Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: Super Scio Archive - <5/9> posts of Jun 97
Date: 25 Aug 1997  14:00:16


POST5.TXT

SUPER SCIO PILOT POSTS OF JUNE 1997


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

Contents (Headers):

Subj : Super Scio Web Page - ANNOUNCEMENT
Subj : Super Scio - GOOD NEWS FOR SCIENTOLOGISTS
Subj : Super Scio Tech - ANSWERING FRED
Subj : Super Scio Humor - UNSUPPRESSING DAVID BIRD
Subj : Super Scio - TO Cornelius Krasel
Subj : Super Scio Tech - TO HEIDRUN BEER (CLEAR BABY)
Subj : Super Scio Tech - ABOUT INCIDENT 2
Subj : Super Scio - PLAYING THE QUOTATION GAME


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

Subj : Super Scio Web Page - ANNOUNCEMENT


NEW WEB PAGE:

I have written the SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE and Cornelius
Krasel has been kind enough to make it available on the net.

Those of you who provide a large number of links on your web pages
might one to add this one.

You might add a blurb like "even the Scientologists are getting
disgusted with their own organization and want to see it reformed".

Thank you, 

The Pilot

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

(the following trailer was used on most of the messages)

See the new "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot at
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html

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.

Subsequent follow-ups, arguments for reform, defenses, criticisms,
occasional jokes, and even more tech can be found by searching dejanews
http://www.dejanews.com/ either for "Super Scio" or for all
pilot postings to ARS by using the following search string:
    ~a (The Pilot) & ~g (alt.religion.scientology)

My public key is as follows: (really version 2.6ui)

- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAjOdP4IAAAEEAMm+dCcv5Tx0KMfaqvvQrhqAlXAuUaMRyLp5VS1CHAE0C0Aq
LR9N884PAfTJ//aDBZKYMAXMxp/pp+Ei/Yq9n5Rh8GAkoFhVt1TjeyKuthTMduOD
cbkAmFGLQiKkvnx/pYtlyUIjqt2cFjh/qBWH2tEbPXW+uZV1xssIt3ZgVQbNAAUR
tCFUaGUgUGlsb3QgPHBpbG90QGhpZGRlbnBsYWNlLmNvbT4=
=q/DH
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

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


Subj : Super Scio - GOOD NEWS FOR SCIENTOLOGISTS


GOOD NEWS FOR SCIENTOLOGISTS


What is Good?

The Tech is good.

Lots of Tech.

Standard Tech.

Confidential Tech.

The 1950s Tech.

Research (Freezone) Tech.

Tech of every shape and form being used and applied by everybody.

Tech all over the place, spreading out on every channel imaginable.  

Tech on the internet.  Tech in the bookstores.  Group processing on TV.  
Assist Networks.  Co-Audit Clubs.  Learning Centers.  Orgs flooded 
with business just delivering repair and booster rundowns.

Stats out the roof and the planet being cleared even as we speak.

This would all be true except for one little fly in the ointment.

Suppressive polices and the current actions of International
Management.

Don't believe me?  Read "The Scientology Reformer's Home Page"
at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html

The arguments are much to long to list here.  Suffice it to say
that they are blocking communications and stopping people from
using the subject.  It's all on the web page.

As for me, I'm an old timer who loves the tech and hates policy.
I still owe my loyalty to that old high ARC third dynamic which
was destroyed by crush ethics, crush sell, and fanatical Sea Org
missions.

So I'm still a member in "good" standing despite the fact that
management would like to lay their hands on me and toss me out
the door (or worse).  So I post anonymously.

I play the "Swamp Fox", hobnobing with the "British Aristocracy"
while managing the revolution behind their backs.  Some of them,
not knowing that I am "The Pilot", would speak highly of me.
But they would disconnect in an instant if my identity became known.

Most of them are not bad people.  They have the highest of good
intentions.  But they are dramatizing very badly and following
blind and stupid policies that are guaranteed to sink the subject
and ensure its failure.

It is a "group engram" in restimulation.  Read the webpage for
details.

But there is good news.  Reform is possible.

Scribble "Reform Now" on the promo you receive and send it back.
Tear off the mailing lable if you don't want to get "handled" or
declared.

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


Subj : Super Scio Tech - ANSWERING FRED


ANSWERING FRED

On May 21, 1997, Fred (fmm@pacifier.com) wrote:
>Pilot said, after a long very interesting post:
>
>>Since I don't know exactly what Robert is doing, I can't
>>comment either way.  If the PCs are making gains, and they're
>>still happy a few days later (rather than scratching their heads
>>about the whole thing), then its probably fine.
>
>I received several sesions from Robert.  They took me lightyears from the
>auditing I had done in the xurch and every day I still have cognitions that
>I can directly relate to those sessions, from several months ago.  I know i
>have a long way to go, but I felt I had to take a break from it to have
>those cognitions as i couldn't keep up with it all.  (Yes, scratching my
>head about it all too.)
>
>Having never done any xurch OT auditing, i've been very interested in the
>recent posts regarding it and peoples viewpoints.  What all do you folks
>think of us youngins self-auditing ourselves on this stuff?  I'm sure it
>would take some assistance to get it all EP'd but I seem to have good case
>gain just looking for myself (with clues from you guys) and ack'ing what I
>perceive.  Am I on the way to certain death as the xurch seems to indicate?
>Would you advise someone to attempt to solo this material?  Any suggestions
>would be appreciated.
>
>Fred

Very well done on the auditing wins.

I think that the org greatly exaggerates the dangers of fooling
around with OT platens.  The research line on these consisted of
BC students doing L&N on each other in the presence of heavy charge
(not even FNing rudiments) and that can get somebody sick on the
wrong items no matter what is being listed.

My biggest caution would be that if you are soloing on your own you
need to know what you are doing and therefore should study a good
bit.

I would suggest that you start by reading Super Scio #4A (7 or 32) 
which deals with auditing techniques and how to dig yourself out 
if you get in trouble.

The easiest to run solo are actually the OT drills as in the last
OT1, the old OT 5 & 6, Creation of Human Ability route 1, and
the things in Super Scio #7A (16 of 32).  The Philadelphia Doctorate
Course (PDC) and early ACC tapes (1st to 9th ACCs) are excellent
background for this kind of processing, so if you have access to
any of these (some freezone groups have extensive tape libraries),
it makes good listening while you are doing these drills.

The trick on these is not to try to force high reality or clear
perceptions but simply to do them lightly and enjoy a vague but
expanding level of conciousness.  You do them again later and
they get better.  All OT drills are unlimited processes (can be
run over and over).  But they are best left for times that you
really feel blown out (while your taking a break to 'have those
cogs' is perfect) because they do not handle case charge.

Implant platens are the next easiest to solo.  For those you
should really have an emeter.  Again, they should not be started
when you have a lot of case charge keyed in because they will not
necessarily undercut existing charge despite the fact that you
are running out case charge with them.  In other words, they will
get rid of certain areas of charge but not necessarily the particular
charge that somebody has keyed in in life.

Solo incident running is more difficult.  Since you're having
wins with Robert, you might want to stick with him for this.

I would suggest leaving the area of entities alone until you bump
into it and it gets in your way.  When you do, the Nots techniques
are better.  The right sequence is probably to use Nots lightly
on whatever is around until nothing more shows up.  Then fool
around with OT3 and other mass implants to run deeper and get more
reality (get OT 2 flat first).  Then take Nots the rest of the way 
to full cause over entities.  But again, its not really going to 
handle your own case, just some restimulative factors and barriers.

The biggest problem is that the grades in their current form are
the most difficult processes to solo.  LRH says that it is foolish
to even try.  I would say that it can be done but it is very
difficult.  The problem is in continuing to do a repetative command
when the answer doesn't fall in your lap immediately.  If you
cognite while studying or on the first command, then it is easy.
But if it doesn't work as a one shot, you can't see where it's
going and the tendency is to drop it instead of flattening the
process.  Here you might need to find a freezone auditor who can
run expanded grades.  

The only exception is the Self Analysis book which is a solo version
of the recall release.  Notice that it takes hundreds of specifically 
targeted recall commands to substitute for running a few simple 
repetative processes.

Gook Luck,

The Pilot

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


Subj : Super Scio Humor - UNSUPPRESSING DAVID BIRD


UNSUPPRESSING DAVID BIRD (HUMOR)

The loyal officers hiding in the 4th dimension urged me to post
this message to save David Bird from almost certain harm due to
a gross technical goof.  As always, I take no responsibility for
the contents of their message, I am only a passing on what they
have said.  - The Pilot


> From: Roland <RolandRB@nospam.netcomuk.co.uk>
> Subject: Dave Bird suppressive - the proof !
> Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 
>
> Dave Bird was carrying an extremely heavy metal container this morning
> and the weight of it was troubling him greatly. I explained that
> according to LRH all he had to do was to fully acknowledge to the metal
> container that it was indeed heavy and it would cease to be heavy. So he
> did this. And it didn't work.
> 
> Now since the incredibly powerful tech of LRH always works if applied
> 100% standardly then it proves Dave did not apply it 100% standardly.
> Therefore he must have squirrelled the tech and he must be a
> no-case-gain type as well. There could be no better proof that he in
> indeed suppressive.
> 
> Roland
 

FLUNK! FLUNK! FLUNK!
AUDITOR IS TRYING TO KILL THE PC!
OVERBOARD 3 TIMES!

It is not David Bird who is the suppressive.
It is the Heavy Metal Container.

MEST which pretends to be TOO heavy to lift does so for only one
reason, and that is to INVALIDATE the Thetan's ability to lift it.

Therefore, Roland and David should both immediately go to
Ethics and disconnect from this suppressive container.

Furthermore, the container must be made to do steps A to E.  If
it refuses, it should be sent to the nearest RPF or otherwise
offloaded before it sours the entire organization.

As further clarification, we will relate the tale of one of our
officers who briefly reincarnated as a Sea Org member during the
old sea going days.

This officer was to carry a safe full of loot into the commodor's
quarters.  The safe proved too heavy for him to lift.  Since he
was an OT, he knew that it must be the safe's fault instead of
his own and attempted to get the safe to follow the enemy formula.

When this failed, he knew that the safe was indeed suppressive and
must be offloaded immediately.

With the aid of a dozen crewmembers, he succeeded in having
the evil safe tossed over the side of the ship into the ocean.  Instead 
of climbing back on board as did the class 8 students, the safe then
proceeded to blow and was never seen again, giving further proof
of its suppressive nature.

We do not understand why the commodor was displeased.  Perhaps
the loyal officer remained PTS to the safe.  We have no other
explanation to account for the officer being placed in the RPF.

But we are sure of one thing and that is that the flagship was
saved from certain harm at the hands of this diabolical object.


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

- From the sekrit scriptures of the loyalist officers in 4th dimensional 
hiding:

 - The Platen for OT 47:

This is known as "Tiger Drilling"

step 1: Go to a Zoo
step 2: Locate the Tiger's cage
step 3: Say hello to the Tiger
step 4: Have the Tiger acknowlege you (a cough or growl is acceptible)
step 5: Reach for the Tiger 
step 6: Pet the Tiger
step 7: Withdraw from the Tiger.

Repeate steps 5 to 7 until something happens.

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


Subj : Super Scio - TO Cornelius Krasel


TO Cornelius Krasel

Thank you very much for fixing up the web page and putting it
online.

Of course you're right about the <LI> tags.  But I'm curious as
to whether you ran into a browser that had trouble with these.
I checked the damn thing with 4 different browsers (Microsoft
Explorer, OS/2 Explorer, and 2 versions of Netscape) and none
of them gave me an error.

Note that I used the <CENTER></CENTER> pair instead of align=CENTER
because the latter did not work (was ignored) by OS/2 explorer
(it works with Microsoft explorer) whereas all 4 browsers were
happy with the older method of centering.  Again I wonder if
you have a browser which only recognizes align= for centering.

Note that I'm not complaining (I'm glad for the help).  But I
work in software development (obviously not in HTML) so I like
to understand where I went wrong for the next time.

I didn't have any way to check whether the old AOL browser (a
real piece of garbage with an integrated dialer so that its not
easy to replace) is happy with the page.  A lot of Scientologists
have old second hand PCs and have no choice but to use this kind 
of trash to get online.  Maybe somebody who is using this stuff 
could take a look and post a message as to whether the page comes 
up looking nice and functioning.  And maybe a web TV user could
do the same.  

We have to keep in mind that most Scios save their money for 
auditing instead of buying new PCs unless they work in data 
processing.  The Scientology web site drives them crazy with 
their slow modems, limited disk space, and arcaic browsers.
And they are usually on either Earthlink or AOL, both of whom
deserve prizes for poor quality service in the US.

Thank You,

The Pilot

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


Subj : Super Scio Tech - TO HEIDRUN BEER (CLEAR BABY)


TO HEIDRUN BEER (CLEAR BABY)

On Sat, 31 May 1997, Heidrun Beer (clear baby) concern@atnet.at Wrote
 
> Hi Pilot,
> 
> please contact me. I would like to go over an upper level
> process with you which I have used for some 20 years.
> 
> Thanks!

Yes I'm very interested.

- -------

I noticed your recent post about your running NOTS on PCs.

To that I would say Very Well Done.

It's not an unusally difficult auditing skill.  Obviously easier
than some of the Grad 4 specialist rundowns.  Flag only requires
class 4 as a prerequisite to NOTS training (not BC or class 8).
Any professional class 4 should have an easy time of it.

Since some of the A.C.T. crowd is Q&Aing a bit on the subject, I'll 
mention that I bumped into a few entities while I was in the key-ed 
out OT state after power.  Not haveing any other tech, I remembered 
what it said in History of Man about them not being able to bother you
unless you empowered them to do so and I simply kind of pulled
energy out of the area and put them back to sleep.  But it would
have been much better if I'd had a simple NOTS handling (it
certainly would have run easily).

I also sat up one night with another staff member who had turned
on or pulled in some sort of entity that was bothering her. 
Eventually I ended up putting all the ruds in on the guy by two
way comm (unmetered, real coffee shop) and he blew much to the
relief of both of us.

Both times, I was hunting around in the dark when there were easy
techniques available.  I'm sure that just spotting Inc 1 (the only
tech available at the time) or using what/who/me would have 
handled either of these situations because it was stuff that
was already loosened up, so to speak, and presenting itself for
handling.

But I think it would be a serious mistake to hunt this stuff up
if the lower grades haven't been handled, because the grades are senior
and on gradient.  The proper analogy would be that if an ARCX
presents itself, you handle it even if the person is not up to
grade zero yet (and you don't hide the existance of ARCXs for
fear of stirring them up), but you don't go digging for them 
until you reach grade 3.  Furthmore, you would sink the guy if
you insisted that all his problems and overts really came from
ARCXs because it would be a false datum and a wrong why.

There are two situations where there have been bad results from
NOTS.  They are both due to this mistaken idea that NOTS is the
source of case.

The first was to assume that NOTS was the source of things and
run unreading items on NOTS.  That was done on audited NOTS
during the first year or so.  I just barely missed it.  This is
what the org calls the "bad Mayo Nots" but I don't know if he
was really the source of this error, he might only have been a
convienient scapegoat.  The people who had it run this way ended
up getting hundreds of hours of repair and didn't do very well.

The second is to overrun the level.  It is not basic.  You hit the
EP and it ceases to be the why on the case.  I talked about this
in a couple places in the Super Scio book.  I did very well on
NOTS until the EP.  After that, you start misowning your own
abberations as belonging to BTs and begin dragging BTs into the
body and mocking them up and all sorts of mess.  Then you can
really start decaying physically.  Its a deadly error.

Of course there is also the problem of auditors who can't audit,
but that is not specific to Nots.  I've heard mention of running
the process out of ARC and of course that will give trouble.
I even heard of a situation at AO where the auditor had such a
heavy accent and out TR1 that the PC couldn't hear him and when
she complained, they sec checked her because she was crititcal
and must have overts!  And speaking of sec checks, jamming a
six month sec check into the middle of a major action (solo
Nots) would seem to me to be a gross flunk and just asking for
trouble.

Aside from this, the level was very enjoyable and I made a lot
of gains.  I even had that wild spontaneous adjustment to my back
happen in an audited session, and I hadn't known about that so
it certainly wasn't something I mocked up because I expected it
to happen.  I didn't even know that it was an expected occurance
until I saw a complete pack.  They only give you about half the
NOTS series on solo (they omit all the ones that explain the
auditied rundowns).

I even started seeing the "sparks" that are occasionally (not
always) given off by a BT as he blows.  This happened about
halfway through solo, and, if I remember right, it was a year
or two before the bulletin came out describing that phenomena.
Its an actual little glowing dot that you can see moving off into
the distance with the bodies eyes (not a theta perceptic or
impression or mockup).  Apparently the mass of BTs filter out
the actual vision until you get far enough along.  Only a small
percentage blow in this visible manner (thetans are not visible,
its only that some of these guys radiate energy as they leave).
On very rare occasions in everyday life you can see one of these 
entering or leaving somebody.  I notice it about once a month.

I never had any concept that these were bad guys or had to be
chased away or anything like that.  It was just stuck theta that
needed to be set free.  I pretty much assumed that they were
independent beings without any real Itsa of my own on the subject.
It was only during the endless overrun that I began to realize 
that most of this stuff was fragments of other people walking
around on the street (I got up to following them mentally and
trying to see what happened to them) and realizing that I was
also projecting bits of myself onto other people.  But that is
really a different level and only showed up due to the overrun.
But a few did seem to really begin operating as independent
beings, so my attitude would be to simply let stuff be whatever
it is and not worry about it while doing Nots.

The ones that really are independent beings occasionally come back
for advise or assistance or hatting.

But most of the time I think that you are simply returning some
encysted theta to other people.

As is the case with any level, while you are in the middle of
running Nots it seems like you can handle anything with it.
Occasionally you get rid of a somatic or difficulty.  And you 
feel fantastic when you hit the end of the level.  But, just
like with Dianetic clear or any grade release, after the super
win cools down you find that you still have a large percentage
of your somatics etc.  In that respect its just another level
in a long lineup.

But the big gain is in reducing the barriers around you.  Its
like you were muffled in cotton and it all fell away.  And you
stop being affected by BT think.  And you can probably stop
bothering with establishing ownership as a formal procedure 
because you just know when something is coming from a BT (no more
confusion, as long as they don't overrun you on the level for
too long).

As to their being any necessity for hanging onto these guys,
I didn't find that to be the case.  Anything useful that they 
might have been doing is handled by your own theta expanding
naturally to fill the gap.  However, I don't object to Alan's
referring to them as spiritual teammates (STs) because I did
get the feeling of having more connection to theta and other
beings as this stuff freed up.  In other words it was an expansion
rather than some kind of method for chasing things away.

Since I don't consider BT to be a derrogatory term, I don't see
any need to relable them STs, but there are some people on the
orgs delivery lines who have this derragatory idea.  Its really 
just a misunderstood that gets perpetuated because some irresponsible
idiot wants to blame all of his case on those evil BTs.

I also think that most people could solo on it after a small amount 
of auditing, maybe one intensive worth, and a highly trained auditor
might just go on solo immediately.  Once the person is really
moving, there's no sense in gettin in their way.  The whole
thing is maybe one or two hundred hours solo rather than the
endless run that the org makes out of it.

Aside from parts of the Nots series, solo only had a single
bulletin which was basically a streamlined valence technique
(list what to BD FN and then do who for a me answer).  After
about an intensive of solo, I was pretty much just spotting
what they were being as I located them, acked it, and asked
who if they hadn't blown already.  Very fast and easy.  The
basic solo CS is simply to follow where ever your attention is
drawn to or avoids and handle whatever is there to a blow.

Later some more bulletins came out about solo (like the sparks
business) but that was all after I had actually finished and
was into the endless overrun.

One of the later bulletins gave an additional rundown of things
you could do if a BT came back for help or if you had real trouble
handling one.  The nicest and most useful of these steps was
to ask him "do you have pictures and things" and if he answered
yes to say "do you have to" and encourage him to answer "no"
(and use "do you REALLY have to?" a bit scornfully if he insisted 
that he did until he cognites).  Then you would ask  "Can You Create" 
and coax him into saying yes and realizing that he could mockup
things at will instead of compulsively.

Now somebody like Ducharme is going to complain about your
missing the opportunity to run incidents of shock with great
benifit, and I will say right now that that's a silly consideration.
We've all got more than enough case to run, and nobody is
going to touch more than ten percent of whats easily available
before a level keys so far out that you can't do anything more
with the techniques until you have cycled through a lot of
other levels and pushed the case an order of magnitude closer
to bedrock.

Now I would assume that somebody has sucked incident running
dry for the time being before they would bother with any kind
of entity handling, not because the entity handling is more
difficult or advanced but only because the incident running
gives the person more orientation and awareness of his track
and is in general more important.

But of course you get back to incident running eventually.
The real target is cleared theta clear which includes full recall
of the track, and that means running it or otherwise recovering
the totality of your experience.

Yes I'm "Clear OT" which means "no track".  But even Ron says 
on some tape that he blew the track for awhile and then he put
it back but now it was more accurate.  The no track business just 
means that you're no longer compulsively mocking it up.

I interpret the "no dianetics after clear" to mean "no R3R after
clear".  There is too much rote procedure and too much auditor
and too little PC in R3R once you're far along on the bridge.
I know of 8 different dianetics techniques that Ron issued,
and only 3 of them are R3R variations (original R3R, the R3RA of
standard dianetics, and R3RN of Ned), and thats not counting
the more exotic methods of incident running that he came up with.

In the decade that I've been going at it on my own, I've found
that I cycle through different classes of approach, namely
incident oriented (including implants), grades oriented,
"theta oriented" (including Nots), and OT drilling.  Each seems
to have its time and place and then falls away and you have
to shift, but eventually you get back to that class of action at 
a new level of accessibility.

And I still haven't run out of ordinary mundane everyday stuff
that needs to be handled.

In practice, every level and every breakthrough gives you the
feeling that it is the complete answer and the entirety of the
bridge.  But its not.  Thats just a side effect of doing a
level.

There was a recent freezone comment about the Scientology
"items" (I assume they mean things like PTPs, overts, and ARCXs)
only being correct for about 10 percent of the population.
I totaly disagree.  I think that everybody's got this stuff
although it isn't necessarily accessible in all cases.

But they also said that the Scientology items only represent
about 10 percent of a persons case.  And there I agree completely,
at least as regards standard tech.  Its a very tiny subset, even
of the things discussed in the 1950s nothing to say of all the
things that Ron might have missed.  I fully expect that a complete
roadmap would have hundreds of grades and OT levels, I can
think of dozens without half trying at this point.

Rather than worrying about how much there is, you simply grab
a level that will run, and take it to a big EP, enjoy the
win and move on.  There will always be some big gain worth
having.  Just be careful never to promise to really handle
something because you don't know if you can really crack it
with a particular level.  Every cracker jack box contains a
prize, but you don't know what prize will be in a given box.

My biggest gain on Nots was a complete surprise.  I had always
had a lot of charge on real creativity (by which I mean writing
music or inventing fiction stories or designing things etc.).
I would try to do these things (amaturish but with some promise)
and get so terribly charged up that I'd abandon the attempt.
It was like real electrical charge, very upsetting since I had
all sorts of artistic goals.  

This entire mass suddenly fell away.  I sat right down and wrote 
a science fiction novallette.  Not a great story but not entirely
bad either.  I didn't get the skill magically (but my writing
has been improving since then).  The point is that I was able
to do this without going half crazy and abandoning the attempt
after a few pages, which is what had always happened before.
It was the same with the piano.  Trying to improvise or write
music made me feel like I was receiving an electronic implant.
So I'd stayed with classical.  Now its easy, as least as far
as feeling happy and comfortable while I do it.  The skill
level is a different matter (again not a freebie).  My 
improvisations sound pretty much like a mixture of Brahms and
Stravinsky hacking up Stardust and I doubt that anybody would
ask me to cut an album.

But as an honest estimate, I would only say that about ten percent
of the case that I had remaining after doing old OT 7 was handled
by doing Nots.  And it was a random 10 percent.  Some somatics
but not most of them.  Some upsets, but not most.  Some
perception blocks, but not most.  Some inabilities, but not
most.  So don't make the mistake of assuming that it's a magic
cure all.

Also, at least for me, Nots only produced reasonable Tone Arm
action.  Whereas old OT 4 to 7 and some of the other stuff I've
run since (such as the penalty universes) produced spectacual
TA and unbeliveably large meter reads.

ARC,

The Pilot

Note that I'm putting a number of other technical posts out to
alt.clearing.technology only without copying them to ARS.


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


Subj : Super Scio Tech - ABOUT INCIDENT 2


ABOUT INCIDENT 2

Some very interesting discussions on OT3 incident 2 took place
on A.C.T. during May 1997.  Here I'm going to summarize some of the
things that I thought were noteworthy and toss my own two cents
worth in as well.  I'll use different prefixs on the lines from 
different speakers.


>Homer W. Smith wrote:

>> The Pilot's words, according to Hubbard, are "I am mocking this up."
>
> Does anyone have some specifics about this incident? What does the
> Pilot look like? Where is he located? etc.
>
> The 'Pilot' claims that he was
> the big kahuna spirit that tried to take responsibility for the
> incident by postulating "I am mocking this up".

See "a more accurate look at incident 2" in section 6A of Super
Scio <14 of 32>.

Note that I only claim to be a fragment, I think that you'll find
thousands of people on Earth who are shattered pieces of that guy.
Also, I think that everyone will find many times that they were
gods on the track.  In other words, I'm not trying to grandstand
here or pull status.  It simply gave me a different perspective
on the incident.  

>Has anyone actually
>run this incident? No generalities please, and I don't care what
>cHubbo said about it.


# From: ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton)
#
# The visio I got on running inc 2 was a frontal view of a space suited
# pilot with a helmet. The image was holographically projected and
# appeared high in the air without any associated craft.
# My experience of the "I am mocking it up" was similar to that
# mentioned by Ken. It seemed to have the meaning "I mocking this and
# you up" or "I am God the Creator and you are all my created entities".

Ralph is referring to an earlier post by Ken Urqhart.

I didn't get/have the intention "you are all my created entities"
when I ran this incident from the pilot's viewpoint,  but maybe it 
was there.  However, it definitely has the implication of
"I am God and this is my universe and my mockup so you'd better
agree to my postulates".  This is done knowing that there are other
Gods (each of whom would say the same thing and argue with you about
it) and knowing that the fragmented beings in bodies are also 
potentially gods.  In other words, it is a trick to get control of
the mockup by overwhelm and intention and responsibility (in this
case at least, because the goal was to stop the implant rather than
continue it), as I descibed in the super scio writeup.

When I ran the incident from the pilot's viewpoint, I got the
idea that I was mocking up a big pilot's head in the sky.  But
it seemed to me like it was a 1930's style barnstorming pilot.

# I have not run anything that substantiates the version posted by the
# 'Pilot' however I wasn't around here at the time. I have come across
# similar things to what he states but in very much earlier incidents.
  
Now we're getting somewhere.  There are lots of these mass implants.
  
Even Hubbard knew better.  In the HCL lectures of 1952, he says that 
there are at least 5 major "joiner" incidents, and that "the last one 
seems to have taken place here on Earth, but I don't know the details 
yet" (approximate quote).  So its late on the chain.

Why put out details on the "last incident on the chain" when you
know that you need to run earlier similar and then not even mention
that there are earlier ones.


# From running thousands BTs through it I found common aspects to the
# story but also many individual variations.
# Many have come up with later parts of the incident which in their
# version includes being transported to other planets and used in
# astrological implants.
  
Very interesting.  Any idea how they are used?  To project the
implants?  To be the astrological symbols?  To infest the guy and
push him into following his horoscope?

# Other appear to have been set up in a belt around the planet which
# would trap beings trying to exteriorize from the planet with visions
# of various different "heavens".

Again interesting.  My first thought on applying this is to ask
"were you built into a screen" if I hit one of these guys.

# It also seems that this type of incident has occurred many times.
# Entities have also come up with an earlier "experimental" version of
# the implant occuring on a moon. I have also dated more recent
# recurrences.

Yes.

# My own tendency is to neither believe nor disbelieve these track
# events. I run what the PC (i.e. the BT/Cl) comes up with. 

Excellent attitude.

# When I ran OT3 in the CofS the first 15 - 20 hours was almost purely
# inc 2 and inc 1 as per LRH. In those few hours I had more subjective
# case gain than all the 400 or so hours prior to it put together. After
# that I was running mostly other incidents. After a few hundred hours I
# switched to the Milazzo rundown and found it much smoother. (In the
# Milazzo version one doesn't initially direct the cluster to inc 2 but
# one asks for the cluster making incident and then one date/locates it.
# Over the later years it became apparent that inc 1 was quite late on
# the track of a being.

When I studied the level, it was very unclear as to which rundown to
use.  My feeling was that you would just know if it was inc 2
(because you had just studied it) and if not, then you would simply
do Milazzo, and I found this to be the case (but most of the inc 2
guys took off on an automatic blow when I read the materials and only
a couple had to be run on it).  The supervisor, however, was sure
that you had to run inc 2 first in all cases.  The only way to pass
the practical drill was to do it his way (of course you can evaluate
for a student with repetative flunks).  So my first session was
continually checking for an inc 2 that wasn't there before running
cumulative cluster formation.  The CS sent me to cramming for this
(right action but wrong target) and I got them to cram the supervisor 
instead.

I think that inc 1 is recent and is the incident used to shift
people from the magic universe into this universe.  The first time
might be as far back as 86 trillion, but there could also be very
recent occuances because we do excape occasionally.

# The principle tech violation in OT3 and extensive NOTs , as I see it,
# is that it violates the self determinism of a being. There has to be a
# point when the Pre-OT has freed up enough charge to be able to take
# responsible for their part in the BT/Cl phenomena.

Definitely.

# My perception is that BT/Cls stick to the early track aesthetic
# creations of the Pre-OT. These creations often have multiple ownership
# and alter-is. 

Here I wonder if we are talking about abberative BTs or intentionally
getting others to put pieces of themselves onto your asthetic mockups
so as to gain agreement and solidity.

Of course I think that there is a natural mechanism (infinitely big
beings exchanging bits of themselves conciously) that was abberated
(unconcious beings putting implanted bits of themselves onto each
other to keep themselves trapped and human).

# Bill Robertson has put forward some similar ideas but
# with different ways of running than mine in his OT12/13.
  
We are forever cursed with beings dramatizing keeping things hidden
and confidential (I mean Bill rather than Ralph).  Hubbard wasn't
the first or last either.  Almost all of the big gurus and anchient
magicians all had their top secret upper levels.  If Faraday, Edison, 
and Tesla had each kept their own stuff confidential (because it can be
used to electrocute people), none of them would have had a workable 
technology and we'd still be reading by gas lights.
  
  
< From: Jazzlamont@aol.com 17 May 1997	(LaMont Johnston)
< Re: Alan Walter Tell us about Xenu
< 
< <Tell me, what is the significance of the pilot saying 'He's making it up'?
< 
< As written up, the pilot is saying "I'm mocking it up".
< 
< I ran it the first time through Book One auditing the stupid-PC-mistake way,
< "making it up", not being familiar with the use of the term "mocking it up"
< at that time.
< 
< I've subsequently always thought of it as a back door, a wink of the eye and
< a nod of the head,  - a little bit of rebellion, and a stage cue for the
< not-so-totally unconscious.
< 
< It has never had any further significance to me.
< 
< There is a whole range of considerations which clarify the incident if one
< accepts the "overt" side, and runs the thing from the viewpoint of "The
< Pilot". Then the line becomes, "I'm mocking it up". Ta-daaaa.
< 
< Get 360 on it, and it's not that big a deal. 
< 

Now here is an interesting slant.  Either LaMont and I are both split
off of the same big guy, or there is another twist here, namely that
everybody can run this incident from the pilot viewpoint.  Any
comments?

< ... & in a second post of the same day
< 
< Answer:  I ran OT III, Incident 2, the first time in a Book One session (no
< meter) with no prior understanding of Scn, (I did read the serialized version
< of dianetics as a nine year old, but that was my last contact -1949 until I
< began auditing with the student Book Auditor in 1964). 

Serialized version?

Evolution of a Science was in the May 1950 Astounding.  There was a
whole run of Editorials about Dianetics by Campbell, starting a few
months earlier and continuing off and on for most of the year.  Maybe
this is what you're thinking of.  I never heard of DMSMH being
serialized.  However, Ron's "To the Stars" was serialized in, if I
remember right, the Feb and March issues and his short story "Greed"
(probably his last one) showed up a few months after EOS.  I picked
up a huge collection of old Astoundings at 5 cents each back in the
early 1960s.


< I ran the phrase "I'm just making it up", while watching a pilot turn around
< and speak these lines over his shoulder. It looked like a movie set. Found
< out later the line "mocking it up" when I opened the OT III pack at the AO.
< 
< ...
< Question: "was it or was it not  a real incident for you."
< 
< Answer: That this incident was experienced at some time in "my" past was real
< to "me".

Since I knew the date of Inc 2 from the RJ 67 tape, and since I 
occasionally got bored and wanted to look for things with real
charge while I was being run on Dianetics (after an unattested clear
state and after having been keyed out OT), I tried to run the
thing on R3R before I had any knowledge of OT 3.

When I moved to the date, I got the following strange incident:

I was the navigator of a spaceship and I "couldn't be the pilot".
So I was jelous of him and fed him a wrong course and we smashed
into a sun and died in a burst of radiation.

I ran this through a few times, it seemed to sort of errase with an
FN and we dropped it, but no more data had come up on repeated passes
and it was all very vague and was one of the few times that I seemed 
to get a sort of flat picture instead of 3D in Dianetics.

Looking back at it now, there were only 2 actual perceptions present 
when I ran the incident.  First there was the feeling that I "couldn't
be the pilot", and then there was the feeling of being hit with
a nuclear explosion.  Nothing else.  The rest was dub-in.  If I
can't be the pilot, then obviously I must be the navigator.  If
there was some kind of nuclear stuff, then we must have fallen into
a sun.  And if there was so much charge, then I must have comitted
an overt, so I probably was jelous and fed him a bad course.

The dubbed-in incident FNed on my getting my confront up on being
hit by a nuclear explosion.

The odd thing is that now I can see the logic behind the dub-in.
But none of this was concious when I ran the incident.  I got a
"real" picture and I thought that the content was at least partially
correct when I ran it.


= From: Norman Culver <ndc@icanect.net>
= Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
= Subject: Re: Alan Walter Tell us about Xenu
= Date: 18 May 1997 00:26:53 -0400
= Message-ID: <337E840C.6366@icanect.net>
= 
= Jazzlamont@aol.com wrote: 
= 
= > I ran the phrase "I'm just making it up", while watching a pilot turn
= > around and speak these lines over his shoulder.
= > It looked like a movie set. 
= 
= Yes, I have run this incident several times, each time with slight
= variations but the pilot always says "He's just mocking it up".
= The incident seems to be a vignette that stands alone, whatever
= came before or may come after just goes away. There is nothing
= particularly heavy about this recording, but you have do some
= digging to get it to pop off. Is this really part of OTIII? I
= don't know.
= 
= ndc

Makes me wonder if there is more here than just incident 2.
 
 
> From: Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: Fake
> 
> Homer W. Smith wrote:
> 
> >     You know Alan, if LRH faked OT III as an incident, then in
> > all likelihood he faked a whole hell of a lot of others things
> > along the way.  A saint doesn't turn joker in one day.
> 
> Some of the major outpoints of OT3:
>
> The date for incident 2, and the data on different land masses and
> volcanoes is contradicted by geological data. Someone posted an article
> about this some time back.

If incident 2 is real, the radio-carbon date for the great dying 
would have to be off because the calculations assume a constant
background radiation level which would be thrown off by a large
number of nuclear explosions.

I'm sure that Ron must have known the textbook date.  He makes
a crack somewhere about radio-carbon dating being wrong, but he
didn't sound like he understood the process or knew why it was
wrong.  So I assume that he got the date by meter assessment.
To some degree I find the "wrongness" of the date to be a mark
of accuracy.  If it had been textbook, I would have assumed that
he got it out of the book and was making things up, because the
textbook date would have to be wrong if the incident is correct.

As to the volcanos and landmasses and DC-8s, it is really easy
to twist things around a bit until they seem familiar.  How many
times do you get real sonic on a forign language in an incident
instead of dubbing in English?  It doesn't normally seem to interfear 
with errasure.

I've mentioned before that I don't think that the modern volcano
locations are accurate for the incident, but it doesn't usually
matter because the PCs are vague about where they really are
and just spot something in that general area.  Same for the
islands and everything else.  For all I know the "packaging"
might have been done in Atlantis and Lemuria (that almost
indicates).

A winged shuttle craft makes sense for ground to orbit.  It might
even have some vague resemblance to a DC 8 in the same way 
that an electric bubble car has a vague resemblance to a Model T.
If all you knew were Model Ts and steam cars, you might dub the
Model T in simply on the basis of familiararity.

In other words, this is dub-in on account of reality and havingness
rather than dub-in due to too much charge.  But we also know that
Ron was dramatizing extremely heavy charge on the incident, so I
would also expect dub-in on this basis as well.

 
> There is no evidence that he did ANY kind of "research" on this or
> piloted it on others before releasing it. The same holds true for NOTS
> and he was in a similar, if not worse, mental and physical condition
> when he created NOTS.   

There is evidence of research in 1952.  Sloppy, of course, but
not completely absent.  This is where Nots comes from.  After hearing
the HCL lectures, I wondered what the hell we were doing fooling
around with incident 2 (I'd done OT3 but not NOTS) when there was an 
easier way.  Almost anybody could have come up with Nots after
hearing those lectures.  In fact, one of the reels was immediately
labled confidential when Nots came out (its in pubs catalogue 4 and
left out of catalogue 5).  They used to play that one for public
over at LA org in the days before Nots was released.

I think that his idea of resarch was to figure something out, occasionally 
trying an experiment or two.  As far as any real testing went, we
know that there was never more than a lick and a promise on any level.

 
>He was at the bottom of the tone scale and using drugs during this
> period.

Very likely.
 
> Its illogical to assume that everyone here today was here, or somewhere
>in the vicinity, 76 million years ago. 

That is mentioned in the OT3 materials, but downplayed.  I would
think that the majority of people wouldn't have been here.  But there
might be a tendency for people who were here at that time to tend to
pull the place in again if it was re-activated for use as a prision.
And people might pickup an occasional BT who had been through the
incident as a side effect of re-incarnating here.
 
> OT3 and NOTS is not optional and  is a gross violation of the Auditor's
>Code. 

Pushing incident 2 at somebody would certainly be an eval and a code
break.  I think that they should leave NOTS alone until the PC
originates it.  Then start with Nots.  If Nots flattens without EP,
one could check over the incident 2 platen without using it as a
heavy eval.

I do think that you bump into the Nots stuff eventually if you do
enough OT drills.  But its wrong to block the upper bridge by having
to do Nots first.
 
> This "event" was purported to be the panacea, the "4th dynamic engram",
> the last step before "OT". It has not proved out and Hubbard and his
> organization just got crazier after this was released.

Too true. It was a wrong why and really sank the org.

When I was running the penalty universes (see Super Scio), I realized
that the later part of inc 2 (and any mass implant) intentionally
restimulated these penalty universes by showing the pc various pictures 
and items from them.  The penalty universe with the goal "to join"
shows a Hitlerian SS style military organization.  Pictures of this
are in the later part of inc 2, and it can't be errased by running
inc 2 because it's too late on the chain (and doesn't include the
first item of the penalty universe, which is "to join is native
state").

Ron thought that the later part was just random pictures and couldn't
errase them (and was too dumb or too overcharged to go earlier).  So 
he dramatized them instead.  It's not a literal dramatization (the
body types are wrong, for example) and he got pictures out of more
than one of these penalty universes all jumbled up together.  But
I would still say that the entire Sea Org structure and operating
basis is an implant dramatization.  He stirred it up, he stopped
thinking, and he projected the damn thing into the physical universe.

 
> Hubbard was a pathological liar and his claims of "research" are not
>creditable. 
> 
> I don't wish to contend with any who believe that his OT3 scenario was
> some actual event, or that they contacted something that was similar to
>it, or any who feel they have benefited from running "Body Thetans" that
> are clinging to them or their body. 

Very good.  I did get gains from this stuff despite the mess that was
made of it.  It's just a shame to think that it could have been done
right.  If he'd supported other researchers instead of shooting them,
and encouraged research, and encouraged good testing and validation
of each point (even if he wasn't up to doing that himself), then
we'd have real answers and have avoided much misery and he would
not have ended up psychotic and paranoid and hunted at the end.
Yes you can be paranoid (scared of the wrong conspiracy) and be
hunted by a real government at the same time.

>Joe
 

#  From: wisdom@cyberstation.net (alan)
#  Subject: Re: Alan Walter     Tell us about Xenu
#  Date: 17 May 1997 01:56:44 -0400
# 
# Homer asks:
# 
# >     Did or did not LRH know the outcome of his actions when he gave the
# >pc the incident to run? 
# 
# ...
# I may have inadvertently caused LRH to produce OT 111, in a flawed manner.
# 
# What happened was 73 people were brought to the Royal Scottsman. We were
# docked in Valencia, Spain. It was Dec '67.
# ...
# Went back to LRH and told him how much we had just collected.
# 
# What I didn't realize until this moment was, it forced Ron to write up and 
# issue OT3.

At least one guy in the anti camp has misinterpreted this.  Alan needs
to be a little bit more aware that this is a public forum.

I think that most of us here are aware of the big pile of session notes
from Ron's African trip.  I've seen this mentioned by a number of
sources.  I don't think that Alan meant to say that Ron made up inc 2
on the spot.

But what Alan is saying here is very pertinent.  Namely, that he put
Ron on the spot to deliver a level, and Ron simply sat down and wrote
the handwritten instructions (based on the mess he'd made of running
the incident during the previous month) and gave it out to people
without any kind of a pilot program.

The level was not well thought out and tested.  Ron had not even flattened
the process himself.

 
# So to answer the above question: It was a poorly produced 
# solution to a problem.
# 
# >     WHAT WAS RON'S INTENTION
# 
# To deliver something?
# 
# At that time there was no on going research in existence. OT 3 is the only
# Tech I know of that was not thoroughly tested before it was issued.
 
Yeah.

And once Ron got the damn sea org crazyness going, there was little
time for any more research and little feedback from the field because
anything but bullshit success stories got you into ethics and anything
critical even on staff comm lines was marked entheta and dead filed.

I think that Ron had good intentions in the old days.  But at this
point I think that he was fleeing (off to the sea in ships) and
trying to build up a war chest to defend himself.

- ------------
 
Doing OT3 was a big blowout for me.  I turned on an automatic blow
while reading the materials.  I only ran the materials for about
a week and then turned on an unkillable dial wide persistant FN that
lasted for about 6 months.  During the entire 6 months I was 
occasionally spotting BTs and blowing them by inspection.  

It became obvious to me during that time period that the incident
was a criss cross implant of each of us into the others.  At one point
I got a fairly real picture of putting out 7 fragments and 7 other 
people each putting out 7 fragments.  The pieces were reshuffled to
form 8 "new" beings, which each of us being a "core" personality with
fragments of each of the 7 other guys attached to it and a piece of 
ourselves on each of the 7 other guys.  This was how I thought of 
the "packaging" process.

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

If one of you is feeling helpful, it would be nice if you could
email some of the search engines such as yahoo about the Scientology
Reformer's Home Page (see below).  I'd really like the loyalists
to run into this page.  It might wake some of them up.  Note that
I don't use email for fear of exposure (remaining hidden in the ranks
gives the org something to worry about and keeps them restimulated
on the subject of reform).


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


Subj : Super Scio - PLAYING THE QUOTATION GAME


PLAYING THE QUOTATION GAME


On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Cornelius Krasel wrote:

#Seriously, I'd like to have context (or a source) for the following
#quotes:

A lot of people have already answered accurately, so I'll only do
the ones where I have something to add.


#> |  People leave  because of their  own overts and withholds.  The   |
#> |  only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people   | 
#> |  failed to find out about them.                                   |
#> |                                            - L. Ron Hubbard       |
#
#(First sentence can be found in HCOB 31 Dec 1595, "Blow-Offs". But the
# second sentence isn't there.)

Its HCOB/HCOPL 31 DEC 1959 "Blow-Offs" for the first sentence.

The second sentence looks familiar but is not in either the HCOB,
the identical HCOPL, or the revised (late 70s) version of the HCOB.
Nor it is in any other policy, bulletin, or LRH Ed that I could find.

I suspect that it is from the rough days of 1969 when blows were at
maximum and that it is from one of the bulletins, policies, or Eds
that were "not" written by Ron (half of the old Eds were cancelled
as not by Ron, but one wonders if some were and it was just convienient
to cancel them.  Also, some of the ones that are acknowledged as being
by Ron don't sound like his writing, so the whole thing might be a
matter of what they felt like keeping).

But from the same month in 1959 comes:

"The way a person blows out of session or blows out of an
organization of blows out of Scientology is a simple one.  He
withholds information and hides his overts.  After a while he blows
himself off.  Show me a pc blowing session and I will show you a pc
who has not levelled with his auditor and who is guilty of undeclared
overts against the dynamics and the auditor.  Show me a staff member
who is blowing the organization and I will show you a staff member
who is guilty of undeclared overts against the organization"
- - HCOB 23 Dec 59 "Responsibility".

The real context is that he came up with this idea of having
everybody write up their overts and a number of people including
his son Nibs immediately blew.

But he mellows out and subsequently adds ARCXs, misunderstoods,
missed withholds of nothing (false accusations), PTSness, and eventually
"auditing past exterior" (the PC dramatizes needing to exteriorize
and therefore leaves the org) as other possible reasons.  See,
for example, the book of case remedies (1964).

But then things get worse in 1965:

"Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes
and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end"
- - HCOB 4 Apr 65 "ARC Breaks and Missed Withholds"

After that, Ethics (most of whom didn't know tech anyway) pretty
much forget about any other reasons and concentrated on blows being
due to overts and missed withholds.

Since there are probably some lurkers reading this, I'm going
to preach a bit for their benefit.

The continual trick played in Scientology is to find a real and
observable phenomena (you can see it with your own eyes), hopefully
one that is not well known, and then apply it too broadly.  For
example, you show that criminals use guns and then generalize and
say that anyone who carries a gun is a criminal (including police
and soldiers).

This phenomena of blowing on overts & missed withholds is real.  I 
have seen it a few times outside of Scientology.  Once when I was a
technical leader at a large bank, the computer security officer
was giving us a hard time.  So I found a few holes in the security
system.  He had left the "IBMUSER" installation account open and
unprotected (this was like having super user root access without
any password) and the bank's entire set of mainframes was wide
open.  I went to his office and suggested to him that he should
lighten up on us, especially as there was no real security anyway
and explained about the various holes.  Instead of fixing the
holes, he resigned and was gone the next day.

But that is one case in a hundred.  And misunderstoods (can't seem
to learn their job) maybe accounts for another 10.  And upsets
with management might cover 20 more in a normal business.
The bulk of people do not leave their jobs for these reasons.

It seems like Ron was unable to see any sane and rational reason
for anybody quitting staff.  And that was in the better days of
the 1960s.

When the Sea Org reign of terror hit (1969 especially), the blows 
were continual.  I would say that in this case, the main reasons
were abuse and exploitation.  Would you ask a runaway slave what
crimes he comitted against the slave driver?

The trick works best if you have some phenomena that the critics
will deny and make fun of.  In other words, if you do have some
superior technology and are misusing it to take advantage of people.
Then you make some grandious but mostly false statement and 
"prove" it by proving the special case (which the critics are
also ridiculing in error) instead of proving the broad generality.

- ----------

The following quote is out of context as you can see from the longer 
excerpt.  He was only saying what he hoped the doctors might say.

> |   Well, Dianetics was no good and Hubbard was really crazy when   |
> |   threw that one. But Scientology - now, that's different:        |
> |   scientifically done. It has a great many things to recommend    |
> |   it. Well organized, and it works! (Dianetics didn't!)           |
> |                                              - L. Ron Hubbard     |

"Now, one of the things that's going to happen in the next few
months:  you will probably see, increasingly, the word Scientology
occuring.  And that is in order to give doctors of medicine and
psychiatrists and psychologists an out.  It's pretty hard after a
man has made a pronunciamento about which he knows nothing, to
convince him that he ought to say something else about it, now that he
knows something about it, because he will lose face with the people
he has said this to.  So if we just give him another word for the
same - a similar package and we say 'Now it's Scientology and
Scientology embraces the Axioms', why then two things will happen: 
He can say, 'Well, Dianetics was no good and Hubbard was really crazy
when he thew that one.  But Scientology!  Now, that's different. 
Scientifically done.  It has a great many things to recommend it.  Well
organized, and it works!  Dianetics didn't".

- - from LRH tape of 25 Feb 52 HPC-1 "Review of Progress of Dianetics 
and Dianetics Business".  New R&D vol 9 page 422.
 
- ----------


> |   Always push power in the direction of anyone on whose powers    |
> |   you depend. It may be more money for the power, or more ease,   |
> |   or a snarling defense of the power to a critic, or even the     |
> |   dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark, or the glorious    |
> |   blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.           |
> |                                              - L. Ron Hubbard     |

This is, of course, the Simon Bolivar policy from the late 1960s, and 
a number of posts have already mentioned that fact.

The policy is quite long, entertaining, and has a viscious twist to
it.

It is a brilliantly written justification for a leader taking
absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of his lieutenants.

Basically he says that Bolivar died poor and abused because he
betrayed his power base (land barons or something like that) as
part of his program to better the peasants.  I know nothing of
Bolivar, but if Hubbard's picture is correct, I would say that
Bolivar was true to his goals and Hubbard is simply saying, nice
guys finish last so let's be real shits instead.  Now maybe there
was some reasonable compromize or a smarter way of operating that
Bolivar missed so that he could have done well personally and been
true to his goals at the same time.  But Hubbard's way is the worst 
of the alternatives since it loses the whole purpose of Bolivar's
revolution.  

It was simply a Justifier issued at a time when Hubbard was
establishing the Sea Org and giving a whole bunch of screaming idiots
dictatorial powers over the dedicated old time Scientologists.

Best,

The Pilot

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

