The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Blue Spirit]

Artie Is On Facebook

Thanks Carmelo. Do you or anyone out there know what happened to Artie?

He's on Facebook, I noticed.

 

[TR'SIN]

Thank you for the journey through the early years. I am glad you made it out
and I am always unhappy about the effects that are created on others as well.

Especially your children.

Your story puts things in a different perspective. Thank you, alot.

 

[Enthetan]

I’m going to tell you a little story. Once upon a time there was a Flag Crew Member named afaceinthecrowd. One day El Ron created a new post (he was fond of creating new posts) and decreed that afaceinthecrowd shall be immediately posted to his new creation. Being a dedicated Sea Org Officer, and fervently certain Scientologist, afaceinthecrowd snapped to, “Aye, Aye Sir”, he responded. Over the next few months afaceinthecrowd brought the new post to points of such high statistics and viable products that El Ron, hisself (sic) asked for a complete hat right up, summarily and forthwith. Afaceinthecrowd responded with a very detailed write-up quoting this HCOPL, that HCOPL, this HCOB, that HCOB, this El Ron book, that El Ron book, etc, etc. A few days later El Ron issued HCOPL’s with his signature (not BPL's) that contained parts of afaceinthecrowd’s write up but also made fundamental changes that “gutted” the essence of what it was that had produced the long-term high statistics. El Ron’s HCOPL was void of little things like not sacrificing long term viability for short term upstats, granting beingess to others and the importance of true admiration, two way comm…silly stuff like that. El Ron liked stuff that was “enforceable” on an immediate basis, required no need for independent judgment and, more than anything, no need for any fundamental understanding of Scientology basics.

So what’s my point?

El Ron was the Founder of Scientology but he was not a Scientologist, per the actual definition. What is good about any of this came from the legions of Dart’s, Alan’s, John’s, Yvonne’s, Hanna’s, Heber’s and yes, Rinder’s, etc. over the years and what made it something worth being a part of was us…each and everyone of us that gave our hearts to help others, face our own demons and continue our paths, unflinching, “into the breach”. What is bad about any of this is irreversibly on its way down the rabbit hole.

Needs repeating.

As you said, and others have noted, most of the tech came from others, with Ron taking the credit.

What created the brief bit of good among the crap, the momentary Camelot, was not LRon, but the coming together of legions of good and noble people who wanted a better world.

And when those good and noble people could no longer stomach what was going on and left, Scientology started its collapse.

 

[Enthetan]

El Ron’s unstated de facto goal was, in essence, a spiritual “Holocaust”. There are taped lectures wherein he unnervingly and too “enthusiastically” ponders the concept of blowing the atmosphere of Earth so that all of us could instantly be “free”. There are taped lectures wherein he unnervingly and too “enthusiastically” ponders the concept of isolating and offing those amongst us he deems as “dangerous” and “unfit”. And, there is his “edifice”—The Church of Scientology and its’ ecclesiastic "Storm Troopers" (of which I was a “Flag Officer”).

“…and they shall inherit the wind.”

I sincerely believe that the only thing standing between Co$ and mass murder, was that they never got enough power to get away with it. And this is true both for the LRH regime and the DM regime.

 

[Enthetan]

The person in Charge of preparing the meals came to Treasury to get her $850 allocation for the week to go do her shopping. I told her there was only $350 budgeted for food, she hit the ceiling and demanded $850, yelling and screaming at me. My hat write up, by LRH, tells the Director of Disbursements to practice saying "no" to people in a mirror and to get use to saying no. I told her that I was just Director of Disbursements and could only disburse what the Execs allocated through FP. She did not care and just kept yelling at me demanding her full $850. I started to hand her $350 in cash and she said that she was planing a special surprise menu for tomorrow and that she would spend the entire $350 for tomorrow's meals and then we would either have to give her $500 more tomorrow or starve the rest of the week. I pulled back the $350 cash and only gave her $150 and told her to cook frugally tomorrow and come back the next day for some more money. I thought I had done my job as Dir of Disbursements, keeping this matter of of the plate of the Executives and making sure this person could not blow the entire $350 on steaks and gourmet foods for just one day as she was threatening to do. After this cycle, I routed on to my study period from 9:30 AM to 12:00.

About half way through study, the Qual Sec, Sam Loria came to study and demanded from the Course Supervisor that I leave study immediately because I was needed at a meeting. THIS WAS TOTALLY AGAINST POLICY WHICH STATED THAT NO ONE COULD BE PULLED OFF OF STUDY FOR ANY REASON. Carole Ferguson fought this hard for two or three minutes and I heard the entire discussion and then Sam came to get me. I refused to leave study and cited the appropriate policies and Sam insisted and said that Yvonne Jentzsch had given me a direct order to leave study and go see her. He told me that I had made myself "AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION POINT' and had put the welfare of the Org in jeopardy. I had no idea what he was talking aboutbut left study and went with Sam to see Yvonne.

In my thread, I have presented Yvonne as an icon, a giant among leaders and she was but she had a nasty side to her if she felt one had crossed her and here again, as in two other incidents I related earlier, she was very hostile to me. I came in to her room, wondering what in the hell this was about. She immediately accused me of making myself "AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION POINT", of ignoring source and setting my own policy and compromising the survival of the Org. She refused to hear my explanation. She ordered me to write two checks, One for the remaining $200 that I held back from the Cook and another for $500 for the remaining food allocation, telling me that she was putting a rush Purchase Order through the FBO and Guardian for Finance as we spoke for the missing $500. SHE ADMONISHED ME STERNLY FOR MAKING MYSELF AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION POINTand told me I had acted unethically. I was not consulted as to why I acted as I did, in fact, she would not allow me to say even one word in my own defense.

This was why she would not allow me to be promoted to Treasury Sec and later FBO and she fought tooth and nail to try to stop me from being promoted up to the Apollo as well as I read in the data files when I was CC Program's Chief on the Apollo. The C of S was an MCCO as "aface" states above and this is how a top Exec in an MCCO handled someone who was triying to do their post non robotically. Yvonne, one of the top Sea Org executives on the planet, listened enthusiastically while her wild irrational cook third partied her upstat Director of Disbursements, and then refused to hear even one word of what the Dir of Disb had to say on the matter but upbraided him for making himself an INDIVIDUAL DECISION POINTand afterwords passed him up for all promotions.
Lakey

I'm thinking the cook laid a political trap for you. I'm guessing that she'd been around for longer than you, was buddies with Yvonne, and knew how to work her. Just because she's in a lower-level position doesn't mean she's not politically savvy. In fact, she may have been in that post BECAUSE she was politically savvy enough to realize that it made her much less likely to catch heat, while still getting the same low pay, lousy berthing, and bad food as everybody else.

If you had called her bluff and just handed her the money, then she would have been faced with two choices: plan the week frugally, or splurge the allocation on a special meal, and then have to explain to Yvonne why there was nothing to eat the day after.

 

[lkwdblds]

It's "hear hear" and not "here here".

It is a term that originated hundreds of years ago - when a person giving a speech was really talking good sense others would then say out loudly "Hear him! Hear him!".

This was then abbreviated to "hear hear".

Leon - I love your new LRH quote at the bottom of your posts. Let's hope these prophetic words of wisdom ring true for DM's C of S and particularly the Sea Org.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Still Needs Repeating

Needs repeating.

As you said, and others have noted, most of the tech came from others, with Ron taking the credit.

What created the brief bit of good among the crap, the momentary Camelot, was not LRon, but the coming together of legions of good and noble people who wanted a better world.

And when those good and noble people could no longer stomach what was going on and left, Scientology started its collapse.

No doubt about it.

 

[AnonKat]

http://rutube.ru/tracks/2563891.html?v=544f26767510fe1c69cf8699d646a342

 

[TR'SIN]

As a rebel by most as we say; tell me more . . . . .

 

[lkwdblds]

Perfect analysis of the whole incident!!

I'm thinking the cook laid a political trap for you. I'm guessing that she'd been around for longer than you, was buddies with Yvonne, and knew how to work her. Just because she's in a lower-level position doesn't mean she's not politically savvy. In fact, she may have been in that post BECAUSE she was politically savvy enough to realize that it made her much less likely to catch heat, while still getting the same low pay, lousy berthing, and bad food as everybody else.

If you had called her bluff and just handed her the money, then she would have been faced with two choices: plan the week frugally, or splurge the allocation on a special meal, and then have to explain to Yvonne why there was nothing to eat the day after.

PERFECT ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE EVENT AND WHY MY DECISION TO NOT DISBURSE THE ENTIRE $350 IMMEDIATELY WAS INCORRECT! I got a blow down from your analysis and this 38 year charged area for me no longer exists, the whole incident blew. This is the 4th point of charge or confusion which I have blown as a result of reading a comment from someone on ESMB. Leon blew 2 items for me earlier, the 4th one is so blown I don't remember what it was anymore.

Everything Enthetan said was 100% correct. The Cook, I think her name was Joanne was a veteran, having been on staff longer than me, she was a blonde girl, thin with very curly locks of hair and she had a New York accent. When she went to Yvonne she knew how to play her perfectly.

Yvonne loved to present good appearances. She loved it when Hector mocked up his registrars office with an oil painting and silver coffee and tea service and linens and then got his hair styled and wore designer clothes.Tony, in estates, somehow procurred a tuxedo and began wearing it at every dinner as he served the Executive dining table. In both these activities, Yvonne was just absolutely beaming with pride and bantering with Hector and Tony about how "smart" they looked.

Same thing with Joanne, she must have come in to see Yvonne and I am sure she cried and said that she was planning a huge dinner that night to celebrate whatever it was that was being celebrated. She then painted me as a villain who was trying to lower the Org's spirit and havingness level by insisting that the crew and guests be served only rice and beans. In Yvonne's mind, Joanne was promoting the actions which would enhance the Org and make it more of a true Celebrity Centre and I was pouring water on Joanne's grand festive ideas and trying to present the Org as poor and struggling.

Once you got on her bad side, even just one time, and she perceived that you crossed her, you were pretty much finished as far as any promotions were concerned. If you had no skills she could use, you were offloaded, usually just back to being public, never declared, or if you were providing a service which was helping the Org, such as I was doing, you were kept on but restricted to only that one area of expertise with no posibility of promotion. I had 3 run ins where she perceived I had crossed her so I had zero chance of ever fully getting out of her dog house. When I ponied up 8 grand of my own money, while Sea Org, to receive XDN auditing and also talked to her about how all those outside networks were usurping her power, she did appreciate those two acts and also my speech about XDN at graduation partially restored my standing but I don't know if it was restored 100%. That I will never know for sure.
Lakey

 

[TR'SIN]

Those are very honest accounts of what happened at the time. I am still waiting for others in my Org to give their story of what happened at the time.

I know they are out there, lurking etc. just read this guys story and know that on this board you can say whatever and tell your story. Its really worth it.

 

[lkwdblds]

I also observed the immense waste of talent

I saw such tragic waste and mis-utilization of talent and skills in my SO career. It was one of the conundrums that resulted in my walking away...it just didn't make any sense.:confused2:

Unfortunatelly, what memory I have is photogenic.

The tremendous waste and mis-utilization of talent got my attention too, while at CCLA as staff. On the Apollo, I found it very odd that a person was not consulted as to which areas they would most like to work in. Even in the military, don't the recruits get to determine to some degree where they are posted.

The recruiting department is working full steam to bring in recruits, false promises are made, people sell their businesses, get phoney green cards and work permits from customs, separate from their familiies and go through all these hurdles and barriers and then are mis posted into some area they have no aptitude or ability for and within weeks are out the door, usually with freeloader debts and lower conditions. This whole system of mumbo jumbo is all a direct result of Green and White Policy by Hubbard. Green and White is mostly just crap, worthless crap, worse than worthless but of negative worth. No large successful company or corportation has ever risen to the Fortune 500 list or anything approaching that using the "Management Tech." It is not 3rd dynamic tech, it is more how to wreck the second dynamic, take losses on the third and hinder the 4th. To think that I spent years and lots of money taking these various classes on Management. It was pretty much all worthless. Here or there something might come in handy, a couple of the scales, or occasionally tracking something on a graph was helpful but non Scientology business also use graphing of statistics.

The tip off that it is worthless is that the Orgs are being heavily subsidized byt the Government in the USA. The religious exemption gives the Orgs the right to work people 100 hours a week for almost no pay and to have a slave labor pool in the RPF where people are literally worked until they drop. They pay no FICA, State, or Withholding taxes, no retirement plan, no workers' comp insurance, in fact virtually no insurance of any type, no medical plan and yet with all these enormous subsidies, the Orgs are just barely hanging on by a thread, financially and can barely pay their bills. IF YOU APPLY "LOOK, DON'T LISTEN" YOU CAN SEE THAT HUBBARD MANAGEMENT TECH DOES NOT WORK! It is a total no brainer!

 

[lkwdblds]

You are on a roll Enthetan!

Needs repeating.

As you said, and others have noted, most of the tech came from others, with Ron taking the credit.

What created the brief bit of good among the crap, the momentary Camelot, was not LRon, but the coming together of legions of good and noble people who wanted a better world.

And when those good and noble people could no longer stomach what was going on and left, Scientology started its collapse.

Excellent point Enthetan, you are on a roll with your latest set of posts! The primary thing Hubbard achieved was to be able to bring together legions of good and noble people who came together and were willing to serve and try to better mankind.

On some threads about 4 or 5 months ago, I remember Gadfly, a pretty smart fellow, tried to debunk this point claiming that groups other than Scientology bring together a high percentage of good and noble people as welll and that Scientology is not unique in this regard. I did not agree with him on that point.

I have been around the block, holding jobs after school, then working in aerospace, dealing with people at NASA, being involved with Jews at the temples I went to in my youth, then being in business as a family owned small business for decades. To be sure, there are a lot of good hard working people around but I have never seen the concentrtion of good and noblel people with a lot of intelligence, dedication and intention to help mankind as I have seen in the staffs of Scientology Orgs. The only thing even remotely close was way back in scouting, both Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. There, the Fathers and Mothers of the kids showed some of the dedication and good motives that I witnessed in the Sea Org in helping the kids to do well. One could stay on and work for Scientology long after they should have left merely because they were working in a team of good, noble, dedicated and able people.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Artie Schmartie

Artie is still "in" but not working for the Co$. He talks to Mary evry now and again. He gives talks at missions and orgs infrequently.


When Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947, he was idolized by pilots across the globe. For thirty years or more, you could hear his influence every time you took a plane ride. The pilot would come on the intercom, and talk with that "slow, lazzzy, nothing ruffles me" voice THAT CHUCK YEAGER spoke in. It didn't matter if thunder storms were coming up or they were gonna ditch the plane in the ocean, everything was OK, and we've got it under control.

What I think is funny that Artie's slicked greasy hair style, which he had in the 1960s is still the hairstyle of choice for the OSA crowd. Rinder has it. Tommy Davis has it. Artie has influenced everyone who came after him, whether they know it or not.

 

[lkwdblds]

Thanks for the kind words.

Thank you for the journey through the early years. I am glad you made it out
and I am always unhappy about the effects that are created on others as well.

Especially your children.

Your story puts things in a different perspective. Thank you, alot.

Glad to oblige! Welcome to our thread. We have 2 hosts and a hostess plus some resident technical experts and a lot of the top posters on ESMB. It is a big tent thread. Keep reading, you get entertainment, information, even case gain and possibly you may connect with some of your old buddies in south Florida. Are you on the West Coast near Flag or on the East Coast?
Lakey

 

[Leon]

Leon - I love your new LRH quote at the bottom of your posts. Let's hope these prophetic words of wisdom ring true for DM's C of S and particularly the Sea Org.
Lakey

Thank you. But I doubt that the dwarf gives a damn about anything LRH ever said. He has his own agenda.

 

[lkwdblds]

Good point!

Thank you. But I doubt that the dwarf gives a damn about anything LRH ever said. He has his own agenda.

I believe it was "Facey" who said, only about two days ago, that Hubbard founded Scientology but was not a Scientologist. He did not practice what he preached to others. Similarly DM runs the "Church of Scientology" but is not a Scientologist.

The proof, like most things in Scientology, is obvious if only one looks. DM does not study Hubbard's audtiting technology nor his Management technology nor does he avail himself of his "priceless eternity" by receiving auditing. I believe his only connection to Hubbard, is the time he spent working with Hubbard plus the "Advices" which Hubbard wrote to answer specific questions which DM posed to him. These Advices are not in the body of Scientology "Tech" and are not available for Scientologists to read. DM seems to use these as his Holy Grail (definition: Any ultimate but elusive goal pursued in a quest). Since what he is using is not in the main body of Scientology, he is not a Scientologist.

It is funny but most other leaders in history were members of the group they lead. Stalin was a Communist, Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist, Roosevelt was a Liberal, Churchill was British. I don't know about P.T. Barnum or what he did. Maybe his only game was to just milk the suckers in society and take their money away based on false promises to improve their lot with a magic elixir. When it comes to religious leaders, of the TV evangelist type, here again, sometimes they are not true believers but are only in it to bilk their followers and gain control of their money. When you look for parallels to Hubbard and DM in history, some of the big flashy TV enangelists come the closest.
Lakey

 

[RogerB]

We Shouldn't Take Things too Personally

Lakey,

As you know, I knew Yvonne from long ago, from 1961 or so. So I can vouch for her spectacular positive qualities. She was a star!

The other side of the coin is that we are all duplicitous We have our "positive" and our "negative" sides (or characteristics). And in case anyone thinks that the stem word "duplicity" only means "deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech, or double dealing"; it doesn't! It also means "the quality or state of being two-fold or double."

Yvonne, like many stars was stupendously positive; but it is also equally true that, even when being positive, if for any reason she was caused to feel the need for the application of any deterrent then that deterrent while negative against the target, in the case you cite, you, it was still the star being "positive" because she was "doing the right thing to protect a scenario 'for the greatest good.'"

This is the human condition . . . . so we shouldn't take any of it too personally.

Sad fact is, neither you nor she had enough tech knowledge to unlock the scenario.

But it is also worthwhile observing that, in the context of the times and the SO paradigm, her handling of what she was caused to see as a threat or potential threat to the well being of the group was actually quite gentle . . . though rough on you. Another SO ED would have probably had you strung up by the balls simply for daring to "go against command intention!"

And some might ask, in this juncture here, so why was she so "reactive" as to not hear you out?

Yvonne, like most of our vintage, went through Hubbard's Own Goals Listing shit . . . . if you are unfamiliar with it, check it out on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread . . . It starts to get interesting here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33&highlight=Pandora's&page=11 This is where Alan, Mystic and I start chatting about that particular tech effort.

The trap with the 1962-3 Own Goals listing and GPM tech was that it accessed and left unhandled the "other side" of the case that is the "negative" and (for some) the "dark" side of the case.

That was the tech that flipped and stuck LRH so very deeply into the insanity of the "dark side" . . . . though it is true that he in truth already had a lot of that going on before he triggered the shit out of it on himself.

Many old-timers who went through that shit-tech really didn't survive it too well. We had something like 150-200 on it Melbourne, and it was also being run in the other orgs around the world . . . it was not just a St. Hill thing.

Those that did, the Alans, Yvonnes, Challenges and RogerBs of the world were always thereafter somewhat or very "brittle" because of it. The negative, because of it having been stirred up with the GPM "who or what would Oppose" listing questions R/D, was sitting there easily accessed and sent into replication. And so, you would often see in these old-timers the reaction to oppose (or attack), rather intently, that which they were caused to see or consider to be a "threat" in any way shape or form.

It is to be noted that the 1962-3 Goals handling R/D only listed for the Items/identities of the package . . . . it did not run them out! The tech was to simply get them "opposed" and "packaged" . . . . and all that did was null them on the meter! And it left them exposed, opened up and live on the case! And remember, the idiot then told us all they were not our own goals and abandoned the tech!

Fact is, we were carrying forward a hell of a lot of BPC with us from that time . . . and the tragedy was that it really wasn't able to be handled with any of the tech available in the church In truth, this shit impacted the health of many. For many, it was like sitting of a powder keg constantly. (But these are matters for a write-up on another occasion)

So, as I say, don't take it, or any of the reactivity and rough handlings that have gone on in the CofS, personally. It's probably got very little to do with you . . . . you just happened to be unlucky enough to be in the way of someone's case reaction

One of the things I have found to work wonderfully in cleaning up scenarios such as this . . . . run the Ho 'Oponopono process Alan put on the board. And it'll work even with those who are deceased that you might have attention one or with whom there is any unresolved ARCX. For the fact is, there is your side of the "flow" that you can do something about . . . and it is mighty beneficial to do so.

Rog

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

weekly co auditing parties

Back when the West Wing was on TV (was that the 90s?), we set up a weekly get together on Wednesday nights to do co auditing. I remember being slightly put off that I missed the West Wing, but I watched it later.

It was a mildly floating event. It was at people's houses or at a pizza parlor.

A co audit party is a throwback to old Scientology. It is set up just like the old briefing course. We used a house, and people just twinned up. They found out what each was interested in improving changing etc. -- goals for the session, then audited that. Occasionally I'd introduce a process, and everyone would try that. If someone had a question, I was there to help.

After goals we went into process(es) to achieve that. Then at mid point we turned it around and the PC and auditor switched

It takes two things:

1) a leader who is going to be there and make it to continue.

20 A location is needed too. Usually someone's house. We did it at a pizza parlor for a couple of months. That worked with the setting aside of a room on a slow night. It was win win for the pizza parlor and for us. Customers they could count on and we got a room.

I did it for a year in Pasadena, the Valley, and near Norwalk, when I quit, it folded in a few months. We always had a minimum of ten people. Sometimes the pizza parlor room was filled to overflowing.


I did it solely on a drop in basis. It wasn't a mandatory thing. They came and they brought friends. Some nights 20 people some less. Never fewer than 10. People were winning. Some even brought their neighbors. No experience was necessary. If you have a TOTALLY new person, they can always run Self Analysis lists, and depending on their twin, have ARC Straightwire run on them. It helps to have a couple of good dictionaries.

If someone didn't know how to audit, they soon learned.

Auditing is really easy, once you're outside the Co$.

More to the point, old style auditing (pre Standard Tech) is uniformly beneficial. You audit based on the PC's goals for the session, not cookie cutter processes and predetermined programs. You actually audit the person in front of you.

I have had huge gains from auditing in my life. They have been lasting. but just the action of auditing another is a huge side of my personal growth. I don't want to start the listing of benefits from being an auditor. Perhaps someone else might want to try the subject.

Would anyone in the La La Land area or SF Bay area be interested in a weekly co audit? How about youse guys in Albuquerque? want to set one up?

This is grass roots organizing at its most basic level.

 

[lkwdblds]

Lakey,

As you know, I knew Yvonne from long ago, from 1961 or so. So I can vouch for her spectacular positive qualities. She was a star!

The other side of the coin is that we are all duplicitous We have our "positive" and our "negative" sides (or characteristics). And in case anyone thinks that the stem word "duplicity" only means "deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech, or double dealing"; it doesn't! It also means "the quality or state of being two-fold or double."

Yvonne, like many stars was stupendously positive; but it is also equally true that, even when being positive, if for any reason she was caused to feel the need for the application of any deterrent then that deterrent while negative against the target, in the case you cite, you, it was still the star being "positive" because she was "doing the right thing to protect a scenario 'for the greatest good.'"

This is the human condition . . . . so we shouldn't take any of it too personally.

Sad fact is, neither you nor she had enough tech knowledge to unlock the scenario.

But it is also worthwhile observing that, in the context of the times and the SO paradigm, her handling of what she was caused to see as a threat or potential threat to the well being of the group was actually quite gentle . . . though rough on you. Another SO ED would have probably had you strung up by the balls simply for daring to "go against command intention!"

And some might ask, in this juncture here, so why was she so "reactive" as to not hear you out?

Yvonne, like most of our vintage, went through Hubbard's Own Goals Listing shit . . . . if you are unfamiliar with it, check it out on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread . . . It starts to get interesting here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33&highlight=Pandora's&page=11 This is where Alan, Mystic and I start chatting about that particular tech effort.

The trap with the 1962-3 Own Goals listing and GPM tech was that it accessed and left unhandled the "other side" of the case that is the "negative" and (for some) the "dark" side of the case.

That was the tech that flipped and stuck LRH so very deeply into the insanity of the "dark side" . . . . though it is true that he in truth already had a lot of that going on before he triggered the shit out of it on himself.

Many old-timers who went through that shit-tech really didn't survive it too well. We had something like 150-200 on it Melbourne, and it was also being run in the other orgs around the world . . . it was not just a St. Hill thing.

Those that did, the Alans, Yvonnes, Challenges and RogerBs of the world were always thereafter somewhat or very "brittle" because of it. The negative, because of it having been stirred up with the GPM "who or what would Oppose" listing questions R/D, was sitting there easily accessed and sent into replication. And so, you would often see in these old-timers the reaction to oppose (or attack), rather intently, that which they were caused to see or consider to be a "threat" in any way shape or form.

It is to be noted that the 1962-3 Goals handling R/D only listed for the Items/identities of the package . . . . it did not run them out! The tech was to simply get them "opposed" and "packaged" . . . . and all that did was null them on the meter! And it left them exposed, opened up and live on the case! And remember, the idiot then told us all they were not our own goals and abandoned the tech!

The fact that he did that is an outpoint of stupendous magnitude!! You who lived it were subject to enormous consequences and those of you such as Yvonne and yourself really showed your mettle in not only surviving a betrayal of that magnitude from "Source" but surviving it and going on to positions of leadership and responsibility where you continued to help others. My hat is off to you, Yvonne and the other veteran ESMB members who were strong enough to survive this and move forward.

Fact is, we were carrying forward a hell of a lot of BPC with us from that time . . . and the tragedy was that it really wasn't able to be handled with any of the tech available in the church In truth, this shit impacted the health of many. For many, it was like sitting of a powder keg constantly. (But these are matters for a write-up on another occasion)

Yes, reinforcing what I said in blue above, you survivors of this betrayal can not be commended enough for your strength in coming through this terrible ordeal having to rely on your own inner strengths alone. Those of us who followed you are deeply indebted to you for being there.

So, as I say, don't take it, or any of the reactivity and rough handlings that have gone on in the CofS, personally. It's probably got very little to do with you . . . . you just happened to be unlucky enough to be in the way of someone's case reaction

Thanks for filling in the missing gaps as to Yvonne's case restimulation and what was going on there. As I have said before, I never did take it personally. I perceived greatness in Yvonne, and always supported her, never once talked negatively about her behind her back and the last time I saw her, in late 1977 at Flag, our talk was extremely cordial. I did not have any inkling of technical case type aspects of why she was bashing me and of course, being human, I did build up charge on being bashed by her. I dubbed in reasons why she was doing it which were sort of an anti service fac. My service fac was run out by then but I dubbed in justifacations for her treating me harshly, sort of creating a service fact for her. The items in my dub in were that I was not important enough for her to bother with or she was not good in Treasury and did not really understand it and so lashed out at Treasury staff when they tried to put a lid on Org expenditures. Through all of this my loyalty to her and admiration for her never wavered. I have proved this to be the case over and over on this and other threads.

One of the things I have found to work wonderfully in cleaning up scenarios such as this . . . . run the Ho 'Oponopono process Alan put on the board. And it'll work even with those who are deceased that you might have attention one or with whom there is any unresolved ARCX. For the fact is, there is your side of the "flow" that you can do something about . . . and it is mighty beneficial to do so.

Rog

I thank you again Rog for filling in the tech data on this so that I understand it much clearer than before. Once I get all the data, I can usually blow something like this by inspection which I have pretty much already done. It is really interesting that being mistreated by someone you really liked and admired can lie dormant for 35 or 40 years. You have decided that they are a leader you want to follow and yet you feel your were wronged by them. Some little charge remains behind inside of you though your loyalty to this person and your respect for them never waivered. When missing data is added in, such as you just did for me, the mystery ceases to exist for me. Now I can think highly of the person and no longer have to wonder why she was determined so strongly to keep me from moving up in her Org. I have the answer, that look into her psyche and her motivations, which was missing until I just read your post and with that knowledge, the mystery was cleared up for me and the entire incident has blown and has been refiled in my analytical memory banks, so to speak. This is instance #5 where I have blown an old area of charge through inter panel discussions and I thank you for this one Rog!
Lakey