Scientology Bait & Switch, part II

In the discussion on my first Bait & Switch post, a major reason for Scientology’s failure became apparent.


L. Ron Hubbard, the founder, the sole Source, the only true originator of Scientology promoted that his religion will give you real, tangible and objective results. This is the Bait. But when you traverse his one-size-fits-all path to spiritual greatness, The Bridge to Total Freedom, gone are the objective, provable results. Instead you attest to subjective results. With very few exceptions, your gains are not measurable and does not compare to the promised objective gains. This is the switch.

This is a major trick, albeit insidious and difficult to catch as you can read from the discussion under the first Bait & Switch blog post.

Here are some examples of the claims Hubbard made for Scientology (the Bait):

  • Broken bones heal in two weeks instead of six (by X-ray evidence), withered limbs restore, burns vanish, swellings reduce visibly to nothing, lives wrecked by grief and loss recover, women lose their aging wrinkles, and sought after abilities return. (DnT)
  • Chronic, which is to say, long-term illnesses cease when audited by Dianetics and then medical treatment. (DnT)
  • The sickness and death rate of persons who are part of Dianetic groups is only a small fraction of that of other groups. (DnT)
  • Dianetics raises IQ in addition to usual auditing, at a rate of about one point of IQ per hour of processing. (DnT)
  • A Clear can control all his body fluids. (EoaS)
  • A Clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenic (self-generated) diseases referred to as psycho-somatic ills. These tests confirm the Clear to be entirely without such ills or aberrations. (DMSMH)
  • The common cold, for instance, if it is a virus or not, passes him (the Clear) by; chronic infections are absent. (DMSMH)
  • A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. (DMSMH)
  • A Theta Clear is a person who operates exterior to a body without need of a body. (SH Spec 59)
  • The state of Operating Thetan is higher than Theta Clear and means that the person does not need a body to communicate or work. (CoHA)
  • A good thorough-going Operating Thetan should not take more than fifty hours of auditing. (Ass. Newsl. 1953-04-28)


And here are some results that one actually attests to (the Switch):

  • Knows he/she won’t get any worse.
  • Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life.
  • Freedom from the upsets of the past and ability to face the future.
  • Moving out of fixed conditions and gaining abilities to do new things.
  • Freedom from dramatization and return of powers to act on own determinism.
  • A Clear: A being who no longer has his reactive mind

While there is no excuse to not revise or apologize for the promised gains when it is not delivered, scientologists continue to justify and explain away this flagrant flaw.

Let’s face the facts; Less than 1% of those that invested time and effort in the subject stayed on in the hope of receiving the promised gain. The failure of Scientology as a subject is massive.

We often hear explanations for Scientology’s downfall like “Scientology is so good that vested interest attacked it from all directions”, “The society was in an dwindling spiral, so Hubbard worked so hard to undercut his method to accommodate for the increasing stupidity and irrationality of the population” or even “Hubbard ran Scientology just perfectly, it was only when David Miscavige took charge that it went south”.

But, applying Occam’s Razor, isn’t the simpler answer that Scientology simply does not deliver on its promises?

It doesn’t much matter that people like me got a lot out of the subject as long as it does not consistently deliver factual, measurable results.

226 thoughts on “Scientology Bait & Switch, part II

  1. Do you think its possible, Geir, and I say this with respect because you are my friend — that you really didn’t have gains in Scientology? That the pain and embarrassment is so great that the gains are something you have to tell yourself to avoid the inevitable existential cliff? I say this only because this is what I told myself for the first year I left. I said that because I had to, it was a necessary and not a sufficient condition for my mental stability after being hurt so bad.

    You make insightful critiques but almost always add the extension, “but I had great gains”

    I don’t even know if Im doubting you because I do know you. I know that you are stable, successful, and gifted in many things. But I would be interested in an honest answer from you on this:

    Is it possible you are bullshitting yourself on your gains?

    Is it possible that actually, Scientology ravaged your life and relationships for 25 years?

    I know you will appreciate the question, which is the only reason why I would ask something so direct.


    1. Believe me, I have covered this terrain many times. But the answer remains – my gains were factual and objectively verified. However, I have revised my views on many gains I had and believe I had. I do understand that you bullshitted yourself. I can see that. But what I report as gains were really there. Just like my gains in other subjects like math, coaching, programming and raising of children.

      As for the oft adding of my gains in critical posts, it is to remain balanced. The newly converted are often over-zealous and extremist in their views. A new Scientologist are often blinded by the positives while the new Critic are often blinded by the negative. I believe the All White and All Black are roughly equally insane. I like to promote balanced discussions as they are more often productive. As can be seen on this blog.

      1. Strangely enough, Geir, your posts on this terrain mirror mine, save that I did the training more than the processing route. I found your blog last week, although I did see your exit video last year. I enjoyed it, but didn’t manage to find your blog (I did, but I believe that you had made several “life posts” on it, and didn’t see much about Scn as a subject).

        Oddly enough, I got almost the same gains out of Scientology that you did (personally) – i.e. I was shy before, and became much more outgoing. We also have a similar scientific mindset, interest in rpgs, background in software development, etc. so I was able to identify with your process quite easily.

        I find myself questioning the veracity of the tech in the context of “works everytime, all the time”. And I’ve audited tens of thousands of hours while on staff. I’m also a highly trained administrator, just shy of finishing the “FEBC”.

        Both tech and admin don’t definitively work in the “real world” unless it is purely a self-applied datum. Removed from the controlled environment of the Church (where you cannot really question that it works), the policies and bulletins, when exactly applied, do not garner the results conclusively. Applied to those “in” it always “worked”. I’ve seen the gains I’ve delivered, I don’t think this is just cognitive dissonance – these people (the hundreds I helped) really did achieve things. Those things, I felt, were sometimes different than what the procedure dictated, but they shoe-horned it into “ARC straightwire” or whatever (twisting the cog, I call it).

        Being of like mind about the Tech when I left (associating with your early blog posts), that it was valuable and the subject should be salvaged, I initially explained failures away as many do: “they were PTS” or “on drugs”, “psyche cases”, but it bothered me – because that was what we were taught, not what was. And, with the tech, it was said “we can resolve any case”. Yet, PTS seemed unresolvable.

        To resolve this doubt, being able to deliver every process required to fully resolve a PTS person, and delivered the program 100% standardly. We’re talking the full gamut of tools: PTS RD, SP RD, 3 S&Ds, CS 79, list correction on past PTS handlings, FPRD – nearly 100 hours. It failed, repeatedly, to resolve the condition.

        So I began to question.

        The telling “unworkability of tech” for me (even when in the SO) was that, aside from one instance (which was actually resolved through a clay table process!), in all my hours of auditing or CSing, I have never seen PTS tech “work”, even in the controlled environment (which shows you how awful PTS/SP tech is, actually – it doesn’t work for Scientologists at all or very, very rarely, but they have to say it does, or be deemed “no-case-gain”).

        I considered that it was merely altered, and that led me down the path of “organized scn is bad”. After that, I briefly subscribed to “DM is bad”, but threw that out (having worked with the man). He can be an ass, but he’s not the Grendel most make him out to be.

        So, the subject is useful, it does help (when not shackled by the organization’s folly) but it’s not the “de facto” solution – primarily because it doesn’t apply to everyone in the same way.

        My ultimate conclusion, or at least my current state of mind, now mirrors yours, totally independent of reading your blog, so it was a pleasure to begin reading your journey from your old blog to now. I left in 2003, but did not fully disassociate myself until just recently (2012 or 2013).

        1. Thank you for your very interesting comment. I am glad you found me and that I found you. It would be interesting to talk to you back-channel. Please email me or book up on Facebook.

  2. “But, applying Occam’s Razor, isn’t the simpler answer that Scientology simply does not deliver on its promises?

    “It doesn’t much matter that people like me got a lot out of the subject as long as it does not consistently deliver factual, measurable results.”

    Just as an analogy to the above, using some arbitrary figures, let’s say an individual is promised that if he were to invest $100 thousand dollars he would get in return what would be worth $100 million – to him. But what actually occurs is that he gets what is worth – to him – only $50 million for his investment of $100 thousand.

    Would it be realistic, much less Occam’s Razor, to expect that this guy would want to complain that he didn’t get all of what was promised? And would it be an Occam’s Razor conclusion that he would complain that there was no objective proof of his gains, even though subjectively he got what was in fact invaluable to him? I think there must be some omitted datum.

    1. A failed argument, Marildi. If he got factual, measurable return, then that would prove the investment’s actual value. What I am talking about here is a real con game. A Bait & Switch.

      1. The point I was questioning was whether it would matter to the individual that the results were not measurable. And that it doesn’t seem to me to be an Occam’s Razor conclusion that he would. Far from it. That’s why I say – there must be some omitted datum.

        1. You seem to miss the point. My point is that the overall downfall, the epic failure of Scientology may simply be because it fails to deliver results. That some have neat subjective gains cannot make up for the many who were promised something they never got. That is a con game. And con games tend to fail. That is the Occam’s Razor argument I make here – the reason for the overall massive failure of Scientology.

          1. “My point is that the overall downfall, the epic failure of Scientology may simply be because it fails to deliver results.”

            Okay, got it. And that was what Ron himself clearly stated – that the only reason for failure was lack of results.

            Of course, we would have to look at what caused the lack of results – the devil is in the details. You are assuming that it was the tech itself, while ignoring all the other factors involved. That’s the only little bone I have to pick with you. As usual. Rrrrrrfff… 😛

            1. And my exact point is that I allow myself to question the efficacy of the very foundations of Scientology rather than holding that as a fixed truth and searching and searching and searching for more complex reasons for why Scientology fails.

            2. And my exact point is that I allow myself to question the efficacy of the very foundations of Scientology rather than holding that as a fixed truth and searching and searching and searching for more complex reasons for why Scientology fails.

              The foundations should be searched, no argument. But I don’t think it takes “searching and searching” to find plenty of reasons that are separate from the basic tech. Those you tend to slight, while speculating and conjecturing on outpoints in the tech.

              Btw, have you taken into account the results that are being gotten with auditors in the Independent field?

            3. I fail to see real, measurable results also there. Can you point to documented, verifiable results in the independent field? Yes/No?

            4. Your criteria is for “documented, verifiable results.” To me, that’s because of your “belief” in science only. As valuable as objective proof may be, it doesn’t exclude subjective value, and that’s where you might be going astray, IMHO.

            5. Without verifiable results, Scientology is doomed. Demonstrable, consistent results always trumps anecdotal evidence. The lack of results are indeed what makes for Scientology’s massive failure. One can search for less simple answers and justify to one’s heart’s content while trying holding Scientology as Truth. But the simple answer remains – that it actually cannot consistently deliver.

              But I believe we have discussed this enough by now. Ok?

            6. I agree it’s enough and going in circles now.

              Have a good night. Thanks for the comm. 🙂

            7. I’d like to comment briefly on this discussion. Your OP starts out OK, with the differentiation between the anecdotal, “objective” results LRH claims people can experience as the results of auditing/processing, and the experiential, existential, “subjective” EPs you list:

              Knows he/she won’t get any worse.
              Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life.
              Freedom from the upsets of the past and ability to face the future.
              Moving out of fixed conditions and gaining abilities to do new things.
              Freedom from dramatization and return of powers to act on own determinism.
              A Clear: A being who no longer has his reactive mind.

              I note that all the above listed EPs pertain to the Bridge up to Clear.

              These are the proper objects of expectation. That an occasional individual achieves some objectively measurable ability, “siddhi”, or power, is entirely incidental. Those are the actual “anecdotal” events. It may be that the subjective side is anecdotal also, but in fact as far as I can see, neither side, subjective or objective, has been comprehensively investigated by anyone, although LRH does speak in some lectures, of “psychometry” being done before and after processing. This was some years before any published Grade Chart.

              That aside, my point is that the “objective”, measurable results, absent the subjectively perceived and experienced personally interpreted results, are essentially meaningless, and no more than the sound of one hand clapping. Thus it is wise and right of Geir to mention his own “gains” along with any criticisms he sees.

              But I do not myself feel the need for any “objective, measurable results”, although I think I have seen some instances of those. I never felt the purpose of scientology was to deliver those, but to deliver inner change. Perhaps that is my personality type, or where I was at to start with. But I think scientology ought to have been promoted on that basis alone, on the basis of the EPs Geir listed, all of which are subjective, experiential statements.

              I think the major problem “scientology” as a defined practice faces, is to define itself more accurately in terms of what it is actually delivering and what it can actually accomplish.

              If it does even some of that, it will be ahead of psychiatry and psychology, both of which are still trying to achieve some clarity on what they are actually all about.

              I think scientology has been oversold with all those absolute promises, and then beyond that it has been and is still being abused for personal gain. But that does not address what kind of results scientology actually produces.

              mention “psychometry”that was done before and after processing, in th eyears before the Grade Chart

            8. Val! I’m glad you’re back – I’ve missed your input. 🙂

              I think Geir’s main point about objective results is this: “Without verifiable results, Scientology is doomed. Demonstrable, consistent results always trumps anecdotal evidence.”

              The problem I see with that is, first of all, how and when it will actually get done. And in any case, the principle of “word of mouth” might be even more valid. I believe that was in fact the case in the early days before things started going off the rails.

              Your point about stating actual results would figure in with word of mouth and resulting success of individual practitioners. That said about individuals, I’m not fully convinced that organizations aren’t needed. Take a look at my comment where I’ve summarized Tom Cambell’s description of the historical reasons why they are needed, as well as the pitfalls they present – which perhaps can be avoided if well understood. Here’s the link:

            9. Hi marildi. I’m not much into these discussions these days. As far as this discussion, I don’t agree that “empirical” studies and evidence is necessary or even desirable for the well-being of scientology. There are no “empirical” studies or conclusions about “consistent objective results”available for the practice of clinical psychology. Nonetheless it is a multi-billiuon dollar field and people just keep going to talk to clinical psychologists. There are no such results available for talking to priests either, but millions of people continue doing so. There may well be empirical correlatives to those kind of interactions; however it appears we are no smart enough (yet) to know how to measure them, if indeed they do exist.

              Such activites are in the domain of what Ken Wilbur calls the “left-hand paths”. However the “scientific” world in general is still working with the older paradigm of trying to map a RWOT as though it is an absolute given, and gives short shrift to the Existential and experiential. Empiricism is the “Right-hand path” and is only half of existence. Considered in isolation, I call it “the sound of one hand clapping”. Empiricism regards and attempts to deal with everything and everyone as “objects”, and ignores the experiencing “subject”. This has been one of my pet peeves since childhood. There is no “understanding” in it. Viewing everything and everyone as particles changing position in space does not lead to discovering the meanings of existences.

              I think I can see Geir’s take on it, that “inner” change ought to be reflected in “outer” visible results, but I don’t happen to think that is necessarily true. That would lead to a kind of determinism in the other direction of flow, in which “reality” is viewed as the “map” of a person’s subjective experience. That is the essence of “8-8008”, isn’t it? However “8-8008” itself represents an unbalanced situation. Wouldn’t the ideal scene be what some call “The Middle Way”? 8-8008 does not really allow very well for co-creation, does it? The existence of a multitude of creative beings actually kinda demands that the end result of their activities would be a co-creation of some kind. I don’t see how anything else could happen or be workable.

              And Geir’s view may have some truth to it, too. However that is a question of “manifestation” and co-creation.

              Perhaps when enough people have evolved in that direction, then reality will reflect that. Perhaps, incrementally it is already doing so, to the extent that existence, for
              humanity overall, world-wide, has improved in recent centuries, which it may have
              done. And to the extent it has, if it has, is due to the “modern” paradigm of empirical studies of the “real world”. But those studies have also produced some significant threats, as LRH pointed out. Such as the existence of WMDs. It’s not a given that we will successfully ascend to the next step of evolution.

            10. Val, thanks for yet another one of your meaty posts and thoughtful posts. I basically agree with all of it, other than not being sure what you meant about “8-8008” – that it“did not allow for co-creation.” In a part of the book which describes the dynamics,it states the following:

              “Thus we see the inter-dependency of the individual with the family, with the group, with the species, with life-forms, with the material universe itself, with spirits, and with God; and we see the dependency of each one of these entities upon the individual as a part of it.”

              Is that not the kind of “co-creation” you had in mind?

            11. Marildi: I think Geir’s main point about objective results is this: “Without verifiable results, Scientology is doomed. Demonstrable, consistent results always trumps anecdotal evidence.”

              Chris: Hi Marildi, I rather think he was making the point that there isn’t any scientific religion. Oxymoron. Now if Scientology were to stop lying about who and what they are and simply stay in the purview of religion and let it go at that, they might have a chance.

            12. Chris, science by itself, is the sound of one hand clapping. Religion, by itself, is the sound of one hand clapping. The “modern” paradigm which separates and differentiates them, is the product of a necessary developmental phase. however, the next developmental phase would need to integrate them into a new synthesis and transcend by including them both. Not by excluding and repressing one or the other of them.

            13. Val, I don’t think science has been forwarded or that mankind has been helped by religion, however, if I get your meaning that none of what we think we understand about phenomenology is laid out quite right, then I think we’re in the same idea. ~Chris

            14. Valkov: But that does not address what kind of results scientology actually produces.

              Chris: That was a good post Val. You made several good points. It seems that LRH began by trying to sell a packaged product with scientific backing and then failing that found lower hanging fruit in the purview of tax-exempt religion. This was a good choice on his part as religion does not need to work. Mankind’s preoccupation with the claptrap of religion is one of the most intriguing things about him. Being the offshoot of his very active imagination, I’ve often wondered what other species of mammals fantasize about. For instance, my dog dreams and my cat play-acts tearing around and pretending to fight unseen foes. I wonder “Do the Orca believe in a deity?’ They seem to have plenty of language to convey it to one another if they chose to. I also wonder whether, or to what degree they take themselves seriously.

            15. Hey Chris! Sorry it took me awhile to get back to your post. That is a great link to that blog. The guy thinks a lot like I do. Good comments there, too.

              When my son was a young kid, we got into a book series titled “Animorphs”, in which 5 kids acquire the ability to transform into any animal they physically touched. The author, K. A. Applegate, did a great job conveying the world as seen from the viewpoints of the various animals. These kids were engaged in trying to forestall an alien invasion of Earth by critters who took over the bodies of human people.

            16. Very cool!

              As a side note, I think intelligence is anthropomorphised in the same way that god is. The way we understand and approach our abstraction of intelligence is not laid out quite right.

  3. Hi Geir. There, you have made your current view quite clear, and I acknowledge you for that. I absolutely concur with your conclusions, when posed as comparisons.
    The strange thing is, I find no need to defend LRH, or the philosophy. The simple reason for that, in my experience, is that like you, “I got a lot out of the experience.”

    We all come from vastly dirrering backgrounds, and in my case, my father died when I was just an infant, leaving me as an only and sickly child with a mother battling to keep her hairdressing business afloat, while contending with a growing alcoholism problem. You can imagine, it was an emotionally trying time for us.

    No faith, or philosophy on hand to give guidance, just frightening uncertainties made for a pretty unstable formative period.

    I learned very early on though, by being blessed with certain gifts (artist) and unusually strong for my size, (though my late father was a jockey), that I could make my way in the world, by being able do do things, that many others could not match. Of course, that simply translated to confidence, and I capitalized on it. I wont bore you here with the successes,
    but want to speak of the shortcomings, that led me to Scn.

    The greatest mystery, for me personally, was trying to understand what the mind, and consequently, the mysteries of life & behavior were all about.

    Long story gutted to just this. DMSMH, the Comm Course, PRD, Student Hat, HQS,
    Life Repair, lots of Drills, TR’s, Tone Scale work, FSM’ing and an inordinate amount of time clearing and studying The Factors, Axioms and scales. 0-8, The book of Basics, became my “Bible” and I referenced and looked for (and found!!) objective real life phenomena and examples by which to align my life and existence with others. By 1973, I was married, we had two kids, and my wife, after doing the basic courses, went on to begin a rocket ride of success as an interned Auditor, and the first Class V Auditor and C/S in Durban. All done while I worked and supported her throughout her training advancement. And setting up my very first business, a commercial gym and sports coaching facility! That’s about all I need to cover on this, except to say:

    One thing I have learned, especially at this latter stage of life (now 66), is how precious, honest, sincere friendships are to me. By that, I mean, i don’t back-stab those that have helped me in life. In fact, I appreciate and stand up for them, especially when they are not defend themselves.

    The one person to answer my pressing questions about life, when most needed, did NOT betray me or fail to stay in comm, encouraging our wins, and successes and giving some specific advice, on perplexing issues, with personal written replies, is no longer with us today. I don’t believe you have ever had the pleasure of directly interacting with him. It’s a great pity though, since I believe that has contributed to the view you have expressed in the many articles you have written.

    Anyway, please let me say thanks for letting me share all this on your blog, Geir.

    By the way, the personal friend I speak of, we were invited to just call — “Ron.”

      1. Well thanks for the ack Geir, Marildi. Let me go on to say this to you. This is the ONLY blog, I have encountered, where 2-way comm is followed as an accepted norm. To me, that makes this unique, in the field. It also goes to show the value placed on ARC, and that here, at least, some recognition, or appreciation shown, that supporters exist. I’d say that makes you pretty special, as well..

  4. I found parts of it helpful, therapeutic or whatever. But I always try really hard, I put a lot into something and usually get a lot out.

    Finding out the evil done to others, one can never go back.

    It’s fun to watch the whole evil thing fall apart.

  5. I am also for proof and measurable results. So, I talked to a Clear today who attested it many years ago. Has been living life very well since then. Checked the first list with the person. The points are IN with the person. Said yes to all except full recall. Interestingly, when I asked some questions, the person’s recall was good. It showed to me when questions are asked, there is recall. Otherwise the past is not in the focus of attention.
    My cognition was looking at the list that a Clear is no longer PTS to the body and to all four flows on the 1st dynamic. No major stops on reaching out.That is, ethical. The person said yes to it. The person is doing very well in life, job included.
    In my view, which has been so for a long time, when the points of KSW1 are in, there is a result. I asked the person about it. The person said yes to it.
    That there is no consistency can be due to if any of the points were/are out.

      1. Chris
        I get the flow that you are joking which is fine as you like joking and me as well!
        Not in this question this time! I seldom say such a thing but now I am doing it:
        I rarely see somebody like Geir, who is so persistent, so honest to get the truth.
        When I read his new post, I started to see it from several aspects. I did not write
        them down. This morning I had the idea that instead of what I see, I will ask. So, I did
        so. I wrote down what I got.
        I have not been in contact with ‘scientologists’ in my daily life for a long time. I can be though, when I decide to meet one. In our conversation it turned out, which I saw
        earlier too when I was studying, that most Clears, OTs ‘work’ by themselves like in
        their jobs and do not ‘co-operate’ in daily life. This was a little strange then and also
        now. The reason could be another topic for discussion.
        One aspect I see I am sharing now: a person, who is truely able etc. will not put on
        ‘show’ whatever, as with the abilities comes the awareness that it will make an ARCx…which of course will kick back as consciousness/life is ONE, isn’t it?

        Geir IS FOR ANSWERS and does not always get as much support as could come
        through com channels. This I base only what I see on the blog. That is more commentors would be welcome – which is of course my personal opinion.

        1. Marianne: One aspect I see I am sharing now: a person, who is truely able etc. will not put on ‘show’ whatever, as with the abilities comes the awareness that it will make an ARCx…which of course will kick back as consciousness/life is ONE, isn’t it?

          Chris: Won’t put on a show or can’t put on a show? Your post demonstrates both parts of the bait and the switch. People rant on about the fabulous tangible results available to one doing the Bridge to Total Freedom and it is in fact marketed and promoted in just that way and yet when asked kindly to demonstrate any part of these fabulous abilities, they balk and begin to carp about how it might harm the psyche of the person being demonstrated to. I therefore say that refusing to demonstrate OT abilities is tantamount to an admission that they do not in fact exist. The only ARC breaks that seem to occur are on behalf of the purported OT who is asked to demonstrate their superior ability. They can’t = they get defensive = they rage quit the conversation. And there is another possibility — possibly OT’s simply go PTS to my powerful skepticism. (joke) Or another possibility is that all the true OTs are invisible having dissolved their case until their bodies have become transparent. Or true OTs won’t mention they have abilities since no true OT would do this and so all claims of OT ability have been made by phonies rather than true OTs and the way we can tell this is that someone claiming to have or able to produce OT abilities or phenomena are fakes? This type of reasoning is circular and deliberately so as to obfuscate the fraud being perpetrated.

  6. Okay, my Bull-Shit-O-Meter has gone off on some comments here regarding Science and religion.

    The point Geir makes is that the STATED BENEFITS are not delivered. I would add that unadvertised mental conditioning to accept a bait and switch IS ADDED without consent.

    Now regarding stated benefits, you don’t need science to prove this true. You don’t need religion to prove this true. You need merely DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY.

    Where are the YouTube Clear Demonstration Videos? Oh there are “Wins” on YouTube out the Wazoo BUT NO DEMONSTRATION.

    I can show you broken boards a-plenty on YouTube. But I don’t see Clears reading books and then reciting them back verbatim.

    Marildi? Valkov? Marianne?


    1. Excellent clarification, katageek.

      Yes, the nature of a Bait & Switch is exactly what you state here. And Scientology should enter in as the prime example in the usage of this term in the dictionary.

      1. Thanks Geir.

        The funny thing is that some of the abilities of a clear ARE ATTAINABLE.

        Memory Geeks that use the PAO system can actually read a page of random numbers and recite it back perfectly. Mathmagic practitioners can do numbers in their head like magic.

        It’s pretty well argued that the “savant” Daniel Tammet is actually a mental athlete and demonstrates what any human can do with a few years of daily practice. Josh Foer makes a great case for this in his book “Moonwalking With Einstein.”

        For the Daniel Tammet Documentary SEE: “The Boy With The Amazing Brain”

        According to Foer, there is a mental athlete alive today who has 10 years worth of books memorized. If this man were locked up, he could read for ten years!

        All of these NON-SCIENTOLOGISTS can actually make a video demonstrating their abilities! In fact, some have.

        Why don’t you pro-tech folks go look at Josh Foer memorize a deck of cards on YouTube? Or look up the “US Memory Championships” on YouTube?

        Is Josh Foer a Clear if he can have perfect recall when he chooses to? Are Mental Athletes Clear? And if not, and a clear can’t do what they do, is that clear CLEAR?

        Where ARE the Scientology Memory Champions?

        The Germans right now sport the best memorizers on the planet. WHY AREN’T CLEARS KICKING THEIR ASSES IN THE MOST OPPRESSIVE COUNTRY TO THE TECH?

        We don’t need tech films. We don’t need “win” films.

        We need demonstration films of amazing abilities!

        I became a martial artist because I learned that Mas Oyama could break a horn off a charging bull with his BARE HANDS!

        And he could. And he did. More than once actually. That takes POWER AND SKILL people.

        So rather than a long, drawn out post in reply, can we JUST get a video of one of you doing something CLEAR that is beyond normal human ability?

    2. Geek, my previous comment covered this, but maybe not explicitly enough.

      I never accepted the blanket claims of “provable, objective results” that LRH claimed scientology would deliver. The results I personally looked for, are the Grade Chart EPs as Geir laid them out. Those are all subjective, existential, experiential attainments, and I feel that is what scientology ought to be viewed as delivering – “inner change”, “metanoia”, subjective change, gnostic experience.

      That is not to say “objective results” might not sporadically occur. But there have always been individuals who, without any “scientolopgy”, were able to repeat books verbatim, etc. LRH did not invent the term “eidetic memory”. But in fact that could be testable, as could intelligence, reaction time, etc., before and after processing.

      But I must admit to having looked down a bit on folks who expect, like some TM practitioners, to be able to levitate as a result of their meditation. I feel they are in it for the wrong reasons.

      Having said all that, I did, back in the day, witness some remarkable things in connection with original OT grade completions. Whether they could have been captured on video, I don’t know, as some of them were of a subjective nature on my part. In other words, “I thought I saw ____________.”

      Some of these dovetail with abilities claimed in Buddhist traditions. But there is no point in debating what I think I saw.

      Factually, broken board videos can be rigged or faked, too, right? And assuming the board-breaking was genuine, is that really the purpose of that training? What would you think of a person who took up that training because “I want to be able to break boards with my bare hands!” Should board-breaking be used as a promotional gimmick to get more people interested in kung-fu/karate training? Would it bypass those people who had no interest ion breaking boards but would be interested in it for other reasons? Does the training deliver the board-breaking ability to every single person who takes up the training? Etc. Enough said.

      1. If you study Karate to be able to be fit, strong and break boards with your hands then you have MET a stated objective and skill.

        If you study how to fly a plane then you should fly a plane.

        If you study Scientology to get the benefits promised and then GET SOMETHING ELSE what WAS the point and WHO MADE THE POINT SHIFT SO IT’S NOT THE POINT ANYMORE?

        What is a martial artist who cannot break a board but is happy about it?

        What is a pilot who signed up to fly a plan who can’t fly a plane but is happy about it and hands out brochures to friends that says “Learn to Fly a Plane!”?

        CRITERIA: It’s what keeps one in control of ones outcomes and efforts.

        1. Seems Valkov wants to take one’s attention off the OP (Bait & Switch) and put it on Something Else (could there be other important gains to be had?).

          1. Seems to me he thinks the point being made in the OP isn’t the one that deserves the most attention.

            1. Actually marildi, I do feel the point in the OP deserves some attention, but the fact is it is already getting attention and I have nothing to add to it or the posts of others about it.. I am simply following my own train of thought, which may or may not be of interest to others. Red herring to me implies an intentional derailing; however my comment was, I thought, on topic enough, as it was about the relationship between the objective/subjective, or “inner/outer”, which was part of the OP.

              I was born under the sign of Aquarius, and years of experience tells me my responses and thinking are rarely “on topic”! For a long time I thought I was just schizoid or autistic, but knowledgeable astrologers have assured me it is common to my sign, which is ruled by Uranus. So I have developed a tendency to tell people who don’t get where I’m coming from, “Go kiss Uranus!” It’s a hard life! Be careful of which sign you choose to be born under!

            2. Right, Val. What you wrote in the first paragraph is pretty much what I meant in my reply to you below, where I defined “Red Herring,” etc.

              In any case, I think you’re on topic just fine. More than fine. You don’t just agree – you contribute!

              (LOL! “Go kiss Uranus” :D)

            3. Marildi; My answer to Brian is pretty straight and simple. I was in for 25 years, never accumulated much debt along the way and with no Scn debt when I quit. I did every level on my own determinism and without specific expectations. I got a lot out from it and can document specific objective gains and I have many subjective. I would do it all again because of my gains and new knowledge. Brian was in for 1.5 years, spent more than double what I did in 25 years that is more than 50X per year. He was more wild-eyed and gung-ho than I ever was. So yes – I can see how he must have bullshitted himself big time. He may have hopes that I also bullshitted myself. But we are from vastly different backgrounds – him being an alternative guy interested in Eastern philosophies and meditation, while I was a science guy from the age of 12. I never jumped into Scientology uncritically. I was sucked in slowly. Without objectively verifiable gains, I would have quit earlier.

            4. Okay, Geir, I got the picture now, and it makes a lot of sense – logically speaking. I would still say, though, that it seemed to me Brian was reaching out to you with his upset (no matter what it was about) – and that he would have benefited greatly from having his comm handled in a way that put back in some ARC between the two of you. On the other hand, you have the right to your feelings too, and to express yourself as you see fit. And besides – this is just my uninformed perceptions, which may or may not have much to do with the isness.

              Thanks for your response to me, in any case!

            5. Geir
              Amazing comment! Almost an origination which could be the basis of full originations. What I see now is the following where your bright analytical mind (which is still in progress here with your help) and also your heart are needed.
              My present view:
              Very early you wrote that if only you, we could know how Ron developed the technology so that you, we could do the same. Then you write about amazing people a lot. Then you present your observations on not consistent, measurable results.
              To me it shows a deep desire to be creative, which you, maybe based on some
              considerations, cannot be according to your expectations towards yourself. Also,
              love towards mankind. You also write that you want challenges so that your abilities
              would be used.
              If any of what I write is true, I am waiting for your originations.
              1. What is your deepest motivation?
              2. Are there any thoughts which do not allow it to fully get realized?

            6. Geir
              You may have missed the above two questions. Will you care to answer them?
              If not on the blog, it is not a problem here, a ‘done’ as an answer is perfectly fine with me. Thank you.

          2. Let me say right off the bat that I am not competent to comment on the “bait & switch” issue because I have not done the Bridge and therefore have no personal experience of this issue. I am perfectly willing to grant y’all have experienced a bait & switch. How katageek figures into this I have no clue, as he has even less experience with scientology than I do.

            So, sorry I went off on a tangent from your OP, Geir. However, I could care less about changing anyone’s mind about scientology; I simply roll out my own thoughts on it. There is no red herring involved. I say what I think. As noted, I have no experience with the B & S stuff. I have no doubt some of you experienced it as such. It’s just not my focus. If you feel derailed, maybe work on holding your position better, rather than trying to invalidate the positions of others? After all, there are plenty of people who agree with you. I don’t feel everyone has to, do you? 🙂

            Good luck developing your following. If you ever feel like actually responding to any ideas I have posted, other than by labeling them in dismissive ways, please do so. Beyond that, I think we are interested in completely different aspects of the situation, and therefore I have no positive contribution to make on your blog. It is quite true that my posts are usually tangential to your OPs at best.

            Not having suffered from it, I have no interest in trying to analyze whatever it is I have not suffered from.

            Thus my posts are usually not framed by your Ops, but are associative to them. That’s just the way it is. I feel no need to fit in with your parameters.

            To me it is a given that LRH b.s.-ed a lot, saleswise. Until proven otherwise, I think the only valid parameters for EPs are on the Grade Chart. Anyone can speak up and say “I did not get the EP of Knows he/she won’t get any worse”. Nowhere on the Grade Chart does it say “Able to knock hats off at 50 yards upon completing this level”. I think those expecting such a result are doing some heavy wishing.

            At this point I feel I am wasting my own time replying to comments that I feel are tangential to my own comments. Perhaps that is self-centered of me? Too bad!


          3. Geir, you are imputing a motive to me that I do not possess. In your OP you expressed what you think on that topic. In my comment I expressed what I think, on what I thought was a related topic. Apparently it was not related enough, in that you did not respond to any of it, except by way of metacomment. To me that seems like a funny tangential way of saying “I don’t want to discuss that at this time, it’s off-topic”.

            I’ve never marched in lock-step with your OPs, which by this time I’m sure you’ve known for some time.

            1. I thought about posting a comment stating that, by definition, a Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented “in order to divert attention from the original issue.” Because, as you say, diversion was not your motive.

              I also thought to say that your topic was not at all irrelevant as it was in essence a comparative critique of the blog post – but then I decided that would be way out of the bounds of black and white thinking that seems to be what is acceptable. (Geir, honey, we ain’t letting you get away with this one. :))

        2. I have never met nor seen a sensei who promoted karate on the basis that it would make me “fit, strong, and able to break boards with my hand”. Is that an EP of karate that is stated on some “grade chart” of the dans in karate? Is that EP delivered one-for-one by karate training to everyone who undertakes the training? Have you ever met a karate student who was not able to break boards with his hand? Was it projected to him that he just hadn’t studied and practiced enough, and that reaching the next dan would grant him the ability?

          One of the central questions here is who states(postulates) the objectives and skills to be gained by the trainee?

          Since you didn’t address these kind of questions from my first comment, I thought I would ask them again. Your silence on them is deafening….. 🙂

          1. Actually, most systems have requirement charts that a student must meet before advancing in degree. Male students are especially expected in many systems to be able to break things to be a black belt.

            And there is definitely measurable skills expected and obtained.

            There are other benefits of course, but those aren’t stated and are more of a surprise.

            Geir is talking about bait and switch. Where the secondary benefits are pawned off as the primary ones you signed up for.

            1. kg,

              “Geir is talking about bait and switch. Where the secondary benefits are pawned off as the primary ones you signed up for.”

              Now that would be an interesting discussion! Which are the secondary benefits, and which are the primary benefits “one signs up for”?

              How do you identify which are which?

              In an early comment on this very thread, Geir assured one commenter that his(Geir’s) gains/results were in fact objectively verified. This apparently went over all posters heads, as not a single one of us, including myself, inquired of Geir for further information, or for any details!

              How to account for this? No one took Geir up on his offer to possibly have some discussion about this

              I think it is summed up in one word. FEAR. “Oh God, let’s NOT LOOK at that, let’s not get into that!”

            2. Val, are you referring to his claim that his Grade 0 EP was objectively verified? If so, my reason for not taking up the subject was that it was just too preposterous that such an EP could be objectively verified and thus why go down that road? I mean, how would you test the ability to talk to anyone on any subject?

            3. Whoa, you are right. He wrote: “…my gains were factual and objectively verified.”

              I think I was distracted by the swipe he took at Brian, where he wrote: “I do understand that you bullshitted yourself. I can see that.” It gave me the distinct feeling that he resented Brian asking him what I thought was a straightforward but polite and ARC-ful – and valid – question. In fact, I picked up that there’s a standing, unhandled ARC break between them.

              Geir can of course correct any of this.

            4. Geir can be pretty sly! I haven’t analyzed brian c’s post, but I am not assuming it is as innocuous as you do. I just don’t know. I have met people who were able to engage in malicious inbteractions with a perfectly straight face and apparently arc-fully. What struck me about brian’s post is, how can someone go from believing he got gains, to believing he did not?
              This is wishy-washy beyond my ken.

              I jump to the suppositions that either 1. he really didn’t get any gains, but was evaluated for that he did, or 2. he got some gains but someone has worked on him to convince him he did not. There are plenty of Professional know-best mindfuckers (this is a technical term from the Hippie culture of the1960s and 1970s) around, who love to convince folks they didn’t see what they saw, didn’t really feel what they felt, etc etc. Either way, he must have had a shaky sense of himself to start with I guess.

              In the last analysis, he is Geir’s friend and I would assume Geir knows him pretty

            5. You’re right – not entirely innocuous. I got the idea (including from at least one previous exchange between them a long time ago) that there is an existing ARC break. And to Brian’s credit on this comment, I thought he kept his TRs in pretty well in terms of how he framed his question – even if the true intention was to express his opinion that he thought Geir was bullshitting. Geir’s TR 4 could have been better – and it may have turned the tide in the other direction. Anyway, it always seems clear from the outside looking in – even if it’s pure speculation!

            6. marildi, from reading your post, I felt brian c is suffering from a “sad effect”. Which was not resolved by whatever he did or was done to him, in scientology. Are you familiar with the idea of the “sad effect”?

            7. Valkov, you duplicated me well. “Sad effect” was precisely the idea I got. Here’s the definition:

              SAD EFFECT, 1. when an ARC break is permitted to continue over too long a period of time and remains in restimulation a person goes into a sad effect, which is to say they become sad and mournful, usually without knowing what is causing it. This condition is handled by finding the earliest ARC break on the chain. Finding whether it was a break in affinity, reality, communication or understanding, and indicating it to the person, always of course, in session. (LRH Def. Notes)

            8. Valkov: how can someone go from believing he got gains, to believing he did not?

              Chris: Buyer’s remorse. You may have experienced this. It occurs when a person, caught up in the spirit of the moment and being manipulated to suspend judgement makes a purchase decision that they later regret.

            9. Chris, the buyer’s remorse scenario makes particular sense in brian’s case. My own experience just with how much time and effort it took me to get a “major stable win” doing the very basic TRs tells me it’s not so easy to go up THE Bridge, any Bridge, quickly with lasting results. Given WHEN he was involved and with whom (Flag), it is perfectly plausible to me he was quickied for a lot of money(ripped off).

              But he probably got SOME gains that could be rehabbed. Maybe just not nearly as much as he was “sold” he would get.

            10. Agreed. Plus Geir, you, and I all did Scientology without particular expectations of any objective result. Early on, I was getting auditing and being pleased with the result but never getting or having a clue what any result was going to be before beginning a session. Therefore, I was consistently pleased and surprised at the results of my auditing. And I agree that the lower Bridge should be emphasised more since it truly deals with real human experiences of communication, problems, changing conditions, etc.,. Clear seems to be a far and unnecessary reach. OT levels? Electrifying but nonsense. I’m doing L-10 very soon and I will report back on what happens.

            11. Val, you called me “Geek” several times lately.

              It’s a derogatory version of my screen name.

              II don’t write to people who have been mean in the past to me and who continue to use derogatory labels toward me.

              And endless post after post after post after post for me…

              Is a wasted life.

            12. Kg, I really didn’t think he meant it in any way but friendly. That was the vibe I got. And that’s why I call you “kg” – mean as a friendly nickname.

            13. marildi, just to set the record straight, thank you but I am not as nice as you make me out to be!

              I called him geek because 8 letter handles are just too long and I am too lazy to type them out. Just as he calls me “Val” which is only 3 letters, as opposed to 6 letters for Valkov. In fact Valkov is a surname and should not be abbreviated in that fashion. Also because my ruling planet, Uranus, is the very spirit of willful caprice and no respecter of persons, thus often comes across as a bit antagonistic.
              “kg” is good, only 2 letters. I’ll go with that.

              I wouldn’t be surprised if he was born under the very same sign himself.

            14. Okay, I dubbed in the idea that it was meant to be friendly – but the basic thing I got was that there was no intended slight. That isn’t something I’ve seen you do just for no reason. And btw, I usually like it when you do have reason to slight – and say so!

            15. marildi, np! You are very nice to me and see the best side of me. I am not used to it and I appreciate it very much!

            16. well it was not meant to be entirely unfriendly, either. It seems my friendliness is often alloyed with some degree of antagonism. You know, like the jocks in school who punch you hard enough in the arm to bring tears when they like you, or give you a painful wedgie as a prank because you are their “friend”.

            17. LOL! Yes, you men have a funny way of expressing friendliness towards each other – with unmitigated antagonism! 🙂

              (So I did pick up a flow of friendliness, then. Aha!)

            18. I apologize. In a psychic anticipation of your complaint, notice that I addressed you as “kg” in the comment you just responded to. Such are my OT powers! I am an Aquarius, so Go kiss Uranus.

            19. Okay Valkov lets actually go into those secondary benefits. But lets skip our old banter.

              Demonstrate them. On video. SHOW me. It doesn’t have to be you. Show me the results of clear that are secondary benefits. Things I cannot get anywhere else BUT through Scientology. Not stories. Not “Wins.”


              If you can’t, then I think they are subjective benefits.

              And all I can say about those is to enjoy them.

              But if they are not able to be demonstrated as a result of being clear, then to me they are not helpful in showcasing the benefits promised by this achievement. And if so, this point is completely closed for me.

              Thanks to Marildi for the reminder to enjoy better assumptions. Call me Geek if you want Valkov.

            20. OK kg, now we are getting somewhere! (maybe – depending on if I understand what you mean by “secondary benefits”) If you mean demonstrable objectively measurable outer results, then we are possibly on the same page at last.

              My take on those is, no-one ought to engage in scientology seeking for those. Scientology is meant from the outset to be an “inner work on one’s self”, as Gurdjieff might put it. At best, a Dianetics Case Completion may produce a “Well and happy human being”. At one time, that was the EP. Some people had farther to go to get there than others.

              One should not go into doing TM expecting to be able to levitate. However, the stories of hindu gurus demonstrating siddhis are legion. Yet it is rarely revealed how one actually attains these, or how they attained theirs. Or whether these are stable abilities.

              My position is and always has been that Scientology is a kind of a Fourth Way school – a school for inner work. One should not go into this kind of work expecting to achieve super powers, walking on water etc etc. The results are supposed to be “subjective”, as you call it. Thus up to and including Clear, the EPs can only be “subjective”, and should not be expected to be anything but subjective. However what happens is people listen to lectures, or read books, and they see and hear what they want to se and hear, and fail to see and hear what they don’t want to see and hear. Thus they don’t hear LRH stating over and over the subjective nature of the work, and hear only “I’ll be able to knock hats off at 50 paces! Whoopee!” Well, maybe they will and maybe they won’t but that’s not the basis they ought to be going into it with.

              As far as videos and demonstrations, I might as wel ask for videos of the serenity and bliss meditation, or, indeed, karate will deliver to me. Make me a video of that, would you pretty please?

              What has happened is there developed the modern paradigm of “There is a RWOT, and we are going to map it, and when we are done, we will know everything there is to know!” And what has developed is a culture that tends to see the experiential. the existential, the inwardness of a person, as somehow less “real”, or not real, or fantasy, or less important than the measurement of the RWOT.

              The Right Hand, and the Left Hand. The focus the past couple of hundred years has been on the Right Hand; the study of the RWOT there through “science”.
              In the meantime, the Left Hand has been mostly neglected except by the few.

              Or has it? In fact, millions of people go to visit clinical psychologists regularly, millions more visit ministers of churches, or their local shaman or witch doctors, or gypsy fortune tellers. Can you produce a video of the benefit anyone had ever gotten from going to talk with a clinical psychologist or other type of therapist? There is a field for you, that is based 100% in subjectivity, in Inner work, in the experiences of existence as experiencing subjects experience them. And this whole realm of existence, that of the experiencing subject, rather than the “objectively viewed” particle, the rat in the maze, is often dismissed, dissed, or left out of the discussion completely.

              Gurdjieff combatted this by stating that “everything in the world is material”. Including thoughts, feelings and “knowledge”, thus trying to restore or grant more reality to the “inner” life and inner work. Freud conceived the “libido economy” as an actual energy system of an individual human being.

              To make a long story short, show me a video of “bliss” or “love” or “kindness” or :justice” or “loyaty”, and I will then believe they exist. Until then, well, I maintain there are no such things.

              Do you not see the absurdity of that?

            21. Okay, you think the unadvertised subjective benefits are the point and they are unique to individuals.

              So the person who signs up for a course on how to fly a plane should be happy when he is good at feeling deep spiritual meaning around airplanes but still not be able to fly them.

              Or if he has a UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL secondary benefit, he can hold a diet coke in coach feeling “uniquely knowing and powerful TO HIMSELF” while a PILOT supposedly flies him where he wanted to fly himself. And the pilot controls the plane and has all your tuition in the bank.

              But you didn’t REALLY expect to fly an airplane did you?

              You don’t need to show me subjective benefits on a video. Because you can’t. I said that. You said that.

              IMHO bait-and-switch subjective benefits are crap. Touchy-feely, mamby-pamby-naval-gazing CRAP that are used to divert a person from previous unfulfilled promises.

              It’s the crap the Wizard gives Dorothy, the Tin Man and Scarecrow when he hasn’t the goods he promised. And you think that’s enough.

              I’m with Toto on this one. The guy’s a creeper.

              So you are wasting your flying fingers on me. I’m an SP. I live and die by CRITERIA.

              I join Karate to break boards and have a martial artists body. I would become a clear to never have colds again and have perfect recall.

              Call me Geek, if you want.

            22. It’s weird to me when it goes like this: “yeah, yeah it is ADVERTISED that a Clear can do all these things… whatever, but what is REALLY interesting is the subjective NICE gains that you got which cannot under any circumstance be demonstrated to anyone. THAT is what REALLY matters.”

              This is the very definition of bait and switch.

            23. kg, have you met any substantial number of Clears? Maybe they no longer exist. But when I met Clears back in the 1970s, or people in progress towards that, it seemed to me they were a bit different from the average.

              Geir, in his comment to marildi, indicated he did the Bridge without any particular expectation of what he would find on it. I guess I approached scientology the same way. I would not do TM with the expectation that I would become able to levitate. Nor would I engage in any inner work with those kind of expectations. I think it’s too bad scientology went that route of being marketed that way, but it probably did achieve a broader exposure from it, and perhaps that was the intent.

              Not having done the Bridge but having worked in psychiatry for quite a few years, it always seemed to me that even the first few levels of scientology were miraculous by comparison; I thought the focus on OT-ness was silly hyperbole, and that the bottom rungs of the Bridge ought to have been promoted universally. Perhaps it was shied away from because of the conflict it engendered with the established “mental health” fields.

              Anyway I am perfectly wiling to accept that people who have done the Bridge see it as a B&S operation; they’ve “been there, done that” and I haven’t. I always took the hype with a grain of salt and rely on my own direct perceptions of the people I met/meet, or the results I experience myself. I can compare my own experience with stated EPs like are on the Grade Chart and go from there.

            24. Geir, I believe the 2nd list is from the Grade Chart, which did not exist in the 1950s. Most of the 1st list is from Dianetics days, 1950s, with an admixture of 1970s concepts as you say. I see there is apparently an evolution involved, although I don’t know its details. Perhaps there is more than one evolution involved. To me, it is no different in principle than science, which redefines its concepts and introduces new concepts as new knowledge and experience is acquired. Yesterday there was no boson, today there is a boson. Or so some people think. Oh, the humanity of it all.

              As for some of the mentioned phenomena, I have seen a wound heal very quickly in the process of or shortly after a contact assist. I have seen a “bad knee” vanish to be replaced by a perfectly normally functioning knee in the course of a guy doing TR0. What was “really” going on I have no clue, but I am not going to agree with some kind of politically correct notions that I did not perceive what I perceived or witnessed. I am also aware these kind of things happen outside of scientology.

            25. Valkov: What was “really” going on I have no clue, but I am not going to agree with some kind of politically correct notions that I did not perceive what I perceived or witnessed. I am also aware these kind of things happen outside of scientology.

              Chris: Same here.

            26. kg, I don’t understand what “benefits” you are interested in “showcasing”? Factually, I don’t see why anyone would even care whether or not this point was closed for you. Like, so what? Maybe if you went Clear you would have your answer and would know what to showcase, or what could be showcased. Until then, it’s just your jaws flapping in the wind. Go back to breaking boards with your hand, before you hurt your mind pondering imponderables.

            27. Val, I just wanted to ack the last few comments you wrote in the exchange with kg. They were Classic Valkov. 🙂



    “Do you want to believe in something the rest of your life no matter what someone else shows you? Do YOU want unshakable certainty that never changes?”

    “You can get that with Dianetics! You will FEEL powerful. You will KNOW you are powerful. You will TELL OTHERS you are powerful even when they ask you to show them your power and you cannot. THE MEANING WE GIVE WILL FEEL LIKE IT WILL SAVE YOU ALL ON ITS OWN – EVEN IF YOU CANNOT DEMONSTRATE ANY ABILITY WE PROMISE YOU TO HAVE. THE MEANING WE GIVE IS THAT POWERFUL”

    “Scientology – Know Meaning. No Change.”


    You know, some people would buy that. Really.

    Meaning is the sexiest thing around.


      do you want to see who a martial artist really is
      not what he puts on show with awesome skills
      to entertain you to the full

      no technique


    “Barbara Kaye” (a pseudonym) was a pretty blonde 20-year-old in 1950 when she became L. Ron Hubbard’s PR assistant and, before long, his lover. For the next year she was in a unique position to see the changes in Hubbard during his meteoric rise and fall from 1950-51. In 1986, she was interviewed by the British writer and journalist Russell Miller for his biography of Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah. The following is a transcript of the two interviews conducted by Miller. Her reminiscences give a fascinating insight into Hubbard’s mental state at the time. A number of people are mentioned in the transcript – here are the dramatis personae:

    1. Cat daddy, I wish I could say it’s good to see you. 😛

      Don’t you know that there are already plenty of naysayers here? The ones who aren’t usually come and go fairly quickly. Even Valkov and I (who have been here since the early days when Geir was pro-Scientology) are getting tired of the same old, same old…

      Anyway, now you need to post a Phil Spickler video, where he talks about knowing LRH personally and how great he was and how much he loved him. 😉

      1. Dear Marildi, Valkov and Marianne,

        I have a new friend. I randomly found him looking over the two shelves of Scientology books at the mega-sized Half Priced Books Store in Dallas. I took haven there while my wife went shopping for shoes.

        I struck up a conversation with this young man. Soon, I realized that he was well read on the subject – an outsider like myself. Like me, he thinks Hubbard was the greatest conman and mind-hacker that ever lived and worthy of study for that reason alone.

        He has become enamored with the positive potential of the tech and what it could do if divested of false claims and mind control.

        He’s even done TR0 and the OT levels extensively with friends to positive reports. He’s done this from downloaded docs.

        His point of view can be summed up thus. “Hey this shit is dangerous, and uses mind control, but there is a silver lining to it if you can separate the cheese from the trap to make a safe therapy …”


        1. Geek,

          This is in fact the only sensible way to approach dianetics and scientology. The irony is that LRH himself stated this in his Intro to the book Dianetics 55. Now almost 60 years later, some people are waking up and saying “oh, yeah…..”

      2. The proof is in the pudding, “The Tech” has many contributors most were kicked out by the great thetan himself who had a disturbing view on ethics or rather more precise had disturbing Ethics.

        1. CD, the original recipe for Ethics Tech you would find to be tasty pudding. 😉

          Here’s Mary Freeman, a Class VIII and “old” OT VI, who helped a lot of people with it (and still does).

  9. I probably won’t spend much time with him. He lives quite a ways away. But, like him, I wish there was a reliable, realistic lay therapy that was science-based.

    THAT would be cool for a lot of people. But IMHO Scientology is anything BUT that if the bridge is applied standardly like it was in the 1970s.

  10. Hi again, kg.

    Tell me something – why is it necessary to get the agreement of others as regards one’s gains? To me, that’s the totality of what objective proof would add to any gains attained by an individual – i.e. the agreement of others.

    It’s probably true that objective, measurable and proven results would achieve widespread agreement about the “lay therapy” of Scientology – and it would also achieve agreement as to whether or not you as an individual had in fact made gains.

    But again, what does that really have to do with the benefits you received, from your own perspective? Unless, of course, you yourself are fixed on the “belief” that the only thing of value has to be perceivable objectively.

    I’m sure you are aware that science has been described as being its own religion with its own dogma and BELIEF as regards the objective being the only thing having validity. That is the assumption science is built on – no less an assumption than belief in God, for example.

    1. Marildi: I’m sure you are aware that science has been described as being its own religion with its own dogma and BELIEF as regards the objective being the only thing having validity. That is the assumption science is built on – no less an assumption than belief in God, for example.

      Chris: haha well that statement is weighted against objective evidence. The undercut to this thought is whether one has an ideology do their thinking for them. When an ideology is so important and powerful to an individual that it filters out everything not fitting smoothly into their way of thinking, then it seems they’ve stopped evolving. So by definition, science does not do this. But if a scientist or community of scientists were to fixate too closely on one or another scientific principle this is to the detriment of science. On the other hand, a good Scientologist is required to hold very closely to and not question the validity of Scientology principles.

      1. Chris by your definition of “science”, Dn/Scn were developed “scientifically” simply by virtue of the obvious fact that they changed and were revised by LRH as he acquired new experience and information. It was not like he appeared one day claiming to find golden tablets hidden in the woods by God. So on the one hand LRH is criticized for being wishy-washy and inconsistent, on the other hand, for being authoritarian and inflexible. some people are so hard to please!

        1. Valkov: It was not like he appeared one day claiming to find golden tablets hidden in the woods by God.

          Chris: Well, yeah it kind of was just like that. I hadn’t thought of it quite in that metaphor. My metaphor had LRH pulling Dianetics out of his ass in a sort of stream of consciousness storytelling mode while typing it straight through in a month’s time and the myth was that he did this on a continuous roll of butcher paper so that he didn’t have to waste time changing separate sheets. I cannot vouch for the rolled butcher paper but that is the story nevertheless. The salient point of my metaphor is that LRH made it up from bits and pieces of other disciplines with which he was familiar and then in classic LRH plagiarism claimed authorship for the concepts however and whenever they appeared.

          1. Chris, I am aware of that apparency. It is as Covey put it, that “everything is created twice”. By which he meant that things are first created in one’s mind or own universe, then in the RWOT. There is theory(concepts), and there is practice(applications). Those are different realms.

            As for “plagiarism”, that is plain silly. There is “nothing new under the sun.” There is hardly anything in existence that is not “plagiarized” from something earlier. One has to be really bitter to call “the transmission of knowledge”, “plagiarism”. Christianity is a re-statement of Buddhism, which itself is a re-statement of Vedanta, etc. Who knows how far back such chains go? Each terminal in the lineage makes it his own, restates it in ways he thinks is appropriate to his time and culture, adds whatever insights he personally has gained, puts his own cast on it, and launches it forth.

            When you’ve recorded 3,000 hours of lecture and written 3,000,000 words, then talk to me about the “plagiarism” of others.

            It’s all about the practical, the applications of the concepts.

            That is why is why Dn/Scn were tweaked and tweaked and tweaked as he went along, like any technology is tweaked and developed and evolved as it is moved along. That is “science”, or more accurately “technology”. Technology is the practical applications that are developed from basic principles, and even LRH did not know when he started out, what would “work”. One can guess at it, but one doesn’t know until one actually goes out and tries it. That’s why processing sequences and line-ups kept changing throughout LRH’s lifetime. Just like science, it was trial and error.

            1. The reality I see is quite the reverse of what you claim here. There is plenty of evidence in the form of first-person accounts that in the early days there were a lot of people involved in R&D, and that various parts of the “tech” were researched and developed by other individuals. There are plenty of detailed accounts on ESMB, and in other places, about this.

              IN the 1950s the various “routes’ as delineated in CoHA for example, were arrived at by polling existing auditors who had been applying various processes and were polled as to which processes were most effective and which were not so effective. That was the basis of the codification of those “Routes”. That is peer review right there.

              Of course you are welcome to your unsupported opinions; each person is free to think, even that the moon is made of green cheese, right?

          2. My point is that KSW came later, after much tweaking and trial-and-error in the best traditions of science and technology. He changed his mind and his processes as he acquired new data. My golden tablets were a reference to KSW, There were years of trail and error preceding KSW. What you bring up is a different issue entirely. One perhaps worth discussing in its own right ,but which is non-responsive to the issue I posted, which was a response to your claim that “science” was not involved.

            1. Your attempt to liken Scientology to Science is outrageous. It has almost no resemblance to science. But it has much resemblance to religion, being a one man show, relying on worshiping congregations, being dogmatic, turning into a cult, etc.

            2. Science and religion have one thing in common: both are based on observation.
              Science outside, religion inside. As by true observation there is no outside and
              inside, only the observation remains as real. My present view of this question.

            3. That could be a good way of integrating the 2 areas. Defining “religion” as investigating the realm of the experiencing subjects, while “science” would be the investigation of the RWOT, the world of objects

  11. Luis
    I just want to let you know that I read your last comment which I found awesome.
    The reasons in order why I haven’t yet answered to you are that there is a lot in it
    which I just ‘let sink’ and let Life reflect on. It means that there will be no considerations in between when I answer. Another is that I have been engaged in lots of activities recently. Thank you Luis for writing, I will write back soon.

    1. Marianne, I don’t think Luis would necessarily see your comment on this thread as he may not be reading it. Also, being relatively new here, he may not even know about the “Recent Comments” list – and there have been so many comments these last couple days on both of the recent threads that he would have to be checking it almost constantly. I think you should make this reply to him on the same thread as his comment to you, “The Scientology Matrix.” He may be in mystery about “no reply” – which isn’t like you!

      On a similar but separate topic, I have one other suggestion, if I may. Because you simply use the nearest reply button on the thread when you want to reply to someone’s comment (rather than using the reply button on email notifications) it’s sometimes impossible to tell who you are replying to. You could either write the person’s name in your reply to them, or even quote the post itself that you’re replying to. That way I (and maybe others) won’t be in mystery either! :))

  12. Regarding the OP, the Wizard of Oz comes to mind … again.

    Step 1. A wizard promises people specific things if they do a murder for him: heart, brains, courage.

    Step 2. They pull off the murder (clumsily) with Toto saving their asses over and over.

    Step 3. Toto shows that the wizard is a fraud.

    Step 4. The wizard doesn’t delver what was actually promised but instead gives out bullshit awards and the Lion, Scarecrow and Tin Man think it is so, so grand – IT IS THE WHOLE POINT ACTUALLY.

    NOTE: Toto don’t get SHIT.

    Step 5. Toto is the only character on the show with a fucking clue and leaps from Dorothy’s arms to lure her away from the guy who stiffed her on the hit man contract. STUPIDLY, she gets in a balloon with the creeper who has done nothing but lie to her and put her life in serious peril. Now she is going on a long trip where he (based on his past actions) could kill her for knowing too much about the contract.

    Step 6. Toto leaps from her arms to get her out of the balloon and away from the creeper who looks like the original Doctor Who – but ISN’T.

    Step 7. She wakes up. Later that night, she cuddles with Toto and goes back to sleep.

    Step 8. Toto barks and bares teeth late at night. It’s that creepy wizard again. He’s peeping in on Dorothy looking for a thrill. He leaves knowing Toto will tear his ass up.


      1. Chris “Knievel”, L10, really? You are a very brave or a very bored man! I hope you thoroughly vetted the auditor!

        The corridors of Time are very long……

        But of course let us know how it goes.

        1. It is amazing that both Chris and myself continue to explore and avail ourselves of the tech while the staunchest supporters of Scientology on this blog squarely do not. It does strengthen my observation that the most fervent supporters are lower on the Bridge while the people who are higher on the Bridge more often exhibit a more balanced view and are not so prone to auto-defense of the subject. Perhaps the ardent supporters are defending their own hopes rather the subject itself?

          1. When did you or Chris last avail yourselves of the tech?

            And your belief that someone isn’t availing themselves of the tech seems to still be based on a narrow viewpoint that the tech only involves auditing. (Must we constantly repeat the same old refrains?)

            AND, I don’t see that there is any more “auto-defense” of the subject than there is instant “auto-denial” of any so-called defense of the subject.

            1. Except that both me and Chris can objectively prove that we have undergone big changes in viewpoints on this subject. And we still are. Are you?

            2. So? What does that prove? To me, it only proves that you have an opinion that a person would be expected to undergo “big changes” on the subject – which in turn is based on the opinion that the core subject doesn’t contain truths. Whereas, I happen to think it does, and thus why should I make big changes in my view of it?

              Again, why are you repeating the same old arguments you’ve already stated and asking me to repeat mine? And again, I’ll say that I sense an definite urge to deny any positive statement about Scientology.

            3. Marildi: “… which in turn is based on the opinion that the core subject doesn’t contain truths.”

              Me: Can you see how the above is completely wrong? And with such a utter falsity, further discussion or debate is impossible. Revise the above and we can continue.

            4. No, I can’t see how the above is “completely wrong.” So instead of condescendingly mocking me (Ad Hom + Red Herring), why don’t you just stick to the discussion and refute my statement in a way that isn’t a logical fallacy?

            5. I am attacking the statement itself, not you.

              Your statement is a complete falsehood that leads to a complete stop in the discussion. I will leave it to you to try to figure out how that statement is a complete logical melt-down, and I will be ready when you have made a real attempt at rectifying that mistaken statement.

            6. “I am attacking the statement itself, not you.”

              Oh, I see. I thought it was one of those subtle Ad Homs like “How stupid can you be.”

              Well then, how ’bout you tell me which logical fallacy it actually was. After you have figured that out – or at least made a real attempt to do so – I will be ready to continue the discussion. (You see? I too can play the condescendingly arrogant Schoolmaster talking to the errant school child while waving the whipping rod threateningly. :D)

              Okay, all banter aside, let me rephrase: “…which in turn is based on the opinion that the core subject isn’t a body of consistently workable truths as contained in *Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics.” And thus. why should one “undergo big changes in viewpoints on this subject”?

              p.s. You still have time to wish me a Happy Thanksgiving. That way we can both be grateful for all the good TR-0 bullbait practice. 😉

            7. Your rephrasing is not a rephrasing at all but rather a complete turnaround. Let me elaborate:

              Your first statement was: “…is based on the opinion that the core subject doesn’t contain truths.” This statement is the logical opposite to “…is based on the opinion that the core subject does contain truths.” And since “truths” (plural) must mean “two or more”, it would equate to: “…is based on the opinion that the core subject does contain two or more truths.” And back to your original statement, we have: “…is based on the opinion that the core subject doesn’t contain truths.” equating to “…is based on the opinion that the core subject does contain less than two truths.” which is the same as saying “…is based on the opinion that the core subject does contain zero or one truth.”, Now talk about a Straw Man fallacy! No-one here has ever claimed that the core of Scientology contains at most one single truth among the thousands or millions of words therein (depending on what you define the core of Scientology to contain… what exactly DO you define the core of Scientology to contain?). Such a Straw Man fallacy breaks down the discussion right there.

              Now your second statement was: “…which in turn is based on the opinion that the core subject isn’t a body of consistently workable truths as contained in *Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics.” Here you seem to define the core of Scientology as what is contained in The Book of Basics (now which version? It has been seriously bloated as of late). Your statement is somewhat nebulous, but would usually be taken to mean “…which in turn is based on the opinion that the core subject isn’t a body of only consistently workable truths as contained in *Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics.”

              So, in the first statement, you claim that I believe that there is zero, or at most one truth in the core of Scientology. In the second statement, you claim that I do not think that the core is not completely consistent.

              I certainly agree to your second statement. Nobody I know of (except you) would try to defend that book as completely consistent. The first statement was completely wrong.

            8. Geir, I think your problem was with the word “contain,” which is defined as “include; comprise,”and “comprise” means “consist of; be made up of.” Examples:

              “The soup contains (includes) meat.”

              “The soup contains (comprises = consists of; is made up of) broth, vegetables and meat.”

              When I wrote “…is based on the opinion that the core subject doesn’t CONTAIN truths,” I meant that your opinion is that it isn’t COMPRISED (made up of) truths; whereas, you erroneously thought I meant “doesn’t contain (INCLUDE) truths.” i.e. “doesn’t include ANY, or more than one, truth.”

              When I re-wrote my statement (“…which in turn is based on the opinion that the core subject isn’t a body of consistently workable truths as contained in *Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics”) it was to clarify what I meant by “truths” – which I assumed was what you were asking for since I hadn’t realized that the problem was that you were using an inappropriate definition.

              I will grant you that the word “contain” is ambiguous but it would have been so much simpler if, to start with, you had done me the respect of just stating specifically what you thought the problem was – instead of indicating (as a result of your own inappropriate definition) what a stupid statement I had made – and then it would have been clear to me where the miscommunication existed and I could have it cleared up right then and there.

            9. Sorry, but your two definitions of CONTAIN does not make a logical difference in the point I made about your original statement. Try substituting both definitions as I did and you will see.

              In fact the other definition could only make it worse as it could be taken to mean O truths rather than 0 or 1 truth.

            10. Sorry, but most people would understand “does not contain (i.e. is NOT comprised of, or made up of) truths” as being the opposite of “does contain (i.e. IS comprised, or made up of) truths. That is, unless they were very literal-minded. And Geir, I am not saying that You are literal-minded. But your latest exchange here sure is. (Sound familiar? :D)

              But again, this isn’t the actual point. Unintended ambiguities can occur. Honest misunderstandings can occur. If you would simply have continued the discussion by refuting my argument in terms of how and why (you thought) it was stupid, it would have been clear to me that either I misspoke or you were interpreting my statement in a way I hadn’t intended, and I would have then clarified it. And the discussion could have continued.

              Not that you are the only culprit with regard to this sort of thing. All of us could stand to improve our discussion techniques. IMO, the two outpoints that occur most often are (1) making statements that are generalities, since that doesn’t make for a very intelligent discussion, and (2) resorting to personal evaluations and criticisms. You have criticized “no change” – and I would ask, has there been any real change in discussion skills?

            1. Val’s on a roll, shooting from the hip, consistently missing the marks. 😀

              Sorry Val, I am fully booked today, may answer you tonight.

            2. I’d say he pretty much hit the bull’s-eye on each one. Again. 🙂

            3. Status may be something you guys worry about, not me. Geir has done the OT8 level but I don’t think there’s any example of him holding it out in front of him as a status. You’ve badgered him senseless begging questions and arguing about things you get repeated answers for but just don’t like what you hear so continue repeating the same old Scientology party line about it and for the most part he patiently answers with way less exasperated replies than I might. Geir doesn’t pretend to know about stuff he doesn’t now about nor use vague hyperbole about gains and wins that he hasn’t gotten nor observed in others, yet you do. I don’t think you are being fair to him on this one.

            4. What I read from Marildi and Valkov is the last bastions of desperation, of frantic defense of the indefensible – because of the repetitions as you say and because of the increasing effort to apply Esto Series 3. It’s either a plan or it is reactive stupidity. Unfortunately I lean toward the latter, leaving me to dish out less credit tonight.

              I have already pointed several people that are curious about how real scientologists behave to read Marildi’s comments on my blog. Their reactions are overwhelmingly spot on, and so I continue to hold her out as a prime example of what Scientology conditioning can do.

              To the casual reader; Please take some time and read through Marildi’s comments both on this thread and others.

            5. The flaw in your thesis is that I have never heard of Esto series 3 and have not read it. However your large intellect seems to be more than balanced by an equally large head. I hope you enjoy your smartness. I will continue to enjoy my stupidity.

              Please note I did not defend, in my post about IQ, the “one point per hour” statement, so your doing a straw man on that point, if yours is supposed to be a response to my post. I stand by my general statements about IQ test results being variable because of other personal factors.

              Since I am assumed to be “stupid” by you, (or is that an attempt to control me a la Miscavige? If I were within reach, would you have slapped me hard and perhaps tried to choke me?), I guess I am within my range of intelligence to say “Go kiss Uranus”.

            6. Valkov: “’last bastions’? I have a lot less invested in the need to be right in my thinking than you seem to think!”

              It’s yet another logical fallacy. In this case, Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People):

              “Using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience’s sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, envy, condescension, and so on.”

            7. Yes, stupid is the general category. In the above comment, it was enhanced with “reactively stupidity.” Desperate and frantic too, And for me “conditioned.”

            8. True Chris, you have not bragged about that ‘status’; I guess Geir brought you in because of your statement about doing L10 soon. You are now “buddies in tech”, whereas marildi and I are apparently not. Although I did do an intensive with an old Class VIII who has been out since the 1980s, a few weeks ago. This person is well into other things, so may not be rightly identified as a scientologist and does not wish to be referred to as such.

            9. Hey Valkov, that’s cool. I’m happy for you. I’m working towards something like that myself.

              I must have missed where Chris said he was going to do an L. Are you sure about that? I find it hard to believe, considering all the wholesale discrediting he’s done.

            10. Wow. That tells me what he really thinks of the tech. Either that or that he has some very inconsistent thinking going – because, like I said, he has been so critical of it in broad, general terms.

              Btw, I have to admit I don’t always read Chris’ comments, or read through to the end of them, because there are just too many generalities that they come off as pure propaganda. And I don’t get that he really wants to have a true discussion. At least not with me.

              Bottom line is that even though we all talk about “discussion” and logical fallacies, I haven’t seen consistent follow-through in the way of productive discussion, including on both Chris’ and Geir’s part.

            11. Marildi: “I’m working towards something like that myself.”

              Chris: Sometimes we have left over ideas that doing the Bridge must cost a lot of money. This is no longer true and there are many people out here still interested and willing to make these processes available either for free or for some moderate and fair exchange — no longer out of reach for “common” people. It mostly requires a person being clear with themself about what they want to do. Then the logistics may simplify.

            12. Chris, perhaps you mean well but why would you assume that I am in need of being informed by you about what is available to me? Can you not see how presumptuous that is? Or see that advising me on “being clear with myself about what I want to do” infers that I need to be told that?

              You obviously still can’t see how patronizing you are towards me. And that you consider I am in need your wise counsel. Again, perhaps you mean well, but the attitude you have of your own comparative superiority and/or my inferiority manifests as plain eval and inval.

              Not that you’re an auditor, but maybe you should study the issue on Auditor Beingness – which makes it clear that one’s attitude towards another will show up in their comm cycle, willy nilly. It would be nice if you and I could be in ARC.

            13. Valkov: ” . . . Although I did do an intensive with an old Class VIII who has been out since the 1980s, a few weeks ago. . . ”

              Chris: Cool. Did anything interesting occur?

            14. Val, I just wanted to say that I noticed the change in you recently – that you are sharper and more articulate than ever and seem to be able to pull up the knowledge you’ve accumulated better than ever too. I wouldn’t doubt it had to do with that intensive you got. I commend you!

            15. Well marildi, it’s good to get some feedback. Geir says I am shooting from the hip, and that is quite true! Hopefully I am shooting more quickly and at least somewhat accurately. It is inevitable he and I aren’t on the same pages a lot of the time because we are operating from very different social, cultural, experiential and intellectual databases. (Vinnie would call them ‘filters’. But filters are a given!) It’s not because Geir is stupid! That is just an apparency at times. 🙂

            16. Good indication Marildi, I was just about to say that I had noticed Valkov’s IQ to be measuring 12-1/2 points higher than previous to this past week and had wondered at that . . . Yes, the auditing is obviously the correct indication!

            17. Yes. Imagine how much the auditing Chris got when he was in must have raised his own IQ, for him to be able to spot my increase with such precision!

            18. LOL – I know! Amazingly sharp. 😉 (Just between you and me, I have thought he probably does have a very good IQ and literally wondered if he gave any credit for that to his auditing.)

              And just to get a completed cycle with you, I was also wondering about your “subjective” gains on the intensive you got, IF you feel like sharing them – even in general terms.

            19. marildi, it wasn’t “formal” auditing. She doesn’t use a meter, but she stil uses what she learned when she trained up. She just incorporates it, and will run things triple flow etc. The main thing is the 2-way comm with someone who can really duplicate what you are saying and understands on a deep level.

              Mostly she helped me deal with some losses I have experienced, like the unexpected death by stroke of my 35 year old daughter a few years ago, and my inability to help her.

              And the loss of my father when I was a little boy, and some family complications that resulted from that. We also just talked about the old days, how she got “declared” and the impact on her family and relationships at the time. All’s well that ends well.

              She didn’t charge me for the time she spent talking about stuff.

              Not all the sessions were so spectacular; I got my IQ raised those 12 and 1/2 points in probably 3 hours of it all. 🙂

            20. Val, I fully understand about the losses and I’m really happy for you that you got those sessions. I had a similar experience last year with the sudden death of one of my sons, and I was helped so much by someone I had worked with in a Class V org. She is the most OT person I could think of (has done OT V) and very shortly after I got the news I called her and asked if she would get in comm with him. She did so and called me back a short while later. She said he had been disoriented and didn’t know where he was or what had happened. She gave him the data that I had given her and explained to him that he could take his time and decide when and where he wanted to start his next life. There was other 2-way comm with him too and she told me that all of a sudden she perceived from him a huge relief. She also gave him a message from me and I got a wonderful one back from him.

              This was all telepathic comm, of course, but the main thing is that she is an excellent auditor and my son got a session. When she called me back and we talked for a while it was like a session for me too, over the phone. As you said, “The main thing is the 2-way comm with someone who can really duplicate what you are saying and understands on a deep level.” Thanks so much for sharing your own experience!

              Oh, and well done on proving that it’s possible to get even more than a one-point increase of IQ per hour. 😉

            21. Thanks marildi. My wife’s friend said something like “Children should never predecease their parents!” That is definitely how I felt. What made it worse is there was “unfinished business”. Our daughter had moved away to Atlanta some years previously and was conflicted about visiting us or getting along with us. There were unresolved feeling on both sides. She also missed us and this place where she had grown up, but had moved there in part as a “change of environment” strategy.

              My wife flew right down there; My other daughter, my son and I got there about 48 hours after she had the stroke. No-one said so, but it became apparent the medicos considered her already dead. She was on a respirator because she could not breathe on her own. The doctor in charge had chosen not to exercise the one option that migh thave sved her life, which would have been removing part of her skull to give room for her swelling brain to go that way, instead of pressing down on her brain stem, which is what stopped her breathing. Her heart was still breathing, so they needed to keep the body oxygenated because they were waiting for us to arrive to pay our last respects, and because she was an organ donor. 3 people eventually benefited by her passing.

              However, in the meantime, she was in the ICU and we were allowed in one at a time to ‘visit’ with her, sitting in the ICU waiting room when not with her. I felt I should try to do an assist on her but in the ICU environment and visiting her for only brief periods of time I felt I couldn’t.

              The problem for me was, she was still there, waiting for me to “bring her back” because she “wanted to be with you guys”. She sent a mockup of herself wearing light blue corduroy jeans and a pink knit top into the waiting room and said just that – “Bring me back! I want to be with you guys! Let’s get out of here.”

              Many stroke victims are completely aware and still very much “there”. Since they had put her on the respirator, I think she didn’t realize how bad the situation was. One side of the body was finished I believe. If she had lived, at this point she would have been paralyzed on one side I believe.

              Anyway I tried to explain to her I didn’t feel I could bring her back and that she should seek a new life.

              I am hopeful because she had found an Eastern Orthodox church in Atlanta just the year before, that coincidentally had been founded by and was named after a very unusual wandering Orthodox priest, now called St. John Maximovich, who had in fact ministered to the Russian communities of the Far East where my family had lived.

              My daughter, Sarah, had in fact become a catechumen at the church that year, and I hope she has come back into that community. Or elsewhere if she so chose I guess.

              For me, I have since put together various clues from different sources and think I may know who she was. The sadness of it for me is that It didn’t come to me, until after she was gone.

              Don’t waste your opportunities to get to know the people close to you, as the song has it, “In the living years”. November 10th was the date of her passing.

              marildi, you know I am sorry for your loss, but I’m happy you had the resource person available to communicate with him.

            22. Thanks so much, Valkov. Such a poignant story about your daughter.

              I can’t tell you how much it meant to me to know that my son got sorted out and was fine. That was the most important thing to me, and I’m so glad to hear that you yourself had the ability to be in comm with your daughter. I didn’t want to ask but was hoping you were going to tell me that (based on that post you made one time about being able to perceive the thoughts of someone’s father, who was perceiving thoughts in your universe).

              What you said here I couldn’t agree more with:

              “Don’t waste your opportunities to get to know the people close to you, as the song has it, ‘In the living years’.”

              I guess it isn’t surprising that the above was and is exactly my sentiment too. ❤

            23. p.s. I love that in the end your daughter had decided this: “Bring me back! I want to be with you guys! Let’s get out of here.” I trust that gave you some closure.

              And if you would care to say more about what you wrote here, I would be interested:

              “For me, I have since put together various clues from different sources and think I may know who she was. The sadness of it for me is that It didn’t come to me, until after she was gone.”

            24. Thank you so much for your story, Valkov. This really moved me. Tears in my eyes. This is the real stuff of life that should remind us how much we owe it to ourselves to really enjoy whatever we are able to enjoy – and the time with our children is right there on the top of the list. You have my deepest respect for posting this here.

            25. Valkov: “Don’t waste your opportunities to get to know the people close to you, . . . ”

              Chris: Poignant and solid advice. Thank you Val, I will try to practice this.

            26. I refer to such meterless auditing or conversation as “mindful discussions”. That is what occurs between two really good friends.


            27. Does not fit here, so I put it here. Anyone to find any logical reason so that it would
              fit here? Me still has to catch up…got this video today, love it, so I am sharing it with

            28. Marianne, This video demonstrates an example of what I mean when I challenge our anthropomorphism of intelligence. At its root, I don’t think intelligence is comprehended very well. Anthropomorphic assumptions abound setting what are for me possibly false standards which are held up for comparison and yet as your video shows, the fox actually demonstrates what surely passes for OT abilities to detect and route out his meal. Many Adrian Dove developed a “counterbalance” IQ test to show that impoverished and ghetto raised blacks could demonstrate an intelligence quotient which when counterbalanced to allow for their ghetto sub-culture would also show a lowering of the IQ of white middle class who were not socially prepared to know the questions on this test. This is not true sociological science anymore than Dianetics is true science but it makes a valid point and is still interesting and fun to look at. One thing I would like to know is whether the fox feels grateful for his meal and if he is, who or what does he thank?

            29. Is it intelligence or is it acuteness of certain senses in the case of the fox or other life forms? Perhaps we are perceiving the entire issue “through a glass darkly” and failing to frame it correctly? And how would the principle that “form follows function” relate?

            30. Also, I would be interested in some examples of “true science” as opposed to the rest of them, the “not quite true” sciences. I have a feeling they might be few and far between.

            31. “True science” doesn’t mean true. It means following the scientific method as the underpinning to one’s resulting knowledge. We can know anything, but the scientific method is special because the resulting knowledge acquired more closely aligns with the ongoing processes of the real world than do other conjectures that forgo or resist peer review and repetitive duplicative testing. The difference between confirmation testing and confirmation bias is an enormous gulf.

            32. That is precisely why I asked for RW truly scientific “examples” of knowledge. I did not introduce the idea that some supposedly ‘scientific’ results are not truly scientific.

            33. Did you think this book is religious? It isn’t. It’s about the life cycles of various living things and how they differ from the human.

            34. Valkov: “The flaw in your thesis is that I have never heard of Esto series 3 and have not read it.”

              Me: The flaw in MY thesis is that YOU haven’t read… ROFLMAO.

              Valkov: “Please note I did not defend, in my post about IQ, the “one point per hour” statement, so your doing a straw man on that point, if yours is supposed to be a response to my post.”

              Me: So you didn’t answer my point at all and went completely off on a tangent. I see… And then you accuse me of a Straw Man because I kept discussing my original point. I see…

              And, Val, I am not saying that You are stupid. But your latest exchange here sure is.

            35. By “your thesis” i refer to this: “What I read from Marildi and Valkov is the last bastions of desperation, of frantic defense of the indefensible – because of the repetitions as you say and because of the increasing effort to apply Esto Series 3.”

              Well, I don’t feel any desperation, and I have not read or heard of “Esto series 3′, so that sounds like a straw man to me. I don’t see how I could be applying something I have no knowledge of, out of a desperation I do not feel.

              So I guess this “discussion” or conversation or whatever it is supposed to be went off the rails somewhere and does not look like it can be put back on any rails, so I am letting it rest here.

            36. If you perceive that someone failed to address your point, that might be a good time to clarify or restate your point. That is, if you are truly interested in continuing a discussion or conversation with the person. Otherwise it appears you must have some other end in mind. Which is OK, as long as all are clear on that.

            37. Geir
              Will you please answer also to what you mean by the ‘defense of the indefensible’?
              This is one of the rare instances when I do not get what you write, so would you please help the understanding?

            38. MT; By defending the indefensible, I meant that it is futile to defend:

              – Scientology as a complete OR consistent body of knowledge (core, tech, ethics OR admin)
              – That the Bridge leads to Total Freedom
              – That Hubbard had clean intentions (at any time) regarding helping the world with Scientology

            39. Valkov, Geir
              ‘it takes 2 to stupid’….in this case I am standing in the line. What I nevertheless get is that for a smooth com cycle, one not only has to put there data in a way that one makes sure that the other person is able to understand but has to allow oneself to be completely duplicated as well. That is answer all the questions the other is asking until a cycle is completely clear. Then, all other uncleared so far cycles are to be cleared. So, what are we basically clearing here and what do we get in the end? ………………

            40. Thank you, Geir. If one sees it as incomplete OR inconsistent, that is with a hundred per cent certainty, for me it means that one’s attention is off it and when the topic comes up in present time in any way, one is able to respond with full awareness and ability to what there is. For me incomplete and inconsistent can mean what Life is about. Maybe its only consistent feature is complete Randomity. So, any attention to and agreeing to any data not thoroughly observed previously (def.of past) will (def.future) result in applying the data as a conceptual tool (def.of via) instead of directly observing and responding in a natural way. So those who are defending or criticizing may not have fully understood something ‘there’ which they are still carrying ‘here’ and observe the ‘here’ through that ‘there’.

              The ‘Bridge’ leading to Total Freedom means both ‘sides’. Which, in my present view may mean being able to and being willing to be at either side of a two-way com cycle at higher and higher ‘levels’.

            41. Marianne: Which, in my present view may mean being able to and being willing to be at either side of a two-way com cycle at higher and higher ‘levels’.

              Chris: Though I sometimes miss your point, I like this one.

            42. In my present view ‘intent’ can manifest itself in two ways: through the filter of a personal self and the result is a personal goal in which case there will be opponents
              to this goal OR as the Intent of Life itself, which looks to be being awareness itself
              in wider and wider spheres of life as Life, which to me also means being theta the solver, rather than being theta the problem where ‘problem’ can be defined as ‘intention and counter-intention’. This last can manifest in the person’s mind as a conflict. As out of Life’s Intent there is a body and a mind here, when one is not in opposition to these two, one is Life’s Intent. One is acting out Life’s purpose and
              intent as the embodiment of that purpose and intent.

    1. Hi kg, I’m replying here because I can’t seem to find the particular posts I want to reply to, in the email system. I guess I don’t know how to searchit properly. Do you suppose going Clear would give the the ability to instantly locate th epost I want to respond to? 🙂

      Anyway, if you want to get rid of your cold, I don’t think going Clear would necessary do it. I would perhaps consider seeking a Dianetic Case Completion for all around better health.

      But actually, if you want to simply target that one condition, you might try getting a trusted buddy who has some concept of how to audit, run a simple assist using a question such as “Where is your cold?” repetitively to EP. This could work and get rid of your “cold(s)”, particularly if your colds are actually the “same” cold being repetitively activated, if you get what I mean. Your colds may be repeated occurrences of the same “cold”.

      Caveat: I have no C/S training, but back in the day we would fly by the seats of our pants, and if you were (God forbid! :-)) a friend or acquaintance of mine, I might offer to run that assist process with you.

      1. Thanks Valkov, I don’t get colds very often Almost never. And when I get them, I learned something fucking useful.

        IMMEDIATELY attack the snot.

        As SOON as I get the tickle I attack with cold medicine and expectorant not when the snot has taken hold.

        Never give snot a chance!

        That way, the cold never gets to the lungs or nose. It becomes a weird discomfort only and I seldom get the nasal blockage or cough-ey, crappy binges.

        But the trick is ATTACK FAST with multiple medicines.

        That’s my take.

        And wash hands a lot and avoid wiping eyes with dirty hands.

        Happy Thanksgiving friend. It’s the original diversity celebration.

        Let’s thank the native Americans. They saved our pilgrims asses!

        1. Isn’t it wonderful that when one gives the right amount of attention to a neglected part/spot of the body, also the right chemicals, one can heal oneself fast? Kind of when one part of a ridge gets white, the other one gets also that.

  13. When I was doing linguistic research many, many years ago, I had the opportunity to work with one of the leading linguists of the world and observe how he was doing it. It is a 24 hour motivation and engagement in the activity. Me then was aware but put there a lot of effort as well. As a woman with a family I made the decision of staying rather an enjoyer of the products than the product changer. BUT! Also, an interesting thing happened. I knew also then, that if it was true that consciousness can shed light on what language is, how it was acquired, then me as part of that, if I sit down and ask the question and observe the answer, can get an answer to how it is. So, I did so. I could get very big glimpses of how I was acquiring my mother-tongue as a child. This (among others) set fire to an interest in consciousness in a broader way.
    This broader interest has remained and still is a bigger value than just one field.

    With this I want to say that there are those who play the beautiful and useful role of putting there new inventions for mankind. They may be nevertheless less aware in other fields and less able like family etc. There are also those, who do their jobs and on the way of mastering it while choose to see and find answers to how this
    thing called Life is working….me is of the second one, which does not mean that
    the sparkles of invention will not arrive…without effort and thought now.

    1. From that article: “The truth is that policy is your friend.”

      With such a huge and inconsistent body of policies, it can be anyone’s friend. Or not. One can always pick out a policy that will support one particular point of view. LRH wrote so much and with so many contradictions in policy that I find it beyond futile to engage in such policy debates as that article is a pretty good example of.

      I think Miscavige knows that Scientology ethics, tech and policy all have fundamental and critical flaws. At the same time he is adamant at trying to make Hubbard’s dream come true. He will try to fix it anyway he can. But he can’t, because the flaws are deeper than he thinks and he will never get to the root of it if he is to abide at least somewhat to KSW. Yes, he is stretching it and gets a lot of flak by the independents for it. But since no independents are able to demonstrate that Scientology done straight by the book can accomplish the dream of Hubbard, I think the rap dished out to Miscavige is largely unfair.

      1. ‘One can always pick out a policy that will support one particular point of view’.
        Yes, that can be a source of a problem as supporting right there creates a division.
        The right way looks like that one picks out a policy which clears any confusion around a viewpoint. The best way looks to be when even the need to hold onto any
        viewpoint is cleared. For that to happen, a complete studying of all the materials are
        needed. To see the consistences and the inconsistences.

        1. Marianne Toth, this post of yours and this part of a previous one are providing me with the opportunity to comment on one of Geir’s favorite subjects: Auditor Training.

          My thesis all along has been that in order to complete the Bridge to Total Freedom, one must walk the entire Bridge. And the Bridge has 2 sides – the Processing side, and the Training side.

          I speculate that one gets 60% or more of his gains by walking the Training side of the Bridge.

          Here’s why.

          Going up the processing side of the Bridge one achieves his own cognitions about himself and his existence.

          Going up the Training side of the Bridge and doing the auditing one must do to actually get to the top, one achieves in addition to his own cognitions about his pcs, but also, assuming he is able to and does actually DUPLICATE, he also shares in the cognitions of ALL his pcs, too.

          Thus just going up the Processing side of the Bridge may well provide him with only 33% OR LESS of the gains possible and available from the other side of the Bridge, depending on how many pcs he actually audits.

          So no-one who has only done the one, more limited side of the Bridge really knows where doing the WHOLE Bridge would take him.

          1. Here’s the quote of MT I meant to include in the above comment: “The ‘Bridge’ leading to Total Freedom means both ‘sides’. Which, in my present view may mean being able to and being willing to be at either side of a two-way com cycle at higher and higher ‘levels’.”

          2. + 1

            And yes, Marianne seems to have not only has a good grasp of this point but Scientology in general. We’re in lofty company. 🙂

      2. Geir, have you ever discussed specifics of “policy” with people who have used it successfully? I know they are out there. Or do you only discuss it with folks who confirm your biases?

        I wonder also how you interpreted the word “that” in the quote you posted. I take it that John Aaron means it in reference to “that” specific policy, not all policy as a generality.

        In the last analysis, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If orgs grow by focusing on this particular policy letter and focusing on scientology training, there will be nothing more to say.

        Until then its all just speculative intellectualization.

        1. If the word “that” would be interpreted as pointing only to that specific policy, then the sentence should have read “The truth is that this policy is your friend.” or ““The truth is that that policy is your friend.” or “The truth is, that policy is your friend.”

          Otherwise, it would simply mean “The truth is: policy is your friend.” – which is also more consistent with the rest of that article and the sentiment exuded by the writer.

          As for your “question”; “Geir, have you ever discussed specifics of “policy” with people who have used it successfully? I know they are out there. Or do you only discuss it with folks who confirm your biases?”, I will answer this:

          Seriously, Valkov? What did you miss in all my posts regarding the admin tech and LRH policy? Were you absent when you read them and commented on them? I have 20 years experience inside the church working with LRH admin tech. I ran companies based on them, I held hundreds of seminars, discussed that tech with hundreds of people that implemented them in their own companies and lives and families and governments. I have more direct experience with this than you could ever hope to have. I have discussed this with at least 50 times as many true believers in this tech than any critics of it. C’mon Val, that’s a new low.

          1. I disagree with your analysis of how things ought to be said in English. And with your interpretation of “that” in this context. The article is about a particular PL anf thus I would expect “that” in this context to refer to that PL. I’ll stick with my interpretation of what John Aaron meant to mean. American English in the vernacular simply is not that picky about that.

          2. Seriously Geir, do you really think I am going to read through ALL your posts on these subjects of admin and policy? That would be kinda like requiring me to study all The Basics before asking any question, wouldn’t it?

            1. No – you could just have read SOME of them, maybe two or three that come up on the simplest of searches on this blog to get to the point where asking such a question would be referred to as “Duh!”.

          3. Fair enough Geir. I should have been more specific to forestall the possibility of your misunderstanding my question. Thus:

            Have you ever discussed the specific Policy cited by John Aaron with someone who was successful in applying it in the situation of running an org built specifically for the purpose of training dianetics/scientology auditors? Did he or they think/feel it worked for the stated purpose and result?

    2. Aside from the ambiguous “that”, which could be taken either way (I do lean to Valkov’s take on it as it read that way for me too, but it could just as well be taken as Geir’s read of it) — what struck me was how very religious that policy sounded (I’m joking). Hubbard’s interests were in keeping the money rolling in to him. Sell books – meant more cash for him.

      Note that there was NO boom, that policy was from 1963. Training was pushed hard at the DC Org when I was on staff there and no boom happened, this was before DM had his way with things. Before the long runway.

      The boom of “Old” St Hill was brought about by Power, i.e. by selling auditing. Orgs survived and always have survived on their HGCs. Giving PCs to field auditors… um, no, no a chance in hell — be like giving away the cow.

      Scn is failing because it is money-grubbing. That’s the bottom line.

  14. Looking at this one statement by LRH made in 1975:

    Dianetics raises IQ in addition to usual auditing, at a rate of about one point of IQ per hour of processing.

    This was written more than 25 years after LRH started his research into Dianetics – a research that, according to him was massive. Thus there is absolutely no excuse for him lying in such a blatant fashion. Right here Ron is caught red handed. There is simply no defense for this.

    But we can see how a scientologist still could come up with outrageous justifications like “it was good for marketing” or some such. It seems to highlight how Scientology is able to manufacture the most extreme defenders. As a parallell, one would hardly hear some defenders of a US president say “but it was good for marketing” when he was caught in a blatant lie.

    My conclusion is that the most extreme defenders of Scientology is in fact not defending the subject, but is rather defending their own hopes for what the subject could do for them. That is also why they are not actively getting audited or trained in Scientology – because they would rather retain their precious hopes than get it shattered by reality.

    1. This seems like mostly speculation. How do you know auditing or training does not raise IQ? Did you have yourself tested before and after? Did you have/see others tested before and after? It has been well-known for decades that IQ tests are notoriously unreliable over the long term. IQ test results can vary day-by-day for the same individual. One day he slept well and is feeling good, scores well. Another day not so, and scores lower. It is well-known that when a person is feeling “bright” he usually performs better, than when he is feeling depressed and preoccupied with problems, for example. Focus, reaction time, all that is affected by overall mood or state of mind. For this reason it seems quite plausible to me that some effective tone-raising auditing/training of any kind, could raise IQ test results immediately after. There’s no mystery there.

      What was LRH basing his claims on, in 1975? I have heard earlier lectures in which he referred to “psychometry” projects being done before and after. I have
      no reason to think he was lying about this. I would think that by 1975 he would have more data on which to base such claims rather than less.

      As the Anons are fond of sating, DOX PLOX, because in your post you posted no DOX to back up your speculations.

      1. No DOX needed to off-hand refute the absolute imbecile tatement that IQ is raised ONE POINT PER HOUR of auditing. That would mean that Average Joe would rate among the most intelligent in human history after only 100 hours of auditing – a good 40 points above the late Einstein. You need Dox for this?? I push this right back at LRH who claimed this monumental breakthrough far, far above what anyone has ever managed to do in the history of mankind. Did he supply any dox for this? No, he didn’t – because unlike real sciences, he didn’t release any background research material – because he pulled a lot of his so called science out of his guts or some inches below as dozens of people that worked closely with him has testified.

    2. Is this an accurate quote? “Dianetics raises IQ in addition to usual auditing, at a rate of about one point of IQ per hour of processing.”

      Even this first part makes no sense: “Dianetics raises IQ in addition to usual auditing,…..” In addition to WHAT “usual auditing”? Does it mean a person is getting Dianetics somehow applied in “addition to usual auditing”? It really makes no sense

      Where do you find this? It is at best out of context, at worst a misprint or mistranslation or those pesky stenographers are in there messing things up again!

  15. Where is Geir? I was sure with his post above he was planning to catch me up on the “plagiarism” issue, by making me post about the fact that he was not the sole source of the tech, that it was a co-creation with other people involved, to whom he did not give credit.

    But he hasn’t comeback with that.

    1. Here is an extended definition of “plagiarism”, by which LRH would be justly accused of plagiarism, in that he failed to give credit and appropriated th ersults of others under his own name.

      I think it can be murky at times. Did Bill Gates develop Microsoft Windows? Has he been the one developing and releasing the successive versions of Windows? His name is on it all. I do not see others being given public credit for anything in that organization…..

      It is my understanding that in early versions of LRH lectures he often introduced and credited some associates, and these mentions and attributions have been progressively removed, particulary in the newer releases.

      In short, I don’t think it is all as simplistically black-and-white as some critics like to make it out to be.

      1. Plagiarism is “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”.

  16. Marianne, the great video you posted above I’m re-posting here where there’s more room.

    Recently, I learned about a book that was (supposedly) dictated to the writer by Jesus, titled *Christ Returns, Speaks His Truth*. What I’ve read so far is very interesting – and you probably would think so too because a lot of it has reminded me of things you’ve written, including the idea of Oneness. Regarding animals and other life forms, here’s an excerpt that I think relates to the video:

    “…your minds have developed along the lines of logic and reason and you act according to your will, imagination, desires and ego – and all of this mental activity blocks your spiritual mind at the top of your head; it prevents sixth sense contact with the beautiful world in which you live and which you do not remotely understand at all. You can see the bodies and the activities of insects, birds and animals, but you cannot enter into the consciousness of their mostly innocent, uncontaminated vitalizing life force.

    “You may think their consciousness is possibly like yours. But you would be wrong – because all living things other than humans live by intuition – and communicate in a way which is impossible to humans. Yes, they communicate very clearly – over long distances.” (from Article 15 of the book)

    As for exactly how animals communicate and perceive, the point in the video regarding the fox “homing in on the magnetic field of the planet” is also relevant to this book:

    “…that you THINK and FEEL with the same energy as your world is created from, that your thoughts are electro-magnetic blueprints which eventually externalize as events and things you have either longed for – or greatly feared OR as those things which, good and bad, you have done to others.”

    IMO, the above quote also aligns with LRH’s description of theta, postulates and the overt-motivator sequence – but expresses these as “electro-magnetic blueprints” and puts it more specifically in physics terms, which I believe is the actuality.

Have your say

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

You are commenting using your 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