Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 24 - EARLY FEB 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 12 Feb 1998 14:00:33 POST24.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 24 - EARLY FEB 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - On Mass Bull Baiting (Simpsons) subj : Super Scio - ON SCIENTOLOGY ATTACKING CATS subj : Super Scio - MINTON'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION subj : Super Scio - AOLA Grand Opening subj : Super Scio - Latest Super Power Promo subj : Super Scio Humor - The Haters of Tech subj : Super Scio - On Juliette Lewis subj : Super Scio - To Mark The Proud Scieno subj : Super Scio - On The Munich Raid subj : Super Scio - Answering Wgert subj : Super Scio - To Klaus On Religious Tolerance subj : Super Scio - To Loomis on Conditions Etc. subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Rob on Purif Etc. subj : Answering Sean Of Snerts subj : Super Scio Tech - Some Processes (Attn Robert & Bob Ross) subj : Super Scio Tech - An Alternative to Secret Squirrel subj : Super Scio Tech - Study Tech subj : Super Scio Tech - To Homer On Cosmic Jokes subj : Super Scio Tech - Higher Self Assessment subj : Super Scio Tech - Ans Qs on LRH, Homo, OT8 (attn LittleLRH) subj : Super Scio Tech - GPMs (attn John Alexander) subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lakis on CBR Etc. ========================================== subj : Super Scio - On Mass Bull Baiting (Simpsons) ON MASS BULL BAITING (SIMPSONS) On 9 Feb 98, Dkeith@best.com (Ex Mudder) responded to subject "$cientology in the cult episode of the Simpsons" > In article , > rnewman@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote: > > >In article <34de5d74.20824647@news.zippo.com>, mdallara@kcii.com wrote: > > > >> 4. Judgement session - the scene with the new Movementarian recruits > >> shouting insults at Homer is reminiscent of a $cientology practice called > >> "bullbaiting". It is part of a "training routine" (TR), which is intended > >> to teach $cientologists how to deal with verbal confrontations. > > > >Except that I think Scientology bull-baiting is usually a one-on-one > >thing, not many people ganging up on one neophyte. This particular scene > >looked to me more like the Synanon Game. > > Gang Bang Sec Check, its called in $cn. TR-Bullbait is one on one. > > Scientology - The Nazi UFO Cult > "There are only two ways to deal with people below 2.0 on the > tone scale...the second is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow" > - L Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival > www.best.com/~dkeith/dispose.htm There used to be mass bullbaiting in the early days. I remember seeing a chorus line of about 20 people kicking their legs in the air and singing "Mother Fucker" to the tune of "My Darling Clementine" in front of one student. It was hilarious actually, and the student enjoyed all the attention although it took forever before he stopped cracking up. Mass bullbaiting was forbidden sometime in the early 70s. As far as I know, the gang bang sec checks are only done on Sea Org members. The Simpson parody did seem to have a lot of insider info. I wonder if Nancy has turned freezone. Has anybody tried asking her (email or snail mail)? Please be polite if you do so. Harsh attacks involving OT 3 stuff might drive a prospective rebel back inside. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - ON SCIENTOLOGY ATTACKING CATS (also sent to alt.animals,alt.animals.felines, rec.pets.cats.rescue,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets) ON SCIENTOLOGY ATTACKING CATS I am a Scientologist. I believe very deeply in the Scientology tech and the spiritual awareness that one can achieve by using it. I truely consider it to be my religion. The average Scientologist would not attack somebody's pets as an indirect method of silencing a critic. They would consider such behavior to be unethical in the extreme. But Scientology management is behaving shamefully in attacking the Young's cats. The ordinary Scientologists do not know this and do not condone it. They are fed false data by Scientology managment and have no awareness of what it going on. I ask you not to blame them for the bad behavior of the organization. The Church of Scientology (CofS) maintains an espionage and legal arm that is dedicated to destroying any criticism. This division was once called the Guardian's Office (GO) and is now known as the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). It was renamed because the GO was caught red handed infiltrating the FBI and other US Government agencies and a number of its members went to prison for that offense. Robert and Stacy Young were at one time high up in Scientology management and have since then turned against the organization because of its bad behavior. Since they are openly critical and publish much insider information, OSA considers them to be prime targets and will use any means to injure or silence them. Stacy is an animal lover who has dedicated much effort to rescuing cats. OSA has discovered this weak spot and is using it as a line of attack. They care nothing for the animals either way. Their tactics are similar to those of "The Godfather" in attacking an innocent race horse to instill terror. I will quote a few lines of Stacy's post. On 2 Feb 98, sby@eskimo.com (Stacy Young) posted to ARS on subject "Scientology Attacks Cat Sanctuary Again (sby)" > Scientology is going after our cats again. > > Last night we heard that David Lee was going door to door in our old > neighborhood in West Seattle. David Lee is the Scientology private > investigator who tried to have our cats confiscated and killed last fall. > Everyone on a.r.s. knows that Bob Minton saved the cats by providing a > sanctuary for them on Vashon Island. Now Scientology has escalated its > attack, accusing us of harboring cats with AIDS and spreading the rumor > that people are catching AIDS from our cats. (This is medically and > biologically impossible, but hey, Scientology has never been a stickler > for facts). The post goes on with about 300 lines of detailed information that I wouldn't repeat here. Quite a bit of discussion about this has taken place and I wanted to address the following - On 3 Feb, Hiilda responded to a post on subject "Sure (was Re: Anyone care to clarify this issue for the cat people?)" > We don't know who is attacking the Youngs or why. I am a Scientologist and > I am rescuing cats, not attacking the Youngs. Maybe I was absent the day > that the order went out for the entire church to "get" Vaughn and Stacy. > > Hilda > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > =-Hilda-= hwagner at primenet.com or sometimes swans at primenet.com > Fix address in header to reply via e-mail > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let me state that I believe her. She doesn't know who is attacking the Youngs. She works to rescue cats. And there never was any order for the entire church to "get" the Youngs. Her attitude is typical of ordinary Scientologists. I would not blame her for what is happening. She probably doesn't even know what OSA is and has no concept of what CofS management is really doing. The average Scientologist was shocked when the CofS was caught infiltrating the FBI and they learned it first from the newspapers. And the CofS pushes the membership to believe that the newspapers are full of lies meant to discredit Scientology. Most orthodox Scientologists are good people with high spiritual goals. There are also freezone Scientologists who follow the religion but are in rebellion against CofS management (and mostly stay hidden because they are continually harrassed and attacked). Please do not think of Scientologists as cat haters or unethical people. It is only the orthodox organization which has gone bad. They have taken my religion and turned it into a sham and a scam. As a reformer who is openly critical of management while continuing to support the religion, I am also very high on OSA's hit list. I protect myself by remaining anonymous. My own sources warn me that I would be subject to far worse than the Youngs have suffered if my identity became known. The Youngs have my support and sympathy. I like animals. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - MINTON'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION MINTON'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION On 5 Feb 98, Arnie Lerma posted Bob Minton's article to ARS. The subject was "Emancipation Proclamation for Scientology" I'm going to repeat it all here (with my comments) because I think that it is an important post. > As an Ex Scientologist I would like to officially sign this >Emancipation Proclamation for Scientology , and encourage >all Ex-Members to do so also. This document bearing all >names shall be webbed at accessable at: http://www.lermanet.com/cos/minton.html >Arnaldo "Arnie" Pagliarini Lerma Ex-Scientologist Clear #3502 > > >In article , bob@minton.org says... > >> More leaflets keep getting passed out in our neighborhood in Boston, >> including during lunch hour Monday in time to greet a Boston Globe >> reporter who is doing another story. More phone calls by Eugene >> Ingram to friends and former colleagues, e-mail from David Lee while >> in Seattle disturbing Vaughn, Stacy, the cats and Vashon Island generally. >> >> OSA keeps saying that Minton money is no big deal. Why then do they >> keep bothering with me? Pickets, private detectives,Dead Agent packs to >> NBC, CBS, ABC and anyplace else they think I'm going? The CofS tech on handling attacks is to find the source. They have no way of handling multiple individual attacks, so they must search for the single world conspiracy that is supporting the attacks. The same foolish mistake that makes Ron the one and only source for tech (a 1965 idea not present in 1950s Scientology) on the opposite side means that there is only one source for attacks. Since Minton has money, he is probably their current foolish guess at who is the super dooper SP that is the source of all attacks. >> I'll tell you WHY! I'm CRAZY! I'm crazy about what scientology does to >> decent human beings, like depriving them of basic human, civil and >> legal rights. Using coercive mind control on them. Using, in strict >> adherence to the current policy of "Fair Game", harassment and >> intimidation to deprive critics of their rights to free speech. Using >> totalitarian methods generally to abrogate the abilities of their members >> to think critically. The extensive use of fear and heavy ethics on >> members, especially in the Sea Org, to control them. They don't call it "fair game" anymore. It's just nameless bad behavior. Do any vile thing to handle the evil SPs. >> Drawing attention to these evil and vile practices strikes at the very >> evil heart of Scientology's management tactics and policies. But most of >> all management of Scientology fears that drawing attention to these >> things will strike a cord in the heart of Scientologists--who have no >> voice, no human rights, no civil rights, no legal rights, no free speech, >> no free thought. In other words, NO CHANCE, until they can break the chains >> that THE Church of Scientology chooses to bind them in. The statement is a bit too extreme. They have complete free speach and so forth as long as it is on any topic other than Scientology itself. And they have full legal rights as long as they are not dealing with the CofS or other Scientologists. But of course even threatening to sue the CofS (nothing to say of actually doing it) is forbidden. >> In other words, it is telling the truth about how Miscavige runs >> Scientology that he fears the most. That is why he bothers will all >> of us critics. This is why he is afraid of ARS. That is why he is >> increasingly desperate. He only knows one way to run Scientology >> and he is about to be fired for doing it. True but this is only one reason among many. It would be hard to chart out all of his nightmares. >> The internet is the last, and now the best chance for Scientologists >> to have total freedom, to have a voice, to reform Scientology and >> thereby make this a better world. The internal communication lines have been controlled and suppressed since about 1965. Communication is the key, and the internet is the first time that it has become possible to those who are still in the organization. >> But Scientologists you must help do >> this--Ron Newman's Web site, Andreas' Operation Clambake, Marina's >> entheta.net and ARS web page summary, Rod's ARS Week in Review, Dave >> Touretzky's NOT's Scholars page, Ray Randolf's Scientology-kills site, >> Chris Owen's incredibly informative information, Martin Hunt's >> storehouse of info, Tilman's personal histories and all the other >> people and organizations who collectively make your freedom attainable >> cannot do it for you. Linking more of these to Reform and Religious Freedom sites could help. And I am hopeing that more orthodox and freezone Scientologist will put up more reform and religious freedom webpages. Unfortunately, the orthodox who want reform can only post anonymously, but anonymous remailers are available and I think that many volenteers will host well written web pages if they are posted to ARS. >> It is time for Scientologists to hold Miscavige >> accountable for his failed leadership. Find new leadership from >> within who are capable of letting you become a member of an >> organization that you can be proud of rather than one that is the >> scourge of freedom loving people all over the world. It is long since past the time when this should have been done. Policy reform is needed as well so that the same insanities do not simply repeat under a new management. >> To support your cause, critics can and will help you. We are not here to >> destroy you but to help you make Scientology better able to adapt to the >> realities of a changing world. We are here to help you regain the dignity >> you once had. We try and help your cause in many ways and one such >> way can be illustrated from this United Nation's Press Release that can >> be found at: http://www.unog.ch/news/documents/newsen/hr982e.html >> >> Start of Press Release >> ====================== >> 01/08/1998 >> >> SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE TO >> VISIT THE UNITED STATES >> >> The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human >> Rights, Abdelfattah Amor (Tunisia) will visit the United States at the >> invitation of the Government from 22 January to 6 February 1998. >> >> The position of Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance was >> established by the 53-member Commission on Human Rights in 1986. Mr. >> Amor was appointed by the Chairman of the Commission in 1993 as the >> second Special Rapporteur for this mandate. >> >> Mr. Amor is the Dean Emeritus of the Faculty of Juridical, Political >> and Social Sciences at Tunis University and President of the >> International Academy of Constitutional Law. He will be accompanied in >> the United States by a human rights officer from the Office of the >> High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and by United Nations >> interpreters. >> >> The role of the Special Rapporteur is to examine incidents and >> governmental action in all parts of the world inconsistent with the >> provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of >> Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and to >> recommend remedial measures for such situations. The Special >> Rapporteur reports to the United Nations General Assembly in October >> each year and to the Commission on Human Rights in March/April each >> year. >> >> The Declaration was adopted without dissent by the General Assembly in >> 1981. While non-binding on States, such Declarations are recognized as >> important sources of customary international law. The first article of >> the Declaration states: >> >> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and >> religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or >> whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in >> community with others and in public or private, to manifest his >> religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. >> >> 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom >> to have a religion or belief of his choice. >> >> 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to >> such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect >> public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and >> freedoms of others. >> >> During his two weeks in the United States, the Special Rapporteur will >> visit Washington DC, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Los >> Angeles and Arizona. Mr. Amor has asked to meet senior leaders of the >> major Christian denominations; leaders of Jewish groups, various Muslim >> organisations and representatives of minority religious organisations. >> As well there will be opportunities for other groups and individuals >> to bring matters to the attention of the Special Rapporteur. In Washington >> DC, Mr. Amor hopes to meet senior officials of the Administration and >> members of the United States Congress. >> >> In Atlanta, Georgia on 29 January, Mr. Amor will participate in a >> public forum organised by Emory University on the theme. >> >> End of Press Release >> ==================== The Declaration is most excellent and I agree with it wholeheartedly. >> I met privately with Professor Amor in New York on January 27 and >> attended meetings on the 28th hosted by The International League for >> Human Rights and the NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or >> Belief--both of which are organizations that really care about >> freedom, human rights, free thought and free choice. They don't pay >> hypocritical homage to these ideals like the current leadership of >> Scientology. Very good. >> Professor Amor chose to meet with me to hear another perspective >> on the Scientology issue. He heard it. Earlier this month I wrote to him >> and in part said the following: >> >> ---------- >> I am involved in a controversy with the Church of Scientology over >> the most fundamental right in a democracy--the freedom to speak. >> Scientology cries that theirs is a persecuted religion attacked by >> bigoted critics. Today, Scientology claims that individuals and >> governments who dare criticize their anti-social goals, tactics as >> well as human and civil rights abuses of their own members are >> engaged in a grand conspiracy to destroy Scientology. The "grand conspiracy" is obviously rediculous. There are many attacks coming from many individual sources. Some might be deemed bigoted but certainly not all. Many are inspired by the CofS's own tendency to attack without restraint. The CofS itself clouds the issue by always hiding behind a cloak of victimization, saying that all attacks are persecution. If they would only take an honest and ethical postion, the attacks with real cause would be remedied and those stemming from bigotry could be identified. >> Nothing could be further from the truth. I am one of many persons >> working actively through the internet who wish to force Scientology >> reforms which will acknowledge that all of us, Scientologists >> especially, have an inalienable right to criticize, oppose or >> scrutinize practices and tactics used by their organization which we >> view as contrary to the respect and dignity required towards our >> fellow man. Without these most basic rights there cannot be freedom, >> religious or otherwise. Exactly. Let us differentiate criticism of the organization from criticism of the religion itself. >> For many Scientologists, the quest for personal growth or spiritual >> fulfillment has resulted in an unmistakably traumatic experience >> that has often times had a disastrous impact on their lives. They have >> been subjected to highly manipulative mind control techniques, severe >> mental and physical degradation, forced labor camps for "rehabilitation" >> and the inability to leave Scientology without being subjected to their >> vicious policy of "Fair Game" if the former member is critical of >> Scientology or its' practices. The coertion of staff members is sometimes extreme, especially within the Sea Org. They are much gentler with ordinary members unless they become critical of the organization. >> Clearly such behavior on the part of Scientology is contrary to UN >> Resolution 36/55 adopted by the General Assembly on 25 November 1981 >> entitled "Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance >> and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" as well as the UN's >> "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". >> >> To further illustrate my point, I will quote from the conclusion of >> Professor Stephen Kent Ph.D., Department of Sociology, University of >> Alberta Report of December 3, 1997 entitled "BRAINWASHING IN >> SCIENTOLOGY'S REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE (RPF)" >> >> "Without question the RPF's operation violates a number of human rights >> statutes, probably involving such topics as freedom of religion and >> conscience, labour laws, arbitrary arrest, forcible confinement, and >> protection of the dignity of the human being (Kent, 1997: 39). The >> human right issues become even more significant if the accounts of >> children and teenagers on RPF programs are true (Jebson, 1997; Kent >> Interview with Dale, 1997: 4, 16; Kent Interview with Pat, 1997a: 32; >> Kent Interview with Pignotti, 1997: 30). Ironically, as the United >> States Department of State heightens its criticism against Germany's >> handling of the Scientology affair, at least three of these >> abusive programs continue to operate on American soil." The RPF is definitely an abusive and inhumanitarian practice. >> I welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other matters of >> mutual interest on January 27th in New York. >> ---------- >> >> In addition to the above matters and more, we also discussed: >> >> A. That 1,000's of people are prohibited from practicing their >> beliefs--Scientology--in the Free Zone because the Church tries >> to suppress all adherence to Scientology outside of its >> copyrighted and trademarked enclaves. A major point of religious persecution currently being committed by the CofS. >> B. The bizarre captivity and death of Lisa McPherson. Stupid incompetance on the part of Flag. >> C. The other mysterious deaths recently reported in the SP Times. Insufficient information for me to comment at this time. >> D. Stephen Kent's report on the RPF. There are many terrible stories of the RPF. >> Professor Amor was not the first nor will he be the last that I speak >> with about these issues. >> >> Now why would anybody listen to me--Scientology DA material and all? >> >> Could it be that I don't sound quite as rabid as Mad Dog Heber? Could >> it be that I sound sincere? Could it be that I am credible and >> Scientology management is not--having raved and ranted just a few >> too many times? Heber hasn't been presenting himself very well, at least to the general public. He does manage to distract some of the more fanatical members from the real issues. >> Scientology and Scientologists have clearly felt the sting of >> discrimination, distrust and recrimination in many countries, >> including here in the United States. This hostility and, yes, even >> hatred has been directed by critics of Scientology at the management >> policies and tactics within Scientology that are harmful and destructive >> to current and former Scientologists and to critics of management >> practices. I share the belief with most critics and observers of the >> Church that the vast majority of Scientologists are good and decent >> people trying like most of us to find ways to make this world a better >> place in which to live. >> >> The rank and file Scientologists is not my enemy and not the enemy >> of ARS. We are your friends and potential allies while you reclaim your >> church from Miscavige and the lawyers he hides behind. We have done >> kind and compassionate things to help former Scientologists on the road >> to recover from the barbaric policies carried out by your current Church >> management. I want all Scientologists to hear this message. A bit more compassionate understanding for those who believe in the tech would be helpful. Some critics are good about this but others are not. Unlike myself (I am liberal in my technical interpretations), many take the tech to be absolute. A large percentage of them do not believe in Sea Org or management behavior. It is best in such cases to step aside from the tech and ask about the bad org behavior. Of course robots such as St(an) Hill are hopeless and probably represent PR teams of some sort. >> The very survival of your religion is at stake due to the void in >> leadership existing within your church. It is clear to many former >> Scientologists, critics of management policies, and some within your >> Church that David Miscavige is running your organization into history >> at an accelerating rate--it is now the world's fastest dissolving >> religion. I am no expert on L. Ron Hubbard, I don't share your >> religious beliefs, in fact, I find them strange; as are my Christian >> beliefs, probably to you but certainly to a high percentage of the >> World's population. Nevertheless, I respect the United States >> Constitution, your right to practice and believe in your own ãapplied >> religious philosophyà, human rights and civil rights for Scientologists >> and for all of us who share this space together. Right on. >> The costs imposed on Scientologists today by Miscavige, his >> followers and lawyers are heavy, unsustainable and will ultimately be >> fatal to your organization if they are not stopped. These policies and >> practices are vicious, hurtful, debilitating and life threatening to you >> and our fellow human beings. They are not right. They are not just. >> They are not compassionate. They are designed to enslave minds. >> The price in human terms has already been far too heavy for many >> to take. The policies will be stopped. Now is your time to make >> reform happen within the Church of Scientology. Exactly. >> And, while you do, a group of the good and decent Scientologists will >> rise to the top of your Church as rightful, just and compassionate >> leaders. Then you will have saved your religion and started just >> reforms. Then, you will certainly have done something, like you set >> out to do, to make this world a better place in which to live. >> >> I wish you good luck in your coming effort. Thank you. >> Bob Minton >> > signature of Arnaldo "Arnie" Pagliarini Lerma > I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak Very Well Done, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - AOLA Grand Opening AOLA GRAND OPENING On 3 Feb 98, "Clark Thompson" posted on subject "AOLA Grand Opening 2/14 at 1:30" > There's a banner hung on one of those blue buildings on > L. Ron Hubbard Ave: > > AOLA Grand Opening > Sat, Feb 14 at 1:30pm > > --crt This is correct. They are promoting this very heavily among the membership. One phone message said that "there will be a parade". Another message said that one could show up an hour early (12:30) for lunch (?) in the ASHO parking lot. The promotion has been a bit confused. I only just found out why AOLA, which has been open for decades, is having a grand opening. They did a major renovation and it is really a Re-Opening. For people who have not been officially declared, this would be an excellent time to go hang out at the complex and whisper ideas of reform to old friends. It sounds like the event will mainly be in the ASHO parking lot and around the complex rather than being one of those things where they can push you over to the registrars and recruiters. And the crowd should be big enough to let you avoid trouble (best to park a few blocks away and walk over). Do not attack head on and start ranting. Instead, talk from a pro-tech and pro-LRH viewpoint while discussing the outpoints of management and the Sea Org. Read the Scientology Reformer's Homepage for ideas. Mention things like your concern about the internet and all the stuff that is out there. Here you might even choose to get covert and say how horrible it is that full copies of OT levels and Nots packs are out there, just make sure to spread the word that they are there. And tell people that there is a free self clearing book available on the net. Don't try to do any major handlings, just plant seeds. The org itself is putting out enough fertilizer to ensure that they will sprout. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Latest Super Power Promo LATEST SUPER POWER PROMO Here is a bit of the latest bulk mailing on Super Power. ----- (Begin fair use quote) SUPER POWER EXPANSION PROJECT LAYING THE CORNERSTONE OF A NEW CIVILIZATION Dear Scientologist, Over the last year, the Super Power Project staff and very active supporters around the planet, worked dedicatedly to spread the word regarding the vital importance of the release of LRH's tech to Clear the Planet - Super Power(tm). < blah blah blah ... Field Fundraisers tour ... blah blah blah ... power of these rundowns ... blah blah blah > 1998 will mark a milestone for the Project with the groundbreaking of the new building gotten underway and the release of Super Power even nearer. < blah blah > Become a cornerstone member now and be first in line for super power when it is released. (end quote). It is signed by Lauri Webster, Super Power in charge, CMO Clearwater. There is also a list of donations, $1000 gets you a special gift, $5000 makes you a Flag Alumni (even if you've never been to Flag? - How tacky), and $35,000 makes you one of the Cornerstone Members and gives you 40% off on Super Power when it is released. ----- The amazing thing (besides the cornerstone price) is that they still haven't even managed to have the windbreaking ceremony for the super power building after all these years. Talk about downstat degraded beings. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - The Haters of Tech SUPER SCIO HUMOR - THE HATERS OF TECH Recently the Loyalist Officers hiding in the 4th dimension undertook a research project to discover who really hated the tech and what they were doing to manifest that hatred. They confess that they were prejudice and expected to find that it was the ARS critics who hated the tech the most. But much to their surprise, they were wrong. There were some really big tech haters drowning out everything else. They did this by telepathic channelling and the following were the thought patterns that came through. You will have to think carefully to identify the probable senders of these mental emissions. As always, I am only passing on their findings and take no responsibility for the contents of this post. Best, The Pilot ---- I yam da Ho of Babylon Heddie Heddie Hey Ho Ho I lead the clams in sing along Heddie Heddie Hey Ho Ho I hate the Nots with such deep spite I sue them till their out of sight I don't care who is wrong or right Heddie Heddie Hey Ho Ho ---- OSA, OSA, over everyone, freezone and critics we will destroy, spies and agents are our kind of fun, infiltration is our joy ---- When I was a lad I served a term as a camera man to a cultish firm, I aimed the camera with an eye so fine, that Hubbard said the whole damn show would soon be mine! chorus of RPFers: Hubbard said the whole damn show would soon be thine! Stick close to the boss and never learn the tech, and you too can make the org into a total wreck, Stick CLOSE to the boss and never learn the tech, and you too can turn the subject into absolute DRECK. ----- Those who correctly identify all of the above will be awarded the title of Loyal ARSer. Ad Astra Per Arsa (to the stars through ARS), The Loyalist Officers in 4th dimensional hiding ========================================== subj : Super Scio - On Juliette Lewis ON JULIETTE LEWIS On 10 Feb 98, jimdbb@aol.com (JimDBB) responded to the ongoing discussion on subject "Juliette Lewis" > Juliette Lewis was raised in captivity as was Lisa Presley. > > Julliette's father is B-actor Geoffrey Lewis who has been in the > cult a long time. > > JImDBB Geoffrey Lewis married long time Scientologist Glennis Duggan in the 1970s. I think that she was ex New York staff. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Mark The Proud Scieno TO MARK THE PROUD SCIENTOLOGIST Your troll was hilarious. I liked it when you put Wgert in his place. Even talking half truths as you do, you have put out more positive comm about the tech than he ever did. You provided an excellent example of how the orthodox Scientologists should be communicating. Scientology lurkers should note how politely the critics talked with you. Of course you can't be "doing OT8". From what I've heard, it takes about a month and you don't get off the ship while you're doing it. The course packs are supposed to be chained to the wall. Then again, maybe you've got an org in a different universe with different rules. My guess is the freezone universe. Thanks, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - On The Munich Raid ON THE MUNICH RAID On 10 Feb 98, Klaus Bloemker replied on subject "NEWS Munich Raid" > supernews@feedME wrote: > > > > German police raid Scientology offices in Munich > > 02:13 p.m Feb 10, 1998 Eastern > > > > MUNICH, Feb 10 (Reuters) - ... > > My assesment so far is that technically/judicially, the raid was not > aimed at the CoS org as an organization but at individuals. > > The police gathered auditing folders to get evidence on individuals who > may have told about their crimes in auditing sessions. Since Scientology > has not a privileged church status, these auditing-confessions can be > used in court. The CofS had better wake up and stop recording overts in PCs folders. It has always been a dangerous practice. Not only does it make it possible for villanous management to violate the sanctity of the confessional, but it exposes them to attrocities like this as well. There is an LRH precedent in the HCOPL that cancelled Sec Checking back in 1968 (I have quoted it before). Every org (not just Germany), should immediately burn all O/W writeups and all sec check worksheets immediately. Once the overts have been given up in session, the PC is supposed to be free of them so there is no need to make them persist in the physical universe from the viewpoint of Scientology tech. No, I am not saying this to hide my own crimes, I have nothing beyond the level of mild embarassment. But if there is any threat of danger, the PCs will shut up and that will be the end of successful auditing. The orgs might also have to immediately start telling the PC that withholds will no longer be written down in session. In the self clearing book I suggested writting up one's overts to get them off of one's chest and then burning the writeup. I have already heard that this is very popular with people who are doing the book and is successful at relieving charge. ---- As for the general situation in Germany, I am waiting to hear more details. It seems to me that there has already been a pissing contest going on between the CofS and the German government and now they are aiming their streams higher. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Wgert ANSWERING WGERT On 31 Jan 98, wgert@loop.com (wgert) posted on subject "Re-definition of spamming (Was Re: Spew definitions (Re: Has SPAM in a.r.s hit the cancellation threshold?)" > There must be some provision in this re-definition to also cover the > constant repeats and mindless onslaughts onto ARS readers by Conner, > Barwell, Roland, Scraff, The Pilot, and any other mental midgets. > They're after all destroying our time. > > Well, perhaps that's it: anyone who gets classified as a mental midget > gets his messages/postings cancelled as a spam. That leaves us only > with having to define what classifies someone as a "mental midget". > > Of course, anyone who has gone onto the Rogues Gallery of ARS Bigots. > > wgert I'm honored. You have finally choosen to acknowledge my existance. I didn't realize that I was repeating myself. Perhaps it is because you have failed to acknowledge me? Maybe you could do a Scientology communications course and learn to do that. Or you could read the FREE Self Clearing book and find out what an acknowledgement is. Exactly which post of mine, by the way, is a repeat (aside from a very few that were intentionally marked as "Repost")? Also, as long as we're talking, would you please comment on the relative likelyhood of clearing the planet by issuing a free self clearing book that helps people do it themselves versus pricing the tech so high that only a small percentage of the population will ever be able to do it? Perhaps you could add me to the Rouges Gallery of ARS Bigots? I'm bigotted against charging big bucks for poor service. And please mention the Self Clearing book as proof of my biggotry. I'm sure that it would help my stats. ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Klaus On Religious Tolerance TO KLAUS ON RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE On 31 Jan 98, Klaus Bloemker responded to my post on subject "Super Scio - THE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE CAMPAIGN" > The Pilot wrote: > > > ... this [campaign] is wonderful and ... should be supported ... > > ... good ... if the CofS becomes strongy committed to religious > > tolerance. > > Gloria Idda, CSI: > > >> With the advent of the Internet - ... > >> Our campaign is meant to build worldwide religious tolerance ... > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I have a couple of questions on the matter: > > (1) > If one starts a campaign, there must be a problem - what's the problem? > > Is Scientology concerned with a lack of worldwide religious tolerance? > In the US, the Muslim world, in India or China? NO: They are only > concerned that their own label "religion" sticks in Europe, so they can > take advantage of the moral imperative: 'Be tolerant towards religions!' > They know that THEIR moral credibility as a "religion" is at stake. > That's the problem. To support them means to support their claim to be a > bona fide "religion". CofS management started the campaign hypocritically so as to gain sympathy. But many CofS members embrace it in truth rather than hypocracy. And most freezone Scientologists already believe in religious tolerance because they are persecuted by the CofS. I do personally believe in religious tolerance on all fronts including Muslim, Indian, Chineese, etc. I see religious persecution as a great evil in all cases. But I do confess to having a vested interest in this as well. I want the CofS comitted to religious tolerance so as to bring an end to their own persecution of the freezone. > (2) > Will Scientology become, by its own campaign, more tolerant? I certainly hope so. > Did the CoS become more committed to cult awareness by taking over CAN? > Yes - except for their own cult. The membership does not (at least not yet) support CAN. When the CAN takeover took place, CAN sent a mailing out to the Scientology mailing list without advising the membership that CAN was now part of the CofS. I saw a Scientologist read this CAN newsletter (which had been written by other Scientologists) and recoil in horror and describe it as having been written by Suppressive Persons and feeling terror at how had CAN gotten her name! I knew from ARS that CAN was now part of CofS and explained this to her and that produced a further shock. Very funny really. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let me add a philological note on "tolerance". > Originally, its meaning was even somewhat negative (17th century): > You don't take something seriously, so you tolerate it. This is acceptible to me. Others do not have to believe as I believe. > The classic parable on tolerance by the German playwright Lessing (1779) > goes like this: A Sultan visits the wise Jew Nathan and says to him: > "I am a Muslim, you are a Jew and the Christian is between us. Of > these three religions only one can be the true one. A wise man should > not stick with the religion he happened to be born with but go on > searching for the true one. Let me hear your reasons." > Nathan thinks for a while, then tells the Sultan this story: > "A long time ago there was a man living in the East who had a ring of > unbelievable worth that contained the power to make one loved by God and > man if worn in good faith. The man had three sons. At a time he loved > his first son best and he promised to pass the ring on to him. Later, he > thought, his second son deserved the ring and he promised to pass it to > him. And so did he with his third son. When the time of his passing came > near, he was at a loss. So he sent for a jewler to have two copies of > the ring made. The jewler did perfect work and the old man was > delighted, he himself couldn't tell which one was the original. > On his dying bed, he called each sons in, gave him one ring, blessed him > and died." > The Sultan gets a little nerveous: "Come on, finish the story." > Nathan replies: "The story is finished". > The Sultan: "So what's the point?" > Nathan: "Well, the three sons contested each other and went to a judge > to have the matter settled. The judge said: 'I can't tell which ring is > the original, it might even have gotton lost or your father didn't want > the tyranny of one ring and therefore had copies made. But wait, the > true ring has the power to make one loved by God and man. So go now and > wear the ring you have in good faith. Your father wanted it that way.'" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a good story. > Scientology might want to do some homework (study Lessing) before they > go out on their "Tolerance Campaign". > > Klaus Bloemker I agree with the parable of many rings. My target is methods of spiritual growth, which to me means tech. And so there is orthodox CofS tech and freezone tech, and there is also metaphysical tech, and there is even psychological tech. "Wear the ring you have in good faith". Or perhaps even realize that a hand has many fingers. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Loomis on Conditions Etc. TO LOOMIS ON CONDITIONS ETC. On 31 Jan 98, aloomis@whale.st.usm.edu (Austin George Loomis) replied to my post on subject "Super Scio - Answering Loomis on Footbullets" (much good comm snipped for brevity) > "Policy is senior to people." Is that an actual HCO quote, or does it > just sound to the critical ear like something they'd say? I don't think this is in policy, thank goodness. Early policies say the opposite (some quotes are on the Reformer's homepage). But it does sound like something that might have been said by some rabid Sea Org exec and people might have believed it to be a quote. It does fit the later behavior. > >> And, since you're still (for the foreseeable future) on lines, does your > >> having acked my posts (by listing my entry in the End Pool) entitle me to > >> SP2 status? > > > >I'm sorry but my anonymous postings do not count as official > >communications from the CofS. In fact, I have long since passed > >the point of Footbullet Treason myself and I'm waiting for them > >to figure out a new even lower condition to assign me, that is > >if they can catch me. > > Footbullet Danger, perhaps? Or is Danger above the other conditions > listed in the original posting? (I can never quite remember how the > ascending order of the conditions properly runs, and they may even have > changed it once or twice.) > > It's okay, though. I've started counting myself as SP2 on the basis > of getting an ack from Simon5 around the same time I wrote the note to > which you're replying. He certainly reads like an OSA-approved poster, > if you don't count the fact that he pretends to communicate. Congradulations. Simon5 does appear to be an OSA shill. The conditions are: POWER AFFLUENCE NORMAL EMERGENCY DANGER NON-EXISTANCE --------------- (lower conditions are below this line) LIABILITY DOUBT ENEMY TREASON > > but her communications would not be subject to the same degree of > > censorship that applies to public discussions. > > Only to the same self-censorship to which e e cummings' close personal > foe Mostpeople are prone. Exactly. > >The Scientology Reformer's Homepage does not contain confidential > >data and (to the best of my knowledge) has not been openly labled > >by ethics or OSA as being entheta, suppressive, or squirrel > >(because, I think, that they are afraid of calling the members > >attention to it because they have no answers to the arguments presented). > > That seems to be in tune with the general critical opinion I've seen > since I started lurking here, that the surest way to make an OSA poster > zip up his cakehole is to mention the Freezone. For some screwy reason, > they don't like being reminded of their own religious persecution work. They are afraid of calling attention to the freezone. There is an info letter about Jack Horner and Ampinistics from the 1960s where Ron warns against accidentally promoting a "squirrel" group by calling attention to it. The "squirrels" are supposed to wither away quietly because of their out-tech. > ... I mentioned your name by jokingly asking her if > she or someone she loved were you. She replied by bapping me on the > nose (notionally speaking) and saying "No. Most definitely not. Fear > any claims of `absoluteness' in *any* group. The reason weasle-words > have to be chopped out of my writing is because I'm all too aware that > absolutes are unattainable in the physical universe." I can hardly figure out what she thinks she is saying here. By weasle-words, does she mean OT 3 stuff? Maybe she thought that you were talking about "The Pilot" in the OT 3 materials? In that case, she might have stopped communicating because she thought that you were starting in the usual critics approach of rubbing their noses in confidential data and was afraid of being caught acknowledging it (which would get her in trouble even in private communication). You could try emailing her and saying that you were asking about the possibility that she was the person who posts under the name of "the pilot" on the internet. > So she may already > have a stable datum on the subject. (You might want to tone down the > wording of the bit that says something along the lines of "If you're > a Scientologist and you read any further, you'll hopelessly stall your > chances of moving any further up RTC's bridge.") Still, if I ever get > a chance again, I'll give it a try. I presented it a bit more as a dare rather than a threat. Ron would sometimes talk this way (this might endanger your safe solutions) so I hope that a lot will read on anyway. > Attempted ARC, > -- > Austin George Loomis, SP2, Provocation Section, PTS-J, potential Freezoner > "...if anyone wants a monopoly on Dianetics, be assured that he wants > it for reasons which have to do not with Dianetics but with profit." > -- LRH, DMSMH, III.1 "The Mind's Protection," p.266 (1987 edition) The attempt was successful. I also enjoyed your other post where you provided further data on Sci Fi. Another real Sci Fi favorite in the Sea Org was Doc Smith's Lensman series. I heard that those were being passed around from hand to hand by SO members throughout the late 60s and 70s. One of the books is called "Galactic Patrol" and may have figured in the Galactic Patrol mutiny of the late 70s. There is also "The Karma Machine" by, I believe, Darsany (?). It sounds like he was involved but must have left because he describes implanting people with BTs which he calls "Spiroettes" or something like that. The idea is to implant people with a desire to buy advertisers products etc. The hero learns to burn away his spiroettes with spiritual fire (like the wall of fire). There are also the other ones I listed in the section on NOTS in Sci Fi in chapter 6 of the Super Scio book. That includes Colin Wilson's "The Mind Parasites", Eric Frank Russel's "Sinister Barrier", and Jack Vance's "Nopalgarth". Since these are all Nots type stuff, they might only help with people who have done OT 3. Nopalgarth presents the interesting idea that in getting rid of one's Nopals (Vance's name for BTs), one becomes exposed to being taken over by an even more evil being. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Rob on Purif Etc. ANSWERING ROB ON PURIF ETC. On 6 Feb 98, "Rob" asked on subject "To Pilot..." > Dear Pilot, > > I've been using your new clearing book for several weeks and have had some > fairly large wins. I've also passed copies along to several friends (non > scientologists, but curious) and they are showing a lot of interest and > gains as well. I'm very grateful for your efforts along this line. Great. > I had a couple questions for you. I did my purif at an org about a year > ago. I've had a drug history prior to the purif and completely stopped > after it.....until the last week or so. I smoked pot on several occations > and drank a lot. I now feel cloudy and hazy. My question is this: Do you > reccomend I do a home version of the purif again before continuing > processing, or do you think I could still get case gain by waiting a few > weeks (obviously discontinuing any pot or alcohol)? I really regret > "slipping"...I never was able to save enough $ for the drug rundown in > the church. Objective style processes such as those in chapters 1 and 2 of the self clearing book can be run immediately or even while under the effect of drugs. Although they are not ideal under these conditions, they are better than not doing anything and may help with the cloudy and hazy feeling. Normal drying out on alcohol in the old days was 24 hours and on pot it was one week. Of course there was no purif. And the processing seemed to go well. Many people like to use B1 as a hangover remedy and Adele Davis has some nice things to say about vitamins. I wouldn't bother with a home retread of the purif unless the effects seem to be persisting. I figured that the book would eventually end up in the hands of the beer drinking couch potatos and I did my best to ensure that it would be helpful even under those conditions. If they work on it in their better moments (rather than at the end of a six pack), they should make gains although it might be slow going. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Answering Sean Of Snerts ( also sent to alt.spiritual.enhancement,alt.consciousness, alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness.4th-way ) ANSWERING SEAN OF SNERTS On 9 Feb 98, Sean replied to my post on subject "Super Scio - FREE SELF CLEARING ON THE NET" > Keep your Clam stuff outta non clam NG's or we will be forced to beat > you to death with your own e-meter. > > ROTFLMAO!!!!! > > Sean > Lord of Snerts > > The Pilot wrote: > > > > FREE SELF CLEARING ON THE NET > > > > I have made my book on self clearing freely available on the > > internet. You're reacting way out of proportion. You got exactly ONE post (not some damn series of spams) about a freebie (a true freebie, not a loss leader) which might even help with raising consciousness (do it yourself, no involvement with Scientology required, and no e-meter needed either). You've probably been burnt by CofS fanatics. My condolences. A lot of ex-Scieno's went into alternate practices. Some of my old friends may be lurking on these newsgroups. Of course I can't let them know who I am (the CofS would nail my ass to the wall). But I felt that one message, to let those who might be interested know that the book could be downloaded, would be fair. Sorry to have interrupted your meditations. The Pilot The Un-Clam ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Some Processes (Attn Robert & Bob Ross) SOME PROCESSES (Attn Robert & Bob Ross) On 29 Jan 98, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) posted on subject "[fwd] News from Bob Ross" >This just came in from a client friend. > >Robert > >============================================ > >>I am not sure if you are in a contact with Bob Ross, but he recently >>came up with a potentially killer process. Bob Ross claims it's a >>one-shot-clear. Don't think it's that extreme but it is definitely a >>super-broad range process. >> >>He has only a flow 0 version, but I imagine it can be run on all >>flows... >> >>(1)Recall (locate,find) a choice you have made? >>(2)What did you have to give up when you have made it? >>(note: "What" here is NOT a listing question. PC should be advised that >>there is possibly more than 1 answer to avoid potential out-lists) >> >>at a first glance it seems to be accessible for lower-level cases (Ross >>sez it could be co-audited by off-the-street pcs) and to be very deep >>for more aware folks. >> >>what do you think? =) >> >>Cheers, >>Oleg >> >>P.S. For various reasons i am no longer subscribed to clear-l. However i >>do think it's a good idea to post it to the list for a general >>discussion. He really may have a breakthrough here ;) This one sounds nifty. But there is a liability in restimulating too much on the negative side without bringing some positive theta into it. It might work sometimes but tend to bog on a long run. So instead of running a can't have, you alternate can't have with have. My suggestion would be: a) Recall (locate,find) a choice that you have made? b) What did you have to give up because of that? c) What did you gain because of that? This really tears open game conditions and exposes them to the light of day. My compliments to Bob. ---- I had also been looking for a process to run charge off of the button of "failure". It restimulates too much loss to run it as a simple recall all by itself. But pulling the same positive/negative trick as above, I came up with the following, which seems to run really well - a) Recall making yourself fail b) Recall allowing yourself to succeed ---- Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - An Alternative to Secret Squirrel AN ALTERNATIVE TO SECRET SQUIRREL On 4 Feb 98, Secret Squirrel posted on subject "WARNING: CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL OT 8 AND ABOVE DATA" He basically suggested dumping entities on David Miscaviage. Some people might consider this to be black Scientology. Some people might consider the tech involved to be either invalid or out-gradient. I'm not going to take a stand and moralize against this. But its not my style of operating. So I'll offer an alternative for those who are interested. If you can operate on a "theta" level, the best thing you could do for Davey is to give him "Scrouge" style dreams. He might reform. It might actually be good for him. These might go something like Hubbard appearing to introduce the gosts of past, present, and future tech. Davey can be reminded of the good old days and his early dreams, and shown the current horror of the RPF and so forth, and shown the dismal fate that awaits the orgs if they don't reform. Its really just post hating. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Study Tech STUDY TECH I spent a year teaching programming once. There were, of course, a few cases who were in class for other reasons than learning who were ethics problems. And there were some poor students and some good ones. And then there were a handful of real hotshots who learned at high speed. I had previously been a course supervisor and a cramming officer and I used everything I knew from study tech in addition to the normal methods being used in the school where I was teaching. By using care and understanding and clearing up the definitions of words and helping the students to concieve of how to apply the data, I managed to turn a number of the poor students into good ones. But I didn't manage to turn the good ones into excellent ones. And there was something very interesting about the top students. They never looked up words. They would read past words that they didn't understand with no ill effect and they would keep studying and they'd fill in the meanings eventually and never suffer from any of the misunderstood word phenomena that we learned to watch for when supervising Scientology courses. And I thought back on my own education, and again the top students, including myself, never looked up words. And in retrospect, the really poor students could have been helped by study tech to handle the things that were making them into poor students. But the good students would not have been helped by study tech. They were already good students. And LRH study tech as applied in modern Scientology would just be a boat anchor for an excellent student. The study tech has never been of use to me personally in studying. And yet I have used it a lot in teaching others and it really does work to fix up a bogged student. My point here is that modern LRH study tech is not a useful tech for how to study. It is a tech for how to repair a student that can't study. If looking up words was the proper action of good study, the best students would be looking up more words, not less. Instead, when a student gets really good, he doesn't bother to look up words at all. My personal opinion on the matter is that dictionary definitions are not worth a damn as far as producing any real understanding. I'd rather just note something as "definition pending" until I get around to reading up on it. A dictionary definition just tends to hide a hole in my knowledge rather than filling it. Lets take a word like the "internet". Now what does it really mean? We could say that the internet is a way of hooking computers together. Now that is a really good beginner's definition. It is the one that I picked up immediately from context when I first read the word. At the other extreme, there is really seeing what the internet is in all its complexity at the maximum level of detail, knowing the ins and outs of TCP/IP and Email and Domain Name Servers and all the other good stuff. In between these two, are practical levels of definition. The simple one of "a way to hook computers together" is not really good enough for people who actually get on to the internet. They need a bit more. At least they need to know about signing up with an ISP who will connect them and they need to know a bit about web browsers and if they're smart, they'll have at least a bit of knowlege about IP addressing and things like that. So we start from a vague concept and begin to fill in details underneath it. This is how good education is done. A broad concept is presented in the proper context and relationship to other concepts and then details are filled in. And every step of the way, the definition of "internet" for example, gets better and better. Think of "internet" as being a label for a box. And then we fill the box with data. Or we could go the other way and fill boxes with data and then stick lables on them. This works too. This is how a child's early education begins. Let's take the word "door" for example. A modern child will learn about doors on a physical basis. He understands what a door is before he learns the word. Then he gets a label to put on that box full of knowledge. A child will have boxes and boxes full of data, and his initial education consists of attaching labels to those boxes. Apparantly some people get the labels mixed up and stick them on the wrong boxes. And that makes it pretty difficult to learn anything further. So your first action is to straighten out this mis-labeling. But it is a repair action. A negative gain so to speak. The actual positive action of study is to put more stuff in these boxes. And to arrange the boxes and relate things to each other and continually refine the labels that one has attached to things. One useful trick is to consider definitions to be relative rather than absolute as given in the example of the "internet" above. You can work with vague definitions as long as you know they are vague and allow for the fact that they will get better as you continue to study. It helps to recognize that you are always getting away with definitions that are good enough rather than absolute. And when you move into a new area, sometimes you need to refine some of your definitions further. Most people's understanding of the word "chair" for example would not be comparable to the understanding held by a carpenter who had handcrafted chairs for a living. An important factor in the ability to study is one's ability to tolerate unstable data and undefined words. Back when I first studied computers, there were mostly just manufacturer's references and few good books on the subject. I remember bouncing back and forth between three different books, each of which needed to be read before the others could be understood, so you really had to read them all before you could fully understand the first chapter of any of them. It was one of the few times when I felt that I was juggling too many unknown concepts at once but I pushed through it and everything fell into place and then I reread them all will good understanding. Don't dub-in incorrect meanings for things. If something really doesn't make sense, see if there is a word that you might have misdefined. But you can ignore that business about never reading past a word that you don't understand. Instead read tons of stuff about something that you want to learn. Don't just read one author. Don't just read one book. Don't be so meticulous about overdefining every word you read that you slow down your study to a snail's pace. And if at all possible, find other people who are also interested in or experienced in the subject and talk with them. The more communication the better. Don't be afraid of evaluation. It's only eval if its jammed in by force. It is not evaluative (in the sense of the Scientology rudiment) to discuss ideas or hear about other's experience. But always take everything, even what's in the textbooks, with a grain of salt. Its all opinion and hearsay unless you've gone out and applied the data personally and observed the results. Since there is just too much to go out and test everything, we all have to take a lot on faith and much of our knowledge is second hand. That is fine as long as you know that that is the case and are always prepared to discover a contradictory fact. I put a bit of this in chapter 5 of the self clearing book, but people who have had LRH study tech beaten into their heads with too much force may need this writeup to help wake them up. Ron had a lot of good ideas on study in the 1950s, and there was still a lot of sense present when he gave the 1960s lectures that are now called the study tapes. But the later bulletins and policies on study are terrible as far as developing any real understanding of the subject being studied. Supervision by repetative "flunk and restudy" is actually one of the most evaluative methods of training and tends to bring about compulsive agreement rather than an ability to think in an area. The trained tech staff at an org usually learns to think about the tech by discussing it in the coffee shop endlessly rather than by the superlativeness of the courseroom delivery. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Homer On Cosmic Jokes TO HOMER ON COSMIC JOKES There has been an ongoing discussion on ACT on subject "Joke". I am mostly going to respond to Homer's post, but I'm going to quote Allen's subsequent answer (which includes Homer's post) so as to include his comments in this as well. I am mostly in agreement with the concept of acceptance although I have my own slant on it and only consider it as one aspect of the puzzel. My general views on this are based on my interpretation of the concept of as-isness and are presented in detail in Chapter xx "Repression" of the Self Clearing book. Allen's slant on this is a bit different, and I am not an expert in his tech, but I think that we are looking at the same thing from different angles and discussing this from both angles might help other's understanding. --- On 4 Feb 98, Allen responded to Homer's earlier post. > WARNING > > The subject of this post is the essence of terror, as in the way Christians > react to Buddhism: they see no Father-Intercessor and no Heaven/refuge from > reality and no End time, and it scares the shit out of them. > > Maybe some people should not read this one. It is not scary if you see it clearly. > At 02:07 AM 2/4/98 -0500, you wrote: Allen is quoting Homer's post here. > > > > Allen, > > > > The more I try to understand your view, the more I feel that WHAT IS > > is not WHAT I WANT. > > It appears not to be. But then, where are you now that you dare decide > from there what you want for all time? Allen is right. Sometimes things that you don't want from a narrow viewpoint (relatively speaking), are desirable to you from a senior viewpoint. > > Instead I see that I must ACCEPT IT, but I don't see > > how I can ever APPRECIATE IT. > > As it is. Observe the multidimensional intricacy. Although true, there is no need to bring in multidimensional complexity here. There are simpler examples. Burried in ice, one thinks that one could never appreciate it. Until one lives on a tropical island and wants a few ice cubes for one's drink. After a thousand years in a pleasure palace, you'll want ten minutes of that nasty somatic and you'll just love it. What are a few bad lifetimes to a being who spans the trillenia. What is wrong is that you have salted your food too much and it now seems unedible. But if you try to knock salt out of existance, deep down you wouldn't let yourself because that would condem you to eating bland food forever. > > Now maybe my solution to the original disorientation was to bury > >myself in a pretended philsophy of prior intent, because indeed I have > >seen many times that I have been hurt so bad that the only way I will ever > >be able to forgive existence is to find out that I did it to myself for a > >reason. > > > > This vision has been pounded on me over and over and over again > >by the infinite utter outrageousness of what was done to me (by me > >or who or whatever. The condition I found myself in during the > >early years of this life.) > > That would be a way for that to happen, sure. > > But it might well be the solution that becomes the next problem, since its > blinding effect would also hide tha same truth in re what would free you. > > > Now you are asking me to throw off this protective shroud of seeking > >the INTELLIGENCE, COMPASSION AND DESIGN to my suffering, and accept that > >there was no intelligence, compassion or design to it at all, > > Right. A cosmic blooper. It could be either way. Or it could be incomprehensible in human terms. > > I wasn't > >even guilty, I was just crucified by the big bang for no desirable reason > >at all other than it was bored. *It* was bored, and *I* got crucified. > > That's too strong a grip on your individuality. Before "I" (as you) there > was "It" (also you, only different). > > "I" is specific consciousness, "It" is general consciousness. > > Don't try to apply specific-consciousness standards or concepts to general > consciousness. It will never make sense, and it just annoys the pig (the > teach-a-pig-to-sing joke). Here I would say that it was you who were bored rather than "it". Of course that might be a wrong item, I'm not sure what all of the higher level buttons are, but boredom is one of the biggies. Each of us, in our higher states, are still abberated on a number of items. Put aside all concepts of being hurt or suffereing pain and loss, and see what still is there. Getting oneself in trouble to learn something is another of these buttons. It is another reason that a super being will screw himself over. Based on this idea, I worked up an assessment list, which I am posting separately. > >For some of its shards they ended up in a better state than being bored, > >and for others they ended up in a very much worse state. > > Judgement. > > > > > In stead of intelligence, compassion and design, you are asking me to > >accept that I was the victim of a mechanical uncaring trap that my own > >ignornace made worse once I fell into it and struggled against it. The > >trap of resistence and OORs. > > Yes, but rather than the victim, the manifestation. Victimhood is > a judgement. > > > You are asking me to accept that these jaws of steel were put there by > >the cold mechanics of existence, and served no purpose AT ALL. > > That's a mean metaphor that may not apply to a significant > population, but Yes. Here I only agree halfway, because it is always you and there are always purposes of some sort. But many of the things we do are inadvertent side effects rather than direct intentions. > > No higher > >purpose, no higher intelligence if only my own, no higher design, no > >higher compassion, no higher beauty, no higher reason, no higher humor. > > Correct. I think that your own higher or senior designs and humor and so forth are operative in this. > > > > You are asking me to accept that this ALL THAT IS, abiding in the > >peace that passeth all understanding for all of 'eternity', should half > >way through its sojourn in eternity GET BORED > > Yes. As a big being (but not ultimate static), you get bored a lot. > > and decide to shatter > > Not exactly. Merely consider limitation. > > >with > >no awareness of the consequences. > > Right. No Time in the All, therefore no idea of "after". Often there would be awareness of the consequence, but total disregard of them anyway. Its more important to an immortal to have a good tale to tell even if it means being eaten by a bear to get that good tale. > > > > You yourself say, that for the ALL THAT IS to think of something is to > > cause it, > > To merely conceive it, far more subtle than to think. More general and not > specific, for at the moment of it becoming at all specific - that is the > moment of individuation. > > >so this big ALL THAT IS oaf, gets this idea it is bored, so it > >is, and then it gets this idea to > > ...look at things from limited points of view, which operates so as to make > it appear IT has shattered... > > > shatter and so it does. But then you > >assert that it DIDN'T GET THE IDEA OF ALL THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT > >SHATTERING BEFORE IT SHATTERED or as part of the shatter. > > It didn't even get the idea of "shatter" before it happened. > > > So you are suggesting there is this cosmic ALL that can cause things > >by thinking about them, but then it can have things happen afterwards that > >it didn't cause by thinking of them first. > > It doesn't think. Thinking is a function of local consciousness. I put more layers into this than Alan does. At the very top, I agree with his sentence here, but one layer down you have the being in a super state that does think but thinks on a level that omits all physical concern. Something that would hurt itself just for kicks because it knows that there is no way to do permanent damage. > > BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE SHATTER, DID THE ALL THAT IS OR ANY PART > >OF ITS SHARD THINK "RESISTENCE CAUSES PERSISTENCE", AND THEREFORE CAUSE IT > >TO BE TRUE? > > No. But it was some generalized equivalent of resisting when the shattering > occurred, so it is a taint we all carry. Along with such contextual taints > as know, not-know, can't-not-know, interest and mystery. See the mechanics given on this in the Self Clearing book. > > Did the ALL THAT IS think "Some will be in a better state and > >some will be in a worse state". > > No. It just turned out that some resisted primarily, and some were > instantly curious or intrigued. Some went static on mystery and don't know > anything, even that we are. It is a fractile function. Pieces of pieces of pieces. The trouble here is in thinking of only one level of shattering. > > Then you tell me that this big shattering solved for all eternity the > >problem the ALL THAT IS had, namely being bored, which it created by > >thinking > > Not thinking, merely conceiving the possibility. > > > it in the first place, and that forever more it will remain > >shattered never to indulge in that cycle again. > > Yes. Or, multidimensionally, as AllThatIS which exists without time, it is > always indulged in that very moment. And all that "we" do is peripheral to > that. An infinitely iterated flash that lasts forever without enduring. A > Singularity. > > > Did it think as part of its shatter "One day all men will re attain > >the awakened state?" > > No. But men could, so long as they didn't make that depend upon a total > undoing of individuation. (Some have tried.) > > > Did it think "We are going to do this ONCE and never again?" > > No. It didn't think. > > > Of all that is going on, how much of it is going on because > >the ALL THAT IS THOUGHT IT AS IT THOUGHT THE SHATTER, AND HOW MUCH > >IS GOING ON AS A SURPRISE. > > As to all that is going on, ALL of it is a surprise. Much of it is an intentional attempt to surprise oneself, and one often fails. Think on how hard it is to really generate a truely random number on a computer. > > The shatter wasn't a surpirse because it caused it by thinking it. > > No. It didn't think. > > > > > Did it think first "To think is to cause?" > > No. It didn't think. > > > I am not needling you, but I am letting you know once again the > >points of your view as I understand it that irritate me TO HELL at a very > >deep fundamental philosophical level. > > I know. > > And I think you are lucky you are not a Christian! :-) > > -0- > | > Allen, Speaker -0- ASC Missions Group > speaker@asc.org | http://www.asc.org When I first read this it really got me thinking and I ended up putting together the Higher Self Assessment that I'm posting separately. See that for more ideas. My thanks to both Allen and Homer. Best, The Pilot PS. I quite liked your (Homer's) response on the subject of agreement. ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Higher Self Assessment HIGHER SELF ASSESSMENT This is highly experimental. It may be unreal or out-gradient. I don't know if you can coax somebody into taking the viewpoint necessary to run this. On a solo basis, an advanced student who can understand the following should have no trouble. This does not address charge as we know it at the physical level. It aims at the reasons that a senior being would mockup something compulsively. It is for handling a persistant mockup or condition that the being wants to change and which has not resolved with all the ordinary handlings. You should try ordinary rudiments, incident running, etc. first. The assumption is that if it wouldn't resolve from the human viewpoint, then maybe the being is mocking it up from a senior viewpoint. To run this, the person needs to shift into a senior viewpoint that transends physical time and space. Note that in his senior viewpoint, the being still has his own time and space. Note that the senior viewpoint may be capable of manifesting multiple "threads" in the physical timestream and wearing multiple identities, but it is all still him. To try and shift into your senior viewpoint, you need to get the idea of being a sort of superbeing above physical time and space who can't be hurt, who could mockup up and discard bodies at a casual whim, who is outside of the cycle of life and death, and so forth. You just imagine yourself that way, and discard all the baggage that you use to survive and to operate in a human frame of reference. When you can get that viewpoint, even if only briefly and shallowly, then you run the following process from that viewpoint. If you can't get into that frame of mind, then save this for a moment when you can. A big keyout and exteriorization on other processes can put you into the mood where this higher viewpoint can be reached. Note that since this is aimed at a viewpoint which is above the level of "charge" as we know it, it should not be restimulative to read the process. There are multiple "senior beings". We are fewer than we think, but it is not all one at this level. And so there are still self/another/others type flows. But self at this level may be thousands of humanoid identities. And "self" is still you at this level. ---- Identify the persistant mockup or condition that is to be handled. Assess from a senior viewpoint (deathless, no pain or suffering, no need to survive). Is the reason for mocking up ____, due to: 1. Boredom 2. To have a game 3. Copying Others 4. Catching up with others 5. Learning a lesson 6. To communicate something 7. To duplicate something 8. To have asthetics 9. To have variety 10. To balance something 11. To understand something 12. To build something 13. Needing a component in something larger 14. Fufilling obligations 15. To protest something 16. To earn something 17. To be different 18. To bring something back 19. To invaidate another or others 20. To confuse or misdirect others 21. To enforce a reality on others 22. To reject another's reality 23. To disagree 24. To gain agreement 25. To gain admiration 26. To make others like you 27. To get attention 28. To avoid attention 29. To keep from being too powerful 30. Moral obligation 31. Other ethical considerations 32. Trapped by logic 33. As an exchange 34. By mistake 35. For some other purpose 36. For some other reason 37. For no reason at all On anything significant that is spotted, run a) What about that? b) How does that work? c) When did you do that? d) From what location did you mock that up? And any other general ITSA. If you run dry, then look for an E/S or for the reverse flow (if it was your action, then look for a situation where another did that action, etc.). If your attention is drawn to an E/S or another flow, then run it immediately. Take a break on any significant cog, then go on to the next question. Sometimes the cog is so big that you have to drop the whole thing for a few days. You can meter asses these, and take up each significant read as it occurs. Or you can go over the list slowly, considering each question and taking it up if you spot something significant or it holds your attention strongly or indicates as correct in some manner. There may well be many significant answers. Cycle through the list multiple times. The target is to regain control over the compulsive mockup. This assessment list is a first approximation. There may be other buttons that are missing. The filtering criteria for determining if an item is appropriate for this list is whether or not the button would still apply for a bodiless immortal being. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Ans Qs on LRH, Homo, OT8 (attn LittleLRH) ANS Qs ON LRH, HOMO, OT8 (ATTN LittleLRH) On 1 Feb 98, "littleLRH" asked on subject "4 the pilot: LRH, HOMO, OT8" > Dear Pilot, thanks for being with us and for the info you are giving us. > I have a few questions to ask you: > > -now we all know that the LRH shown today by CoS is not what he used to be; > now LRH gave to RTC all the copyrights for his works, so how can he be not > in agreement with their modus operandi ? He was less rather than more in the later years. The first thing I learned in studying the early tech was that the earlier you go, the more advanced and sane and sensible the materials become until you get back to 1952. He was at his peak in 1952-3. My assumption is that he was in a keyed-out OT state at that time and the entire subject was just pouring out in one big blast of knowingness. After that it is one long slide back into a human frame of mind, but there is still much brilliance because of what he learned then. His later organizational decisions are not trustworthy, as is evidence by the bad behavior of the CofS. When later operation is in conflict with earlier LRH ideas, I favor those of the 1950s (really 1952 onward). The earlier LRH would never have formed the Sea Org. He pushes for "Lightness of Organization" and groups composed of free individuals rather than strong central authority. The critics also have some questions about whether the later transfers of copyrights etc. were real or forged by Miscaviage. Something does smell fishy about those final days and I am distrustful of the events as reported. But I do not base my decisions on this because it remains unproven. It is enough for me to be loyal to the early tech and the research line and to observe that the RTC is currently in opposition. I hope that this will not always be the case. > He wrote KSW1 and he carried on the service fac that he was the only > creatore of the tech, anything else was to be stopped ( and i see the > mother church just compling with his orders in ksw), Again it is in conflict with his 1950s statements that he was only organizing material rather than being source (some quotes are on the Reformer's Homepage). > and what about the errors made by auditors or by the local church? > ...as you know the church is never wrong per hcopl so the pc have to > pay for the mistakes... Indeed a sorry state of affairs. > Now i will take it further: the clear described in book one , what was he > talking about ? he never reached such a sort of perfect beeing even with > the OT levels, he had to redifine and readjust what he wrote...and > this makes me think that perhaps he really was a sort of scam, that he > was writing many inaccurate things for economical reasons and he never > delivered what he really promised. There are many inaccuracies in DMSMH. His later statement (1958) was that he got people up to a point where they could confront the pain in mental image pictures by using the technique in "Original Thesis" on a gradient and that was what produced "clears". He says (1958) that he didn't actually understand that when he was doing it and thought that he was errasing basic. This is the definition of clear (the real state attained) that I use rather than the inaccurate DMSMH definition. Concerning prenatals, he says in 1952 that he was mislead by the fact that birth always runs as an incident that is late on a very long chain and, not knowing about past lives, simply assumed that it was doing that because of prenatals. Note that DMSMH was totally untested. The tested technique was that of Original Thesis. And it was not well tested, but simply played with. As far as I know, DMSMH done by the book didn't produce clears even by the more limited definition (can confront the pain in pictures). All of metaphysics suffers from sporatic phenomena and wild claims based on half understood pieces of things. Basically he was a story teller and a bit of an adventurer and into things metaphysical. A dabbler rather than a thorough scientific researcher. As such, he was prone to exaggeration and taking something and simply running with it rather than examining it carefully. I do not think that he was a scam artist or a con man in those days. He had hit some wild phenomena and really thought that he had something. And he did have something, despite the fact the DMSMH was only half right and untested. Two years of struggling and hacking around with the Dianetic mess and then we get the real breakthroughs of 1952. The late 60s misdefinition of clear is simply one of the signs that he was loosing it and sinking back towards the human state. He knew better in 1958. > I think that scn and dn deliver some sort of relieve and are some how > effective but not to the extent that Cos is publicycing and i must add that > every discipline that one follows thruthly with lead to some benefits. The modern era is full of BS and sales PR. Oddly enough, some of the wildest stories are the true ones and the more mundane or stable results are the more elusive. > In my opinion LRH was a mixture between a scam and a researcher: he put a > form of tech derived by his reading and refined by experiments on pc ( he > said many lies about himself and his achievment and stated many things as > fact when they were merly speculations). > Please comment on the above Although he sometimes exaggerated, I am not aware of any outright lies in the tapes of 1952-9. The biographical sketches and sales PR, on the other hand, are full of false claims, and the modern era is loaded with bullshit. > About Homosexuality: well i am one and i have tryed many things to see that > this condition would be resolved; when i first read dianetics many years > ago i just wanted to get involved in it to get rid of my homosexuality, my > eyeglasses, my allergies, but now that i have done the grades and ned > auditing and i am clear i can only say that only the allergies had minor > improvements ( when i was in cos i never permitted my self to have a > withhold or overt in LIFE because that would have stopped me to achieve > case gains that i was indeed having in sessions....only trouble is that > i never got rid of these conditions). Try the self clearing book. At least its free. It covers areas missed by the grades and may take the grades further as well. For each of these 3 areas, I know people who have handled it in auditing and people who haven't. There is no single source for any condition. If you're lucky, we have the particular source mapped out and if not, then join the club and help with researching more sources. Which abberations will blow on the grades is really a crap shoot, but I expect everybody to get something. A prize in every box of "Cracker Jacks" but who knows which one you'll get. If you collect enough boxes, eventually you have all the prizes. > I did also the chapter of the preclear's handbook where LRH stated " lock > scan this and that and the homosexual is rehabed !!!" well it just did not > work, i am wondering why..... The basic error in all of Scientology is this continual idea that "Eureaka, we now have finally found the one source for such and such a condition". He would say that whenever he cured one person of one specific condition and would mistakenly generalize it. Reading between the lines, I would say that the truth is that one particular homosexual was handled by this process. > When i read book one i realised i was in my mother's valence, but LXs rds , > identities rds, never did anything about me being gay. Let us say that one becomes an auto mechanic because one is in one's grandmother's valence and she used to repair carborators. Now one runs the charge off of that. Does one continue to fix cars or does one get a new job? Auditing does not dictate, it simply opens up more freedom of choice. I only think that a very few things, such as rape, are inherently abberated in the sexual area. Other things are more a matter of social convention or games conditions. One may accumulate heavy charge, but when the charge is relieved, one would not presume to guess how an individual will choose to act in these areas. > I even tryed IDENICS processing and i must say that it was the best > auditing ever, i am still gay but i feel i do not have a case anylonger. > I receved my idenics processing last august and since then i don't have any > sort of unwanted condition , that is pure magic : i feel stable and i feel > me. Fine. > But this processing made me think: IF i am a thetan, and as such i do not > have sex, how come i am still attracted by men? i tryed to work from this > and i came up with two options: we are just bodies, the ideas to be thetans > and immortals is just another claim made by LRH or there is more into it. This sounds backwards. It is because the thetan is not inherently male or female that it is possible for the being to remain in a role that is theoretically in disagreement with the bodily construction. Imagine a super being who wishes bodies in and out of existance at will. If one wished to have sex with a man one would wish a female body into existance for that afternoon. I can see an operating basis where I would wish many bodies in and out of existance as the mood struck me and as part of my playing with other beings. This state is currently way beyond me, but the concept is very real and the recall of it has gradually been coming into view. At that level, arriving at a romantic assignation in the wrong body type would seem to be a social faux pau rather than a matter of great significance. And in such a situation one might go with it just for variety. Here on Earth we are narrowed down in focus and limited in our operations. Lacking the freedom to simply shuffle things around all the time, we settle on some things as our preferred operating basis and block off other choices. It is like being penny pinching at the fruit stand. > Dear Pilot let me ask you this: did you ever really exteriorised? Yes. But I was always uncertain until the one time when my body vanished in front of a witness (described in the super scio book). After that I knew what it felt like and was sure of earlier exteriorizatons that I had previously been uncertain of. I have always been a bit of a doubting Thomas in these matters. > about your past lives: have you or others ever verifyed like > LRH did in mission into time, if the things you are remembering > are real or pure fantasy ? Yes, again discussed in detail in the Super Scio book. I proved it to my own satisfaction by remembering things which I then found in the history books, but of course it could not be proven to others on this basis because I could have looked them up first and then be lying about it. There will come a time when it is appropriate for you to do this for yourself. But the recall is too vague early on and there is too much dub-in and misdating (what one remembers of Rome may really be from some similar civilization millions of years ago). When you have a lot and much details, then go further by recalling pleasure moments (see chapter 6 of Super Scio) to the point were the recalls are vivid and in context. Then take a recent lifetime and find things that you have not read about but which can be researched by digging into the history books and see what you can come up with. And even then, it will be as poor as your recollections of grade school. > If everything is real then have you ever discovered how a thetan or a young > baby decides what is tasty or good and what is disgusting or bad ? > I like to go with men , WHY ? why i prefer that to women and you , my dear, > why do you love women so much and have charge with going with men ? I don't actually have a lot of charge on going with men, it is simply a turn off rather than an abhorrance. That relates more to existing games conditions and havingness rather than flinching from charge. > When i took this body i formed a personality or an identity that decided > that apples were good but cherries were the best tasty fruit on the > planet...while my sister considers cherries good but apricots are the best > tasty fruits on the whole universe...how did we arrive to these conclusions > ?how were they formed ?....how did i decide that cheese is very very > disgustings but the milk is so heavengly refreshing? > > Now: the point i am making is: once we know how somebody decides what is > good or bad, what he/she likes/dislikes, we could revert the process or > change may things! Die Gustibus Non Disputam Est (there is no arguing with taste). I think that some things are just by postulate. Some are a matter of earlier pleasant associations. Some choices are forced by charge, and we run out the charge. But maybe one still prefers cherries even though one no longer dislikes cheese. > These involves even the formation of some personality treats like: being > greedy, honest, generous, motivated etc. We can probably attribute greed to a case factor of some sort. The others may be subject to the whims of a thetan. Dishonesty with intent to harm could be considered to be an abberation, but not dishonesty in all its potential aspects. > If we are able to see how the identity or the basic personality is formed > then we are able to work withing ourselves and model ourselves as we decide > to be or act; we could appreciate things we never liked in the past or we > could be or just act like we never ever did. > You could even invert for a couple of days what you like and what you don't > , just to have a clue on what it feels beeing gay and disliking women and > viceversa. > In this way somebody could decide what he or she wants to be or how to live > his or her lives and this would be the ultimate freedom....but all this > could be attained IF we are thetans.... This can all be done by postulate and is what we are working towards. We are not all the way there yet, but it is possible sometimes. > Who was john Galusha ( he later developt idenics) and why did he > leave LRH ? I don't really know. I would be interested in hearing other peoples answers to this one. > >have you ever done idenics processing? No. > Let's talk about the freezone and OT levels: i leave in italy and here > there are no freezoners that i am aware of....but in germany i was > asked to pay the same fees of the church; I am surprised that freezone prices were not significantly lower than that of the orthodox organization. But each freezone group is different and separate, so there would not be any constant rule. Most seem to charge less. If there were more open competition, I would expect the organizations to straighten out and have more reasonable prices. > i feel like auditng should be really free and if somebody wants > to make a living out of the fees should be very minimal, If somebody is working professionally, they deserve to be paid. CofS prices tend to be absurdly high, but even a sensible price would not be truely cheap. A reasonable price would be similar to the charge for professional time in other fields. But much processing could be done solo (as in my self clearing book), and there could be much amateur co-auditing and group processing. And there could be cheap processing by part time semi-professions and much else that could be done. In this way, much of the processing could be cheap or free and the professionals would act like the specialists do in other fields. > i feel like LRH tech should be free and available to everyone who wants > to try it or apply it and that freezoners should unity together and > HELP who ever asks for help like good samaritans do, we don't > have to pay legal fees, pay the church rent etc, so we all should > consider to bemore less greedy and really help even freely . I think that the tech itself should cost the price of the books it is printed in, for the sake of mankind. In other words, the knowledge should be easily accessible, just as it is in the scientific fields. As for being good samaritans, there are many who will but it is a personal matter rather than something that one could demand. > I also have questions about the OT levels: the ot levels on the net are > quite old OT V now has 26 steps where can i find these steps on the net and > what are they ? also....if LRH was so smart how come he never went to a > local hgc to see what was delivered ??? we have this NEW OTV levels coming > from places LRH used to live, are you sure they are original ? i feel very > puzzled that LRH did not know and that public had to be waiting RTC to > come up with these 26 steps.... Old OT 5 and 6 consisted of OT drills. They are around on the Net but the location shifts sometimes. It pretty much matches what I recall running when I did these levels. New OT 5 is NOTS and there is a complete NOTS auditor's pack on the net. About half of the NOTs series was on the Solo Nots course. They only teach the valence technique and general theory on new OT 6 (Solo Nots), so they leave out the bulletins on the audited rundowns, but I did have those run on me as part of OT 5. I can confirm that the ones I checked out on are accurate and the others match what I was run on. Rumor has it that Ron once snuck into the New York Org in disguise while he was hiding out in New York City (early 1970s). I'm not sure what, if anything, resulted from this. > Also could you please tell me what 'on OT8 ? it deals with whole track > amnesia....( i thought overts and low responsibility lead to that ....sic) > i never read on the net anything concerning this so the ot ( on the net > should be a fake, like the LS on the clambake page.... There are many OT8s on the net. One of them is charting out one's past lives and seems to be basically the same as the original OT 1 (and which was briefly the original OT 4). I have not done the modern OT 8 but the whole track mapping seems reasonable. I put a better version of how to do that in the self clearing book. Note that the original, unreleased, OT 8 would be something else because it had old OT 4-7 as preliminary steps. Since they will probably be re-released as new OT 9 to 12, the original 8 might end up as OT 13. The most common of the OT 8s on the net (with the business about Jesus being a pederast) does not seem like it is by Ron. > >much love, > >LittleLRH Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - GPMs (attn John Alexander) GPMS AND A QUESTION FOR JOHN ALEXANDER On 3 Feb 98, "John Alexander" posted on subject "To Alan Walter" > Dear Alan: > > I have found your postings on A.C.T to be consistently informative and > enlightening. > > One of my areas of curiosity is the history of the evolution of processing > technology which occurred during the early to mid sixties, some of which you > have touched upon in your postings on BPC handling and in other areas. > > I have studied Jack Horner's handwritten notes of Hubbard's lectures (both > from tapes and live lectures) from St. Hill during part of that period, but > they are somewhat abbreviated, and pretty hard to decipher. It is quite > apparent from the notes that there was a great deal of change in a short > space of time. Jack's notes end in about mid 1964, and it appears that the > GPM technology at that point had gotton pretty close to what Jack taught his > students in the 70's, although Jack's notes leave many questions. > > I got tremendous benefit from Jack's teaching of that material, as did > many others I knew then, and I have always been rather mystified that the > materials have seemed to drop off the edge of the earth. For example, even > in the "Pilot's" Super Scio, the chapter on "actual GPMs" seems to be > written in complete ignorance of what GPMs had become in maybe the last year > or two of their research. > > Further, I have not been able to identify any continuity between that > material and the Clearing Course which I believe came out right afterwards, > in about 1965. Just to try to develop some personal reality on the subject > I did finally run the CC a few passes through this last summer - it ran OK , > but I didn't get anywhere the level of insight, gains etc. that I got from > running GPMs or, for that matter, running Clean Slate on the Knowledgism > glossary terms. In my experience, running the CC was more like running the > telephone directory. (I snipped the rest of his interesting post). First comes the early GPM period at the begining of the SHSBC. It starts with "SOP Goals" and carries on into R3A, R3D, R3DXX, R3GA, and R3GAXX. (the XX is pronounced "criss cross" and is basically back and forth opposition type listing. The GA stands for "goals assessment"). The early period has a vague idea of GPMs. Then comes 1963 and the mapping of implants such as Helatrobus. Running implants by item on a known platen was R3N. Concurrent with this was the more precise R3M process for listing GPM items (terminals and opposition terminals) in an opposition type line plot. The theory was still that there were both implanted and actual GPMs. The 1963 tapes and bulletins on R3M and R3N were made confidential in the initial fit of keep it all hidden, but later they were declassified. They are not in the old tech volumes, but they are in the new tech volumes. This is the last of the GPM research for which complete data is available from the CofS. My own work on actual GPMs is a sequal to the 1963 theory on actual GPMs. I applied the expanded grades principle, which was to run everything (all the older processes to relieve charge on the goal as well as the latest and greatest) and I ended up using a modified version of R3M as the lineplot technique. The subsequent R6 GPM research in 1964-5 is still confidential and a bit clouded in mystery. Some of the data is on SHSBC tapes, but much of it is on the Staff Clearing tapes (SC) most of which have only been heard by a handfull of people. SC-1 is "Summary of R6" parts 1 and 2 given on Dec 30, 1963. The research line seems to have included at least some of the implant platens that later were put onto OT 2 (the basic implant described on one of the later SHSBC tapes seems to be the one that ended up in chapter 8 of OT 2) and finally ends up with the CC platens. Very little of this material was ever on the R6 or CC courses. Of course there is the clearing course film (of 3 Sept 65) which has not yet been posted. And there is the R6 Film "Pattern of the Bank" (SHSBC 51 of 30 Dec 64) and the "Mastery of GPMs" film/lecture (SHSBC 50 of 22 Dec 64) which have been posted to the net by Scamizdat. These are among the few SHSBC tapes that were later marked confidential and are not included in the SHSBC cassettes. I have not heard the Staff Clearing tapes. There were quite a few of them and they are listed in the old tech volumes (but the titles are omitted in the new tech volumes). They have titles like "Objects of the Mind" which obviously refers to the "Objects" sections of the CC. So I have a blank spot in this area of tech. I would really like to know what the hell Ron thought he was doing at this point in the research. I percieve the whole CC objects section as a 4 dimensional object seen from 3 dimensions (take a 3 dimensional glass and use it to trap a 2 dimensional being and he will percieve a 2 dimensional hollow circle as it catches him). But I have no idea what Ron thought or if I've missed something that he was able to spot on this. Although the CC is nowhere near as basic as Ron thought it was, there is still some charge that one can get off by running it. If you do have more material on the GPM research line, please post it. It would be a big help. I'm facinated by the entire research line. Alan has posted some good stories and I hope he does more. Some of the people I hung around with in the 60s had stories going all the way back to the 1950s, but my own involvement starts in the mid 60s at an outer org. Thank you, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lakis on CBR Etc. TO LAKIS ON CBR ETC. On 4 Feb 98, lakis agrogiannis asked on subject "To Pilot" > Hi Pilot! > > A delayed answer, but a thankful one. You responded nicely > to my questions, thanks. I don't know if I agree totally with everything > you say but you are definitely contributing greatly in the Freezone, and > itïs very worthwhile hearing what you have to say. > > This time I would like your input on: > > (1) CBR(Captain Bill Robertsson), I was shocked by his death, and it > came at a time when he was talking about "caseless state", and put a big > questionmark on his technical work. What you think of him? I already wrote a bit about this to Oleg (see the Pilot archives). I believe that he was well intentioned and may have originated some useful tech. I am a bit dubious about some of his cosmology but I don't claim perfection in this area myself, so we shall see. As to his dying, many great gurus have died, including LRH. I expect to myself unless I reach an extremely high state. Complete freedom from death would include the ability to mockup and unmock bodies in the real world at will. Levitating ashtrays is trivial by comparison. The ability to teleport at will would be an expected side effect. For a more normal guru, one would hope to retain consciousness and recall in the between lives area and into the next life. Weather LRH or Capt. Bill achieved this still remains to be seen. By the way, in the case of any tech done solo (such as Trom which you asked me about before), it is best to have an array of techniques which can dig you out if you get in trouble. Trom includes one such technique, but that might not been enough. The early chapters of the self clearing book are useful for this purpose in all cases. > (2) Another fellow that I would value a comment from you about is > George Filbert. What is he up to, what's the percentage of truth in what > he's saying about LRH? It's Geoffery Filbert (I used to call him Jeffery because I had mosty heard his name rather than seen it in writing). His tech is fairly accurate. As to the LRH stories, I don't know for sure. There is at least some truth but there might also be a bit of exaggeration or borrowing of other people's stories. For example, I know for sure that Mary Sue sometimes protected people from being declared suppressive, but I don't know if Geoffery was one of them. > By the way, Religious Tolerance is a fantastic idea to promote, it > can lead anywhere, it can even bring long term peace all over the place. > Isn't it connected with Granting Beingness, and Respect for others, and > their ideas? I believe if it is going to work, it has to be part of > every personïs conduct, Churchies, Freezoners,"Wogs", and everyone on > the planet. Correct. I have great hopes for this one in its ability to bring an end to the viscious behavior. > Have a great day. > > Lakis Thank you. I notice that you're getting a bit flamed on ARS for posting good theta. If you pour water on an oil fire, it only spreads the flames. If there is a reason for the person being ARC Broken, then saying how great the tech is just makes the ARC Break worse. You have to indicate the bypassed charge. Acknowledge what is causing the ARC Break. If, for example, somebody is mad about having been tossed in the RPF, they are going to jump down your throat when you say how great the tech is. If you at least acknowledge the outpoints, sometimes you can have a sane conversation. I continually say that I believe in the tech, but I don't try to push it too hard at the critics. Most of them have good reasons for being critics. An honest reform would cool a lot of the criticism down. It would be removing the actual source of the charge. Failing in that, the only hope is to disassociate the tech from the bad behavior of the organization so that it will survive despite the CofS's self destructive actions. I am trying to cover both of these bases. ARC, The Pilot ========================================== This set of posts used the following trailer ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see In German - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive #24 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. ------------------