Bill Frank's story about blackmail

Sindy

Crusader
Tubs wanted to have dirt files on everyone (just in case he needed it later) and the auditors and HCO were trained for this very purpose ... they were really interested in dirt.

Apparently Rex Fowler did something like 22 intensives of dirt hunting (they call it sec checking) prior to being allowed to get onto solo nots?

I am shaking my head in astonishment at the stupidity of it all.


:unsure:

:faceslap: I thought I saw it was even worse at 27 intensives! Either way, that would drive anyone insane. 22 intensives of interrogation by one of the most unethical organizations on earth....and for a mere, what, 5,000 an intensive at Flag? He must have felt like a complete piece of shit. :nervous:
 

Sindy

Crusader
What I'm about to say will sound otherworldly to many here, but I'll say it anyway, just to show how much the Scientology experience varied for different people.

To my recollection, as a Class IV auditor and while getting audited through OT IV, I neither received a sec check nor gave anybody a sec check. No one ever said to me, and I never said to anyone else while I or they were holding the cans, "I am not auditing you."

Perhaps my memory is faulty and I had a sec check. If so, it wasn't expensive or traumatic. Frankly, I don't think I ever had one.

I remember ruds, including O/Ws, as something that got checked quickly before getting to the meat of a session. No big deal.

I have no way of knowing whether my pc folders were culled for incriminating information of any kind that might have been put into a different kind of folder. Certainly, no one ever suggested to me I was a slimeball or unworthy or a criminal.

And for the record, I never gave a dime to the IAS.

Speaking purely rhetorically, WTF happened to Scientology?

Please, no answer is required. It really was a rhetorical question.

TG1

Sec checks are auditing. HCO Confessionals are not. Maybe you never had the latter. Sounds like you had a better experience than many. :thumbsup:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Just a note...

The entire theory of O/W's is essentially this process:

1. Imagine yourself as an idealized, infinitely powerful, perfect being whose every action is holy, flawless and successful.

2. Okay, now look at your own life buddy and tell me every single moment you failed to manifest that perfection. We call those overts. Now, tell me in excruciating detail how you failed.

3. I'd like to give you the r-factor that the reason you are still not a perfect OT is that there is more. Much more. Take a look. That...that....that.....that....that.....that.....that....that....that.............​

The process is run 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....

The EP is a person who is able to give themselves the commands, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3......

Get it? THAT'S the end phenomenon.

In essence, the obsession with O/W's, crimes, sec checks et al is what you do to solve the simple fact that the TECH did not raise the person up to that exalted, perfect state. It's right in KSW. When a person says that the process "didn't work" you must immediately "attack them" and demand to know "What did you actually do?"

The use of sec checks, itself, is an admission that the tech didn't work.
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Just a note...

The entire theory of O/W's is essentially this process:

1. Imagine yourself as an idealized, infinitely powerful, perfect being whose every action is holy, flawless and successful.

2. Okay, now look at your own life buddy and tell me every single moment you failed to manifest that perfection.

3. I'd like to give you the r-factor that there is more. Much more. Take a look. That...that....that.....that....that.....that.....that....that....that.............​

The process is run 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....

The EP is a person who is able to give themselves the commands, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3......

In essence, the obsession with O/W's, crimes, sec checks et al is what you do to solve the simple fact that the TECH did not raise the person up to that exalted, perfect state. It's right in KSW. When a person says that the process "didn't work" you must immediately "attack them" and demand to know "What did you actually do?"

The use of sec checks, itself, is an admission that the tech didn't work.

THIS ^^^^^

Take a bow, Mr Hoax.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Meanwhile - anyone who has worked in Division 20 of Scientology knows where the bulk of the hours of effort are directed. Primarily this work is about "handling cases" and keeping a person under control. This has been a function of Scientology since the 1960s for which much tech was written and personally overseen by L Ron Hubbard. The fact that the effect of this activity doesn't appear to have sunk in is quite understandable: its scripture and, as such, cannot be wrong. Anyone who doubts that obviously has overts.
You'd probably need to see some actual Session Worksheets to understand what I'm trying to communicate to you. A very large percentage of them have nothing to do with material which might possibly be used to blackmail or coerce a person. Your assertions about the activities of Department (not Division) 20 as regards PC Folders are somewhat overstated as far as I'm aware.

I'm not arguing that violation of Priest/Penitent Confidentiality doesn't occur, that's a given, I'm just trying to keep it real.
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
What I'm about to say will sound otherworldly to many here, but I'll say it anyway, just to show how much the Scientology experience varied for different people.

To my recollection, as a Class IV auditor and while getting audited through OT IV, I neither received a sec check nor gave anybody a sec check. No one ever said to me, and I never said to anyone else while I or they were holding the cans, "I am not auditing you."

Perhaps my memory is faulty and I had a sec check. If so, it wasn't expensive or traumatic. Frankly, I don't think I ever had one.

I remember ruds, including O/Ws, as something that got checked quickly before getting to the meat of a session. No big deal.

I have no way of knowing whether my pc folders were culled for incriminating information of any kind that might have been put into a different kind of folder. Certainly, no one ever suggested to me I was a slimeball or unworthy or a criminal.

And for the record, I never gave a dime to the IAS.

Speaking purely rhetorically, WTF happened to Scientology?

Please, no answer is required. It really was a rhetorical question.

TG1

TG1,

The liberal use of security checks, prefaced with "I am not auditing you" in order to make all statements actionable, has been standard practice since at least the early 70s, perhaps earlier - long, long before e-meters were confiscated by the FDA in LA in 1977, long, long before the IRS problems in the 80s. Long before DM came to management. From that time onward, nobody got onto staff or OT levels without passing these security clearances. I don't know the exact date it started. Maybe someone else here does (?)
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
You'd probably need to see some actual Session Worksheets to understand what I'm trying to communicate to you. A very large percentage of them have nothing to do with material which might possibly be used to blackmail or coerce a person. Your assertions about the activities of Department (not Division) 20 as regards PC Folders are somewhat overstated as far as I'm aware.

Thank you for the correction (I'm often in need of such). I understand what you are saying in suggesting that the bulk of the work of Scientology is dedicated to delivering the Bridge, as opposed to the dirty tricks. However, it is duplicitous to suggest that scripture does not include the express and highly detailed instruction to use personal information for blackmail. Delivering the Bridge goes hand-in-hand with the blackmail; if Scientology can't do one, it does the other. That is the tech as written by L Ron Hubbard.

Anyone participating in the delivery of services outside of the cult would do well to insist on retaining their own PC Folder and being present whenever it is opened. This has obvious benefits for both the PC and auditor.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Well, it would be duplicitious if I'd said that but I didn't.

I'm just pointing out that it's not quite what you (or my friend) seem to think.

Yes, Folder data can be used to commit great evil but if anyone is going to deliver scientology in the prescribed manner, PC Folders are required. If you don't use the Hubbard Folder system it's going to add up to something other than scientology.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Well, it would be duplicitious if I'd said that but I didn't.

Here's what you said:

Right, I get what you're saying but that's not how scientology tech actually utilises folder content. Despite the current obsession with Overts and Enforced Confession, O/W tech is just a small part of the overall practice. Hard to believe, I know!

Subsequently,
I'm just pointing out that it's not quite what you (or my friend) seem to think.

Yes, Folder data can be used to commit great evil but if anyone is going to deliver scientology in the prescribed manner, PC Folders are required. If you don't use the Hubbard Folder system it's going to add up to something other than scientology.

I agree. And, if you don't use PC Folder material for blackmail, that too is going to add up to something other than Scientology.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
So are you seeing something duplicitious in what I wrote in answer to Atalantan's post? I don't see it.

You wrote, "Blackmail is *exactly* how Scientology Tech utilises the PC Folder data" and I'm pointing out that your statement is well off the mark. In the Scientology Tech Division folder data has many purposes and uses other than blackmail.

Read the actual Court Transcript cited in your OP, Bill Franks seems to understand this quite well.
 
So are you seeing something duplicitious in what I wrote in answer to Atalantan's post? I don't see it.

You wrote, "Blackmail is *exactly* how Scientology Tech utilises the PC Folder data" and I'm pointing out that your statement is well off the mark. In the Scientology Tech Division folder data has many purposes and uses other than blackmail.

Read the actual Court Transcript cited in your OP, Bill Franks seems to understand this quite well.

Additionally the Auditor's Code & Code of a Scientologist actually preclude the use of session material for purposes of blackmail or extortion. :yes:

The Co$ admittedly does not care to rely upon these codes or their advices. :no:


Mark A. Baker
 

Outethicsofficer

Silver Meritorious Patron
If you're a good clam with just the right, according to church doctrines, profile you will never have to worry, why you can live wonderfully deluded existence and no blackmail. If you're not a good clam and you start complaining and doing things considered outside the doctines...the gloves come off!

James
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
So are you seeing something duplicitious in what I wrote in answer to Atalantan's post? I don't see it.

You wrote, "Blackmail is *exactly* how Scientology Tech utilises the PC Folder data" and I'm pointing out that your statement is well off the mark. In the Scientology Tech Division folder data has many purposes and uses other than blackmail.

Read the actual Court Transcript cited in your OP, Bill Franks seems to understand this quite well.

Your argument is like discussing whether the construction of a house requires a carpenter or an electrician.

While the behaviour of Auditors is separate from the behaviour of OSA - *both* groups are governed by L Ron Hubbard Scientology tech. As far as OSA is concerned, the use of PC Folder data for blackmail is *exactly* in accordance with the tech. It just depends on whether or not Scientology is still making money from the PC or whether the PC has become hostile as to which piece of tech is used.

The "house" that is Scientology, requires both; can't have one without the other if it *really* is Scientology.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
OK, I guess you're determined to see what I'm saying as something other than what I think it is. I was speaking to Atalantan of the practice of Auditing and why that practice requires PC Folders. Despite what you seem to think, I really don't need lessons on CofS "scientology", I think I understand it very well. My point is that the part you're referring to is only a small part of the whole "house". The plumbers, bricklayers, roofers, concreters, painters, installers, landscapers, gardeners, cleaners etc all fit in there somewhere. It's your OP, I'll leave the last word to you.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Just a note...

The entire theory of O/W's is essentially this process:

1. Imagine yourself as an idealized, infinitely powerful, perfect being whose every action is holy, flawless and successful.

2. Okay, now look at your own life buddy and tell me every single moment you failed to manifest that perfection. We call those overts. Now, tell me in excruciating detail how you failed.

3. I'd like to give you the r-factor that the reason you are still not a perfect OT is that there is more. Much more. Take a look. That...that....that.....that....that.....that.....that....that....that.............​

The process is run 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....

The EP is a person who is able to give themselves the commands, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3......

Get it? THAT'S the end phenomenon.

In essence, the obsession with O/W's, crimes, sec checks et al is what you do to solve the simple fact that the TECH did not raise the person up to that exalted, perfect state. It's right in KSW. When a person says that the process "didn't work" you must immediately "attack them" and demand to know "What did you actually do?"

The use of sec checks, itself, is an admission that the tech didn't work.



Brilliant HH.

:happydance:

But, what about number 4?

I reckon the process runs 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4, number 4 being the cash donation being skillfully extracted ... that is (to me) the real end phenomenon of the process as Rex Fowler may now realise (was it really 27 intensives Sylvia, I am almost speechless at the thought of how he must have felt, no wonder he went berserk.


:faceslap:
 

Atalantan

Patron with Honors
Your argument is like discussing whether the construction of a house requires a carpenter or an electrician.

While the behaviour of Auditors is separate from the behaviour of OSA - *both* groups are governed by L Ron Hubbard Scientology tech.
The "house" that is Scientology, requires both; can't have one without the other if it *really* is Scientology.


I do not see it quite like that. Auditor tech and OSA tech are two different techs. They may look at the same folders, but they look at those folders in completely different ways with completely different intentions. Opposite intentions, in fact. It is undiscriminating to lump the two together and speak of them as one tech, IMO.

The "house" you are talking about is not Scientology. You are talking about a particular house built a certain way, that calls itself the "Church of Scientology." However Hubbard first built it, and however Miscavige remodeled it, is actually irrelevant. That house can be razed and someone else could build another, totally different house on the same foundation.

In fact, many different houses could be built on the same basic foundation, as has happened with virtually every religion that has existed for any length of time. Look at Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam for examples.

The house is only there as a place for auditing tech to be delivered.

It is the bottle which contains the wine that carries the auditing tech to the supplicants, to use a Sufic metaphor.

The shape of the bottle doesn't matter, so long as it does not leak.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I do not see it quite like that. Auditor tech and OSA tech are two different techs. They may look at the same folders, but they look at those folders in completely different ways with completely different intentions. Opposite intentions, in fact. It is undiscriminating to lump the two together and speak of them as one tech, IMO.

The "house" you are talking about is not Scientology. You are talking about a particular house built a certain way, that calls itself the "Church of Scientology." However Hubbard first built it, and however Miscavige remodeled it, is actually irrelevant. That house can be razed and someone else could build another, totally different house on the same foundation.

In fact, many different houses could be built on the same basic foundation, as has happened with virtually every religion that has existed for any length of time. Look at Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam for examples.

The house is only there as a place for auditing tech to be delivered.

It is the bottle which contains the wine that carries the auditing tech to the supplicants, to use a Sufic metaphor.

The shape of the bottle doesn't matter, so long as it does not leak.



I think that may be the real issue ... the bottle will always leak if you put a foot wrong (and they have the files ready just in case, and it doesn't matter whether the data was gathered by a well intentioned HGC auditor or HCO because OSA will be allowed access to it if they want it).

Tubs wrote the policies that way and the dwarf has merely embellished things.

That is scientology and it is relevant, the FZ can fiddle about with the tek till the cows come home but that isn't scientology.

:yes:
 
Last edited:

Happy Days

Silver Meritorious Patron
Why things have to copiously written down and then typed up by the auditor, pretty detailed I might say. All up on a computer screen for all and sundry to see.

I was brought up a catholic I went to confession I told the priest what I had done wrong and felt bad about and he blessed me and I prayed for amends. Would I do it now .. NO but it's just an example really.

You said this to your priest: 'Bless me father for I have sinned its be ? since my last confession and here are my sins'.

Done and dusted... it's not then typed up and ya nose rubbed in it even last LT stuff ... for f**k sake. Then if you protest ... well you protest to mucheth and so you have other undisclosed crimes and misdemeanors.

The Org exec's cull through your misdeeds and use these, when you have the SNR CS AOSH ANZO, Wayne Peachey, come outside while you wait for your daughter, and you know she just wants to get the hell out of there, and he says she done some terrible things and belittles your own daughter to you, but discloses nothing, but ya feel uneasy as to why he would do such a thing. It was designed to suppress you and your kid's intention.

When your kid's been in the care of the SO since she was 15. What could she have possibly done in her 4 years under such a controlled environment? Did she commit genocide, drug taking, prostitution and any of the other deadly sins? No she was surviving in a cult that is her crime.

For those who tow the line, you are sweet for those who don't and that was me, ya in the gun to have ya dirt spread and use as a weapon. I never did an O/W write up, had plenty of sec checking though.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I've seen a lot of actual session worksheets, in many folders, and items include lists of every drug the person had taken, including illegal drugs, plus related information, such as if the person sold drugs. The person may have only sold small amounts of pot in college, to friends, but that makes him an "admitted drug user and dealer." Is this harmless, irrelevant? Perhaps. Or perhaps the person would be genuinely concerned that, after leaving Scientology and starting a new life - say, as a public school teacher - that his employer might receive a phone call from a "concerned citizen, etc.

Also, away at college, young women sometimes get in trouble and have secret abortions, early in the pregnancy before it's noticeable that they're pregnant. This is another item that would usually be listed in session worksheets. Irrelevant? Perhaps. But maybe not to the devoutly Roman Catholic parents of the young woman who would be devastated to hear that their daughter had an abortion while away at college.

Intimate details of a person's life can be found throughout any person's folder. One need only look. If one half of 1 percent of the information content, or one tenth of one percent of the information content, is used to intimidate and manipulate the person, that's enough.

Of course, most of it is seemingly harmless "mental healing." The "mental healing" part is the medium through which the influence and control are asserted.

And influence and control are asserted through many ways other than collecting "black-mailable" information. This has been covered in such examinations of Scientology as 'Brainwashing Manual http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg Parallels'. http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105 That our Scientology friends don't "get it" is no surprise. That's why they're still Scientologists.

As for holding up the "auditors code" as proof that Scientology, as a subject, is somehow pure and good, and that "violating the auditors code" goes against the doctrine of Scientology, one need only read 'Science of Survival' about how the chronically "low toned" have "no rights of any kind," or read 'Manual of Dissemination of Material' about how troublemakers should be "ruined utterly," or read The "SP" doctrine about how "SPs" are not protected by the codes of Scientology and have no rights, etc., and - after all - "ethics" is supposed to "keep tech in."

And another small detail, Scientology's so called "upper levels" violate the auditor's code by massively evaluating for the person. Of course, the evaluation is coming from L. Ron Hubbard not from the auditor, so it's somehow Ok. But it isn't. Unless one is a Scientologist, in which case, Hubbard's words are mana from heaven. (I know I know, you Scientologists think for yourselves, just like Ron said you should.:p)

Scientology is a dishonest subject. It's loaded with tilted mirrors and strategically placed clouds of smoke, trap doors, and hidden hooks. That's the way its founder designed it.

Scientologists can put their fingers in their ears and run in circles shouting na na na na! all day long. It doesn't change what Scientology actually is.
 
Top