Scientology explained

[Anonycat]

Re: Faux therapy explained.

No, they don't. Policy is to get DB's out of there as quickly as possible.

Helena, with her memoirs of an ex-degraded being

HCO Hats

IMPORTANT

Admin Know-How Series 14
ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS

Alteration of orders and tech is worse than noncompliance.

Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently often brought about by noncomprehension, the noncomprehension itself, and failure to mention it, is an avoidance of orders.

Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their troubles, to get help when needed. Competent higher-toned beings understand orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots of special orders.

Degraded beings find any instruction painful, as they have been painfully indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don’t comply.

Thus, in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert noncompliance) and noncompliance, given sensible and correct tech or instructions, you are dealing with a degraded low-level being and should act accordingly.

One uses very simple low-level processes on a degraded being, gently.

In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-ises or fails to comply, you are also dealing with a degraded being but one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause, and staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.

This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff members.

A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach, really, of a simple S&D and handled only at Section III OT Course.

Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big Being.

Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded being.

A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can’t ever work (obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or even “cooperative,” often even flattering, sometimes merely dull, but consistently alter-ising or noncomplying.

This datum appeared during higher-level research and is highly revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena-the pc who changes commands or doesn’t do them, the worker who can’t get it straight or who is always on a tea break.

In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods, people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.

Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it requires our highest-level tech to finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.

Degraded beings are about eighteen to one over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At the same time, we can’t have a world full of them and still make it. So we have no choice.

And we can handle them even when they cannot serve at higher levels.

This is really OT data, but we need it at lower levels to get the job done.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

From here it is an easy step to wonder what would one be like if one were totally free of ALL such engrams and reactivity? That would be a real super-being. Surely. At the very least he or she would be cleared of all reactivity and would be free to use the full amount of inherent life-energy in the pursuit of their goals. What would one call such a person? A Clear! Yeah! That's a good name for it. A Clear.

Recognize that at this stage he never even had one yet. And factually he never knew whether he could even attain such a state in anyone. But, in theory, it should be possible. So he marketed it. Figure out the details later. Now one can call that a con if one wants to. Or maybe just as excess of chutzpah. Whatever, people bought it and so he sold it. People certainly wanted it.

I haven't read your post past what you said above.

What do you mean "one can call that a con if one wants to"?

Do you actually not know what a con is?

Why wouldn't it be an unqualified and outrageous con if someone is selling something for money (lots of money) that they quite obviously can't deliver?

What principle in Scientology allows you to change the conventional meaning of words to try and fit such big round pieces into those tiny square holes?

 

[anonomog]

I'm with Lotus. The introspection rundown.

 

[JustSheila]

It's clear to me that if I buy a CD player, it would be a fully functioning CD player capable of playing any CD in decent shape all the way through. So if it plays only the first three songs of a CD, then it's a ripoff, a con. I did not receive what I bought. It doesn't matter if I can still remember the songs or if I can imagine them playing. The CD player is a ripoff.

It's pretty black and white. When huge claims are made about something that turns out to be a shoddy, substandard product, it's a con. Lots of wannabe gurus are making outrageous claims these days. It doesn't matter if I "imagine" a claim that I can take a train on Venus, it doesn't matter if I remember trains on Venus. Fact is, if the guru claims he's going to take me on a train on Venus, it better exist in reality, with real trains and he better take me there.

If there are claims that someone will become sane and healthy, fully able to communicate easily on any subject, blah blah blah, then if I pay for that, that is what I pay to receive. I don't see your confusion about this, Leon.

 

[Leon-2]

Do the freight trains on Venus run on time?

If so, why did hubbard almost get run down by one?

Was he PTS?

Who was the who? What was the why? Or was it all a lie?

I'm going to couple with this question - and I do regard it as an important one - all the potential questions about Xenu and Marcab and all of that.

Consider firstly - many many people - nearly all of them - came up with what they saw as "past lives" in auditing. Were they real or not? I don't know and I truly don't care. What matters is that when run they produce case-gain. When not run by a preclear, his gains remain mediocre.

So let's assume they are real. Just for discussion's sake. So we get all these reports on past lives and space opera stuff and robots and slavery and prison planets and implants and all of that. The gains to be gotten from running them are considerable.

I think anyone would somehow want to connect the dots and see how their past history unfolded, and they do this and track themselves through many lifetimes and string it all together. Hubbard himself of course wants "the BIG picture" and feels a need to present it to his followers.

Now, side-step a while to the doings of the Remote Viewers that were so active back in the '70s and 80's. Ingo Swann and all those chaps. Read their books and they all assert how important it is to separate realm viewing form what they call Analytical Overlay. In Scientology terms - Dub-in. Whenever the RV guys did their thing they would at first get only a vague conceptual inkling of something and then their own involuntary-minds would "suggest" an answer that conformed to the nearest mentally-recorded similar something. It's like when you text someone and the phone keeps guessing what the word is going to be while you are writing it on your mobile.

The same sort of thing would happen in Remote Viewing. The guy would start to focus on his target and the mind would furnish suggestion of what it was going to be, and the elusiveness and insidiousness of the mind would play absolute Harry with the attempts at good RVing. So much so that the only real test of a good RV person is his/her ability to differentiate between actual view and Overlay.

The same thing happens in auditing. The person in session starts to look at some area and the mind furnishes a picture for him to look at. The preclear's and auditor's skill in differentiating what is what here is the crucial step and it often goes wrong. Fortunatelty we have a meter to guide us, but it is not foolproof.

And I reckon this is what all the trains on Venus and the Xenu and so on are quite likely all about.

An example: many of the critics and writers in their post Scio lives imagine what Xenu looked like and portray him as a comic-book superhero type chap with evil eyes. This was their image of him. yet, by contrast, Bill Robertson asked LRH what Xenu looked like and LRH described as a shabby old man in a shabby grey suit, walked with a limp and a can, had half-tinted glasses, and some sort of eczema on his bald pate. And tobacco stained teeth and fingers.

Quite a difference. Is one of them correct? Did he even exist? I never encountered him in any session so I don't know.

But I reckon the answer is wrapped up in this Dub-in stuff.

 

[JustSheila]

What matters is that when run they produce case-gain.

This is a problem. Determining or defining "case gain".

The emeter doesn't actually do this. At best, it shows when someone becomes increasingly tense and then relieves the tension. The session causes tension by stimulating trauma. Then somehow or other the client feels better because they went through the trauma and it's now over. Relief.

On the emeter that shows as case gain.

But is it? A good cry can accomplish the same thing, but is anything really healed or gone?

I've seen enough folders to know whether clear or OT, the same stuff nearly always comes up again, later on. Example: Client upset with mother. Feels great, all handled. A month later, a new upset with mother. Three months later, another upset. A year or two down the line, the same old incident between them is coming up again, but now instead of handling it with E/S incident, it's coming up on an L1C. In many cases, it just goes on and on and on over the years unless the client just withdraws entirely from the situation.

I don't call that case gain, but I'll bet the client had heaps of F/Ns about it every time and wrote lots of success stories, too.

There are no hard tests or standards for the person actually functioning better in life. There is no 1 week check, 3 month check, 6 month check. No before and after surveys.

It's restimulation/relief. Restimulation/relief. Talking to one's friends accomplishes the same thing, actually more - because friends often give very good advice and aren't afraid to tell someone they're doing things the hard way.

 

[Anonycat]

I haven't read your post past what you said above.

What do you mean "one can call that a con if one wants to"?

Do you actually not know what a con is?

Why wouldn't it be an unqualified and outrageous con if someone is selling something for money (lots of money) that they quite obviously can't deliver?

What principle in Scientology allows you to change the conventional meaning of words to try and fit such big round pieces into those tiny square holes?

If I was selling instructions on how to build your own Time Machine, on eBay for thousands of dollars, that would be cool. It's based on an idea I had, but has never worked before. I have a chutzpah that people will admire, so I'm selling it anyway.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

It's clear to me that if I buy a CD player, it would be a fully functioning CD player capable of playing any CD in decent shape all the way through. So if it plays only the first three songs of a CD, then it's a ripoff, a con. I did not receive what I bought. It doesn't matter if I can still remember the songs or if I can imagine them playing. The CD player is a ripoff.

It's pretty black and white. When huge claims are made about something that turns out to be a shoddy, substandard product, it's a con. Lots of wannabe gurus are making outrageous claims these days. It doesn't matter if I "imagine" a claim that I can take a train on Venus, it doesn't matter if I remember trains on Venus. Fact is, if the guru claims he's going to take me on a train on Venus, it better exist in reality, with real trains and he better take me there.

If there are claims that someone will become sane and healthy, fully able to communicate easily on any subject, blah blah blah, then if I pay for that, that is what I pay to receive. I don't see your confusion about this, Leon.

Well, yeah. HELL Yeah!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

If I was selling instructions on how to build your own Time Machine, on eBay for thousands of dollars, that would be cool. It's based on an idea I had, but has never worked before. I have a chutzpah that people will admire, so I'm selling it anyway.

lololololololololololol

I happen to be in the market for a time machine.

What is your "Buy it Now" price?

If it doesn't work and I lose my money, no problem. At least I will have flowed power to you and helped you to achieve your dream (like Scientologists and Dr. Hubbard).

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

This is a problem. Determining or defining "case gain".

The emeter doesn't actually do this. At best, it shows when someone becomes increasingly tense and then relieves the tension. The session causes tension by stimulating trauma. Then somehow or other the client feels better because they went through the trauma and it's now over. Relief.

On the emeter that shows as case gain.

But is it? A good cry can accomplish the same thing, but is anything really healed or gone?

I've seen enough folders to know whether clear or OT, the same stuff nearly always comes up again, later on. Example: Client upset with mother. Feels great, all handled. A month later, a new upset with mother. Three months later, another upset. A year or two down the line, the same old incident between them is coming up again, but now instead of handling it with E/S incident, it's coming up on an L1C. In many cases, it just goes on and on and on over the years unless the client just withdraws entirely from the situation.

I don't call that case gain, but I'll bet the client had heaps of F/Ns about it every time and wrote lots of success stories, too.

There are no hard tests or standards for the person actually functioning better in life. There is no 1 week check, 3 month check, 6 month check. No before and after surveys.

It's restimulation/relief. Restimulation/relief. Talking to one's friends accomplishes the same thing, actually more - because friends often give very good advice and aren't afraid to tell someone they're doing things the hard way.

Wait!

No!

How did the conversation migrate over to the nebulously, unfathomably arbitrary and subjective mythology called "case gain"?

I still have "stuck attention" and "By Passed Charge" on the previously unanswered questions about how it's not a con to sell the state of Clear/OT when those states provably do not exist.

But, I do understand the slippery slope of trying to have an actual conversation with a Scientologist about the core premise of Scientology--the state of Clear and OT. Nobody in 65 years has offered up any slightest explanation of why nobody ever once achieved it.

I suppose Leon considers that he has reached OT.

Well (as before) what is an OT, Leon?

 

[Free Being Me]

Good one. I could add a few more to that list.

[HIGHLIGHT]They are dead because they got themselves involved in a sicko cult[/HIGHLIGHT] that reckoned it had an entitlement to other people's labour and servitude and needed to give nothing in return, other than the bare necessities of life. Any demands in excess of that indicated - to them - that the slave was a down-stat, out-ethics and should be shunned and/or expelled ASAP. "So they died? So what? It's just a body. Goddam piece of shit should have gotten his stats up."

That's why they're dead.

As a succinct answer I'll go along with that for now pointing out Elcon's deceptions were the primary reason the cult was started in the first place.

Wouldn't you know it, I have another question.

What do you think is an important aspect of cult recovery and what does that mean to you?

 

[Veda]

From the Scientology 'Tech Dictionary':

Operating Thetan, a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time... an individual who can operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one... a being at cause over matter, energy, space and time, form and life. Operating comes from 'able to operate without dependency on things'... ability to operate functionally against or with MEST and other life forms... this state of being is attained by drills and familiarity after the state of Clear has been obtained.​

In 1965, Clear was presented as removing the final barrier to OT; in 1967, OT 3 was presented as removing the final barrier to OT; in the early 1970s, the Ls were presented as removing the final barrier to OT; in the 1970s, NOTs was presented as removing the final barrier to OT.

Up to the 1970s, OT 8 was the top and final OT level, and was described as "Total Freedom and Total Power."

After Hubbard had established his cult, and some people were beginning to wonder, "Where are the OTs?," the Grade Chart was changed, with old "OT 8" (which was never released, and never actually existed) disappearing and being replaced with "New OT 8." "New OT 8" was then not the final or top OT level but the first OT level: Bait and Switch accomplished. Well adjusted Scientologists nodded approvingly.


From the 'History [This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years] of Man', by L. Ron Hubbard, 1952, originally titled 'What to Audit':

...may I make this simple request? Don't get spectacular until a few of the boys make it. You don't want to be lonesome and you'll need reinforcements if a war gets declared on thetans here. The preclear may think he can do it alone if he gets cleared of a body he'll need more help and company than he thinks. So, again, as a final note on this chapter, let's not go upsetting governments and putting on a show to 'prove' anything to homo sapiens for a while; it's a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away and get into the rotogravure section and the Hearst Weeklies but you'll just make it tough on somebody else who is trying to get across this bridge. Let sleeping sapiens snore in the bulk for yet awhile. Then meet some place and decide what to do about him and his two penny wars, his insane and his prisons. Tell people who want to invalidate all this, 'Your criticism is very just. It's only fantasy.' Cure up the lame and halt and the incompetent with whatever display of technique you need. Protect theta clearing until there are a few.​

​

From old timer John Sanborn:

"In a Phoenix Congress... he talked about spooky whole track stuff. He had a floodlight on the floor in front of this little platform shining up, because that makes you look ghouly. And his face looked really weird and outer space and really crazy... and he talked weird... I think he was trying to drive people a little bit wacko so they'd fall into his hand a little bit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpHhJKeTYxI


Hubbard and Scientology have been selling superhuman abilities, including godlike "cause over MEST," for a long time. They've been selling it for such a long time, that Hubbard's weasel-words (the switch part of the bait&switch process) on the same topic are echoing back and interrupting the proper orderly sequence:

1) First promise super human abilities

2) Take money, gain confidence, assert influence over the eager future Scientology superman&god

3) Take more money, and exert more influence

4) Eventually explain that what was originally said, or what Ron originally said, actually meant something else.


Now to be "bend-over-backwards" fair, in Magic(k) and Mysticism there's an idea called "confusing of the planes." There is the physical plane and the spiritual plane. The physical plane is regarded as being, essentially, an illusion. One pounds one's illusory fist on the illusory table to prove that the illusory table is real, etc. From this comes a certain contempt for those unenlightened materialists who demand "proof." And this view is what Hubbard was tapping into with his various (after the money had been taken) "explanations."

A simple explanation is that we are just too dense to see the more rarefied side of things and, once acclimated to that more rarefied side, are much too rarefied to interact in a manner that would be convincing to the average dense dweller in "MEST."

And, by itself, at least that could be an honest explanation.

But that's not what Scientology did and not what Scientology does.

Scientology is not an honest subject.

Scientology promises one thing and doesn't deliver and then proceeds to weasel-word about it. Bait and Switch.

Because Scientology has been weasel-wording (and PR-ing) for more than a half century, and because of the Internet, those weasel-words are echoing back and interrupting the proper sequence of things.

Scientologists are perplexed, not knowing which PR line, or shore story, to tell the "low on the scale" Wogs.

It's an uncomfortable situation.


Most Scientologists to isolate themselves from the Wogs, SPs, DBs, etc., and form private clubs where they reassure each other and pat each other on the back: Places where the elite of the galaxy can exchange LRH spittle flecked rubbery lipped Scientology theta kisses. while ing away the unwanted entheta, anti-Scientology counter-intention, natter, bashing, hatred, bigotry, shrill psychotic yelping, yapping, etc. of less aware and usually very small beings.


Our Leon, on the other hand, walks bravely amongst the DBs, SPs, and No Case Gain cases, ever seeking to coax them away from the edge of the abyss and towards the Bridge to Total Freedom.

Thank you, Leon! for caring about us little beings.

A cluster of tiny beings saying, "Thank you, Leon!"​

 

[Kemist]

Cold and windy on the beach.

OK, now for Gibs' question. It's an important one. What is Clear and OT and where the fuck are they? {I'm just quoting Jason, not swearing}

Just think back to 1949 or so and put yourself in Hubbard's shoes for a moment. He sincerely (I do believe) reckon that he had "discovered" the workings of the mind and he was getting good results from the work he was doing with his clients. He was on to something BIG. He'd found engrams and locks and grief incidents and all this stuff and had observed reactivity in people and this explained what was causing that and he had a way of erasing it all. Wow!

From here it is an easy step to wonder what would one be like if one were totally free of ALL such engrams and reactivity? That would be a real super-being. Surely. At the very least he or she would be cleared of all reactivity and would be free to use the full amount of inherent life-energy in the pursuit of their goals. What would one call such a person? A Clear! Yeah! That's a good name for it. A Clear.

Recognize that at this stage he never even had one yet. And factually he never knew whether he could even attain such a state in anyone. But, in theory, it should be possible. So he marketed it. Figure out the details later. Now one can call that a con if one wants to. Or maybe just as excess of chutzpah. Whatever, people bought it and so he sold it. People certainly wanted it.

But how to get it? And how to know when one had it? These remained unanswered questions.

Free of all engrams. Free of Fac-One. Free of this, of that, of the other thing. Each one looked promising when he first got someone there, none of them panned out in the long run. Always the goalposts receded. But he kept at it.

How to define it? Didn't know that either. Tried all sorts of definitions to see if he could attain one of them. Never did except temporarily.

You see, essentially he was trying to define a not-thereness. And how does anyone define that? How do you describe anything that is not there? It can't be done. I can define a pencil as being whatever, but to define an absence of a pencil? How to describe a not-there-ness? Can't really be done.

And then the idea of OT came to him. He had people who were exteriorised - "there's my body. I'm here". So you're not a body, you're a spirit of some equally undefinable qualities describable only by saying what it isn't. But what is it? Not this, not that, not the other thing.
But, in theory again, this spirit should be able to function without a body. But how to get someone who could be shown able to be so? Where to find such a one? Or how to transform someone through auditing so that he was such a being. How to do that?

And every now and again he had someone who could do it once. Or twice. And then not again. I myself was fully ext with full visio. I saw my body in the chair over there. No shadow of doubt about it. And then it was gone again and I was in the body once more, looking through its eyes. I have done this many times over the years but it has never lasted long. Never so I could go touring or anything. But I have no doubts as to the reality of it.

So "show me a fucking Clear", says Jason. Can't.

Did they ever exist? Oh yes. Momentarily. Even now on a good day I'm as clear as can be. Bu don't try and measure it. That will interiorise me and it'll be gone. It manifests only for as long as you don't try and prove it's there.


Pilot actually said it right. he had his finger right on it. The wins of Scientology can be divided into three groups.

Group one is the way things just go better for one. One gets to be more "lucky". It can't be measured nor can one point to a process that brought it about. It happens as a by-product of getting into the subject. Most people notice this change.

Next are the gains to be made on the Lower Grades - IF DONE PROPERLY. Which is not difficult. These gains are easy to produce, they last a long time, and they truly are the best of Scientology.

And the there are the "OT Levels" which, IF DONE PROPERLY, will provide the guy with some great experiences. Ext perception and all sorts of things. But they are elusive and come and go at a whim. They don't last long. Don't try and hold it, don't expect to be able to demonstrate them to others, don't try to prove it in any way.

Is it all a con? Maybe. I don't know. For some people it sure was, but in all of them I will show you outnesses in their auditing. If that means anything. You pay all you've got and you get what you get.

In all my years I paid the CofS, I think, less than about $2,000. I paid a bit for Excalibur. The rest I did solo all by myself and still continue to do. Was it worth it? I will do it all again. Gladly. Wouldn't have missed it for anything.

When you are an engineer you are selling something that isn't there and making very specific promises about it. You often charge a lot of money for what is essentially an idea that you will implement.

Now if I were to promise something to a client that I can't deliver, the client would be extremely pissed with me, and would be rightly thinking that I'm completely incompetent as an engineer. And would be within his rights not to honor his part of the contract, that is the money I'm charging for something I can't deliver on the specified schedule.

If I can't deliver something because it's an impossible thing then I'm the one who is wrong for promising it. The most irresponsible thing I can do is to charge the client some more money with the promise that now my thingamajig will work, when I know I should not promise such things. Or say everything is all right because I made something that does a completely different thing than what the client came to me for. Those are breaches of contract.

There are two reasons why an engineer would do such things. Either he is a conman or he is incompetent. Either way, a sensible client should stop doing business with that person.

 

[Free Being Me]

...




lololololololololololol

I happen to be in the market for a time machine.

What is your "Buy it Now" price?

If it doesn't work and I lose my money, no problem. At least I will have flowed power to you and helped you to achieve your dream (like Scientologists and Dr. Hubbard).

Don't do it, it's anarchy! The [STRIKE]Morlocks[/STRIKE] Marcabs are everywhere!​

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

As a succinct answer I'll go along with that for now pointing out Elcon's deceptions were the primary reason the cult was started in the first place.

Wouldn't you know it, I have another question.

What do you think is an important aspect of cult recovery and what does that mean to you?

Although this is asked of Leon, I've had dealings with at least three organisations which I'd identify as cults (or well on the way to cultdom), so I give two;

1 / Being willing to not achieve the stated goals of the organisation, or contribute towards others' efforts to achieve them, and

2 / Being willing to question anything the cult asserts as being true or necessary.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Re: Faux therapy explained.

HCO Hats

IMPORTANT

Admin Know-How Series 14
ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS

Alteration of orders and tech is worse than noncompliance.

Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently often brought about by noncomprehension, the noncomprehension itself, and failure to mention it, is an avoidance of orders.

Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their troubles, to get help when needed. Competent higher-toned beings understand orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots of special orders.

Degraded beings find any instruction painful, as they have been painfully indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don’t comply.

Thus, in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert noncompliance) and noncompliance, given sensible and correct tech or instructions, you are dealing with a degraded low-level being and should act accordingly.

One uses very simple low-level processes on a degraded being, gently.

In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-ises or fails to comply, you are also dealing with a degraded being but one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause, and staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.

This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff members.

A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach, really, of a simple S&D and handled only at Section III OT Course.

Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big Being.

Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded being.

A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can’t ever work (obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or even “cooperative,” often even flattering, sometimes merely dull, but consistently alter-ising or noncomplying.

This datum appeared during higher-level research and is highly revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena-the pc who changes commands or doesn’t do them, the worker who can’t get it straight or who is always on a tea break.

In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods, people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.

Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it requires our highest-level tech to finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.

Degraded beings are about eighteen to one over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At the same time, we can’t have a world full of them and still make it. So we have no choice.

And we can handle them even when they cannot serve at higher levels.

This is really OT data, but we need it at lower levels to get the job done.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

It would be a great policy to use to get routed out or fitness boarded out. Though I have seen people sent to the RPF for being a DB.

 

[Terril park]

I'm breaking my moratorium on posting here to say, "This is an offer too good to refuse."
Good stuff, Leon.

Hope you continue to post. Miss you.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Re: Faux therapy explained.

It would be a great policy to use to get routed out or fitness boarded out. Though I have seen people sent to the RPF for being a DB.

The process of determining the presence of a "DB" in Scientology is (like everything else) entirely subject to whim, caprice & expediency.

Brethren, kindly turn your holy hypocritical hubbardian hymnals to the scripture known as The Hubbard Law of Commotion. We read together, aloud: "For each policy, code or piece of tech, there is an equal and opposite policy, code or piece of tech."

So which is is, then?

* "DBs" are virtually everywhere in Scientology (18:1 ratio of DBs to Big Beings, according to the self-proclaimed biggest being of them all, Dr. Hubbard)

* "DBs" are virtually non-existent in Scientology (see Hubbard's many other scriptural pronouncements about how Scientologists are (paraphrasing): "...the elite of the elite", "...the ultra-able top 1% of the top 1% of all beings on this planet", et al...)​

Scientology: It's quite useful because you can switch the definitions of any word with any other word you feel like. For example, a person who has left the Church of Scientology (yet still calls themselves a Scientologist, a Clear and an OT) would be designated and declared to be a DB, a Psychotic and an SP if L. Ron Hubbard happened to be around.

And for anyone still feeling concern about the fact that Scientology charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for Clear and OT states that don't exist, that's not a "con" or a "fraud"--Scientologists will assure you. It's something else. Don't worry, when your perception and knowingness come up scale, you'll understand it better.

Really, you should believe them because Clears and OTs are ethical and they wouldn't false report.

 

[Leon-2]

I haven't read your post past what you said above.

What do you mean "one can call that a con if one wants to"?

Do you actually not know what a con is?

Why wouldn't it be an unqualified and outrageous con if someone is selling something for money (lots of money) that they quite obviously can't deliver?

What principle in Scientology allows you to change the conventional meaning of words to try and fit such big round pieces into those tiny square holes?

\

There are some other posters too with questions on the same line.

Sellng bullshit is a common practice in this world. I'm not saying it is right. I'm just saying it tkes some chutzpah to do it.

Examples:

Voting for a president who does not run the country. The hidden rulers do.

Selling heaven, in many Christian churches - no proof of its existence anywhere.

Selling people a War on Terror that your own agency has created.

Selling products with the pretence that they deliver something they don't - various drugs and cigarettes

Finance houses selling an investment that they then proceed to bet against themselves, knowing they will profit more from its failure than its success.

Rehypothecating gold that doesn't even exist.

Holding gold in trust for another country and then selling it to a third (and more) and then still telling the gold owner that all is well with their gold.

The list is endless.


Caveat emptor is a very valid principle in law and even though its presence there does not justify conning the public in any transaction, yet the purchaser does have a responsibility in the matter. A buyer who believes in this world that he will never be sold a pig in a poke is known as a dupe or a sucker, and needs to wake up to reality.

Do you know that S and double triangle symbol? I was told early on in Scio what the S really stood for and was told to make sure that I got what I paid for, otherwise don't buy.

 

[Leon-2]

Re: Faux therapy explained.

The process of determining the presence of a "DB" in Scientology is (like everything else) entirely subject to whim, caprice & expediency.

Brethren, kindly turn your holy hippocratic hubbardian hymnals to the scripture known as The Hubbard Law of Commotion. We read together, aloud: "For each policy, code or piece of tech, there is an equal and opposite policy, code or piece of tech."

So which is is, then?

* "DBs" are virtually everywhere in Scientology (18:1 ratio of DBs to Big Beings, according to the self-proclaimed biggest being of them all, Dr. Hubbard)

* "DBs" are virtually non-existent in Scientology (see Hubbard's many other scriptural pronouncements about how Scientologists are (paraphrasing): "...the elite of the elite", "...the ultra-able top 1% of the top 1% of all beings on this planet", et al...)​

Scientology: It's quite useful because you can switch the definitions of any word with any other word you feel like. For example, a person who has left the Church of Scientology (yet still calls themselves a Scientologist, a Clear and an OT) would be designated and declared to be a DB, a Psychotic and an SP if L. Ron Hubbard happened to be around.

And for anyone still feeling concern about the fact that Scientology charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for Clear and OT states that don't exist, that's not a "con" or a "fraud"--Scientologists will assure you. It's something else. Don't worry, when your perception and knowingness come up scale, you'll understand it better.

Really, you should believe them because Clears and OTs are ethical and they wouldn't false report.

Labels like DB, OT, Clear, upstat, etc etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum are just that: LABLES. If you put any credence into what labels say then reason m post just written.

No law can protect anyone from his own stupidity. Or credulity.