Breaking away

I’ve been meaning to write this post for some time, but better late than never. I want to give a sincere “very well done” to the brave folks at the Dror Center in Israel. These Mission Holders, Dani and Tami Lemberger, realized they could no longer support CofS. This was documented in a Village Voice article and on Marty Rathbun’s blog.

After making their break, Dror continues to flourish and prosper, and they’ve expanded beyond the limits of a CofS Mission, now able to deliver OT auditing as well as Academy training. This is terrific! My only concern is I see they’re requiring pre-OTs to do Level 0 before going on to the Solo course. Seems like an arbitrary and a checksheet additive. Not sure what they’re basing this decision on.

What thrills me most about Dror is that, on top of servicing existing Scientologists, they’re promoting to raw public. That makes my heart sing. As I’ve said in earlier posts, we’ve still got a planet to clear and that can only happen if we reach out to raw public.

I would love to see more Mission Holders wake up and do the same thing. They’re in the perfect position to help further the Code of a Scientologist, particularly:

“18. To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.”


“20. To make this world a saner, better place.”

Missions are very much outwardly focused, reaching out to raw public, helping them cognite on the benefits and value of Scientology. They are set up to both audit and train for balanced delivery. (I’m a big believer in how auditing is only half the Bridge.)

This is exactly what is needed and wanted in the Field. If you have any comm lines to Mission staff, or better still Mission Holders, do all you can to help them confront what’s currently going on in the Church. Let’s hope they choose the red pill and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.


What happened to “old” tech?

I was having a conversation via comments with David St. Lawrence aka oldauditor (to follow that thread, go to my Introduction post) and I realized I should really make this a post. There’s just more I want to say and it shouldn’t really be done in a comment, so here goes…

I’ve heard more than one person in the Field refer to how the tech from the ‘50s and ‘60s were “discarded.” Okay, granted I’ve been off lines for over 20 years, so perhaps this has become the norm in today’s Churches, but it’s certainly not what LRH said. As I quoted in my comment thread:

In HCO PL 8 May 1969, Issue IV, Out Tech, he states:

All of Dianetics and Scientology works. Some of it works faster.”

Or go to HCO PL 17 June 1970RB, Technical Degrades, where LRH lists as one of the HIGH CRIMES:

“2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he is being trained.”

But those aren’t the only references. I found a terrific Bulletin that’s part of the Case Supervisor Series, HCOB 30 June 1970R, VIII Actions. I’m going to quote a rather large passage that’s applicable to this discussion:

“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. It is not guessed that this will be assumed and so we could lose an entire subject.

“We did in fact lose Dianetics for a decade and all but lost Scientology in the following ten years.

“A subject can be reorganized and made more workable. That was done in 1969 for Dianetics. BUT IT HAD NEVER BEEN UNWORKABLE!

“The 1969 Dianetics Reorganization refined the 1962-63 discoveries of R-3-R. A better communication was made to the user and the preclear.

“Amazingly, the reissue of Dianetics as Standard Dianetics caused about a dozen people (even in high places unfortunately) to at once assume that Dianetics wiped out any need for Power, Scientology Clearing or anything else! Even an unauthorized Policy Letter (not signed by me) and an HCO B (also not signed by me) gave this impression. They were of course cancelled the instant they were discovered to have been sent out.

“The idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.”

When I was on staff in the ‘80s, I audited PCs with Book One auditing. It doesn’t get much “older” than that. So if the current CofS is saying the “old” technology has been discarded, recognize this is an off policy, out tech viewpoint.

This leads to a tangential point regarding the Tech. I know there are people in the Field who have taken it upon themselves to “embrace and extend” the Tech LRH mapped out for us. Sure, in the early days things were pretty wild and woolly, with a lot of “seat of the pants” auditing. Some things worked, some didn’t, and some were really bad. But as LRH explained in HCO PL 14 February 1965, Safeguarding Technology:

“Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.”

Perhaps these folks are developing viable procedures and are getting good results. If so, I say good for them. But personally, I don’t want to be a guinea pig. I know the Tech LRH laid out for us does work. It brings to mind what LRH pointed out in HCO PL 13 November 1972, Affluence Attainment:

“Doing the things that won, not new things untried as yet.”

For instance, I’ve read about auditors conducting sessions over the internet. That’s scary to me. I know computers. I’m on mine most of the day. I have FiOS, so I’ve got a great connection, but there are still drop outs with live streaming. That could easily cause a missed read. Plus a slower connection could cause a critical lag. I’m a pretty fast PC and let me tell you; having the auditor say “That” and the precise moment is vital. Lag and I’ll have moved on to something else and you’ll miss it. Plus calling “That” after the correct picture’s passed could ARC break the PC.

Depending on how good the lighting and camera is on the PC’s side, you very well may not be able to see things like skin tone change, pupil change, that sweat starting to bead at his temple, etc. These are valuable “tells” for an auditor. Plus you can’t control the session. You can’t be sure the dog doesn’t suddenly jump into the PC’s lap. That his child doesn’t scream for him to come help. That there aren’t noises off that distract him. And there’s always the possibility of a power failure or some other reason why the connection is lost. As an auditor, I’ve run some pretty hairy Book One sessions and I’d certainly not want to leave a PC mid running some of the incidents I’ve dealt with in those sessions. To me, the risks simply don’t outweigh the benefits.

I understand the argument about how technology has advanced so much farther since LRH was alive, but that doesn’t change all the above. An auditor needs to be fully in communication with his PC. Sitting a few feet in front of the PC is obviously much more effective than trying to communicate via a computer. (And we won’t go into the fact that it is a via.)

Now, that said, I’m not advocating those auditors be shut down. If it works for them and the PC understands what’s being delivered isn’t exactly what LRH mapped out, okay. But it’s not for me. And I’m confident that if LRH were here, he’d simply say anyone wanting to deviate needs to star-rate and clay demo Keeping Scientology Working and Safeguarding Technology.

Out of the closet

As the title says, I’m hereby officially out of the closet, or perhaps I should say, on the radar. I’ve submitted my name (Nancy Foster) to be added to the Indie 500. I look forward to continuing to do what I can to save Scientology from COB’s destruction. If you’re interested in my back story, I’ve added it to my original Introduction post (scroll down to the update section).

Commenting on this blog

While I welcome your feedback, I will be moderating comments. I’m pretty much chained to my computer, so I don’t foresee long comm lags between my being notified of a comment and responding accordingly. I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but I won’t allow derogatory comments on either side of an argument. I try to avoid using snarky or snide terms in my posts, and won’t allow them in comments. We’re better than that, people.

War-gaming the future

My husband and I have had several conversations about Scientology’s future free of CofS. How will things play out? We’ve war-gamed various scenarios, and one that sends chills down my spine revolves around the ability to audit PCs without interference from the government.

Right now we have CofS’s deep pockets keeping that wolf at bay. Auditing is covered as pastoral counseling, but CofS calls those in the Field apostates, defrocked ministers, etc. Do we still have that protection? Consider this…

Let’s say a Field auditor decides to take on a PC that’s actively taking psych drugs. Or in the middle of a raging PTS Type A sit. Or something else that causes the auditing to go sideways (out Auditor’s Code issues, squirrel tech, etc.). Everything goes seriously and rapidly downhill and this imagined Field auditor has a Lisa McPherson-type case on his hands, with the same disastrous result. The victim’s family knows the PC had been getting auditing and they hire a lawyer. When they naturally try to go after CofS and its deep pockets, CofS says, “We had nothing to do with it. What that apostate did couldn’t have been Scientology pastoral counseling because he’s been kicked out of the Church.” They may even make up some proof our poor auditor was known to foul up and that’s why he was kicked out, his certs revoked.

Meanwhile the media is having a field day with this tragedy, splashing it across the front pages of papers. The news quickly reaches another group that would love nothing more than to shut Scientology down — the psychiatry/psychology field. From their viewpoint, we’ve been horning in on their territory for decades, stealing patients (read: money) from them all this time. They haven’t been able to bring down Scientology as a whole, but here’s their chance to make some inroads.

So their lawyers draft state-level legislation that basically calls any auditing outside of the official Church “practicing medicine without a license.” The tragic death of the PC serves to rile up the citizenry and they go along with the legislation. After all, even the Church says what that auditor did was bad, and not real Scientology.

Okay, you’re thinking, “well, that happened in another state; it won’t affect me.” But then psychs in your state see how successful that was and they do the same thing there, and it spreads all over the US, and beyond. CofS may even assist in this campaign as the Field has become a giant thorn in their side as well.

You may think this scenario is impossible, but with no Qual in the Field ensuring Standard Tech, there could easily be horrible results from bad auditing. And while the Field may be reveling in all the bad press CofS has been getting, it can also serve to tar all Scientology in the minds of wogs who don’t know any better. We start getting cases of PCs going Type 3, or worse, dying in the Field and all Hell is liable to break loose.

It’s in all our best interests to come up with some way to have at least a Qual function in the field. I offered the beginnings of an idea in my post “Assuring Standard Tech” , but it’s something we all need to confront and consider.

Where’s the Div 6 activity?

One of my long-standing pet peeves in Scientology has been the imbalance between promoting to existing public versus raw public. FSMs, even way back when I was on staff, preferred to work with cognited Scientologists over running the Dissemination Drill on raw public. Sure, I understand it’s a whole lot easier to confront someone who already knows Scientology is the way out. Approaching a raw public could leave you dealing with all kinds of headaches (entheta, Third Party, etc.).

CofS has taken cannibalism of public to a whole new level. The stories of outrageous regging are all over the place. But I fear there’s a similar problem in the Field.

While there may be some in the Field who are actively promoting Scientology to raw public, I haven’t seen any major activity in this area. I’ve heard some say that it’s planned, but mostly the focus I’ve seen and heard is on fellow people in the Field, servicing those who are already out, and trying to get more to “wake up” and leave CofS. That’s all good, but we still have a planet to clear, folks.

With CofS crumbling before our eyes, the Field should be positioning itself to take on the job of clearing the planet. Of course, this goes back to that dreaded “Organization” concept because, ideally, there’d be marketing and promotion to reach all those wogs. To do it properly and on the necessary scale, we’d need the money to finance things like TV commercials and web ads (not email marketing, please — I hate spam!). These could point to a central internet presence that provides people with a destination to learn more, as well as a way for them to locate a “provider” in their area. You know, they type in their location and it would show who in that area offers what. It would just be field practices in the beginning (please, auditing and training), but eventually, we’d need some type of Org structure. (Okay, pick your jaw back up. No, you don’t need to cower in the corner. As I mentioned in my “Who’s afraid of Admin?” post, it’s not Organizations or Admin that’s the boogeyman.)

My point is we need to think big, not just worry about our own cases. I totally understand “racing Dynamic One” — I’m not getting any younger myself and I have a whole lot of Bridge to still do. But I also recognize this is a big planet with a whole lot of people. The more people we clear, the better life would be here on Earth. If appealing to your Third and Fourth Dynamics isn’t working, think about your Second. Don’t you want your kids and grandkids to have a safer, saner world to live in?

Assuring Standard Tech

In my last post, I got on my Admin soap box, but lest you think I just hobby-horse that subject because of my training, let me reveal my ‘ulterior’ motive.

I’ve had to come to accept that my Church will probably not be saved from total destruction. That concerns me on a number of levels. I know the Field has managed to ‘save’ much of the Tech, but what about things like tech films, the B.C.-only material on the Briefing Course, and all the upper levels? Will I be able to access these things in the Field? Will the Tech I receive be Standard?

What does that all have to do with Admin? Hand in hand with the aversion to Admin I’ve seen among some in the Field is an aversion to any kind of centralized Organization. I understand the fears — that any new Organization could some day turn into the monster we’re witnessing today in CofS — but there’s a reason LRH put in the level of organization he did.

Sure, in the early years things were pretty ‘wild and woolly’, but LRH soon figured out it wasn’t all that operational. Among other things, having a central Organization allowed for setting and enforcing standards. Think of it like McDonald’s. You know if you go into a MickyD’s in New York, LA, or even London, that Big Mac will taste the same. The same ingredients and cooking method will be used. Standardization is a good thing. It’s good for the employees who don’t have to reinvent the wheel. It’s good for the consumer who can satisfy his hunger without worrying about it tasting weird.

A central Organization provides a central repository for all the Tech. It can be kept safe and made available when needed.

A central Organization makes good business sense, too. One entity can handle promotion and marketing (something I’ll touch on in a future post), making it more cost effective.

But it’s the certainty of standardness, or lack thereof in the current scene, that I worry about most. My husband mentioned this in his recent post Whither Standard Tech?. I’m not auditor trained. I may not know whether an auditor is using the correct list. I won’t know if the auditor is properly reading the meter. Sure, if I “red tag” I’ll have a clue there’s something wrong, but I’d rather not, thank you. Perhaps some outness just means something that should take one intensive, ends up taking three. I won’t know there’s a problem. And to the degree I worry about things like this, is the degree I won’t be fully ‘in session’. It could give me a Present Time Problem (PTP) right from the get-go.

Before COB turned our tech delivery into “a dog’s breakfast”, you knew when you got auditing in an Org that the auditor was trained, interned, and answered to a CS, Tech Sec, etc. After you finished your session, you went to an examiner — another opportunity to catch any problem. You knew if he/she did something wrong in a session, it would be caught and corrected with cramming. But we don’t necessarily have that in the field.

Many field auditors are ‘one man shows’. Sure, they’re hopefully using a CS to program the case, but that’s usually done over a long distance comm line. No separate examiner. No Tech Sec or Qual Sec.

Even if the field auditor is using a separate CS, is that CS actually reviewing folders? Does the auditor ever submit videos of their sessions?

While the ideal solution is building a new Organization that enforces Standard Tech, Standard Admin, and hatting, I know that will be hard for some to accept. With that in mind, I offer another solution I hope the Field will consider. I think it addresses the fears of those against any kind of organization.

Some central entity (call it what you will) would ‘certify’ auditors through a specific VOLUNTARY process. Let me stress that again — this would be voluntary. Auditors who don’t do this could still audit in the field all they wanted. But those that do choose to could then market that fact. For illustration purposes, let’s call this certification status “Gold Seal”. The actual process to achieve this status should be designed by highly trained auditors, but off the top of my head I think they should:

1) Have to answer a test based on the training level they claim to have achieved.

2) Have to submit some folders for examination.

3) Have to submit some session videos where their metering and TRs could be checked.

Assuming they pass this certification process, they could then promote they’re “Gold Seal” auditors. That would be a great PR tool for the auditor. His/her PCs would feel more comfortable going into session.

The certification would need to be a paid service, but it shouldn’t be exorbitant. It should simply cover the costs of doing the review process. It should also only be good for a certain amount of time — perhaps a year. That way PCs will know the auditor’s tech will have been reviewed and certified relatively recently. Keeping it voluntary should appease those who are against any kind of organization. And those of us worried about the standardness of the Tech would be more assured. It’s a win-win.