Hi

[hummingbird]

I wish I could talk to my friends without fear of being ostracized. I had a hard time dating due to it (and obviously finding someone accepting of my family) and had to fudge my employment gap to get a good job.

First off, Welcome Zoe! I hope you enjoy your time here!



Yeah, I had to fudge an employment gap too, but now that's waaay in the past. I'm so mortified of my past (8+ years on staff), let alone my involvement in the kult, that I've only told a small handful of people I really trusted. You know what? They did not care. They did not think less of me. They actually thought a little more of me because I had escaped! (One of my friends was in EST for a while. You just never know about people...)

Wishing you all the best, and hope you get some fam out.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

Hi Zoe,

Take this seriously. My spouse is still in and I will assure you that OSA does monitor this site. I have been through a couple of sec checks because of some postings I made here. Ironically they only reconfirmed my disdain for for at least the organize COS. If the meter is so good I shouldn't have been able to pass. It has caused me to drastically curtail my Scn related postings so in that regard they have achieved their goal.

You have a lot of work a head of you if you look at all the good postings here. If I was you I would try to figure out why you drifted away in the first place. I disagree with the churches line that entheta on the internet causes doubt. One already has doubt or they wouldn't look...

SCIENTOLOGY PARADOX #743:
The mere act of reading the internet can trigger the "ethics" officer to immediately assign you the lower condition of Doubt. You are in condition of Doubt because you "cannot make up one's mind" whether you are a KSW planet clearer OR an ex-Scn SP on the internet. Thus, you set forth to do the steps of the formula, lest you be disconnected from family, friends and co-workers as well as "lose your eternity".

The Condition of Doubt: When one cannot make up one’s mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project, a condition of Doubt exists. The Doubt formula is:

1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all bias and rumor.
2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.
3. Decide on the basis of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.
4. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
5. Evaluate one’s own or one’s group, project or organization’s statistics.
6. Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.
7. Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organization one has remained in or joined.
8. Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one’s status.

​

However, the Ethics officer that just assigned you Doubt forbids you from doing formula steps 1-3 because you are prohibited from going on the internet and reading, researching and discovering what the "actual intentions and activities" of those Internet Ex's and SPs are. That's why you were assigned Doubt in the first place! Since you are not allowed to read or talk to any of the persons in that group/activity, you are likewise unable to "examine the statistics" of that group/activity.

Ergo, you cannot do step #3, deciding whether it "...should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped."

So, now what do you do? Well, it seems reasonable to go back and ask the Ethics officer for permission to look at the internet. When you do so, you are hit with the "next gradient of ethics" and issued a "Non-Enturbulation Order", which (if you violate it again by going on the internet) gets you an immediate "SP Declare".

So, you respectfully and meekly ask the Ethics officer how you are supposed to get the data on that group/activity. The EO grins and hands you a thick pack of information. You note the cover says "DEAD AGENT PACK" and as you flip through the contents, you immediately note that it is filled with COS issues, declares, directives and "Briefing Sheets". The EO tells you that all the data you will ever need is in that pack. You ask if that isn't a violation of Hubbard's formula, step #1, where you are suppose to "brush aside all bias and rumor". Because that's ALL that is in the Dead Agent pack, bias and rumor created and promulgated by the COS. The EO laughs and says that Scientology is the most ethical group on the planet and would never deal in rumors or bias.

As if all that is not enough of a paralyzing paradox, here's one more difficult to imagine fact. Even if you were able to do Doubt Steps 1-3, you still could not do steps #4 and #5. Because Scientology pathologically lies about their intentions, objectives and stats.

And, for anyone who has made it through this post thus far, there is reward for digesting so much cult craziness. An after dinner dessert, so to speak! The final absurdity of this paradox is that YOU have been assigned a lower condition, rather than the corrupt, lying COS Scientologists who threaten your "eternity" if you can't complete a formula that they ensure is literally impossible to do.

 

[Gib]

In other words, you are saying that you have to compromise your reality, ignore your integrity, and skulk and simper around your family? You have to be somebody that you are not? Maybe y'all can do that.
I say it's their problem. Let them deal with it.

I suppose one can view it that way, I didn't, my goal was to get family to look at the internet and not get declared or disconnected, and once looking at the internet their own curiosity dragged them down the rabbit hole as members are not allowed to talk about scientology as that would be verbal tech as you know.

I also had read a lot of coming out stories and learned from mistakes made and things to do, and I also used Rhetoric since I realized Hubbard did and I knew nothing about it. I learned up on it by reading this site and some of the recommended reading books:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

The classical definition of Rhetoric is "the ability in any particular case to see the available means of persuasion".

For example, lets say it's the case of Christmas day and scientology family are there for dinner, one says something innocently like "Hey, I heard something on the radio about Leah Remini and scientology, who is this person? And what's it all about? Then one plays dumb or Sargent Schultz and lets the conversation go on. Then depending on the conversation, one can steer it or ask some more non judgmental questions.

 

[phenomanon]

I suppose one can view it that way, I didn't, my goal was to get family to look at the internet and not get declared or disconnected, and once looking at the internet their own curiosity dragged them down the rabbit hole as members are not allowed to talk about scientology as that would be verbal tech as you know.

I also had read a lot of coming out stories and learned from mistakes made and things to do, and I also used Rhetoric since I realized Hubbard did and I knew nothing about it. I learned up on it by reading this site and some of the recommended reading books:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

The classical definition of Rhetoric is "the ability in any particular case to see the available means of persuasion".

For example, lets say it's the case of Christmas day and scientology family are there for dinner, one says something innocently like "Hey, I heard something on the radio about Leah Remini and scientology, who is this person? And what's it all about? Then one plays dumb or Sargent Schultz and lets the conversation go on. Then depending on the conversation, one can steer it or ask some more non judgmental questions.

It's great that you had all that time to prepare. I was "in" one minute, and "out" the next. I had to flee.
I never thought of anything, other than grabbing my meter et al and getting out the door. Blowing COS was not something that I had planned to do that day.

 

[Enthetan]

One step on the Doubt Formula, which you can do with others:

Scientology claims to increase abilities. OK, WHERE are the people made much more able by Scientology? Where are the people who have become MUCH more successful due to Scientology.

In making any investment decision (and paying over $100,000 for services is a MAJOR investment decision), one should take a look at people who have made that decision, and how well that worked out for them. You should be able to see lots of people who can truthfully say they've stably doubled their yearly income after doing their OT levels. Go look for them. Question how they increased their income, and how Scientology helped them do it.

Realize that, if Scientology could enable a hedge fund manager to guess what the market was doing even 10% more often, or a lawyer win his cases even 10% more often, or a salesman close even 10% more of his sales leads, that there would be a line of people with suitcases full of cash, stretching from the front door of Flag all the way to Tampa. And yet there isn't.

Look at staff. Ask what their case levels are. If Scientology made people more able, don't you think the FIRST people which Management would want to use it on, would be their OWN STAFF? Just innocently ask the question, why aren't more staff getting up the Bridge? Doesn't Management think that doing so would raise stats? Either Management thinks that the line that "processing increases ability" to be a fraud, or they don't want their people to be more able. It's either A or B. If A, then Management is a bunch of suppressive con men. If B, then management is just suppressive. Which is it, A or B?

Lots of opportunities to discretely sow doubts.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

One step on the Doubt Formula, which you can do with others:

Scientology claims to increase abilities. OK, WHERE are the people made much more able by Scientology? Where are the people who have become MUCH more successful due to Scientology.

In making any investment decision (and paying over $100,000 for services is a MAJOR investment decision), one should take a look at people who have made that decision, and how well that worked out for them. You should be able to see lots of people who can truthfully say they've stably doubled their yearly income after doing their OT levels. Go look for them. Question how they increased their income, and how Scientology helped them do it.

Realize that, if Scientology could enable a hedge fund manager to guess what the market was doing even 10% more often, or a lawyer win his cases even 10% more often, or a salesman close even 10% more of his sales leads, that there would be a line of people with suitcases full of cash, stretching from the front door of Flag all the way to Tampa. And yet there isn't.

Look at staff. Ask what their case levels are. If Scientology made people more able, don't you think the FIRST people which Management would want to use it on, would be their OWN STAFF? Just innocently ask the question, why aren't more staff getting up the Bridge? Doesn't Management think that doing so would raise stats? Either Management thinks that the line that "processing increases ability" to be a fraud, or they don't want their people to be more able. It's either A or B. If A, then Management is a bunch of suppressive con men. If B, then management is just suppressive. Which is it, A or B?

Lots of opportunities to discretely sow doubts.

Great points you raise.

I asked Scientology to respond to the more-than-troubling unresolved issues that you identified. They told me you, by definition, must be a "Merchant of Chaos"--and therefore I should disconnect from you, ignore what you are saying and also disconnect from anyone else who has fallen victim to your vicious lies. Then they assigned me a lower condition for having been "reasonable" and allowed you to shake my certainty and, thereby, go out-KSW.

I thanked my Ethics Officer and was about to leave the org when they said I needed to do a clay demo of how I could "deliver an effective blow to the enemy (you) of the group (ethical scientologists) that I was "pretending to be part of". That was kind of confusing because I wasn't able to remember pretending to be anything or even agreeing with you--I simply read your questions and wondered what Scientology had to say about it.

Well! After I passed my clay demo, they said they could really help me get through my Liability by suggesting a really theta "effective blow" wherein I would go undercover and pretend to be your best friend, in order to gather incriminating evidence against you that could be used to humiliate you online with a hate website. I asked my Ethics and OSA terminals: "What if I can't find any of your crimes because you hadn't committed any crimes?" They laughed and lowered my condition back down to Doubt since I could not make up my mind if you had crimes, the way LRH stated in the tech.

While working on my Doubt formula they told me your actual intentions and stats which was quite shocking to me. All these years I have been reading your posts, I never confronted or realized that you were intending to sabotage mankind's only hope by destroying Ron's Bridge to Total Freedom. That kind of seemed like a "generality" to me, so I asked them if there were any specifics. Naturally, in order to help me they lowered my condition again and I was re-assigned ENEMY.

Do you see the extreme DevT, Counter-Intention and Enturbulation that you have put on my lines?

As part of my ENEMY formula ("Find out who you really are") I have discovered that I am (really) an in-ethics, in-KSW, on-Source theta being on this planet. This is so much better than you it's not even funny!

So, kindly keep your low toned particles off my lines, on this planet.[SUP]*[/SUP]

ML,

helluvahoax!








.


[SUP]*[/SUP] Actually keep your low toned particles off my lines on this planet AND any other planet, in case you and/or I am knowingly or unknowingly operating any 'bodies in pawn' on other planets. In this way (per KSW), I am 'hammering out of existence' your off-source particles from my on-source, up-tone, up-stat, in-tech, in-arc, in-ethics, in-KSW, in-manners lines on this planet and/or other planets.

 

[Gib]

One step on the Doubt Formula, which you can do with others:

Scientology claims to increase abilities. OK, WHERE are the people made much more able by Scientology? Where are the people who have become MUCH more successful due to Scientology.

In making any investment decision (and paying over $100,000 for services is a MAJOR investment decision), one should take a look at people who have made that decision, and how well that worked out for them. You should be able to see lots of people who can truthfully say they've stably doubled their yearly income after doing their OT levels. Go look for them. Question how they increased their income, and how Scientology helped them do it.

Realize that, if Scientology could enable a hedge fund manager to guess what the market was doing even 10% more often, or a lawyer win his cases even 10% more often, or a salesman close even 10% more of his sales leads, that there would be a line of people with suitcases full of cash, stretching from the front door of Flag all the way to Tampa. And yet there isn't.

Look at staff. Ask what their case levels are. If Scientology made people more able, don't you think the FIRST people which Management would want to use it on, would be their OWN STAFF? Just innocently ask the question, why aren't more staff getting up the Bridge? Doesn't Management think that doing so would raise stats? Either Management thinks that the line that "processing increases ability" to be a fraud, or they don't want their people to be more able. It's either A or B. If A, then Management is a bunch of suppressive con men. If B, then management is just suppressive. Which is it, A or B?

Lots of opportunities to discretely sow doubts.

I know what you are saying, all true, but one has to be really careful asking those kind of questions as they can be mistrued as being "critical". My last time in the org 4 years ago as a public, several staff were co-auditing up the bridge on the grades. at least in the org I was at, can't say the same for other orgs.

 

[Gib]

It's great that you had all that time to prepare. I was "in" one minute, and "out" the next. I had to flee.
I never thought of anything, other than grabbing my meter et al and getting out the door. Blowing COS was not something that I had planned to do that day.

yes, I totally understand that as I blew once from org staff, and then later from the sea org with no time to prepare. I was just telling the OP what I did to get a few peeps out in recent years.

 

[Operating DB]

I know what you are saying, all true, but one has to be really careful asking those kind of questions as they can be mistrued as being "critical". My last time in the org 4 years ago as a public, several staff were co-auditing up the bridge on the grades. at least in the org I was at, can't say the same for other orgs.

But you know that that staff co-auditing probably didn't last long. I bet in a short order of time they were pulled off to handle a Hill 10 or fill other posts to get stats up or some dumb junk like that.

 

[Gib]

But you know that that staff co-auditing probably didn't last long. I bet in a short order of time they were pulled off to handle a Hill 10 or fill other posts to get stats up or some dumb junk like that.

don't know, but you are right. Or maybe they got flown to another org to help getting CF files done, LOL.

 

[Dulloldfart]

But you know that that staff co-auditing probably didn't last long. I bet in a short order of time they were pulled off to handle a Hill 10 or fill other posts to get stats up or some dumb junk like that.

Yep. In 23 years in the SO, outside of the RPF (and DPF once) I've seen three non-professional staff co-audits. Each one got terminated by seniors inside a few weeks. Hence my not-really-joking management maxim for staff:

"No auditing is better than any auditing."​

Paul

 

[Terril park]

Yep. In 23 years in the SO, outside of the RPF (and DPF once) I've seen three non-professional staff co-audits. Each one got terminated by seniors inside a few weeks. Hence my not-really-joking management maxim for staff:

"No auditing is better than any auditing."​

Paul

London Org had an excellent record here. Staff could pay
auditors for auditing at £4 per hour, I left staff in 1982 so
don't know what happened later. Usually day staff were
audited by foundation members and vice versa. There
was an HCOB or HCOPL where Hubbard said that anything
that enabled staff to be audited was a good thing.

 

[AngeloV]

Hey Zoe,

Regardless of whether or not you decide to "come out" to your family members, rest assured that the decision you made to leave the cult is the right one.

I guarantee that in the future when you look back at your life, that decision will be one of the best decisions you have ever made.

I blew decades ago. Out of the thousands of life decisions I have made, that one is in the top 3.

Good luck and stick around. There's a lot to learn.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

London Org had an excellent record here. Staff could pay
auditors for auditing at £4 per hour, I left staff in 1982 so
don't know what happened later. Usually day staff were
audited by foundation members and vice versa. There
was an HCOB or HCOPL where Hubbard said that anything
that enabled staff to be audited was a good thing.

I remember that HCO Policy. . .

It was in my full hat pack, right next to the policy on how anything that enabled people to get over-boarded, chain-lockered, defrauded, bankrupted, framed/falsely imprisoned, destroyed utterly and fair-gamed was a good thing.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

Yep. In 23 years in the SO, outside of the RPF (and DPF once) I've seen three non-professional staff co-audits. Each one got terminated by seniors inside a few weeks. Hence my not-really-joking management maxim for staff:

"No auditing is better than any auditing."​

LOL !

There were safeguards LRH built into policy in order to help ensure staff went up the Bridge to Clear and OT.

If it ever appeared that a staff member was qualified to receive auditing, senior execs would call an emergency meeting to help verify their quals, so that the staff member was not DevT'd or unnecessarily delayed from going into session. All that was required was to verify that they had first completed their FULL HAT TRAINING and evidenced a CONTINUOUS UPTRENDING POWER GRAPH FOR THEIR POST for at least one uninterrupted year.

Once these simple requirements were verified, execs could then sign of that part of the staff member's routing form and help expedite them right into session!

 

[pineapple]

London Org had an excellent record here. Staff could pay
auditors for auditing at £4 per hour, I left staff in 1982 so
don't know what happened later. Usually day staff were
audited by foundation members and vice versa. There
was an HCOB or HCOPL where Hubbard said that anything
that enabled staff to be audited was a good thing.

In my experience staff were usually broke. Sometimes they couldn't eat and pay rent. On several occasions I had to lend staff money out of my own meager resources so they could get something to eat so I could audit them. How the f**k could they afford to pay auditors?

 

[PirateAndBum]

London Org had an excellent record here. Staff could pay
auditors for auditing at £4 per hour, I left staff in 1982 so
don't know what happened later. Usually day staff were
audited by foundation members and vice versa. There
was an HCOB or HCOPL where Hubbard said that anything
that enabled staff to be audited was a good thing.

I doubt the record was 'excellent' Terrill. How many full-time staff could afford to pay even that? Certainly not 'living' on staff pay. Another thing is what policy was being operated off of? None that I know of because when I was on staff back then you got 'professional rate' which was 50% off full price and at the time 12.5 hours was at least $3,000 so you're talking over $100/hr. Considering I rarely made even $100 in a week on staff it would be ridiculous to think that I could have paid for auditing even it were only $10/hr.

And when would these auditors have had time to audit staff? Auditors were kept busy auditing paying public as #1 priority. How many staff actually got to do it? Or are you just claiming excellence based on the offer rather than the reality? For if Day auditors had time to audit Fnd staff then that means they didn't having paying public which means the org was doing shit for GI and thus staff were making nothing worth mentioning. Not to mention the huge out-point that there were supposed to be Qual staff staff auditors to audit the staff, which in all the years I was involved (30+) there never was anyone that ever held such a post in the 2 orgs I was involved with.

An 'excellent record' would be: London org had a number of staff staff auditors that regularly audited staff members to the state of clear as part of the exchange promised to staff members. Your 'excellent' is my estimation, 'shitty disregard' of staff and the promises of free training & auditing made to them when inducing them to join staff in the first place.

Sorry to have to piss on your attempts to put a shine on the shit that is and was the reality of being Co$ org staff.

 

[Terril park]

In my experience staff were usually broke. Sometimes they couldn't eat and pay rent. On several occasions I had to lend staff money out of my own meager resources so they could get something to eat so I could audit them. How the f**k could they afford to pay auditors?

Surely you know that most class 5 staff moonlighted?

 

[PirateAndBum]

Surely you know that most class 5 staff moonlighted?

If they moon-lighted when would they have time to go in session?

If they did have time they should have been on course getting in their 2.5 hrs a day 'enhancement', training for their post and perhaps auditor training. But of course they weren't doing that because they were too busy moonlighting!

What % of staff paid 4 pounds/hr? And as I said above, why would this rate as 'excellent' when it was supposed to be provided to staff no charge as part of their exchange for working on staff?

So basically you're saying the London org was running completely off-policy!

 

[pineapple]

Surely you know that most class 5 staff moonlighted?

I was on staff myself, Terril.