Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: Super Scio Archive - <2/9> posts of Apr 97
Date: 25 Aug 1997  14:00:13


POST2.TXT

SUPER SCIO PILOT POSTS OF APRIL 1997


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

Contents (Headers):

Subj : SUPER SCIO Asking Ars For Help 
Subj : Re: ARS Survey (Super Scio reply) 
Subj : Super Scio - XEMU's Last Name 
Subj : repost of Dear Scientologist
Subj : SUPER SCIO Response to Norman Culver on Gravity 
Subj : SUPER SCIO Yet Another Implant Platen 
Subj : Super Scio - Is There Anything Posative About Scientology
Subj : SUPER SCIO - Whats Wrong With Confidentiality
Subj : Re: Question for former scientologists (Super Scio)
Subj : Super Scio - Answering Kirillm
Subj : Super Scio - Question for Miscavige
Subj : Re: Scientology = Amway? (Super Scio reply)
Subj : Super Scio - Concerning Reiss
Subj : SUPER SCIO - Response To Bob Ross

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

Subj : SUPER SCIO Asking Ars For Help 


ASKING ARS FOR HELP

Many newbies only surf the web pages without reading ARS.  Some
don't even have decent access to a news server and don't know
enough to find the open ones.

It would help a lot if some web pages included a little section
about a reform movement within Scientology.  

At a minimum this will scare the hell out of int management because 
these things do happen periodically and often cost them a large number 
of key staff members.  I even remember one where the Ethics officers
were part of the mutiny and so they covered up any hints that were
coming up in people's sec checks etc.

But the more important point is to promote the reform effort.  It
is dangerous to push for reform within the church and so these
movements only grow very slowly and fearfully.  And most people
who would support it are never even contacted.

What with the e-meters and sec checks, the usual result is that
somebody gets scared and blabs the whole thing in an auditing
session.  Then they track down the contacts from person to person
and blow the whole thing apart.  But this can't happen if the
reformer cells start up independently of each other.

A reform section should include the 14 points for reform that I
put at the end of "How I Would Fix The Orgs" (Super Scio <32 of
32>).  I'll repete it at the end of this post.  It should also
include a link to http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
so that they can find the rest of the Super Scio materials (assuming
that you don't want to put up 1.9MB of stuff yourself).

Feel free to include other bits of my stuff as long as you give
readers some way of reaching the full set.  The "Open Letter To
ARS" that I posted is a good candidate.

Another good candidate for a reform section is that smart post
by Roland called "Dear Scientologist".  I'll repost it.

I added an extra sentance to #7 below concerning the abusive
neglect of Sea Org children.  The Scientology children who are raised
by non Sea Org members are usually very well cared for and turn
out quite well, but the SO kids are handled in an attrocious manner
and many could easily be mistaken for gang members once they reach
their teens.

    -----------------------------------------  
  
      SCIENTOLOGY POINTS FOR REFORM

The general target is a restoration of truth, open communication,
and care for one's fellow man.


1. Recognition that the subject is still on a research line.
Redefinition of the State of Clear as being "no longer affected
by the force in mental pictures and free from stimulous response
reactive thought".  Acknowlegement that this does not errase the
grades of release or handle the basic problems, overts, and
upsets which originally caused the being to decay.  The OT levels
are a gradient to allow the being to reach these on the early
track.

2. Cancellation of confidentially.  Re-emphasis of Scientology
as a religion and abandoment of the viewpoint that it is a
business with trade secrets.  Termination of all leagal suits
except those necessary to defend the church from direct attack.
As a matter of relegious freedom, all materials should be
easily available to anyone regardless of their status within
orthodox Scientology.

3. Promotion of free and open communication.  Cancellation of
"Issue Authority" "Jokers and Degraders".  Use of "mixing practices" 
only to forbid actual practice while trying to do a Scientology 
level at the same time.  An end to the persecution of squirrels 
and psychs except for situations of actual physical abuse.  A 
recognition that we have shared goals with many other groups.

4. Cancellation of eligability checks for students and PCs.
Restoration of the sancitity of the confessional, even for those
who subsequently are labled as enemies.  Use of the FPRD only
as a major case action for the purpose of case gain and not
to gather data.

5. Cancellation of all policies on suppressive persons and 
an end to declaring people SPs.  Use of "non-enturbulation orders"
for the duration of training or processing as a last resort
when a PTS condition cannot otherwise be handled.  An absolute and
total amnesty for all past actions (because we'll never sort
out what was or wasn't justified).  Subsequently, people
are only to be declared as enemies if they engage in flagrant
and unreasonable attacks against the church.  People who
disagree or blow are not to be labled as enemies.  Elimination
of the use of "lower conditions" except in circumstances of
outright damage and danger.

6. Establishment of an International Chaplin, a chaplin's
division within OSA, and an expanded office of the chaplin
within the organizations, all with the power to right wrongs,
override policy as needed, and keep the orgs operating in
an ethical manner towards their staff and public.

7. An end to all physical abuse, including cancellation of
the RPF and an end to all penalties for lower conditions.
Also and end to the abusive neglect of sea org children.

8. Intensive tech training, co-auditing, and solo auditing
delivered locally to all staff as an exchange for the 
low pay and long working hours.

9. A steady release of new OT levels and a steady downward
export of levels to the next lower level of organization as
the new levels become the premier service for the top level
orgs.
  
10. A cleanup and simplification of pricing.  Ethical behaviour
on the subject of money.  Restoration of the policy "Only
Accounts Talks Money".

11, Full reinstatement of the 1967 policy "New 2D Rules".  Drop
all rules against homosexuals etc.  The Sea Org does
have an image to maintain, so their staff shouldn't be wildly
promiscious or throwing orgies, but they don't have to be more
puritanical than what is currently accepted by the society at
large.

12. Change from management by stats to management by good
indicators with stats being a highly important management indicator.

13. Re-emphasize that policy is a guiding thing rather than
an absolute (see "Theory of Organization: What is Policy").

14. More truth, more communication, more ARC.  Less concern
with PR.  More compassion and less harrassment.

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

The following section from "An Open Letter To ARS" was
especially good at provoking reactions and should probably
also be included.

The average auditor is heartbroken.  He doesn't mind making
starvation wages because he believes in the tech and is really
helping people, but he doesn't understand why the public is
paying a fortune for his services when he gets nothing.  He
doesn't want to disconnect from his old friends when they are
declared, but he can't bear to abandon the org.  

He doesn't believe you when you say its all a scam.  His own real
experience as an auditor shows him that it is not.  Because he
is not conducting a scam and he really is helping people.

He knows that at some level there is something very very wrong,
but he can't let himself think about that.  He clings hopelessly to 
the party line that Ron was perfect and is the only source for tech.
He thinks that policy and the sea org are as good as the auditing
tech which he knows works, and they are not.

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

Thank You For Your Help

The Pilot
 

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

Subj : Re: ARS Survey (Super Scio reply) 


On 9 Apr 1997 06:48:57 GMT, Sassie10 (sassie10@aol.com) wrote:

> ARS Survey
>
> 1.)  Do ARS critics and Scientologists agree on anything?

Definitely.  Both are dedicated to raising awareness and improving
communications.

In the early days, Ron said "When in doubt, communicate".  All
auditors and most Scientology public know that this is correct.
Anyone who studies and believes in the axioms and the other basics
knows that truth and open communication are key ingredients in
the bridge to total freedom.

Most critics also believe in free and open communication and they
are known for supporting the blue ribbon campaign for free speach.

Many of the Scientologists are actually communications releases.
This is not bogus.  When you achive the state, you really are
willing to talk to anyone about anything.  That includes chatting
with critics about Xenu or whatever.  I'm a communications release
and I have no problem with this at all, its fun.

But by some strange sorcery, the Scientologists seem to loose this
gain (one roller coasters due to a suppressive influence).  Perhaps
someone had an MU (misunderstood word) and thought that Ron was
talking about a condition of doubt (or enemy or treason).  So
they issued some policies to put people in lower conditions if
they communicated freely.

It must've been some SP that did that because it made people
rollercoaster out of their gains and turned the Scientologists
into the scourge of the internet.

Its hard to imagine that the same guy who wrote the axioms
would put out so many stops to communications.  Its not just
the confidentiality.  Its "Issue Authority" and "Jokers and
Degraders" and "Its A PR World" and "don't talk about whole track"
and "the instuctor must not tell the student anything"
and "students shouldn't discuss the materials with each other" and 
"you musn't talk about you case" and "disconnection" and ...
(I have to stop here or I might stir up so much that I'll roller 
coaster out of my own gains in free communication).

At times like this I like to contemplate the "evil twin" theory.
Or killer clones from outer space replacing people as in
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers".  But that does seem a bit
silly, now doesn't it.

Maybe we're just talking about a man.  A man who had his
brilliant and inspired moments but who also had his bad days
(or bad years).  


--------

> 2.)  What do you do in your spare time?

Be a good little troll and put this question back in the cave
where it belongs.


--------

To Sassie10 (hoping that they even let you read this reply):

It would be nice if you could wake up without doing the
usual posative negative flip flop.

If you bottle up the doubts and reservations too deeply, they
eventually explode and blast you to the other side of the fence.
I could often tell how soon somebody was going to blow by how
adamantly they pushed the party line.

People sitting up on the fence can usually see further than the
ones on the ground to either side.

Maybe its time for you to take a real hard look and find out
how much of Scientology really was true for you.  Hopefully
it was true by actual observation and experience, but I'll
even accept those things that you took on faith because they
lifted your sights to higher goals.

Then spot how much of it wasn't true for you but was jammed
down your throat by crush sell or crush ethics or by the
occasional auditor or CS who would not accept your reality
because it didn't fit into standard tech.    

Per Ron's last tape (hopefully he at least wrote the text),
its "Knowing the Tech".  It is not being in good standing or
knowing policy or even whether or not you like Ron.  And it
is "knowing", not memorizing or worshipping the tech or even
being in compulsive agreement with everything that has been
put out as tech.

But knowing the tech does imply understanding it.  And if you think
that everything Ron said has equal value (or is equally correct),
then your IQ is equal to zero according to the axioms.  The axioms
say that "Intelligence is the ability to evaluate relative importance".
You actually have to try this stuff and observe what happens
and work to make sense of it.

Ron said that you become more individual as you go up scale.
The only common underlying agreement is bank.  Now what does
that tell you about the Sea Org?

Sorry to be so hard nosed about this, but it really is your
next trillion years that is at stake.


Hopeing for a better future,

The Pilot


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


Subj : Super Scio - XEMU's Last Name 


XEMU'S LAST NAME

I skimmed the screenplay and could not find a last name.
It might be like the British Kings where the last name is
never used.

Also, the name given is Xenu rather than Xemu (or Xenn).
There is the slightest chance that this is a bogus copy
or that it was subsequently revised (there has been more than
one attempt to film it).

It is labled "Revolt in the Stars", a An Original Screenplay
by L. Ron Hubbard, 1977.  It is 178 pages long.

In "History of Man" Ron says to run mockups using approximations
of things in whole track incidents but to avoid using the
actual stuff in the incidents.  For example, he suggests mocking
up a tripod mounted camera rather than an actual "coffee grinder"
style implant device.  On this basis, he may have intentionally
toned down things in the incident and substituted Xenu for Xemu
to avoid restimulating people too much.

Here is some more information.

It mentions 21 Stars and 76 planets.

"The star names are Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri, Vega,
Capella, Arcturus, Rigel, Procyon, Arachernar, Beta Centauri, Altair,
Betelgeuse, Acrux, Aldebaran, Pollux, Spica, Antates, Fomalhaute,
Deneb, Regulus, and Sol".  (page 91).

In this list, Betelgeuse sticks out like a sore thumb.  Unlike
the others, it is very far away.

Heros: The loyal officers Mish and Rawl.
Heroine: The Lady Min ("the greatest actress in the galaxy").

"Civilian costumes are clothes not unlike about 1920" (page 13).

"It is RAWL, a Loyal Officer, dressed in khaki, accompanied
by several Planetary officers in white and blue". (page 14).

"It is draped in somber green with a black edged symbol of
the Galatic Confederation.  This is a wreath open at the top
with 21 stars on it." (page 15).

"In this and all subsequent shots of him, Xenu is lame in the
right leg.  The knee is stiff. He carries a heavy cane, more of
a club than a cane, and supports himself with it as he walks."
(page 15).

The loyal officers apparantly hold a congress every 10 years and
the 2054th congress takes place early in the movie.  This puts
the age of the government at around 20 thousand years.

"Spaceships can be seen on the field.  The type of ship
is not the stylized cigar.  Interceptors and this yacht are
swept-wing with the wings reaching back longer than the tail
and separated at the rear." (page 47).

"Some ships, transports, are not unlike DC 10s but with thrust motors
closer to fuselage and smaller and wings more stubbed". (page 47).

The scipt is full of melodrama like the following:

"EXT. Mt Shasta - Day".  "Close Shot - The little girl on the
slope of the volcano".  "She is bruised and dirty, she still has
her doll clutched to her breast.  She is looking upward at the sky,
seeing nothing there.  She does not understand what is happening. 
She begins to cry silently". (page 122).

"... are hereby sentenced to be exhibited on every planet and
then imprisoned in a mountain sustained for eons by life supports"
(page 167).

One time in the late 1980s some sea org OTs were promoting Ron's
sci fi.  I asked them when they were going to film this movie.
They shuddered and just about turned green.  One of them said
"Its never going to be filmed".

At the end there are doctors strapping Xenu and his henchmen
to tables in a giant vault and hooking up life support.
Xenu's last words are "How long is forever?".

I don't know how much of this screenplay was pure melodrama
(Xenu walking with a limp?) and how much was intended to be 
accurate.  The idea behind the limp might have been that Xenu
had such a horrible overt in his past that he might have kept
redevloping the limp no matter how much super science was used
to heal it.

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

As to the endless mixups about the evil ruler's name, which I
discussed in "Super Scio: Responses to Questions":

Emerald has correctly pointed out that she posted this idea
before I did.  Sorry that I missed it.
> I remember puzzling over whether it was supposed to
> be Xenn, Xemu, Xemi, or even Zenn when I did OT 3.

And dustbin had the same problem.
> I thought of him as Xenn for 20 years.  I was quite surprised
> when I came onto a.r.s to hear him called Xenu.  I was actually
> embarrassed, thinking I'd been quoting a typographical error
> for 20 years.

And he reminded me that Bob Kaufman called him Xenn as well.  I
had read Bob's book but I had forgotten.

Xenn might have been the common rumor line interpretation among
OT 3 public back in the early days.  Since the instructors were
generally not Class 8s and because of the dumb idea that a
course supervisor doesn't have to be trained on the materials
that his students are studying, they might not even have known 
themselves what to call the guy.


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

I wrote up my own description of Incident 2 in Super Scio #6A
<14 of 32>.  See the Pilot materials at:
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
Or search Dejanews for "Super Scio", or pick up the ss## files
from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

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

Best,

The Pilot


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


Subj : repost of Dear Scientologist

 (the following reflects Roland's opinion rather than mine, I'm
just glad to have any other voice preaching reform)

Unedited Repost of
>#  From: Roland <RolandRB@netcomuk.co.uk>
>#  Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 09:08:55 +0000
>#  Message-ID: <3334F327.1F@netcomuk.co.uk>

Dear Scientologist,

   Do you remember when you were an independent thinker, and you came
across this alternative religion called Scientology? Do you remember how
it all seemed very reasonable. A religion for mankind not based on any
religious dogma but doing things that worked and that helped people and
doing only those things that worked. Making people able and more
responsible so that they could help themselves and others in effective
ways is of course a very good idea. It does a lot more good than praying
ever did. Scentology was a refreshing change from the fossilised
religions of the past. Something bright and new that offered hope for a
better future. You happened upon it and you were then determined to
better the world using this new method and to wake people out of their
slumber and introduce them to their new potential.

   Those happy feelings are sadly gone now. The bright new religion you
discovered has turned out to be worse than a drag. The dogma you
rejected from other religions you find in this one. You are ill,
therefore you are PTS and are connected to a Suppresssive person - even
though you may work in an open plan office and everyone else has caught
the cold you have. Is that not dogma of the worse kind? Is it not also
complete nonsense that you go along with so that you don't create
problems for yourself? Is this the religion you thought you were
joining? I think not!

  I am sure you have heard about the Sea Org. Those dedicated young
people who work upwards of 100 hours per week to introduce Scientology
into society and "save the planet". Do you consider sometimes that they
are treated rather harshly? Sent to the RPF when they make a mistake or
their stats are down. Forced to do hard labor. Having to eat scraps of
plates. Considering these people have devoted their lives to their cause
then does this seem fair to you? I think not!

   Think also of the hard-pressure selling done in your church. Does it
seem right to pressure people into buying courses, helping to arrange
for them to take out loans that they will have great difficulty paying
back? Some of these people are not stron willed at all and the
registrars know this. They are pressured into taking out loans and this
can ruin their lives. Some even commit suicide because of the registrars
actions as I am sure you have heard. Does this seem right? Is this the
religion you thought you had joined?

   Of course you put up with these things you don't like becuase you
hope that oneday you will be OT.  You will have OT powers as Ron
described when you are OT VIII -- or will you. Have you read the success
stories from this months Source magazine? The L11 + L10 + L12 = Full
Stable Exteriorisation? Really? Have you read those success stories?
Does it sound like they have exteriorised from their bodies and can see
from outside of their bodies as a free thetan? Or is the success story
something like "I feel more exterior to myself, I am now earning lots
more money, I am stably just being me!" Does this not just sound like
the "born-again" talk you hear on the streets? Could it be that these OT
powers are just not there at these higher levels of Scientology? And
these L's are done at the "Mecca of Technical Perfection", Flag! This is
the best you get! Do you feel there might be something wrong here?

   So what happens when you are disturbed by these things? Is there
someone in your church you can go and discuss these matters with, to
voice your concerns over these issues? Someoe whom you, as a responsible
member of society and scientology, can discuss this with and put in your
tuppence worth of ideas? Is there not? You mean you would get into
"ethics" trouble if you did? That's strange isn't it? Was that the
religion you thought you were joining? Do you have an uncomfortable
feeling if you think about expressing your own opinion within the Church
of Scientology? I think perhaps you do!

  I think you would like your religion to be the one you thought it was
when you first joined. It could be you know! If enough people such as
yourself wrote in to the President of the Church of Scientology and
asked for reform then it could happen. In the meantime, as a protest,
you could stay off-lines until things had improved. To not give them any
donations until they had reformed themselves and playing a truly useful
role in society.

   What I am suggesting is you take action to recreate the spirit of the
religion you thought you were joining. Write in and complain. If they
assign you an ethics condition then refuse it. It is THEY who have to
sort out their own ethics - not you! Just say NO to them when they try
to push you around. If you do this and enough other people like you do
this then you will end up with a far better religion than you have now.
A religion all the world will recognise as being there for the good of
mankind. A religion you can proudly claim membership to.

   The future of scientology is very much in your hands now.

Roland

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


Subj : SUPER SCIO Response to Norman Culver on Gravity 


RESPONSE TO NORMAN CULVER RE GRAVITY

On Mar 24, Norman Culver <ndc@icanect.net> wrote:

> 1. To the best of my knowledge, gravity was invented toward the end of
> the home-univerise period and was a major factor in the collapse.
> Gravity is a very multi-dimensional construct with most of the dimension
> hidden and only one dimension showing. I had thought that it was 72 dims
> but a meter check shows 60 hidden and 1 showing. There are also a lot
> of pseudo-gravities and anti-gravities on the track but they do not 
> come close to the complexity of the original one. Hilbert spaces 
> are a definite big time thing that you should investigate personally.

I think that you're right about gravity being involved in the fall
of home universe.  But I would say "gravity as we know it" because
we would have used something to keep mockups aligned together prior
to that time.  I'm still not happy with my understanding of what
happened in the collapse.  Maybe I was far from the action and didn't
even know at the time?  How much could a Zulu have known about the
causes of World War 2?

The number of dimensions seems excessive.  I had thought that you would
only need a couple of extra ones (beyond the objective mockup) to
introduce enough space curvature to yield the general relativity
concepts of tensors producing the gravity effect.  I'm just guessing
here but wouldn't 3 "structural" dimensions give enough directions
to curve a 3 dimentional space to produce the apparancy of a
force of gravity?  Maybe its really 5 dimensional with 12 basic
forces (some not yet discovered) and each force needs its own
set of 5 structural dimensions?  But that would give 60 structural
(hidden) dimensions with 5 spacial ones.

The dimensions used in math are often just aids to analysis.
If you have 3 variables representing, lets say, the intensities
of red, green, and blue in a color, you might graph them as
3 dimensions but when you get practical, you only need one extra
dimension to stack up 3 negatives (one for each color plane) when
you make color film.

But I don't really know and I don't want to derail you because maybe 
you've got it right.

As to real math and physics, I'm sorely deficient.  I've had a
mathematician friend of mind sit down with me three times so far
on the subject of tensor calculus and I keep loosing it.  And I
can't seem to get past page 25 of Dirac's thesis on quantum mechanics.
I haven't really gotten around to Hilbert space.  All I have is
the vague idea of a superset of vector mechanics that embraces an 
infinite number of dimensions.

This kind of stuff puts the misunderstood word technology in its
place as a beginner's baby step rather than being the ultimate in
study technology.  It takes real work to learn something, and yes,
I'll keep studying quantum and general relativity and push all the
way through eventually, it just takes persistance.  It took me
about a half dozen books and a notebook of scribblings to get a
good feel for special relativity and that is orders of magnitudes
easier than what we are talking about here.

You raised a lot of other interesting points and I'll be looking
over them again.  You also reminded me of Jeffrey's list of
upper dynamics, and I'll have to take another look at that too.


Thanks for the help, this provided much food for thought

The Pilot

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


Subj : SUPER SCIO Yet Another Implant Platen 


YET ANOTHER IMPLANT PLATEN

Mostly I'm just keeping a research journal which I'll
issue eventually rather than putting out little bits and
pieces of what I'm digging into.  But this one seemed too
good to sit on and I felt a need to put out a posative
contribution to balance some of the pot shots I've been
taking at the org in this last set of posts.

So here it is.


THE SUICIDE IMPLANT:


One of the first things I realized when I was getting trained
and begining to hear about implants on the tapes was that
these things would obviously include implanted commands
to kill yourself etc. if you found out about them.  My
reaction was to laugh at whoever designed those things and
decide that I wasn't stupid enough to obey any orders like
that.

So these things should be easy to shrug off (its been a
long time and the implanters are no longer standing over your
shoulder to keep rerunning the implant until you finally
give in and let it stick).  And I wouldn't worry too much
about billion year old death threats.

But the implants do sometimes include this kind of thing
to keep you from remembering the implant.  I don't think
that they actually had much success getting people to
kill themselves.  But they did get people to keep themselves
from remembering by telling them that if they did remember,
they would kill themselves.  Telling somebody to forget
is nowhere near as effective as telling them that they
will die if they remember.

I have found what I think is the most common pattern for
laying in suicide items.  I think that this one is often
tacked on to other implants as a sort of trailer to 
block recall of the implant.  Sometimes they even used it
at the begining and again at the end.  It doesn't follow the
same pattern as the implants it was attached to, so its
easy to miss.  

I think that this one was used well prior to incident 2 
and has continued to be used recently and that it was also 
used at many individual points througout incident 2 and 
other similar mass implants.

Remember that you handle implant items by spotting each
one a few times until you can laugh it off.  The idea is
not to auto-hypnotize yourself and lay the item in but
rather to knock out any residual hypnotic effect so that
these trigger thoughts have no further effect on you.

The pattern consists of a root phrase and an end phrase.
The root phrases are:

a) "To know about this is to ..."
b) "To talk about this is to ..." 
c) "To find out about this is to ..." 
d) "To remember this is to ..."
e) "to think about this is to ...".

There may be more roots.  Each root cycles through the
following endings: 

1) disbelieve it
2) forget it
3) be insane
4) be unconcious
5) be unaware
6) be sick
7) die
8) kill myself

In other words, the first item is "to know about this is
to disbelive it".  The final item is "to think about
this is to kill myself".  There are 40 items in all.

Implant items were never very powerful.  Its the postulates
that you made while being implanted or implanting somebody
else.  Items like this were designed to get you to 
postulate that you should forget the implant to protect yourself.


----------

ARC, 

The Pilot

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


Subj : Super Scio - Is There Anything Posative About Scientology


In article <333ef08f.6278806@207.126.101.80>,
Grady Ward <grady@nospam.tidepool.com> wrote:

>Can anyone list things that are positive about Scientology?

In article <19970402141901.JAA07695@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Steve J (stvej@aol.com) replied

# Studying LRH's writings have 
#  1) given me enough hope for the world that I would 
#     believe that Grady would actually want a serious 
#     answer to this question, 
#  2) given me the ability to discern that he probably
#     doesn't.
# Those are mere entremets to the main body of good that 
# I have received from Scientology.
# I have gained from the results of all the people that I have
# helped using Scientology Technology--the ethics that 
# helped kids get out of gangs, the counseling that has kept
# marriages progressing, and the recovery of abilities lost.
# I have gained by application of the Management Tech.
# I have had terrific gains in auditing received.
# Thank you for this opportunity. Sometimes I forget the 
# good stuff while wading through the disquite, inaccuracies 
# and paranoia of this newsgroup. 
# Steve

Let me appologize for the PR nature of the above response.  It
has 3 flaws which show that it is not an honest attempt to
answer the question.  These are:

a) it begins with a covert attack on Grady
b) it gives no actual data or examples
c) it is so absolutely 100 percent posative that it must be
   advertising rather than truth.

Let me try to answer this in an honest fashion.

Rather than getting all carried away about OT abilities or
other exotic things, let me describe a very mundane and yet
extrememly important gain I made early on in the subject.

Before getting into Scientology, I was a shy, nervous, and
introverted little genius who couldn't talk to anybody about
anything.  Almost a stereotype.  It was terrible.

I did a TRs course (the HAS course) and started level 0
(Communications) training (there was no prerequisite then except
for doing the HAS course).  Even before I was actually audited
on the processes, the TRs and training on communications had
totally turned everything around for me.  The nervous shyness
was gone and has never returned.  I could even talk infront
of groups and be totally relaxed.  Living life became fun
instead of misery.  This, of course, was a gain from training.

As to auditing, the biggest of the early gains for me was
finding out that I was using "They're stupid" as a computation
to make myself right and others wrong.  It was obvious and yet
I had not know it and it was all on automatic so to speak.
I wouldn't say that I never think this anymore, but its
concious and an honest evaluation rather than being a blind
assumption that I apply to everything without looking.  I used
to simply jump to the conclusion that they're stupid rather
than finding out what was really going on.  So I could be easily
fooled because I would assume stupidity when the actual case
was that somebody was being corrupt for example.

As to marriage counseling, our track record in Scientology has
been very bad.  We break up as many as we keep together.
We don't actually have much tech in this area.  Just the
general stuff on handling problems, overts, and upsets plus
the idea of looking for a hidden third party who is setting
the marriage partners against each other.  Unfortunately,
the org itself was often the "third party" telling people that
their partners were suppressive and encouraging them to disconnect.

As to the management tech, there is such a mixture of brilliance
and stupidity that its hard to sort out.  Lets take the old
accounting policy for example.  Ron has bright ideas about
working off of original documents (multiple copy invoices etc.)
which correct many of the problems with the old manual ledger
systems.  But he didn't understand double entry bookkeeping
(the invoices could have been used in a double entry method
which would have given a flawless super system).  The end
result was that Scientology had one of the worst and most
inaccurate accounting systems in the land while continually
insisting that org accounting was flawless.  Hopefully this
has been fixed by using computers, but the original system
was a real mess.

But here we have, for instance, David Gale studying real
accounting and applying Ron's bright ideas to it and then
learning computers as well.  And so he launched MCBA and
made a mint on computer accounting software.

Yes I did disconnect from my family for about 3 months when
I first got involved with the subject.  But I got some more 
auditor training, decided it was a mistake, and straightened 
things out.  In the long run, our communication was better, 
but I can also see how easily it might have gotten messed up.  
So this is another area that can go either way.

There is much that is posative, especially if you can drop
the fanaticism.

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

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

Subj : SUPER SCIO - Whats Wrong With Confidentiality

WHATS WRONG WITH CONFIDENTIALITY

I think that the confidentiality is a mistake.  I think its
killing us (by which I mean the Scientologists).  I think that
its the strongest of the factors which are twisting the subject
away from its original goals and making it into a fanatical
sham.

But it is this specific point of reform which is going to be
the hardest for the average Scientologist to swallow.  Many of
them can see the other outnesses and will agree with me on
those points.  But they have been so intensively hit with
false information about the dangers of the upper level materials
that they are terrified of them.

So let me get up here on the podium and try to wake some people up.

You don't teach people how to swim by making them terrified of
the water.  Imagine that they are not even allowed to see the
water.  Its hidden in swimming pools that are kept in locked
rooms and all you have are dire rumors about how people can
drown and die if they even see a pool nothing to say of getting
in one.  Now, after paying a fortune, an instructor unlocks the
door and tosses them in the water.  And they are not even allowed
to see anybody else swimming (they can't hear stories of other
students doing the level and their difficulties and successes).

Have you ever seen somebody trying to teach a terrified child how 
to swim?

Of course there are going to be bad reactions if you make things
so secret and convince everybody that this stuff is dangerous.

We have always had lots of advanced data from the 1950s which
was available and was not marked confidential.  Lots of stuff
on past lives, implants, entities, GPMs, and what have you.  The 
clear cog used to be common knowlege.  Even one of the power processes
("What Is, What Isn't") is on a lower level tape (either
"Suppessors" or "the Bad Auditor", I forget which one - they
both cover not-isness and they used to be back to back on the
old level 2 checksheets).  A tape with lots of R6 data called
"Study and End Words" was sometimes part of the old student hat.

People didn't get sick or upset from studying this stuff.  Once
in a rare while somebody did get sick if someone else was
insisting on jamming some piece of tech down their throats,
but that also happens with grade 2 (overts/withholds) and grade 4
(service facimilies - making yourself right) type technology.
At one time there was even a bulletin (or policy?) stating
that it was gross out tech to tell a person that they had
withholds outside of an auditing session.

So there are student and PC rules and stern lectures from the
ethics officer to keep people from jaming bits of out-gradient
tech down each others throats.  That is needed.  But it is all
that is needed.  You don't have to bury everything under a
cloud of secrecy.  The mind's protection is at maximum when
people are quietly reading things.

I don't really think that people should make fun of each others
religious beliefs.  If things were reasonable, I would say
that its no fair poking fun at incident 2 or at the book of
Genesis or at any of the beliefs of other religions.  But in
this case, the OT 3 tee shirts and Xenu jokes and things
are serving a very important purpose in demonstrating that
knowlege of OT 3 is not dangerous nor does it make people sick.

Its almost inconcievable that hearing truth could ever make
anybody sick.  If it did, it would be the exact opposite of
whats in the axioms of Scientology.  Of course somebody might
be emotionally upset from learning a sad or disturbing
truth, but that's a totally different matter.  And we know
how to raise somebody's emotional tone in such cases, so we
don't need to be afraid of it.

As to the liabilities of keeping things confidential, just
look at what's happening on the internet.  Scientology's comm
lines on the net are almost distroyed.  Tremendous ill will
has been generated.  The Scientologists can't even argue or defend 
themselves because they can't talk about anything in the confidential
materials and the critics keep singing Xenu songs and scaring
the Scientologists away.  Attempting to maintain confidentiality
has put the Scientologists into a totaly untenable position,
having to fight without ever mentioning the thing that they
are fighting about.

Scientologists, who are trained with TRs to confront just about
anything, can't confront or handle a handful of jokers singing
Xenu songs.  Scientologists, who win through opening up
communication lines, find themselves to be the greatest
suppessors of free communication that the internet has ever
seen.

In the old days, before the clearing course and the introduction
of confidentiality, the Briefing Course students used to 
chant implanted GPM end words at each other as part of their
bull baiting while doing TRs.  They had to do this because they 
were running implant platens on each other instead of doing them 
solo and they couldn't flinch at what the PC was running.  They 
did just fine.  I knew a few who had done this (it was only a
little before my time) and they were in exceptionally good
shape and had really fantastic TRs.

The whole business of confidentiality might have originally
come about because any of the old time BC graduates could
have just taken the clearing course platens and run them on
themselves at home without paying for any other courses.
And the average franchise, usually run by an exceptionally
skilled oldtime auditor, would have found it easy to teach
their PCs to run these platens after they finished getting
audited on their grades.

Let me urge any Scientology loyalist who reads this to please
sit down and reread the introduction to Dianetics 55 where
Ron explains about the use of secrecy in cults.

The confidentiality has not served any useful purpose except
to stick people with a mystery, and that is an overt.

----------

Here is a helpfull quote from Ron:

Research and Discovery Series - New Volume 10
Page 731, in the lecture titled "Overt Acts, Motivators,
and Deds" from the tech 88 lecture series:

"Religion is always different than truth.  It has to be.
Because the only way you can control a person is to lie
to them." ... "When you find an individual is lying to
you, you know that the individual is trying to control you".
.. "Conversly, if you see an impulse on the part of a 
human being to control you, you know very well that that 
human being is lying to you.  Not is just going to --
IS lying to you".

This volume is well worth having.  Even though they covertly
omitted a few of the hottest lectures (see Super Scio <31 of 32>
for a complete list), the ones that are in the volume are the
wildest things that the org has ever released, going far beyond
"History of Man" and including lots of whole track and early
research into entities (Nots).

----------

A full discussion of reforming Scientology can be found in
"Super Scio - Supplement: How To Fix The Orgs" <32 of 32>.

----------

ARC,

The Pilot

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


Subj : Re: Question for former scientologists (Super Scio)

Tashback (tashback@primenet.com) wrote:
: I've been going over some of the Clearwater reports, and one question
: keeps nagging at me, especially in light of the current discussion among
: former Scientologists and never-been Scientologists about the nature of
: cults. I'm wondering about the Scientologists' behavior at the Clearwater
: picket and the candlelight vigil, and my question is "What were they
: thinking?" It might seem a silly question, but I can't come up with the
: answer, and I thought some formers might be able to shed some light on it.

On Apr 4, Perry Scott (perry@fc.hp.com) replied:

# The logic goes like this:

# 1) Scientology is the salvation of the world.

# 2) Anyone who disgrees is either ignorant, PTS, or suppressive.

# 3) Once the word "suppressive" is used, it triggers the coursework on
#   the subject (everyone takes the PTS/SP course at some point - the
#   first failure you have is blamed on SPs and you get body-routed onto
#   the course).  By invoking the meme, a standard set of responses
#   follows.

He carries on from here with a very accurate analysis of how the
members are rabble roused into rushing out and shattering the
candlelight vigil.

Let me back this up 100 percent.  I wasn't there, but its typical.

There is tons of data in the tech about 3rd partying, riot assists,
false data, button pushing, etc.  This can all be used in a reverse
manner to incite a crowd.  This is a sort of "Black Scientology".
They know how to do it.

I remember one time when I wouldn't go along with some piece of
crazyness like this and it ended up with a GO member screaming
over and over at me "BUT THEY'RE ATTACKING CHURCHES".  This was
in the middle of the reception area no less.  It was apparantly a 
key button that he'd been drilled to use to handle any objections.  
I just kept my TRs in and kept saying "Thank You".  He almost went 
psychotic.  Since I was acting calm and he was dramatizing, I didn't 
get into any trouble.  And the crowd he'd been gathering up evaporated 
as fast as they could sneak away without catching his attention.    
Of course this was back in the old GO days.

I attended a lot of confidential briefings at the Ft. Harrison
at various times in the 1980s.  These would usually be either
to get recruits or to get money.  Sometimes they'd just make
things up to scare you into opening your wallet or whatever.

There was one where the SO recruiter told us that Ron had not
researched the OT platens but instead had stolen them from
the Vatican which was using them to implant people.  The untrained
public ate it up, but the trained auditors in the room looked
at each other and made looney toons like gestures.  We'd
heard the endless Briefing Course tapes where they were struggling
to research this stuff.  I think that a lot of knowlege reports
got written and the recruiter probably ended up in the RPF.  But if 
the story hadn't been obviously wrong to so many people, he would
have gotten commended for getting the stats up.

At times there would be people doing "surveys" in reception
with various questions like "What Object Would Represent ...."
to get things to use in advertisements or anti-psych rat posters.

I hate to end on such a depressing note.  So let me tell you
that trained auditors occasionally get fed up with this and
tear into such people.  I'm far from the only one who did
this.  And the auditors generally got away with it too.  Often
much to their surprise.  They don't realize how scared the
OSA and admin people are of anybody who actually knows the tech.


Hopeing for a better future,

The Pilot

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

Subj : Super Scio - Answering Kirillm


ANSWERING KIRILLM 

On Apr 6, kirillm@ea.com wrote

> Your docs are excellent :)
> I have ten thousand questions though... and i dont like public 
> discussions.  Can you contact me please?

Glad you liked the docs.

I'm staying undercover for now (fabian as they say in the Sea Org).
So I'm avoiding direct contact (maybe next year).  I really don't
think that you're an OSA plant, but better safe than sorry.

Also, others may have the same questions and its easier to 
answer everything once in a place where everybody knows to look.
This might be especially helpful to lurkers who don't dare ask
their own questions.

Also, an open discussion helps to promote reformist ideas among the 
loyalist lurkers.

If you need to ask something that might expose you to attack, then
look into using an anonymous remailer to post the question.

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

ARC,

The Pilot

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

Subj : Super Scio - Question for Miscavige

QUESTION FOR MISCAVIGE

I haven't read the entire thread re deposing DM, and I hope this
doesn't come too late, but I would suggest the following:


HOW MANY SCIENTOLOGISTS WERE TRAINED TO FORGE L. RON HUBBARD'S
SIGNATURE?

We know that many were trained to do this because of the SO 1 line.

I'm sure you can figure out how to carry on from here.

--------

I find it unbelivable that Scientology is on the wrong side in
the free speach battles.

The fantastic increases in communications, data access, and
computational power will revolutionize society just as did the steam
engine and electricity.  There is a terrible battle here as to
whether this power will fall into the hands of the individuals or
the state.

In the old days, Ron would paint a picture of a thought police
style world government.  Sometimes he called them "Push Button
Societies" since the state would push a button and all the people
would obey like robots.

One of the key turning points between a suppressed and a free
society is whether the communications are free or controlled by
the state.  The mamouth increases in communication brought about
by the internet are bringing this matter to a head.  And this will
grow by leaps and bounds because of the continual doubling of
computer power.  What we do now will set the stage for the next
century.

And the key question will be whether the communications are free
or controlled by the government.  This may well be the choice
between an eventual "one world police state" or a free and
enlightened society of loosely organized individuals.

I know which side Ron would take in this battle.  He could
evaluate the relative importance of things and he would sacrafice
confidentiality to keep the governments from owning the comm lines.
It was something that he had a truely great horror of.

I hate to side with the anti's in these cases, but the orgs are
setting up the mechanics for their own distruction when they
hand control of the comm lines over to the government in a
misguided attempt to protect their materials.

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

Hoping for a better world,

The Pilot

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

Subj : Re: Scientology = Amway? (Super Scio reply)


References: <5hjnph$npa@news.megalink.net> <333e1641.16067107@news.beaches.net>


On Sat, 29 Mar 97 17:53:46 GMT, spider@maineline.com (The Castle)
wrote:
 
>Is there any real diference between Scientology and Amway? I cant see any
>except the Amway folks dont make a living sueing everyone.
>Sue.. spider@maineline.com
 
At one time there was a whole nest of Amway folks in Scientology
(or a whole nest of Scientology FSMs who were also in Amway).
There apparently was some cross fertilization between the big
league sales techniques of the two groups.

The Scientology public's mindset easily encourages pyramid schemes.
They apparently think that they can come out ahead by using FSM
tech and making strong postulates.

In the early day's of the Sea Org, a chain letter came straight from
some Flag execs and OT public and penetrated nearly every org on
the planet before Ethics crushed it.

"Paradise Marketing" (yet another pyramid sales organization) was
very hot among OTs in the late 1970s.

When the "bring shopping bags of money" style pyramid meetings were
running wild out on the west coast, lots of Scientologists got on
the bandwagon.

The usual course of these things is that some big execs and advanced
public get in early.  The scheme is allowed to florish long enough
to let these guys make their bundle and get some public onto
their advanced levels.  Then it is crushed severly with heavy threats
of Ethics before it gets too deeply into the field and screws up
to much of the public.  Low level staff and gulible public are
left holding the bag and usually end up in cramming doing definitions 
of "Exchange" in clay.  Those who got out early rush to Flag for
their Ls or whatever and are congradulated for being up-stat and
having good postulates.


Best,

The Pilot


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


Subj : Super Scio - Concerning Reiss

On 7 Apr 97, phariz@aol.com (Phariz) wrote

> Recently I was critized by Frank Copeland for making the FSO-staff 
> Richard Reiss and Alain Kartuzinsky co-responsible for Lisa's death 
> by not giving any argument for that allegation.

(he continues on with a good analysis of Lisa's history, Flag
C/Sing lines, etc. and propogates the responsibility upwards to
Reiss.)

======

CONCERNING REISS (Senior CS at Flag) and Lisa's Death.


It would be best if you didn't accuse him of anything that you
don't have hard evidence on.  I have not seen him in a long time
and I do not have any current data, but there is the chance that
he may be a potential reformer.  He may be doing a lot of very
hard soul searching right now (of course he will keep this hidden
or he will be out of a job).

As senior CS, the responsibility does lie on his plate, but 
that doesn't mean that he was involved in any practical sense.

If anyone does get a chance to confront him, the right questions
would be "How could you let something like this happen?" and
"are you taking steps to ensure that this will never happen again?".


Thank You,

The Pilot


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

Subj : SUPER SCIO - Response To Bob Ross
References: <19970408040700.AAA14193@ladder01.news.aol.com>


This was posted by rowil@aol.com on 8 Apr 97 and reformatted by both
Joe Harrington and Keith Henson.  Thank you to all three.  I'm
hoping that Ross Wilson will get my reply back to Bob.

(and no thanks to Martin Hunt who used the opportunity to take
some pot shots at Bob Ross - it wouldn't be so bad except that
Bob isn't here on the newsgroup to defend himself.  Martin quotes
some of Croydon's quotes of Bob.  But Croydon was inciting people
into makeing the most damning remarks possible because he was trying
to overbalance the heavy waves of PR coming from the org.  So he
got extremist remarks rather than the person's usual outlook).

(since this was posted 3 times already, I did a lot of snipping)

> Pilot
> 
> A Friend of mine, Bob Ross, asked me to post this for him. From me I
> hope you are doing well and keeping up with your excellent work.  
> - Ross Wilson
> 
>  Message from Bob Ross follows:
>               B. Robert Ross
>               P.O.B. 91849
>               Pasadena, CA 91109
>                                     March 30, 1997
> To "Pilot" on the internet via a friend
> 
> Dear Sir,
> 
> I would like to express my agreement with most of what you have said and
> to offer some of my own discoveries in support of your findings, that I
> arrived at over the past thirty or forty years.
>
> Each of the following I wrote up at considerable length since I left the
> Church in 1982-3.

Good to hear that you are still alive and (I hope) well.  Homer has been
making your writings available on the internet (I don't know if its
only some or all).

> What I wanted to get changed were typos in the TR's Modernized.
> bulletin.

Unfortunately this was just the tip of the iceburg.  Its sad when
you can't even get a typo corrected.  Sometimes you could find
another copy of the bulletin which had a different typo.  Or find
a friendly mimeo operator who would retype the stencil (there was
much retyping because stencils would get torn or ruined by people
who didn't know how to use the equippment or clean a stencil).  But for
some strange reason these could never get fixed on official channels.

But we needed to fix a lot more than simple typos.  

> Somewhat later, I also wanted the arbitrary practice of
> IGNORING COMMENTS deleted from TR-3 and TR-4 as that practice, promoted
> out-of-sessionness.  PC comments directed at the room or the auditor are
> signs of ARC breaks to be handled by spotting the By-passed charge. 
> This has been the source of much bad auditing.
 
You have a point.  But if you simply substituted handling bypassed
charge for ignoring comments, you would just be trading one 
arbitrary for another.  What's really needed is judgement as to
whether the PC is simply trying to wiggle out from the processing
command or whether there is something to handle.  Eventually the
"Auditor's Rights" bulletin took care of some of this and the
improved TR4 cleaned up some more, but its still a weak point at
the orgs.  And there is still the problem of insisting on running
the wrong process.

I remember one PC who always needed to crack a joke and get a
smile out of the auditor before he felt safe and in communication.
Then he'd buckel down and do the process command.

Another PC (not one of mine) often felt she was being mis-CSed.
So she would simply ignore the auditor's command and run something
else.  Talk about being out of session.  She actually did an
L&N process based on overhearing the listing question being 
given in another session (what thin partitions).

> The first one of these arbitrary rules which I remember discovering, and
> ignoring when I was no longer worried about being sent to cramming by
> the C/S for violating that rule, was the rule that one should not
> indicate BPC  unless it read on a meter.

Now we come to one of the many things which was not actually covered
in the tech.  This one could successfully be argued both ways.  So
it depended who was CSing.  And if it was queried, it depended
who was answering the queries, and whoever answered it would have
signed it as "LRH".  And if you tried to ask a supervisor or
CS in advance to find out what they wanted, you would only get
"What does your material state" or "There is an infinity of
wrongness and only one rightness".

Generally all that you could do was try it one way or the other
and see which one got you thrown in the showers.  And sometimes
you'd do it one way and get flunked and then when you did it
the other way it would turn out that somebody else was covering
the CSing post and would flunk you again.

One time I was in cramming and I had two Class VIIIs screaming
at each other "What does your materials state" because I had
failed a written test twice and each one had marked opposite answers 
to the same yes/no question as being wrong and I called it to their
attention.

Of course by the time this kind of stuff is going on, any concern
for the PC has gone out the window.  Before standard tech, you
would have been in good communication with the PC and your
instincts would generally guided you correctly in doing what
was needed for him.  And if you did call it wrong, you felt
it right away and fixed it up and knew better (at least for
that PC) the next time.

> I started a project, which I've never completed when I noticed that Ron
> had a mannerism of CLEARING HIS THROAT BEFORE making some prediction
> about what a new process he was describing would accomplish.  My project
> consisted of listening carefully to lectures to spot moments when he
> cleared his throat and then to listen carefully to what he said
> immediately afterward.  I then made a record of where that had occurred
> so that others could find it and judge for themselves, that each throat
> clearing was followed by a prediction of wonderful results that would be
> achieved by following the instructions in that lecture.

Clearing your throat or any kind of a pregnant pause is a public
speaking trick to add impact to what you are about to say.  He uses
these pauses artfully, with or without throat clearing, to beef
up jokes and successes and anectdotes as well as adding punch to
his predictions of results.

I'm just guessing now, but I think that he copied these tricks from
Elbert Hubbard.  He talks about Elbert in at least one or two early
lectures, even reads the entire "Message to Garcia" in one of them
if I remember correctly.  He might have thought that Elbert was
some sort of relative although I doubt that there was any actual
connection.  Elbert used to tour the midwest on public speaking
tours and I would expect that Ron would have made a point of 
attending.  I once read an article by a railroad vice president
who described attending one of Elbert's lectures.  He said that
it so inspired him that he quickly rose from being a lowly 
track worker to becoming vice president of the railroad.  Ron's
entire lecture style (and some of the contents as well) might
be patterned on Elberts.

> I discovered that Ron cleared his throat, prior saying things he wanted
> people to believe had been tested, but that had not actually been
> tested, or had been observed, on perhaps one person.

I think that it was often once.  And the one shot "test" was
an inspired shooting from the hip while doing something else.
Eventually, as you keep listening to the early tapes, you begin
to see the correspondence between later commentary and conclusions
and the early demo sessions that were recorded.  If you listen
to a few early ACCs in sequence, you see that there are a few
demo sessions and some group processing and some feedback from
the handful of students and perhaps even a few things that were
unrecorded.  And these are all carried forward into the next
ACC as broad and sweeping conclusions.  But he also beefs it up
by combining it with suff from even earlier ACCs, and this gives
the impression that he had done a lot more unrecorded research
but actually he was just re-evaluating an earlier demo session
that was recorded, lets say, as part of the HCL lectures in 1952.

> "Pilot"  continues, "I now firmly believe ...that we don't have all the
> answers."   What "Pilot" does not realize is that Ron never thought he
> had all the answers,  that he often pretended to have complete answers
> to encourage others to discover how to achieve his postulated goals. 
> More than once, I've heard Ron say, in person or on tape, that the Tech
> was workable, not complete.

Well yes, he's certainly like that in the 1960s.  But then comes
the Class 8 course.  Suddenly he's pounding it into the students
heads that we do have all the answers and its simple and standard,
"like making pie".  Of course this blows up in his face (quickie
tech etc.) and there are major revisions ("discoveries") in
1970.  But it continues on in this pedantic and absolute fashion.

> By making tech into scripture, the church
> has frozen the tech and prevented advances. On the other hand, I suspect
> that church tech management, is trying to discover what has been
> developed in the field in the hope that they can use it in the church.

On this basis they should be encouraging the freezone instead of
trying to stomp it out.

But the organization is designed to blow their asses off if they
try to introduce anything that they learn from the freezone.
Mayo was tossed out quite easily considering how much power and
status he had.  Mithoff or Reiss would face the same fate.  Only
a co-ordinated effort amoung many top technical people would have
a chance of success.  I suspect that this is one of the real reasons 
for having the ship, it divides the top of the hierarchy into
three locations instead of two (Clearwater and Gilman) and thereby
makes it harder for a word of mouth revolt to develope.

> I think now that Help and Step Six, which
> produced undoubted clears rather routinely was dropped from the same
> reason.

No, he had at least one bad case failure with Step Six style
mockup processes.  There is a later comment about how it would
usually work but sometimes the TA soared up to 6 and wouldn't come
back down.  So he takes yet another shot at mockups / creative
processing with the create series in the first Melborne ACC and
that also produces mostly great but occasionally bad results.
So he tosses it all out as a bad job.

In retrospect, creative processing (mockup processing) is one
of the fastest and most powerful techniques that we've got but
it occasionally stirs up the create/distroy buttons commonly
used in implants.  Unfortunately, by the time we finally got a handle
on the implants, this earlier tech was already old and forgotten.

> ALL STYLES has been neglected and never taught as a skill.   Only a few
> people, such as Alan Walter's and myself, graduated as Class Six, All
> Styles auditors. Possibly as few as ten or twenty altogether, in late
> late 1964.  When it was discovered that the R6 bank could be run solo
> further training of ALL STYLES  auditors capable of running others on
> the R6 bank was dropped as part of training.

It was never actually cancelled.  Its not really an either/or choice
between Solo and "All Styles" auditing.  Its definitely needed as
a review auditor and case cracker skill.  And a solo version of
"All Styles" (as opposed to simple solo) is needed to do solo
research auditing.  Its all still there on the BC in theory.  The
real trouble is the missing practical and the general deterioration
of training skills.  Many of the auditors can't do any better than
beginners level "Muzzeled Style", and standard tech tends to
encourage this.
 
> The story of the discovery of solo is fascinating and worth preserving. 
> Student Helen Whitney from New Jersey, had been giving her auditor
> considerable trouble by having frequenty upsets and ARC breaks in
> session.   So Ron announced in a lecture that Helen was being put on a
> solo project so that she could learn how difficult she was to audit as a
> preclear.  Instead, She did well, so that  Ron soon after put every red
> unit student on solo GPM running.

I'm sure that you have lots of stories from those days that are
worth preserving and I hope that you're writting them up.  In the
official tech we only have one man's record of what was really
going on.  Even if he was perfect it would still only be one
viewpoint.  And we know for sure that at a minimum he preferred to
emphasize wins and down play failures and loved to exaggerate and
electrify the students.
 
> ...  Similarly if one could spot the
> original picture of a body, all the impacts to that body might then
> vanish and broken bones, missing limbs, etc might then blow off.
 
Now you've raised a good line for further investigation.  This is
the kind of thought that is needed if we are to find our way to
real OT.  What we really lost when Ron squashed it all down to
a single source (himself) was that ideas like this could no
longer stir the pot.

This ones good because it suggests all sorts of things to try.
That body builder stuff in History of Man was a shallow toss off
and can't be basic.  Early track stuff has to be simply postulated
body mockups used like icons on a computer desktop.  Maybe the
current body has an idealized picture or template behind it.
Maybe we could consider the DNA to be an encoded series of bit
switches against some sort of "generic" body mockup.  But if so,
what is that generic mockup and where does it originate.

I'm not saying that any of these things are true.  This is just
guesswork.  But these are things to explore.  Next one dreams up 
processes and tries things.  And then maybe you find a demonstrable
phenomena, and that lets you re-evaluate things.  And you're
still probably only half right, but now your moving forwards.

> Here is one more example,  most kids I work with giggle when I ask them
> about the letter "P."  Do you know why?

Yes of course.  The letter P is used freequently in the NOTS 
material.  Deep down the child knows about these things but hides
them from himself.  When you mention the letter, it restimulates
NOTS and the child becomes fidgity and giggles.  (just kidding)

Sorry, occassionally I have a Jokers and Degraders fit.  It helps
blow the charge stirred up by fooling around with all this powerful
stuff.  It also forces literal minded people who might be reading
this to wake up and think about what they're reading.  Ron loved
to joke and tease his students too.  Its hard to imagine him
writting the Jokers and Degraders policy.  He would have been the
first victim if the policies were ever applied to him personally.

In all seriousness, you make a good point about little kids
confusing the letters and the words.  And of course any talk
about pee will clip some charge on a small child (and on many
adults too).  Even if the communication wasn't inhibited (and
the society is getting better in that regard), the physical
act was inhibited because we can't tolerate the kids doing it
anywhere at random whenever the mood strikes them.
 
  
==========


I am hoping that you keep pushing forward in your own research.
And I hope that you have the full set of 32 Super Scio documents
that I put out and that they give you a bit of a hand in this area.

ARC,

The Pilot
  

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

The trailer included on most of these messages was:

See the Pilot materials at:
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
Or search Dejanews for "Super Scio", or pick up the ss## files
from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

