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.

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.

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).