Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 23 - LATE JAN 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT
Date: 30 Jan 1998  14:00:25


POST23.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 23 - LATE JAN 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT


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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - FREE SELF CLEARING ON THE NET
 subj : Super Scio - THE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE CAMPAIGN
 subj : Super Scio - Science Fiction (attn Loomis & Gerard)
 subj : Super Scio - Laura Huxley
 subj : Super Scio - RUTHERFORD (attn Tilman & Clam Baker)
 subj : Super Scio - TO ARS ABOUT NET NOTS
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Loomis on Footbullets
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Honnicut on Posting my Writings
 subj : Super Scio - To Lakis on Standard Tech Etc.
 subj : Super Scio - To Oleg
 subj : Super Scio - On Freezone Ethics (attn Ralph)
 subj : Super Scio - To Azeric on Catholic Upbringing
 subj : Super Scio - About Homer's Impact
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Advanced Grade 0


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

 subj : Super Scio - FREE SELF CLEARING ON THE NET


FREE SELF CLEARING ON THE NET


I have made my book on self clearing freely available on the
internet.

It is a collection of mental drills or processes which can
raise one's spiritual awareness and ability.

For the first time, the most advanced of the Scientology 
techniques have been put into a form that can be easily 
understood by a beginner and applied on a do-it-yourself 
basis.

It has been made available as part of a fight for RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

For decades, the orthodox Church of Scientology has engaged
in persecution of the Independent or Freezone Scientologists.

The Freezone Scientologists believe in the spiritual technology 
and practice of Scientology but object strenuously to the 
organizational policies and bad behavior of the CofS.

The Freezone is a movement rather than a single organization
or sect.  Just as there are many Protestant sects, there are
many Freezone sects and they do not necessarily agree as to 
interpretation or theology or the exact methods of practice.

Some do not even call themselves Scientology or Dianetics
in an effort to protect themselves from attack but all share
a common foundation in L. Ron Hubbard's early work to 
discover the nature of the human spirit.

Imagine that the Catholics held the copyrights to the Holy
Bible and launched continual lawsuits against every 
Protestant sect to suppress them out of existance.

Imagine that the practice of excommunication was used to
enforce complete disconnection and servering of communication
from friends and family if a member should leave the orthodox
church and join a riaval sect.

And imagine that the orthodox church employs a staff of lawyers,
detectives, and secret agents devoted to the absolute destruction
by any means, of any independent practicioners of the same basic 
faith.

This does not happen in Christianity today.  But there was
a time when Martin Luther had to flee for his life.

That is how it is in Scientology now.

And that is why I must remain anonymous.  You cannot email
me.  You cannot find out who I am at this time and I urge you
not to try because exposure of my identity would put me at
great risk from religious fanatics.

My own work is an extension of the foundations laid by L.
Ron Hubbard, but the orthodox CofS would destroy anyone
who seeks to do this.

The book is there for you if you are interested.  There are
no strings attached.  Use what you can of it.  I do not
require faith or belief or support.  The Self Clearing
Homepage explains what the book is about and The Scientology
Reformer's Homepage explains about my efforts to reform
the orthodox Church of Scientology and the reasons why
I am involved in this battle.

My writings are posted anonymously to the internet and are
hosted on many webpages by brave volenteers.  The Self Clearing
book is available from many different URLs as are other
books and materials that I have written.  The links in the
footer below are some of the ways to find them on the net.

If you would help me in my fight, then spread the word of
The Church of Scientology's religious persecution of all
unorthodox Scientologists and especially their use of Copyright
Terrorism as a means of attack.

The copyrights to the sacred scriptures of the Freezone
Scientologists are held by a hostile organization that
is dedicated to their destruction.  If Scientology is a
religion, then Ron's writings belong in the public domain.


Yours in Spiritual Freedom,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - THE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE CAMPAIGN


THE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE CAMPAIGN


It looks like Scientology is launching a campaign for Religious
Tolerance.

I think that this is wonderful and that they should be supported
and encouraged.

I think that the critics should not snipe at them or discourage
them from this effort.  It will be good for everybody if the
CofS becomes strongy committed to religious tolerance.

There are people on staff who do want to see sanity restored
to the organization.  They cannot speak out against LRH policy
in the current gestapo atmosphere.

But something like religious tolerance is ethically correct and
sounds like good PR to upper management.  So it is easy for good 
harted people to setup programs like this and get management
to OK them.

Before you start ranting, please read the rest of this post
and give it some serious thought.

Let us aid them in their efforts.

-----

Here are a few of the earlier posts from ARS on this topic.

On 20 Jan 98, tallulah@mail.storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) posted on 
subject "CoS to launch net-based "religous tolerance" campaign?"

> The following was forwarded to me by an anonymous source.
> 
> <begin excerpt>
> 
> To: All [online scientologists]
> From: Church of Scientology International
> RE: LAUNCH OF THE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE CAMPAIGN
> 
> Dear Scientologists,
> 
> With the advent of the Internet -- the fastest medium of communication 
> forpeople around the globe -- a lot of people have come together and are in 
> comm.
> 
> This has made the Internet a great medium for campaigns of all types, 
> and we have one that is sure to raise ARC amongst all people.
> 
> LRH, in The Way To Happiness, wrote a precept that has inspired this 
> campaign. In precept 18, RESPECT THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS, he states:
> 
> "Tolerance is a good cornerstone on which to build human relationships...
> 
> "One is at liberty to hold up his own beliefs for acceptance. One is at
> risk when he seeks to assault the beliefs of others, much more so when 
> he attacks and seeks to harm others because of their religious 
> convictions..."
> 
> Our campaign is meant to build worldwide religious tolerance, and thus 
> support and safeguard religious diversity through the Internet. Its motto is 
> simply:
> 
> "I am a (Scientologist or Muslim or Catholic or Buddhist etc.). Support
> religious tolerance"
> 
> Icons with this motto will be provided to all Scientologists around the 
> world within the next 24 hours. We will then have icons designed for people 
> of all religions represented on the Internet. These icons will be made 
> available on a new web site we are designing specifically for this religious 
> tolerance campaign.
> 
> In our travels as Scientologists, we have led countless crusades for 
> human rights, religious tolerance and individual liberty. We now have a 
> campaign in which everybody can participate. You can make this possible by 
> creating your own web page and making this campaign known by displaying the "I 
> 
> am a Scientologist. Support religious tolerance" logo and by inviting others 
> of all faiths to take the initiative to do so as well.
> 
> Here is how to participate in this campaign:
> 
> 1) If you have a web page already, reply immediately and we will provide
> you with a selection of logos and linking instructions.
> 
> 2) If you do not have a web page, this is the time to create one. If 
> you know how to make one, do so. Email me for the campaign logos and 
> linking instructions.
> 
> 3) If you are not experienced in making web pages, we will additionally 
> provide you with two simple templates you can use to create your own page.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> I have set up a special email address for this campaign:
> 
> campaign@scientology.net
> 
> Please send any messages related to this campaign to this address.
> 
> This action alone will contribute tremendously to spreading the truth 
> about LRH and Scientology all over the Internet and I know a lot of you have 
> already expressed the wish to participate in such campaigns.
> 
> So let's do it!
> 
> Much love,
> Gloria Idda
> Church of Scientology International
> Internet/Multimedia Division
> campaign@scientology.net
> 
> <end excerpt>
 
What an excellent idea.

---

Secret Squirrel wrote:

(he begins by quoting the paragraph "Icons with this motto ..." above)
 
> This is GREAT NEWS. Now, with a simple search engine, it will
> be possible to find ALL the online scientologists. Just search for the
> icon file name. Once located and compiled, it will be a mailing list
> for use to properly inform the members what their "Church" (barf) has
> really been up to.

Please don't.  Let's not burn thier fingers and discourage the 
effort.  You can do the search and save these for later.

---

Jon Noring (noring@netcom.com) wrote:

: Then why does Scientology officially show zero tolerance towards "Free
: Zoners" (those who choose to practice Scientology outside of the control of
: the Organization)?

: In Scieno-speak, "Free Zoners" are called squirrels and worse things, and
: according to Scientology policy can be mercilessly attacked and destroyed.

: In addition, there have been a number of religions which Scientology has
: claimed to have destroyed or disbanded, according to a document circulated
: showing the enemies of the "Church" of Scientology that must be destroyed,
: many of which are self-proclaimed religions.

: Hypocrites.

: Jon Noring


Quite true as far as the official position goes.

But that doesn't mean that all the Scientologists are hypocrites.
In fact, the ones launching the tolerance campaign might actually
be quite aware that the official behavior is wrong and be attempting
to force upper management into a position where they will have to
behave better.

Let the campaign get well established before you rub their noses
in this one.  And give the people within the CofS who are truely
supporting tolerance a pat on the back.

---

On 20 Jan 98, writer@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young) posted on subject
"Scientology is Intolerant (was Re- Scientology to launch 
net-based "religous tolerance" campaign?)"

> I might add that the Presient of Scientology's Religious Technology
> Center (RTC), Warren McShane, testified under oath in Denver a few years
> ago during a hearing in the FACTNet case on the point Jon makes. RTC is
> the "enforcement" section of Scientology that controls all trade secrets
> and trademarks of Hubbard and the cult, e.g., Hubbard's signature, various
> symbols, various names, including Hubbard's. 
> 
> McShane proudly testified - under direct examination by RTC's own counsel
> - how RTC had used trademark and trade secret law to attack "splinter
> groups" (cult-slang for them are "squirrels") that were using Scientology
> methods without RTC's approval (which means a license for which the
> licensee pays fees) and that some had been closed down by RTC's efforts.
> This was strongly made, perhaps because they wanted to show how they were
> "protecting" their trade secrets and trademarks. 
> 
> However, what McShane put on the record was the real effect: that they
> will batter other religious groups into the ground if they are in any way
> deemed "competition," which is the only way one can approach trade secrets
> and/or trademarks. McShane was quite proud of these acts and and how he
> had helped to do this himself. 
> 
> I'm sure the transcript is available somewhere. 
> -- 
>                        *----------------------------------------------*
> Robert Vaughn Young    *  The most potent weapon of the oppressor is  *
> writer@eskimo.com      *  the mind of the oppressed.    - Steve Biko  *
>                        *----------------------------------------------*
 
An important point to remember for later.

---

And so is this one from rayr@delete.these.fields.ezlink.com

(he begins by quoting the paragraph "Icons with this motto ..." above)

> We look forward to seeing the "I'm Freezone and I support religious 
> tolerance." icons.  Along with the "I'm a squirrel and I support 
> religious tolerance." Icon.
> 
> If you don't make those.   I will.
> 
> -Ray

Exactly.

But let's see the loyalists put up a lot of Icons first and ensure
that they are firmly commited to the campaign.

---

Religious tolerance is a good thing.  Many members will be attracted
to it and will commit to the idea because it is the ethical thing
to do.  Once committed, management can't then tell the ordinary
members that religious tolerance is really a bad thing because 
of the "squirrels".

The religious tolerance button is such a strong one that it
might actually break the anti-squirrel hate mongering.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Science Fiction (attn Loomis & Gerard)


SCIENCE FICTION (ATTN LOOMIS & GERARD)

On 20 Jan 98, fun@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) posted
on subject "LRH as Heinlein character?"

> On 18 Jan 1998 16:34:28 -0600, aloomis@whale.st.usm.edu (Austin George
> Loomis) wrote:
> 
> ['If This Goes On -' by Heinlein]
> 
> :The surest test of how successful Scientology *really* is as the brain-
> :washing scheme we critics have often accused it of being would be to 
> :expose a random sampling of second-generation Scientologists, Sea Organs 
> :and OSA goons to this story.  If they don't see any connection between 
> :what Heinlein is writing about and their own church's activities, then 
> :there's probably no hope of them breaking away from their conditioning.  
> 
> That's, uh, brilliant ...
> 
> So, you were in the CoS. Do Scientologists read SF, other than Hubbard's?
> Do they read the good '40s SF (Heinlein, Asimov)?
> 
> Would they have any interest whatsoever in doing so if you presented them
> with a collection including 'If This Goes On -'?
> 
> Have you ever actually *tried* this? Any reports on its effects?
> 
> (this is a.r.s as memetic retrovirus ... like an HIV infection patiently
> mutating through all possible outer protein coatings until it cracks the
> combination. Bwaaaaahahahaha. I'm just waiting for a clam at a demo to
> start talking to me so I can respond with some words about 'speed
> deprogramming' ...)
> 
> -- 
> http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/                 http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/
> Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
> "Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on the nose
>  with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad evil. Bad, BAD evil.'"
 

Sci Fi is very popular among Scientologists.  

Heinlein is a favorite with "Stranger in a Strange Land" being very
popular.  Unfortunately, "If This Goes On -" is not one of his
stronger stories and does not have enough parallels with Scientology
to wake anybody up.

The Heinlein book that hints at being anti-Hubbard is "The Number
of the Beast".  Unfortunately there is nothing specific nor is
there anything about the CofS.  But many members (not just me and
not just disaffected ones) get the feeling that Heinlein meant the
character known as "The Beast" to be a parody of Hubbard.  The last 
section of the book has parodies of a number of Sci Fi authors (there 
is a fairly obvious one of Asimov) and if you start trying to match 
authors with the parodies, Hubbard is the obvious fit.

Note that although Asimov is a known critic, his Foundation books
were always popular among Scientologists.

Mark Clifton's "They'd Rather Be Right" from the 1950s was a very
pro Scientology book when it was written, being about making
supermen by running out their engrams.  Hubbard might actually
have gotten some of his ideas about Grade 4 (holding onto 
abberations to make yourself right) from this book.  But Clifton 
is so very 1950s Scientology that it is actually in conflict 
with the modern CofS.  Being so very pro Scientology, it would
slide right in without any protest and yet it might well wake
some CofS members up into being reformers.  Clifton died, I
believe, in the early 60s, but he has a bit of a following so
this book sometimes show up in trade paperback reprints.

The best "wake up" Sci Fi book to give to a Scientologist is
Tim Power's "Dinner at Diviant's Palace".  There are many obvious
chilling parallels and it is very well written.  And Powers broke
into the market by winning the Writers of the Future contest, so
he might seem to be an ally until they read this particular book.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Laura Huxley


LAURA HUXLEY

On 26 Jan 98, jimc@sonic.net posted to ACT on subject
"Quote of the day - Monday, Jan. 26"

> "In 1949,  A friend of mine became very sick, so I began
>  to study all different kinds of of methods of health --
>  psyhological health and physical health -- and
>  healing.
>  Then I became a therapist for about twenty years.
>  And in the therapy I saw that very often if we could
>  contact the client's pre-natal period,
>  early enough, often, we would find the basis for
>  present-day disturbance or neurosis or what ever
>  you want to call it"
>                         Laura Huxley
>
>  Laura Huxley is the wife of the late - Aldous Huxley
>  Who is the author of, "Brave New World"


Laura Huxley was at one time involved in Scientology but
I don't know the details.  Does anybody have more 
information or know anything about her later life?

She was out before the 1960s.

After leaving, she wrote a book called, I think, "Ten Targets 
for Better Living".  It had ten chapters filled with processes 
that you could run on yourself.

My family, being heavily into all things metaphysical, got a
copy of her book and for once I felt that I was looking at
something practical that could be applied.  I was a bit of
a hard science type and the usual metaphysical writings
tended to leave me feeling unsatisfied.

I worked through the book carefully and I thought it was
great.  This was in my early teens, before encountering
Scientology (the book didn't mention it or Hubbard if I
recall correctly).

The only process I recall clearly was to put on a record
and dance naked (alone) so as to push through shyness,
embarrassment, and physical inhibitions.  Really ideal
for a shy teenager going through puberty.

In retrospect, she was one of the first freezoners.

My thanks to Jim for the inspiring quotes that he has
been posting to ACT.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - RUTHERFORD (attn Tilman & Clam Baker)


RUTHERFORD (ATTN TILMAN & CLAM BAKER)


On 21 jAN 98, Clam Baker <jesparolini@oc-inc.com> wrote
on subject "HELENA KOBRIN, Your Career Is Over!"

> As you are probably aware, John W. Whitehead, prominent Constitutional
> attorney, First Amendment activist and litigator, and founder of The
> Rutherford Institute, a 15-year-old First Amendment and religious
> liberties advocacy and legal aide group is now handling Paula Jones'
> sexual harassment suit against President Clinton.
> 
> As an old friend of John's, I have personally and directly urged him to
> look into current and past attempts by the Church of Scientology
> especially through copyright and other litigation engaged in by your
> office-- to suppress and interfere with the religious liberty of the
> FreeZone Scientologists; attempts by COS and your office to interfere
> with the freedom of the press and freedom of expression vis-a-vis open
> analysis and/or criticism of COS policies and practices, both on the
> Internet and in traditional news media; the Constitutionality and/or
> legality of using or abusing copyright and "trade secret" laws in order
> to do so; and the Constitutionality and/or legality of allowing a
> religious body to retain copyright ownership and "trade secret" status of
> religious doctrine and/or alleged religious revelation.

(snip)

> I urge others on ARS and ACT, especially FreeZoners and critics who are
> currently being victimized by COS, to contact the Rutherford Institute
> directly and urge them to become involved NOW!
> 
> Their e-mail address is: "legal@rutherford.org". Their snail-mail address
> is: The Rutherford Institute, PO Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA
> 22906-7482. Phone: 804-978-1789, Fax: 804-978-3888. You can check out
> their web site at "www.rutherford.org".

Let me add my support to this.  The persecution of the freezone
by the CofS is real. 

On 21 Jan 98, tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) responded
to Clam Baker's post as follows -

# I doubt you will be successful. Although I know one case where his
# "institute" has supported a scientology victim, there is recent evidence
# that he supports scientology, like this unsollicited e-mail I got some
# time ago (notice the headers!). I asked but did not get a response why
# they chose *me*.

(snipped header of 7 Jul 97 message from The Rutherford Institute 
<tristaff@rutherford.org> to Tilman on subject "Religious Persectuion"

: Dear Sir or Madam,
: 
: We are writing concerning the recent actions of the French government
: "blacklisting" religious organizations or so-called "sects" in France.  The
: Rutherford Institute has strongly protested against the French government's
: actions and has requested President Jacques Chirac to review this list.  The
: Rutherford Institute hopes that this list will be ultimately eliminated.  In
: conjunction with this protest, The Rutherford Institute released a
: substantial report on the status of religious liberty in France.  We are
: also concerned about a similar "blacklist" recently compiled in Belgium.
: 
: The Rutherford Institute is an international, legal, and non-profit civil
: liberties organization specializing in the defense of religious liberty.
: International offices are located in the United Kingdom, Hungary and
: Bolivia, with headquarters in the United States.  The Rutherford Institute
: operates on the principle of justice for all, defending religious
: individuals and organizations regardless of their faith or denomination.

Please note that they say "justice for all, defending religious
individuals and organizations regardless of their faith or
denomination".

I see nothing at this time to indicate that they are doing anything 
other than maintaining an honest and ethical position in this
area.

To me, this means that they would defend Scientology against
unjust persecution on the one hand, and defend the freezone
against persecution by the CofS on the other and see no conflict
of interest because they are working towards ending persecution
rather than promoting any religion as better than any other.

Imagine that you are protecting two toddlers.  You protect them
from being hit by fast moving trucks.  You also keep the nastier
toddler from pushing the other toddler in front of the trucks.

So let us indeed encourage their participation in defending
the unothodox Scientologists from the persecution of the orthodox 
Scientologists.

Thank You,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - TO ARS ABOUT NET NOTS


TO ARS ABOUT NET NOTS

There are many websites and ARS posters who are helping to
fight for relgious freedom.

For example, here is a post of 19 Jan 98 from  
Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net>
on subject "NOTs on the net" 

> My God. They're still there. Why are the NOTs still on
> the net? I have checked both locations and they are
> still there in their new sexy HCOB=red on white,
> HCOPL=green on white, all references as active links
> format ----    WOW!     Sexy MAN !!!   <Grrrrooowwwl!>

<snip> 
 
> I'm sorry but I can't tell you where they are. It's a 
> secret. But then again... I never was good at keeping
> secrets.         :o)
> 
> Roland 
> -- 
> Xemu's Home Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/
> The incomparable Operation Clambake: http://www.xenu.net/


But he neglects to mention that he is doing this to aid
the freezone Scientologists and other religious students
in practicing their religion.

For many who believe in the tech but are disaffected with
the current organization, these critic sites are the only
way that they can aquire their sacred scriptures.

As such, these sites are doing a public service and supporting
freedom of religion. 

They should proclaim that fact proudly.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Loomis on Footbullets


ANSWERING LOOMIS ON FOOTBULLETS


On 20 Jan 98, aloomis@whale.st.usm.edu (Austin George Loomis)
wrote on subject "Super Scio Humor - Penalties for Failure to Footbullet"

> On the basis of the information here provided, I must report my good 
> friend Beth McCoy to ARSCC Ethics, pursuant to assigning her a condition 
> of Footbullet Enemy.  In several letters written to me since her 
> departure from ARS, she admitted a desire to see footbulleting end 
> -- which is just the sort of "suppressive reasonableness" that the 
> Footbullet conditions, if I understand them correctly, were intended 
> to correct.  She has not, however, become an active campaigner for 
> reform, so cannot yet be assigned a condition of Footbullet Treason.
> 
> Out of curiosity, Pilot, are you at all familiar with Beth?  Not to ask if
> you know her directly or anything else that might put you before a Comm Ev,
> but have you seen any of her postings on the Subject?  Would you agree with
> the contention (which may still be in Martin Hunt's Who's Who file, and 
> which I have to agree with) that she represents the kind of face RTC 
> should put forward if it wants to assign itself a condition of 
> Footbullet Enemy?

Unfortunately I am not familiar with her postings.

There are indeed some members who have lost their faith in 
footbulleting.  But OSA will see too it that the old traditions
are maintained.

Apparantly my posting came just in time and awakened OSA to the
fact that the entire organization was approaching a condition
of Footbullet Liability.  

They were facing years of dog food and toilet bowl cleaning.

And so they launched their new spam as soon as they picked up
my reminder of the penalties.

It is one of their best footbullets yet, being a technique that
has already been tested and therefore is guaranteeded as to its 
ability to backfire against the user.

 
> And, since you're still (for the foreseeable future) on lines, does your
> having acked my posts (by listing my entry in the End Pool) entitle me to
> SP2 status?

I'm sorry but my anonymous postings do not count as official 
communications from the CofS.  In fact, I have long since passed
the point of Footbullet Treason myself and I'm waiting for them
to figure out a new even lower condition to assign me, that is
if they can catch me.

> -- 
> Austin George Loomis, SP1, Provocation Section, PTS-J, potential Freezoner
> "Many of the techniques are valuable and warrant further study.  On the 
> other hand I am in flat disagreement with the organizational policy." 
> -- William S. Burroughs (1914-97), c 1970 * Y Kant Lisa Reed This?
 

Note that private email is not public and therefore is not
regulated by OSA and Issue Authority.

When talking to you privately, Beth would be restricted by the
rules on confidentiality and so forth and might be required to
disconnect if you became too "entheta" (enturbulated theta), but
her communications would not be subject to the same degree of
censorship that applies to public discussions.

The Scientology Reformer's Homepage does not contain confidential
data and (to the best of my knowledge) has not been openly labled
by ethics or OSA as being entheta, suppressive, or squirrel
(because, I think, that they are afraid of calling the members
attention to it because they have no answers to the arguments presented).

You might ask her to look at it, mentioning that it does not
contain confidential data nor does it rant about Hubbard like
some of the critical websites.  Don't jam it down her throat
but simply ask her for an honest evaluation of what she thinks 
of it.

I wonder if the ARSCC might be talked into giving out some
special cert or level for turning loyalists into reformers?


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Honnicut on Posting my Writings


ANSWERING HONNICUT ON POSTING MY WRITINGS

On 20 Jan 98, honnicut@aol.com (Honnicut) asked on
subject "Question for The Pilot"

> (also posted to a.r.s.)
> 
> I'm a Scientologist who posts frequently on AOL's CoS board advocating 
> reform of our church.  Recently I've been reading the information 
> on your web page(s) and I like what I'm seeing!
> 
> I'd like your permission to re-post some of this material on AOL-- always
> giving credit to The Pilot as the author, of course.  May I?
 
Yes, definitely.

Inducto answered with the following and he is quite right.

> Pilot only posts periodically, so you may have to wait awhile.  
> But it it seems to me that he has stated pretty clearly that his 
> materials may be freely reproduced.

But just in case somebody needs some more reassurance, let me
state that I want my stuff copied all over the internet and
you may print it off and hand it out too if you want.

I only reserve the right to professional publication for profit,
and that is a long range thing just in case it becomes possible
to publish a book someday.

Think of it as shareware.

I want to wake up the Scientologists who are still in the
organization.  It is currently impossible to do that on internal
lines.  It is also hard to reach them from the outside, so
it is important to keep this stuff circulating around so that
at least some of the communications will slip through.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Lakis on Standard Tech Etc.


TO LAKIS ON STANDARD TECH ETC.

On 25 Jan 98, lakis agrogiannis <agrogiannis@swipnet.se>
posted on subject "To Pilot"

>  Hi again!
> 
>    This is from Lakis. Well, I consider myself a free zoner, but I
> haven?t yet made my mind up to deviate from LRH?s standard tech.  (If
> you disagree with LRH, would you like to tell me at which points?) I
> believe that he was an honest being, with the salvaging of Earth?s
> people in mind.

I am very much in agreement with the LRH of the 1950s.

In DMSMH he says to get busy and build a better bridge.

In all the courses of 1952-4, you were expected to make up your
own process commands as needed and also to self audit.

In the 3rd ACC, the ultimate rundown was SOP8-OT where you
were supposed to handle whatever else you could find that was in 
the way of going OT by designing your own processes on the fly.

In the HCL lectures (1952), he defines Scientology as the study
of how to bring absolute truth into workable form and says that
any technique devised by anybody is part of Scientology if it
works to accomplish that goal.

Throughout that early period, the idea was that we had a logical 
framework that allowed us to evaluate the relative truth of the
data and techniques used by other practices and that we could 
therefore create workable techniques from them.

That was the true breakthrough.  How to create processes.  How
to mix practices successfully.  Every early auditor and Ron 
himself in those days would have been labled as squirrels today.

That was the research line.  But it died in the 1960s.  And we
never made stable OTs (we did sometimes get sporatic OT phenomena).

I believe that it was an honest research effort.  In the early
days, he talks about magic and Crowley and Krishnamurti, and
how to extract workable processes from those things and evaluate
which datums were workable and which were just foolishness.

He used to say that he was only an organizer rather than an
originator of tech (I put one of those quotes on my Scientology
Reformer's Homepage).

I am in agreement with this and with the basics discovered in
those days and with the entire attitude and approach which 
created people who could think with the subject.

When the tech solidified in later days, we were left high and
dry with only a subset of the tech that was discovered, and
with strict and dreadful rules against altering anything, and
without the research techniques that I believe had carried
us about halfway to a total solution and simply needed to be
taken further.

Even as late as about 1965, he was saying that the rules were
only for training new students and trained auditors should use
their judgement instead (this is on an SHSBC tape called, I
think "Tech Roundup").

As to the later days, there is much good stuff, but I filter
it all through the sieve of the 1950s material and evaluate
it just as if I was pulling things out of Science of Mind or
the Tibetan materials.

So I see things like "Don't mix practices" and "Don't self audit"
and toss them because they are in total conflict with the basics.

I believe, for example, that Ron was right in 1952 when he said
that ARC = Understanding and that you study successfully by raising 
ARC or handling barriers to ARC.  That is a senior basic.  I
evaluate later study tech on that basis.  Handling an MU is smart
because the MU = out communication.  Thinking that the primary
out-point is MUs and doing endless hours of tiresome and 
unnecessary word clearing is an outpoint, it ignores too many
factors and will end up reducing ARC for the subject.  Letting
the students talk about the tech is a plus because it raises
ARC, making them all shut up is obviously wrong.  And so forth.

The 1952 attitude on implants is correct.  The 1960s research
gave us some valuable implant platens, but put them in a bad
context, almost a suppressive context, by making them a big
"Why" on the case.  The correct attitude is that they are motivators,
rather than major sources of abberation.  Of course you want
to get the person's confront up on them and do some handling,
but if it is too charged up, you run the overt of implanting
others rather than thinking that implants are oh so important and
making the PC into a victim.

Same goes for entities, which were looked on as trivail and not
a major why on the the case, but which could be handled if
necessary by what we now know of as Nots techniques.

Basicly, I disagree with LRH's later efforts to freeze the
tech into a standard.

I do waffle on the question of what were his intentions in the
later days.  He really should have known better.

							     
>     I believe definitely that the church should either mend their ways
> or give it all up, and give it all up to us. In which case we must
> really act responsibly.				    

Truely mending their ways would mean making the tech available and
spreading it as broadly as possible without restriction.  They
should be encouraging the freezone and simply being a "standard" in
the sense of a yardstick against whom others are measured.

When they train an auditor, it should be just like a university
that trains a student.  The university does not then police the
student or force him to stop applying what he learned if there
is some new discovery.  He paid for his course, he did it, and
he now is free to use whatever he learned in whatever manner he
sees fit, restricted only by the laws of the land (don't use
your knowledge of physics to blow up buildings) and not by 
arbitraries introduced by the school that he graduated from.

A university has a right to demand certain standards of their
computer students before giving them a degree, but they do not
have the right to insist that nobody may write a program unless
this one and only university or group of universities has trained
that person.  And the university does not have a right to stop
people from opening up computer schools or reading about the
pentium chip specifications.


>     By the way, has it not struck you how many different "scientology
> schools of thought" we got? Suppose every thetan exercises his rights
> and developes his own, *workable* version of the tech. How would you
> like to have billions of "standard" tech, each one saying, "it works!"
> Ha-ha!

If you had real competition, maybe it really would achieve maximum
workability and a high success rate.

Those hundreds of different schools in honest competition and also
trying to learn from each other would be the fastest way to really
evolve the subject.

People would go where they made the most gains.  It would tend to
be a self correcting situation.

Look at the computer industry.  If IBM had owned the exclusive
right to build computers and transistors and so forth, a computer
with 1 MB of memory would still cost ten million dollars (I
remember those days, that was normal pricing when I started 
programming).  And the competition didn't drive IBM out of
business either, although there is much squabbling and they have
to stay on their toes.

Taking the analogy further, when IBM developed the IBM PC (a 
latecomer in the micro computer market), it swept the market by
creating an open standard that anybody could follow and immitate
without license or copyright fees.  They immediately became the
number one PC manufacturer and their name was a household word
even though they had to share the market with all the clone
manufacturers.

IBM got stupid and though about all the money they had lost by
not keeping their PC standards a trade secret and licenced and
so forth.  So they designed the PS/2 and made the microchannel
architecture a closed hidden standard.  And with that they 
almost dissapeared from the PC hardware market within a year
or so.  Even IBM stopped making microchannel PCs and went back
to the ISA standard even though it wasn't as good (now we have
PCI which is better than microchannel).

So I think that open competition is ideal for everybody.

If the org welcomed it and set the tech free and spread it
around and encouraged everybody else to spread it around, they
would boom despite the increased competition.


>     Finally, I believe that homosexuality is an aberration and curable
> with scientology, that somewhere along the line, the homo pc, will get a
> cognition, or a change of valence or whatever and he start liking the
> other sex. What?s your view on this?

I used to audit a lot of homosexuals in the old days because
I had a reputation for being safe and not having any considerations
either way.  I believed and still believe that if something is
an abberation it will run out and if its not, then the charge will
come off of it and the person will do better at it.

And I don't care which of these two things occur, but simply want
to see the person happier and more able and doing better.

And to be very clear about my position, let me say that I am
definitely heterosexual and am a bit repelled by the idea of
personally engaging in any homosexual actions (maybe I do have
a slight bit of charge or non-confront) but my confront is quite
good on allowing other people to do what they want in this area.

In auditing homosexuals, sometimes there would be some traumatic
incident or valence shift (going into mother's valence for example)
which had pushed them into homosexuality, but this was not
always the case.

And once the charge had been run off, the most common result
was that the person became bi-sexual and no longer avoided 
relationships with the opposite sex, but did not abandon
homosexuality because all their games and friends and life
style were already adapted to it.

To take a classic example, John MacMasters, Clear number 1,
was homosexual.  While talking at a staff meeting around 1967,
he told us that he knew he had been in his mother's valence
and handling that had resulted in tremendous case improvements.
But he still liked sleeping with men after that and considered
it to be an expression of ARC.

During the 1960s, there was no prejudice about homosexuality
in Scientology, Ron was certainly not homophobic then, and
it was safe for them, so many joined staff because they were
treated without prejudice at a time when homosexuals were
being shunned in the ordinary society.

In the late 1960s, there was a rumor that OT 3 was supposed
to "cure" homosexuality.  I don't know if that was just a
stupid rumor or whether there is something in the class 8
materials (I have only seen/heard some rather than all
the 8 materials).  I don't see any reason to expect OT 3
or NOTs to have any effect on the matter.

But they were still left alone and allowed to do OT levels
and whatever without bother by ethics until the late 1970s.
Occasionally one would turn "straight" or more often turn
bisexual, but many remained unaffected.

My inclination is to simply live and let live and take
charge off of the case and see what happens.


>     regards
>                 lakis

----

In another post on 26 Jan 98 on subject "clean up time!",
Lakis wrote

> Hello Fellas!
> 
>  Suppose, just suppose that the church of Scn decided for
> whatever reason to hand over to the Free Zone the entire control of
> everything, church, tech, pcs, the lot. How could we go about it? How
> could we possibly take over the church, when there's so much
> diversity(or is it really disagreement) among us?

Many of the policies are deadly and would have to go.

But if the organizations became "freezone", they should keep
delivering standard tech because that is what they know well
and it ensures that nothing is lost.

The fixed ideas and ridgid rules would have to go.  They would
have to get used to handling PCs who might have run a few hundred
hours of self clearing on themselves or who had just gotten 
a pile of auditing over at Knowledgeism for example and they
would have to accept that people make gains on those things.

They could do a green form, for example, on such a case and
win at it as long as they didn't assume that there was anything
inherently wrong with alternative tech.

And they might get freezone auditors to do the SHSBC as long
as they didn't invalidate any alternative training the person
had gotten.

If they drop the fixed ideas and insistance on being right, then
they really do have a valuable product.  And if they stopped
fighting and started working together with freezone groups and
dropped the prices, they could have enough volume to be viable
financially.

>   How could we possibly take over from the church the job and mission
> of rehabilitating the population of earth, when we can't even agree
> among ourselves? Or is it that we don't really wanna clear any Earth, we
> like it the way it is, is it so?

The only point on which we need agreement is the target.  We do
not all have to use the same path to reach it.

>   My suggestions are that we evaluate the LRH tech, and whatever tech
> we have come up with, and  evaluate the actual situation, and evaluate
> what we need to do in order to replace the church.
>
>   Perhaps we can clear the earth without the(a) church. Any
> suggestions as to how this could be done?

My current effort at a complete bypass is the self clearing book.
It can aid the efforts of a sane organization (whether freezone or
reformed CofS or both), but if there is no organization, it still
gives the individual a chance to make it.


>   Psychologists are "clearing" the Earth too, but they don't have any
> church, ok they have the government but that isn't a church.
>
>   Perhaps we should all become professional practitioners, and charge
> for each service, but the clients will probably be awfully confused,
> with all those different roads to Rome.

There is Unix and OS/2 and PC Dos and Win 3.1 and Win 95 and Win NT,
and if we get sophisticated there is OS/400 and MVS and VMS and
let us not forget Apple.

Despite the confusion and the many roads available, the computer
industry is not only thriving but advancing faster than any other
field on the planet.

>   One thing is sure though, we are too many in the free zone to be
> ignored, and either everyone of us is really an SP/PTS destroying tech
> and destroying pcs, or the church made a big mistake getting rid of us,
> and we must take our responsibility and prove the church wrong.
>
>   But however things may be, LRH and the Church has really got us
> thinking about them, and writing about them, all the time. The amount of
> time and effort spent on bad things about LRH, for example is fantastic.

I would say that that is due to bypassed charge.  And also to a 
tendency to balance the fake PR with a pendulum swing in the opposite
direction.
 
> If we audited all that time instead, we would be a lot saner and a lot
> richer, right?

Of course.  But there is also a valid desire to avoid going down the
same path to destruction and to learn from our mistakes.  The correct
action is to Itsa the outpoints rather than nattering about them.
And to always put more attention on new positive efforts rather than
getting too stuck in the past.

>      future is bright and exciting in the free zone
> 
> lakis

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Oleg


TO OLEG

On 20 Jan 98, "Oleg V. Matveev" <espinol@aha.ru> wrote
on subject "The Pilot's Book"

> To the attention of all Russian-speaking people on the Net:
> 
> Right now I have no time to work with translation of Self-Clearing Book.
> There are some more important cycles for me at the time, and I wouldn't
> have any possibility to make it at least for nearest year.
> 
> So if anyone wants to take it up, please do it. BTW some parts of Pilot's
> book are posted in Russian by one of my friends on
> 
> http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/
> 
> With love,
> Oleg.

Thank you for the help you have given.

We will enjoy it if you can find the time to advise us occasionaly
of how things are going in Russia.

And feel free to continue to address technical questions to me if
you have the need.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - On Freezone Ethics (attn Ralph)


ON FREEZONE ETHICS (ATTN RALPH)


On 25 Jan 98, Ralph@Hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) posted on
subject "Ethics"

> What is missing in the FZ is ethics.
> What is missing in the CofS is a real understanding of ethics.

Within the CofS, Ethics inverted and became a negative factor a
long time ago.  It is actually worse than no Ethics because one's
ethical sense is twisted around so as to get one to commit overts.

Within the freezone there is no central authority imposing a
standard of ethics but this does not mean that there are no
ethics.

In an unregulated industry, you will have ethical practicioners
and unethical ones and ones that fall in between.  It does mean
that you will need more judgement of who you are dealing with, 
but that is true of any frontier society.

And in case you haven't noticed, Homer is acting to a great
degree as an ethics officer for ACT, insisting on tech instead
of bullshit PR.  It shows how much can be done with communication
alone.

But the freezone is distorted by the heavy threat of CofS attacks.
Real free market operation would quickly bring things into line.

Taking E-meters as an example, the freezone is not really in
position to get a good cheap mass produced E-meter.

Lafayette electronics in New York used to make a build your 
own E-meter kit for about twenty bucks (it would be about a 
hundred bucks at today's prices) and that could be done again 
today (interesting a small professional shop in mass producing 
a product) if the CofS wasn't standing in the wings ready to 
launch an attack.

I would think that an assembled meter could be mass produced 
for $200 wholesale and that any freezone group would happily retail
it with normal markup (which would put it at about $400).
That is assuming low volume rather than cut rate oriental
pricing.

But who is going to invest in an assembly line product
if they expect the CofS to launch harrassment suits and
send in secret agents to sabotogue production and plant
dead agent lies about the manufacturers.

So the freezone only has custom assembly and the correspondingly
high price.  Just compare the cost of buying a manufactured
bookcase to the price of having a carpenter build one and
you'll see what I mean.

It doesn't act like free market.

Anyone running a group has to worry about maintaining a
war chest against possible attacks.

The comm lines are inhibited.

Upstats are more visible and therefor in greater danger
of attack.

The threat puts a bad twist onto everything.

The CofS has an imaginary enemy.  The freezone has a real
one.  Both need to be as-ised.

 
> What is missing in the FZ is training.
> What is missing in the FZ is a real understanding of what it really 
> takes to train an auditor.

This is the freezone's biggest weakness.

Processing can be done by individuals.  It doesn't actually need
an organization, and in the old days field auditing was the
CofS's biggest auditing stat.

But training is best done at an organization, and organizations
make big targets that are easily attacked by the CofS.

The CofS itself theoretically has the capability to train
auditors, but also works to attack and unmock auditors and
inhibits the use of the tech.

If they simply delivered courses, no questions asked, to 
freezoners they could boom on that one action alone.

But the fastest way for an orthodox member to get in trouble
with the organization is to actually use any of the tech.
And David Miscaviage personally seems to have wrecked the
Sea Org's technical staff again and again with destructive
ethics.

That is one of the reasons why reform is needed.

That is one of the reasons why I think that the copyrights 
need to be released into the public domain on the basis of 
religious freedom.

Not only would the freezone be encouraged to train and to 
use the tech, but the org would straighten out and actually
have to deliver tech.

They could still do it now, but only just barely.  They are
losing too many of the old hands with this new golden era
push.

The ones who really go for it and are winning with the
retraining action (there are some) are the ones for whom
it is a correct indication.  In other words, the people
who were very weak technically anyway and need another
pass through the material.

It is a sort of process of natural selection.  They are
breeding for stupidity.

If they wait too long they will not have the technical
core left on which to make a comeback.  They are already
only a shadow of what was there in the 1970s.

If they are to sink, I would prefer that they not take
the tech down with them.

And freeing the tech is the most likely thing that would
cause the CofS to rethink its position and actually 
straighten out.  

Right now they still have people and resources.  If they
had to compete openly they might actually begin to use
them effectively.

It should be done now before they piss away the last
of their strenght on stupid lawsuits and unjustified
attacks.

Hopefully you will have already thought this out further
by the time I get this message onto the net.  But I 
thought that the above were worthy of comment.

There is a definite need for delivery of SHSBC type training
in the freezone.  Rumor has it that there are such groups
in existance but they don't talk on the internet because they
would be smashed flat very quickly.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Azeric on Catholic Upbringing


TO AZERIC ON CATHOLIC UPBRINGING

On 21 Jan 98, azeric <azeric@flash.net> asked on subject
"I need advice on Scientology-GOD-debate with my spouse"

> I apologize for the following not being on topic- but I am looking for 
> advice or references so that I can handle a GOD debate with my spouse.  I 
> grew up Christian and before Scientology I did not really know what to 
> think of GOD.  After reading various Scientology articles, now I believe 
> in the concept that we are all part of the Prime Creator or Primary 
> Static, yet individual. 
> My wife is Catholic and believes in the creator as one you 
> worship,respect, and pray to for help.    My problem is that if we have 
> kids my wife wants to raise them Catholic and I have a hard time with this 
> because I believe the Catholic/Christian beliefs about God are false data. 
> So I am looking for advice/references so that I may be able to change my 
> viewpoint on this and feel okay about raising my kids Catholic.


I was raised in an atmosphere of Christian Metaphysics, including
exposure to things like Science of Mind and Cosmic Consciousness
and also attending at various times Catholic, Lutheran, Prespitarian,
and Episcopalian services.  I even visited a Tibetan Monestary once
which had been transported stone by stone to the US and I also had
some exposure to Ethical Culture and Unitarianism among other things.
At various times, I was in a Catholic Catechism class, a Lutheran
Bible School, and a Prespetarian Religious discussion group.

Most of this took place before I finished grade school.  I did
not have a lot of these things, just basic introductions.  I was
officially Lutheran and only took the sacrement at Lutheran churches.
My parents were intentionally exposing me to various religious
ideas and giving me the freedom to think about them for myself
and draw my own conclusions.

As far as I can tell, the exposure to ideas of God, the spirit,
and various religious concepts was all valuable.

I feel that the broad base proofed me up against fanaticism without
at the same time turning me against religious and spiritual ideas.
I think that it helped immensly in throwing off the CofS fanaticism
quickly, although I will confess to getting a bit carried away a
few times in the early days when I was on staff before I learned 
judgement.

I think that prayer in the manner of begging for favors or 
propitiating an angry God who might zap you with a lightning
bolt is not really a good thing, but prayer in the manner of 
affirming ones connections with an underlying universal source
is quite fine.

I think that Scientology is compatible with the more gnostic
religious concepts but has trouble with the more narrow minded
fanatics.  Things like "The Truth Shall Set You Free" and
"The Kingdom of God is Within You" are totally compatible.
But when people insist that 7 days of creation means exactly
7 days as we count days on Earth, then we get monkey trials.

Even Catholicism has its seekers after truth and wisdom as
evidenced by the Jesuits.

I did find that the Catholic Icons had a slightly restimulative
effect when I was first exposed to them.  But this dissolved
as soon as I saw an extensive exhibit of midevael art.  Again
the key was simply having enough so as not to fixate on one
item.

I would say that you can make it go right by emphasising
the underlying commonality of spirit, and by requiring that
you have an equal say in also providing a broader exposure 
to other religious ideas.

If she insists that they must be raised only Catholic with
no exposure to other religious and spiritual ideas, then
she is a fanatic and you will probably have trouble in many
other areas as well and I would not expect your relationship
to last.  

If, on the other hand, she simply wants her children to have 
the opportunity of learning the same doctrins that she
grew up with and is willing to allow them their freedom of
judgement, then this is fine.

I knew children who were raised in mixed Christian/Jewish
families who were trained in both traditions (attending
both Church and Synagogue) and turned out very well.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - About Homer's Impact


ABOUT HOMER'S IMPACT


At this time, I only have a small circle that I can talk to 
safely about the freezone internet effort.

Rather than driving people off, Homer seems to be aquiring
a fan club among my friends.

Like many things, he will be a right item for some and a wrong
one for others.

The politically incorrect and anti-PR attitude is a refreshing
relief to many who have been bombarded by years of icky sweet
CofS promo.

The real pissing contests are not desirable, but the challanges
and arguments about tech are popular because many of the fence
sitters have a long suppressed urge to thrash things out 
themselves and come to grips with what was real and what was
just PR.

But of course if there is only Homer, then some people will
be attracted and some will be driven off because this kind of
discussion isn't right for everybody.

He has already indicated the correct solution, which is to have
more than just clear-l feeding into ACT.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Advanced Grade 0


ADVANCED GRADE 0


As I have mentioned before, I am currently working through
the Self Clearing book myself, doing a deeper pass and seeing
how much further I can go with the processes.

The general idea is that after enough different areas are
run, you can re-run everything at a deeper level.

Of course I have had a lot of standard grades processing and
that overlaps some areas of the book.  Since those were
well done and taken to a point where there was really no
more that could be run at that time, I felt that these areas
would be an especially important test of this theory.

Despite having had a lot of recall processes run, I expected
that area (Chapter 6 in the book) to run much further because
the track is so long and I recall so little proportionately,
and I found that to be the case.

But I wondered a bit what would happen with grade 0, running
the area again (Chapter 8) after having been at a point 
years ago where it had been taken to a persistant FN and
a very solid grade EP (end phenomena).

Of course, according to my own instructions in the book, the
area could be skipped if it seemed to overrun.

But it didn't.  There was a bit more to run on all the 
processes, and the gains were significant.

I did alter the processes in one respect and this might
apply to any advanced student.  To handle the problem
of running communications solo, the book says to write
letters (which one does not actually send).  This is to
ensure that a beginner has enough mass and reality on
the communications.

But if you are up to doing mockups that give you adequate
"havingness" and reality, you can alter this into simply
mocking up people and communicating to them so as to blow
through the communication ridges.  This is more convienient
for an advanced student.  A beginner could try it this way,
but if there is any feeling of unreality or emptyness (lack
of mass), they should do it with paper and pen instead.

I reached the end of the chapter with a really good win,
but I felt that I wanted to run another processes, aimed
at the area of telepathy.  I have thought of this in the
past, but it never quite seemed to indicate as the right
action, so I had always put it aside.

But after this deeper pass on grade 0, it seemed like a
processes on telepathic comm, just to take charge off, would
be really appropriate.  The target wasn't to turn on full
telepathic abilities but just to take a baby step in that
direction.

So I added process 8.9 as follows -

8.9a) What would you be willing to read in another's mind?
8.9b) What would you be willing to have another read in your mind?
8.9c) What would you be willing to have another read in another's
mind?

This one ran like dynamite and completely blew me away.

It may be too advanced for a beginner on the first time through
the book, but it should certainly be there for the advanced
students.

Among other things, it gave me a glimpse of some early track.
After finishing the process and the chapter, the section of early 
track that had opened up continued to come back to me that evening
and throughout the next day.  And that finally lead to the
following realization.

The early counter-thoughts, prior to all force (can't hurt
a static) and loss (can mock anything up again at will), are
things that we would now call "theedie-weedie".  Things
like being made fun of or having one's creations rejected.

Imagine little kids, not allowed to hit each other and not
concerned with surviving (because the parents provide all
the food and shelter) but who are busily picking on each
other and so forth.

For an innocent and simple being, this has real impact.
And I suddenly got the feeling that all the real pain and
force and destruction and significant loss was mocked up
as a way to devaluate and make less of the hurt of these
early things.

The little kid is sniviling because his feelings were hurt
so now you belt him one and he has something real to cry
about.  He soon learns to degrade the hurt feelings to
the level of theedie-weedie bullshit.

Execpt that the hurt feelings are early basics and being
hit can't even happen until late on the track.

ARC goes very very basic.  And being admired or agreed with
are of fantastic significance.

This gives me the idea that you might get some big case
changes simply by running times the PC's feelings were hurt 
and where he hurt other kids feelings in the early pre-school
time period of this lifetime.

Quite a bit seems to have opened up for me on taking another
pass through communications processing.  It is not that the
self clearing approach is superior to doing expanded grade
zero.  I'm sure that grade 0 went as far as it could at the 
time that it was done.  It is simply that this area was now 
ready to be run further because I had advanced far enough 
beyond where I had been at when the grade was run.

Best,

The Pilot

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

These posts were issued with the following trailer.
  
------------------
The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the
"SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net.

See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm

Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

Some translations are available, see
In German  - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm
In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive 
#23 and posted to ACT.  See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.

Note that some of my posts only go to ACT.  I cannot be reached by email.

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



