The King of the Squirrels

With all the talk of squirrels this past week, let us focus for a moment on the undisputed King of Squirrels, David Miscavige.

Since he is also the indisputable “Ecclesiastical Leader” of the “churches of Scientology” let us be very clear about the basis for anointing him with this King of the Squirrels title.   The earlier beginning to my having even gotten into this terrain, was a controversial comment of mine to the effect that folk promoting their skype auditing, and long-distance internet NOTs supervision was, in my view, squirrel. That evaluation was predicated on the idea that the interposition of mest forms of electronics between a pre clear and an auditor is a grotesque perversion of the original formula that makes auditing work:

Auditor plus pre clear is greater than bank.

 

And that opens the door for any number of complexities to enter into the magical simplicity of the Basic Auditor Comm Series HCOBs and the several SHSBC lectures that go with them.

First let us define “squirrel” in the Scientology vernacular:

Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from noncomprehension.  Usually the noncomprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an offbeat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood.  When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree.

–         LRH, Keeping Scientology Working

After returning to Flag from the ship from my relatively unhindered eighteen month auditing and training sabbatical in the summer of 1995, I was assigned by Miscavige to the RTC Rep Office at Flag.  He told me that I was to begin at the bottom of the RTC org board, as my sabbatical was my own RPF for having blown in 93. In retrospect I think he wanted all influential public see me running about Flag with an “RTC Trainee” tag and my single, slim Ensign bars on each shoulder. I was to answer to the Class VIII RTC Rep Angie Trent and communicate to no one else above her on the command channel, most particularly not him.

That was fine by me, because frankly the end phenomena of my ship program was that I had no designs for any altitude or status, I just wanted to apply the tech, and the last person I wanted to be connected to directly was David Miscavige.

I worked mostly on TRs and Metering with the dozens of outer org trainees who were there, ran a program to retread Class XIIs on their TRs and Metering, and handled various VIP cases directly whom the tech hierarchy at Flag (as supervised by Snr CS INT) had failed to handle.

I was pretty much let alone to get on with it as completion stats and L’s HGC stats were steadily rising where I roamed.

However, at the end of each day the Rep office personnel would gather in the Green Room of the FH auditorium to write up our sections of the RTC Rep’s daily report to Miscavige.  It was the Rep’s report, and a great deal of it consisted of what I was producing in the course rooms (outer org, and staff Class XII course room).   Most days, I’d write up my report while Angie and Rikki Jensen (who had zero tech training) would review TRs and Metering videos.  Each day they were frantic to get several on the airport run to Miscavige, who had to give final passes.  They were between a rock and a hard spot.  They had a vicious daily demand for more. Yet the more they sent the more abusive, confusing rejects they would receive from Miscavige – all interlaced with the most vicious arbitrary opinions.  I was at ground zero of the end of simple TRs and metering, and the beginning of the era of mass confusion and endless TRs and Metering Courses.

While writing my reports I could not help but hear Angie and Rikki discuss rejects of students I had debugged in the course rooms.  I attempted to interject my view, and oft times defense or advocation for a particular student’s video.  Each time Angie cut me off saying that Miscavige had given her explicit orders that I not be allowed to participate on the video pass line in any way, shape, manner or form (which was consistent with Miscvige’s orders to me).

I wound up spending considerable time in the course rooms attempting to console students trying to reconcile their arbitrary rejects without outright disrespecting the RTC Reps and by extension Miscavige. I took on sort of a tricky, covert Chaplain hat while trying to maintain some semblance of the hard-as-chrome-steel persona Miscavige demanded of all of us.

At the end of each day I would heard Angie and Rikki arguing for several minutes on whether a metering video read was “instant” or “latent” or “prior.”   These arguments were interlaced with innumerable “COB saids”.  The definition of “instant read” departed further and further from the simplicity that LRH defined it with:

The correct definition of INSTANT READ is THAT REACTION OF THE NEEDLE WHICH OCCURS AT THE PRECISE END OF ANY MAJOR THOUGHT VOICED BY THE AUDITOR…

 

…Additionally, when looking for reads while clearing commands or when the preclear is originating items, the auditor must note only those reads which occur at the exact moment the pc ends his statement of the item or command.

–         LRH – HCOB 5 August 1978, INSTANT READS

One day I lost my composure and told Angie and Rikki in no uncertain terms words to the following effect:

Will you please look at how insane this situation is?  You two sit here and debate dozens of individual reads for minutes on end each, day in and day out.   You pull out rulers against a video screen and flunk a guy because he wrote “Small Fall” instead of “Fall” because you think it was 1/16th of an inch off.   Worse, what was yesterday defined as an instant read, is today called “latent” or “prior.” Think about this. Imagine yourself in session, with you two sitting over your shoulder second guessing every read. Is an auditor afforded the opportunity to say to the pc, “hold on a few minutes, I want to get a second opinion”, walk off and discuss it like you two do with someone else whether a given read is instant, latent or prior?   Hell, why do you think LRH introduced the idea of checking for “false, protest, etc”  Don’t you know that if you take up an uncharged item the TA will immediately start rising and there are remedies for that?  This entire RTC handling on TRs and  metering is taking training away from establishing certainty and instead introducting utter indecision and arbitrary. You’ve knocked the hat off of every Flag exec, Training and Qual terminal. Complexity and Confronting period, that is what is wrong with metering supervision and you are introducing it in spades.

 

That last reference was to HCO PL Complexity and Confronting:

THE DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF NONCONFRONT.

Reversing this:

THE DEGREE OF SIMPLICITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF CONFRONT.

And

THE BASIS OF ABERRATION IS A NONCONFRONT.

 

The response to my outburst was red face, embarrassed silence.  In that culture there was no other possible response because to acknowledge would be to acknowledge where the bony finger was pointing, the King of Squirrels.  To fight would encourage an issuance of more discussion of the King of Squirrel’s arbitraries.

We all returned to our business but tensions increased between us.  As weeks went on all manner of unusual solutions arose to satisfy crams issued to students with their RTC rejects.  People were nitpicking every word LRH ever said about instant reads.  They were fighting over one LRH comment over another.  It was a tragic trainwreck of semantics and literalness.  And students, Flag Supervisors, and executives and the Reps themselves became increasingly confused.

The next thing I see is a Golden Era Productions, super high-tech video playback machine installed in the RTC Rep office at the Fort Harrison.  Angie and Rikki began doing their video reviews behind the closed door of that little office. When I asked about it, Angie told me that COB had come up with a breakthrough on “instant reads”.  He sent them that fancy video player because they could slow it down to incredibly slow speed and definitively determine whether a read was instant or not.

In practice it confused matters even more.   The reps were working in one electronic universe, the supervisors and students in another entirely.   The reps would sometimes invite a Flag exec, Supervisor or Qual terminal over to the ivory tower to demonstrate how they were right by showing them a disputed video on Miscavige’s secret, doomsday machine. That was necessary as some Flag executives began to protest heavily – though necessarily covertly – to the increasing confusion surrounding TRs and Metering. They would leave the magic technological wonder as confused as when they arrived for reality adjustment.

When I was able to elbow my way into their little enclave over Angie’s efforts to keep me out, I saw that indeed doomsday machine it was.  The sound was slowed down with the picture and greatly amplified.  The instant the words of the major thought ended was virtually impossible to divine as it blended in with the amplified ambient noise.

I even found an LRH lecture where he stated during the SHSBC era that about the most idiotic thing someone could do is to create some high tech film playback system to debate the issue of instant reads. 

I gave that to Angie and went about my business.

As my disagreements with Angie (representing Miscavige) became more intense and less suppressed, suddenly the Lisa McPherson matter hit like an atomic weapon that wiped out that chapter from my life and the lives of many others. To understand how that became the latest prior confusion knocking me further out of valence, you can google “marty rathbun videos tampabay.com” and watch me talk of where that lead me, Miscavige and the church.

Now, I’ve got a pc arriving today and need to do some work in preparation for that, so cannot write more at this time.  Hopefully, I’ve provided enough information to clear at least some fog from the swamp of arbitraries many have suffered from during the ensuring fifteen years. I am not done with this.  I am going to present some documentary evidence that the quagmire I describe above became far more thick and inescapable over the years that followed.

 

342 responses to “The King of the Squirrels

  1. These RTC ladies (and COB of course) were completely detached from auditing reality.

    LRH wrote a “code of a supervisor”, stating that a sup should be an accomplished auditor. Neither COB nor one of these RTC ladies are. So what the **** are they interfering with eager students trying to become auditors ?

    • Of course they were detached from technical reality – none of them had any tech training!

      Without training, without practice, they would not be able to get any real results and would squirrel to some degree. Straight out of KSW1.

    • No Han, LRH didn’t. There was an ACC manual in 1957 for instructors from which the supervisor code was extracted as noted in the original OEC vol4 copy of the issue. However I quite agree that they should have been auditor trained to act in the capacity they did.

      • martyrathbun09

        And I quite agree with you Ralph. Before I was a trained auditor and had audited many, many hours I do not believe I had a snow ball’s chance in hell supervising TRs or metering with certainty and reality.

    • Mrs. Friend of Ron

      Good question. Han. They were still there confusing everyone when I was an OOT in 2005.

  2. I’d like to indicate that there was some charge on that.

    However, your arguments don’t support your original assertion at all. C/Sing NOTs via the internet doesn’t rely on “PC plus auditor is greater than the bank” simply because by the time one is on NOTs there is no “bank” any longer. NOTs can, in fact, be done solo from the outset unless one has crashed due to running Dn for too long after Clear, in which case a review is needed first.

    As for your point about auditing over Skype, I made the comment to Ralph Hilton ten years ago in regard to his C-Meter that delays in packets arriving at the auditor might preclude its use for reliability reasons, and yet here you are de facto making a defense for such things by admitting that becoming pedantic about where a read happens isn’t ultimately as important as the act of auditing the PC.

    Technology moves on, and we must use what’s available, even if it isn’t optimum. Less optimum is not auditing because my C/S might live on another continent. Any auditing is better than no auditing, after all.

    [Devil’s Advocate mode OFF]

    • martyrathbun09

      Man, I am not understanding the impressions you got of what I allegedly asserted. You and I are like two unlit ships passing in the night. Peace.

      • Assertion: “The earlier beginning to my having even gotten into this terrain, was a controversial comment of mine to the effect that folk promoting their skype auditing, and long-distance internet NOTs supervision was, in my view, squirrel.” Etc, etc.

        If you’ve recanted that viewpoint since my comments might not make sense, but if so I haven’t seen it … then again I don’t read all the comments every day. In an absolute sense you’re right of course, but then nothing is that black-and-white.

        Interesting piece of history there anyhow, it matches my obnosis of FSO around the same period, from a single 12 day visit. People running around in circles, chasing their tails.

        • martyrathbun09

          Rob, you might qualify as an RTC Rep.

          • I’m pretty sure that’s not a compliment, less sure about why.

            Peace to you, too.

          • Marty, your refusal to understand others simple utterances is confounding. That you feel a need to put them down for disagreeing with you is troubling.

            • martyrathbun09

              Dave, seems a lot I do and say is troubling to you. I find you about as hard to please as another Dave I used to know.

              • 🙂

                Yes I know.

                By the way, aside from my pointing out what I felt is an outpoint, the present article is a great service to all in clearing up how we got to where we are now.

                Please continue.

                • martyrathbun09

                  Holy cats. Thanks Dave. I appreciate the words of encouragement.

                  • Marty, I loved your article, as I mentioned below.

                    You did start out though saying: “long-distance internet NOTs supervision was, in my view, squirrel.”

                    Did you mean “long-distance auditing” or “supervising” (as in C/Sing)? I just want to make sure I understand your viewpoint: do you really think that “C/Sing NOTs via the internet” is squirrel?

                    I ask because at my Org in the 80s we used to do “folder runs” to get Grades C/Sing done (we didn’t have a local C/S), and it seems that the internet (if proper controls/security was in place) could be used as a fair substitute to “driving the paper folders by car several hours” in order to get a C/S done, whether Grades or NOTs.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Margaret,
                      Auditing and “supervising” as the latter was decribed by some guy – he was talking about looking into session via skype or some such. Case Supervising, no. Of course that could be done. The only downside is the church of Scientology’s penchant for hacking email and intercepting wire communications. So, precautions for security would be the main consideration.
                      Marty

                    • Thanks, I’m glad I asked! I must have missed the earlier exchange, and thought you were referring to C/Sing.

                    • Internet stuff is my game, it’s what I do, and auditing over Skype is something that scares me shitless. Skype, like all internet voice protocols, is designed to deliberately throw information away if the line gets overloaded, and it does this lots.

                      It’s the only way it could work – if a packet in a voice stream arrives half a second late or out of order, what do you think the computer will do with it? It will throw the packet away! It’s not a web page where you can wait till everything is downloaded then display it, it’s voice. The bit where the packet goes has already been played through the speakers.

                      Skype (and all voice calls technologies, there are many of them) distort the sound too, to get it to fit into the bandwidth available. It’s worse than landline phones.

                      All in all, auditing over Skype is about as gross a violation of basic TRs as one would ever find.

                    • I agree with Splog (below) – it is disturbing as hell to think that something like “auditing over the internet” is an ISSUE for anyone with any substantial training or auditing experience.

                      It is as squirrel as anything I can imagine. It’s a sort of “res ipsa loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself) example of squirreldom.

        • You can barely hold a decent conversaion via Skype, with its in built stutters and comm lags, anyone who thinks that medium or any long distance means, can be used to carry the auditing comm cycle does not understand the basics of auditing. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise should start retraining right away.

          To me you have Miscavige on one side of the coin and skype auditing and such practices on the reverse side of the same coin. The statement: “any auditing is better than no auditing” used to justify skype auditing is a total perversion of that LRH datum. One of the vital ingredients of sucessful auding is that the auditor wishes to do a professional job on and for the PC. Skype auditing just says “I’m too busy or too lazy or can’t be bothered to audit you the right way”.

    • Was Ralph Hilton Revenius and did he post as a 14 year old sockpuupet claiming to be someones reincarnation ?

    • After reading the OP I do not understand your point or argument.

      • CD,
        Alas, if you would but DO Self Analysis, in the comfort of your own home, you would set upon the route TO understand the point.

        • You should run out that fixation of yours , It can not be healthy

          • CD,
            This isn’t meant as persiflage.

            • I know you ment well, I believe I made a “persiflage” towards you.

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persiflage

              • Aye lad, I believe you did. And I do mean you well with the TR3 on SA. It’s good stuff CD. Really good stuff.

              • Cat Daddy/ Jim

                If I may be so bold as to throw my oar in here.

                Jim, I was thinking that perhaps the name “Self Analysis” is a bit daunting and perhaps CD has little or no interest in being “analyzed. I know I didn’t.

                CD, in actual fact, the book is more about supplying exercises that can help one to improve their memory, and by recalling certain kinds of things, possibly make some interesting improvements in their life.

                How about some dox? Here is a little teaser quote from the “introduction”, at the front of the book.

                ” Self Analysis cannot revive the dead.
                Self Analysis will not empty insane asylums or stop war. These are the tasks of the Dianetic Auditor and the Group Dianetic technitian.
                But Self analysis will conduct you on the most interesting adventure of your life. The adventure of you.
                How efficient are you? What are your potentials? How much can you improve? Well basically your intentions toward yourself and your fellow man are good. Basically if sometimes clouded over with the not-so-pale cast of bad experience, your potentialities are a great deal better than anyone ever permitted you to believe.
                Take your memory, a small part of your total assets. Is it perfect? Can you, at will, recall everything you have ever learned or heard, every phone number, every name? If you can’t you can see that there is room for improvement. Now somebody, with a half glance at the title page of this book, will try to assume that Self Analysis simply improves memory. That is like saying that all a train can do is meet schedules. It does much more.”

                Anyway CD, (or anybody for that matter,) it is a wonderfully simple approach. Sometimes you might have to work a bit, sometimes it will just be fun, but I suspect that if you did even a portion of the exercises, you would see some improvement.

                Hope this is, in some way , useful.

                WW

                • Thank you WW

                  I prommised Paul to do it after DM is gone. I am neither put of because it could be “daunting” or that I don’t have acces to it.
                  “google is your friend”
                  I would sooner read “handbook for preclears” though lol as Terril gave me a copy.

                  Or is that squirling lol ?

                  • CD

                    Excellent.
                    Squirreling? Hell no! Unless, of course you were planning to beat your wife with the thing, or some such. You are welcome to read the books in whatever order pleases you, unless a particular book specifically warns you against it.

                    But waiting till DM is gone? …
                    OK… If you really feel that you need to do the penance.

                    Anyway, whatever you do, and whenever, HAVE FUN!

                    WW

    • I agree, any auditing is better than none. We have fixed the distance issue with Internet, now for the economic issue.

      • NO Pascal, the ‘distance’ issue has not been fixed with the internet. To conclude that indicates a fundamental missing in your study of how auditing actually DOES work.

        The considerations that are posited to justify this introduction of a MEST via on a LIVE comm line are for the most part that the person can’t seem to get their damn ass TO an auditor. It’s financial or just plain goddamn lazy.

        This whole issue isn’t one of utilization of present electronic means, but one of inability to pick the body up and move it to the auditing room. For f’s sake, how effect can this get?

        This is a bunch of solution that isn’t. It’s s-q-u-i-r-r-e-l. Why?

        Come to Havana Florida and get real training. You’ll KNOW the answer yourself and won’t go for this latest bit of MESTification of what is essentially a THETA activity- auditing.

        • I disagree. It might not be ideal but it’s better than nothing. You have a better solution for someone living in Antartica or in a wheelchair? You gotta think that were are clearing a planet. Not only the US and Europe. LRH audited people over the phone in emergency situations so there. Call it squirrel and I’ll call you taliban.

          • And I’ll call you Johnson, but that’s not the point. ORIGINAL THESIS has the Axioms covering the working of a session, pc plus auditor is greater than the bank being one of these. Introduce enough MEST on that comm line and you have a stop. This ’emergency’ anecdote you refer to is NOT carte blanche to audit over the phone. To use it as such, one anecdote, an aside in a tape, is what currently passes for ‘knowledge’ in the CofM.

            I wouldn’t go near a Skype auditor any more than I’d go in ‘session’ with David Miscavige. You wanna? G’head. Name calling at that point is moot.

            • Current Bridge demands one be a chiro or dentist and live in the US or Western Europe. That exludes 99.99% of the human race. Internet auditing helps. You got a better idea, go ahead, you don’t, cork it.

              • I’ll add Pascal Dorion to the list of ‘auditors’ to stay very far from, and not by going on Skype, but by avoiding until such time as he’s retrained and then… Caveat preclear.

                • I’d ad Jim Logan to the list of unpractical ‘human beings’ living in an ivory tower in the utopic USA. I suggest he leaves his bubble and go out in the world and rub elbows for 10 years in the real world ie Asia, Africa or LATAM. Then we will see if he can tell some guy making 1$ a day rolling incense in India to come to Florida and “get trained”. It’s easy to bash something, harder to offer a solution to worldwide clearing. Any auditing is better than no auditing.

                  • Dude, your continuing tone is betraying someone who could well benefit from some face to face old school auditing.

                    • Pascal Dorion

                      And your ad hominem betrays the same dude. Let’s focus on the argument like adults who know how to argue.

                  • Pascal,
                    Are you telling me you are proposing, or involved in, Skype auditing some guy in India making $1 a day?
                    Does that cover his DSL account?

                    If the areas you mention are your target, then why not do what Helmut Flesch did? Why not go there and set up a training center?

                    All this HE&R doesn’t justify this bs squirrel Skype nonsense. Why don’t YOU come to Florida and then go to these places and start doing Standard Tech?

                    • Pascal Dorion

                      All I’m saying is that the current system is not workable for planetary clearing. And I stick to “any auditing is better than no auditing” especially in the current situation with a mad Church and wild indie field. Until we have a solid answer, anything goes to aliviate the suffering of people and free theta. As for my life it’s not the point of this argument, let’s not make this personal, we are adults and scientologists, not emotional soccer fans.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      The answer is in HCOBs and LRH lectures.

                  • Pascal — while you’re making lists, put yourself down on the squirrel list. You justification that any auditing is better than no auditing is what squirrels use to explain their inability to apply standard tech. It doesnt matter that you can’t read a meter, or dont have TR’s, or give the wrong commands, evaluate for the preclear, fail to acknowledge, fall asleep in session, rape your pc in session etc etc etc because “its better than nothing.”

                    If you are incapable of figuring out the way to deal wth people earning $1 a day in India is to produce books in India and deliver using those who live in that economy (where $1 a day may be normal, but the wage needed for a supervisor or auditor is commensurately smaller, books cost commensurately less etc).

                    So, if you are in a list making mood, you should probably also put yourself down on the dummies list too.

                    • Pascal Dorion

                      I leave list-making and low-toned rhetoric to DM and his foolish culture which you seem to continue here, sadly. I prefer diferentiating, duplicating and appreciating. Remote auditing has value. And it’s as “squirrely” as being a CS/Auditor/Examinar and Qual all rolled up into one as most we indies are. We are coping with what we have on a planet that is bonkers, so let’s not get unreal standards until we can make them real. Peace

          • Journey Continued

            Auditing over skype in my view is potentially dangerous.

            How does one include all the points of a Model Session? Let say you are running a PC on dianetics and the PC thoroughly stuck in the incident just decides to walk off or even turn off the program. Now we have a PC who is stuck in an incident!

            I remember a few times in session when the Auditor had to use his upper indocs to keep me in the chair, and I am very glad he did.

        • The live comm line is telepathic Jim, in session face to face or over skype.

          IMO of course.

          Well done by the way on your Venture “The Courseroom”

          http://community.freezone-tech.info/courseroom/
          🙂

          • Eyesight, hearing, and the other accoutrement of face to face auditing ARE MEST VIAS!

          • Dave,
            I think a chemical release, say from peyote, or mescal even, would help the telepathy of this sort of ‘auditing’. Of course, then you’ll have the catch 22 of doing the DRD over Skype, while on drugs.

            Skip the DRD. Hey, skip the Bridge. If you can skip the protocols of Model Session then what the hey, it’s all just an idea anyway.

            It ISN’T Scientology auditing though. These guys aren’t auditors. Retrains are needed. From the bottom. And even then…caveat preclear.

            • The test of whether it is auditing or not, is the result.

              Your facetious reference to using drugs to facilitate telepathy, avoids the reality that remote auditing works for some, and may someday become “standard”. Probably not on people at the DRD level! But at higher levels where the PC and auditor are less reliant on physical vias.

              Yes I agree, caveat preclear.

              I personally have turned down offers of it.

              I have a personal button though, on auditors who think evaluative and invaluative thoughts while auditing me, as it does affect the session.

              The point of OT TR 0, is an auditor with a “still mind”, not telepathicly evaluating and invalidating.

              My point, that the live comm in the auditing cycle, is telepathic, stands.

              • Dave,
                There’s no argument that live comm has an all important ‘carrier’ and that is intention. There’s no argument that eval and inval are put across non-verbally as much as verbally.

                THE point is that an auditing session is done IN session, and that is the auditor three feet in front of the preclear. Why is that? Why is it that the proximity of an auditor with a body and the pc with a body has something to do with the efficacy of the auditing?

                Good call on not getting any of this stuff. I’d stick with that.

        • Freedom Fighter

          …that the person can’t seem to get their damn ass TO an auditor. It’s financial or just plain goddamn lazy.

          Hey Jim, I have an idea: how about I take a baseball bat to your back, put you on your hands and knees in pain you can’t imagine unless you’ve experienced it firsthand, then stand over you and tell you you’re a goddamn lazy piece of shit because you can’t make the trek cross-country to get in session. How would you like that? My guess is you wouldn’t.

          I don’t see auditing via Skype as working well either due to what I know of the way the internet works and what I know of the auditing comm cycle, but I’ll tell you that if my only alternative was to help someone via Skype or leave them to fend for themselves at a time when they needed someone the most, I’m at least giving something like Skype a try. I don’t leave people on the battle field to die just because of “now I’m supposed tos”. Ideal? No. But if you care, you do what you can.

          I gotta say that the tone of this blog over the last 3 posts has taken on a totalitarian flavor very similar to what I left behind in the “church”. Yes, the Tech needs to be applied standardly. But what’s the definition of “standard”? Per LRH it’s “A definite level of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose”. I know of at least one person who LRH ran on a process at 2:00 in the morning. Most of you would gasp at that if I’d said this was done by anyone other than LRH, but what he did was proper and adequate for a specifric purpose and from what I can tell from the person on the receiving end, the level of quality was definite.

          I don’t know what problem you guys are trying to solve, but it seems to me that the way you’re going about it is going to blow more people off than you may intend — those who had no intention of squirrelling, however it’s defined, — simply because the whole gestapo/stazi tactics are part of what drove them off in the first place from the official “church”.

        • I posted earlier my thoughts on C-Meters and “Internet Auditing.” There is no such thing as Internet Auditing. It is impossible.

          I was going to get into the technical reasons why not, but let’s put it this way in less graphical terms that I was originally thinking: Internet Auditing is like Internet Massage.

      • The most beautiful thing is people meeting in real life.

        There is no subsitute

    • ELECTRONICALLY SYMBOLIC LONG DISTANCE TR-O

      Long distance two-way televised auditing as in Skype or other forms of internet video have set a technical precedent for the same degree of technical workability with TR-O, but with these additional caveats and factors:

      a) Teletransportation of oneself is necessary along with the packets into the other’s computer and then making that one last leap into the head of a dummy, doll or puppet set up in front of the computer.

      b) The now-animated puppet doll dummy should be able to be sufficiently communicated with beyond unbelievability providing suspension of belief is present and one doesn’t mind drilling totally with a dummy.

      c) Extrapolated from that is the premise that TRs 1-4 should have the same degree of workability.

      d) Lack of mobility of the puppet doll dummy would seem to preclude the ability to carry out Upper Indoc TRs via computer via dummy at this time.

      e) One of the main advantages of this type of auditing and drilling is the fact that beatings have been proven to be completely ineffective when enacted upon the dummy doll puppet, as they feel nothing, and the same would hold true in any attacks upon the computer screen itself, just in case anyone was considering carrying over any of the Church of Scientology’s currently accepted enhancement and control traditions.

      f) Great care should be taken to choose a dummy doll puppet that resembles a human, as it has been reported that doing long-distance TRs in this manner with a Kermit the Frog puppet, Freddy Kruger doll or Crazy Guggenheimer dummy causes hallucinations as well as spontaneous unpredictable rogue time travel.

    • “As for your point about auditing over Skype, I made the comment to Ralph Hilton ten years ago in regard to his C-Meter that delays in packets arriving at the auditor might preclude its use for reliability reasons, and yet here you are de facto making a defense for such things by admitting that becoming pedantic about where a read happens isn’t ultimately as important as the act of auditing the PC.”

      His statement that being pedantic about instant reads is of less importance than actually auditing the PC – this is not a de facto defense for using a system that actively prohibits the auditor’s perception of whether or not an item or question is charged.

      It is possible to perceive with certainty and consistency what an instant read is when you are in the same room with the PC with the meter lined up in the auditor’s line of vision between the auditor and the pc, with the auditor and pc in excellent communication. You don’t need a machine that slows the sound down, especially one that distorts the sound, to do that.

      On the other hand, you know, going into a session being audited over Skype, according to what I’ve been told about the delays in transmission, that it is NOT possible with certainty and consistency to perceive instant reads. You can’t tell what is charged and what is not if there are any potential delays in the transmission of the read.

      Yes, you can handle false reads but that doesn’t mean he’s saying that it’s workable to be sloppy and not care about whether reads are instant or not “because you can just handle false reads if you screw up your perception of when the read occurs”.

      There is a standard balance between these two factors which is achieved through a conceptual understanding and disciplined practice of auditing basics.

      • GetTheConcept,

        Apparently you duplicated my meaning perfectly. I wouldn’t personally audit someone over Skype, nor would I use “telepathic auditing” as some practitioners claim to be able to do. In fact there’s even an argument for not ever using a meter at all on the basis that it interposes a via, but since that’s officially sanctioned we can do it. I’m sure there are still some old hardline Book One auditors around who would agree.

        Jim,

        The argument that someone who can’t get themselves to an auditor is just lazy is specious as well, for the reasons given above by Pascal. I’m not sure where he lives but I’m 9000 miles away from Texas and there’s a shipload of ocean in the way, which is a far bigger MEST barrier than Skype. There is a time and place for everything, even if such handlings aren’t ideal. This issue shouldn’t be used as an excuse to cast aspersions on the auditing skills of others.

        Your comments about using peyote were funny as far as reductio ad absurdum goes, but this ain’t the sixties any more.😉

        • Rob,
          Unless these pc’s are unconcious, in which case Skype is utterly useless (imagine, an Unconcious Person assist done over the internet) then how does it make sense that they can’t reach enough to get trained with a friend and co-audit? Books exist. Meters exist. They can be gotten. They can be read and used.

          This argument of incapacitated beings justifying squirrel Skype auditing is specious. I just looked it up, and there in the One Look Dictionary is Skype auditing under the definition of ‘specious’ as an example. It’s cross-referenced to ‘bullshit’ and that’s the fact, Jack.

        • Rob,

          That’s fine. All I was saying was that Marty wasn’t contradicting himself as you said he was. That’s the only point I was making.

  3. Sounds to me like they were in ‘fear’. Poor souls. They’ll arrive here someday.

    Looking forward to the following posts.

  4. Marty,

    I am amazed at the amount of things I “just assumed”. I always thought Angie Trent was a Class IX. Did she train after this time period or was she never a Cl IX at all? Of course, I always thought Miscavige was OT 8, Cl XII (or at least Cl IX) and OEC/FEBC/DSEC. Guess I was wrong there so, my bad.

    I hate to venture into a sordid area that does come to mind after reading your post. Angie and Rikki were, to me, incredibly gorgeous women. I really am gonna hate myself in the morning for even asking this but, do you think that had anything to do with them being assigned to those posts by Miscavige? I mean, from what you say they had no technical qualifications that allowed them to be on those posts, so what’s a guy like me to think ?

    Is this just Miscavige’s brand of “casting couch” posting? Is it a terrible thought I am voicing? Am I just viewing the situation through my own thoughts on the matter? Or do you have anything that could explain how 2 hot looking women with zero tech training could end up running the TR’s and Metering line for Miscavige at Flag.

    As a side note, while I had been a D of P until 1993 and had no uncertainty on my metering (the C/S’s often commented on how they could program assesments based on the reads I noted in my interviews and find the charge was in fact where I showed it was), after GAT came out I found I had no idea what an instant read was or an F/N due to cross flowing comm cycles in qual over these points. I sort of “realized” I had no idea what these things were and never did. Your post helped me to see how I and lots of others went into this whole confusion when, up until then there was none. Thanks for bringing some truth to that so I can free myself from those shackles.

    Hy

    • martyrathbun09

      Hy, first, thank you for sharing corroboration of the result of all this – the ensuring confusions that you were saddled with. Second, I almost, almost included some words about Rikki and Angie’s looks, but thought it might be a bit of a distraction. But, since you raised it I will. When I returned to Int in January 1996, I learned that in fact physically “attractive” was a definite, important qualification to be an RTC Representative. Yes, you are right. That had been added since I blew in November 1993. I guess I was grandfathered in. Now couple that with another NEW RTC requirement that had been added since my departure in 1993. They were literally trained, yes drilled, on being ruthless and unapproachable. Miscavige actually put on a checklist that new RTC recruits had to watch the movie Internal Affairs (with Richard Gene I believe) in order to work out the beingness of an “Inspector General” as LRH referred to RTC as the Inspector General Network. So, Hy your observations and suspicions were right on the money. And thanks for directing me toward some occluded spots on my track; man the world suddenly sems a little brighter. You remain one hell of an auditor.

      • God, this is making me sick. Though I noticed their physical appearance too.

      • Back in the early 80’s I saw an issue (not sure of the type) that laid out requirements to be a messenger. It included that they be physically attractive.

      • I had noticed over the years by looking at the photos of RTC reps, or just high level SO reps, that the number of females increased at an astounding rate to the point that some of the last photos available are almost all females, with maybe one token male. I always assumed it had something to do with DM feeling threatened by other men. Marty, or any others with firsthand knowledge, care to comment? I’m not even suggesting “good looking women” just women period seem to fill all the ranks. Are their any men left in upper circles, or any men DM likes or at least doesn’t have in SP hall?

      • I did not know you had left the church in 1993. In my opinion, if one leaves, one should not go back, I certainly never will. But, a lot of things happened in the world including in Scientology in those 3 years, 1993, 1994, 1995 including Windows 95 was released, and Advanced Course Materials from the church hit the internet like today’s YouTube. Those were amazing years.

    • Right,
      RTC staff consists of attractive women and OSA staff consists of ugly women. The only scant male exceptions are those that know too much and would form a threat to Davey once on the loose. The ones still around in his Cathedrals are new and untrained so they can’t backlash against his Tech interpretations like we do. Even the new ones are kicked out once they start to think for themselves or say what they observe.

      Marty, you got me laughing on the slow motion dooms day machine and got me thinking of Dr. Spectre or Dr. Evil with their tools of trade.

      It had to have been operated by uneducated unapproachable authoritarian bots hidden in an ivory tower behind our backs as we ploughed through the longest TR and meter courses ever designed. That hidden standard was the only way Davey could get it accepted without being laughed away by all those accomplished auditors who would have never thought about accepting a flunk from an unnatural mechanical devise as auditing is a live activity.

    • Hy,

      I could be really wrong but I’m almost positive that Angie Trent WAS a class IX trained auditor.

      She audited me on a review cycle at the ship — I was an OT VIII and she did my review. So, unless back in 1993 they were already squirreling quite liberally – I’m thinking she was a Class IX

      Sad that she went so completely over the edge. She was a very sweet young woman when I knew her.

      WH

      • martyrathbun09

        WH, I think she trained on Class VIII at Int in preparation for being on the original Flag RTC Rep team. That too was an original requirement, CLass VIII, until like every single other event, Miscavige compromised because “the show must go on.” Or “image is everything”. Or “who am I, where am I?” He made a big fanfare at one of the events in the early nineties about how he was going to “slam dunk” over dead bodies standard tech, on a bypass, through HIS personal representative network.

    • Hy,

      All you need to know about DM and his myrmidons and machinations are contained in the GPM plots LRH outlined in the OT II materials. He never understood them or ran them, but he sure takes dramatizing them to “another level”. And it isn’t “higher”.

    • I think Angie was a Class V Grad, Class IX auditor. No SHSBC and no Class VIII. She spent hours and hours auditing trying to “handle”me n 1999 when I decided to leave the SO. Poor girl. Same for Heidi Stahli, Leslie Worstell and Gelda Mithoff. All decent people, but in utter violation of HCO PL Leaving and Leaves that says what you do with someone who wants to leave staff. You let them leave staff! How simple.

      • Yes, there is also an LRH Flag Order stating that people who wish to leave the SO should be off the ship within 24 hours. Sorry I don’t recall the number.

        • Yet he himself prevented Susan Meister from leaving.

          • CD – that is untrue. I did a thorough examination of the data available regarding her death and posted it on ars some years back. Dig up the archives.

            • Your words and claims have become meaningless to me

              “I was involved unknowingly in Susan Meister’s situation. A week or so before her death, she had written to LRH asking his permission for her to leave the ship and return home. At that time, his policy on such was to refuse (it varied). I composed a reply to this effect and included it in his mail for signature. He signed it. He was considerably put out when I reminded him of this – he had signed the reply without reading it or its original request (and this was not unusual practice for him – I should have known better). From then on, I put a warning note on any similar reply composed for him to sign… I will always deeply regret that her cry came through me, and I chose to adhere to the current policy rather than to hear her, listen to her, and help her in compassion and good sense.”

              Ken Urqheart

              • Do you have any slightest idea of how much mail and communication was received by LRH in a day?
                He had 4 people employed full time to answer his mail.
                Yes, it may not have been totally honest to state that he personally answered all mail received by him.
                LRH trusted Ken to respond appropriately and a serious mistake was made.
                Your intent is obvious – you wish to denigrate LRH and Scientology.

                • I like to see the work proove itself in a free and open enviroment, open to scrutiny instead of gun ho critisism.I am with Mark Bunker, not with the blind stampede.

                  Looking both sides, You can’t refute Ken’s word that actually paint a more human picture of the founder than the critics.

                  “Yes, there is also an LRH Flag Order stating that people who wish to leave the SO should be off the ship within 24 hours.”

                  “At that time, his policy on such was to refuse (it varied)”

                  You stated how something was on paper but in practice it could be different.

                  I backed my claim up and did you a solid by finding the Policy on Children who wanted to leave.

                  • Yeah, well we all know you can’t herd cats. And CD, I read that Ken post different than Ralph did. Ken was defending LRH, using “policy” to stop as his justification.

        • To the founders defence

          SEA ORGANIZATION

          FLAG ORDER NO 788
          30th May 1968

          CHILDREN

          EACH CHILD MUST BE PERSONALLY TOLD THIS

          These rules apply:

          1.) Any child who is here because someone else wanted it may leave the vessel.

          2.) Any child who is being audited because someone else wanted it may not have auditing unless he or she asks for it.

          It is up to a Captain to handle any problem arising from these rules, but they must be followed.

          L. RON HUBBARD
          COMMODORE

          LRH:sb

    • one of those who see

      Hy wrote”As a side note, while I had been a D of P until 1993 and had no uncertainty on my metering (the C/S’s often commented on how they could program assesments based on the reads I noted in my interviews and find the charge was in fact where I showed it was), after GAT came out I found I had no idea what an instant read was or an F/N due to cross flowing comm cycles in qual over these points. I sort of “realized” I had no idea what these things were and never did. Your post helped me to see how I and lots of others went into this whole confusion when, up until then there was none.”

      This alone is a crime by DM of such enormous magnitude that the only words are “GET HIM OUT OF THERE!”

      • One of those,
        In looking over the 96 Solo checksheet recently it was blatantly obvious, with the insane altered importance of the added inapplicable ‘difficulty’ of metering that it wasn’t just FNs Miscavige was after; it was the meter itself and its use in auditing.

        Metering IS knowable and within a very real, doable period of time. We’re talking DAYS, if not hours. THAT IS THE FACT.

        • Yes you gibbering DM squirrels -HOURS. For f’s sake.

          OFFER: ANY person who has had ANY difficulty learning or applying metering I will personally sort you out and YOU CAN USE A METER WITH COMPLETE CONFIDENCE.

  5. “Did you get an instant read?” Became the words that lead to my demise in 1997. I was out of the Sea Org by the end of that year. After battling through the arbitraries on the Pro TRs course for 5 months I found myself struggling through the E Meter Course. It was chock full of fun stuff. My metering was impeccable before I took this course in 1997. I was going to just “suffer through it” but DM had already loaded ASHO up with all of the arbitraries and when we hit instant reads drill I knew I was never going to finish this course. And I didn’t. I did one video and when the sup told me I “wasn’t tone 40 enough” I quit and rather noisely. Luckily my metering is still the way it was. I bent, but I didn’t break.

    As I went through that awful course I saw many, many more students make it through the course. I noticed that the younger you were the faster you passed the metering course. I never found the enemy line, but I knew it was there. It was the beginning of the end for us “old timers” as ordered by DM.

    Horrible times.

    ML Tom

    • martyrathbun09

      Yes, Tom what I described had been exported to all AO/SH units through the Reps network by 1997.

      • And from there Marty out to Class V Orgs not long after. We had to send regular videos to RTC Reps at St Hill. And yes, as you describe, there was little rhyme or reason to rejects and passes alike.

        • martyrathbun09

          Ugghhhh.

        • Things from that time period now make a little more sense.

          I know at least one senior tech terminal that resorted to the obvious workaround: “In session your TRs and metering should be like we drilled. But for this video pass, do it more like so …. unless you want to get one more reject to add to the 4 you already have ….”

  6. Thank you for sharing this. It is giving clearer insight into the arbitraries that are killing LRH tech application in the church.

    I was especially amused by the accounts of people using the videos at reduced speeds to determine to the micron if a read was latent, etc. I had to laugh….it reminded me of that scene in “2001, a Space Odyssey”, when Dave Bowman starts to disable the memory circuits of the HAL 9000 computer… : ” Daaaaaaaisey…….daaaaa…iiiiiii…ssss…ee..y………..telllllll mmmmmmee youuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr annnnnnnnsserrrr………………….”

    I still can’t believe people let DM pull this crap off in plain sight, and in flagrant violation of LRH policy.

    Centurion

  7. More or less at the same time period (end of 95) I was in AOSHEU for a ED conference held by the Dear Leader.
    He asserted, on a most ruthless, nazi way, that nobody in Scientology could get instant reads on a list, even at Flag. N. O .B. O. D. Y.!!!!! !!!!!!!!
    This is this incident which put me in en “enforced condition of Confusion”.
    Happily, I went out of it….
    King of Squirrels, the best title he ever earned!

  8. Amazing and enlightening post! Luckily I had been in the L’s HGC before this time frame and the CL XII auditing I had earlier was pretty fantastic. By 2005, I had lost all confidence in the Church of Scientology and the auditors there-in to read a meter correctly or to even program my case correctly. For me, no auditing was better than what little GAT “auditing” I had. I hated the new examiner routine, and in 2005 the attempted “auditing” I tried to receive was a nightmare at AOLA! Feigned all to get the f… out of there as I was done.
    Knew that the tech worked but truly was lost as I had no idea there was an independent field, so I just withdrew for the next few years. Immersed myself in work and and finally started to look. It’s been almost a year now since I sent my letter of resignation to the AO and still learning more each week. My year of enlightenment thanks to you and all those that have come forward with the truth. My thanks again and looking forward to your continuation on this theme!

    • Please, what is the “new examiner routine” ?

      • Missing your FN, staring at the meter for long periods of time was what I observed. As Marty said in an earlier post, “Waiting for the meter to play Dixie!” One time after a particularly bad session at ASHO, this was earlier than 2005, I was quite upset at the exam, BI’s all the way and the gal says, “Your needle is floating”. I think not! Makes me laugh just to think about it!

    • Penny , Han

      First Han,… What I experienced in 2002 at Flag as far as PC exam, was this:
      I walk in, examiner extends hands toward the cans, face up. She says absolutely nothing. Examiner then goes through the adjusting of the TA, and then looks up at me with a blank expression on her face,( by the way, when I was there the examiner was likely still in her teens, and cute as hell. She immediately missed all the thoughts, motion images and pictures that flashed through my mind.) She did not smile. After a few seconds, I guess since I had said nothing, she then looks fixedly at the meter dial for about 20 to 30 seconds, then back at me briefly and then back to the meter. She then looks up and indicates the door with another palm-up hand motion. (there was actually a document posted that told the PCs what to expect).

      Sure, maybe if I were a “big boy” I could have FNd anyway, but I really didn’t see any being there to share it with, and “All communication lines were down.”

      Penny, You got me going here….

      As you can likely tell I Didn’t do real well with the “examiner routine” either. As a matter of fact, I was at Flag to do the “Case Cracker Roundown” and in one intensive of auditing never FNd at the examiner once. Curiously I was never “red tagged”. I believe the “rundown” was a CS 53 to FNing list. As interpreted by flag this apparently meant FNing the whole way through the list without any reaction. That’s right, any read was taken up,”handled” , the list finished, and then back to the start to reassess, etc.

      Well it all didn’t work so well for me. First off, the auditor’s assessment TRs were robotic and it was a losing battle to stay “in session”.( I even offered, during the last session, that I would be willing to help coach him on his assement TRs.) After that last session I got sick within hours. I was CSd to go to the Medical Officer, Doctors appointment, and then on to touch assists and body comms. Even though I was saying that I knew there was something left unflat in the last session I was never red tagged. I was told that I could not receive auditing until I “got better “. I never went back into session.

      So, to wrap this up, suffice it to say that I never FNd at examiner once, during that stay. Oh I FNd in session alright , and I was the most keyed out I have ever been, during most of my time there. Somehow the CS/senior CS, decided I was done (though I never went back into session) and the way they got an FN on me was by sitting me down with a success officer with whom I chatted until he was satisfied I had an FN.

      Need I say that that was the last auditing that I got from Scientology Inc.?

      WW

      • Gruesome, WW!

      • WindWalker~That just makes my stomach turn…never F/Ned at Examiner and never red tagged?! Holy crap!
        Glad you got some wins by hook or by crook but more glad you got the hell out!

        • Tara.
          Hey. That ain’t nuttin. You ought to be glad I didn’t tell the whole gruesome tale.

          Point is though, that I not only survived it, but I did it in style! So when I look back on it, I really have no charge there. So don’t any of you guys go carrying around charge on this cycle, on my behalf, OK? Hell, I’m not!

          WW

      • Wind Walker,
        What a story! Well done on recognizing what was right and what was wrong. Amazing. Thanks for sharing. As many here know, auditing done right is a miracle. Done wrong, without ARC, duplication, granting of beingness to the pc, and correct CSing, a nightmare.

        • Penny
          Yup. I am pretty resilient as a being. I am actually in very good shape spiritually and otherwise. You need not worry about me on that score.

          Besides which I just got pretty much the best auditing I have ever had, recently, in the Independent field. It is starting to look like there might actually be a “bridge” there for me again.
          WW

  9. This post reminded me of an observation I have made. Here you have a dedicated SO member, such as Richard Reiss, who has been, I assume, standardly applying LRH tech for years. Now, enter the confusion introduced by dear leader. What are your choices. You are aware of the outnesses, but know if you that if you try to correct them, you will be attacked personally, routed to the RPF or declared an SP and routed out of the SO. The SO is your life at this point — your wife is here, your friends are here and none of them would ever get to hear your side of the story. In fact, a story will be made up about how it has recently been discovered that you have been messing with the tech for years and you are the Why on any down stats. So, what do you do. If you leave, at least back at that time in the mid 90’s, you feel you have no way to correct these outnesses. If you stay, you have no way to correct these outnesses, but at least you are still there amongst people you care about and maybe will see the day when the outnesses can be addressed and corrected. So you stay. And you have violated your Code of Honor by doing so. As a thetan, you are between a rock and a hard place. You have one viewpoint, yet are living the lie of holding another viewpoint. This creates two opposing forces (stress)which ends up impacting your body. Eventually, this results in ill health and if you don’t remedy the situation to remove yourself from the stress, you most likely will die of some form of cancer or other stress-related body failure. How many SO members have gone this route?

    And for the others who simply “buy” whatever DM deals out, well… PTSness, out-of-valence, let’s have a (below 2.0) party and keep this squirrel ball rolling. No personal reponsibility, just follow orders and all will be well.

    • martyrathbun09

      A very accurate description of what goes down with an individual. By Feb 04 the second time I blew I was a physical and spiritual wreck.

      • I thought it extremely telling when Linson said during her rant on Anderson Cooper that you had come to her a few days before you blew saying … I’m losing my grip, my mind …

        You had the decency to blow before actually seriously harming yourself and or someone else.

        Not everyone is able to say the same.

        It takes a great deal of raw horse power to just blow during the midst of a breakdown.

        Others — less willing or less karmically inclined, kill themselves, kill someone else, or become so deeply damaged as to become a shell of themselves. Angie Trent might be in that category. I know Ray Mitoff surely is. Greg Wilhere and the list goes on.

        I am a big fan of those who once were physical and spiritual wrecks. It’s a great place from which to rebuild, rethink and grow.
        🙂

        WH

        • martyrathbun09

          Of course, Linson did not say an original thought or word on Anderson Cooper. The source of her story is David Miscavige who made it up to fit in with his “lunatic” defense. Jenny Linson was, is and will quite likely always be the second to the last person I would ever confide such thoughts to had they ever or if they ever do arise.

          • It didn’t dawn on me that what she said wasn’t true. That you weren’t close and therefore never confided in her.

            I thought what she said was a greater condemnation to what was going on at Int than a condemnation of you.

            That ANYONE would start to lose their mind WITHIN an organization that is intended to help people speaks volumes against that organization.

            So — while dm made up this “lunatic” defense — it’s just another footbullet to anyone with a ears that can hear.

            I rest my case however — it took a great deal to blow from that place🙂

            Which seems clear. As not that many have done so.

            Few are the ones who have blown AS Int staff or from int.

            And from what I can tell, each of those who have done this are now living fruitful, productive and happy lives. Once they’ve sorted through the initial despair.

            Love,
            WH

      • Journey Continued

        What gets me is that the overall environment, for staff and public alike, is that the environment has become so suppressed that people are not able to communicate freely without reprisal. This puts people, and especially PCs and pre-OTs on a continuous withhold and creates a continuous Present Time Problem of long duration. Auditing doesn’t occur as the pc is never actually in session. The means no case gain, and actual loss of gain.

        So with all the squirrelling going on the problem is significantly compounded. But until the day when all people within the organisation can communicate openly and freely without fear of reprisal, the tech will never be gotten in. Squirreling is allowed to happen because no one dare stand up to a brutal fascist dictator. Ethics are so out that auditing and training cannot occur and as a result of that, no free beings are being created. What is occurring in spades is suppression of individual freedom in a totalitarian cult by a fascist dictator.

        • Journey Continued — Nice post and so true. However, I don’t believe this data is known to those still on lines. I wouldn’t have known but for a series of events in 2004. So, we keep doing what we do in order that others might be helped. H

    • BW,
      Good observation. I believe Dear Leader’s specialty is to place subordinates between a rock and a hard place, needlessly and for his own personal entertainment or flaunting of power which he simply worships. It is simply called suppressive and causes maximum destruction on all dynamics.

    • Very good post on FSO auditor training Marty
      The more I read, the more I realize what a correction action it was to exit the Sea Org in 1990.
      I could not have not have withstood the DM Tech squirrelling. I could not have taken a day of it.
      Here we have an IMPERSONATOR of tech expertise:::::
      ++++A failed auditor/intern who slugged his pc at St. Hill and was booted off the Class IV internship.
      +++++The same Evil Purpose ~~
      to slug, beat, punch, pound, overwhelm with force and violence in full blown restimulation (though he could avail himself of FPRD ~~he does not) while he dramatizes this urge for the next 3 decades.
      +++++The same urge to overwhelm has taken out Ray Mithoff, Senior CS INT and pulverized him into a shell, so that Miscavige the MESSIAH could be the Senior tech terminal.
      +++++Miscavige has brutalized Ray Mithoff by numerous corroborative reports and ascended to TOP DOG in Tech with no completed courses, no Internships, no ability to duplicate LRH and here is DM’s strategy:

      1) Threaten, humiliate, bully, intimidate auditors both newbies in training and those holding valid certs to compromise their reality and code of honor to switch to DM technology….to hell with red on white.
      2)Comm Ev and RPF auditors and CSes that do not adapt to Golden Age of Technical Hogwash invented by Miscavige….use overwhelm and punishment all the way. Force the public to do “THE BASICS” no matter what they are in the middle of.
      3) Screw up delivery so that the Public are paying for HUMONGOUS amounts of Sec Checks, and ensure that each public come out of a session with more mental mass and by-passed-charge than before session.
      4) Use thuggery to vulture out $$$$ (every single staff member has a 2 and 1/2 day reg assignment for sucking out $$$$$ in addition to their normal post)
      5) Ensure the Public is highly dis-satisfied with results while their money has been drained, but no repair without more $$$$$
      6) Liberally issue more Declares as a political tool for those who do not drink the Kool-aid and toe and the line. Manufacture a tissue of lies in these declares and thump on more and more DISCONNECTIONS as policy.
      7) Make more and more enemies in the field.
      8) Drive more and more public to read the Internet to find out what the hell is going on.
      9) Punish those reading the Internet with more and more sec checks til they blow and join the Indies and then Declare them.
      10) Continue to make more enemies for C of $
      11) Overtly and Covertly interfere with family, business connections for those that work for a Scientology business and do everything to DESTROY the former long term contributor by malicious rumor mongering “So and So has gone to the dark side” “So and So is reading the Internet” “So and So has befriended so and so on Facebook and is about to lose eligibility forever….”
      12) Make existing enemies further enlightened by unconscionable wrong moves sinking the C of $ deeper into unpopularity world wide where per Gallup Poll it is considered worse than Atheism and Radical Muslim.
      13) Continue to lap up and cherish standing ovations as THE ONLY SPEAKER at the mandatory INT events, feed on the adulation and convince self of how loved he is.

      David Miscavige HATES L. Ron Hubbard.

      • martyrathbun09

        Nice sum up Karen. Your conclusion is absolutely spot on.

      • Karen,
        The sobering reality of DM physically assaulting a preclear in session is to me the definitive fact of this being. He ASSAULTED a preclear in session. That IS DAVID MISCAVIGE. That fact is now dramatized broadly as he assaults beings in a continual, present time overt dramatization of an evil intention.

        Jesus freakin’ Murphy – he physically attacked a preclear in session. O-M-F’in-GOD!!!

        • You know., what is that not surprising? I know I seen this before but I just now confronted the fact that he attacked the pc in session. What happened? Did the pc not F/N for him? “F/N you son of a bitch or I’ll beat one out of you.” “C’mon, I ain’t got all day, give me that F/N you pecker head.” (Slap, slap) “Don’t wanna F/N?” (Slap, Slap) “There it is. ’bout time you loser.”

          I was just fantacising, but I’m sure it would be something like that.

          ML Tom

        • Cindy Pinsonnault

          Jim – I think I like you!

        • Jim Logan.
          It is sobering.

      • plainoldthetan

        Karen, you missed
        8) Threaten to remove or remove the I-HELP licenses of practicing field auditors making a living by delivering auditing. Comm Ev or Declare the I-HELP member and confiscate the pc folders being stored securely in the homes of said I-HELP members. Keep “retrainees” on professional metering courses overlong by pick-nitting the nanonsecond a read appears and splitting hairs over the difference between a tick and a small fall. Put a Golden Age of Tech program in place that exists in name only, not results.

      • Slugger McSavage.

    • “The spittle and profanity flew out of COB’s mouth, his frightening eyes barely an inch from mine, when he made the fatal mistake of loosening his grip on my throat, providing me the opportunity to launch myself like a coiled snake, letting loose from ground level with a roundhouse right to the side of his head.

      The absolute silence that followed the sickening thud of his unconscious body as it hit the floor was broken by the thunderous cheer that followed from the assembled crowd who now danced joyously together in a circle around him, holding hands and laughing.”

  10. I thank you, Marty, for writing articles which keeps the focus on where the true source of suppression lies. Time, form, place, event…this blows a lot of charge for me as well as others, I’m sure.

  11. Before I left in 2005, RPFers at Flag were having to get TRs and metering passes by the tech hierarchy before they could “RDD” (read-it, drill-it, do-it) any technical procedure. It took MONTHS and was STILL not done as there wasn’t a single person on Flag’s technical video critique line (seemed like a hundred people) that could agree on what was an instant read or not and what was an F/N or not. That experience spoke volumes to me. THE BEST technical people on the planet at Flag were confused, uncertain IDIOTS. I worked for months as the “Bosun” to get everyones TR/metering videos approved through that gauntlet so they could start auditing. I wrote reports about how the RPF issues say RDD and this severely prolonged an already overly long, arbitrary program (don’t get me started about the RPF in general). I couldn’t imagine how ANYONE could trust their case to these people, especially after seeing the result of their application on certain people I won’t mention here. I felt so sorry for those who were in grief and despair. My decision was to leave. Others stayed to suffer through it. I couldn’t imagine it. I knew I wouldn’t get off that RPF — particularly when the Snr C/S and Qual personnel overseeing the RPF could almost NEVER agree on a read. They’d rather have someone stay on the same assessment (one devised by Miscavige, which is a combo of FPRD and assessment “tech”) for 3 YEARS, receiving over 800 assessments to the point of contemplating suicide, than admit that something was wrong with their stupid critiques and/or procedure. It was a big fat DOGS BREAKFAST. My reports on the matter got me in further trouble. I decided they could keep their nut farm the way it was then and left (after more intensive sec checking by someone who cried after every session because of his video critiques and technical uncertainties).

    • martyrathbun09

      Amy, thanks for sharing this. Reminds me of two other articles I gotta get to. One is to try to remove some of the stigma and inval associated with people who did their only auditing in RPFs. Sometimes, the RPF’s lack of priority lead to them being ignored, and then taking matters on metering and TRs and tech into their own hands (and listening to LRH for a change) resulting in a lot of unacknowledged good case gain produced there. The other has to do with the origin and history of that god awful graduation assessment from hell.

      • Oh man. The RPF. That there is the most squirrely activity in this universe. My God – I know a guy who left the RPF after 6 years on grad lines. Let me repeat that: SIX YEARS ON GRAD LINES. He has recieved 1,600 hours of end ruds. I’ll repeat that. HE RECIEVED 1,600 HOURS OF END RUDS. Then he quit. You think he’s screwed up a little? A lot actually.

        When one finishes the RPF the folders of the PC have to be sent to the Snr C/S of the Continental Area. Once revied there, they go to Snr C/S Int Office for Review. Then on to RTC for review. The main focus is on the metering videos that the RPFers have to do. Each submission goes up and disappears for 3-6 months before anyone looks at it. Then there is a flunk on an F/N or instant read. Rejects result in punishment of thre RPFer and then correction. Then back to the end ruds on video. Then back up for another 3-6 months.

        Thank god I didn’t do it. I would have snapped. (Picture Rambo with the machine gun in one hand shooting up the city screaming from a ton of bypassed charge)

        ML Tom

      • Marty,
        On the quality of the RDD auditing in the RPF: I was the Co-audit Sup for a time in one of my RPF stints and that meant I had to bail out sessions. I saw a hand out and went to find what was going on. The auditor had hit an impasse on an Int Rundown. I pulled out the NED Correction List and began the assessment and got a nice clean read. I did the handling and this pc relayed this incident of them leaving their body and exiting the house and sitting outside the window, then moving around the street viewing things. While this was going on, they were bouncing back and forth in and out of the body. The meter danced a theta bop and then blewdown like two divs. All the while I didn’t say a word and the auditor sat beside me, not saying a word. The needle got hard to keep on the dial as it flopped back and forth from one side to the other. It took me a bit, but I realized that TA was floating, The pc’s face flushed pink, and a smile as big as a Buick spread across it. As gently as I could I ended session.

        It was one of the coolest things I’ve ever seen. ALL of it was with Read, Drill it, Do it auditing.

        • Scott Campbell

          I’ll take a well-intentioned RDD Auditor over a GAT robot any day.

        • Jim, My god. I don’t know exactly how many floating TAs I’ve have but I do remember one on solo that just blew my mind. First one I ever saw but it was amazing. The needle just drop out of sight and I quickly tried to recover the TA and it just flopped the other way and I did that for a minute and then figured out what was happening and sat back and enjoyed the phenomena. Anyone who thinks the Tech doesn’t work has never experienced being exterior or a floating TA. It’s where we all want to be every day. Love

    • Amy wrote: “Before I left in 2005, RPFers at Flag …”

      You know what’s incredible about your write-up Amy? It took place 10 years after Marty first saw it get introduced at Flag. TEN YEARS! That just blows me away. And what’s sickening is that it’s almost certainly still going on to this day. Unbelievable.

    • Amy,
      This description has set my jaw.

      David Miscavige, you squirrel, SP, clinker prick. Eat this – YOUR MONOPOLY IS OVER. THE FULL BODY OF MATERIALS, THE FULL KRC WITH THOSE MATERIALS, THE FULL ABILITY TO USE THEM EXISTS OUTSIDE YOUR TWINKY LITTLE PAWS. IT IS BEING USED. DAILY. IN INCREASING QUANTITY, QUALITY AND VIABILITY AND THERE ISN’T A GODDAMN THING YOU CAN DO YOU FECKLESS PECKERHEAD.

    • Former Flag Customer

      Amy,
      Thank you for your courageous presentation of this information about instant reads at flag under “D Missed a C”. I am so relieved that I avoided his squirrel authority.

  12. (new access gained to COB Cancelled or Suspended Technical Program Archives. Enjoy. Deep Fax)

    COB TECHNICAL ADVICE BULLETIN
    March 13, 2009

    INSTANT READS

    Since I cleared up the unbeknownst mass confusion on every single aspect of the technology of Scientology by introducing exact and specific drills, videos and examples of 100% Mandatory Standard Tech through my Golden Age of Tech program, technical application has covertly slid downhill to such a devastating degree that I can only say that the Blind are not only leading the Blind now, but the Extremely Blind Deaf Dumb and Stupid are now leading the Incredibly Blind Deaf Dumb and Stupid over a cliff at midnight with their eyes, tongues and brains removed.

    Let’s take Instant Reads for example, which is the main subject of this particular vital bulletin. I’ve been very busy over these last several months personally checking instant read videos from every auditor at every org on every continent across the planet and I’m shocked and sad to have discovered that still no one knows what an Instant Read really is.

    First off, one of the definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary defines ‘instant’ as, “an almost imperceptible and infinitesimal space of time”, that’s why I invented my patented Hubbard Read Verification Amplifier, so this almost imperceptible barrier of time could be conquered. Is it in current use? No. Sabotaged.

    Secondly, since sound travels at 770 miles per hour and light travels at 360,000 miles per second, we can see that light will reach the preclear before the sound. As is explained in my Technical Briefing of September 24, 1998 Instant Read Confusion Defined, the intertwining of light and sound presents a continual problem to both preclear and auditor. The drill to solve this was eliminated from the GAT metering drill pack by some SP who has since been identified and taken care of by very harsh means, let me assure you.

    ‘Instant’ is instant. If sound itself imposes a comm lag creating an actual interposition of time between when the auditor finishes voicing the major thought, and the receipt of such by the PC, it is not difficult to deduce that no read will be instant unless time itself has been transcended by the auditor in order to be able to perceive actual instant reads, which is precisely why I created the Time Transcendence Perception Manipulation Navigator back around the time I discovered this phenomena.

    Once again, fallen out of use and traced to covert sabotage by a infiltration gang sent in as a last ditch effort by the Independent Psychiatric Cartel to destroy us, recently detected, handled, routed and disbanded by my personally staking out the manufacturing facility by spending all night inside of a dumpster spying on them with an infrared scope and long range listening device.

    Now that that is settled you can expect a swift introduction of spectacular clarifications into this tangled up ball of twine of vast confusion that has become some kind of Cultish Art of Meter Mis-Interpretation.

    In essence I will tell you straight out that NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE has yet to properly detect, report, call, perceive, define or demonstrate WHAT AN INSTANT READ ACTUAL IS. No one. That means all auditors have been falsely reporting, all supervisors are continuing to falsely train, all cramming officers are falsely cramming and all supervision in this matter has been being falsely supervising and every single one of you are knowingly members of the Blind Deaf Dumb and Stupid Club, as well as being in a personal Condition of Expanded Confusion at the highest.

    Alright, walking forward from here, I’m introducing the program that is going to solve this disaster and turn a nasty Rock Slam into a beautiful three-swing F/N. Hourly compliance is expected as usual from local RTC and IAS reps who will be directly implementing and supervising this program. Good luck.

    David Miscavige
    COB

    COB TECHNICAL PROGRAM 13 MARCH 2009
    INSTANT READ PERCEPTION SALVATION AND HANDLING PROGRAM

    1. All students, auditors, interns, cramming officers, course supervisors and executives (with the exception of NOI trainees who have been found to be doing it correctly in their own isolated course rooms free from the contagion of aberration from others woefully mistrained) are to immediately enroll on the new Hubbard Professional Read Verification Amplifier Time Transcendence Perception Manipulation Navigator Course.

    2. The technology of the Read Verification Amplifier and the Time Transcendence Perception Manipulation Navigator are to be incorporated into the new Mark IX Super-Detecto Meter coming out this fall and is a mandatory required purchase for all parishioners no matter where they are on the Bridge in their training. In case you’re wondering, yes the usual two meters per parishioner are required.

    3. All PCs everywhere who’ve ever been audited on a meter ever are to be immediately gotten in and put through the Mis-Read Rehabilitation Resurgence Rundown (only available at Flag) in order to handle the massive BPC that has been discovered to have been preventing their case gain and standard cognitions for years.

    4. In a more befitting of the times magnanimous approach, no ethics actions shall be taken against anyone for their past errors as long as they sign the General Technological Amnesty and Forgiveness Rectification Agreement wherein they simply admit to their overts, write up at least ten examples of such, do the required new training, purchase all related materials AND make an unsolicited significant donation to the IAS.

    I have purposely kept this program short and sweet for maximum efficiency and effectiveness in order to accelerate the speed of our progress towards the release of OT IX and X so that we may one day win the war against the grotesque and dire consequences of Deadline Earth. Happy metering!

    David Miscavige
    COB

    (Cancelled shortly after the release of COB Executive Directive 14 March 2009 ENHANCED DONOR STATUS SOLVES EVERYTHING)

    • martyrathbun09

      OTDT, I would like to indicate that you yourself just transcended time and are one (at least) step ahead of me. Your issue here is so prescient. Wait till you see his actual words when I get an hour or two uninterrupted to present part II in this series. You may be the only person here that is NOT surprised.

      • Now I’m confused🙂 — is Deep Fax the same person/poster as OTDT?

        • martyrathbun09

          I think DEEP FAX is OTDT’s jealously guarded source.

        • Deep Fax is a low level Sea Org member at Int assigned to the COB Command Cleaning Crew, a new 24/7 operating department whose responsibility involves the continual dusting and sterilizing of all surfaces COB may ever come in contact with.

          Their Admin Scale purpose evolves around the concept of keeping COB optimally healthy by preventing him from tactile contamination of lower life forms such as germs and subliminal particles contained in dust.

          They also keep his fingernail clippings, hair cuttings and body elimination particles in laboratory jars stored in a special mobile Bio-Vault he designed and had custom-built.

          But back to your question, I have a deep suspicion of who exactly Deep Fax is, I’m not totally sure and of course it’s not of my nature to be careless with security and confidentiality or to be speculative. I’m sure Marty meant to address Deep Fax instead of me, so he must have gotten overwhelmed and forgot who he was reading or something due to the incredibly dazzling and ridiculous documents that Deep Fax bestows on us.

          • martyrathbun09

            WH, you gotta realize OTDT is real brains behind Steven Colbert’s writers.

          • OTDT,

            Subliminal particles contained in dust? Mass, meaning, mobility. You have given me a floating TA. In the morning, as I watch motes float through sunlight streaming through the window, I hear this susurration, this urgency of voices instructing me for the day. And the voices are ever present, but I could never divine the source.

            Subliminal particles contained in dust! I’ve got you now, you mother fuckers!

            I immediately went out and purchased the most sophisticated bubble I could find. I’ve scoured the space inside the bubble as best I can and have become entrenched, waiting out the siege. I hear those particles clamoring to get in. It’s maddening. All those little voices!

            Voices hidden everywhere. In my keyboard. Behind my computer. On tops of the soup cans I’ve stored inside the bubble. In my clothing.

            I had to take throw all my clothing outside, so I’m sitting here naked. Which made me think, “why not entertain myself with some porn sites?” Until I realized that if I got stimulated, I would need something to wipe myself off with; and tissues contain particles that become dust.

            So, I threw out all of my tissues.

            And my toilet paper.

            But, now what do I do if I have to go doo-doo?

            So I threw out all my food rather than be tempted.

            And yet the voices continue!

            I drop to my knees, curl into a ball, whimper over my plight. If only I had listened to COB! But…. But… that’s just another little voice.

            What a fool I was to not look ahead. I could have gotten bubbles inside of bubbles inside of bubbles, putting sound insulation between the bubbles. Particleless insulation.

            Mass, meaning, mobility. Hidden inside of particles. Hidden inside dust. Surrounding us.

            No wonder we’re all so nuts.

            Had I only known!

            Michael

    • This is sooooooooo funnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!
      LMAO, still laughing!

    • OMG Deep Fax!

      I had no idea that you have access to the most insidious, most incredulous, most intense manifestion of complexity and confront.

      It’s possible various nefarious factions in our society will requisition these for their one dark purposes to spin or cave in individuals. What you provide sure has this capability for abuse.

      For myself, I stand up and applaud your courage, your resilience and your integrity to get this crap out in the open where it may enlighten some and perhaps help contain any damage caused by nefarious implementations.

      Bruce Pratt

    • Brilliant!

  13. Marty,
    That was a great write-up on what went down at Flag as influenced by DM … and then later exported elsewhere. It’s this kind of thing that’s really going to help unravel all the “COB knows best” think that is going on in the CoM. Showing how untrained Miscavige really is by these kind of enforced out-tech actions (as evidenced by how counter they are to LRH) is exactly the thing that will help those still “in” see the light, I believe.

    I’ve been having a conversation with someone still “in” who is on Solo NOTs, who says “I will never think that DM is bad for the church”. But being able to give a specific example, like the one you provided, of how he is squirreling will be really helpful. If you have the specific LRH reference (the SHSBC lecture) where LRH mentions the idiocy of creating an “electronic playback to determine instant reads”, that would be very helpful.

    Thanks, and I do hope you continue to provide more and more of these specific examples of his squirreling.

    • martyrathbun09

      I’d like to find that. Maybe some of the mavens around here can help me out.

    • I wonder, what would that Inner’s answer be to the question:

      “IF for some reason unbeknownst to you now you were to observe for yourself that David Miscavige had squirrelled something, would you definitely hold on to that viewpoint of ‘I will never think that DM is bad for the church’?”

      Just curious.

      • Yep, they still have to hold on to fixed idea nr 1: Davey’s always right. And in case he’s not, rule nr 1 is automatically applied. Trying to tell someone on lines that Davey does something wrong is way above their confront level and only gets you ARC broken. From their viewpoint their whole survival as a spiritual being depends on defending golden rule nr 1.

        You could talk to them not unlike the dissem drill: find their ruin with relation to the church, bring them up through hope, help and bring to understanding. And even then no gradient can be skipped and nonconfrontable items can’t be touched. The EP is something like them going out and doing an investigation on their own determinism.

        Telling them Davey’s wrong is a huge invalidation of their stable data. They’ll have to find out for themselves. It’s even hard to speak of lesser outpoints because there’s a huge not-iss on those as well.

        • Well, she and I have known each other for decades, were on staff together. Always respected each other. Two months ago, I let her know that I left the CoS (not the subject) and she was in shock. And she politely “disconnected” from me.
          But to her credit, every couple weeks, she sends out a little comm. At first it was a link to an anti-Marty site. I let her know that it didn’t address the issues head on, and was only DA material based on spite and revenge, not correcting lies with truth. I reminded her that there were 15+ individuals with firsthand accounts of physical violence — and also pointed her to the savescientology.com website. She said it was all “ridiculous”, but gave no reasons why.

          Two weeks later she sent me an LRH reference on why groups start thinking that Scientology is evil. I pointed out that this isn’t about thinking Scientology is evil.
          Thats when she said “I will never believe that Miscavige is bad for the church”. I gave her my research on the stats and reminded her how things are today compared to the 70s. She hasn’t responded yet.

          Overall, I think its a good sign that she’s willing to keep the comm line open. She’s also showed a willingness to look at the links I sent her. And I recently sent her links to the Truth Rundown series and friendsoflrh.com … so we’ll see where it goes …

          • You’re smart. Let her do her own research on her own time and keep in ARC and soon we’ll welcome her here. I think she will want to talk about it before she makes the big decission; you can let her know how Luis and others worked out their doubt.

    • “I will never think that DM is bad for the church”
      Is this the ep of NOTs or the final requirement to be invited on the level these days? OMFG!

      Bruce

  14. Hi Marty,
    You said:
    “I even found an LRH lecture where he stated during the SHSBC era that about the most idiotic thing someone could do is to create some high tech film playback system to debate the issue of instant reads. ”
    Could you quote the reference please? I don’t think LRH back in the early 60s anticipated the degree to which people would become obsessed by the instantness of reads.

    • Damn! I remember that lecture too but cannot think of the title. Double Damn! I wish we had SIR out here in the field. Every LRH bulletin, policy letter, ED, FO, lectures and advice were all in searchable libraries and your could find shit in an instant. I think it was devised by Foster Tompkins, legendary part genius/part loose cannon who is still decaying in the PAC mill. The guy who set up email for the Church in 1982, based on LRH’s directions years before the world had it at large, is making cabinets in the PAC mill going on 10 years.

      • Joe, a number of folks have the football – all HCOBs, PLs, bc lecture transcripts etc in digital format. I bet a computer maven amongst us could pretty easily work it out.

        • I have all the SHSBC lecture transcripts on my PC. Give me 2 or 3 search terms that might be unique to that lecture … and I’ll see what I can find.

          • martyrathbun09

            film, film equipment, electronic equipment, video, recording equipment, instant reads,

            • Marty, I’ve spent a couple hours searching … but no luck (but I’ve also discovered that I’m missing about 1/4 of the transcripts to the lectures, so that may be the problem).

              Maybe someone here will remember which lecture its from. I haven’t listened to the SHSBC lectures myself.

      • I figured out the platform and technology to use last year and have posted links for info on it several times here on this blog. Never gotten any interest or duplication but am still hoping it will get traction at some point.
        tl;dr version – low cost solution could be up-and-running in a matter of weeks and available to anyone in the world.

        • David, I know a guy who’s spent 25 yrs accumulating everything (including some lectures that haven’t been released since the 50s, and aren’t part of the latest releases). He’s also digitized the whole thing, and made it text-string searchable. He’s willing to sell it, but it wouldn’t be cheap. But I’d love to see we as a community acquire this somehow.

          • The solution I’m talking about would not only host an easily search-able repository of all Source references, but could host a search-able LRH biography (research track, date range, personal testimonials, video etc.), geo-search-able practitioner base and real-time statistical compilation…among other things.
            Very powerful, inexpensive and relatively easy to implement.
            But it would need more than me to do it.

            • I hear ya. To me, though, most important step is to get the equivalent of SIR available in the field.

            • All you’d need is you, bandwidth, and Google.

              Seriously. Upload the lot to a public repo, put a web front end on it and inform Google’s spiders to crawl and index at will. Voila! Instant index. Possibly not as complete as you’d like (an in-house index that does everything can be Phase II) but definitely good enough for the vast majority of searches that will be done (by keyword)

  15. First, I want to let Deep Fax know that he really got me laughing -hysterical.
    DM didn’t earn his title as King of Squirrels by being anyone’s fool. Of course, he was going to have untrained bozos in charge of metering and Trs. “Was it a read? No it wasn’t-yea it was” He got everyone stuck in a “maybe”which creates insanity.

  16. Marty,
    I really enjoyed this glimpse inside the FLAG technical “machine”. All I can bring to the discussion is observations from my time as a public at FLAG – during my 6 Month Checks, which went on a continual decline as I became more and more disillusioned with the auditing that was enforced on me with each visit. I cannot tell you exactly when, but there came a point in time (and I think it became commonplace, but cannot verify this;) where auditors stopped checking false or protest at all during sec checks, no matter how confused, befuddled, angry/sad I became at their insistence that I had a reading question that I had to answer. I had several instances of this in subsequent visits; to the point where I just never returned to FLAG. Best decision I have ever made, BTW, and it was only AFTER I had done that, thinking myself somehow downstat because I could NEVER comply with their requirements in order to complete OTVII and move on to do OTVIII etc., that I finally ventured out into the internet, and found you & Mike out here, trying to get the word out. (for which I am VERY thankful).
    My only other addition to this discussion is to quote from one of the key technical references (in my opinion), and one that is entirely applicable to your post today on instant reads:

    From: ARBITRARIES HCOB – 23 AUGUST 1968
    [… snip …]
    “Here’s one – when the needle on an E-Meter read in the response to an auditor’s question, all you know is that the needle on the E-Meter read. That’s all you know. Now in the next few seconds you will prove out, as to whether the read was to the question or to something else like a protest. To assume anything else in regard to meter reads is an arbitrary and will close up that pc with a bang.”
    [… snip …]
    L. RON HUBBARD

  17. I have done Flag training from 2005 to 2008. Pro TRs and Metering, Academy Levels, Cl. IV internship, Ned and GRD V courses and Ned and GRDV Internships, PTS SP Spec, FPRD and FPRD Internship, almost all Flag Only RDs and have audited thousands of Publics and Staff and the FSO.

    What is Marty is introducing here is a very important subject. The Supervisors at Flag seemed to have a different opinion about instant reads and floating needles. I luckily had some good cramming and resolved that long ago, however YES the subject has been made complicated and doubts are resolved by an authoritarian “from up” decision.

    • Redarrow,
      Thank you for getting through that gauntlet and emerging with an easy confidence. That’s really good to hear.

  18. It’s so true. I never wanted to go on a meter course since 1997. It was loooking so difficult to complete. And the worst was Em 25. When it’s so easy to date locate in session, doing this drill was just impossible without to fake it to some degree. I was already a class 5 and I just couldn’t go into this course. So soon I was not permitted to audit. To hell with this little know best. Anyone has any idea why people have any faith in him? This post make me feel to do the revolution! Like in middle east… It’s enough of those lies!

    • martyrathbun09

    • I am going on record here as trying to remove EM Drills 22 and 25 from the metering course in 1996 as unnecessary, particularly for an Academy Levels student, but was, of course, overruled. The number of hours wasted by people laboring over those drills since must be in the gazillions. That failure still haunts me.

      • Joe,
        EM 22 used be on Level III, and 25 on IV. I vividly recall it. EM 22 took maybe an hour to get a student through. EM 25 took more, considering the date picked was UNCHARGED. But still, it never took more than a few hours, even on uncharged dates, to get the friggin’ thing. NO drills should be done that give a false impression of a session. This is no exception, and to pound people over this drill, when invariably in an ACTUAL session it is simplicity itself, is a suppressive act. I’m beginning to think that it’s possible on this one aribitrary drill DM had collapsed the subject of metering on people’s heads.

        He’s made this subject impossible. Metering is simplicity. The vast majority of the needle motion in a session has absolutely NO importance. Instant Reads, FNs, Dirty Needle, RSes. The rest of what the needle does, who cares, interesting, but of NO importance in a session.

        • “Considering the date picked was uncharged”
          EXACTLY! These 2 drills are done in such a way that they comtradict the whole lesson that an instant read is reactive thought. The 2 tapes devoted to this lesson are great and really get into why an instant read is instant. The meter does not read instantly on analytical thought, yet on these 2 drills, the coach is analytically writing down dates or numbers, and then the suditor is expected to find them based on instant reads. If you look at the history of the drills and HCOB 30 April 60 ACC TRS, they were done totally differently, and make sense. Altho this HCOB is also an assisted by, there is even an earlier reference, but I can not find that one. It may be in the earlier set of Tech Vols. Regardless, these 1960 versions of the drills make sense, as they are looking for real charge that will read instantly, or on dating drill for orders of magnitude, the coach simulates the read.
          Doing a real date and locate, based on real charge, is very easy and takes no time at all.

          • Mona,
            That HCOB is not in the Tech Vols. To my knowledge it has NEVER been cancelled. In any event, the dating drill is in it and it’s real and the HCOB is perfectly valid.

            The emeter falls on a ‘disagreement with reality’ per EM Drill 16. On EM 22, a this life date students would find the WRONG date reading. Of course it would, since the one the coach wrote down, even though a non-charged item, wasn’t the date being called and the date being taken was disagreed with!! That’s why it fell (and mostly teency little ‘falls’ at that with such a teency ‘disagreement with reality’.)

            This whole issue, if coached with reality, just like it says in the Coaching HCOB, could be obviated and the meter used easily, but that would mean auditors auditing and that cannot be in DM’s world.

            (The ACC TRs HCOB from 30 April 60 and it’s dating drill clearly deal with this issue of an uncharged date in EM 22/25, by taking a date that IS charged with either a this life time injury which the coach has forgotten or the first overt on a member of the coach’s family or a close friend).

          • Personally I think people tend to make 22 and 25 too difficult.

            Actually they are both easy and fun drills to do if you are in comm with the coach and the coach is coaching it correctly.

            We used to practice these drills in Qual all the time and were able to get a BDF/N on the correct date.

            Getting into all kinds of possible bank phenomenon is just not doing the drill.

            To me this is like wondering what kind of charge the coach has on the Preclear Origination sheet per EM 19.

            Who cares!

            The question is did you get an instant read when you said the origination?

            On 22 or 25 it will read on the correct date even if the date has no charge or significance to the coach if the drill is done correctly.

            Why?

            Again who cares!

            • martyrathbun09

              RJ – I am with you. Complexity and Confronting again. Jeez, that one little ole PL splains a lot don’t it?

            • RJ,
              Like I said, I’ve never had any trouble getting guys through either one. My students coached with reality and the issue Instruction and Examination: Raising the Standard Of. That is, with the purpose of the drill achieved and with NO OTHER INEPT CRITICISM of what those drills are for.

              DM has another intention: NO auditors.

              • Jimbo,

                Long before DM2 entered the mix many thought that the purpose of the drill was to get a pass and go on to next checksheet item and never made the connection that these drills actually applied to *auditing*.

                Like the idiot that Ron talked about in TRs Basics Resurrected who said they never used TRs when they audited.

                However there may come a time when you might actually have to use 25 in a session environment like when the PC can’t find the exact date they felt fine about going into things.

                This is even mentioned in the D&L HCOB.

                We can’t just blame Skippy for any short comings we may have as auditors.

                We’ll just fall into the same trap that the Orgs have fallen into with DM1.

                DM2 as far as I’m concerned is mutually exclusive to correct technical application.

                He merely like his progenitor shows us how *not* to do it.

        • Jim and Dan, I really enjoyed em22 and 25. I never bought into the significance of it. I would deliver the command and get the read and enjoyed doing it . On the other side of that there were people who put in hundreds of hours, with a lot of frustration and upset. If your tr’s were in and you were in pt with your twin it worked, if not it did not. I always hand picked my twin one of comparible magnitude, did not matter to me if a Supervisor was standing behind me or not. It was almost as if the Supervisor was waiting for you to fail at those two drills.

      • I’m with you Joe,

        Precise dating is not a skill required on the lower levels too much.

        Also I’m sure you know that the original book of E Meter drills used to list off the required drills for what level.

        You know the one that was canceled because it was edited by Mary Sue which is why I hung on to my original “Clearing Series” Booklets.

        Anyway according to the “Drill List by Level”

        EM 22 is listed at IV and 25 at V.

        So you can imagine how *out gradient* they’d be to a newbie just learning how to meter.

      • I spent years–yes, years–trying to get through Pro Metering, completely because I got stuck on 22 and 25. Never felt truly certain about my instant reads even after I passed the video (so yeah, false attest, but I DID call three correct reads on the video). Anyway, it really was my demise as an auditor trainee. Getting and calling reads. TR’s and metering. Big factor in me leaving the church, not wanting to waste any more of my life in the Academy.

      • Dan,
        Even if you had succeeded, Davey would still have perverted metering the way he did. Even though I could finally do EM 22 and 25 (on good coaches) even with all Davey’s perversions, I never needed them in all of my CL IV internship . Those inapplicable and incorrectly included drills only served the purpose of preventing auditors being made.

        Drills and auditing should go hand in hand because theory and mass should be balanced. Getting reads in sessions is so much easier and thus a good grasp of the auditing comm cycle is gotten from auditing, not from yelling at a meter in a classroom.

      • Some of the worst torture I’ve ever experienced in my life, those drills.

  19. Geeze – what a shambles. Thanks for the background data that puts perspective to the insanity that thundered down the lines.
    You know, I feel somewhat strange realising my somewhat fly by the seat of its pants Class 4 Acad across the other side of the planet, with no course admin, Org with one somewhat trained qual terminal, ethics too busy with staff was more on source and standard than the boss of the Mecca Elite.
    Boy, the frustration must have been horrendous that close to DM, yet withheld due to fear… sigh – Geeze!

  20. I was looking through my 1967 printing of 8-8008 yesterday and I found this quote by L Ron Hubbard. It is the last 3 sentences in this book and it is printed in all capital letters for emphasis. It goes,
    “IF YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL KNEW THE TRUTH AND WERE PROCESSED TOWARD THE TRUTH, YOU WOULD BE FREE. ONLY LIES DEGRADE YOU. THIS IS THE LESSON OF SCIENTOLOGY.”
    It is from a chapter called GAMES PROCESSING. I couldn’t find this chapter or this quote in the newest version of 8-8008.
    I thought I would share it as it seems relevent to recent posts. ml, Laura

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Laura. I’d been interested in the result if any you mavens took it upon yourselves to confirm whether this was edited out.

      • I looked through quickly and didn’t find it but, I will look more closely to be sure.

        • martyrathbun09

          Laura, Got it. I wasn’t questioning what you did. However, sometimes they moved certain passages around. Miscavige had them dissecting like every scrap of paper they could find – transciptionist notes, LRH m/ses, LRH m/ses with LRH’s corrections, etc. A lot of his “breakthroughs” were his opinions that some paragraph should have come at the end of a chapter instead of the middle and hogwash to that effect. So, while I have no doubt they altered it, I am interested in whether he buried it entirely. Takes some painstaking work to figure out sometimes.

          • Marty,
            I knew you weren’t questioning me. You’re right about how the new books are written. That’s why I need to look more closely. You’re right, it may be moved or inserted differently. I’m interested myself so I plan to figure this one out. I hate when anything is changed and the specific change isn’t noted. I also need to know why and not some generality like “the blind leading the blind” or the stenographer screwed up. This isn’t truth for me these generalities stick my attention and disperse me to the point, I don’t know what I know. I don’t like that. I plan to dig into my new and Original books and decide for myself what is true. Thanks Marty for a buttload of TRUTH lately! ml, Laura

            • Laura,
              Great. Please keep me in the loop. Major deletions or edits that alter meanings are of interest to thousands out here.
              Marty

              • My take on the new books is simply that DM was losing the trademarks on the old books because the copyrights were running out on the originals. So in order to keep the copy rights he changed the text around and recopyrighted the books good for another 30 years. In order to protect the monopoly he also had to make sure that all Scientologists burned or got rid of their existing books and replaced them with the new copyrighted versions. It went so smoothly and the revenues were flowing naturally here was an opportunity to make more money with the buy ten sets for your friends family and libraries.

                If DM had come out and explained it in the first place I wouldn’t have gotten my shorts in a knot but the inval he heaped on us old timers that we never got the data and were blind etc was too much.

          • I have several versions of 8-8008. By the Oct-1975 version, that paragraph had already been taken out.

            In the 2007 (Basics) version, however, the entire chapter “Games Processing” was removed (along with a lot of other changes of course).

            • Thanks Margaret. You have hit on why Miscavige, and anyone for that matter, ought to stop trying to edit LRH. So, LRH later says creative processing is not used in modern Scientology because it “beefs up the bank.” So Miscavige takes it out of 8-8008. Why did he not then edit it out of the PDC? By the time this punk it through with the technology it will be unrecognizable.

              • Marty,
                Another edit that irks me is in Ethics Book. Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics. From the older Vol O to the new Ethics book, and new Vol O, is just happened to lose 3 entire paragraphs regarding the second dynamic.

                I can predict why this paragraph needed to go:

                “Second dynamic out-ethics hit at the very heart of our future survival. The whole future of the race depends on its attitude toward sex and children. When children become unimportant to a society, that society has forfeited its future.”

                I am sure that statement upset some doubt formulas just like the original LOC course. Can’t have SO or staff members deciding children are valuable or they might become self determined – becoming unruly cogs in the wheel just gums up preconceived plans.

                Lucky we, with access to the NET and the LRH writings available. Luck we, who did not throw away our older books even though we were told they were “squirrel.” Luck we, who still have free will, free thought and can still act as free beings!

            • Margaret,
              Thanks! I didn’t have a 1975 version. I also couldn’t find the chapter in the 2007 version. ml, Laura

              • Laura Ann, One thing I’ve been doing for the last year and a half (since leaving the Church), is getting old copies of everything I could get my hands on. I even made friends with a guy who literally has spent the last 25 years scouring the globe for all the original reel-to-reel lectures, issues, bulletins, books, etc. Not only that, he’s digitized the entire thing to be searchable! One of these days, it’ll be made available to everyone (I hope). But at least it’s been done, which was a huge task in itself.

                • one of those who see

                  Wow!!!

                • Margaret,
                  That’s amazing! You’re a smart gal! ml, Laura

                • Yes – I have quite the collection myself – Reel to reel PDC, first editions of Self Analysis, How to live though an Executive, Notes of the Lectures, and other books, several versions of each book, and the full set of the latest bunch. Not to mention a whole slew of original Ability Mags from the 60s, and a few mags from the ’50s.

                  Digitizing them is not a bad idea – but there are a whole slew of copyright issues to deal with. I have the originals, and have not copied any of them.

                  I don’t trust anyone when it comes to editing LRH.

                  • GH, it’s also nice having those early originals so when LRH mentions a “recently released book” or something in a lecture, you know exactly what he’s talking about.
                    On the copyright, yes, that’s the big stumbling block. I’m fairly sure it’s legal to copy/digitize something for one’s own private use. But it’s when it gets shared, distributed or especially sold, that one runs into the copyright legality issues.

                  • http://www.l-ron-hubbard-bibliotheca.org/text/The_copyrights_of_the_works_of_L.Ron_Hubbard_are_in_public_domain

                    Besides the question of what actually are the works of L. Ron Hubbard and what is mere alter-is, and besides the question of how far does copyright go with respect to exercising a religion, there is another burning question and that is:

                    “Who actually owns the copyrights of the works of L.Ron Hubbard? Popular beliefs are that they belong to the RTC (wrong, they just own most of the trademarks), the New Era Publications Inc. (wrong, they are just licensees) or the L.Ron Hubbard Library (well, this is actually not a legal entity at all but just a name under which the Church of Spiritual Technology does business – you can find out more about it under…”

  21. I find this term “Squirrels” absolutely abhorrent, and I’m dismayed to see it being used so openly and brazenly.

    One of the biggest complaints you hear from Scientologists is around the issue of religious bigotry, and that you should be allowed to believe what you want to believe, in the way you want to believe it, and this is particularly true of Independent Scientologists. So why is it ok for you to use these insulting terms?

    Referring to people who practice or believe in different things than you in this derogatory way is disgraceful in the 21st century.

    While I’m at it, I am also stunned to see you still using terms like “SP” , “DB” and “1.1”.

    You guys should be setting the example for how to communicate – not labeling people like that, and you will never get any credibility until you grow up.

    • martyrathbun09

      Sid,
      I suggest you recognize that words are simply symbols substituting for concepts.
      as to you question: So why is it ok for you to use these insulting terms?:
      Because I’ve taken a lot more than I’ve ever dished out, and because we live in a country where freedom of speech is guaranteed.
      Marty

    • Sid,
      I don’t quite understand what the point is. Those words are in the Tech dictionary and LRH issues & tapes, to communicate concepts.

      What words do you suggest to communicate those concepts to others? Would one go about and now invent a new Indy language as the existing ones seem to create charge on some?

      There was a “new” term of “Overnight SP” on this blog, but that’s just a joke based on Dear Leader’s antics.

      • Yes Sinar
        “overnight SP” was humor.
        Do not forget, there is also “Overnight NON-SP”
        “Overnight NON SP” examples ~~
        For Years and Years the IRS was named as the Major SP of all government agencies. They were deeper SP than psychiatrists !

        !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        +++++So how did the IRS flip from being a Deep SP to a good *FRIENDLY* agency ?

        $$$$$$$$ Baby, $$$$$$ Show me the money !!!
        501C3 Tax exemption makes a deep SP enemy Government Agency NO LONGER an SP. Overnight. Just like that ! AN SP group was UN-SPed !

        Does Money $$$$$ make you SP or not SP ????

        So now we have OVERNIGHT SPs ~~ i.e. parishioners who have contributed exorbitant amounts of time and $$$$ who are suddenly detected as SP although no one had the perception to detect them as SP in previous years.

        An example of an Overnight NON-SP would be the IRS. After event after EVENT after “international Event” slamming the IRS as the biggest SP of all time, low and behold the IRS was un-SPed OVERNIGHT.

        You may also, through a *special *program via Mike Sutter, Hansuili Stahli or Marion Pouw (Meisler/Dendui) UN-SP yourself
        *OVERNIGHT* if you openly renounce Marty and Mike and say terrible things about serious Church enemies.

        I name these with humor but these SP/non SP States states are factual.

    • Hey Sid-

      If I referred to you as a politically correct asshole who’s got some considerations and perhaps misplaced significances would I too disgrace the 21st century?

      Just wondering.

    • It is a Scientology concept used to refer to a phenomena which has and does occur. It was used by the founder so we continue to use it. Or did that aspect not communicate from the appropriate section in Marty’s post?

      Bruce

    • If you run into an asshole in life, what do you call him? ‘Non-optimum person’? How about a serial killer? What do you call him? ‘Unfortunate remover of lives’? Someone who puts others down all the time? ‘Non-lifter Upper’?

      Personally, I like Dickhead, Dickwad, Asshole, Shithead, Dipshit, Prick, Slimy Bastard, Muthafucka, Scumbag, Bunghole, Twat, Peckerhead, Fuck stick and more but I like to save those for special circumstances.

  22. Marty,
    Thanks for providing the information of that mid 90’s era mess and confusion, prior to GAT. I can’t think with the fact of a non-tech trained person or the “final ” authority who flunked their levels internship being the Standard. Blind leading the blind, indeed; as a situation continuing to PT.

    This is such a contrast to video critiques and passes sent up when the old man was on the lines, such as day vs night, good vs evil, and the entire gamut of extremes! There was no high video tech in those days, just a controversy between the Sony Beta and VHS modes. What a joke!

  23. WOW Marty! You just explained my pro metering course to a tee. And I use to think it was me. You are the MAN!!!!

  24. la versione italiana

    Funny I just finished a post on Squirrels and you were covering this too…
    DM is a true SP and he can lead and do all he has being doing because he has the support of people that do not have integrity, and do not know what the basics are…. they are so far from owning them… those people are the WORSE squirrels… the very people that are destroying the Tech.
    My advice is always ‘to train’ but to really duplicate concepts as opposed to get stuck on words…😀

  25. Yes, I agree with Sid, squirrel is not the proper term. It was used to discredit earlier attempts to get out of the monopoly, was redefined as a political term. Now, using this word against the one who created the use of this word to discriminate people who were not agree with the take over in 82 is brilliant. Now, I remember going to flag mid eighties, sea org members wearing coat with on the back “squirrel no!”. That was a bloody Glutz PR. I simply didn’t know such a cat existed!
    But the world which define the best Miscavige for me is not squirrel, it’s FASCIST, AUTHORITARIAN as described in an “essay on managment”.
    He is a fascist as any earlier fascist which existed on human history… Nothing new, anyone should read “an essay on managment”. It’s all there in tech volume 1.

  26. “stat crasher”, “dangerous auditor”, “Know best”, “creator of ARC broken field”, we are missing some… oh yes “not so bright who needs to assert his self importance”… by the way, we are the ARC broken field, a big field… of out lists, inval of case or gain, no auditing and maybe “not attained” people. Courtesy of mister Arbitrary reintroduced! (not bad this one?)

  27. Marty,

    I think DM2 (as I like to call him now) or Skippy must have a lil’ checklist or to do list on how to wreck the tech.

    I mean even DM1 didn’t transgress into the holiest of holies of metering itself by trying to redefine an instant read or F/N.

    I’d actually seen students highly trained auditors who had done the “Hubbard” Pro Metering Course who ended up more confused than when they started.

    No longer having any certainty whatsoever on their metering.

    Some “product”.

    I also know about the false reads datum.

    I tried showing the HCOB regarding that to one of the what read “obsessed” lunatics at ASHO only to be accused of being a “squirrel”.

    Ah……the bitter irony!!!!!!
    🙂

    • RJ,
      When I was on the Solo Nots Certainty Course (GAT for people on OT7) in 1996 my twin and I were not allowed to do M4’s (word clearing) because we had not done GAT. My twin interned under LRH on the Apollo. We were basically told it would be squirelling and treated like we couldn’t know anything.
      My question was if none of us knows how to read a meter does that mean we will all go back and have every process and bridge action we have ever done rechecked for reads and EP’s? Does this mean we may not actually be where we are on the bridge? How can it be both ways?
      To me, for this reason, GAT reasoning is the biggest dichotomy/arbitrary concept ever to come down the pike. Can you imagine LRH ever covertly evaluating and invalidating every person’s case state in such a way? And if he would, which he wouldn’t, he would follow through and do something about it. He wouldn’t leave people there.
      It seems the cob is now reviewing peoples bridge actions (15 years later) in his usual mass C/S, arbitrary, put everyone in the same category, A=A kind of way with objectives, purif and drug rundowns.
      ARBITRARY ARBITRARY ARBITRARY SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • I feel like a blog hog but, I just remembered something else. On that GAT Solo Nots Certainty Course in 1996 we were squished like sardines into the courseroom, having to yell to be heard on E-meter drills. There was inadequate preparation for all the guys on 7 being called back to do this course. The second courseroom was being built while we were there. And almost everyone was sick! The percentage of sick students was high. We had cold type symptoms. You could smell the cough drops all over the courseroom. There was coughing, sneezing, runny noses and soar throats galore. I forgot how horrible that was.

        • No wonder practically everyone was sick!

          This whole “Golden Age of OT” thing was a total *inval*.

          Remember what the Ol’man said in KSW about people making something wrong good or bad because of their ser facs.

          For them DM2 gave them a *Golden* opportunity to make Standard Tech *wrong* by issuing the “Golden Age of Tech and OT”.

          This whole you can’t audit because we have issued the “Golden Age of Tech” is nothing but a big ser fac.

          In fact the whole “reasoning” behind it i.e. that the blind were somehow leading the blind is nothing but a ser fac computation *not* an actual why.

          And as you know ser facs are a cousin to e purps and I think the evil purpose or intention behind all this was to make nothing of or unmock the tech under the guise of “preserving and protecting” it which is what happens when you allow a lunatic to run the show.

          The fact is that if CST was actually doing their job DM2 would be pulling weeds and scrubbing toilets with a tooth brush and maybe his case would have been handled by running the correct Pr Pr.

          In other words they had their 9 foot fence.

          They just failed to climb it.

          Instead almost everyone seemed to go *suppressively* reasonable and allowed the little uneducated moron probably with an IQ of 50 ruin the organization because he had elevated himself to the mythical level of “COB”.

          A non-existent post for a terminal who is well below non-existence and operates at *treason* or below as SOP.

          As far as I’m concerned acknowledging him as the “Spiritual Leader or the Pope of Scientology” is just perpetuating a “Government Approved” and “Tax Exempt” charade.

          Let’s just call a spade a spade and say what “legally and officially” calls itself the “Church of Scientology” *isn’t*.

          It has nothing whatsoever to do with the “Religion of Scientology” and the less time we spend pretending that the *false flag operation* known as the “Church of Scientology” has anything to do with Scientology the better off we are.

  28. Wow Marty. It does help explain how Flag lost it’s ability to perform as Ron’s Org and crack the toughest cases as well as deliver to his exacting standards.

    As I look at the scene with an untrained eye, it makes sense to me that C/Sing for the PC longer occurs (which is in direct violation to Act One) and gets reduced to the grade chart, then degenerates into executive C/Sing from on high.

    By the way, in the I was wondering does anyone have any data department. Edy Lundeen was the first Cl XII I met. In about 89, she was Tech. By 2000 she was Admin, FSC for the Northwest US. Was her reassignment related to this enforced overwhelming confusion?

    Bruce Pratt

  29. I really hope Hell exists – it is the only fitting location to house DM.

    • Duty Free

      “I really hope Hell exists – it is the only fitting location to house DM.”

      Well, on that score, I’m pretty sure it does. I find that one tends to create their own personal “hell” out of all those things that they cannot confront and the wreckage of their dynamics caused by overts and “out ethics” behavior. One couldn’t ask for a better “hell” as it is 100% tailor-made for the individual.

      The amazing thing about it though, is that the being who constructed it and lives in it, is the only one capable of as-ising it.
      With REAL HELP, everyone is capable of climbing out, should they choose.
      Some are on the path out. Some have no idea where to start but realize they need to do something, and some seem to figure it is safer to hide in their suffering than to even consider that their travails might have something to do with them.

      WW

  30. Marty, et. al.,

    I sincerely want to thank you for more cathartic experiences via this blog and its contributors.

    Today, I spent a couple of hours chatting (and conspiring?!?!!!!!) with another recent independent here at the dining room table. Towards the end of our conversation we were trying to schedule co-auditing OTV. How’s that for change of viewpoint and operating basis!

    From the bottom of my heart, my soul, (my thetan?)………….

    Tom Gallagher

  31. Marty,

    Great post. I am looking forward to your previous mention on this blog, about the RPF “Final Assessment” step of it’s program. One of the worst inventions of Miscavige ever on Tech Lines.

    I am sure others can hyme in on this. I know personally individuals who were on this step for years, up to 5!

    Imagine having to go in Session every day for 5 years having to pick up the cans and get the same 10 page assessed on you, albeit on video.

    Pure implant stuff.

  32. Climbing a 9' High Board Fence

    Of interest to me is the spirit and tone of the mechanical approach to TRs and Metering, not just the machines themselves but the individuals involved in that evolution becoming more mest.

    I’m reminded of the mood and tone of these major shifts away from the days when “If it isn’t fun, it isn’t Scientolofy”. Perhaps some old timers remember that campaign and slogan.

    As theta was disregarded, communication shredded and beings invalidated, what was once fun was gutted.

  33. Scott Campbell

    Ahhh Marty,

    What a beautiful soul ye are, man. ‘Tis the ring of truth that is read in yer words. Truly the Mad One is tryin’ (in vain) to destroy the immortals once again. I shall not despair that all our glorious efforts have gone for naught however; as long as those such as ye are manning the parapets.

    Too bad about Angie, she was a pretty squared away terminal when I knew her at Flag and on the Freewinds.

    Scott

  34. A lot of things are being made possible with technology. Here is a wonderful example that Sinar shared with me today: http://youtu.be/2NENlXsW4pM
    Be sure to watch the last 3 minutes.

    Now, I don’t know whether this can bridge the gap between auditor and preclear, but it would be a cinch to critique TR videos and recorded metering videos at long distance. And for sure a co-audit session could be supervised long distance.

    Cyberspace, for some reason, is very dangerous territory in the mind of DM. He won’t go near it.

    • JH,

      Yes, the internet is brilliant for critiqueing videos and co-audits – in fact, for almost anything that is audio-visual and you are looking at it after the fact. Live audio-visual, where the entire stream must stay intact – not so much. It’s how the internet was built and what it was designed to do, and it’s not a phone🙂

      Which brings me to your last paragraph. The design spec of the internet itself is probably what scares DM – it cannot be controlled, it has no authority and every terminal on it is free to communicate with any other willing terminal on it. We all know how obsessed DM is with controlling comm-lines. And the internet, by definition, is not controllable. Hell, it doesn’t even have any mass – everything is pure significance, and nothing, not one single atom or even an itsy-bitsy bit of energey, leaves the source to arrive at effect. For someone thoroughly encased in MEST, that must be terrifying indeed.

    • Dan, Sinar sent this to me also. It’s incredible . I couldn’t help but think of this blog. So many people, Indies, Anonymous and non Scientologists from all over the world coming together here to agree, disagree but most importantly agreeing to communicate. It’s a beautiful thing. Love

      • Right Sarge … we have become a virtual choir. H

        • one of those who see

          +1 ! Loved the video!!!!! What a theta guy the composer/conductor is. Reminded me of how beautiful we all are and how wonderful the future will be with freed beings.

    • Mrs. Friend of Ron

      Wow, thanks for the OT video😀

    • Awesome Joe, really loved that. I also have to say that the TED videos as a whole are pure theta, they represent the best of who we are on this planet.

  35. HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1964
    INSTRUCTION & EXAMINATION:
    RAISING THE STANDARD OF

    “The basic reason students remain long on courses stems from inept
    criticism by instructors regarding what is required.”
    LRH

    DM and his minions have taken “INEPT CRITICISM” to higher highs and more egregious arbitrariness than LRH could have imagined in his wildest nightmares.

    • Les,
      Thank you. That reference is THE reference violated. The outpoints of altered-importance and wrong target. Add in some Missing Scene from DS 10 as to what a real session is and a dose of giant Ser Fac on the part of a Sup and voila – DM’s courseroom. Implant ‘auditing’ – Reverse Scn.

  36. I was one of those students. Thanks, Marty, for helping me blow more charge on that confusing era of my life:)

  37. How far will DM allow the Tech to be perverted?
    A Sad day for Scientology and Humanity, the video speaks for itself !

    • Sparrow would find himself garnering a lot more support if he wasn’t so obsessed to have to put inane, paranoid claims to his pleas like Study Tech is somehow dangerous.

      • This is actually planned outside of Sparrows scope of operations. WWP doest want to see him elected to the educational board. He is back at doing what he does best.

        Study-Tech is actually the thing that gets some young people intrested in Scientology but the WWP percievedt end phenomenon of them becoming a cult-member is what drives this “atack on Study Tech” as you see it. That is not entirely a falsehood as I have spoken to a student girl online who got suckered in that way. She even had to stack miscaviges Scotch.

        Mass , Gradiënts, Misunderstoods become Using pictures and Diagrams, Breaking down complex concepts, Seeking definitions for unfamiliar terms.

        Main argument used against it is that it is developed outm of the Scientology materials.

      • Marty , could you please re-phrase this statement from the above comment:
        “paranoid claims to his please like Study Tech is somehow dangerous.”
        makes no sense what-so ever, thanks…and please don’t tell me a nice round of dientic auditing will help me figure it out because it wont, thank-you.

  38. Yes, re em 22 and 25, I just remember of the B
    ook of emeter drills edited in the seventies, you know this little green one (there was in brown the Book of case remedies, ha… I was young and handsome…) Well I clearly remember in the historical part that it was written : “developped by Marie Sue Hubbard”. No disrespect for her (how could they not announced her passing ?) but she was not the Source. So, while those drills might be of use to some points, they were pretty unreal for a real auditor. A charged date usually blows rapidely, you don’t care about the date, you want the blow of the mass, that’s it. I don’t remember whether in solo or with a PC having to date anything to any fraction. To do a full 25 while auditing is very unlikely but possible as the date is well hidden and CHARGED. But to pass a 25 on a randomly invented date which is UNCHARGED looks to me impossible. When I said that to a sup, I was told my TR’s were certainly shit. And I saw some non auditor pass the drill with apparent ease. So, I thought : “Got those golden ager are really good, I’m an old service facky…”
    Well… that is a mystery, the one of the glorious virgin golden age auditor who seems to be auditing fresh and innocent while dirty old timers find excuses to not follow the tech! Nobody understood why I could have blown out PC’s! Maybe because of my shit TRs, I made them laugh in session!

  39. Great historical. Always a good read.

    Each day they were frantic to get several on the airport run to Miscavige, who had to give final passes.

    Its a mystery to me why an untrained person would be in a position to pass anything.

    A One-man church.

    He sent them that fancy video player because they could slow it down to incredibly slow speed and definitively determine whether a read was instant or not.

    Good idea. One merely instructs the PC to react, think and respond in slow motion.
    Problem solved. Brilliant dwarf.

  40. I’d like to see that machine that Angie used that slowed down the needle and sound, to determine if the reads were prior or latent.

    I think it is physically impossible for a read, actually, to be entirely perfectly “instant”. It’s likely gonna be more prior than latent, in my opinion, if we had a really good high speed camera and good audio feed that is truly simultaneous with the video.

    I’ve seen a BBC TV show where they use a machine which printed out the patient’s mental output in terms of a graph of the increased electrical activity that indicated the person has reacted, and in the BBC TV show, most of the time the device showed the patient’s reaction was PRIOR.

    I’ll bet with high speed camera and perfect synced audio, it would be a lot more priors than latents.

    I have thought so long on this, due to so many false flunks by video critiques.

    The pc’s case is MORE important than the meter. I frankly audited by the seat of my pants on instant reads, and if I took up a false read, then you just check false or protest and handle it.

    And when getting the answer to a charged question, that read, you get the same read, or a bigger similar read.

    I hated bad meter video critiques, and I hated all the bullshit bad video critiquing on F/Ns.

    In the late 1990s, that F/N fiasco period was a good example of how a group of people go into agreement on a whole false set of ideas, and are content to punish each other, and ser fac on each other, about what an F/N is/was.

    For that alone, the subject of Scientology is NOT a mature subject, if this type of crap can go on.

    To me it was the group putting its attention on the meter, when we lost sight of the pcs’ cases!

    I thought auditing was about the pc’s case, not a bunch of make wrong of the auditors, and getting all stuck in the meters, that was just a grueling time period.

    On the Int RPF, we went about 4 weeks, which 80-90 percent of the RPFers after session “red tagging” because the fad got so bad, that the examiner was being so scrutinized, that NOT calling an F/N if you were the Examiner, was a safer bet, because the fad was that there were NO F/Ns.

    In that environment, when the meter interferes and makes the preclears all introvert, that is a group violation of putting the preclears attention on the meter, on the preclears’ F/Ns.

    Thanks for the explanation. This is quite a lot of good history, and honesty.

    It’s astounding the David Miscavige has been allowed to be over tech like this, when the man is not an auditor, not a C/S, he has a menacing beingness, he is about as scary and unsafe looking person, he vibrates with suppressed menace.

    I’m curious if he in all his years as COB, has he ever audited anyone?

    This is so disgraceful that David Miscavige has his hands on the tech controls of the movement, when he is NOT an auditor.

    • I was at Flag @ 2000 on the Flag Metering Course or whatever it was called, Sups giving you pink sheets about phonetics and stuff . I don’t remember what it was called. I don’t remember much of it because I was sort of in a state of confused shock. It was a very complex “how could it be that way” handling for the instant read thing. Sups were demonstrating to you using a pencil what an instant read was. “Where is the end of the pencil?” You see, if you say the instant read is at the end then it couuld not be that way because the pencil is gone or something. Therefore the instant read has to be on the eraser. Very overly complicated and bizarre. But it couldnt be wrong because it came from above and RTC isnt wrong, soooo… how could it be that way? Well, let’s see, if we take def # 32 from the full unabridged Websters and then don’t read these other LRH references it all makes sense, I guess. Ok, sup. I guess it could be that way if I just throw out my knowingness and walk around in a blank stare confusion for the rest of my life.

  41. I remember these times and I thought that Flag Tech lines had gone nuts since it was a nightmare to do the Pro Trs and metering over there. A new flunk had just been invented, surely coming from Miscavige: “Not friendly” the sups kept saying that line to most anybody in the courseroom. What a bunch of BS!

  42. The key references which SHOULD have been being applied during this period when F/Ns were under such scrutiny, were “TRs and Cognitions” and “Auditor Beingness”.

    Anyone who’d done a LOT of emeter drilling, and watched how a preclear’s needle reacts and loosens up due to the presence of the person/auditor who is doing the session or running the drill, people DO react to BAD TRs.

    And my secret feelings all through the dismal years of false attention on the meter, was we were missing putting attention on TRs meaning mainly the ARC and Beingness part of TRs, the part of TRs that make the preclear feel at ease, “in session” and NOT worried about the meter.

    I feel that honestly, that David Miscavige has gotten so used to dominating ALL around him, that on tech lines, he can throw his tech people into these sycophant beingnesses, or this faked happy face when people are really in fear, just under the surface.

    “Auditor Beingness” doesn’t grow on trees, it takes a lot of auditing by an auditor to get up to good enough “Auditor Beingness” to be a good HGC auditor. Some people have it naturally, but otherwise, like on the RPF, when you have just the wide variety of staff who end up on the RPF, really, the miscalling of F/Ns, due to crappy TRs of the RPF auditors, well there was the misunderstood on the F/Ns having to have 3 swings for one, but also there was just NOT enough attention on getting TRs up to snuff.

    ON the Flag Internship in 1976, if we had problems with F/Ning our pcs, the reference was NOT recognizing F/Ns correctly. The reference was TRs and Cognitions, and TR drilling so we were smooth and NOT causing the PC not to F/N by lousy Auditor presence.

    And these references are NOT in David Miscavige’s repertoire, since I don’t think he can audit, and he has a lot of work to do on his TRs.

    Miscavige thinks he’s had to bypass on the tech lines, due to Ray Mitoff’s failures (I’d rather go in session any day with Ray compared to going in session with Miscavige as my auditor). I think Int people got so stuck into Miscavige’s tech critique style, that if they never learned how auditor presence and beingness are so important to pc case gain, I mean if you haven’t firsthand seen just how with TRs alone, like LRH says in the TRs HCOBs somewhere, just getting one’s TRs polished up to professional quality, and good presence and beingness, that along gets case gain.

    Miscavige I think, is one who favors as stable beingness, his no nonsense ethics presence and displaying his anger, like the Ethics Presence policy letter says an exec must. But execs have their hat for getting work done and compliance. IN session, in the tech world, you can’t have your tough exec beingness intruding in the session. He displays his ser facs and domination, I’m the “only” one who sees the gross metering errors. He hasn’t a clue about how bad his TRs are. And no clue about TRs and Cognitions, and what gets the pc in session for real so the needle reacts smoothly!

    Chuck

    • Chuck, Once again you impress me with your acumen on the subject of Scientology. I thought it was just admin before, but you get tech like not many people do. I approached my meter training on the basis that the pc’s reaction to my TRs would be the first thing the meter would react to, just as LRH states. For example, I would not immediately assume MWH when I saw a dirty needle. I would first eliminate, “did I cut the pc’s comm in some fashion.” There is even a meter drill on creating a dirty needle intentionally by that means. With TRs IN, metering is simplicity itself. If your TRs are imeccable, then you’ve got a rippleless pond on which to note reactions. If your TRs are bad, you’ve got white caps to read through. That is why Hubbard’s last major project was the TR and Metering films. He’s said it in HCOBs and lectures going all the way back, and he said it in myriad despatches in connection with the tech films. You may as well not even be using a meter if your TRs are out, cause if your TRs are out you may as well be auditing yourself, because in fact the meter is reading on what you, the auditor, is doing to the pc. Chuck I am beginning to re-evaluate why Miscavige had you in prison for six (or was it eight) years. It might have been because with a simple glance you missed withholds galore on him – so he had to keep you locked away in order to live with himself.

    • Damn that’s insightful, Chuck. Thanks for pitching in here.

      Bruce Pratt

    • Chuck wrote: “On the Flag Internship in 1976, if we had problems with F/Ning our pcs, the reference was NOT recognizing F/Ns correctly. The reference was TRs and Cognitions, and TR drilling so we were smooth and NOT causing the PC not to F/N by lousy Auditor presence.”

      Wow! Now THAT indicated. What a concept … actually confronting and working with the live beings involved (the auditor and the PC) … and not just the machine (the e-meter).

      What a great observation Chuck. It is that kind of personal “I was there” experience that I really really hope gets preserved. Then again, as I was reading through SHSBC transcripts on the emeter yesterday … that was LRH’s message all along, and he was all over this stuff. The concentration on live beings is/was the message that LRH was conveying — the emeter was always secondary. This johny-come-lately “the emeter is god” approach is clearly a DM inversion … the beings (auditor and pc) are just an annoyance apparently.

    • Nothing wrong with Miscavige’s TRs that 40,000-50,000 hours of OT TR-O couldn’t cure…as a first step. Actually, I was thinking that since Scientology is not for everyone, as TC says, “you have to earn it”, DM should probably start with some lighter gradient of something like…Hinduism, in India, where they dig a hole and sit in it for 30 years or so to get some OT TR-O going on for themselves before they venture back out into the world with a better attitude.

    • Chuck,

      This was a very good post. Like Marty, I am very impressed with your duplication and understanding of red on white.

      You always have been and remain my dear Chuck.

      By the way, I feel it shameful that YEARS of sec checking was enforced on you but the gentle kindness and caring for you as a pc ~~you lost your mother at a tender age ~~ was not even given any significant handling.

      I more than understand why you call your yourself an atheist.

      • Tory Christman

        Chuck,
        I agree with Marty—you nailed it, man, and no doubt were a *big* threat to Davey boy, the king of zero TRs, zero beingness, creeped out weirdo who changed the “F/N” to “Has to swing 3 times, back and forth, back and forth”.

        I was at Flag when that went in—and as you well know, TOTALLY violates ALL of the tech people studied, drilled and successfully used, for years and years.
        What kind of idiot could come up with *that*? I remember thinking that—way back in the 90’s, when I was still “in”. It pretty much ended the “tech” as we knew it….and yes, put in phony “Ethics” presence that sucked for ALL. Thanks to you, and all here, and all who help expose the insidious abuses of the phony “church” of $cientology. Tick Tock…Tick Tock…..
        My love 2 U😉
        Tory/Magoo

  43. You know when I was in LA doing my OT levels i had a wonderful course sup on OT3 and he got me through the instant reads drill with a tremendous result that changed of course my knowledge and my own integrity on my own knowingness. The simple thing that he did which was the instruction written in the drill on how to get someone to know what an instant read is was : “flunk for comm lag”. That simple action got me a tremendous win, certainty on my metering and through OT3 in record time with very high stats in the course room. I was on staff at an org in new york and watched the course sup who must not have gotten through that drill herself sit for hours watching metering videos of students to figure out if they got an instant read or not. I talked to her about it and wrote it up to the CLO and up lines but it never got handled. What a night-mare!

  44. Marty,

    After I read this article, I have to say that if the tech of scientology stands any chance of surviving unalterated , that chance comes because of what you are doing.

    You are a consistent person and, unlike the C.of S. in its present form, you really mean what you state. Thanks for the clearifications.

    Paolo

  45. Marty,
    I did the Bridge though NOT”S outside of the CofS. The Auditors I had on the OT Levels were trined by LRH on the first Class VIII course. I recieved coaching on the phone, emails, and fax. I studied my metering at thier home and did the audited parts there also. I am very happy with the results 10 years later. I never stepped foot into a Church after the Student Hat. Tim Roland Class V OT Review Auditor ,NOTS Completion
    THETAN EXTERIOR, 1. a being who knows he is a spirit with a body and not just a body. (Aud 18) 2. he’s out but if the body were to be injured he would be back in. (PDC 52) 3 . a being not influenced by a body. (SH Spec 82, 6611C29)
    4 . a thetan who is clear of the body and knows it but is not yet stable outside.
    (Scn 8-8008 Gloss)

    • Well done, Tim.

      Thanks for that piece of data: “The Auditors I had on the OT Levels were [trained] by LRH on the first Class VIII course.” OUTSIDE THE incubator of the VCoD*. You don’t say when this was, nor how many auditors, but it is quite the outpoint that these initial standard bearers of Standard Tech had left the organization but not the philosophy.

      Bruce
      *VC0D (Vampiric Cult o’ Davie)

  46. Marty, there are statements, I think by Jesse Prince, to the effect that David Miscavige was able to forge LRH signature. In the early 80’s, while for long periods LRH was in seclusion, ASI was collecting money by selling special autographed editions of LRH books. They were signed by LRH or there was forgery (fraud)? What is your opinion on that, if you can tell?

    • I can’t imagine LRH sitting around siging his name on stuff like meters, books and whatnot like a retired sports hall of famer, but who knows.

      • Before he died, baseball great Ted Williams (on Ken Burns’ baseball documentary) admitted that the clubhouse boy did the daily signing of Williams’ name on photos and baseballs . I did get Jackie Robinson’s autograph in 1968, and I know it was genuine because in my presence, the man himself signed his name over his photo in my baseball book. Which is really the only way you can be COMPLETELY certain a signature is genuine.

    • The SO #1 Line was a misrepresentation except for a rare and occasional actual letter and signature from Ron. So was the ‘book signing’. The idea was nice, though.

    • My opinion is that yes, both Norman Starkey, and David Miscavige, who both could forge LRH’s signature most excellent, both forged and sold old books for higher prices.

      I didn’t see it, but when at ASI, and people were wanting to give their Mission Earth white leather volumes BACK to ASI, the ones that had the LRH signatures on them (unlikely), I guess we could sort this out by asking any of the people like Sinar or Sarge or JB, who might be able to tell us IF any of the white leatherbound “Mission Earth” (10 volume set sold by ASI) if they recall those sets going up to Creston, for LRH to sign!

      Also, ASI had a bunch of the Technique 88 manuscript copied copies, with LRH signatures.

      Those are the ones I suspected, when I was at ASI, as being possibly, probably forged copies of LRH “properties” being sold at thousands of dollars MORE due to having the LRH signature on them.

      I highly suspect the newer leatherbound special editions, any of those with LRH signatures, I would suspect.

      Also, since we have this forum, and thus a line to Sarge, to ask Sarge and Sinar, if they recall ANY of LRH’s books being sent to where LRH was, so LRH could autograph them, in the 1980s, would be a way to confirm IF LRH was given books, which he did autograph.

      I do know that for sure, lots of his DMSMH’s from 1950, those first couple printings, could easily be legitimately autographed items.

      I know that we used to give out LRH photos at Flag graduations, in the late 1970s, at Clearwater. ALL of those LRH photos which we gave out, ALL of them were given the fake LRH signature, which the SO # 1 personnel (Hank Billings, I believe Hank was the supreme LRH signature guy, but I imagine Lynn Visk also was able to do LRH’s signature, we should ask Lynn, she’s alive and I think she’s out, or ask Bob Visk, he would know if Lynn was doing LRH signatures for the SO #1 letters). The SO #1 line at Flag for years they answered LRH’s letters, and did the LRH signature on those letters, for years. It would have been “natural” for DM and Norman to fudge on the LRH properties, like the Mission Earth White Leather autographed set, which I even saw with my own eyes at ASI in the early 1990s, we got a set BACK from someone who gave it back to ASI for some reason, I think the person was trying to sell it on commission, couldn’t sell the set, and returned it to ASI to let ASI sell it. The point is my suspicion is that if Sarge and Sinar and JB can’t confirm that LRH was autographing books sent to him from ASI in the 1980s, then that strongly implies that DM and Norman did some signature fudging on the LRH properties that ASI was flogging.

      Chuck
      (I was at ASI from May 1992 till Dec 1995)

      • Didn’t do any direct runs to ASI, but Sarge did. I do recall him signing for the special editions of the Mark VI meter when it came out in 78/9?

        Those special properties from ASI was put in by DM to make tons of money in order to make up for losses of LRH’s personal funds due to DM and PB’s very risky investing actions in Wildcat oil wells and such. When he was COB ASI he had access to LRH’s cash and would disburse it to me for my projects involving LRH properties or complying to his orders such as getting a custom horse trailer done with automatic horse waterers. My normal source of funds was SO Mission funds for my projects in those days.

  47. “The auditor whose metering by-passes F/Ns or calls F/Ns at wrong points, or who tells the pc „That reads” „That blew down” etc., or who any other way uses the meter distractingly (the pc knows when he is being under or over run and knows when he is being mismetered),is of course violating the definition of In-Session. The pc’s attention goes to the meter, not his bank, so he doesn’t as-is or cognite.” TRS AND COGNITIONS, HCOB 26 Feb 71, Issue I.

    It is INTENTIONAL, the attack on TRs and metering by David Miscavige.

    • Thats how Flag and the Church trains you to audit. It’s called the golden age or some such thing. A magic thetan who was the chosen one by LRH thought of it. I’m just glad I didn’t get too much auditing or training before the golden age. It must have been pretty bad- the dark ages or something.

  48. This is squirrel. Doing sl0-mo session video reviews looking for “instant reads” with a micrometer is insane.

    Angie was a Class VIII in cert only to let that happen.

    To me, it makes more sense to focus on doing the right thing with the tech than focussing on squirrels who are screwing around with it. I think it is important to point out that certain techniques are ineffective and squirrel, but, really, delivering the tech is the vector that matters in the long run.

    The King of Squirrels is a different matter, however, because the Church has the legal right to lie about what they say they are: Scientology.

  49. Ok- a pattern?
    David Miscavige introduces an arbitrary or confusion that destroys or cripples an area. Then he introduces a “handling” that consumes everyones attention and resources. Ultimately the handling doesnt work (suprise) because it’s just another huge arbtrary (GAT, GAK, Ideal Orgs,etc), But no one spots Miscavige as the source of the problem. Probably because he’s forcing some huge new arbitrary down your throat and you forget about the last one and what it’s end product was.
    Maybe this serves him because he creates a dangerous environment, then positions himself as the savior.

    • I would say that’s a pretty sharp observation DFB. Apart from enabling him to position himself himself as the “Saviour” (of the mess he wantonly created) it’s another income source! Who can forget the legendary “ARBITARIES CANCELLED!!!” event in, was it 2003? Here’s DM’s speech before it got Shermanised (with apologies to the Master, OTDT):

      “Well, I introduced all these arbitaries to the Bridge to make it is difficult as possible for people to go OT. That worked a treat! There’s less people going OT than since the early 80s. Not only that, I’ve made the Flag routing-in quals such that only HCO/CMO qual’d people can get on lines, and even then only if they are Mother Theresa (except she’d be too ugly in actuality). The stat of people arriving at Flag and getting NO SERVICE is in POWER!!! Now, for my next amazing action as your self-appointed Saviour, I am going to introduce a whole new set of arbitaries! The Basics! You now have to burn all your LRH books and replace them the ones I’ve edited! (Thunderous applause)” etc.

  50. What is an instant read? This subject can be made really complicated. Just consider that the speed of light is far greater than the speed of sound. Then one has to exactly know how long the body electronics needs to translate the sight information and the sound information to pictures and words. Thus if you go deeper and deeper into that subject the more complicated it gets. Or how to decide if a digital sound recording is tone 40 or less than tone 40. How to detect tone 40 with a voice recording? If you boil it down then it will be clear that the auditor has to KNOW that this had been an instant read. And the PC had to know that the session started. I am not a super auditor. But as I told the PC this is the session then the PC knew that I am in full control of the session and his reactive mind has no chance. I and the PC did not care about my voice.
    There is no substitute for knowing. And that is basically the problem DM has. He does not know. He does not know if the memory he has had been a dream or had been real life. If you wake up and look at a picture of a dream and look at a picture of your yesterdays breakfast then the picture itself does not tell you if that picture is a dream picture or a real recording. (maybe not absolutely true that statement) The being is the one who knows which is what. If you loose that you are lost. By the way DM acts I think he has lost this very basic ability.

  51. I am so impressed by the depth and breath of this discussion. Everyone provided such insight and pieces to show the picture and I think for the first time seeing magnitude of the diabolical perversion of tech, I felt sick. From this I go away with this observation on his tactics: The King of Squirrels CREATES confusions so that he can then place HIMSELF as the new STABLE DATUM. The use of force is likewise used with that intention. It is intended to have others acceptance of him as the “new world order”, achieved by overwhelming others through created confusions and/or force. Once he smashed the staff and those who could see through him, he went after the public – and the only way to go after the whole lot of them is through the tech, because its the one thing they value the most. Even if a public person senses something may not be right, they would be reluctant to easily give up their belief in him because he is perceived as the stable datum that is holding everything in place, so it would seem. That’s what it seems like to me.

    • martyrathbun09

      Very well put.

    • Freespirit,

      Loved this bit of data. It’s been a trick used since the beginning on controlling others. Just stir up so much confusion that those confused look for a “solution.” Then insert the solution you want. Vey insidious and hard to spot because it’s so difficult to perceive through confusions to spot the true source.

      I think you’re spot on.

      Michael

  52. Theo Sismanides

    Hahaha Marty boy is on a roll!! Go man! I see you have so much space there (theta wise) while Miscavige’s space is just MEST, the guy cannot think, not trained just orders and demands.

    So we are doing good now the we go into the Tech thing. As I have said numerous times first we dealt with Ethics and then we get the Tech in. I think we are on the right track here.

    I am glad someone can cover that area and we all see Marty is producing results with his PCs meaning he does something right.

    I am not impressed with all the confusion that exists on Tech lines of the church. It is like with Admin. I was just never a Tech terminal in the SO (just a book One auditor in a mission) but on Admin lines all the time. The amount of confusion on Admin lines was visible to me.

    Miscavige is a Squirrel. I have evidence for that, for myself and anybody who has doubts or reservations. Miscavige squirrelled the translations and ignored and suppressed the very HCOBs (Translations Series) which apply.

    In HCOB Dianetics and Scientology in other languages LRH has a chapter there calling it ON SOURCE. Coincidence? I don’t think so. It just prove to me that Miscavige is a squirrel and that since 1996 when in LA. After 15 years Miscavige is still the King. But the difference is that his right hand then calls him the King of Squirrels. This is our victory now and as it looks like Marty is intense on Tech and IS an auditor. So there is a chance to make it if we move onto the Admin thing. I am sure Marty will see this one day. And it’s not only Marty, it’s all of us, me included. But I am NOT willing to just sit here and scream and shout “hey guys let’s organize” like I did in the SO with those HCOBs and nobody would listen.

    I think we have the Tech, we always had it. The big problem is the Admin and how you unite the people and mobilize them. This is our challenge now. I can help.

  53. There is no excuse for squirrelling.
    If you wish to help an incense roller in India with auditing don’t resort to skype as is not an answer, you could do more for him by sending him DMSMH, Self Analysis and Hand Book for PCs.
    You know … “Teach a man to fish”.
    Get an independent group going that will audit each other.
    Foolishness is foolishness no matter how many times you try to pass it off as help. It will still fall short.
    True help will put the other being at cause. Books will do that.

  54. OK, after much research on the subject of Skype auditing, I’ve found an in depth discussion of it among proponents. It’s kind of esoteric. It may require a codec.

  55. Oh oh! I am seeing now that David Mayo is posting on ESMB. Everyone is pretty interested. I think they are still trying to find out if it’s the real David Mayo or someone who has usurped his old email address. Just saying.

  56. Joe Howard | April 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Reply

    “CD, I know Revenimus and it is not Ralph Hilton.”

    Ralph Hilton posted on ACT as a returned LRH in 2000,
    using the name Revenimus. Was a good stimulus for the FZ.
    He later said it was really him. He also posted some rundowns under
    the name ” Superpower.”

    There is someone who posts on ESMB as Revenimus, there may well be others using that name also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s