Don’t be a victim

Hand-in-hand with my last post on overts, comes this one about responsibility. It stems from the same email my husband received, where he was being slammed for pointing out the natter in the Field and what it signifies. The emailer told the tale of another Scientologist who has suffered a series of tragedies that he lays at the feet of COB and CofS, thus justifying this fellow’s natter. In other words, this fellow was a victim. Wow, what an outpoint.

Being a victim is the polar opposite of what we strive for as Scientologists. We want to be fully at cause over our lives and the physical universe. Every course we take, every auditing action we do, are designed to help us become more at cause. We should never wallow in victimhood. Sure, life slaps us around and bad things happen. We’re still on planet Earth after all. But the degree to which we can spot what responsibility we have in those bad things, is the degree of cause we can accept. To help illustrate this point, let me craft a completely fictitious example.

Let’s say I was driving home from work one day when, BAM! Someone runs their red light and T-bones my car. Not only is my car totaled, but my leg and arm are badly broken, leaving me unable to work for an extended time. I wasn’t doing anything wrong. I was driving the speed limit, minding my own business. I lead a good life, don’t go around committing crimes. Why did this happen to me?!

Well, in this imaginary incident, let’s say I decided to not be a victim and instead looked at what responsibility I could take. Lo, and behold, I realize that when my alarm clock went off that morning, I decided to not get up yet. That lead to my being late to work, causing me to have to stay late to make up the time. Had that not happened, I wouldn’t have been in that intersection at the time the fellow ran the red light. So there, I’ve found something I could take responsibility for and could put myself back at cause.

Important: Taking responsibility for what happened to me does not lessen the overt of the person who ran the light and hit me. He is still at fault in the eyes of the law and with his own case.

That was a rather simple example. It could be something much harder to spot. Perhaps it goes back to a prior lifetime, maybe retribution for some planet I blew up. Who knows? Outside of an auditing session I certainly shouldn’t be listing on what I did to deserve the present time trouble. That’s not the point.

The point is simply realizing there’s something we did, at some point on our timetrack, to pull in the bad things. Realizing that helps us move more at cause. So the next time you find yourself thinking you’re being victimized, bullied, whatever, if you can’t get in session, at least accept the idea you had some responsibility for what happened. You’ll feel a whole lot better.


Overts don’t mean you’re a bad person

You may have read my hubby’s latest post, Overts and Withholds. It was a topic of conversation recently in our house and I have some points I’d like to make on the subject.

One point I made to Paul (and that he included in his post) is that the mere fact you have overts doesn’t not make you a bad person. If you’re a human being living on this planet, you’ve got overts. All us Earthlings do. Overts are just another part of your case, like secondaries, service facsimiles, you name it. You shouldn’t look down on someone or think less of them because they have overts. To borrow from Christianity, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” And if someone suggests you might want to consider doing an O/W write-up, don’t take it as an attack. You get case gain from a good O/W handling. You’ll feel a whole lot better and that’s the point.

Part of this came up because of a post Paul had written last year about a particular prominent Scientologist who tended to include a good bit of natter in his blog. That old post of Paul’s recently led to him getting slammed in a private email by another prominent Scientologist blogger, hence the topic coming up.

First of all, let’s take a look at natter and what it means. According to the Collins English Dictionary, the British definition of natter when used as a verb is to talk idly and at length; chatter or gossip. In Scientology, natter more specifically refers to critical or derogatory talk about something or someone. Here’s what LRH had to say about what’s typically behind natter:

“Natter and 1.1 remarks mean a whithhold.” (HCOB 15 Oct 74)

“Sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. Such natter always indicates a real overt.” (Tech Dictionary definition, from HCOB 7Sept 64 II)

So what’s not nattering? Well, merely pointing out the facts of someone’s wrong-doing (and we all know COB has a rather extensive list of wrong-doing) is not necessarily natter. When you point out the time, place, form, and event as it were, you’re merely recounting factual incidents.

But when you start making derogatory comments about his physical stature (or lack thereof), that has nothing to do with the out-ethics behavior. Nor is referring to him as Pope or Mini-Pope relevant. It’s purely for insult purposes. The same could be said for some of the insults hurled at CofS — using a dollar sign in place of the “S”, for instance. Now, don’t get me wrong. If you read my blog, or my husband’s, you quickly realize we’re no apologists for either COB or CofS. But one can criticize, point out the crimes, etc. without devolving into natter. Sadly, natter seems to be a growing cancer in the Independent Field.

I left staff back in the late 80s and because of the out-tech and out-ethics at my org at the time, was not given my “leaving staff sec check”. Thankfully some years later, when a new team was leading the org, and when it was finally discovered on their end that my forced departure was based on a lie, I was called back in for those sec checks. Perhaps that’s why I can talk about the outpoints and crimes without resorting to natter. When my husband Paul posited the idea of a “Leaving Scientology Rundown”, the level of natter we saw in the Field was part of the reason.

Natter isn’t doing anyone any good, except that it’s letting others know you probably have some O/Ws in need of handling. Get them cleaned up. You’ll feel a whole lot better. And you can still inform the world of COBs crimes, and of the serious crimes committed by CofS under his leadership. Nobody is saying you can’t, nor is anyone saying you don’t have the right to natter. You have the right to say whatever you please. All we’re saying is, do yourself a big favor and clean up your O/Ws. You’ll be glad you did.

Some Scientology wins

My hubby, over on his blog, mentioned he’d read of someone wanting more good news. Paul then told the story of how we met, and how Scientology helped us build such a terrific and long-lasting marriage. I took the hint and thought I’d share some wins as well.

When I was on staff, I did some Book One auditing on new public. I didn’t have a lot of PCs, but I certainly had some great wins on the ones I did audit. Two particular ones come to mind. I’ll refer to them as PC1 and PC2.

During a session with PC1, he brought up his brother’s suicide. It had happened quite a bit earlier, but still bothered him. So much so that he’d drive out of his way every day going to work just to avoid going past the park where the brother had done himself in. We ran that out and PC1 felt much better. In fact, he was absolutely beaming the next time he came in for a session. He couldn’t wait to tell me about how, not only could he comfortably drive past the park, he could go there without getting mis-emotional. PC1 was so blown away about how much better his life was after that simple Book One session. Pretty cool, huh?

With PC2, she brought up a gang rape she’d experienced some years early; a pretty meaty incident to pick up and run with a new PC, but you take what the PC offers in Book One. We ran it out; it was an intense session, but in the end, she was doing much better. After the session ended and we were just talking, she shared a cognition she had. Unbeknownst to me, PC2 was living life as a lesbian, but after this session, she realized it was the gang rape that had made her prefer women to men in the 2D department. After handling that incident, she discovered she really wasn’t a lesbian after all. It makes you wonder how many others who prefer the same sex might feel differently after some auditing.

Then, turning the tables, there’s a favorite personal win as a PC myself. Fairly early in my time as a Scientologist this lifetime, I needed a C/S 53 and a particular incident from last lifetime read. I eventually F/N’d the list, but that same incident would rear its ugly head from time to time on other actions. About a year later, during an FPRD session (with a terrific auditor, I might add), that darn incident came up again. “Argh! I’m so tired of looking at this thing!” At the precise moment that thought popped in my head, I swear to you LRH was right there and in perfect Tone 40 said,  “Look.” BAM! In that exact split second, I finally confronted the missing piece of that incident and proceeded to line charge for quite a bit. Once I settled down, my auditor acknowledged the F/N (Duh!!) and ended the session. There was a line at the examiner and I could tell she was a bit worried — you never want your PC to wait at exams — but I assured her this F/N wasn’t going anywhere any time soon. If you knew the significance of that incident, you’d understand.

FPRD is phenomenal auditing, by the way. When I did the FEBC, we all got some FPRD. Persistent F/Ns became our biggest frustration. We had to finish the auditing before we could fire back to our Orgs, but you can’t go in session with a persistent F/N. Some of us would do things like read the paper or walk down Hollywood Avenue trying to knock the F/N off so we could get back in session. What a problem to have! LOL

One last point: It’s been said that auditing is only half the Bridge; that you really need to get trained as well. That is so true. Getting trained as an auditor provides you two priceless benefits.

(1) Knowing the mechanics, the why behind behavior, helps you understand and not take it personally when, say, someone is hitting you with a service facsimile. It also helps you spot your own case getting in the way, giving you that much more control over it.

(2) There are tremendous wins to be had as an auditor. Just imagine how amazing I felt when my PC told me about being to go that park without getting upset. Or helping someone get over something as traumatic as a gang rape. I tell you there’s case gain to be had on both sides of the auditing desk.

Oooh, I’ve been declared!

If you follow my hubby’s blog, Martin Luther, then you already know the news. And he’s right, we were never invited to a Committee of Evidence. Dang! Maybe they’re afraid of us. And like so many in the Field have reported, we didn’t get any goldenrod. I’d write some cramming orders, but I know that would be a big waste of my time.

I’m with Paul — curious how they finally figured out we’d officially left. After all, we haven’t been on lines in years due to freeloader debts. We’re still not listed on the Indie 500 list (despite sending emails asking to be added… see Paul’s post mentioning that here). We get very few visitors to our blogs. Perhaps it’s because we’ve remained Facebook friends with some other independent Scientologists. Who knows. Maybe it will at least mean our mailbox won’t be stuffed with junk mail from COB’s church.

Meanwhile, I’ll wear my not-on-goldenrod declare order with pride. We haven’t left Scientology. My husband and I still adhere to the path LRH laid out. It’s CofS that’s veered off that path. COB has done his darnedest to destroy the Bridge. Hopefully more Scientologists wake up, realize their Church has been corrupted, and join us in the Field. If enough of us band together, we can bring about a true Renaissance of Scientology, restoring LRH’s works to their rightful place, lighting the path to freedom.

Being there and communicating

I’ve been working on this post for several days. I wanted to research references because I always prefer to let LRH do the talking. The topic has been on my mind since I first started reading websites by those in the Field some time back, but it was a comment I received recently that pushed it to the top of the stack. I won’t name the person (if you’re really curious, you could go looking and find it) — the who isn’t important to the point being made.

One of the most fundamental tenets in Scientology is the ARC triangle, with heavy emphasis on the C — Communication. But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of what LRH had to say on the subject:

P.A.B. No. 1, 10 May 1953:

“Communication, however, is far more important than affinity or reality, for it is the operation, the action, by which one experiences emotion and by which one agrees. Communication is not only the modus operandi, it is the heart of life and is by thousands of percent the senior in importance to affinity and reality.”

The Phoenix Lectures:

“A thetan is as well off as he can communicate, and he’s no better off than that.”

Dianetics ’55:

“A man is as dead as he can’t communicate. He is as alive as he can communicate.”

So communication is a pretty big deal and I’ve never had much back off in that department. Of course, that also means I’ve been known to get myself in trouble. After all, as LRH said in the Opening Lecture of the State of Man Congress (January 1, 1960):

“The only crimes that you can commit in this universe, as you know, is being there and communicating. Those are the two crimes of the universe. Did you realize that? There are only two crimes: being there and communicating.”

Yep, I’ve been guilty of the crimes being there and communicating, including this little blog. It doesn’t have a lot of visibility — as of this writing, only 219 views since it began October 18, 2012 — but I’ve apparently ruffled some feathers of one particular person. My hubby apparently also upset this fellow. Why? Because we voiced our opinions that KSW and Safeguarding Technology are guiding policies and auditing over the Internet doesn’t fit with standard Scientology. What heretics we are! How dare we express a preference for the Tech LRH so lovingly researched and mapped out for us.

Here’s the deal: I don’t want to silence anyone. I approved the comment this fellow posted, as did my husband on his blog, where the comments were even nastier. But it was the natter, eval, and inval that stirred me to discuss discourse. He’s not the first Scientologist to make some pretty vile comments on various blogs. My husband touched on this subject in his post “Freedom Versus Sacred Cows” on his blog. While Paul focused on the hypocrisy of this behavior, I want to discuss it in more broad terms.

People, we’re Scientologists. We’re better than this. Do we really need to resort to name-calling, snide comments, insults, and virtual threats? If you’re even slightly aware of the Tech, you know what’s usually behind this type of behavior.

HCO Bulletin 21 January AD10, Justification:

“When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that criticised person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just that much evil from the world.”

HCO Bulletin 15 December 1972R, Withholds, Missed and Partial:

“What are these natterings, upsets, ARC Breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds.

“Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.”

The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, January 1951:

Tone Level 2.0
Communication K / Speech Talks: “Talks in threats. Invalidates other people.”
Communication L / Subject’s Handling of Written or Spoken Comm when Acting as a Relay Point: “Deals in hostile or threatening comm. Lets only small amount of theta go through.”
Y / Method Used by Subject to Handle Others: “Nags and bluntly criticizes to demand compliance with wishes.”

That covers the natter, so let me turn to the evaluative and invalidative comments. I pointed this out to the fellow (a trained auditor), recommending he word clear The Auditor’s Code and clay demo point two. His response was that he wasn’t my auditor, implying it was therefore okay to behave that way. Is that what LRH would say? Ask yourself, why are auditors forbidden to evaluate for or invalidate a PC? Here, let me help you out:

P.A.B. No. 93, 24 July 1956:

“The subjects of significances, evaluation and invalidation have become interdependent in Scientology.

“In invalidation we have more fully than in evaluation a capital crime.

“With significances we are simply discussing reasons why. With evaluation we are only giving new stable data, but with invalidation we are overtly and consciously knocking whatever props the patient may have out from under him.

“The greatest invalidation, of course, is to be struck when one does not expect to be struck, to be criticized when one does not think he merits criticism.”

HCO Bulletin 26 February 1970, Standard Tech and Invalidation:

“Invalidation is a serious button.

“When a Class VIII goes home, he is, of course, a better auditor.

“He can and will crash all stats in the area if he charges around invalidating all auditors not so fortunate to be an VIII.”

HCO Bulletin 26 April 1971, Issue I, TRs and Cognitions:

“Auditor Invalidation and Evaluation is just plain villainy. It interferes with pc cognitions.”

So knowing that, whether you’re a trained auditor or not, whether the person you’re talking to is your PC or not, do you really think you should evaluate for them or invalidate them? Can’t we rise above schoolyard taunts and tantrums? Again, I’m the last person who wants to cut or stop your comm, but I’d like to believe we can rise above this type of behavior. Let me leave you with some other wonderful nuggets of wisdom from the Old Man:

1954, The Creed of the Church of Scientology:

“We of the Church believe…
“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

P.A.B. No. 83, The Conditions of Existence, 8 May 1956:

“The ability to assume or to grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtues”

Scientology: A New Slant on Life (from the chapter “What is Greatness?”):

“The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not.

“And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.”

Ooh, look, Super Power’s coming…

How long have Scientologists been waiting for Super Power’s release? Living in Clearwater, we’ve had front row seats to this debacle. I used to shop at the Peter Gillham’s in the Gray Moss Inn building before the Church bought it. Construction on the site began in 1998, and it’s still not opened for business today (early November 2012).

Just how much parishioner money has been wasted on this mess? According to an article in the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Pete Times):

“Harney said ‘it would not be appropriate’ to give a final cost for construction, as the building was funded by parishioners’ donations. When reminded of estimates that the building would cost $90 million, she said those ‘were not incorrect.'”

Another article in the Times reports CofS raised at least $145 million for this monstrosity.

I won’t get into how off-policy all this fundraising was; plenty of others have brought that up. But I remember the promo pieces we used to get in the mail, detailing the imported marble and custom carpeting. Really? Is that what LRH would have done? No, he stressed the cleanliness of our MEST, not the quality. From HCO PL 17 June 1969, The Org Image:

“When important people enter an org and find its premises messy, themselves and their requirements neglected, the org not only loses their fee, it also loses the important friends who would actively protect it.”

“There are several zones which comprise the org image.

“1. Premises, particularly the entrances and interview and service areas. These should be neat, not cluttered up with baggage, paper, tattered notices or unsightly things.”

There’s also HCO PL 12 March 1975, The Ideal Org, which among its list of what makes an ideal Org, states:

“It would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public.”

Or go to HCO PL 11 December 1969, Appearances in Public Divisions:

“It is always easy when one has millions to spend to make a commanding image. The trick is to make it without its costing more than one can afford.

“One has to make the money before one makes the full image.

“There is much one can do — and has to do — at no financial cost or at a low price.”

Now, here’s the icing on the cake. I was recently reading LRH ED 301 INT, Ron’s Journal 30, 1978 — The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech. This issue came out before I got into Scientology this lifetime, so I missed its original issue. As I was reading it, I came across this tidbit where LRH was listing out discoveries and advancements in 1978:

SUPER POWER. A Super fantastic, but confidential series of Rundowns that can be done on anyone whether Dianetic Clear or not that puts the person into fantastic shape unleashing the Super Power of a Thetan. This is the means that puts Scientologists into a new realm of ability enabling them to create the New World. It puts world Clearing within reach in the future. This is a parallel Rundown to Power in Saint Hills which is taken by the Dianetic Clear. It consists of 12 separate high-power rundowns which are brand new and enter realms of the tech never before approached. Power is still very much in use on the Grade Chart but is for those who didn’t go Clear on Dianetics. Super Power will be delivered at Saint Hills within the next 6 weeks as we are right now super grooming in the Super Power auditors in a special International course. It will be delivered in almost all languages.”

Farther into this ED, in the section on Saint Hills, it reads:

SUPER POWER. There is no reason a Dianetic Clear should be denied the powerful gains which research made available in ’78 (see above). For the public who have gone Dianetic Clear, and those who haven’t, Saint Hills will become a mecca where they obtain the most excellent results obtainable in Super Power.”

Friends of LRH, in an analysis of CofS’ use of improperly cited LRH quotes, included a great breakdown regarding Super Power promo, including a scan from The Auditor World Wide, #155 (January 1979) that announces it’s pending arrival and encouraging public to sign up (click “Start” and go to Topic 3 for this section).

So almost 34 years ago, we were six weeks away from Super Power being delivered at Saint Hills. I wasn’t around, but what happened? Didn’t anyone at the time question what happened to Super Power? And now, decades later, it’s a Flag-only service that requires a massive building and a bunch of bizarre, space age equipment. Do you really think what they’re going to deliver in this building matches what LRH developed all those years ago? If you do, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Oklahoma to sell you.

Failed Orgs ≠ Admin Tech

I’ve heard more than one person now point to failed orgs and low staff pay as evidence that Admin doesn’t work. Talk about your wrong Why. Let me illustrate this with an entirely different example.

A guy designs and builds a new kind of car. This baby is sleek, and man, is it fast. Even though it’s street-legal (not a race car), it can do 0–60 in two seconds flat! Needless to say he’s pretty proud of his baby. To sell it, he invites a bunch of people to take it for a spin.

The first guy gets behind the wheel, but the car doesn’t move at all. The crowd watching starts to chuckle, and the first driver gives up. The next guy gets in and he manages to get the car to go, but in fits and starts, lurching a bit, then stopping. He gives up and walks away, shaking his head. Driver number three gives it a try and he manages to get the car going smoothly, but only barely — certainly not a speed demon. The crowd’s laughter grows as he leaves the vehicle. Then number four confidently gives it a try, and while he does go faster, it’s still pretty slow. Meanwhile, the car’s designer is pulling out his hair. “What’s happening?” he asks himself. “I succeeded in breaking speed records with this baby.” So what went wrong?

Well, the first driver managed to turn the car on, but he never put it into gear. Number two got it into gear, but didn’t know how to use a clutch. The next guy got past the clutch issue, but didn’t give it any gas. And the last guy knew to give it gas, but he was also riding the brake. So there wasn’t anything wrong with the car — the drivers weren’t properly hatted on how to drive it. And that’s what’s wrong with Orgs — the staff aren’t properly hatted, fail to correctly use Admin, and things don’t work right.

Okay, I hear some of you saying, “Well, you should build a car that’s easier to drive.” Really? That’s your answer? Does the same viewpoint apply to the Tech? Would you plop someone in the chair with a meter and tell him to audit a PC despite not learning the Level first? In other words, should there be no need to train an auditor? (For the few of you nodding yes, dang!)

It’s funny, the Admin-trained people I know all have the utmost respect for red-on-white, but I’ve heard from some auditors who view green-on-white with complete disdain. Let me tell you, as someone who’s trained on Admin, it can be life changing. I experienced LFBDs from some of the things I studied. Just as Tech can help you understand why people do what they do, Admin can help you understand all kinds of whys. The Data Series is awesome tech. So is the Esto Series. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Don’t do an A=A.