea that others can have their own ideas.

    As far as Scientology goes I have pretty much isolated what I consider to be the two factors that screwed up the C of S. Monopoly and abuse. Beyond those two things, if they want to auction off fruit loops to buy pink flamingos and believe in backwards universes and cheer enthusiastically, then hey, go for it! It is very unlikely that I will choose to support that.

    Like I said, I consider it very important that people know that participation in the current C of S services and programs starts off as voluntary and eventually becomes mandatory as the threat of disconnection and the threat of not being able to get auditing are increasingly employed to enforce compliance. That’s abuse. And I really don’t care one way or the other who started it. I only care about who condones and perpetuates it.

    At this time, I cannot support the C of S in any way. And truth be told, I find the interplay between you and I to be very fruitful in terms of really getting people to see the good truths in Scientology with plenty of caution going the other way.

    Thank you for your compliment to me earlier on about “playing along” with you. I think you should know that I think well of you too, and even though I reject some of the ways you word or spin things, as I “play along” it brings my own thinking into sharp focus and many issues and ways of thinking that might not otherwise be discussed.

    1. Maria, This was an excellent post as was Alanzo’s – quite a series and I didn’t know where, but I had a bad feeling where it was heading. Then like a fun-house ride, just before crashing into the wall, the car turned and avoided the crash.

      You wrote: “I think that you may be right about that opposing element — for some reason I feel a need to balance everything out. Don’t take it personally, I do it on just about everything in my life — I suppose it is my own effort to keep my own thinking on an even keel and avoid blind spots. I can tell you that it sometimes irritates some of my friends who would dearly love to just pass a quick judgment and move on! The other thing that you are encountering is that I am quite willing to allow people to believe whatever they will and I am willing to let them change their minds as well. It doesn’t mean that I have to believe it. It doesn’t mean that I do believe it either. I am quite willing to allow that they might be right and that it is entirely possible that I simply cannot or will not see it. So very often, my real answer is I don’t know or jury’s out. Its not supportive of the idea, but it is supportive of the idea that others can have their own ideas.”

      This self-installed poka-yoke could be taught to others, children, adults, whomever in order to keep ‘thinking on an even keel and to avoid blind spots” and CULT THINK. It would serve as a training aspect of a self-improvement bridge such as Vinaire’s KHTK, which doesn’t teach any “now you are supposed to’s.” It is the first commentary on proofing against cult-think since that thread a while back on poka-yoke.

  21. Geir, I’m curious about something that didn’t happen. If you can remember your point of view in the early days, if the OT levels wouldn’t have so mysterious and promising, if the rules and pressures hadn’t been so stringent, do you think you would have gone to the trouble of 5,000 auditing sessions on OT 7? I’m not voicing this very well. Was there an aspect of mind control which influenced your persistence and discipline? Any version or aspect of answering this question is fine.

  22. Hello everyone,

    I am in a unique position regarding the OT III materials.

    You see, I was one of those “lucky” (sarcasm) non-scientologists to be exposed to these materials in their original form, back in 1987, probably within a decade or so of their first being leaked.

    If I had only been exposed to the incomplete and alter-is version of OT III now floating around the internets I doubt I would have had any type of response to these materials – other than perhaps, laughter.

    But the truth is, the original “running” of these materials on me as a very young preclear (lol) and student of the mind, had exactly the results Hubbard predicts: quite unexpectedly I went full exterior. It was more than a little disorienting. It turned on a whole array of phenomenon that now, decades later, I realize to be the exact phenomenon of the “composite case.” It took a few months for those phenomenon to wind back down to a baseline of normal consciousness.

    Suffice to say that it was not a good idea to run this on someone with no prior Scientology experience, and only the most minimal of briefings beforehand – and in retrospect I’m sure this was one of the intentions of the beings who delivered this process.

    Of course there is a lot of personal history and context to this story I could add that might otherwise be distracting to this thread.

    However those interested in a timeline of Hubbard’s and Scientology’s researches into some of these phenomenon of exteriorization might be interested in the “Remote Viewing Timeline” at http://sc-i-r-s-ology.com/rvtimeline/index.html .

    The version of OT-III floating around the internet now is missing several key pieces of data to properly key-in the phenomenon in a preclear.

      1. First, I tend to view scientology processing as something like NLP applied to the realm of spiritual experience. The incidents that come up in processing need not necessarily have any correlation with the current MEST mockup, time track, nor U2 or U3, for me to benefit by processing them.

        Second, this is an extremely unpleasant incident to have key in, and keying it in stirs up a lot of beings. It can also stir up other beingness within the space one normally identifies as “self” (as an example, the space of body.) Even if you as a spiritual being didn’t receive this incident, your body did, which can lead to all sorts of weird permutations and combinations of who is holding whom in restimulation.

        Third, if I actually knew a specific way to key this in, nonetheless I would still refrain from sharing it haphazardly. It might not make everyone sick or insane who keys it in but its definitely an overwhelm of magnitude and a real doozy of an incident.

        Fourth, its tough to look back at my own experience of OT III decades later and get a clear recall on what was said.

        That said, the part that seems to be missing from the public distribution is the bit that is said to one immediately prior or subsequent to capture (e.g. before being shot.) I’m pretty sure its usually a “sentencing,” such as being sentenced by a courtroom or administrative official. This probably varies with the specific volcano, whether one was general population or a loyal officer or other ranked officials. I have reason to believe there were at least 3 variations of this preamble in use. My guess is that it is still very highly charged material. The remote viewing timeline link suggests some possibilities as to who might have a vested interest in keeping this data private. Your mileage may vary.

      1. I just wanted to add, in case it wasnt obvious, that I really don’t know the answer of how to key this in, but it is obviously a strong area of case for me, being as it was my first overt and explicit exposure to “the tech” of Scientology this lifetime.

        Perhaps one day I’ll find some published processes that really click for me, or maybe an Org willing to entertain helping a being, honor bound to serve Truth who wants nothing more than to help free spiritual beings and help the able become more able.

        But so far the whole story has met with quite a bit of inval.

        Have you seen Captain Bill’s “Tech Briefing #4” ? Lots of data on Incidents I and II and their mechanics. Heres one of the few copies I could find. The Ron’s org sites I’ve been able to find dont usually publish this one.

        http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?23352-The-Works-of-Captain-Bill-Robertson-%28CBR%29-%E2%80%94-Excalibur-Phoenix-etc./page2&s=9de4f547d373ad16730b7b5c5b2449d3

        Thinking of this data as one of several possible “speculative fiction” interpretations of the events on the time track of theta in this universe as it began to contain more MEST-like manifestations has definitely enabled me to get some genuine gains from very simple mostly homemade solo processes in this area.

  23. I know this is wildly off-topic but,

    Do any of you have a meter for sale?

    I live in Nawth America so 120v.

    Solo cans would be nice with external TA

    Right handed

    Thanks Dennis

    … and I’m selling my original Road to Freedom/ Apollo Stars albumn framed numbered(40) thingy with autographs … J. Travolta, Chick Corea, Lief Garret lol, and many others … worth $10k at the time /facepalm

    1. Oh, and I’m real cheap on the meter … I gave all my money to Marilidi when she was regging me for the Patron Uber somethingorrather 😉

  24. I read the Mayo write-up about Clear and aesthetic*randomity’s comments and they reminded me of something I wrote recently, just for the fun of it.(and Geir has a cameo rolein it). It was written in a flippantly pedantic style but in it I expressed some considerations that are surprisingly similar to things Mayo wrote. I titled it “A History, Told from the Future” and sent it to a couple of friends.
    .

    Once upon a time, there existed in the universe a certain group of thetans who apparently each decided to create, or were “helped” to create, a “stimulus response machine of considerable magnitude”. Eons hence this machine came to be called the Reactive Bank (in a certain Technical Dictionary of that much later era).

    A formidable apparatus, said machine was designed to go into effect to the same degree as the extent of any PT unconsciousness, as moderated by PT analytical awareness, itself modified on occasion by relevant considerations. More concisely put – it was to go into action relative to the ratio of unconsciousness and awareness.

    More precisely as to WHEN such machine was to go into effect, it was to be at the onset of and continue for the duration of a receptive PT unconsciousness-awareness ratio. And as for the operation itself, that consisted of the action of recording all aspects of the PT environment as well as bringing similar prior recordings into play as a result of the new energy pictures that were being recorded (perceived energies in the environment) resonating with like energy pictures priorly recorded, which at that particular moment might happen to be in the vicinity of the thetan and his machine, thus bringing those selfsame recordings into action. [LOL, have fun parsing and/or diagramming these sentences.]

    Over the eons, during each and every subsequent moment of a suitable unconsciousness-awareness ratio, recordings would re-activate and become capable of being dramatized by their owner to the degree that the quantity of PT unconsciousness combined with the re-activated unconsciousness was not being sufficiently countered by a higher quantity of analytical awareness (conceivably modified by considerations, as earlier indicated). In other words – the aforesaid in applicable ratio. Much later it also became known as the theta-entheta ratio.

    Eventually, some of those very same thetans came fortuitously upon a technology that enabled them to begin taking apart their ever-present sidekick – described by this new tech as the Reactive Mind, a “mind” wholly composed of a whole-track bank of recordings. By the simple means of looking at, moving through and duplicating more and more of those recordings, the integrity of the machine structure itself was gradually weakened until at last it could no longer be sustained – and it collapsed. (Either figuratively or literally – a question that came to be debated.) That happy occasion was referred to as “going clear” and a thetan so processed was called “Clear”, both adjectivally and nominally.

    Now, what exactly happened to the recordings as they were made to “disappear” was strictly a matter of speculation as well. By some, it was contended that, unlike the theory of physical universe energy, the energy of which the recordings were composed was utterly destroyed – and that it vanished. Other folks, more physics oriented, wondered if in fact the energy went back into the uncoalesced wave field proper to Quantum Mechanics. Although that so-called wave field in early physics history was oddly reminiscent of the ether theories of olden times, “Why not?” the theorists asked. After all, intuition, being a direct apprehension of truth, can happen at any time and in any place, not needing to be founded in any science and regardless of what current science has to say about it.

    Yet another area of confusion and speculation by some was whether or not the machine itself was indeed fully destroyed – or whether it was only sufficiently dismantled and weakened to the point where the thetan was capable of handling IT rather than being handled BY it. [This is similar to Mayo’s viewpoint] In such a case, however, with some of the recorded pictures still remaining intact, there could conceivably come about enough PT unconsciousness together with remnant recordings of heavy-enough pictures that our thetan would be back in the soup and again at effect of those recordings.

    Other theories ran along the lines of – once Clear, there were no more pictures belonging to the thetan in question and any pictures that should happen to arise would be those of the softened-up thetans that dwelled in, on and around one’s body (colloquially called one’s “peeps”), which possessed their very own pictures.

    Other, more radical, speculators felt that any and all mental influences connected to a thetan would have been created by the thetan himself and could be viewed and fully handled from the perspective of taking responsibility for them as such. One particular theory of this kind was proposed in an article titled “A Radical New View of the Upper Scn Levels”, by one Geir Isene.

    There were also theories that related to both “if” and “how” one could indeed go Clear without travelling the route of the Standard Tech of the day. It seemed that some thetans, without having partaken of that technology, or not fully so at any rate, may have found or chanced upon or stumbled across – or even inadvertently evolved toward – other means of breaking down the integrity of their erstwhile cohabitant commonly known as the Reactive Mind (assuming they had one to begin with, as a few were apparently always Clear).

    Scientifically speaking, it seemed valid to believe that any means of acquiring a potential in energy more powerful than the power of the Reactive Bank could theoretically have done the trick…

    And history continued to evolve from there…

  25. William, [katageek] I just read all the comments from top down.. love your flapping of wings… But you never said what was the size of the butterfly !!!! trill of it all… you dont fool me my dear, not for one second..

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s