The next Terra Cognita essay. See earlier Terra Cognita: The E-Meter, The Is-Ness of Is-Ness, Cause Over Life — Really?, BT’s in the Belfry, Two New Conditions!, The Condition of Liabilitiness, Condition of Doubtfulness The Mind, The Way To Happiness: Really? A Story, Auditing: a PC’s Quest for the Holy Grail, The Knowledge Report, Integrity, The Almighty Stat, The Reg, The Horrors of Wordclearing, Why Scientologists Don’t FSM, Respect, The Survival Rundown – The Latest Scam, Communication in Scientology… Or Not, Am I Still A Thetan?, To Be Or Not To Be, An Evaluation of Scientology, Fear: That Which Drives Scientology and Justification and Rationalization.
“Do Not Evaluate for the Preclear”
From the Auditor’s Code: “Do not evaluate for the preclear.” “Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.” And, “Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.”
From the moment a test evaluator goes over a new person’s OCA, to flying back to Flag every six months for a “checkup” on OT 7, these precepts are violated. Scientologists are evaluated at every step of the Bridge and in every division of the organization.
Division 6 – Public
Before a new person does any kind of course or receives any auditing in Scientology, he is evaluated by a “test evaluator” on an Oxford Capacity Analysis—an OCA. This evaluator will tell him that his communication skills are low, his self-confidence is lagging, and he’s irresponsible. Something for sure is ruining his life and unless it’s handled immediately, he faces an eternity in hell. Scientology is the answer.
Division 2 – Dissemination
Registrars evaluate everyone. Although she may not know exactly what’s holding back the person sitting at her desk, she knows that a dozen intensives will handle it. Any doubt the person may have is simply next-level-case phenomena. It’s uncanny, the way regs know exactly what’s best for the PC.
Division 4 – Training
All supervisors evaluate their students on Scientology courses. Any “non-optimum” behavior is due to a misunderstood word, a skipped gradient, or lack of mass. There are no other reasons. Pure and simple.
All the LRH tech and policy has already been evaluated for you. Lucky for you, it’s perfect! If you disagree, you’re wrong. Period. How’s that for evaluation?
Division 4 – Processing
The vast majority of auditors are good-intentioned and try to adhere to the principles of granting beingness. Never would they blatantly tell a PC he’s good or bad, or some incident is true or false. When it comes to evaluating their charges with their E-meters, though, they just don’t know any better.
Ironically, more evaluation goes on in session than in most any other area. Nothing a PC comes up with in auditing is worthy of examination unless it’s been validated with the proper read from an E-meter. A PC’s knowingness has no place in the process.
It doesn’t matter if a PC wants to explore something in his past; it must read on the meter. Taking up non-reading items would be a waste of time and result in by-passed charge.
Conversely, it doesn’t matter if the PC says “there’s nothing there” or “I feel fine” about a particular incident. If the needle fell, there’s something there that must be handled. This is especially pronounced when looking for overts and withholds. Auditors are taught to hound PC’s mercilessly until they come up with the transgression.
Unless the needle “floats” on the E-meter, all is not resolved despite pleas from the PC. There’s more shit to handle. Taking the word of a PC without first verifying it on a meter is not allowed. A process cannot end without a floating needle. An EP cannot be achieved without a floating needle. A PC is never “clean” without a floating needle. There is no more controversial meter read than the floating needle. LRH said it was one thing. DM said it was something else. Few auditors get it right all the time and I’m surprised LRH didn’t devote more time to writing a definitive bulletin on the subject. I know, I know, he wrote plenty about the floating needle. He mentioned it here. He mentioned it there. But I’m sorry, he did a lousy job. In my opinion, he never wrote that seminal piece that left absolutely no doubt about what a floating needle looked like. His definitions left the door wide open to interpretation and conjecture. And wide open to someone else substituting their own description of what this needle reaction is supposed to look like.
Floating needles are wildly subjective and another contrivance in evaluating a PC. Again, a process is never over; a list is never finished; and an EP is never reached until a needle has floated. Accepting the PC’s word and granting him beingness for his own knowingness is out-tech.
After every auditing session, needles must float at the Examiner or else the PC is “red tagged,” meaning all is not well and he must go back in session to handle some unresolved issue. Once again, PCs have little say, but are evaluated by machines and their operators.
“Do not evaluate for the preclear.” Seriously? At every point in session, the auditor and his E-meter evaluate the preclear.
And if that isn’t enough, worksheets of every session are sent to a Case Supervisor for even more evaluation. Never mind that this person has never seen or spoken to you. They’re highly trained and know what’s best for you.
Questioning any these evaluations means you have an MU or are “being critical.” As to discussing things with the CS in his ivory tower, you might as well ask for an audience with God.
Division 1 – HCO
Perhaps the harshest evaluation goes on in Department 3. Sneeze, rub shoulders with the wrong person, or ask an inappropriate question, and an Ethics Officer or MAA is guaranteed to evaluate the crap out of you. Query your ethics program? You still want to see your family, don’t you?
Partner into “other” practices? Brother on psych drugs? Gay? Allow a trained ethics officer to evaluate your situation and write a program to help reorganize your life.
To compound the invalidation, oftentimes the MAA is nineteen years old, has never finished high school, and never worked a day of his life in the real world.
Division 7 – Executive
Sea Org missions routinely fire into downtrodden Class 5 orgs, “evaluate” the situation, and put in the correct policy to turn the place Ideal. At least, that’s the theory.
Meanwhile, upper management precisely evaluates Scientology and institutes exact programs to boom the church worldwide.
Is it any wonder that so many people leave the church? Besides all the other reasons, they’re fed up with being evaluated—most of time, incorrectly.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
As I read through the comments I heard the complaints, but it’s the Auditor’s Code not for outside of session, but that’s just it. When I got in it was showed to me in an Ethics interview as a handling for something I said that got me written up.
I was young and tended to speak my mind and evaluate and invalidate at times and I suppose be irritating. That was part of my ruin when I did the test. Getting along with others.
I studied it, wrote O/W’s about evaluating and invalidating others. And you know, using these concepts really helped me.
It was actually a big part of this burning need to prove myself, get respect and be right. God did I need to be right and get the last word in. That urge got me in trouble in the cherch a number of times in my relationships.
But here’s the thing, the culture when I got in was that one of the reasons we Scilons were so awesome is that we knew how to grant beingness, even to a stinky homeless person or a screaming old grandma and get them purring and cooperative. I learned to grant beingness, not eval or inval no matter how I was verbally abused and how to use that tone scale to bring someone uptone, and use locational – the idea of it, because I’d point things out, but not say, start of session, or this is a locational to get someone out of their shit and in the room with me so we could do what ever it was I was trying to achieve.
These tools helped me. And it was valuable for me to recognize my insecurities and need to be right and tamp that shit down.
It was good to use self discipline to avoid evaluating and invaliding people. My relationships improved, my work evals improved. I won’t complain about learning that stuff early on.
The bummer though was once I had these nice manners I also was stopped by them from questioning the BS and conflicting info. I just started swallowing the rightness of LRH. And justifying why things made sense. And believing that his words were wise and right even when I was bored to death listening to tapes.
Fun question – what’s worse than listening to LRH interminably ramble randomly with occasional reasonable points and conflicting data on a tape lecture?
Pointing out that it is rambling, incoherent and conflicting in its message and getting sent to Ethics and having to word clear it and RE-Listen to the Whole Thing!!!
Do not Evaluate for the PC is definitely part of the out of session culture of $cientology. And it leads to Do Not Evaluate for $cientology very quickly. You get a good stable datum and then once it’s in it’s twisted against you. Now it’s used to make $cientology right and you wrong.
Between Do Not Evaluate for the PC and Keeping Scilontology Working you have the one-two punch that sends questioning thoughts to the dustbin.
Dare I say it? I had a cognition writing this comment. It started as I read the blog, it spread as I read the comments, thanks Mona and others and as I sat here remembering that bossy, insecure kid who snarled to be right and ser faced but good at times, I also remembered that strength and that I had friends, who’d put up with my need to have the last word because it was just a flaw, it didn’t ruin me.
I thought my argumentative nature was my ruin. It’s actually my strength. As I became an adult and matured I’d have mellowed and learned to be more socially acceptable. I’m smart. But I got into the cherch with the idea that only they have the answers and my life will be ruined if I keep being myself. What a lie.
What a false manipulative EVALUATION.
Clearly Not Clear, Reminds me of a meme I posted recently. “We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.”
Brilliant meme Tara. Are you any relation to Terra?
I can’t stand Scientology and all its brainwashing. L Con Hubbard was only concerned with fame and fortune. He started a cult then made rules to ensure others were controlled and intimidated to stay by denouncing them or declaring them suppressive. What a degraded son of a bitch he was. What a prison, a mental prison. Fuck off Scientology! I’ll celebrate the day you close for good. You’re an evil cult driven by a sawed-off wannabe named David Miscavidge. Fuck you!!
A view points on replies that people have brought up:
Evaluation does have its place and I’m sorry if I implied it is somehow inherently evil.
There is a big difference, though, between a Reg explaining to someone that his next step after Grade 0 is Grade 1, and telling him that the reason he’s balking at shelling out the money for it is his next-level-bank telling him not to. That it’s his reactive mind somehow trying to stay reactive–if that even makes sense.
likewise, there’s a big difference between a proper 3rd Dynamic evaluation of a scene, and screaming at staff, berating them for their incompetence, and assigning them unjust conditions and penalties.
And of course, an auditor should not relinquish all control of session and let his PC do whatever he wants. I do contend, though, that reliance on an e-meter is an unhealthy form of evaluation.
Students DO suffer from MU’s and lack of mass, and skipped gradients. But it also must be acknowledged that everything they’re studying is not perfect and doesn’t necessarily have to make sense in their universe.
Evaluation is a two-sided sword. It’s how it’s wielded that makes the difference.
I like what Mona mentioned about how The Auditor’s Code can be applied beyond the confines of an auditing room; that’s it’s a code of conduct that can be used in life.
Life is in session.
Ditto! “Life is in session.”
LRH also wrote something along those lines possibly about the behaviour of Clears and The Auditor’s Code but I have forgotten the exact reference so be very aware that what I am writing constitutes ‘verbal tech’ and might be wrong.
The fictional character of Jettero Heller in ‘Mission Earth’ could be viewed as a model of a top auditor.
The original assertion here about evaluation is a very fallacious argument that plays on misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding both ‘evaluate’ and ‘invalidate’ and the contexts in which they are used. The Auditor’s Code does not forbid evaluation but evaluating FOR the preclear. Scientologists that invalidate people by telling them their personal evaluations of them only create antagonism against The Church of Scientology. Yeah, that’s right I’m a 1.1 and the King of Wishful Thinking.
Not only Evals are indeed always in use because the system can’t exist without, but MOST evals are making the pc – student guilty of everything as soon as he opens his mouth or behaves in a way different from the tech, admin and ethic! I’ve not met any cult elsewhere which was’nt using many fgorms of culpabilization of their adepts.
I understand the auditor does not evaluate or tell the pc what to think.
But in the background, we have one big series of evaluations taking place just as TC writes. It’s covert you might say.
And as others have said, the Grade Chart, the Bridge to Total Freedom, with all the steps on the training side as well as the auditing side, are but one big evaluation with so called EP’s to be achieved, or telling the pc what to think. Even the term “pc” is an evaluation.
Has anybody audited a person just using the process’s from ARC SW, Grade O, 1, 2, 3, 4 and on up the Bridge, and has done those process’s on a person without showing the pc the Grade Chart or any expected EP’s? And what happened if one did so?
Auditing a few people in that manner would make for a excellent case study,
A few more. Technical Estimates: need 5 intensives to be set up for OT Levels. Hidden evaluation, but practically the pc is being told his case is in bad shape.
C/S programming: Need 2 FPRD Forms = evaluated you have evil purposes and that is what is wrong with you.
Qual Division, under RTC’s direction: No, you have not achieved the Sate of Clear, need more auditing.
Before you attest OT VII you need to go through a grueling EP Check = invalidation as what you may have achieved ONLY will be acknowledged after we decide is is OK or not to attest. If you need more (evaluation) please see the Registrar for another 3 intensives.
And many more.
I’m sure there are many people reading this and thinking that this code applies ONLY for auditors.
Well, think again. In PAB 137, Hubbard defines a Scientologist as follows: “A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.” He does not say it is ONLY for a session. It is a code of conduct.
I, for one, found many reasons why NOT invalidating others, or evaluating for others, was a successful way to behave in everyday life. It’s called good manners. That is not to say one does not offer advice, or get someone to consider another viewpoint to look at, or in emergency tell someone what they need to do. That is common sense. And one must apply common sense in life to anything they do or use.
But, Hubbard once again puts out something and then in other policy, as with the Director of Processing hat someone mentioned elsewhere in the comment section, will contradict or give an exception which thus lays in confusion and allows the cherch to take that contradiction and extend leeway or justification in the direction of violating theS**#T out of it.
I can not tell you how much evaluation and invalidation I have had placed on me in the last several years by scientologists. The evaluations are designed to make me see how wrong I am, or how screwed up my “case” is as to why I am not in the org, in hopes to “recover me”. It only makes me glad I am not there… even more than I already am!
Yet another tripey infantile article from Terra. This is actually even worse than the level of ESMB. If you are going to write something about Scientology then don’t venture into areas where the premise of the article is based on your own misunderstandings of the subject (or is this all tongue in cheek? No, it’s not is it. You actually mean it!) And this is not just me trolling here – I reply to real-world articles with some substance but this is kindergarten stuff.
And again there are people on here and gushing, fawning and oooing and aaaaing as if this is some sort of erudite expose of “Scientology”. As I said in my comments in the article on the E-Meter, this is like interviewing children and asking them what they think of Scientology. I always remember a TV documentary where they did the same thing and asked residents of some UK town (not EG) about Scientology and somebody who had never even heard of it or what had occurred said “well I think it should be banned!” Can’t you stick to the real ogres (say IAS and DM and heavy regging or disconnection) and complain about them rather than twisting and wringing out a story based on a ridiculous premise. If you think Scientology is going to change itself after writing such an article then good luck with that. We’ll just let the PC run his own sessions and go shopping in the Reg Office for which Grade Chart action he wants, and turn up when he feels like it for courses and let him murder his wife with an axe, but for God’s sake don’t evaluate for him!
Oh my.
Foolproof is absolutely right. The first few TC pieces were mildly interesting – someone else’s take on what a lot of us had been thinking. And he had made the effort to write it out – kudos for that. But these essays have sunk to the level of inane, and I applaud Foolproof for calling it out!
Mike, I hope you don’t get busy in your day job and decide to turn your blog over to Terra Cognita. No one can fill Mike Rinder’s shoes.
You still haven’t answered Mike’s question from yesterday: do I have “crimes”? If so, what do you think they are?
And, by the way, I’m not just a Nando. I’m a Cheeky Nando’s.
(By the way, I’ve spent quite a lot of time in the meat industry. Calling me a pork chop or a Nando isn’t an insult, nor is it likely to restimulate me, especially since I’ve done industrial-scale pork and poultry slaughter. Try harder.)
wow, my nod to Oscar Meyer and using all but the pig’s squeal got caught in the cutting room…
Instead of leading with character assassination, why not point out your specific objections to TC’s piece?
Based on my own early personal experiences in $cn as an auditor and as a PC who received auditing from several individuals who closely followed the $cn Auditor’s Code, I’m hear to testify that the “no inval/eval” and “grant beingness” injunctions within the code were some of things that made $cn so attractive to me early in my association with the cherch. As corollaries to the Golden Rule, they have an intuitive appeal and produce excellent results when applied in any interpersonal relationship. Like many others, my early experiences in auditing gave me a positive orientation to $cn and I assumed that these guiding value were exemplary of the religion as a whole.
But after you get drawn further into $cn, based on some of these very same positive messages of compassion, tolerance and non-judgement, many have found that, at a deeper core level, the cherch is all about evaluating for you concerning almost everything under the sun, while promoting invalidation of the wog world, including science, at every turn.
So, I’d say that looking at how $cn initially uses a very effective set of counseling tools and training procedures to provide its new members with something of real value that gives them a positive orientation to the rest of the bridge is essential to deconstructing how this high-demand group gains such complete control over its members. It provides real insight into how folks who sincerely believe in and live by those key Auditor’s Code principles helps to convince folks who are new arrivals to the cult to get in deeper. It also helps to explain how one can perceive outpoints in the $cn organization that you’ve become affiliated with, but continue to view them as exceptions or anomalies that don’t really represent what $cn is at its core.
Indeed, looking back retrospectively on my own course of indoctrination and that of those that I knew personally, it seems to me that it is only possible to get folks of normal intelligence to believe in the whole outlandish and completely ludicrous space opera cosmology that unfolds for you in $cn at its upper levels if you gradiently bring folks along over time. Almost no one is going to stick around for more if you sit them down shortly after they come through the door and evaluate for them by telling them the Xenu myth and how it explains exactly why we’re all so fundamentally fucked up case-wise. Throw in the truth about what awaits them on the OaTy levels, where they’ll be paying dearly to telepathically exorcise disembodied space alien spirits and they’d be running for the exits.
So, whatever your quibbles with how TC has approached this topic, it would be near impossible to argue that it is not a fundamentally important one to understanding $cn and how normal folks get sucked into the cult, imo.
It is a pretty weak defense to say “that is the Auditor’s Code so it does not apply out of session.”
Yet, auditors are “the most valuable beings on earth” and the top 1/1oth of the top 1% of beings in this universe (or something). They are what every scientologist aspires to emulate. Surely the good practices of an auditor are supposed to be models for the conduct of scientologists in general.
Golly, HF, that was quite eloquent! And a great pleasure to read. I do believe you have tucked the dispute over the relevance of TC’s “Eval” essay neatly into its grave where it may rest in eternal peace. Amen.
Thanks Roger, I appreciate your kind remarks! Elron’s vast writings on $cn can be overwhelming to deconstruct in any sort of comprehensive and exhaustive manner because they seem to go on forever. However, there are some fundamental themes within it that are foundational to it all and in this last week here on Mike’s blog we’ve touched on several of the most important of them.
The Auditor’s Code is a part of $cn that you encounter very early on in your indoctrination, along with that great saying by Elron about how things are only true for you if you’ve observed them to be so yourself, which sounded like a core affirmation of self-determinism to me, just like the Auditor’s Code did. And when the people that you initially met in $cn actually exemplified those values it was easy to imagine that the entire journey up the bridge would just get better and better. Sadly, that was not my experience or the experience of many others who kicked the cult to the curb.
Even more importantly, Mike very in depth review of the most pertinent policies and secret material concerning $cn’s secret police arm was brilliant and could easily be expanded to full book-length form. Nowhere does what $cn superficially professes to be about (bring on the rainbows and unicorns) come into such dramatic contrast to what it’s really all about than with the policy and practice of Fair Game.
Of all the SP blogs and boards that lil davey the savage reads or his evil minions monitor for him on a daily basis, none pose more of a threat to him and the success of the BIG con that he continues to run than in depth articles on the secret police arm of the cherch that Mike’s exposed so well, using Elron’s own words to expose it for what it truly is. And when efforts like that get combined with high-visibility, extended length docuseries on the cult, like Leah’s upcoming series, both work together to raise public awareness of this killer cult’s long history of abuses and crimes, and hopefully, put him under an ever-increasing amount of pressure, both from inside and outside the cult.
I have to admit, Foolproof, I don’t disagree with you (but don’t completely agree with you either). I think the subjects addressed by TC are worthy of discussion – regardless of TC’s education or experience. The end result is often a good ol’ fashioned chinwag, where others express long suppressed confusions or misunderstandings, either way, good banter.
Thank you Terra for another thought provoking essay.I learned quite alot just reading the comments on this subject.For me I had two amazing auditors at Asho for awhile.Then I had students on the SHSBC.Well meaning,but they all had trouble with me & Dianetics & Grades0-2 & 3.One session this very eager young lady was really excited because I had finally described an incident at an old brick pile out in the country somewhere.So after originating this I sat there and looked at her and she at me.This became ridiculous to me and I was about to start laughing,when she burst out,Oh Ann I know where this was.You were on the 12th planet which has a parallel universe to earth and looks just like the countryside of England.Wow I thought this auditing on these grades is completely nuts! Hence my intro into evaluation of a PC.Of course I was always Being evaluated in the Sea Org.There was always something.All your pieces are enlightening.?
Re: All supervisors evaluate their students on Scientology courses. Any “non-optimum” behavior is due to a misunderstood word, a skipped gradient, or lack of mass.
In 2011, I believe, I had a course supervisor at Los Angeles Org Foundation throw up his hands in frustration because he couldn’t help me get through Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health (the “Basic Book” edition). While I had read DMSMH once before in the 1980’s when I did a Dianetics Book Course at the American St. Hill Organization, I couldn’t read the newer version (which read more like a science fiction novel this time around). Yes, the sup tried his best to clear up any misunderstood words; I’m sure he checked for skipped gradients and lack of mass. But this supervisor saw me as dead wood and wanted me out of his course room. When the Qualifications Division couldn’t “handle” me, he routed me right to the Ethics Department. Needless to say, I never did finish reading that book.
It must have been all of those damned semi-colons that COB David Miscavige saw fit to remove when preparing the “Basic Book” package. After that, sigh, DMSMH (and scientology, for that matter) would never be the same for me.
RIP, cult.
Fred G. Haseney (“JennyAtLAX”)
Ex-scientologist (1977 to 2014)
(Oops, I failed to correctly set the “end italics” command at the end of the word, “out,” thus the italics ran to the end of my comment.)
I, for one, am totally impressed by your attention to editorial detail!
Hi Jenny.Sending you ?.
Fred, that you couldn’t finish the book is a testament to your intelligence and highly attuned BS meter. You actuallly went further than I as I could never get beyond the very first chapter of the first version…three times. Made absolutely no sense to me. So good on you!
The evaluation I received — because my husband was no longer active in Scientology — was extensive and in every part of “life as a Scientologist”. I was audited for it, sec-checked because of it, sent to the MAA many times, told by friends and colleagues I needed to handle or leave my husband, ordered to do the PTS/SP course, told by people I barely knew (while I was doing the new OT5) that they couldn’t believe I wasn’t married to a dedicated Scientologist (I had no idea who told them), and other make-wrongs. The evaluation took place in and outside of session, it became so unsafe to be in the environment that I finally left. In hindsight, I’m deeply grateful to those who evaluated so heavily for me. I’m still happily married after nearly 35 years to the same great guy. Without the negative comments and evaluations, it could have taken me longer to find the door out. I left nearly 30 years ago and haven’t regretted it … not even once.
Scientologists subject themselves to an almost endless stream of evaluations from all corners of the organization, even as they themselves are constantly admonished against evaluating Scientology in anything less than glowing terms.
Oh, how blind I truly was!
Hi Robin,Great to see you.I liked your post and in hindsight,those negative evals fanned the spark in me so that it began to grow and eventually burst into flame.So glad we are out.
Great Robin. Can I confirm you for the New Year’s event? You won’t wanna miss this one! It’ll be extra Epic!!!
So good to see you Robin.Thank you,a heartfelt post.??
Robin, this must have been a local “policy” in the Org you were in, which seems to have been Flag. In all the Orgs I have been in this was never done. PCs in HGCs or students on course were never badgered as to the Scientological status of their spouses. This is a classic example of over-zealous local staff setting their own “policies”. This sort of thing however has happened throughout Scientology history but did get far worse in and around 1982 onwards, which is more or less the period you mention. Moonlighting by staff was another example – despite the fact there was an LRH Policy Letter advising as to its use this was frowned upon and eventually forbidden by the over zealous SO Execs – Miscavige leading the blind, and which has resulted in (deliberately) stripping Class V Orgs of the bulk of its staffs as none can afford to work on staff anymore. My point I am making is that in reality this was not “Scientology” but a localized squirrel version of it. There is no Hubbard policy advocating badgering a public (or staff) member about the status of their spouses. It is all squirrel admin invented and/or condoned by DM and his cronies.
Boy, you have been fed a lot of false information. Monlighting was made unacceptable by L. Ron Hubbard at the time he formed WISE to “get scientology businesses of the back of orgs.” He railed against staff moonlighting in numerous “advices” and wrote LRH ED 339R in direct response to what he felt was the disease of moonlighting caused by off-purpose staff who were failing to “solve it with scientology.” He also wrote a policy letter entitled “Moonripping.” Believe me, he HATED staff moonlighting.
And I do not know what org you were in — but I can assure you Robin’s experiences are not unique. Not at all. In fact, if you say this did not happen in the org you were in then I think you must have been in the only org on earth that acted the way. Which org was it?
And while I am typing here — why didn’t you answer the 3 simple questions I posed to you about whether I had undisclosed crimes?
Firstly I did not say that Robin’s experience was unique. If you actually read what I wrote instead of automatically dubbing in your ideas of what I am saying because I am saying it, I simply said that I had not experienced it any of the Orgs I had been in, and moreover and in addition now, had never heard of this as well, at all, ever. I am actually very sympathetic to what Robin is saying – my comment does not at all have the intention of somehow invalidating what she says or making out it is not true – it obviously is and what was done to her was wrong. My intention is to simply point out that various arseholes have abrogated the power to set (a local) policy for themselves and if this power was rightly removed, then Robin and any others, would never have had this occur.
Of course Hubbard didn’t want staff to moonlight but he wasn’t daft enough, like Miscavige is, to realize that overtly or covertly forbidding it would lead nowhere, but has in fact under Miscavige, stripped the Class V orgs of staff. So when you say “railed against” is this your interpretation? I have never heard of the “moonripping” policy nor seen it. I have read the LRH ED you mention and I didn’t get the idea that Hubbard was frothing at the mouth over moonlighting, just that he wanted staffs to eventually move off and build the Org up so it was unnecessary. Again whether Hubbard privately stamped and stomped over staff moonlighting I haven’t got a clue but his HCO Policy Letter supersedes and gainsays this anyway. And there was a major sea change in this attitude to moonlighting in the early 1980s. On both of these issues I cannot answer for Orgs in later times after the 1980s – no doubt these attitudes were exported worldwide by Miscavige, but in my area had never heard of them in all my time on staff.
I was in a big Org (at that time), and held high Exec posts, including in Tech and Qual, that is all I am prepared to say for personal reasons.
What questions about undisclosed crimes? Whatever they are, the questions that is – not the crimes (joke), you are treating and dealing with me as if I am antipathetic to your aims and thus would be accusing you of the same “crimes” that I am also “guilty of” therefore, in trying to curtail the depredations of the currently managed Church. You are approaching this in one way and I am approaching this from another direction. People who for whatever reason want auditing to stop are a different kettle of fish but I don’t think you should lump yourself or align with them (who would actually have crimes as they are frightened of the exposure of these) as I don’t believe that that is what you want to achieve by this blog, stopping or hindering auditing that is. If it is then I will never post here again but I don’t think it is.
Found the questions now and I posted them on the original page as well:
You, no, not really, you are trying in a certain way to stop the shenanigans Miscavige is causing, as am I. If you have crimes then so do I – ha!
Terra has MisUs, which have probably led to Tech overts, which is why he is nattery now about what he or she thinks is the Tech.
Espiando: Are you kidding?
I assume you think that your questions would stir feelings within me of not wanting to be offensive or something but I don’t turn the other cheek. Mike if you want to browbeat me off the site just say so and I’ll stop posting.
Thanks for answering.
Though I find your response about TC and Espiando evasive, I appreciate you directly responded to me. Though I gotta say “not really” is not a big confidence builder.
So there are in fact things written by L. Ron Hubbard that you disagree with. Appreciate your candor.
I look forward to your investigation of me. I’m dying to see the results.
🙂 that is a funny comment.
FP, when you say, “Terra has MisUs, which have probably led to Tech overts, which is why he is nattery now about what he or she thinks is the Tech,” you’re making truth claims that only make logical sense to those who accept and believe in the conceptual framework that Hubbard laid out. It makes total sense IF you’ve already accepted as ultimate truth the infallible Word of Elron, but almost none if you don’t. In just the same way that most here do not believe Elron’s absolutist pronouncement that all who criticize or attack $cn will be found to have committed real crimes, we also don’t believe that MUs necessarily lead to overts and that all criticism (natter) is categorically wrong or unjustified, based on the validity of Elron’s claims.
To categorize all disagreement with Elron’s many truth claims as natter, born of MUs leading to overts, is one of the primary thought-stopping strategies that are embedded within and pervade all of $cn theory and practice. Rule 0 in $cn is that no disagreement, counterpoint of argument, exception or alternative explanation to the infallible Word of Elron, on any subject, at any time, can be taken at face value, but must be seen as a failure to understand his words. Thus, Elron’s words become equivalent to the truth, merely by him having spoken them. This is a completely anti-science orientation to the world which was discarded by Western civilization at the time of the Elightenment, hundreds of years ago, and has long since lost any authoritative claim on being the ultimate arbitrator of Truth.
Since we’re all trying to encourage constructive dialogue with those who do not share the exact same explanatory frameworks of understanding, it would undoubtedly work better if you could just point out what you think are the unsupported points, logical errors and faulty reasoning that are in his piece instead using Scientology theory as if it were revealed Truth.
To me, the important take-home concerning the Auditor’s Code is that it’s an excellent framework within which to ensure that any counseling method will be beneficial to clients. But it is also one that $cn, while continuing to pay lip service to, violates in a variety of ways and on a number of different levels, both during auditing and in its interactions with parishioners. On this view, one of primary reasons that $cn is failing in its primary mission so dramatically might very well be that it fails to follow its own creed and fundamental principles.
The fact that a huge number of individuals who left the cherch did so because they feel that they were evaluated, invalidated and not granted the beingness that they deserved can hardly be understood as anything but a huge failure on the cherch’s part to live its own professed percepts. Had it chosen instead to ensure that the spirit of the Auditor’s Code guided the cherch at every different level in its interaction with its public and staff members, then it would not be the quickly dying out, doomed cult that its now become.
HF: Thank you! That’s what I wanted to say!
Wrong Foolproof a 18 MAA told my 2D to leave me if he ever wanted to finish OT 7. This is Flag at its best.
Did I say otherwise? Please read what I wrote.
Evaluate for yourself??? What do you think you are, an autonomous being? No, you’re a member of the CAUSE now.
In scientology we aren’t talking about signing up for some help to overcome certain difficulties or psychological handicaps. We are talking about becoming a member of an exclusive society that claims access to methodologies that can transform you into a superhuman. A society whose stated aim is to transform the world and ultimately the universe!
This isn’t like going to a therapist. This is like signing over your soul to the devil in exchange for some very attractive promises and snazzy embellishments to your self-image. You get to think you’re part of some very BIG thing that confers upon you SINGULAR knowledge!
You get to see yourself as very special…until you don’t. That would be when the devil starts to collect his due and he keeps collecting and collecting and collecting. That’s the CoS which has ever been the devil’s proxy or as his friends call him, “Ron”.
Except, the devil usually actually gives you what he promises. So far, it doesn’t appear the CoS has delivered on any of it’s “superpowers”. That’s probably a good thing thing though. COB wouldn’t want some Superman initiating a coup against him. LoL
Exactly, hence the “Statuses” they seem all so fired up about. Self created elitism, which in actual fact is so illegitimate it has an incredibly short lifespan. As soon as you start acting like yourself or question any part of the system you are now so very heavily invested in, you are thrown under the bus. But for a brief moment you feel like… mmmm, I have a problem imagining what they must feel like, but God or something similar I suppose.
I never expected EVERYONE to follow The Auditor’s Code – just auditors. And in 30 years of receiving auditing I had only one instance of blatant evaluation in session.
I get what everyone is going on about, how there’s lots of evaluation that goes on in Scn. So what? People get evaluated all the time, in the workplace, at the grocery store, in schools, by their family, etc.
There’s plenty of things wrong about the church. But, do we really need to invent things? Or accuse them of code violations that they are not bound to?
I agree. The context for no evaluation is ‘in session’.
There are plenty of policies, rules, etc. that are forms of evaluation but those apply outside of session.
Also, a good auditor would not take up items with bad indicators from the pc regardless of meter read, etc.
The one form of evaluation on the auditing side of the bridge that really is off is OT III. You are told what to run (Hubbard’s case).
The problem is that even in session evaluation take place by means of word clearing when the pc “doesn’t grasp” basic concept like “ARCX and previous confusion”, “what is an overt?”, “other people’s overts” or when ther pc gives legitimate opinions that could be mis-understood as natter by the auditor.
If the pc is in session and says “This chair is unconfortable” and you write it in the worksheet without checking for overt and wh (despite the natterism) don’t be surprised if the C/S will send you in cramming. Then in the next session you will have to ri-orient the pc on his chair-criticism and check for missed witholds.
If this is not evaluation …
This is absolute nonsense.
Finally Foolproof, we agree on something!
I ack you and I duplicate you…..Scientology is indeed absolute nonsense.
What word in my text did you misunderstand? It works both ways, sarcasm that is.
It doesn’t work when you use it. That’s because the Jokers and Degraders PL burnt out any sense of humor you might have had.
Seems you can’t recognize my sense of humour. By the way, you shouldn’t feel the need to compulsively reply to all my posts. And Joking and Degrading were rife in my Org – we had great fun!
Foolproof I have nothing against you, but I think that the w/cing of Ron ideas about how YOUR/MY/OURS mind(s) is/are supposed to work is evaluation of the worst kind.
Think about all the indocs you have to do in session. The C/S 1 is the first but along the way there are many indoc about theory and procedures. They are all evaluation because they tell you what to think about yourself (I am ARCX because I have overts so I must find them, and so on). The indocs assemble the mind rails on which you MUST run.
Not at all – Hubbard’s observations are actually borne out in real life and with PCs – every time.
Well, I think you agreed, every time except in the instance of every critic of scientology has undisclosed crimes they could be convicted of. He DID make this observation — more than once — and you did agree it is not true. Right?
FP, if that statement was true, then the Word of Elron would indeed deserve to be regarded as infallible and to be followed blindly. However, this is clearly NOT the case. Elron lied repeatedly and without remorse about his past in just so many different ways that he’s completely undermined his own credibility and authoritative status to pronounce on anything.
Putting aside the entirety of his false claims about his own personal past, none of the important claims concerning the abilities that $cn practitioners would standardly regain as clears and OaTys have ever been objectively demonstrated at any time by any person. No one can do what he claimed everyone who had attained these advance levels of processing should be able to do. If they could, then we’d certainly would have seen one by this very late date.
So, taken together, it would be much more accurate to say that almost none of the important claims that Elron made for the efficacy of The Tek are true and almost every one of his claims of personal accomplishment were false and consciously made up in order to con the gullible.
I understand that it is very, very hard to continue to hold The Holy Tek in high esteem as the ultimate salvation of mankind when the founder’s own thoroughly duplicitous and out-ethics life is being exposed, but I’d suggest that, hard as that might be, dwelling in such profound denial is worse.
In response to Foolproof’s statement that Hubbard’s observations are born out of real life experiences “every time”. It should be noted that OBSERVATIONS can be born out of no other thing. But certainly his doctrines are not born out of observations EVERY TIME.
Hubbard asserts the thetan creates matter, energy, space and time by postulating them. What REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE leads to this hypothesis? My real life experience and that of everybody else I know is that we do NOT create MEST. That hypothesis is contrary to human experience collectively and historically as all cultures have ascribed the causation of the universe to an unseen “otherness”, God. I know of no culture that has ever claimed we created our own universe as a collaborative effort or through some kind of group agreement. That’s because it is not our experience that we did.
The “group agreement” hypothesis is not grounded in anybody’s experience and it has never been demonstrated that a person can ‘disagree’ with a natural law and render it null and void at will. Therefore at least some of Hubbard’s doctrines are NOT rooted in real life experiences. And this doctrine is his premier one.
Roger: “The ‘group agreement’ hypothesis is not grounded in anybody’s experience and it has never been demonstrated that a person can ‘disagree’ with a natural law and render it null and void at will.”
Where does Hubbard say that “a person can ‘disagree’ with a natural law and render it null and void at will”?
You might have an MU on what he meant by agree and disagree. The word “agreement” is defined in the tech dictionary as “a mutual knowingness” or “a consideration shared in common.”
The same definition in a regular English dictionary: “the situation when people have the same opinion or have made the same decision about something”
Note that the word “or” in that definition gives a choice.
I have an “MU”. Yes, that’s the ticket.
Well then, what definition are you using? And I guess you don’t have an answer to my other question either?
Nomnom: “You are told what to run (Hubbard’s case).” Finally! Someone else noted it. It actually was the cog which gave me a huge, dial wide and persistent F/N…on OT3. That’s not what I told the Examiner, of course! LOL (I had realized that in order to actually run 3, I had to create the little buggers first!)
That is indeed the mind-clearing cog that will set you free of $cn! Elron worked very hard for a very long time on curing his own very serious mental disorders, which included a fragmentation of his personality into thousands of “not me” personality shards that he invested with separate identities, then projected that misunderstood cause of his problems onto everyone else, thus normalizing his state.
Ultimately, he failed in curing himself and died like any other mortal human who’s not taken care of his health does. Undergoing $cn auditing outside of high-demand corporate cherch and on the lower part of the bridge is probably not harmful to most individuals who are not suffering from serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or Bi-polar Disorder, but spending hundreds of hours telepathically exorcising imaginary space alien spirits on its advanced OaTy levels may very well be.
The brain continues to be plastic and change subject to our experience, and habitually performed practices over long periods of time can alter it profoundly for the better or worse. If BTs do not in fact exist, then to get folks to imagine them into existence, then mistake their own self-creation for reality, is what schizophrenia, paranoid delusional states and hallucination are all about. Folks who’ve been performing these delusional telepathic exorcisms on themselves for some time should be psychologically evaluted by professionals and treated if need be. Unfortunately, one of the prime implants that all $cilons are pounded with is that all Psychs are evil, and that applies even to those intervention models that involve the use of no psychotropic medication.
Friends don’t let friends do $cn, especially if it involves upper level auditing involving telepathically exorcising imaginary space alien spirits, which may very well be harmful to your mental health.
Harpoona,
“Friends don’t let friends do $cn, especially if it involves upper level auditing involving telepathically exorcising imaginary space alien spirits, which may very well be harmful to your mental health.”
I wish it would fit on a bumper sticker. That is so epic! A fine piece of writerly, pith.
Agreed.Auditors as a group do a great job following the auditors code.In fact the system tries to suck money out of the goodwil that auditors have build up.Of course with golden age of robotism a lot has changed.
“Do not evaluate for the preclear.” “Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.” And, “Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.”
Those sentences are part of the scam. By allowing the PC to generate all kinds of woo (18th invader force, balloon people of Jupiter, etc) the auditor sets more hooks and ‘ruins’ into the PC. It is simple, ‘imagine anything you want, we can help you with that’. All to make a sale of the auditors time. And no discount on that hourly rate either.
Everything in $cientology is about the money, except when it is about fealty to Lron and his mini-me, Miscavage.
Xenus Son, in all the auditing I had in scio, I only had ONE bad auditor, totally rote, no connection. I put down the cans, announced “this session is over” and walked out. I reported it immediately and left. Oddly, nothing further ever happened as far as I was concerned. Don’t know what/if anything happened to the auditor. That was prior to 1982.
Out of “Director of Processing – Hat”
“It should be made plain by the Director of Processing to all persons he interviews that he is not processing them, but is only asking questions or obtaining information.
During all such interviews the Director of Processing should remember that he is not an Auditor and as such does not have to maintain the Auditor’s Code; quite to the contrary, the Director of Processing should never permit the preclear to retain any idea which is not correct. It is the job of the Director of Processing to evaluate for the preclear with a reality and with truth.”
Need I say more?
Exactly! When you’re in session with an auditor who’s following that code that’s about the only place in a $cn org that you can really feel free of evaluation. Maybe it’s set up that way to drive folks into session just to feel the relief of getting away from all that eval 😉
Wasn’t there someone in the cult that discovered and risked life and limb to get thru the Wall of Fire and evaluated everyone’s case when they finally excelled to OT III? I think it was in his own handwriting. He told everyone about the most important aspect of their case. It was something to do with a DC8 full of thetans being dropped into a volcano or something and then forever having little cooties all over you. If you spent enough money though the cooties could be sent home packing. It is almost as if it was all written by a Science Fiction writer or something.
Wouldn’t this be considered the ultimate evaluation of one’s case?
I could be mixing it up with the Heaven’s Gate crowd in 1997, that all committed suicide so they could board a spaceship that was following a comet…..Sorry…
You are correct CPO. On OTIII LRH is evaluating the pre-OT and essentially is saying “This is what’s wrong with your case”. You really don’t have any say in the matter, other than to walk out the door.
Right Statpush – “other than to walk out the door”. I started the OT III imaginary, space alien level in 1982 and after the initial shock of reading the materials and trying to run that BS, within 3 weeks I turned in my materials and never touched it again. It was weird that no one at David Mayo’s tech department at INT did anything or say anything about it. I think I rather watched TV during my study/auditing time, without getting caught. I blew later that same year, free of that cootie infected place.
Gee, and I didn’t die of pneumonia – still strong – 34 years later.
You must be a special case. Most people die within thirty days.
I was one of those who died within 30 days, after reading OTIII. I came back as a zombie. I wander the beaches…
I think I saw you on an episode of Dead Men Walking.
You did. Do you want my autograph?
Sure. Looking forward to the telex. ?
So that’s why there’s grains of sand on my keyboard!
Sorry about that…
Living in Florida, I often notice old zombies on the beaches, Dude. Perhaps we’ve met!
I have to agree with you that OT3 is a massive evaluation enforced on everyone and since that way of interpreting the mind came into play (awareness of Source on the Bridge), the whole game jumped off the rails into quite the train wreck for the organisation of Scientology and those so connected. It also set the ground work for NOTs in all its forms to be introduced and accepted without question when it was introduced. Fiction begets fiction in this case, that’s for sure.
Wasn’t Scientology once based upon, find out what’s wrong with the PC from the PC? That’s what I use to like about it but that disappeared like any sanity that is thought to be connected with the Cof$.
Dear Dave,
It’s golden parachute time!
Please accept this 1000 lb solid gold trophy of a giant turd in appreciation and deep gratitude for your unwavering monumental epic service to mankind, along with everything you’ve got stashed away in Swiss bank accounts.
May Ron be with you.
Geezers – you haven’t served in a defense, police or discipline based organisation have you? Having the authority to be able to evaluate for others is worn on your sleeve or lapel and is much sought after, it is called promotion. Statpush is right, this has been selectively taken out of the auditor’s code and applied where it was never intended to be applied.
However, with anything in the Cof$ it has gone more and more insane as it’s management is truly an insane, criminally belligerent and dictatorial mess totally preoccupied and consumed with money and making up bigger and bigger lies to get more and more of it. In the 80s the insanity along with the evaluation of people in the group was nowhere near the level it is today. There was even a little fun with Scn back then. It seems to be that as the internet grew it accelerated Scn’s insanity and magnified it, sort of hurried it along in other words.
What makes Scientology really bad as group is that it’s members are punished for following or trying to apply their own policy. Just questioning a management decision can get you throw out. The whole thing is micromanaged from above by a complete ao of a man who has no problems, in fact he enjoys ruining people’s lives. Accordingly, the so called Bridge has been completely altered to what it was and the whole system is unrecognizable and clearly is designed and redesigned over and over to suit whatever is the flavor of the month. Goodness me, redoing the purif and objectives over and over??
Any group needs discipline to some degree which of course requires evaluation of what is going and who’s to do what. Running a business for example is a tough game and evaluation abounds, good or bad or both. Over time the survival or the death of it is its own evaluation.
I sometimes wonder Terra just what your technical degree was in the Scientology organisation, not that I care anyway but your misuse of the auditor’s code here does not do you any favors. I’m not evaluating for you on this or defending Scn either. I just can’t deny to myself your misrepresentation or just accept it in passing. I’m convinced you can’t audit and have never had good auditing per your previous articles. You aren’t alone with that scenario, that’s the way Scn is and that is what it produces, but it didn’t the whole of the time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here commenting and getting into arguments like we do. It would have all disappeared long, long ago.
Amen
Ditto, but from a much less understanding perspective that I was feebly capable of. The Auditor’s Code ought to be sacrosanct and parts of it when used as the supreme arbiter data of the movement, I could imagine some squirrel freezone indies of really stellar humanism character being sort of the best that Scientology could be, if they used parts of the Auditor’s Code sacrosanctly, and used parts of Scientology to blot out all the bad Hubbardisms in Scientology.
But picking the best and discarding wholesale the controversial parts of Scientology is the conundrum constant Catch 22, since one can’t be a full blown Hubbardite unless one utilizes the full blown Hubbard playbook, yet doing so is harmful and inhumane.
So Scientologists are just eternally stuck with this problem. I even wished to be in the “think tank” Executive Strata as a sort of back bench helper to the front bench first team Exec Ints, for the reason of parsing through all the Hubbard nuggets of rules and ideas, to resolve the controversies of the movement.
It’s a difficult problem to say the least.
Dealing with Scientology means one has to deal with Hubbard’s voluminous writing and voice legacy recordings and private despatches, private behaviors that still trickle down and justify bad behaviors that the moment still perpetuates. Hubbard’s writings are the elephant in the room.
“But picking the best and discarding wholesale the controversial parts of Scientology is the conundrum constant Catch 22, since one can’t be a full blown Hubbardite unless one utilizes the full blown Hubbard playbook, yet doing so is harmful and inhumane.”
That puts it very concisely! $cn is not an all-you-can eat buffet in which you’re completely free to choose what to swallow and what to pass up – you MUST swallow the entire Hubbardian cosmology with no caveats, exceptions, counter-arguments or alternative explanations allowed.
Like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims whose holy texts must be accepted as literally true and the actual Word of God, $cn’s holy scriptures are the Word of Elron which must taken as infallible and unquestionable.
I like your post.
Just for being honest. I started in Scientology 1976 and stopped it 1994. Recently I had a look back and what can I say? I regret not one minute being in Scientology. I got out so much of it. It was tough like hell. From the beginning; sitting in a chair and waiting desperately to see the light again by remembering and experiencing to be able to be free of a body at will the first time since I do not know how log ago that was. It was always a hard time. I wonder why so many people evidently had been in Scientology for years and years and spent so much money and and got out nothing in return. All those complains. I could also complain a lot. But the other side of the coin? What would you pay now if you would be able to be stable exterior? That is the end product of TR0. First level first thing you do in Scientology. Thanks to Jens Bogvard Munich Org commander at that time who made sure that anyone really and honestly wanting to be free can make it.
The thing about being so-called, “exterior” is that you are ALWAYS ‘exterior’ but just aren’t aware of it. TR zero is a great technique to bring about that realization. It’s actually an ancient tantric yoga practice.
Schorsch agreed.I got a lot out of scientology too.
But not out of chasing space cooties on ot 3.
Or auditing the drugged space cooties on ot4 did shit for me too.
OT5 however was often wonderful.Dont know why.
Ot 7 was a nightmare.
Schorsch, you’re spot on. I got in on my own determinism, got out on my own determinism. Got a LOT from it, gave a LOT to it. Yes, some off policy stuff was applied to me. So what? All in all a great time with some fantastic wins. I’m still married to one of them, the best prize of all!
Yawn, why WOULDN’T management be consumed with the purpose of making and hoarding more and more money? THAT is exactly what El Con ordered them to concentrate on. AND, that was prior to the 80’s.
Prior to his death, management WAS Hubbard.
Indeed, no argument from me there. Unfortunately Mike, calling the item ‘Hubbard’ over and over just doesn’t do it for me as an end all to everything Scientology or its lingering effects. I envy you if it’s your panacea for everything Scienolgical – I truly do.
Shooting someone twice is never as effective as the first time and is just a waste of ammo after that.
I’m glad my main and ONLY point cannot be argued against Yawn.
What a great topic Terra! Anyone who trained in scamology and still has most of their marbles and integrity will tell you that El Con developed auditing to evaluate for the recipient from top to bottom of the bridge to nowhere.
…and sometimes it doesn’t matter if your needle does “float.” If some RTC rep decides the auditor didn’t “get it,” then more is asked and asked and asked and asked. Maybe it was just me but when on 7, everyone is suspect, and sometimes, I truly believe, that even if the auditor did see an F/N if the PC didn’t say what the auditor needed to get according to the C/S or RTC Rep, then it was not a true F/N with any excuse of why it wasn’t and the auditor continued, because, of course, the auditor’s ass is on the line. True torment. Then, of course, there is so much protest going on or some other CS 53 outness never looked into for the PC (or Pre OT) that who knows what the needle indicators REALLY indicate. Going in every 6 months was DREADED and not by just me; I saw it all around me and this doesn’t even mention all the regging. All anyone on 7 talked about was when they would finish. It was rare to actually hear someone originate a WIN.
6 month check – an interesting choice of words.
Yes, Mephisto, they atarted out calling it a “Check” which is short for Sec Check. Then that was getting bad PR so they changed the word to “Refresher.” So that would imply that you went to Flag every 6 months to get refreshed. No one I knew or saw and myself included, ever felt refreshed going there for the 6 month check. We all just gritted our teeth and worked like hell to get out of there and back home, or to complete the level and be done with all of it.
I hear you Cindy. I was using the word ‘check’ in the financial sense.
This is what happened when Miscavige took over or invented RTC and then started telling them what a floating needle should look like, among all the other stuff he has done. Again, it is not really Scientology but his squirreled version of it.
“Sea Org missions routinely fire into Class IV Orgs and “evaluate” the situation, and then destroy a well-functioning org” is what you should have said. That started in 1970-71 when the FEBC/L-12 graduates returned from Flag. The poop hit the fan, and just kept hitting it day after day, month after month, year after year. The Full OT7s that were around the Org ALL LEFT within 2 years. And then the OT Levels were withdrawn, substituted with exorcising space cooties. Opportunity lost. WAAAUUGN!
Yep – good eval there Chewkacca.
Yep, I agree about the SO Missions. They were nearly all squirrel. Don’t know what they were teaching them at Flag but it can only have been “destroy Class V Orgs which will then drive their public into Flag”. Horribly enough that may have been it, even though I was sort of joking!
I use to really have to control myself when missionaries came in the course room. I generally threw them out. Gee they made a mess of things in the Org!
Chewkacca. It actually began much earlier, in ’69, “Mission International Books.” I was at the NY Org, the first org to be declared (by LRH) in Power, Day and Foundation. The org was doing sensationally well when the SO Mission arrived, took virtually EVERYONE off post, sent them out to all five boroughs to take orders for the paperback of DMSMH, totally crashed the stats for months. Later, we found out the books had never been printed nor were they ever delivered. Utter insanity.
The rule against evaluating in session, was one of the parts of Scientology I liked. I liked it so much it may have been the seed that eventually helped me get out. From book 1 all the way through NOTS, Scientology is complete evaluation. These eval’s never sat well with me.
There are other sources of heavy evaluation that TC did not mention:
LRH lectures, Ethics handling, Qual Cramming and WCing on Bulletins, PLs, books and lectures transcript.
You don’t find any past lives? Presto! The right w/cing will turn you into a past
lives believer.
You don’t feel that having Bill the psychiatrist as a family doctor is an overt? Don’t mind.
The right cramming order and you will agree.
Do you feel that Ron was cracking jokes when he was talking about markabians and Fifth
force invaders?
You dared to disagree with source so the proper Ethics/Cramming order will set you straight.
Do you feel that the LRH datum about mental mass is bogus?
The proper cramming order will convince you.
Are you in disagreement with that Sec Check about your failures to disseminate Scn
to your friends? You don’t feel that failing to disseminate is an overt?
Adding more sec check questions will force you to admit that you are a sinner.
You are in session and you don’t feel that if you are angry with Bill because he stole your snack
it means that YOU did overts to Bill?
The proper amount of (payed) w/cing will convince you that you are wrong.
And so on …
Don’t forget The Hole!
Mephisto, I will now not make a joke:-))
Too late!
Thank you Hexangonal T,Just as it happened…that Qual Cramming what a blast when combined with the ethics handling pure bliss.Yes when Ron took off toward outer space,sometimes I would secretly feel the whole lecture was more than a little off.Of course never told a soul in Sea Org that.I knew better.?
Sorry, Mesphisto, but the Hole continues to not existence…
So the hole never had a second wife?
Never! The Hole only had two wives: The first one & the third one.
As a former Case Supervisor that sat in that Ivory Tower, these observations are spot-on. I would say that prior to the release of the Golden Age of Tech in 96, the evaluations, though they were still there, were not as heavy and harsh (at least on the technical lines). After the release of the GAT I, a heavy emphasis came in on sec checking and overt/withhold technology. It was like everything could be fixed (anyones mind could be changed) with sec checking, on any subject.
On the subject of sec checking, there are heavy evaluations. Just going into a session for sec checking automatically assumes you are hiding something, and that auditor will sit there and force it (with the utmost ARC) out of you. And you won’t be able to leave that room until the auditor gets it from you. To me, this is one of the most evil things about Scientology. You as a preclear can try anything to try to get out of it, but you won’t. Even to the point that if you try to leave, that auditor will get you back in the chair and back in session to answer the question. The only way out is with the preclear smiling with a floating needle, faked or not.
This aspect of sec checking and evaluation is worthy of its own separate article, I think. There is a lot to it, and how it is used in every aspect of mind control on Scientologists.
Happy times we had together on the RPF. ?
Did I sec check you?
Apologies in advance if I did. ;p
No, but you might have C/Sed me. Feel free to have Mike give you my email. It’d be nice to connect with you.
Depends when you were on the RPF. In 89-90 I was a C/S. In 99-2000 I was mostly a Cram Off, and also was always assigned some tough/stalled RPFer cases to do reviews on.
You can reach me at pereirasun@yahoo.com
Did they allow to start drinking early?
Drinking? Who mentioned drinking? Do I need a glass?
So much for Miscavige’s version of Scn….a BDSM wet dream.
Kinda like “Roger Goodell’s NFL” – refs from Kurdistan, a rule booke no one understands, and no FUN anymore.
Prior ‘rulers’ so hated freedom, and free people they went through a series of “Enclosure Acts”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts
Now it is part of the Globalist playbook 101….
And no one is joining or watching. Apparently they are binge-watching GoT or their diversion of choice.
Yup, Fraud, Extortion and Torment, abound.
Yes, again Miscavige’s squirreled version of “Scientology” after GAT 1 etc.
Sorry, am I missing something here? This is from The Auditor’s Code, and most of the examples you cite are non-auditing scenarios, and therefore not bound by this code.
Good point in theory. My favorite is “I am not auditing you” in which case I’m going to evaluate the shit out of you.
Hey! I’m going to evaluate YOU right now! Hmmmmmm…..Never mind. You seem perfectly normal to me…
Did you check behind the ears?
I think the point is that Scn is supposed to help you to find your own truth. But in reality, the only “truth” you are allowed to find is one that is confined within the boundaries set by an absolutistic organisation and its founder’s
sci-fireligious narrative.My evaluation: Ron determinism is wrong determinism.
My ruin was called PTSness .. that I would be PTS to someone in my environment ..
Nothing that a few intensives can’t handle, Friend!
I’d say about 2 dozen intensives….for a start.
After a 6 pack, I’m anyone’s… sign me up!
I already did! We can’t leave I Yawn alone…
As usual well formulated.Thanks TC.Gave me a new perspective.
“Grant being-ness” and “do not evaluate for the PC” are two of many mind control tactics used in the evil cult of Scientology in the beginning to TRAP and hypnotize the PC (victim)
LOVE BOMBING is also used.
Very effective – you won’t find it in other “churches” unless they are evil and have turned into a cult that wants to control you.
Once the PC aka – Victim gets invested aka “believes” with putting huge sums of money on account to “rid themselves” of the reactive mind Scientology $ells to rid of…but does not
They are trapped
THAT is how Scientology Keeps Working
Notice that once you are invested and “going up the Bridge” the C/S evaluates the shit out of you…
“The C/S says you need another intensive”
The MAA says you are PTS to your mother, wife, husband, daughter – handle (silence them) or disconnect
Very clever – that “Doctor” Hubbard….very clever indeed!
Ron knows best.
Wait…what???? I always thought you knew best? My world is crashing around me….
Shhhh… don’t tell them!
I named my motorbike MU – Crashing MUs can really hurt and gravel rash is such a bitch to shower with!
Actual C/S evaluations that are used all the time: (The C/S does not ever directly tell these to the person, but in most cases has the D of P tell them. Sometimes when the person is being regged for more auditing, an Exec will come to the C/S for direction on what to say to the person to ‘push a button’ to get that person to hand over money for more sessions)
(I was a C/S for over 10 years)
“You are not Clear”
“You are Clear”
“Your past life restimulation is causing your current problems in life”
“Your Objectives are unflat”
“your Objectives are overrun”
“He has overts and withholds which is why he wants to divorce you”
“Money is not important, your well-being is”
“The only reason you are not doing well is because you are holding yourself back”
“Drugs in restimulation are causing you to have those bad dreams, you need to re-do the Purif”
“homosexuality can only be handled in professional auditing, not in co-audit”
“If you can’t figure out money for more auditing, obviously your Grade I is unflat (Grade I addresses “problems”) and we need to go back and review it”
“you cannot start your OT levels with gay tendencies”
“You have overts and withholds, which is why you want to leave”
Oh there are thousands more….
A Clear is at risk untill through OT III.
My goodness… what time period did that sort of CSing become the norm. Was that pre GAT? I ask that because I got out before just before GAT. Prior to that the continual rewriting of checksheets drove me out the door, and that was before golden age of anything, plus the incredible increase of review actions overtook actual Bridge progress. Execs and reges did start delving into PC folders though & that really slammed my door on them.
That sort of direct eval from the CS you write of is foreign to me from my experience. It must have been horrific to see what that did.
That sort of C/S R Factor has existed since the time of Mary Sue Hubbard as the D of P at St Hill (and probably before that)
Geezers. I must have been in sort of in a vacuum stuck in a Cl4 org on the other side of the planet. I audited heaps and sup’d for years too but never gave R factors like that to my PCs. It was mostly all lower Bridge stuff and raw public for the best part of my time, except for the read it, drill it, do it OKs from Qual. That was good fun until it was banned. As I said I got out before GATs, and from what I gather that was all evaluation for students and PC’s alike. Then I had many a person after they left the Cof$ later on tell me they were told they weren’t Clear etc. I blew from 7 before Miscavige “corrected” it anyway. NOTs is something else I wish I never anything to do with. However, I was never given R factors like that as a PC either. What a strange and perverted thing Scientology is?
I would say the closer you are to Sea Org bases (and RTC Reps), the tougher it was.
All of the C/Sing years I refer to are approx. 1991 to 2004. All of my C/S posts were in Sea Org orgs (CC Int and ASHO mostly), with RTC daily visits checking into what we are up to… at least after 96 it was that way. I can’t tell you the names of all of the staff during those years (hell, I didn’t find out until after I left that Aaron Smith-Levin was my direct senior for a year until I left the Sea Org. Nobody ever bothers a C/S, except RTC or a Senior C/S)., but I can tell you the names of all the RTC Reps I dealt with over the years.
We had one person who was told they were not Clear (even though they had thought they were Clear for years, with Clear stripe on the folder). She was told in a D of P interview. She got up, shoved the D of P, who tried to stop her from leaving the room, then she punched the D of P and left. She marched from ASHO, all the way down LRH Way to AOLA, which was where the RTC office was. She pounded on the RTC office door until they answered.
I don’t know what she told them, but they got her folders to review. Next thing I know, this lady is supposedly “Clear” (no more reactive mind after beating up a Sea Org member?). So she gets approval to go onto her OT Levels.
Next thing I hear she is punching the OT I supervisor.
True story.
(This was after GAT 1 and after IG Nw Bulletin 20 – for those who know what that is… its a squirrel interview that we were allowed to do on persons who had not exactly stated the Clear cog. It was open season to fishing the cog out of people so they could move onto OT levels and not be told “not Clear”. Oh there are huge loads of “handlings” that were done and authorized by Senior C/S Int Office or RTC that were nowhere from LRH. Seeing this kind of crap made me realize I was living a hoax. All of it was a hoax).
Obviously a VERY self motivated individual!!!
What you say is true, Sunny. However, these C/S R-Factors are given by the D of P or the Auditor, on the meter (reads noted), and the PC is given the opportunity to respond (agree/disagree/protest). And from my experience the proposed auditing actions are not done without the agreement, consent, or willingness of the PC. Otherwise, further interviews or folder study is required to gather additional data for the C/S to accurately program the case.
For example, while on staff I had been on a tailor-made sec check for one year. I finally finished it, attested, and was sent back into session, where I was given the R-Factor – “We have a short sec check we’re going to do”. I collapsed in grief, threw the cans down and told my auditor to Fuck Off! My auditor just 2WC with me and got some more data. My next R-Factor was “No sec check, we’re going to resume Grade 0”.
I guess part of the “contract” between the PC and the Technical Team is that they are the experts and are there to guide the PC. This requires a degree of trust, both ways. So, in a sense, the PC is actually paying money to have the C/S “evaluate” his case. Of course, that evaluation maybe totally incorrect, but its up to the PC to state that, and not just roboticly comply.
C/Ses who change because the pc changes are not doing their job right.
The LRH Bulletin covering it is called C/S Q and A.
Your C/S, if caught doing that, would have been sent to cramming for it.
This is taking it out of context which I think you know.
I don’t think so.
Long comm lag unfortunately living on the other side of the world but this thread really demonstrates to me the arbitrary effects of GATs and of other alterations of “tech” that drifted in, plus it also indicates the influence the SO/RTC etc has on tech lines. Back in the 80s/early 90s there was an apparency of standardness to the CSing of cases, sort of a direction which to go. But the increasing frequency and effect of countless reviews and sec checks permeated the scene and the actual Bridge was simply buried and then lost for cases. Other fish to fry became the norm.
Reading your accounts as CSs proves to me the SO was a law unto themselves operating from different guidelines from what we in “lowly” orgs had. It eventually caught up and all went to hell as far as sanity on CS lines was concerned.
It could be suggested the Bridge was no longer the Bridge by then anyway and all this “correction” of it with GATs, massive sec checks for everyone etc was an effort to smoke screen the squirrel sitting at top of the SO technical influence pile.
I still maintain the NOTs introduction as Bridge OT levels was the death of Scientology. Prior to that you had to know your stuff and stick to the script. The Bridge was converted into a coffee lounge affair that anyone could participate toward (but never actually going anywhere) with minimal study and effort. More money changing hands that way and the bosses didn’t need to be embarrassed by their lack of abilities and Bridge status. In other words the Bridge sat at numb on the tone scale.
Thank you for your responses to this thread.
Evan crap on tech lines was going on in the 60’s and 70’s. By El Con trained and supervised tech staff. This is simply a variation on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
I knew many OT 7’s PRIOR to NOTS. No OT or higher than homo sapien abilities there either. Always been a complete scam as measured by any objective criteria and NOTS didn’t delete ANY proven gain or abilities.
Thank you Mike. I changed the toilet paper as you requested.
Yawn if you are talking about in the org toilet we both know you are joshing. They don’t have tp in those bathrooms. 😉
“homosexuality can only be handled in professional auditing, not in co-audit”
Yeah, co-auditing just makes you gayer. If you get my drift.
?
“Grant being-ness” and “do not evaluate for the PC” are two of many mind control tactics used in the evil cult of Scientology in the beginning to TRAP and hypnotize the PC (victim)
Huh? You’re going to have to explain this to me.
And me. So if you didn’t grant beingness and you evaluated for the preclear that would be fine then? I’ve seen some twisted “logic” on here but this is now getting ridiculous.
This is really good info, thanks. I just never thought of it this way and now I see it.