Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 11 - OCT 1997 PILOT POSTS TO ARS
Date: 10 Oct 1997  14:00:11



POST11.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 11 - OCT 1997 PILOT POSTS TO ARS


Note that I am now numbering these archive posts as I issue them.  
The original set had 9 and the one last month brought the 
total to 10.

This set of posts is large (because I posted my research notes
to ACT and answered some very long posts from Russia) so I
spread it across 3 archive files, numbers 11 to 13, to keep
the file sizes down.


==========================================

Contents:


 Subj : Super Scio - SCN PULLS IN ATTACKS (Attn Cornelius)
 Subj : Super Scio - Dianetic Sessions (Attn Pope Charles)
 Subj : Super Scio - About Excalibur
 Subj : Super Scio - The RPF
 Subj : Super Scio - About Lonesome Squirrel
 Subj : Super Scio - About Forrie Ackerman
 Subj : Super Scio - Freezone Sea Org (attn Theta B)
 Subj : Super Scio Humor - Keeping Electricity Working
 Subj : Super Scio - Answering Homer About Mayo
 Subj : Super Scio - Attn Stephan Blandow about R245 and Reform
 Subj : Super Scio - Christianity (attn Michael, Joe, Neal, Keith)
 Subj : Super Scio - Discussion with Koos
 Subj : Super Scio - About Jewish Scientologists
 Subj : Super Scio - LRH SciFi (Review for St. Andreux)
 Subj : Super Scio - About THE TRUTH as Posted
 Subj : Super Scio Humor - About Sex and Uniforms
 Subj : Super Scio - Scientology Weddings


==========================================

 Subj : Super Scio - SCN PULLS IN ATTACKS (Attn Cornelius)


SCIENTOLOGY PULLS IN ATTACKS (ANSWERING CORNELIUS)

On 31 Aug 97, krasel@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel)
posted on subject "Does Scn pull it in?"

> As far as I understand Scientology, there is a doctrine that, when
> something bad happens to you, it is at least partially your fault:
> you are "pulling it in".
> 
> Is it possible to interpret this doctrine as follows? "Scientology
> currently is pulling in the reaction of European governments as a
> response to former overts committed in the organization."
> 
> --Cornelius.
> 
> -- 
> /* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
> /* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany   email: phak004@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de  SP3 */
> /* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are."  */

Absolutely.

The idea is obvious enough to most Scientologists that they think
of it occasionally, not just on the subject of the European
attacks but on the subject of all attacks in general.

The question gets asked often enough by the members that registrars 
and Sea Org executives are afraid of it because they are practicing 
double-think (as in Orwell's 1984) to avoid confronting this issue.

There are two ways that they use to push members off of this train
of thought.

The first is to scream loudly about the evil suppressives.  In other
words, to try and get off the hot seat by shifting the questioner's
attention onto the "bad guys".  They carefully ignore the fact that
there is an obscure HCOB which says that you can't go PTS to an SP
unless you have first comitted overts against them.  In other words,
even according to the tech, the over/withhold/pulling-it-in mechanism
is senior to the fact of suppression and PTSness.  (PTS = potential
trouble source, somebody who is suffering from the influences of
a suppressive person).

The second is to say that the "overt" which caused them to pull
in these attacks was something like "failing to get the stats up".
This is obviously stupid.  There is no cause and effect relationship.
But they say it anyway because it will sometimes trick the
questioner into feeling guilty for not paying enough money to the
org or not doing enough courses and sometimes they can even make a 
sale by jumping on this one hard with enough fake certainty that this
is the real reason for the attacks.

This is definitely a button to push on hard.  "What did you do
to pull in these attacks?".  


Best,

The Pilot

==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - Dianetic Sessions (Attn Pope Charles)


DIANETIC SESSIONS (ANSWERING POPE CHARLES)


On 20 Sept 97, wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
wrote on subject "Stupid Questions about Auditing":

> "The patient sits in a comfortable chair, with arms, or lies on a couch in
> a quiet room where perceptic distractions are minimal. The auditor tells
> him to look at the ceiling.  The auditor says: "when I count from one to
> seven your eyes will close."  
> The auditor then counts from one to seven and keeps counting quietly and
> pleasntly until the patient closes his eyes, A tremble of the lashes will
> be noticed in optimal reverie."
> 
> 
> Dianetics  Page 249    1992 edition.
> 
> Is this how a Scientology auditing session Begins?  Or is this 
> confined to Dianetics auditing?
> If Scientology auditing is different, what is the exact procedure?
> 
> Is the "look at the ceiling" still used?
> 
> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> Slack!
 

This has been obsolete since the early 1950s.

There is a beginner's Dianetic book co-audit which is based on the
Dianetics book.  I'm uncertain exactly how much of it is actually 
done according to the original book and how much is modernized
with more modern procedures (all techniques in DMSMH are obsolete
by modern standards, the book is only read on professional courses
for the underlying theory).  The exact degree to which they use
it in its original form may also have varried over the years.  So
you might or might not find things like the above used in this 
beginners course, but definitely nowhere else.

Professional Dianetic sessions (Standard Dianetics (HSDC) in the 1970s 
and New Era Dianetics (NED) subsequently) use the exact same session
procedure as Scientology sessions.  The CofS currently only uses NED 
in professional (paid for) auditing.  Note that Scientology 
auditor training to class 4 is currently a pre-requisite to
training on NED because modern Scientology metering techniques
etc. are needed to run NED.

The standard session procedure is known as "model session".  It 
evolved during the 1960s with various changes and pretty much
standardized in the Standard Tech era.

The setup is the one commonly depicted in the various magazines with
the PC sitting in an ordinary chair (often a cheep folding one) holding 
the cans and the meter hidden from his view behind a meter shield
so that only the auditor can see it.

One goes through a bit of preliminaries such as asking if the
room is alright to audit in and checking if the PC has had enough
sleep etc.  One says "Start of Session" (or "This is the Session" in
the old days) and then one checks the "rudiments".

The rudiments are a set of questions about things that could 
distract one to the point where it would be difficult to start a
new process on the person.  These are things like upsets (officially
called ARC Breaks - breaks in affinity, reality, or communication),
present time problems, and missed withholds (withholding an overt
act and having it "missed" by somebody nearly finding out about it).

When these things are out of the way, then a process can be run.
It might be Dianetics or a Scientology process.

The basic Dianetic process was R3R developed in 1963 (Routine 3 R, which 
means that it was originally a level 3 process (old system of levels, not
the current grade chart) and happened to get assigned letter R in
the lineup at that time).  It has gone through variations since
then (R3RA in standard dianetics, R3RN in NED, etc.).

In its simplest form (NED is a bit more complex), you might ask
the PC to "locate an incident that could have caused a pain in
the head" and then run him through it by asking for its date and
duration, telling him to move to the begining of the incident,
having him close his eyes, and asking him "what do you see?".
Then you tell him to move through the incident, and so forth.

There is nothing particularly hypnotic in the current procedure and
there is no attempt to try and introduce Dianetic reverie as it
was known in 1950.

The standard dianetic version is covered in detail in the book
"Dianetics Today" (out of print and hard to find) which basically
is a complete standard dianetics course pack compiled into book form.

For the latest NED version, you would need a NED course pack or
a set of the new tech volumes (the old tech volumes are from 1975 and
have the older standard dianetics version only).  But the main
differences in NED are simply an improvement in how to identify the 
item to be run and asking the PC (when the incident has errased) for 
the postulate that he made at the time of the incident.

I suppose that this is really more than you really wanted to know.


Bless me father for I have engrams,

The Pilot



==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - About Excalibur


ABOUT EXCALIBUR


There has been some talk about Ron's Excalibur book.

I am really hoping that somebody posts it because I would
very much enjoy reading it.

The rumor that I heard about it was from a Flag Class 8 back
in the 1970s.

She said that the class 8s at Flag were passing around a
xerox of it and that she had read it.  She said that it was
considered to be confidential and so she could not talk about
what was in it with one exception.

The exception was one section of the book which Ron had read
to the Philadelphi Doctorate Course students.  It was the
segment about the players of the game etc.

This is at the end of PDC lecture 39 of 12 Dec 52 titled
"Games Processing".  

He tells the students that he is going to read them something 
but he doesn't say where it is from.  My impression when I
first heard the tape (before I was told that it was an excerpt
from Excalibur) was that he had dug out some old research 
notes that he had written about the subject of games.

Here is a bit of it (consider this to be a book review, 
certainly a fair use quote).

"Now the cast system of games consists of this -

The Maker of Games - He has no rules, he runs by no rules.

The Players of the Game - Rules know but he obeys them.

The Assistant Players - Mearly obey the players

The Pieces - Obey rules as dictated by players, but
they don't know the rules (and then what do you know?).

And then there's Broken Pieces - They aren't even in the
game but they're still in the game (and they are in a terrible
maybe, am I in a game or am I not in a game).

Now, how to make a piece (this is how to make a piece) - 

1. Deny that there is a game
2. Hide the rules from them
3. Give them all the penalties and no wins
4. Remove all goals (ALL Goals)

Enforce them thier playing.
Inhibit their enjoying.

Make them look like but forbid their being like players
(look like god but you can't be god).

To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate
only with pieces and deny the existence of players (never
let the PCs find out that there are players).

Now out of this you're going to get a game".

---

Note that in "making a piece", he is talking about how to
reduce a thetan down to the status of only being a piece in
a game rather than a player.  Earlier in the lecture he was
talking about games processing and how to get somebody back
up to being a player.  In other words, this was not a formula
for processing but the exact opposite, a description of what
had been done to people that needed to be reversed by means
of games processing.


-----

Now it might be that somebody is reading this who has been
made into a piece.  This could be true on either side of
the conflict.  So let us try the following checklist.

Suspect that you are a piece (a pawn in somebody else's game) if:

a) Have you been made to look like either an OT or an expert
authority when you do not actually have the abilities?

b) Have the real rules of the game been hidden from you?

c) Do you just get penalties and no wins?

d) Have your own goals been lost somewhere along the line?

e) Are you being forced to play (by your own side)?

f) Are you being kept (by your own side) from having fun?

g) Are you unaware that there are many real players on ARS?

h) Are you unaware that a game is going on?


Note that I tried to make this test very fair, especially as
to the first question which is written in a manner that could
be answered by somebody on either side of the conflict.

Now if you have suddenly discovered that you are mearly a
pawn in a game, please wake up and smell the coffee.  Have
a look around on ARS and on the net.  Find out what is really
going on.  Begin to make up your own mind instead of thinking
what you are supposed to.  Gather up all the data that you
can and start making your own decisions.  Begin to play
for real.


Good Luck,

The Pilot


==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - About Lonesome Squirrel


THE LONESOME SQUIRREL


On 4 Sep 97, news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)
wrote on subject "Lonesome Squirrel"

> I'm reading Fishman's 'Lonesome Squirrel' at the moment, and
> I have to say that on the basis of the first five chapters,
> this is definitely my favourite of all the nut-cult memoirs.
> 
> The guy is a complete laff-riot. The Al Bundy of $cientology.
> Does he ever think about *anything* other than his dick? I'm
> starting to understand some of the cults DA posts here about
> his dating teenage girls/prostitutes now, but it's gotta be 
> hard to DA somebody *that* upfront about their sex-life.
> 
> I seem to recall some posts suggesting that not all of the 
> stuff in the book is true. Out of curiosity, can anyone tell 
> me which bits am I supposed to look out for and why?


I agree, its funny as all hell, and the title is quite catchy.
I found it a fun read, but I do consider it a work of fiction.

There is obvious insider information.  He either had excellent
sources or he was deeply involved in the subject, either in
the CofS or in a freezone group.

But there is a lot that doesn't jive.  A lot of it is incorrect
for the time period presented, in other words it might have been
correct auditing procedure ten years earlier or still be being done
that way at a splinter group but would have gotten his auditors
retrained in the time period in question.

Also, some of it is incorrect for a PC but would be appropriate
for somebody training as an auditor.

Let's take the clay tits story which people were having fun
with on ARS last year.  He "bullbaits" the girl running a
grade zero process on him, bothering her about her breasts,
and she ends up ordering him to make tits in clay.

This is totally unheard of in auditing a PC.

But this kind of thing is common among professional auditors
when they drill each other on how to run processes.  One of
them will play "PC" and harrass and bullbait the other one
so that they will never be thrown off base by having a PC act
like this.  And in that case, an auditor who was too fixated
on breasts might well be ordered to make tits in clay until
they got over it.

These drilling sessions on processes with a pretend PC bullbaiting
the auditor were really in vogue around 1973-4 while flag was
still at sea (before Clearwater) and faded out later.

A lot of his stuff sounds like 1960s or early 70s and some of
it even sounds like 1950s or splinter group ideas.

I've heard bad things about the GO, but his tales are more
extreme that anything I've heard even from disaffected ex-GO
members.  They just don't ring true, but again there may be
half truths present.

If somebody kept running back to their old psychiatrist like
he describes, they would have been out the door and barred from
any staff position.  They could petition to do services, and
if they had bucks in their hand the petition would be probably 
be granted, but if they did it again that would pretty much be 
the end of their involvement with the CofS.

I think that he should become a professional fiction writer.
He is good at it (really).  There are nowhere near enough
funny books.  I could imagine a really neat sci-fi comedy
about his adventures in the space org.  Maybe something like
"Barbarella" done with horny Marcabian ladies and a super 
Fishman who can make any girl yearn for him with his OT
powers.

In contrast, Bob Kaufman's insider story is accurate
as to the tech used at the time he was involved.  It would
be totally incorrect and obviously false if it was even
two years earlier or later than the date stated.  The tech
used to change very fast while Ron was still alive.

Best,

The Pilot


==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - The RPF


THE RPF


The Rehabilitation Project Force, or RPF is the Sea Org's way
of "rehabilitating" errant sea org members so that they can 
become good boys and girls again.

I have not been in the RPF myself, but there are endless rumors
about the abusive conditions in the RPF.  I've heard stories
around the org and seen the way RPFers behave, so I'm inclined
to believe most of the tales I have seen on the internet because
they do fit the evidence.

In other words, although the internet tales could be made up
or exaggerated, all indications are that that these are at least
mostly true.

On story I heard back in the 1970s from a current sea org member 
at that time was as follows:

Somebody (I don't remember the name) was in the RPF at Flag
(or on the Flagship? - its been a long time since I heard the
story) and Ron came through on an inspection.  He sarcastically
asked "Well, ...(name), how do you like the RPF".  The guy replied
that he did like it because he was finally able to get audited
(the one supposed benifit was the readit-drillit-doit coaudit
that the RPFers engaged in).  Supposedly, Ron created the
RPFer's RPF on the spot and tossed this guy into it.

My own experiences were only with lower ethics conditions and
outer org staff.  The worst that ever happened to me was
being handcuffed to a pipe for an hour.  Not even uncomfortable
actually, but very very bad for one's mental state.

Between the overboarding (cold showers), liability formulas
(sleepless all night ammends projects), various other stuff 
like being told I was being declared (didn't happen) or the
handcuffing (part of a doubt condition - the one where I 
cognited that tech was good but policy was suppressive and
only wrote up the first half to get out of the handcuffs),
and what with the execs yelling and screaming, and watching
all the abuses being done to others (one guy was made to
stand in a dark closet and people would periodically pull
the door open and throw a bucket of dirty water on him), I
sometimes went into a complete daze, caught between my high
goals to clear the planet and the horror that was being practiced.
I remember that once I wandered the streets for an entire day
unable to clear my thinking and confront what was going on.

All indications are that the lot of the Sea Org members and
especially those in the RPF was ten times worse than what
I experienced.

Now my question is, how could somebody praise this kind of
shit saying that it is good for one or could rehabilitate
anybody?  Note that I'm talking here about the RPF, lower
condition penalties, and abuses of any kind, I'm not talking
about the tech which I do think can help people.

I can see three possibilities:

1) The guy just doesn't know.  He has never been in the SO and
he is believing "shore stories" and justifications.

2) The guy is an OSA stooge who is lying in his teeth.

3) The guy has actually been through the RPF and has had
his mind adjusted to the point where he loves his masters,
1984 style.  

According to Ron, a being who is overwhelmed enough 
begins to like it.  In the early tech, this was seen
as one of the sources of masochism and the method by which
somebody comes under the domination of an SP.  In the early
days this was seen as something to be auditied out rather
than something to be used to control people.  But the RPF
is an example of how to apply this tech in a reverse or
evil manner ("Black Scientology") so as to add to a person's
abberations instead of freeing him.

The RPF is most certainly one of the things that has to 
go if the CofS is to exist in the 21st century.


Regretfully,

The Pilot

==========================================



 Subj : Super Scio - About Forrie Ackerman

ABOUT FORRIE ACKERMAN

On 2 Sep 97, inducto@aol.com (Inducto) posted
on subject "Did Hubbard have ANY friends?"


> Chris Owen wrote:
>> Forrie Ackerman, the sci-fi freak and Hubbard's agent, definitely
>> considered himself Hubbard's friend (and seemingly his friendship
>> was reciprocated).
> 
> You must be referring to Forrest Ackerman, who was interviewed for Bare
> Faced Messiah and referred to as Hubbard's "former" literary agent.  (isn't
> Author Services the corporation Hubbard formed so he wouldn't have to pay
> outside agents?)
> 
> From the tone of Ackerman's interview, it seems like he ranks with
> Heinlein and Ellison as colleagues from Hubbard's sci-fi writer days who
> sporadically kept in touch with Hubbard but were cynical about Dianetics
> and Scientology, not major additions to the (still empty) category of "friends".
> 
> If you have another source where he says friendlier things about Hubbard,
> please quote and cite it.
> 
> Inquiringly,
> 
> I.

Forrest Ackerman was the main speaker at a "Ron" event in the 1980s.
He had a large display of Pulp magazines with Ron's stories in them
set up on tables around the walls.  He was totally non-Scientology,
it just had nothing to do with him and he wasn't saying anything about
it.  He talked extensively about his early experiences with Ron and
he sounded quite friendly, but of course there was no substance
nor was there anything interesting enough to have stuck in my mind.

But it was quite interesting to see him because he is almost legendary
in the Sci-Fi field.  He appears as a character in a number of
other writer's stories, such as Farmer's pornographic "Image of the
Beast" series.  In Niven and Pornelle's "Inferno", they have him
in hell because he let his magazine collection suffer from water
damage.


Best,

The Pilot

 
==========================================
                                                        
                                                         

 Subj : Super Scio - Freezone Sea Org (attn Theta B)


THE FREEZONE SEA ORG

On 27 Sep 1997, thetafl@aol.com (ThetaFL) wrote


>       FREEZONE SEA ORG
> 
>   Yes folks, we are forming the Sea Org in the Freezone. A reformed Sea
> Org in the  Freezone where a difference in the sanity of the planet can
> REALLY be made. 
>     No human rights violations (no RPF), no dismal working conditions or
> crummy food. No more sleeping like pigs in a sty or sardines in a can. Work
> at your own pace and get more done than those mindless fanatics at flag. 
>     We care a lot more about the quality of the work than chasing stats
> down the street. 
>    Except for the 22 member Bridge Team everyone else will work at home or
> their office. Yes, we will someday have real Orgs but not the slave labor
> camps that the present illegal and bogus leaders of Scientology provide.
> The way that the present Orgs are run the planet will never be cleared.
> Humanity needs the tech in an accessible way that is in harmony with all
> the dynamics, this means no more rip offs!
>    We, the founders of the new and reformed Sea Org will deliver a
> manifesto within the next few months detailing our plan to put Scientology
> back on the bridge and the current crop of DBs running it out on the
> streets where they belong.
> 
>     Theta B., Provisional Captain of the Reformed Sea Org
> 
> When we are strong enough all names will be revealed. To get on our
> mailing list just send me an e-mail.


Good for you!

The name Freezone Sea Org is a nice attention getter for promoting
the effort, but you really should have an official name that is
slightly different.  How about The Un-Sea-Org.

Are you planning on standard or an enhanced standard tech or some
other flavor or a pick and choose smorgasboard like Valerie Stansfield
was doing at her freezone center?

Are you planning on other reforms?  I've been promoting a whole list
of things to fix.  The most extensive version is in the final section
(number 32 of 32) of the Super Scio post.

I find it unbelievable that some idiot actually responded by
singing the virtues of the notorious RPF.  I'll post some more
about that separately.


Best Wishes,

The Pilot

==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio Humor - Keeping Electricity Working


HUMOR - KEEPING ELECTRICITY WORKING


The loyalist officers in 4th dimensional hiding captured the
following post from the alt.religion.electricity newsgroup
in an alternate universe.  Any resemblance to Earth people
living or dead is purely accidental and is due to God playing
dice with the various universes.

 - The Pilot

====================


KEEPING ELECTRICITY WORKING -  A 21st Century Retrospective


By David MissCambridge, Keeper of the Current

Issue authority granted by the first Church of Edison


As KofC of the CofE, it is with humble pride and pleasure that
I announce the upcoming hundreth anniversary of one of our
most basic policies, Keeping Electricity Working, issued by
our glorious founder on Jan 17, 1898.

It is this policy above all others which has preserved the
technology of electricity for us and future generations.

It was here that TOM first identified the evil world conspiracy
of financiers, plagarists, and space aliens that was attempting
to pervert his discoveries and deny electricity to mankind.

Consider, for example, the evil Tesla who proposed that
the divine current should ALTERNATE!  A stupid and ridiculous
idea.   How would it achive any useful work if the current 
simply zig zagged back and forth in the wires?  He would have
undermined the entire struture of DIRECT CURRENT which moves 
DIRECTLY to its target and achieves LIGHNING FAST 100 PERCENT
STANDARD RESULTS.

But TAE, by virtue of his superior genius, saw that it wasn't
just the yappings of Tesla and Westinghouse, for the same
attacks and unworkable ideas were showing up all over the
world.

Of course we know that the characteristics of a suppressive
person would be to deny the truth of the CofE and seek to
deny it financing by undercutting its prices.  But it was
only TAE himself who could spot the true source of all these
SPs, the true suppressive influence behind them.

We now know that it was the Venusians, led by their evil
telepathic ruler, XeMoonie, who inspired these diabolical
attacks.  But by means of our tin foil protective hats and
an enlightened leagal system, we have driven his influences
off of Earth and will keep mankind free of his dreadful 
doings.

Now remember the key points, 

1. stamp out any experimentation or variation of our workable tech.  

2. Buy a fresh foil hat from your local CofE every year

3. Report any squirrel wire twisters to the police immediately.  

Remember that only certified CofE graduates may work on anything
connected with electricity.  We know that the courses are
expensive, but the results are proven.

For Electricity is dangerous and anyone who applys sqirrel 
practicies to twist wires on their own could be electrocuted 
or have their house burned down.  Your entire neighborhood is
at risk if you ignore them.  Keeping our homes safe is everybody's
job.


And we have a wonderful new TECH BREAKTHROUGH to announce.

By careful study of TAE's research notes, we have discovered
that the size of the wire might be increased to carry more
current.

Our new double sized copper conductors will be available
next year at only $100 dollars a yard.   Not only will this
bring about obvious savings, but it will allow the average
apartment house to support more lighting fixtures.

With this breakthrough, we think that it will even be possible
to place lights in stairwells.  Just imagine it, your iceman
will no longer have to stumble around in the dark with a heavy
and potentially dangerous cube of ice for your icebox.

We are working now on a project to carve TAE's writtings onto
iron plates and burry these in secret vaults all over the
world.  This will ensure that future civilizations will
benifit from his wisdom and knowlege.  Send your contributions
in now.

Building a better future,

Davy

(end of interdimensionally captured transmission)



==========================================



 Subj : Super Scio - Answering Homer About Mayo


ANSWERING HOMER ABOUT MAYO


On 9 Sept 97, "Homer W. Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> responded
on subject "Super Scio - On Confusing Pilots and Mayonaise"

 
> The Pilot (pilot@hiddenplace.com) wrote:
> 
>> philosophies.  Even outside orthodox Scientology, David is
>> basically a standard tech adherent.  
> 
> Not.
> 
>> So don't confuse pilots and mayonaise.  The one comes packaged in
>> a jar, standard and certified, a predictable product.  
> 
> Present time Mayo bears no resemblance to anything standard, and
> certified that comes in a jar.
> 
> Have you talked to him recently?
> 
> Homer

Nope.  I have no idea of what he is up to except that there is
a cute picture of him at the beach available on the net.

In the old days he was Mr Standard Tech.  When he launched the
AAC it was still pretty much a standard operation.  I'm only
familiar with his version of the Nots levels and they seemed
pretty similar to the org's.  In other words, he seemed like
freezone "standard tech" (in contrast to Alan for example).

If he has advanced to discovering new theories and techniques,
then I'm very glad to hear it.  He does have tremendous experience
with the subject and one really would expect him to make new
breakthroughs.

My post was mainly meant to point out the stupidity of thinking
that I'm David Mayo.  If we were the same it would make it too 
easy for the org to play dead agenting games and it reduces the
number of opponents.  So I trashed the idea as hard as I could.
If I offended David, my appologies.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - Attn Stephan Blandow about R245 and Reform


ANSWERING STEPHAN - About R245 and Reform


On Sat, 06 Sep 1997, Stefan Blandow <steff0@stuttgart.netsurf.de>
Stefan Blandow <steff0@stuttgart.netsurf.de>


> The Pilot wrote:
> > 
> > MORE ON R2-45 AND JOKING
> > 
> 
> Have the wrong newser <snip>
> 
> 
> > It used to be that you could sit around in the course room
> > laughing at the tapes and joking with the other students.
> > We used to say "if it isn't fun, it isn't Scientology".
> 
> The truest thing there is, gosh and golly, and big eyes, all the time.
> 
> Again,<snip>
> What newsreader can you recommend, Pilot, The
> 
> > Sorry if I've gotten carried away here,
> 
> May your wings take you far away and carry back, I was behind you
> 
> 		steff

Sounds like you're an old timer.  Please post some stories.

I'm especially interested in what was happening at the top while
I was off in the boonies.  Or stories of how things were before
I got involved.

I wonder sometimes how much of the sane, smart, and pleasant
organization that I joined was really a product of the people who
had been in since the 1950s and were trying to make the dream
real.

The results were always sporatic.  There was a lot of individual
effort to smooth over the rough spots.

The long term solution was seen as more research.  We didn't
have all the answers.  We didn't even have expanded grades
but we did have the occasional keyed out OT, just enough wild
and sporatic phenomena to let us know that we were hot on the
trail of something.

But clear and the early OT levels were coming out even as I was
getting involved and joining staff and training as an auditor.

There was a lot of wishful thinking about the confidential levels
that were coming out.  Even the top class 7 auditors hadn't done 
these things.  So everybody was still coping and making do.  There
was no idea of being standard or having all the answers.

But there was the heavy PR coming down from on high which said
that Ron finally had found all the answers and that these OT
levels were it.  In retrospect, knowing now what was on those
levels, it was a gross betrayal.  Not because the data was wrong,
but because it was shallow and motivatorish and was not of
comparable magnitude to things that had been found earlier.

That stuff could have been put out as another little piece in
the puzzel.  The solo audit techniques could have been released
as the solution to getting enough auditing cheeply (the PC
audits himself).

We could have embarked upon digging out the thousands of earlier
processes, dusting them off, and filling out the lineup.  The
research could have continued.

Instead Ron had to take to sea and pour money down the funnel
of a floating albaross and crush all the voices of dissent.

As each new tidal wave swept the beach, we thought that it
was the last.  We blamed the insanities on the fact that the
operation was new and the sea org staff was green.   We expected
that Ron would train them up and that they would get through
the new and wonderful OT levels and be freed of the abberations
that caused them to wreak havoc on the landscape.

But instead, the tidal waves grew higher, and after FEBC training,
the dramatizations were worse instead of better.

And the clearing course and OT levels were shown to be failures
as to solving abberation.  People did make gains while running
them but they were far from being the ultimate and final solution
that they were promoted as.   The only thing that prevented a
total collapse was the introduction of expanded grades, and
Ron didn't even bother to put those together himself, he just
deligated it to others to dig out some of the old processes
which had worked well in earlier days.

But force and exploitation and money making continued to be
the order of the day.

Which is why I am pushing so hard for reform.  Once upon a
time there was a group that I could be proud of and which
I could in good conscience introduce my friends to.

I want very much to make the dream real and achieve those
early goals.  It does seem like the only way is to fly
far and circle back, spiraling ever higher.

Enough for now.

As to your question about newsreaders, If you are running
under windows I would suggest that you get a copy of Free
Agent which is shareware that is easily downloadable.

Even if you are making due with the newsreader capability
of Netscape (download the latest release), you can write
your posts with an ordinary text editor and then pickup
the file from the newsreader.

Personally, I write everything with a text editor and jam it 
into the newsfeed with homebrew code, so I don't use any 
commercial software to post.  I do it this way because I
wish to remain anonymous.  That way I can ensure that everything
in the message header (even the date time stamps and posting
host) is bogus.  You don't need to go to such extremes.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================
  

 Subj : Super Scio - Christianity (attn Michael, Joe, Neal, Keith)


RESPONDING ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY AND CHRISTIANITY

The discussion began with a post of Keith's.  Michael Voytinsky
responded with a list of various points criticizing Scientology.
And I decided to put in my own two cents worth, reinforcing some
points and suggesting that others should be discarded or revised
because they were too weak or questionable.  One of the points
I felt was weak was the anti-christian thing and both Neal Hamel
and Joe Harrington took exception to that.

Here is the start of my 5 Sept post to set the context -
the subject line was "Super Scio - Answering Michael Voytinsky"

# ANSWERING MICHAEL VOYTINSKY
#
# On 25 Aug 97, "Michael Voytinsky" <michaelv@NOSPAM.igs.net>
# posted the following:
# 
#
# > Keith <kewyatt@kelly.teleport.com> wrote in article
# > <5trn6h$lcu$1@nadine.teleport.com>...
# > 
# > > The one thing I know is that the picture of Scientology as a whole
# > > is nothing like it is portrayed here on ARS.
# > 
# > Please enlighten us about what Scientology is really like.
#
# I thought that I might butt in here, not meaning to get in to a fight
# over these things but simply to let you know what is obvious even
# to a Scientologist verses what seems to be questionable ground.
# I do want the Scientologists to wake up and if there are weak spots
# in a list like this, they use them to wiggle out from under instead
# of facing the unpleasant truths.
# 
# > Are any of the following false:

<snipping all but the point under discussion>
 
#> 4) Scientology's claim that it is compatible with other religions is a lie.
# 
# Again shakey.  I would say that it is half compatible, requiring
# significant adjustments of faith as one advances.  The heavy
# anti-Christ comment on the Class VIII tape is not only confidential
# but is also restricted to Class VIII auditors only, so that even an 
# OT 8 is unaware of it.  People who do OT 3 are not told that business
# about Christianity being an R6 dramatization and are not forced
# to abandon Christian ideas.  I never saw it until I read it on
# the internet, and I still discount it as one of Ron's mistakes.
# 
# The most that you could say would be that the inner circle of
# Scientology management is hostile towards Christianity.  You can't
# really say it of the membership even at the upper levels.
# 
# But one is expected to come to an acceptance of past lives.  That,
# however, is true of all of the Christian metaphysical practices
# in the US, so its not that big a jump.  I was raised a token
# Lutheran with heavy metaphysical trimmings (Edgar Casey, Cosmic 
# Conciousness, etc.) so I found 100 percent compatibility between
# the Christianity I was raised in and Scientology and I still
# consider myself a Christian although many Christians would think
# of me as some strange sort of heritic.
 
To this Neal Hamel responded:

> Once again, not shakey.  Here is a quote from the publically available
> PAB 31 written in the 50's:
> 
>     "Religion does much to keep the assumption in restimulation,
>      being basically a control mechanism used by those who have
>      sent the preclear into a body. You will find the cross as a
>      symbol all over the universe, and the Christ legend as
>      implant in preclears a million years ago."
> 
> 
> and this from the same PAB:
> 
>     "A few operating thetans -scarcity- could lead to trouble.
>     Witness the chaos resulting from the activities and other
>     determinism technology of one operating thetan, 2,000 years ago.
>     It is despicable and utterly beneath contempt to tell a man he
>     must repent, that he is evil. Those who talk most about peace on
>     earth and good-will among men themselves carry forward the seas
>     of unrest, war and chaos."
> 
> In other words, Hubbard is saying that Christ's message is despicable.
> Compatible?  Most emphatically not!
> 
> -Neal H.

On Sept 6, Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net> picked up
Neal's post and carried it further, providing one of his own
earlier essays in which he also quoted PAB 31 and a lot of other
material (Helatrobus Heaven implant references etc.).  Since this
has been posted before, and since the original materials are
available at the clambake website,  I wouldn't repeate the entire 
thing here.  The only incorrect reference that he quotes is
the bogus OT 8 of 1980 (probably part of Capt Bill's Galatic 
Patrol stuff - see Bill's website and compare the style)
and omitting it doesn't invalidate the rest of Joe's paper.

As to PAB 31, all that I can say is that I've been shot in the
ass.  The damn tech volumes (old or new version) do not include
this one (they skip from PAB 28 to PAB 32).  So now I'm hunting
for one of the old books of collected PABs, I think that I have 
one burried in a box somewhere.

But I think that my earlier argument still holds true.

In the 1950s, Ron was generally careful to label his own 
anti-Christian sentiments as a personal matter and divorce them
from the tenents of Scientology.  He even starts out the same
way with his anti-Psych rantings, telling people that they don't
have to agree with it or accept it as part of the subject of
Scientology.

But his postion on psychs deteriorates rapidly and eventually he
has them labled as the enemy and the orgs primed for active 
attack against them.

As to Christianity, he remains fairly mellow until the black
days when he founded the Sea Org and even then his rantings
in this regard are kept confidential.  And, thank goodness,
he never primes the organization to get into a fight with
Christianity as they do with the psychs and "squirrels".

And so you will not find overt behavior.

The only solid ground is as follows:

a) Hubbard himself did not like Christianity.

b) Scientologists must adjust any other religious beliefs that
   they hold so as to allow for the existance of past lives.

c) Currently the inner circle of Scientology management does
   hold anti-Christian sentiments because of various confidential
   rantings.

My own personal agenda for reforming Scientology requires that
point c) above must change.

This is one of the many things that went bad as Scientology
entered its psychotic phase in the late 1960s.  It shifted
from a base of ARC (affinity, reality, and communciation)
and responsibility to a base of hatred and blame everything
on the bad guys.

The anti-Christian sentiments are the least of it and are not
encouraged among the membership.  The anti-sex sentiments are
stronger (they now qualify for Orwell's "Junior Anti-Sex League"
as described in 1984) and are pushed at the membership.  The
anti-homosexual ones are even stronger and bar one from upper
levels.  And all of these pale against the real hatred of
SPs, Psychs, and "Squirrels" where the org attacks actively.

All this hatred has to go.  None of it was present in the
gentle organization that I originally gave my alliegance to.
What I remember is John Mac (the first clear) giving nice lectures 
reconciling his own Christian and Scientology beliefs, and he 
didn't even bother to reconcile his homosexuality with Scientology 
because  it wasn't even an issue in those days.  Of course he is 
long since declared suppressive as was any voice of reason during
the Sea Org madness.

My real point is that the anti-Christian arguments are weak
and do not ring true with the membership.  They come across
as false accusations even when they are not, and there are
so many contrary examples such as myself who do reconcile
Scientology with Christianity that you will end up with
pissing contests instead of delivering a good solid blow that
might wake somebody up.

So why throw marshmellows when you've got real rocks in the
arsenel?

Again confessing to my own personal agenda here, I encourage
valid attacks (please, no violence) because Scientology management
must be made to change.  Reforming Scientology at this time
requires pressure both from without and from within.

But please keep it on solid ground.  Haggling and name calling
and saying what a shit Hubbard was or things to that effect
just encourages the "us versus them" attitude that I want to
eliminate.


  
Best,

The Pilot

==========================================



 Subj : Super Scio - Discussion with Koos


KOOS DISCUSSION

For once Koos has said a couple of correct things mixed into
his usual rantings.

Therefore I will treat this message with respect and try to answer
it in a sensible and reasonable manner rather than making fun.

On 6 Sep 97, Koos Nolst Trenite <Koos.Trenite@trenite.de> wrote 
in response to my previous post "Super Scio - Adventures in Koosland"


> Interesting how "Mr. Anonymous and Hidden The Pilot" uses all the
>  SAME kinds of terms and same attempts to make nothing of Koos, to
> make Koos "not exist", as the other well-known psychos do.
>
> This really tells all about Mr. Anonymous Hidden "The Pilot".
> 
> "The Pilot" would make a good OSA-frontman (per the excellent and
>  correct definition provided recently to us by Robert Vaughn Young).

If I were an OSA front man, would I be complaining about the
evils of the RPF, the wrongness of attacking the freezone, or
putting up webpages like "The Orgs Grades are Out"?


> Scientologists (L. Ron Hubbard, Richard Reiss, "The Pilot") try to
>  enforce the idea that the only future lies in Scientology.

Don't confuse apples and oranges.

I think that the future lies in understanding and deveoping the
capabilities of the mind and spirit.  I might sometimes loosely 
call this Scientology, but I don't mean the CofS.  I mean anything
which works in this direction, which would even include you if
you ever achive real wisdom.


> That idea happens to be very false.
> 
> The truth is that the communication techniques of Scientology,
>  called Auditing, will be taken over by other disciplines of
>  science and therapy; and those people will create the future,
>  and not Scientologists.

This is fine by me.  Whoever can use it should use it.  If it
is true, then it is science and natural law which cannot be
copyrighted or owned by any singular individual or group. 

 
> I'm very sorry to tell this to Scientologists and to their OSA-guys,
>  but that is how it will be:
> 
> The future lies in life, and in people who USE discoveries, and not
>  with those of Scientology Organizations, who prevent people from
>  using new discoveries, or who use discoveries only to dominate
>  people.

This statement is the reason I am treating your post with respect.
Because this is correct.

The CofS will only have a place in the future if they reform 
completely and become helpers instead of dominators.

 
> Thus there will be no "Super Scio" or Scientology in charge of life,
>  but there will be LIFE, and people will use whatever discoveries
>  there are, for LIFE, and not for a fascistic idea.

Here you are totally off base.  Where have I ever said that Super
Scio will be in charge of life?

Neither super scio nor scientology as a technical subject could 
ever be in charge of life, because they are tools and studies.

You are confusing these things with the official "Church of
Scientology" (the CofS) which is an organization that is trying to run 
peoples lives and is doing a very bad job of it.

If you want to call the CofS fascistic, I can see your point.
But that is not me and it is not the tech.  Please get the difference
instead of generalizing.

 
> There are many discoveries that have been made, already in the last
>  two centuries, which will affect spiritual and social life of the
>  future and will mould it 

Agreed.  Again you are correct.


>     - the idea that you would be all set if
>  you only study Scientology, or only "Super Scio", is entirely false,
>  but such a false idea is necessary to create and maintain a mafia
>  and a monopoly.

Yet again you confuse me with the CofS.  Have I ever said that I
had all the answers?  I have done the exact opposite.  I bend
over backwards to encourage freezone research and other seekers
of truth.

It is only the CofS which is currently claiming to have all the
answers and trying to maintain a monopoly.  This is simply an
organization which is behaving very badly, acting like the mafia
and attacking any attempts to further research the subject.
It is not even the Scientology tech which does this, but simply
the existing organization.


> The hidden motive for such false ideas, is - AS ALWAYS - the refusal
>  to face suppression from one or more individuals.
>  (see the 'Understanding Suppression Series'
>       http://Art-Org.com/ri-bulletins/usp.htm)

You have too many things confused together here.

The hidden motive for acting like the mafia and dominating others
is very simply a desire to dominate and control and enslave others.

It is the pawns who have been dominated and are being controlled
who are suffering for "their refusal to face suppression from one 
or more individuals".

In other words, you have confused the masters and their slaves.

 
> This is why "The Pilot" is locked up, by himself, in his Ivory Tower:
>  To not have to face the force of evil, and
>  to feel free to smash the force of good (of Koos).

I am neither by myself nor am I locked up in an Ivory Tower.  You
make the mistake of confusing my personal life with my pretended
identity on the internet.

As far as not facing evil, I think that I am working very hard
to take something that is acting evil (the current CofS) and change 
it back into a force for good in the world (the original goals and
ideals that I believed in when I joined).

As to smashing Koos, if you post things that I feel to be goodness,
as you did this time, then I will not smash them.

When you make unfounded accusations and foolish rantings, you
encourage others to smash you.  When you spot truth accurately,
you will get encouragement except for those who have vested
interests.

My only vested interest in all this is to have the satisfaction
of seeing the CofS actually become the good and helpful organization 
that they falsely promised to be.

I and others worked very hard for them for many years out of
an incorrect belief that we were working to set mankind free instead
of dominating and controlling it.  I want them to make good
on their promise.  Let them become in truth what they pretended
to be.


> Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind


The Pilot - Ambassador for Freedom


==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - About Jewish Scientologists


ABOUT JEWISH SCIENTOLOGISTS

There has been some discussion on the subject of
Is "marcabs" Hubbard's code word for "jews"?  (sorry I can't
find the original post).

This is barking up the wrong tree and just asking to put your
foot in it.

There is a huge percentage of Jews in American Scientology.
Definitely greater than the national average.

The reason is New York which has a large liberal reformed Jewish
population who are not particularly religious but who are educated
middle class with enough money to pay for courses etc.  Jerry
Sienfield and Woody Allen present the typical image.  I've heard 
it said that there are more Jews in New York than any other city 
in the world including Tel Aviv.

New York is probably the number three center for Scientology in 
America and might even be the number two recruitment center 
because Clearwater is not a top area for getting in new people.

A large percentage of high ranking American Scientologists are
non-practicing Jews.  If you start claiming that Scientology is
anti-Jewish, they might give you enough rope to hang yourself and
then trot out a literal army of Jewish Scientologists.

As far as black people go, I've never seen any racial prejudice in
Scientology (but maybe you should ask a black Scientologist).

The percentage is disproportionately low, but I think that is
because ghetto dwellers don't have the money and people who have
gotten out of the ghetto are learly of being expolited.  That only
leaves well educated middle class black people as potential customers
and some of them do not like American Scientology's total 
refusal to even recognize that races exist.

In other words, American Scientologists are generally against
anything like welfare, affirmative action, quotas, or any concessions
to race.  On the other hand, they are truly an equal opportunity
employer because they manage exclusively by statistics and do
not look at the color of a person's skin before throwing them
into the RPF.  

I can't say how it is in South Africa, some of them might
have some stupid idea about thetans who get born in black vs
white bodies, but that idea absolutely does not exist in America.
I'm not even sure that you'll find it in South Africa.  I
remember that John MacMasters (1st clear) who was from South
Africa was very proud of having been adopted by one of the
native tribes there (this is when he was still in good standing
in Scientology).

The really sad thing is that many OTs who are black (Amanda
Ambrose, the jazz singer, for example) have wanted very much
to see Scientology brought into the ghettos but have been blocked
by policy from doing anything effective.

I don't mean that a ghetto mission is against policy.  In fact
there is a policy which encourages starting them.  But the
practicalities of the matter are that such a mission cannot
be set up in a viable manner.  The missions are forbidden to
undercut the standard prices.  There is no workable way to
finance it (it costs a fortune to start a mission these days).
There is no flexibility in policy or standard tech for putting
together the kind of self help group that would work well for
poor people (of any color).  And lack of money is seen as down-stat
and "you are responsible for the condition you're in".

My data may be stale on this.  I'm talking from a 1980s timeframe
here.

But if the organization had any real ARC for people, it would
rethink tech and policy to find a way to get real self help
missions into the poorer areas.  That they wouldn't do that
shows where their intentions really lie.


The Pilot


==========================================


 Subj : Super Scio - LRH SciFi (Review for St. Andreux)


RON'S SCI-FI (REVIEW FOR ST. ANDREUX)

On 6 Oct 97, saint andreux <nospam.saint@firefly.prairienet.org>
posted the following on subject "Mission Earth"


> Okay, I'm bored with reading all my Phillip K. Dick books
> 	over and over again. I'm considering popping down to the
>	local library and picking up the Mission Earth series.
> 
> 	Question, is fighting my way through the first one even
>		worth the time and effort? And, if so, will I want to
> 	make my way through all 10? 
> 
>		I like Frank Herbert, I like PKD, and I like Tolkien, Burroughs,
> 	etc., so epic or book series don't bother me, but was LRH
> 	about as good at writing sci-fi as he was writing philosophy?
>	
> -- 
>  saint andreux --><--  O G Y R  N E T W O R K  www.prairienet.org/~saint
>	   SacraMenstrual Church of the SubGenius Local 451 Outreach Ministry
>          LOGIC OF SLACK : PURE HATRED IS THE PUREST FORM OF LOVE         
> "His name was Xenu. He used renegades." - LRH from OT3. The Tech Is
>	Bunk.


It's about time somebody posted a review without any vested
interest either in making Ron out to be all glorious or totally
incompetant.

Since I enjoy Sci-Fi, I'll do it.

Of course if you don't like Sci-Fi, you wouldn't like Ron's either.

For a baseline, my favorite Sci-Fi author is Robert Heinlein and
I would recommend his "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Stranger
in a Strange Land" as among the best ever written (better than
any of Ron's fiction).

The following is, of course, just my opinion.

Battlefield Earth is his best and deserves to be called a classic.

Final Blackout is his number two book and might even be called
a classic as well.  Highly recommended.

The rest of the novels are not great works, but will pass the
time well enough.

Fear deserves special mention because of the impact at the end.

Many of the others, like Death's Deputy or Kingslayer, have an 
interesting twist or gimmick, so they might be worth reading
although they suffer a bit from pulp era deficiencies.

His poorest writing is the Mission Earth series.  I do not
recommend it and if I were the org I would be embarrassed to
have it on the shelves.	 It reads like an unpolished first
draft, and that is probably what it is.

Heinlein suffered from a similar bad period when he was very
ill and his wife Virginia sent out some unpolish material
("I will fear no evil") and the fans were very unhappy.

I suspect that this is the case with Mission Earth.  A 
hastily jotted down rambling that goes on and on.  Don't
count on it getting better in volume 2, it doesn't really
improve until about volume 8 or 9 (and it is possible
that somebody else finished it, immitating the poor style
but doing slightly better).

It should have been worked over and tightened up.  Cut down
to about a third of the size (there are nowhere near enough
interesting ideas to carry that much wordage).

The one interesting point for Scientologists is that the
alien's agent on Earth is Rockecenter, a poorly disguised
parody of Rockafeller.  He is identified as knowingly
working for the space aliens.

Another interesting point is that the series is written 
from the viewpoint of one of the lesser villians, who is
constantly being bested by the hero.  That kind of gimmick
is not suited to a work of this length, because there is
no comfortable way of settling down and identifying with
someone.

One almost wonders if he was writing from the villians
viewpoint as a sort of purgative.

So there you have it - Battlefield Earth good, Mission
Earth bad.

It seems like he showed great promise but flubbed it
in the end.


Time to Beam Up,

The Pilot


==========================================



 Subj : Super Scio - About THE TRUTH as Posted


ABOUT "THE TRUTH" AS POSTED


On 7 Oct 97, elrond@cgo.wave.ca (Gregg Hagglund) put out a wonderful
response to a bitter post by hoss@stopaf.com entitled "The Truth".
Gregg's answer was so good that I just have to quote it and then
offer up some commentary of my own, especially addressed to those
who are still in the CofS.


> In article <3439B479.42EB@stopaf.com>, hoss@stopaf.com wrote:
> 
> > The Truth:
> 
> My, my, aren't we dictatorial!
> These may be your truths and those of others and
> if you are comfortable with this that is fine with me,
> but your title should have been 'My Truths', IMHO.
> 
> > #1.  There is no god
> .
>     Then be alone.
> 
> > #2.  There is no afterlife.
> 
>     Then have no comfort.
> 
> > #3.  Morality exists only to the extent that human beings perceive it.
> 
>     Yes, one is most definitely responsible for oneself: God does *not*
>     intervene.
>
> > #4.  Jesus Christ died, and was buried.  End of story.
> 
>     End of the mortal story. You won't know the immortal one
>     until you are mortally done.
> 
> > #5.  There is no such thing as karma.
> 
>     Some recognise moral debts as karma, some think Karma
>     is fate, but many believe *nothing* is written.
> 
> > #6.  There is no such thing as a "soul".
> 
>     Don't worry about it, it comes free, even if you don't 
>     care about it.
> 
> > #7.  The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be.
> 
>     As long as you try to live in harmony then you won't
>     go wrong. God doesn't require recognition.
> 
> > Any questions?
> 
>     Yes, why did you feel compelled to impose your 'Truths'
>  on some Usenet Groups which would find it inherently offensive?
>  Are you as arrogant as some of those whom say that the 
>  only path to immortality is theirs and no other?
>  Why throw an insult at the Christians by denouncing Jesus
>  or irritating the Pagans by touting your ill feelings of the
>  'other side'? Do you expect either to try to convert you?
>  That is foolish, as it doesn't matter whether you believe or not
>  in the immortal side.
>
>  Live in harmony now and when you come to dine at God's 
>  table, you may look a little sheepish the first time, but you will 
>  be welcomed by Her all the same! <grin>
> 
>    Now, please remember for future reference that ARS is
>  discussing Scientology: its crimes and criminality. 
>  Here Co$ beliefs are relatively unimportant, ( Co$ teaches
>  there is no God or Christ, but that is a secret so *don't*
>  tell anyone ok?) their  anti-social activities *are*.
>  So please narrow your newsgroups, thanks.
> 
>  Best,
> 
>  Gregg SP4 
> http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond


Now to all you good Scientologists,

First, skip the one paragraph about Co$ so that you can view the
above without prejudice.

Read it again (without the offending paragraph).

Does this look like the writing of an evil suppressive person?

Does this sound like it was bad intentioned?

Does this sound like it was meant to enslave people and convince
them that they are mud, or does it sound like the work of somebody
who has a bit of spiritual awareness.

Is the above theta or entheta?

Forget the party line, what do you really think?

Then please tell me why the author is carrying the designation
of SP4 and displaying it proudly?  Why is he in a viscious battle
with the CofS?

Do you think that this might, just might, mean that there could
be something, some little something, wrong with the CofS?

This has nothing to do with whether or not the tech works (I
think it works, but that's beside the point).  It has to do
with organizational behavior and operating policies.

Of course I wouldn't dream of evaluating for you.  After all,
if its true for you ....

But maybe just this once, you could be three feet back of the
organization, three feet back of the supposed battles for freedom, 
and take an objective look at what's really going on.

After all, the freedom of all mankind is at stake here.  You
really owe it to yourself and the world to take a clear look
for once.


Yours in Freedom,

The Pilot


==========================================

 Subj : Super Scio Humor - About Sex and Uniforms


On 30 Sep 97, lsaderrick@aol.com (LsaDerrick)
wrote on subject "Why is sex suppressive in the Sea Org"


> I was told by someone (not on ars) that in Sea Org, the color of uniform
> (white or blue)  designates whether or not the person wearing it is allowed
> to marry, reproduce, etc. And if so is it blue=breeder, white =
> non-breeder; or the other way around.
> 
> Is this a myth?  If so PLEASE explain the blue vs white colors of uniform. 
> 
> Thanks
> .

The ones who wear white are virgins.

They have a special course for those SO members who are about
to be married to hat them on how to have sex.

They must begin by looking at Ron's picture and saying
"Thank you Ron for the pleasure I am about to recieve".

The actual screwing must be in accordance with the auditor's
code, with no invalidation, evaluation, and continuing the
processes repetitatively without variation until the EP
(end phenomena) is reached.

After consummation, they must get a solo Nots completion to
examine their genitiles and blow off any of Xemu's little
helpers that may have rubbed off.

Married couples must do a routing form and apply for ethics
clearance each time they have sex.  Although the sex is free,
the before and after consultations are charged for at high
rates.

----

Sorry, just another joker's and degrader's fit.  None of the
above is true.


The Pilot

==========================================

 
 Subj : Super Scio - Scientology Weddings


SCIENTOLOGY WEDDINGS

On 11 Sep 97, scott@webcorp.com posted on
subject "Re- Rape in the Sea Org"

> In article <3415E417.2577C8E7@innernet.net>,
>   Joe Cisar <joecisar@innernet.net> wrote:
> 
> > But then they weren't really married, either, since it
> > was only a scientology wedding.
> 
> This raises some interesting questions. What is the ritual form of the
> $ci wedding service? Are people married in a $ci service "really"
> married? Is a $ci wedding more "real" than a Moonie wedding?
> 
> Scott B.
> 
> "goin' to the Sea Org, and we're goin' to get married..."
 

Scientology weddings are supposed to be true legal weddings under
dire threat of ethics action.

The ceremonies book has 4 different wedding ceremonies written
by Ron.  A single ring and a double ring ceremony in Scientology
speak and another of each in non-Scientology speak.  The Scientology
ones have things like postulating ARC and the non-Scientology ones
have phrases like a wife should be able to have a cat if she wants
one and the husband should provide it.

The usual drill is that anyone who is a Scientology minister by
virtue of doing the minister's course may perform the ceremony 
but they do it as a designated stand-in for the official chaplin
of a Scientology organization who is legally ordained and registered
and is responsible for counter signing and regestering the marriage
certficate.  This may vary in different countries.

The reason for the heavy ethics is that in the old days this was
abused.  Scientologists did used to get remarried unofficially
while waiting for their divorce papers to come through on their
previous marriage.  The business about no sex outside of marriage made
this a desirable action for Sea Org members.  This was seen as
very bad PR and possibly dangerous leagally and therefore the
practice was crushed very quickly.  I believe that now they even
have minimum times that you have to remain married before divorcing
and to wait after divorcing before you can remarry (I think six
months or a year each).  And its all got to be ultra leagal or
else people will end up in the RPF.


Best,

The Pilot

==========================================

See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot 
at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html
or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm
or The Pilots Home Page at http://super.zippo.com/~freezone/pilot/index.htm

Get the Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at:
ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

All of this weeks posts will be collected in 
Super Scio Archive #11, 12, and 13 and posted to ACT.

------------------



