Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 13 - MORE PILOT POSTS OF OCT 1997 Date: 10 Oct 1997 14:00:12 POST13.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 13 - MORE PILOT POSTS OF OCT 1997 ========================================== Contents: Subj : Super Scio - About Tech and Confid (Attn Oleg) Subj : Super Scio - About Self Auditing (attn Passenger) Subj : Super Scio - To Steve and Other Ex-Members ========================================== Subj : Super Scio - About Tech and Confid (Attn Oleg) ANSWERING OLEG ABOUT TECH AND CONFIDENTIALITY This is in reply to two messages from "Oleg Matveyev" When I first read this, I was a little confused about where he was quoting earlier things that I had said, so I'll put a # infront those lines which are from my earlier posts. I'll mark the rest of Oleg's post with >. My earlier post was "Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality" and the complete text can be found in Super Scio Archive number 9 which contains my posts from August 97. This is the first of the two posts by Oleg, it is dated 26 Sept 97 with subject line "Re - Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality (was To Pilot)". Note that most of this post by Oleg is actually from an earlier post by "W" (who seems to represent Capt Bill's group) which he reposted, and that is mostly who I am responding to here. > Dear Pilot, > > thank you very much for the answers, I got it. Nice to see Free Zone > America site, too. > > BTW, "Leader" and "Oleg" are me (my siblings :-)....). > > I still have some uncertainties in your comments about OT levels... So > I repost the original mail for you again (comments from others > invited). > > ======================== # Subj : Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality (was To Pilot) # # I couldn't find the original message (I have both leader's and # Richard's followups). Could somebody repost it? > ================== > > Oleg wrote: > >> Today I was phoned by some man and he told me following (very >> friendly indeed, this is just a message he meant): >> >> > "I'd like to know where they all call us to go. I do not care >> > about all that PR and black PR between them etc. I want to >> > understand what is OT, why should I go there. Could you please >> > send me URL where I can get all those notorious OT >> > levels, so I could myself evaluate if I should make it". A sensible fellow. He wants to examine the car and perhaps even test drive it before he opens his wallet. > W. wrote: > > A description of OT and what the basic contents of the OT levels are, > should be on Bernd's freezone home page. This should be enough to > satisfy any genuine need of orientation. > > O. wrote: > > That what CBR wrote in his tech and admin briefings. It gives a LOT > of non-confidential info on the OT levels. > > > But he insisted, "I want to look at it myself first". I promised > > to help him. Very good. But I am uncertain who promised? Is this a message sent from Oleg to W? Also I am uncertain who is W (not questioning secrecy, just what title does he use on the internet for the sake of continuity, maybe I have read other posts by him). > > W. wrote: > > He certainly has a right to know the direction of the way to go. The > specific technical material, however, would not help him in this > aspect. To fully understand the details, he would have to _do_ the > levels of the bridge in sequence. The bridge is not an SF soap opera, > but a series of processes that handle charge in the PC. This charge > handling cannot be done by simply reading "interesting stories". This is the standard party line both in the CofS and in some but not all freezone groups. I agree that one would have to DO the actions to achieve the full results. One has to DRIVE the car to go somewhere in it. This does not mean that auto mechanics has to be kept secret. I also disagree about it having to be done in sequence. The sequence is there to make it easier. If it had to be in sequence, the Scientology of the 1950s would never have worked because it is not in the current sequence. > Let us take an example from the non-confidential area. One of the main > techniques on Grade 4 is "Listing & Nulling". If you just read the > commands of an L&N question, you won't get any deeper understanding > because it sounds trivial. If you go a bit deeper into it, you > probably start to do some "self listing". This can easily get you into > some real charge and give you a good impression of how an out list > feels like. However, it won't give you any more reality on what the > purpose or direction of Grade 4 is. It will just get you restimulated > for a few days. Just reading the grade 4 question is indeed too little to do you any good. But I know many people who did cognite on the correct answer out of session and knew it was the correct answer and later had it indicated in session as having been found correctly. It is common for people training as auditors to cognite on the processes that they are studying. At one time (1965) this was the standard bridge and no processes were run after a person had achieved a first stage release, the processes were only to be studied so as to get the remainder of the gains and cognitions. In practice this was expecting too much and it was changed. But I have always proceeded on a mixture of processes run on me by others, processes self audited (not legal per the CofS but I know so many LRH references saying that its ok to do that that I have always gotten away with it) and simply confronting and cogniting on processes either by study or by running them on others. The more he studies and understands the tech, and the more he does and cognites on on his own, the more gains he will make in well done professional sessions because he will be a fast and aware PC. The real reason that the org became so adamant about keeping things hidden is that in the quickie era they could not deliver enough tech to stay in competition with sloppy self auditing. If you are good and you have a real lineup of processes and skilled auditors, it never hurts your business to have the PCs studying and cogniting on their own. I love getting audited by other people. The more you know, the more gains you can make. > Compare this with the huge key-out that a properly done L&N session > can cause. You really have to experience it to understand it! > > In a similar way, just reading the technical materials of the OT > levels will not give you any major insight by itself. _Doing_ the > processes makes the difference, not _reading about_ them. And as > _doing_ the processes will certainly restimulate certain parts of the > bank (after all, this is what auditing is about!), it should be done in > proper sequence and with proper training. Just reading the OT platens does give a wrong impression. They really should read the CC instruction booklet and the "Pattern of the Bank" transcript (in the scamiz packs) first. And be given some more orientation as to what it all means. I would handle the problem by putting out more materials rather than trying to close Pandora's box after it is open. But half of the problem is that these CofS clear and OT levels are not basic and don't indicate as the right WHY. Implants are just motivators. So is the NOTS stuff. You need to get the being at cause. Ron's "Creation of Human Ability" is a much better book about OT. I tried to remedy this with my Super Scio book. It is freely available on the net and puts these things in perspective. > # ... And then please demonstrate in clay what would happen to > # any group that specializes in secrecy and inhibited communications > # with special attention to what that group might do to itself. This was an earlier statement of mine. I still think it is correct. > I don't have the feeling that the freezone "specializes in secrecy" or > "inhibits communications". It is just a matter of using suitable > wording depending on your audience. I agree. I was talking about the CofS. Sometimes some freezone groups do pick up a bit of the CofS attitude about secrecy, but they certainly don't specialize in it and they certainly don't attack people like the CofS does. I see nothing wrong with using suitable wording depending on the audience. But saying that something is "freedom from overwhelm" when what it really is is offloading entities is a misnomer. You could honestly say that the LX1 rundown (running out incidents of being overwhelmed) has an end product of freedom from overwhelm and that it is done by running out the overwhelming incidents. That would be a fair statement, and if you know the complexities of running LX and R3R, you know that I have oversimplified here for the sake of the audience. Oversimplifying is one thing, putting out bullshit PR and misdirectors is something else. Here again I am mainly talking about CofS practices. > When I am holding Internet seminars for executives, I am not telling > them all details of the TCP/IP protocol just to make sure that I don't > "withhold communication". It would just confuse them if I did! So I > tell them a simplified version that contains the essence of what they > need to know to understand those concepts that are relevant to them. Exactly. I do the same kind of thing (more SNA and X25 rather than internet). But they can buy a book on TCP/IP or download the internet RFCs if they feel like it. They still hire you. And you're happy if they do read some because it makes your job easier. And you don't pretend that what they are buying is a phone system when it is really a web server or vise versa. > # The confidentiality has not served any useful purpose except to stick > # people with a mystery, and that is an overt. " > > Historically, this statement is simply incorrect. Originally, the > levels from R6EW on upwards were _not_ confidential. LRH made them > confidential when he saw that talking about these levels to people not > yet up to them caused a lot of illnesses and accidents on the flag > ship. R6EW was only non-confidential for a few months. There was one case where a girl in South Africa got sick because two guys were jamming R6 stuff down her throat. It was not that she saw the R6 material but that she was browbeaten with it. As far as I know, that was the only significant occurance. It was made confidential before the founding of the Sea Org so it certainly wasn't observed on the flag ship. And that effect can happen if you browbeat the victim with any heavy wrong indications or tech or wrong tech of any sort. This happens regularly with wrong ethics actions. Maybe the ethics policies should be made confidential and nobody should see them or be allowed to talk to an ethics officer until they have been in the subject for years and paid tens of thousands of dollars for them. That really would keep a lot of people from getting sick. Let's count up how many people have read the confidential materials on the internet and then determine what percentage of them have gotten sick. I'll bet that Bill Murray had skits on Saturday Night Live which got more people sick than these upper level materials (I'm thinking of the one where he plays a vomitorium attendant). > The overt of the CofS today is not the confidentiality of the OT > levels. It is the threat of excluding someone from the OT levels, used > to blackmail its members into giving up their integrity and doing > things they would not accept otherwise. Both are overts. The one makes the other possible. But I agree that it is the second one which is truely viscious. > > What would you answer to this man? What is your opinion about it? If > > someone ask you to "explain difference between OT1 and OT8", etc? > > To my knowledge, short descriptions are on a drawing > of the RON's org bridge which was once done by Cpt. Bill and which, as > far as I recall, does not contain restimulative material. It should be > possible to use this paper (or a suitable extract from it) to explain > the RON's org bridge to people who are asking. > > B. wrote: > > Well, I always explain the OT-levels as a gradually increasing view on > the game.... a gradually extension of your own "Space". > > You start with "life repair" for instance and you look at those parts > of the game which directly influence you in you present life. > Then you move up the Bridge and your scope gets bigger and bigger. You > run past lifes etc. > > Up to Clear you are more or less confronting your own case. > Then you increase you space and include other parts of the game, other > cases (the cases of other players who have an effect on you)... Up to > OT III you include Earth and this sector of the Universe. Now we have a silly generallity. It tells you nothing and is a bit misleading. > On Excal you increase it even more. You confront all the > "counter-intentions" in the game and this includes a time span which > goes back to a time before the MEST Universe (as we know it now) > existed. I don't know what is on Excal. I assume that this statement is misleading and they they are not running processes on intention / counter-intention here. Or perhaps it is a true statement and this level consists of running your own actual GPMS and showing you how you are actively creating the counter-intentions in your environment. But even if that was the case, this seems like too much of an oversimplification. > And this continues... up to OT 16 where you embrace all the space of > the current game... this Universe and the series of games this universe > is part of.... and you find out the reason why you are playing in this > game and what you what to learn from it. For some reason I don't think that he is talking about games processing here. So again it is probably BS. Just sales PR instead of useful orientation. > Now, if someone asks you what's the difference between OT 8 and OT 1... > it's just the difference of space you are confronting. Really laying the PR on thick now. No substance to it at all. Obviously the old joke about OT8 is true. TR0 done right. > You take aspects > of the game and examine it in autiting until you no longer have charge > on it. That's basically all there is. And there are obviously areas > which are much more "loaded" with charge than others. Especially the > games-span between OT 2 and OT 8 is loaded with electronic implants and > these implants are designed to kill you if you find out about them... > especially if you are hitting this area already if you went up the > bridge to that point. You need to be "prepared" to handle it in > auditing. Well, at least a hint of substance here. The implants are "trapped" and can make you feel a bit uncomfortable. But their ability to kill you is about as strong as the TV advertiser's ability to make you run right down to the store and buy a shoddy product. They only get you when you don't know about them. > If you are not on the bridge your confront is too low to get effected > by this stuff. You are sort of "protected by your own case"... A deaf man > doesn't even hear a bomb exploding.... you see? He has case enough not > to hear. And another man who doesn't have that case probably gets his > head blown off by the sound of that explosion. Wrong. The person is continually and chronically affected by it until he confronts it. The guy who doesn't know about it is already being affected by it at its maximum impact. He can only be affected less, not more. That the person can walk around in a human body at all already shows that he can survive this stuff. If he could have been eliminated completely they would have gotten rid of him long ago. > That's all about "confidentiality"... It's our responsibility... the > responsibility of all the auditors and C/Ses to educate those going up > the bridge to confront what's coming up. > > ================== > > ># Capt. Bill's group does keep some of his stuff hidden. > > Not quite true. It is freely available for trained auditors. If you are > on NOTs, for exx., you can get in touch with the guys and have a copy > of Excalibur materials. Are you giving it to anybody, or do you have strict rules, heavy filtering, promises to follow the party line, and astronomical prices? > BTW, what do you now about Capt. Bill? I've read somewhere in your > materials some strange supposition about CBR written that fake OT8 > excerpt about Jesus-pedofile etc. Did you take the info about Bill from > CoS yellow SPDs? :-) No. In the early 1980s, a disaffected friend of mine handed me a copy of that and a number of other issues with LRHs name on them and said that Capt Bill had written them by contacting LRH's real thetan who had left the LRH body. My friend was on the fence and visiting various freezone groups without quite getting involved with them. I was still with CofS but extremely tolerant of the so-called "squirrels" and ignoring all policy which attacked them or required disconnection. They had reached him by a third hand chain of events and neither he nor I can guarantee the source or the rumor that came along with it. It might be like the people whispering from one to the next and gradually distorting the message. So it could well have been written by somebody else. But it was freezone material, and it does seem like Capt Bill's style. I only met Capt. Bill once and he was trying to recruit me for the Sea Org at that time, so the best I can say is that I wasn't impressed and I don't hold it against him. This was well before he started the galactic patrol business. > If you read CBRs books you will see that this is NOT true. If so, then I appologize. It could well have been some other freezoner. Or maybe some really early stuff of Bill's from before the point where he worked the bugs out of his channeling procedure. > > Is the net only useful for coffeeshop auditing? I don't see it > > that way. > > I did not say that. I do not think that "Net + pc > bank" either. :-) > > ml > Oleg What an interesting idea. Perhaps Net + PC could be greater than bank if the PC studied enough, was determined enough, and had enough correct data. ================================================================ On Sept 28, Oleg posted a second message titled "The Pilot - various subjects" > Dear Pilot, > > I'd be glad to hear your comments about the following discussion > (reposted from private list). I also think that others on this list > would make benefit from the info below. > > Thanks in advance, > Oleg. > > ================================================================ > C. wrote: > >According to Geoffrey Filbert in Excalibur Revisited LRH never > >got his Service FAC's run out, and David Mayo's experience ... > > If the statements of G. Filbert and D. Mayo would be true, then > why was none of them able to develop new tech despite their > "higher insight", whereas LRH was able to successfully do so? > > I read a lot of nonsense about alleged LRH case problems by > various people (e.g. also by Otto Roos, Jon Atack, Bent Corydon > etc.). I would not believe too much of it - I have heard a lot of > totally different stories about LRH by hundreds of Sea Org > veterans. (Unfortunately I never met LRH physically, but I did > some projects that were supervised via telex by him directly, > and I worked for years in the Sea Org with hundreds of old timers > who had been on the ship with him. So I have some background > against which I can evaluate stories about LRH.) > > Don't fall for the invalidation trick of: "The CofS is so criminal > today because they inherited the traits of their founder." The > changes in the CofS did not occur due to *internal* developments, > but were caused by a carefully planned "take over" operation from > *outside*! (The "red orchestra" did not send false reports to > Moscow due to "bad character traits" of the agent who had set it > up, but due to the simply fact that the comm lines were now in the > hands of the Gestapo.) > > LRH may have been dominant (or even authoritarian) at times. > However, he certainly wasn't a "messed up case". His ex-auditors > (even Mayo and Roos admit that) agree that he was a "flying and > easy PC" in session. From my own C/S experience I can assure you > that someone who "never got his Service FAC's run out" *won't* be > a flying and easy PC. > > Moreover, I can't imagine how someone with any weakness in his > "ability to analyze" could have developed something like the "Data > Series" which is a masterpiece in observation, logic and > evaluation. There are many stories about LRH, both positive and negative. He was certainly a dramatic and powerful man and he had tremendous insights. This does not mean that he was perfect or flawless. The Serv Fac is only one aspect of a persons case. I suspect at this time that there are about a hundred major steps. Missing any one step would not be a serious road block. A good researcher must be capable of researching regardless of his case condition. Obviously, Ron had not handled any of the grades at the time when he wrote the early books, and those are far more advanced than things such as the data series. I also do not have personal experience or knowlege of LRH's case. I suspect that he did not have trouble with Serv Facs because he was able to think up the grade 4 process. I would suspect that his heavy areas of charge would be things that are not on the grade chart because he would have been likely to miss them. It is known however that he had deteriorated physically and taken to launching temper tantrums and was simply not his former self by the 1970s. Even in a deteriorated condition, he was still a being of tremendous power, hence the mixed opinions. He was obviously in a games condition with governments. He had various strange kinds of charge, such as the thing about smells. In the early research, he reaches very deep, coming up with things such as home universe. In the later days, he is running shallow, putting great importance on incidents which are obviously motivatorish and late on the chain compared to what was being addressed in the old days. So there was something wrong, something missed and unhandled on his case. The question would be what was it. I don't have enough data to even guess. And there is so much that is wrong with everybody that it comes down to bothering somebody about a splinter that they have in their eye while you have a log in your own eye. People complain when they find out that their gods have feet of clay, but at least these gods are standing up instead of wallowing in the mud like everyone else. > C. wrote: > > > I am opened to the possibility of an outside takeover, but my > > own theory about this is that; If there was a takeover it was > > made possible because of some inherent weaknesses and flaws within > > the COS that had existed prior to the takeover. Otherwise if the > > COS was applying the tech, admin, and ethic as it was supposed > > to how could an enemy without tech, admin, & ethics find a > > way to take it over? There were always flaws. In the 1950s it was a research line and there was little attention paid to organization. By 1965, it was already starting to go bad (see my reformer's web page) but it is only dramatic foreshadowing of what was to come. By the time of the CMO takeover, things had long since gone bad. That is why it was so easy for them to do it. > Who says that the "enemy" (= the implanters) is "without tech, admin & > ethics"? I'm not sure who is writing here. "the implanters" is a generality which can be interpreted many ways. From the tone of the reply, it would seem that the assumption is that the takeover was brought about by agents of off-planet between-lives implanters. Although there is a possiblity of this, I have my doubts. There are many varying theories and speculations. I even have some of my own, but they are theories rather than proven notions. But if such do exist, they did not need to be involved in the takeover. The seeds of destruction had been planted much earlier, whether or not the planting was done by an external agency. By the time of the CMO takeover, the internal situation in the CofS had already deteriorated to the point where somebody was going to grab power. So why would the implanters (if they exist as an active force) bother to get involved and risk exposure? Their job was already done. > They certainly are out-ethics as far as the overall game is concerned > (after all, they are betraying everyone). But don't assume that they > are without tech or admin: Their manipulation techniques have > millions of years (actually much more) of experience, and > they know perfectly well how to > suppress beings by administrative means. Moreover, they currently have > resources which are at least 1000 times bigger than any resources the > CofS ever had. > > The only real solution to the economic, administrative and physical > power > of the "implanter machinery" is the Bridge from Excalibur upwards. Any > administrative solution below that level can be crushed by brute force, > if needed by the implanters. Any purely administrative solution at any level no matter how high can always be crushed by brute force. Admin is mechanics. Force is mechanics. Any mechanics can always be swamped by more mechanics. Only theta is senior. Even the tech only succeeds to the degree that it frees theta. The best tech in the world can be smashed flat by an A bomb. But if enough theta has already been freed, then it can prevail over brute force. > Therefore, while we can learn something from the CofS's fate, the > solution is not to create an organization "like the CofS, but with > better defenses". > > For some people it may be "interesting" to discuss aspects like "Did > LRH do this detail or that detail?". I personally could not care less. > The only question I ask is: "Who could do more to get up the bridge > to Excal and above?" > > One gets up the bridge by organizing one's life accordingly. It *is* > feasible money-wise now in the FZ, but it still needs some personal > effort. And it definitely is not going to happen by "blaming other > people" or a mindset of "I am a poor victim, and I need somebody > to hold my hand". I would rephrase this to say "Who could do more to restore freedom and theta, whether it be Excal or other freezone practices or the CofS or even some other practice". Aside from that, however, I agree with the sentiments expressed. > Oleg: > > - who knows... AUDITING PROCESS "R2-45". What you > will say? Do you see my point? It is not that I take it all as serious > or as proven facts (last posting is pretty surface), but I need to > get some differentiation criteria and stable data. What's your opinion? > > > Dear Oleg, dear friends on the list, > > yes, I understand the problem. It is not easy to answer this in a > couple of sentences, but I try. > > Just to explain it from my own viewpoint and experience... When I left > the church > and became part of the free zone, I also was confronted with this sort > of material. I > left the church with the picture that LRH is a "holy man"... that every > word he > said and everything he did is "absolutely right" and "above any doubts > or > question". That left me with quite some stable data really shaken up, > at least for a > certain period of time. Finally however I had to find my own position > and I had to > decide either to pick up the negative track or to continue with the > positive one. I went through similar soul searching before undertaking my own research. > Of course, it doesn't make sense to just "not-is" these points and to > paint it all in > different colours just to explain them away. > > But let's try to differenciate. > > We all on this list have a track of experience with "Scientology" as a > subject. Quite > some of us had good... very good... up to terrific wins in auditing, or > study, or by > the involvement of the philosophy in general. That's one point and I > guess we can > agree on that. And that was also the "stable point" I never neglected > when I left > the church. I was able to realize, that "I" had wins with Scientology. > > Another point is, that in the meantime I know and I'm in comm with > quite some > people who knew LRH personally and who worked closely together with > him. > There are very few of these people who talk negatively about LRH. > > One indeed has to ask where does that negative stuff about LRH come > from? Who > are the people? Where do they have the data from? What's their > intention behind > it? What effect is actually created here? What is their point of view? > Do they see it > as a "piece", as a "broken piece" or as a player? There is, for everyone who becomes disillusioned with the CofS, the terrible bypassed charge of almost escaping from the trap and achieving freedom but failing instead. Those who criticize harshly are broken pieces. The charge overwhelms them. They see nothing but the terrible pain of failure and so they attack and criticize. They can no longer see all the good that was there and so they feel that it was all betrayal. Those who can truely play know that there are good moves and bad moves. Strong ones and weak ones. And that one may move to gain good position or advantage without necessarily winning the game in a single move. And that even the best move will often leave weaknesses. A player can accept the fact that LRH made a very strong move in a much larger game and praise the advantages despite the flaws. And will use the postion that was set up to play yet another strong move. The pieces cannot read out the game. They can only hope that the players are right in their moves. But they are not crushed and overwhelmed by the charge and so they continue to move forward in the game. One hopes that they will advance to the point where they wake up and become players, a pawn being queened so to speak. > I am getting relatively close to the end of the bridge now... maybe 2 > more years > and I made it. The more I get up the bridge myself, I can savely say: > > - With all the data we have we are able to also see the implanter side > or the interference side of the game. > > - We have a bridge which helps us to finally graduate from a piece to a > player and we help others to become players too. > > - We expand on the dynamics and take more and more responsibility also > for others stuck in the game. > > - Life gets easier and easier the more I got up the bridge. > > And why is it possible ... ? > > We also have to think in "relative importances" here. Are these > negative parts > more important that the positive parts? Or are they even of comparable > magnitude? In my opinion, the positive far outweighs the negative. We have been wallowing in the mud for a long long time. > I can only speculate about it? Was he serious about R2-45? Was this > process used > on individuals? The only time I know he said something about this > process in a > lecture, it made the audience laugh. So they obviously didn't take it > that seriously. > To be honest... I wouldn't use it as a process. I have commented on R2-45 elsewhere. It was a joke. I took it to be a teaching joke, to show that he considered it more important to exteriorize than to remain trapped within a human body. But it would not actually be a workable process. We die at the end of each lifetime and it does us no good. You need to exteriorize with the energy and the havingness of a live body until you reach a level high enough to create that much energy and havingness yourself as a free spirit. To drop the body before that point (whether by R2-45 or other means) is simply to sink into weakness and unreality and be cycled around again into another lifetime. > Compare Hubbard with Hitler... Well, one can compare anyone with > anybody, > depending on the purpose one follows. You can compare heaven with hell > and you > even find common purposes there (heaven as well as hell puts you "out" > of the game). > > I studied KSW #1 - I don't know how many times - but I never saw it > from that viewpoint. > > Kim Baker should get a doctors degree from some university for this > dissertation > (sorry... a bit sarcastic):-) > > I experienced it myself over the years and not only on the Internet: I > saw a lot of > people who became more and more involved in the negative side... people > really > were hunting for every negative piece they could get about LHR... > However, I > didn't see anyone getting happier, saner, bigger as a being or > whatever. > > However I completely agree with the point you wrote in the section > about the HQS > translation. If we do the same thing... running around and tell people > that "Scn" > or the tech is the "only" solution, or "LRH was the greatest person on > the planet > ever", we become "unreal" to our fellow men. I personally would never > say that. It > disconnects us from the rest of society. Individual demonstration of > competence... > that is it what counts... not "big words"... we should leave that to > the church. > > Certain things LRH wrote were possibly justified and maybe valid and > applicable > at that point of time he wrote it... like Fair Game... maybe he was fed > up that time > with all the assholes who attacked and tried to stop Scientology. > However, time changed and there is no need for it in our time. I think that Fair Game was one of the big mistakes. But it is simply stupid policy. It is not the auditing tech. So one simply acknowledges that it was wrong, discards it, and gets on with the business of removing charge from cases. > Let's not forget the "logic" part of it. Things have to make sense ... > they have to be > applicable... they have to asstist us in life... they have to help us > getting up the > bridge... If it doesn't make sense... throw it over board. That's my > point of view. > > One last thing. We are the heirs of Scientology... all those who apply > it and help > others to move into the next dimension of the game now have the > responsibility > LRH once had. We are wiser now after all these years in the church. We > can have > a better game. > > I hope this helps a bit. > > ......... don't take it serious. > > ml B. > > ########## > 1. Re R2-45: This "process" is an old time standard joke > referring to a "Colt .45". LRH first entertained his audience > on the original Philadelphia Doctorate Course with it, and it > always got people to really laugh. > > While I heard (and used) it often in the Sea Org, I can assure > you that neither LRH nor any of the old timers I know ever > assumed that *anybody* would take this literally! Agreed. > 2. Re "The end justifies the means": LRH never said anything to > this extent. > > On the contrary: In the academy lectures of Class 2 (O/Ws) and > Class 4 (Service Facs), he makes it quite clear that a being > is influenced by what he does and that thus all too often "The > means will determine the end". > > If someone interprets the ethics principle "the greatest good > for the greatest number of dynamics" as meaning "the end > justifies the means", he either hasn't understood *anything* > of Scn or he intentionally wants to pervert the subject. Agreed. > (BTW, I think that the RTC [which is in FBI/CIA hands since > 1982] doesn't believe the nonsense and perversions they are > publishing. They do it to _intentionally_ pervert the subject > of Scn, so that in due time no one will want to have anything > to do with it. They hope to thus effectively wipe out again > the Scn knowledge about how to undo implanting.) This is a distinct possiblity. Even without implanters, whole track conspiracys, world conspiracies, or anything else, the CofS would be a very attractive takeover target for the CIA. The CIA is notorious for its interest in mind control and brainwashing and any subject dealing with the mind would be of great interest to it. Note that it would not be individual Sea Org members but only a few key people. > 3. Re "super race": LRH and Hitler are going into totally > different directions here. While Hitler intended the > "survival" of his master race by killing off all other races, > LRH created a technology to make _every being_ in the Universe > into a "super being" by freeing it from the entrapment of the > bank and rehabilitating its "native power". > > So, while Hitler played the game "us against them" (a rather > narrow self-determined viewpoint), the motto of LRH's game is > "make everybody win" (a pan-determined viewpoint)! > > This is pretty different from Hitler's idea. Good Point. > 4. Re Kim Baker's comparison: Read that comparison again, and > notice the "trick" she is using. It always goes along the > following line: > > Hitler: "All people who like the color pink must be killed." > > LRH: "I don't like the color pink." > > With that type of "comparison", I can prove _everyone_ to be a > criminal! (BTW: Kim Baker is using here a trick that is > officially taught at the London Tavistock Institute for > psychological warfare, a well-known research institute of the > implanters.) > > Hope this clears up my position! > J. : > >LRH may have put contracts out on his enemies, had his son, Quentin, > killed, > >framed Mary Sue, Had people thrown off the ship for making auditing > flubs and > >had sex with young messengers; but does any of that deny the fact > that the > >tech of Scientology works? > > While I agree with your reasoning, I want to point out that - > with the exception of the practice of "overboarding" - none of > your mentioned accusations of LRH is true. > > The fact that a publisher paid an author for producing bullshit > like "The Bare Faced Messiah" or "Messiah or Madman?" etc. does > not spare those authors from the burden of having to _prove_ > their accusations. (Printing a lie in a book and getting it > quoted 1000 times does not turn it into a truth!) Bare Faced Messiah makes a point of saying that Ron DID NOT have sex with the young messengers. It does not accuse him of having Quentin killed and it does not accuse him of framing Mary Sue. These are just wild ideas. The overboarding is true. Mary Sue was running the GO and involved in Snow White. She took the fall for Ron, who probably did have knowlege of the operation, but she probably shielded him intentionally. As to Quentin, the debate is about whether he really comitted suicide or was it a gangster hit faked to look like a suicide. I don't think that anyone is claiming that Ron wanted it done. Even Bare Faced Messiah says that Ron was upset that it happened. > Whenever I took the time to check up on a "myth" about LRH (and I > did this with a lot of "myths" when I published my part of the > book "Jugendsekten und neue Religiositaet" in 1982) I found out > that either it (a) could be proven to be untrue (e.g. LRH's > alleged HCOB "visit in heaven"), (b) conflicted with eye-witness > reports (e.g. the alleged statement "When you want to become a > millionaire, you have to found your own religion", or the alleged > history of NOTs in "Bare Faced Messiah") or (c) was unverifiable > (a claim of the type "LRH said to me in private that ..." is hard > to prove or disprove). I'm not sure what the "alleged HCOB visit in Heaven" is. If you are referring to the various Hellatrobus Implant HCOBs and tape transcripts that are around on the internet, they are in the new tech volumes (HCOBs) and included in the BC cassette tapes, and they are genuine. The Hellatrobus implants included fake scenes of heaven which Ron describes in detail. They are sometimes called the Heaven Implants for this reason. The existance of this implant (assuming you believe that implants exist) has nothing to do with whether or not there is or isn't a "real" heaven. Hellatrobus contains lots of "real" things like staircases and so forth. The implanters used whatever was convienient for putting people under control. But there are excepts and discussions of the Hellatrobus materials on the net which give it a wrong slant. He was talking about running an incident in session rather than saying that he was visiting Heaven like some charlatan preacher. Capt Bill's group broke away from CofS at a time when the Hellatrobus and other HCOBs about implants were mistakenly considered to be confidential and they are not in the 1975 version of the tech volumes for this reason. So the writer here might honestly not have know that these bulletins existed. By the way, the rumors are that Ron was very upset that these materials were left out of the tech volumes (and the tapes were omitted from the first date oriented version of the SHSBC which had all the tapes in consecutive order). He ordered that the materials be put back on the course and in the tech volumes and not considered confidential. They added the tapes back onto the SHSBC around 1979-80 but they had already printed the tech volumes and they didn't get these in there until the second version came out (sometime in the late 1980s). > In case (c) (= unverifiable claims), I looked at the percentage > of verifiable true vs. verifiable false statements from the same > source, and decided accordingly. > > In the end, there was not very much true accusations left. (It > would take up too much space to post all details here, but if you > are interested in a specific "myth", I am willing to answer every > question.) > > So, while LRH certainly was no "angel" (I am not either!) and > made his share of mistakes, he had quite a high ratio of correct > vs. wrong decisions. If I ever manage to end up with a comparable > ratio in my own decisions, I will be very happy with my > achievements this lifetime! > N. wrote: > > >What was the truth behind statement (b) ie 'When you want > >to become a millionaire, you have to found your own religion'. > > The statement was in fact made on an SF congress. The speaker, > however, was not LRH, but Robert Heinlein! > > This was found out by the researchers of the "Encyclopedia of > Science Fiction", who interviewed many attendants of the congress > in question. The researchers published their findings already 20 > years ago, but this did not stop the "Anti-LRH-Liga" to continue > to quote the wrong Christopher-Evans-statement. Why care about > the truth if this spoils the gag? (After all, Heinlein didn't > found a religion, so it might become obvious that he was just > joking ...) > > J. wrote: > > >This was actually said by the great Science Fiction writer, Issac > > Asimov, who > >was a contemporary of LRH at Astounding Science Fiction in the 1940's > > Ouch - You are right! I just looked into my 1982 book, and it > clearly says "Isaac Asimov" there! > > Sorry for having answered Neil's question just from memory and > having mixed up the 2 great SF writers. I promise to "first > verify, and _then_ write" in the future! > > (BTW, practically _all_ great SF writers were contemporaries of > LRH at Astounding Science Fiction. So Asimov is in no special > position here.) > > ----------------------------------------------------- > InterNet: http://www.freezone.org/Russian.htm; > e-mail: ; > ----------------------------------------------------- The most important thing is to learn the basics. The communication course (the TRs), the axioms, basic books like "Fundamentals of Thought", and so forth. And to get some training as an auditor. If you actually learn the tech rather than simply being a PC, you can do well at any group, whether FZA, CofS, or other freezone groups. Someone else from Russia was also asking about these sort of things and I continued talking about Capt Bill's FZA in my response and I will post it at the same time as this one. So pick up the one with subject line "Super Scio - About Self-Auditing Etc. (To Passenger)" for the rest of this discussion. Best, The Pilot ========================================== Subj : Super Scio - About Self Auditing (attn Passenger) ABOUT SELF-AUDITING ETC. (TO PASSENGER) On 23 Sept 97, "Passenger" posted on subject "Questions to Pilot" > Dear Pilot, > I've got a chance recently to look through your materials (on your web home > page) and read some of those with a rapidly growing interest. > Here is my brief story to introduce myself. > I started Scn in CofS two years ago here in Moscow, Russia where I've been > living for about 31 years of my current lifetime by now. CofS here, to my > opinion, shows some unprecedented decay so it's not worth talking about. Unfortunate but true. They really do need to reform. > This summer the FZA has started a couple of Ron's orgs here on russian > soil. Which is great, to my estimation. The guys are from the Frankfurt and > Bern orgs and must be representing, as far as I can judge, the most > standard Scn tech line developed by Cap. Bill on the basis (possibly in > actual cooperation with) of LRH's findings. > > So the FZ bridge is now being converted into its russian version. And > I'm now close to finishing the original LRH's HQS course having obtained > quite a bunch of wins and a certainty that I can and should go myself and > bring others up the bridge as quick as possible. Most excellent. > Yet I've happened to encounter already a couple or so questions that I > failed to get satisfactory answers for from the OTs of the two orgs > mentioned above. I've noticed that I may not necessarily need the strict > supervision on every course and spend time and money on innumerable > check-outs. I manage somehow to understand and apply the tech properly at > once otherwise I just get questions which being answered properly by a real > pro in Scn bring me immediately to further understanding and doingness. Yes, this is a problem with the study tech and the pedantic supervision. I always had this problem. I know it exists in the CofS and apparantly it was inherited by Capt Bill's FZA. Unfortunately, real development of skill as an auditor does need drilling and practice. And so even if one is a genius and can study all materials perfectly on one's own, a certain amount of courses must be done. My solution was always to study as much as possible on my own and only to engage in the minimum of professional courses necessary to develope skill. I would study far beyond the required materials (this requires having the tech volumes). On course, I would already know the materials well by my own study, I would put up with the checkouts etc. and then work the drills for every ounce of ability that could be gained. The very loose and helpful supervision that I had during my earliest training in the 1960s had been absent for a long time. In those days one only star-rate checked out a few key bulletins, which is fair and reasonable, and worked for understanding and practical application in an atmosphere of high ARC. I would hope for reforms in this area. Meanwhile one must make do. I don't know how good or bad it is in the FZA or other freezone groups. Each different freezone group reflects the corrections and extensions and attitudes of its founder. Furthermore, the CofS itself only uses 10-20 percent of Hubbards work in actual practice and the various freezone groups favor different subsets of the full materials. The most important thing here is to develope basic auditing skill, which is an underlying base upon which all of the varying groups build. This can be learned from whoever is willing to deliver courses to you at reasonable prices. I would emphasise that you always engage upon further study on your own and realize that everyone in teaching beginners must present a limited subset of the subject because it is too vast. > Your concept of not letting the tech to prevent a case from its gains > appeared very close to me. I also found myself in complete agreement with > many of your observations and recommendations concerning the tech. > Your instructions for a class V auditor (message dated Aug 22 1997) on how > to do solo the grade 2 gave me the hope that maybe my (as well as some > other people's in my vicinity) suggestion that the bridge can be gotten > through almost solely by means of solo-auditing can actually become a > reality. I believe that this is possible for those who are very smart and very determined if they are given adequate information to accomplish this. At this time, the only way to develope the necessary skills would be to train as an auditor. Then one would engage upon further study and find a wealth of material available from various sources (including my Super Scio book which is available on the web) which one could audit solo. In the 1950s, Ron said that the rules against self auditing only applied to PCs and did not apply to people who trained as auditors. Although this changed in the 1960s, I believe that he was right the first time. I am currently writing a new text on self auditing which I will place on the internet when it is complete. But it will be experimental and I think that many people will find it too difficult unless they have had some professional auditor training. Even with full materials available to engage upon self auditing, it would be of benifit to have skilled professionals available to keep one cleaned up and moving forward. My thought would be that in the current approach, one pays for 25 hours of auditing and recieves what can be accomplished in those 25 hours, but in a self clearing approach, one would engage in perhaps 200 hours of self clearing and pay for 25 hours of professional services to keep one moving along well and handle difficulties. On this basis, for the same price one receives the gains of hundreds of hours. Since the limitation has generally been the prices and the availability of professional's time, this self clearing approach would probably take place in the same timeframe and with the same economics as far as the organization was concerned, but the results to the PC would be tenfold and so there would be tremendous enthusiasm and expansion. Note that there is no estimate of the amount of auditing that it will take to reach a true state of OT. Various groups may have estimates for achiving their official levels, but that is not the same thing at all. A self clearing approach is probably the only practical way to really do all of the tech that is available (probably 10 times as much as any single group including the CofS is currently delivering). I do not know whether any of the various freezone groups would support such an approach, but I will issue the book anyway (and make it freely available on the net) and let the chips fall where they may. But you would do well to train as a professional auditor whether or not self clearing materials are available. > I haven't studied nor drilled with the E-meter so far and I don't have the > necessary materials. Yet I have no problems with studying in English. > So in case you might find your time and attention for me may I ask you to > give me advice concerning an optimal way of my self-education. Could you > supply me with the necessary tech instructions and maybe sort of > "supervise" me by which I mean just answering some questions of mine from > time to time? I am happy to answer questions. For a begining, I tend to recommend a number of books by LRH. Specifically "Fundamentals of though", "Self Analysis", "Dianetics 55", and then "The Creation of Human Ability" in that order. Other books are also of value, but these are the best for learning the theory and techniques of auditing. Then one should study the Scientology axioms. You will also want a set of tech volumes, a tech dictionary, and an E-meter. After reading the above basic books, and (if you can get them) using the tech volumes and dictionary for reference, get onto a level zero auditor training course or the FZA equivallent (in other words, an actual professional course where you audit somebody with an emeter). It is extremely valuable to read the tech volumes from cover to cover, but it is too difficult as a first step. You need practice with the tech first or else you will probably sink under the weight of too much theory. With some skills and some knowlege and a good set of materials such as the tech volumes, you will then be in a position to chart your own path rather than having to follow the particular dictates of any specific group or authority (including myself). But you do need something to build on, both theory and practical. > May I also ask you about your relationships with the FZA? How far are you > familiar with the Bill Robertson's bridge and if you know it well what is > your OT level on it? I have absolutely no connection with the FZA. I am still officially a member of the CofS (which is currently hostile to the FZA) but I am in protest at various CofS activities (including the aforementioned hostility) and attempting to reform them. This is why I am currently remaining anonymous, because the CofS would not tolerate a member speaking out as I do. I have long since ceased to care about the status involved in holding the various OT numbers. For me at this time, I only consider that it means that the person has looked at particular packages of material, and that is not a constant either because the CofS has changed their levels around and the various freezone groups have different confidential levels as well. I currently believe that the highest OT levels are the grades run to errasure instead of release. In other words a Grade zero that includes spotting your original decisions not to communicate immediately after separation from static and where one's ability to acknowlege reaches the point of making physical objects disappear by acknowleging them. But this is only in theory, I am not that far along yet. Many advanced levels must be run before one can reach early enough with the basic levels such as communications. However, this perspective makes it possible to consider deep runs on supposedly lower level materials to actually be major OT levels senior to the current bridge. I had this experience on expanded grade 2 after clear, which ran extrodinarily far back and brought about a state of clear OT (the L10 EP) amoung other things. The biggest OT gains that I have ever made were as follows, in order from the greatest to the least. 1. The biggest that I had was on old Grade 5/5A Power Processing. Note that in my case it was unintentionally run after clear. 2. The second biggest was on my own research into the Penalty Universes which is in the super scio book and is not on anybody's chart of OT levels. 3. The third biggest was on the Old OT 6 which the CofS does not even deliver anymore. 4. The fourth biggest was on running my own actual GPMs as outlined in the super scio book, again not on any bridge. 5. The fifth biggest was on expanded Grade 2. 6. The least of these was the big gain that I made on Solo Nots (new OT 7 on the CofS bridge). And despite being the least one, it was still a big gain indeed. These are the ones that I would really call OT gains. But many other levels, including Clear, were exceptionally good and it is impossible to say which of the lesser levels were needed to achive the greater ones. And which levels make the biggest gains seems to be different for each individual. So in answer to your question, I have done two completely different CofS bridges up to OT7, I have run endless "OT" levels from the 1950s including creation of human ability route 1, and I have run numerous "OT levels" of my own devising. In total, I have probably done about 40 or 50 "levels" of some sort or other which are of comparable magnitude to the current OT 2 or 3. But this is not on any particular bridge or in any existing number system and one could argue about exactly which things should or shouldn't be counted. I have no idea what is on FZA's upper levels or whether or not I have run equivallent materials. The basic clues for almost every OT level that anybody is delivering (including my discoveries) are in the inspired tapes of LRH in the 1952-4 time period. The hint for my work on the penalty universes, for example, is Ron's statement that the tone scale must have been implanted. He doesn't have the implant or any further clues and it was a terribly difficult research effort, but somebody else might have duplicated my own work because the hint is there. > Also very personal (if you do not mind): did you choose the pseudonym > "Pilot" because you had been the one? Do you mean the OT 3 pilot? I think that I might be a fragment or have a fragment of that old whole track god (and a lesser god at that). The full story is in chapter 6 (Divide and Conquor) of the super scio book. I have heard of other people who have been able to run the pilot's first person viewpoint in that incident. I also have other reasons for liking the name. Richard Bach's "Illusions" (his next book after Seagull) protrays a reluctant messiah who chooses to be a barnstorming pilot instead. I also like Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens) and that makes me think of an old riverboat pilot charting a course down the Mississippi. My choice of the pseudonym has a bit of all three behind it. The basic idea would be to be someone who guides others. > With much appreciation of your efforts, > Passenger. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== Subj : Super Scio - To Steve and Other Ex-Members TO STEVE BROCK AND OTHER EX-MEMBERS On 29 Sept 97, Steve Brock posted on subject "Question for Pilot" > Pilot, > Well, I have to say that I have found your writings most interesting to > say the least. About 20 years ago as a younger man I was involved in > Scientology, but left after a few years due to the repressiveness of the > organization. I had some bad experiences with certain individuals > there, but I knew there was truth there too. I have since read a couple > of books on LRH and the CofS and had painted the whole thing with a > broad brush in my mind. I have always known in the back of my mind > though that I needed to look into this whole field, but the thought of > contacting anyone in Scientology was anathema to me. > > I had not gotten very far in Scientology when I left. Most of my time > was spent trying to help getting a fledgling org going. I did get about > 25 hours of auditing and took the first couple of courses. Yes, very sadly, many people dedicate themselves and invest a great deal of effort and yet do not get to experience very much of the tech. And then much of the time in auditing is often wasted on mostly needless word clearing (the person could do a short one day course for a few dollars to learn the terms and procedure instead of paying at professional auditing rates) and then more is wasted on sec checks and other things to sooth the org's paranoia. > I guess the reason that I am writing to you is that your writings are > the first that I have come across that validate most of the technology > and the metaphysics while condemning much of the repressive tactics of > the organization and even criticizing LRH but still validating a lot of > the research that he did. > > The one thing that was so fascinating about Scientology to me in the > beginning was that here was a group that not only talked about > philosophy but actually DID something about it. But I am afraid that I > am at a point where there is little that I can do myself. I am not a > trained auditor and with my limited knowledge or the tech I have been > even struggling to read what you have written. Hubbard's great genius was in finding practical ways to use metaphysical ideas instead of simply contemplating them. > So I guess in a way I am writing to ask you for your advice.......what > would you suggest to a person in my position? To begin with, try to get and read basic books. I just discussed this a bit in a post titled "ABOUT SELF-AUDITING ETC. (TO PASSENGER)". I will repeat a paragraph from that post - For a begining, I tend to recommend a number of books by LRH. Specifically "Fundamentals of though", "Self Analysis", "Dianetics 55", and then "The Creation of Human Ability" in that order. Other books are also of value, but these are the best for learning the theory and techniques of auditing. Then one should study the Scientology axioms. You will also want a set of tech volumes, a tech dictionary, and an E-meter if you can get them. There are also a number of Freezone books. Filbert's Excalibur Revisited can be downloaded for free. He has an accurate view of 1967 style auditing upgraded with subsequent standard tech discoveries but applied in a 1967 style manner. There is much to be said for this approach. There are also inexpensive books that can be ordered and various other materials available, see Homer's website (www.lightlink.com/clearing) as a starting point. I am currently writing a book on self-clearing. A beginner's book in the sense that it trys to explain everything and not rely on prior Scientology training, but an advanced book in the sense that it pulls no punches and will take great determination and confront to work through it. I am writing it because there are so many people in your position. People who gave time and money to an organization and recieved little in return. Most of them are not likely to do that again (once bitten, twice shy) and yet they are the most deserving to recieve the tech. The Super Scio book really expects that the reader already knows a great deal of Scientology and is probably inaccessible even to an advanced guru moving over from another practice simply because it assumes too much. And it does not present things in the best order for new people. When the book is finished, I will post it to the net so that those who are interested can pick it up (probably later this year). I think that a book like this is needed so that people who are still enslaved to the org will know that they can walk out the door and still have a chance at spiritual freedom. Only a certain percentage of people will have the willpower to manage a self-clearing approach. In the long run we will also need home-co-audit books and "group processing" tapes and professional practictioners. But it can all be done without the fanaticism and money grubbing and ridgid thinking. It remains to be seen whether or not the CofS can break out of their frozen attitudes and become part of such an effort. If they cannot adapt (which at this time means reform in a major way), then they will end up like the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were big and probably beautiful, but nobody wants them rampaging around in the modern world. > I do want to thank you for making your writings available on the net. I > have seen a few organizations on the net that look like they are trying > to get into the same business as the CofS......what a shame.....you'd > think they would have learned. Some freezone groups seem better than others in this regards. Not having been to any of them, I will withhold judgement. I am glad to see any alternative use of the tech and any efforts at further research. If you know enough of the tech yourself, you can make your own judgements and thread the labyrinth safely. > I hope that this reaches you and you have the time to respond. Best of > luck in the future for you as a being and for your future efforts... > > Best Wishes, > > Steve Brock (stebro@tdn.com) Thank you for your kind encouragement, The Pilot PS, I'm posting this to both ARS and ACT, but many of my tech and freezone related posts go to ACT only. ========================================== See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm or The Pilots Home Page at http://super.zippo.com/~freezone/pilot/index.htm Get the Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at: ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com. All of this weeks posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive #11, 12, and 13 and posted to ACT. ------------------