MICHEL - CANCER AND SUICIDE ON SOLO NOTS

[lkwdblds]

CCLA, I practiced it there successfuly 1970 to 1973.

Was it ever really allowed? Or was it something that sounded nice and permitted Scientologists to pretend that they were "thinking for themselves"?

It was really allowed as I illustrate in many examples below!

When were any of Scientology's PR display writings from Hubbard applied in Scientology? Can you state the time? For example, the 'Creed' was always a sham.

Yes, Oct. 1970 to Oct 1973 at Celebrity Centre Los Angeles. I and several dozen others practiced the Code of Honor successfully and did not want to walk out the door. Instead, I was promoted up to Flag. As to when of the writings were applied, I have offered many instances of this below.

The 'Code of Honor' could only be applied by someone willing to walk out the door.

This is the only sentence in this insane post of yours which has any truth. Yes, one had to be willing to walk out the door, that is part of the Code of Honor. You must be willing to do that but only if necessary. At the L. A. Org in Oct 1970, their E.D. Bill Franks refused to allow me to practice the Code of Honor at his Org so I walked out his door over to CCLA's door where I was embraced with open arms as a member of their staff and practiced the Code there for 3 full years.

It's one thing to suggest that someone apply the 'Code of Honor', another to suggest that there was a time when its application (in any way that differed significantly from the party line) was tolerated.

I wrote that the Code of Honor is not longer allowed to be practiced in the C of S. There is a tacit implication in those words that there was a time when the Code of Honor could be practiced. I cited such a time and place which refutes the premise of your entire post. Just for this point, if you had any class, you should apologize for your mistake and admit you were in error.

However, there is so much more to say about your post. You have the arrogance and pompousity to simply pronounce with a wave of your magic baton that Since the first code or creed, no Non Sea Org Org, No Sea Org Org, no Ship and no Scientology Mission has ever, for even a short time, allowed any Code or Creed to actually be practiced. Never, never never in over 55 years since the first Creed was printed. You types of guys always demanding scientific tests, double blinds, placebos, publications in peer journals and all those trappings can just blurt out off the cuff that nowhere around the Earth for over 55 years was a Scientology Code or Creed allowed to be practiced.

Where are your surveys, texts of your interviews. copoies of the Journals you have published this data in. In fact, where is your data? Only in your pompous mind does this data exist and if someone you don't like makes an honest statement which you don't like you pounce on it and attack though you have no possible means of proving your point. There are so many counter examples to what you say, that I don't know where to start: A few counter examples are as follows:
#1. My counter sample at CCLA in '70 to '73
#2. Agnus Hadley's story of the Old Days at St. Hill. She practiced her code for over 20 years successfully before she left.
#3. The Pre 1982 Missions run by Martin Samuels and perhaps Alan and others. No Sea Org interference and little interference from Int Management produced an atmosphere for many were codes and creeds were successfully practiced.
#4. The Auditors"Code - this Code was enforced vigorously in every Org I was in for over 3 decades. It also serves as a good code to live by. Even current Orgs may still allow practice of this Code, I don't know.
#5. - When LRH would publish a new Creed or Code, he could not realistically stomp all over it the first day it came out in an Org. That would appear to be insane and would be bad PR. There was always a honeymoon period where every Code was encouraged and allowed to be practiced. Ultimately, a crisis would arise where emergency measures were taken and codes were overruled and began to be disallowed on a gradient, either slowly or quickly. Still the honeymoon period necessary at the start of each Code or Creed would serve as a counter example to your ridiculous assertion.

You used to write some very good historical posts but recently you have written up some real crapola. This reply to my post criticiazng it on such flimsy grounds with nothing to back you up but an ego is really one of the worst posts I have ever read on this or any other forum.. It was just a reactive effort to pick a fight with someone over nothing and try to belittle them and invalidate them because they think a little differently than you do. Have a nice life!
Lakey

 

[IMMORTAL]

You might want to think about the idea of "running them out." I've never heard that phrase used in this context before. In my experience the goal was to free them.

Yes, that's true.

 

[IMMORTAL]

This mirrors how I feel, especially the last paragraph, and I've been out a long while.

Well, there's much to consider, IMHO....

 

[JBTrendy]

Thanks folks

You might want to think about the idea of "running them out." I've never heard that phrase used in this context before. In my experience the goal was to free them.

Good point Smilla. It's what I would call a shift in point of view. Looking at it from BTs side or from mine. The end result could be the same though.

I want to thank everyone for your very precious answers that are of great help. I red all the links provided by veda re the implantology and though I seen a bit of it before, that gave me a much broader view on the subject.

It is true that on the OT levels being told what to run was a loss as far as auditing was concerned. I often wondered why I had to go through such a training in order to do such an easy job with so little actual auditing happening during the sessions. I found the OT2 material interesting though. But to get rid of things is definitely negative processing and of not such a great value in term of gained abilities.

Concerning the later posts on the thread speaking about truth, it reminded me of a cog I had one day. The exact consideration is also how things get as-ised and thus disapear. So the end phenomena of the bridge and truth revealed would be to make everything vanish. Total freedom to this extent would just be nothing. Pretty light in term of purpose

 

[Veda]

-snip-

As I recall reading somewhere, LRH said it was a workable technology, not necessarily the only tech or the best tech, but workable.

-snip-

That was in 'Safeguarding Technology' of 14 February 1965:

"For some years we have had the word 'squirrelling'. It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why.

"Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it's the best possible system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.

"In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in the foreseeable future, he will ever evolve another.

...

"People have following the route mixed up with 'the right to have their own ideas'. Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognition's - so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others.

...

"Scientology is a new thing - it is a route out. There has not been one...

"Scientology is the only workable system Man has.

...

"Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked."

Some more Hubbard quotes: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=381568&postcount=13

 

[IMMORTAL]

Was it ever really allowed? Or was it something that sounded nice and permitted Scientologists to pretend that they were "thinking for themselves"?

When were any of Scientology's PR display writings from Hubbard applied in Scientology? Can you state the time? For example, the 'Creed' was always a sham.

The 'Code of Honor' could only be applied by someone willing to walk out the door.

It's one thing to suggest that someone apply the 'Code of Honor', another to suggest that there was a time when its application (in any way that differed significantly from the party line) was tolerated.

Veda, I understand what you mean by this. It was something that I couldn't reconcile. There was the Code of Honor, but if one tried to apply it with a Scientologist, or a senior if one was on staff, all hell broke loose. Like other parts of LRH tech whether red on white or green on white, it seemed to apply to others, not the person who wasn't applying it. Now, I know I made a general statement here and I'm sure it doesn't apply to all at all times. It was just something I observed at times.

I guess I was one of those "willing to walk out the door." I remember one instance of my senior telling me in a very nasty way what he thought I should do. Of course, he wanted it done now and he wanted me to do what he had suggested. However, it was my decision to make. So, I listened to him and calmly acknowledged what he said to me. Then, as he could tell he didn't get an immediate "yessir" and intent to comply, he asked me what I was going to do. I looked right at him and told him I would take what he told me, evaluate it and see how it worked out with the rest of my dynamics and activities and make a decision based on what I found. I was starring at an open gap in this guys red, blustery face, hands clenched at his sides, shoulder muscles bunched up. I'm sure he wanted to hit me, kill me in ethics or do whatever he could to get me to immediately comply.

So, I do understand what you mean by that. At least that's the way it was for me.

 

[IMMORTAL]

That was in 'Safeguarding Technology' of 14 February 1965:

"For some years we have had the word 'squirrelling'. It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why.

"Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it's the best possible system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.

"In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in the foreseeable future, he will ever evolve another.

...

"People have following the route mixed up with 'the right to have their own ideas'. Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognition's - so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others.

...

"Scientology is a new thing - it is a route out. There has not been one...

"Scientology is the only workable system Man has.

...

"Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked."

Some more Hubbard quotes: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=381568&postcount=13

Yes, thank you. That was it. I haven't looked at the link yet, but will. EDIT: I did look at the link and the video. It is a FASCINATING video! Thanks for posting!

 

[Veda]

I wrote that the Code of Honor is not longer allowed to be practiced in the C of S. There is a tacit implication in those words that there was a time when the Code of Honor could be practiced. I cited such a time and place which refutes the premise of your entire post. Just for this point, if you had any class, you should apologize for your mistake and admit you were in error.

However, there is so much more to say about your post. You have the arrogance and pompousity to simply pronounce with a wave of your magic baton that Since the first code or creed, no Non Sea Org Org, No Sea Org Org, no Ship and no Scientology Mission has ever, for even a short time, allowed any Code or Creed to actually be practiced. Never, never never in over 55 years since the first Creed was printed. You types of guys always demanding scientific test, double blinds, placebos, publications in peer journals and all those trappings can just blurt out off the cuff that nowhere around the Earth for over 55 years was a Scientology Code or Creed allowed to be practiced.

I can't quote your other comments since you've written them in the body of the text of my post.

Yes, I also thought I was applying the 'Code of Honor', at times, while a Scientologist. I, along with the other Scientologists, had been lied to and for want of a better word, "brainwashed."

Of course, one can find times when (at least it seemed as though) the 'Code of Honor' or the 'Creed' were being applied. However, the 'Code of Honor' and the 'Creed' were and are shams (in the sense of "decorative cover"), existing within a devious and manipulative totalist mind-control system and cult.

And Scientology has been a devious, manipulative, totalist mind-control system and cult since, at least, the mid 1960s.

Citing an isolated instance of someone applying the 'Code of Honor' is besides the point, of course one can find isolated examples.

No doubt, for example, the guys given the assignment to destroy author Paulette Cooper's life, by L. Ron Hubbard via telex from the flagship, felt they were applying, "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."

 

[lkwdblds]

Excellent Post Mark

Many of the most critical posters on ESMB have had little or no access to auditing while in the church. Many others were subjected to poor auditing and gross out-tech during their involvements with scientology. Many of those who had gains from auditing during there involvement in the church have had any auditing gains which they may have had "un-mocked" as a result of their other experiences with the church and its management.

There are many fora created by and frequented by former members of the church. These fora reflect the differing interests & attitudes of their respective membership. Many of those who are happiest with the results they had from their own auditing have come to terms with the bad aspects of the church years ago. As a result they no longer have much interest in the sort of virulent and even hateful criticism which can be found openly expressed on the net, preferring instead to focus on activities which continue to promote and deliver those aspects of the tech which they find most efficacious.

ESMB is a great forum for the exchange of viewpoints but it should not be presumed to somehow reflect an accurate appraisal of the views of all former Co$ members.


Mark A. Baker

Very nice post Mark, good analysis of the material being discussed and excellent presentation. I couln't agree with you more!
Lakey

 

[Veda]

Many of the most critical posters on ESMB have had little or no access to auditing while in the church. Many others were subjected to poor auditing and gross out-tech during their involvements with scientology.

Standard Scientology PR line.

 

[JBTrendy]

Something about poverty

I understand what you are saying. Some people here, including myself, are working out the "truth" or "illusion/delusion" of their experience in Scientology. I can see how it could be that one could feel LRH was leading them on a wild goose chase to poverty and spiritual slavery with a pack of lies. I have experienced a level of that and it's something I'm trying to work out myself right now. I know I've been dupped, but I haven't decided how bad yet or in what areas.

In 1995 I was staff in OSA EU and the havingness was very bad there. In fact the worse in all sea org org I've been to. Very bad food, a ridicoulous pay and after 3 weeks in a raw with none at all everyone was running out of tabacco and that was awfull.

The tone level of the crew really went very low and as a handling we had a study order with a special kind of issue from LRH that we were supposed to give back after usage and not to keep in any hat pack.

I don't remember it very well as when I red it I thought it was so bad that I didn't want to have anything to do with it and even doubted it could have been from LRH.

It stated that mest was a trap that would get in the way to reaching spiritual freedom and thus it was a good thing to do to people to liberate them from it by taking out from them everything they had in term of wealth and havingness and thus justifying the high prices for services and all sorts of donation they could make and so on. The staff also had to be poor and the less they could have on the first dynamic the more effective they would be on the third.

It was so cynical I couldn't believe it.

In fact this is the only time I saw this reference in the sea org and kind of rejected it but now that you speak about poverty this comes back to me. Still I routed out not long after thinking this wasn't a very survival place for me to be in as my havingness is normally pretty good though I'm not money oriented type of person at all.

 

[IMMORTAL]

In 1995 I was staff in OSA EU and the havingness was very bad there. In fact the worse in all sea org org I've been to. Very bad food, a ridicoulous pay and after 3 weeks in a raw with none at all everyone was running out of tabacco and that was awfull.

The tone level of the crew really went very low and as a handling we had a study order with a special kind of issue from LRH that we were supposed to give back after usage and not to keep in any hat pack.

I don't remember it very well as when I red it I thought it was so bad that I didn't want to have anything to do with it and even doubted it could have been from LRH.

It stated that mest was a trap that would get in the way to reaching spiritual freedom and thus it was a good thing to do to people to liberate them from it by taking out from them everything they had in term of wealth and havingness and thus justifying the high prices for services and all sorts of donation they could make and so on. The staff also had to be poor and the less they could have on the first dynamic the more effective they would be on the third.

It was so cynical I couldn't believe it.

In fact this is the only time I saw this reference in the sea org and kind of rejected it but now that you speak about poverty this comes back to me. Still I routed out not long after thinking this wasn't a very survival place for me to be in as my havingness is normally pretty good though I'm not money oriented type of person at all.

Wow. That just plain and simple sucks!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
Many of the most critical posters on ESMB have had little or no access to auditing while in the church. Many others were subjected to poor auditing and gross out-tech during their involvements with scientology. Many of those who had gains from auditing during there involvement in the church have had any auditing gains which they may have had "un-mocked" as a result of their other experiences with the church and its management.

The Surgeon General's recommended daily dosage of inferential vagueness has been exceeded.

It's GRADE ZERO time, dude.

1. Who are you referring to specifically that has had little or no access to auditing while in the church?

2. Who specifically was subjected to poor auditing and gross out tech? Have you seen their folders and/or FES'ed same? What out tech, exactly?

3. Who specifically unmocked whose auditing gains?

 

[lkwdblds]

This topic is over for you and me but See you on the next topic and good luck to you.

I can't quote your other comments since you've written them in the body of the text of my post.

Yes, I also thought I was applying the 'Code of Honor', at times, while a Scientologist. I, along with the other Scientologists, had been lied to and for want of a better word, "brainwashed."

I am sorry this occured for you. Fortunately for me, I did not have this experience.

Of course, one can find times when (at least it seemed as though) the 'Code of Honor' or the 'Creed' were being applied. However, these were and are shams (in the sense of "decorative cover"), existing within a devious and manipulative totalist mind-control system and cult.

Thanks but no thanks for evaluating for me what you think it was that I experienced. I am perfectly capabable of evaluating my own experiences for myself.

And Scientology has been a devious, manipulative, totalist mind-control system and cult since, at least, the mid 1960s.

Okay, if before the mid 1960's things were not as bad then before the mid 1960's it is likely that some people did successfully practice a Code then. Here you are conceeding a 15 year window and all I said is that Codes can no longer be practiced and you took me to task for that. Here you conceded the possibility of a 15 year window. You won our debate for me by your own admission and I thank you for being so candidly honest!

Citing an isolated instance of someone applying the 'Code of Honor' is besides the point, of course one can find isolated examples.

Citing my personal example is not isolated example in my own Universe, it is a concrete example for me and is more important to me than your opinion with no facts to back it up in forming my overall evaluation on the matter.

No doubt, for example, the guys given the assignment to destroy author Paulette Cooper's life, by L. Ron Hubbard via telex from the flagship, felt they were applying, "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."

Now, you are going non sequitor in your last paragraph. It is pitiful in a way, all I stated was that I was recommending that JB practice his own code of honor even though it is no longer possible to practice it in the C of S and now you have me somehow connected to or supporting the placing of live venomous snakes into Paulette Cooper's mailbox.

I am just asking but did you ever have your Service Fac run out or do you even believe in such a thing? Look, I am going to speak from the heart. You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitiled to mine. I made a certain off hand remark about something no longer being possible to practice in C of S and you felt it was never allowed to be practiced. We argued about that, I feel like my points are stronger than the points you made and you probably feel just the opposite.

I have the opinion that you have a service facsimile going here. I am not trying to belittle you or make you wrong. You probably do not believe that there is such a thing as a Service Fac and you most certainly do not feel that if you do have one it is playing any part of this dispute. All right well and good.

Prior to a couple of weeks ago, I thought highly of you as one of the top posters on this board. You have a vast knowledge of Scientology history and have put out some excellent material in that area, no doubt of that and I salute you for it and I have benefited from it.

Even so, my recent experience and this is just an opinion, shows me that I overestimated your objectivity and your critical thinking skills. I have been working on improving my critical thinking. I use the Sherlock Holmes stories, the Columbo detective stories and the Perry Mason legal gymnastics as the type of objectivity and critical thinking which I am trying to achieve. The detective and courtroom stuff is also useful in scientific and math srudies and very much useful in philosophy.

Let us say, you are not trying to develop this part of your psyche and you are concentrating on other areas and in different techniquest of persuasion. I am not saying you are an unworthy person or somebody I don't chose to speak to, it is just that we look at things a lot differently in certain areas and in just those areas, I feel I have nothing more to gain in exchanging ideas with you. I will continue to do so in the many other areas where we have more common ground but not in this current area. There is nothing further to be gained by our debating this more. Good luck to you and hopefully the next time our paths cross it will be a more positive experience for both of us.
Lakey

 

[Veda]

Veda, I understand what you mean by this. It was something that I couldn't reconcile. There was the Code of Honor, but if one tried to apply it with a Scientologist, or a senior if one was on staff, all hell broke loose. Like other parts of LRH tech whether red on white or green on white, it seemed to apply to others, not the person who wasn't applying it. Now, I know I made a general statement here and I'm sure it doesn't apply to all at all times. It was just something I observed at times.

I guess I was one of those "willing to walk out the door." I remember one instance of my senior telling me in a very nasty way what he thought I should do. Of course, he wanted it done now and he wanted me to do what he had suggested. However, it was my decision to make. So, I listened to him and calmly acknowledged what he said to me. Then, as he could tell he didn't get an immediate "yessir" and intent to comply, he asked me what I was going to do. I looked right at him and told him I would take what he told me, evaluate it and see how it worked out with the rest of my dynamics and activities and make a decision based on what I found. I was starring at an open gap in this guys red, blustery face, hands clenched at his sides, shoulder muscles bunched up. I'm sure he wanted to hit me, kill me in ethics or do whatever he could to get me to immediately comply.

So, I do understand what you mean by that. At least that's the way it was for me.

Perhaps the link to the 'Scientological Onion', and its accompanying links (in an earlier post) will help describe this strange situation. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=381568&postcount=13

The Church of Scientology says, "Think for yourself." http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/mesa128.jpg

 

[IMMORTAL]

Perhaps the link to the 'Scientological Onion', and its accompanying links (in an earlier post) will help describe this strange situation. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=381568&postcount=13

The Church of Scientology says, "Think for yourself." http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/mesa128.jpg

Way funny! OMG. I've actually seen this org in my travels.....

 

[Veda]

Now, you are going non sequitor in your last paragraph. It is pitiful in a way, all I stated was that I was recommending that JB practice his own code of honor even though it is no longer possible to practice it in the C of S and now you have me somehow connected to or supporting the placing of live venomous snakes into Paulette Cooper's mailbox.

-snip-

No, I'm not connecting you to anything to do with Paulette Cooper.

However, it's difficult to respond properly to your post as too much of it is unquotable, having been typed in the body of my text. You can break up another's post into segments, you know, and respond between segments.

The main point was that both the 'Creed' and the 'Code of Honor' were and are shams (decorative cover). They were shams in the 1950s also, just less obviously so. The 'Manual on Dissemination of Material' was written in May 1955. The HCO Manual of Justice in 1959. Sec Checking "Any critical thoughts on L. Ron Hubbard?" began in 1961.

By the way, there were no snakes placed in Paulette Cooper's mailbox. You're thinking of attorney Paul Morantz and the Synanon cult.

P.S. I noticed that the next to last paragraph in my quoted post, where you type in the comment, "Citing an isolated example is not [an] isolated example in my own universe..." is not bolded. This creates even more confusion, as it appears to have been written by me. (And, if it's people's private universes being considered, then there's no reason why someone in Scientology today couldn't also apply the 'Code of Honor' in his "own universe.")

As for your not having been either lied to or - for want of a better term - "brainwashed" during your time in Scientology, I think you are fooling yourself.

 

[lkwdblds]

The logical answer to this is.....

In 1995 I was staff in OSA EU and the havingness was very bad there. In fact the worse in all sea org org I've been to. Very bad food, a ridicoulous pay and after 3 weeks in a raw with none at all everyone was running out of tabacco and that was awfull.

The tone level of the crew really went very low and as a handling we had a study order with a special kind of issue from LRH that we were supposed to give back after usage and not to keep in any hat pack.

I don't remember it very well as when I red it I thought it was so bad that I didn't want to have anything to do with it and even doubted it could have been from LRH.

It stated that mest was a trap that would get in the way to reaching spiritual freedom and thus it was a good thing to do to people to liberate them from it by taking out from them everything they had in term of wealth and havingness and thus justifying the high prices for services and all sorts of donation they could make and so on. The staff also had to be poor and the less they could have on the first dynamic the more effective they would be on the third.

It was so cynical I couldn't believe it.

In fact this is the only time I saw this reference in the sea org and kind of rejected it but now that you speak about poverty this comes back to me. Still I routed out not long after thinking this wasn't a very survival place for me to be in as my havingness is normally pretty good though I'm not money oriented type of person at all.

The logical and obvious rebuttal to that hideous policy letter which you mention and which I never saw is that "Why is what is good for the goose, not good for the gander." If money and MEST is so harmful for parishioners and Staff, then why was it so important for LRH or DM to hoard ton's of it. Either C of S could give it to charity or bury it in a hole in the ground if it is so terrible. Why did LRH live on a 180 acre ranch in an expensive area near Santa Barbara, Ca, Why did he have his own household staff, his own butler, gourmet cook, why did he wear nice clothes, why did he have lockers and lockers filled with the finest camera equipment in the world, the finest musical equipment in the world and the list goes on. If all these things were so terrible fro everyone else, why are LRH and DM both obseesed with acquiring more and more of it. I someone else wants it, they are accused of treason. It is a caste system but only two classes with the system - Source or COB and then eveyone else for Source and for COB perhaps a hand full of others who shared some of the wealth.
Lakey

 

[IMMORTAL]

The logical and obvious rebuttal to that hideous policy letter which you mention and which I never saw is that "Why is what is good for the goose, not good for the gander." If money and MEST is so harmful for parishioners and Staff, then why was it so important for LRH or DM to hoard ton's of it. Either C of S could give it to charity or bury it in a hole in the ground if it is so terrible. Why did LRH live on a 180 acre ranch in an expensive area near Santa Barbara, Ca, Why did he have his own household staff, his own butler, gourmet cook, why did he wear nice clothes, why did he have lockers and lockers filled with the finest camera equipment in the world, the finest musical equipment in the world and the list goes on. If all these things were so terrible fro everyone else, why are LRH and DM both obseesed with acquiring more and more of it. I someone else wants it, they are accused of treason. It is a caste system but only two classes with the system - Source or COB and then eveyone else for Source and for COB perhaps a hand full of others who shared some of the wealth.
Lakey

Well said. I agree. It's hideous. While reading your post, I couldn't help but think about the current health care situation being voted in (I believe) by congress, but, of course, it will not apply to them... This stuff, unfortunately, doesn't just happen in Scientology. But then, that's probably discussion for another thread.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Dear Michel,

When you originally came on this board some days ago I warmly welcomed you feeling that you would be of real support, expert analysist and accurate data provider. The success and value of this thread demonstrates I was right.

Told you that as OT3 I would have technical questions to ask you and you suggested I would send you a private message to discuss the matter. In fact my postulate was that we could have this done openly for other to take advantage of it.

This post of yours give me that opportunity so here we go.

The fact is that in 2001 I did OT1 to 3 at Saint Hill UK and it produced the expected results. Free from overwhelm with an awerness assumed level of source that gave me the ability to as-is things or conditions when properly adressed.

Prior to this I did the CCRD in 1994 at CC Int and attested Clear from past life with the arbitrary since then cancelled to not do the grades.

In 2002 I left the church or to be more right was thrown out for challanging management with gross departures from original tenets or what I thought was really scientology. They had took all my money and I was heavily in depts and felt like dog shit. But I'm an artist and got back to play and that saved me as it always did in the past as I felt I could outcreate all that mess.

For years I kind of let things aside feeling in good shape casewise but last year things kicked in again after the trial in Paris in which I was to some extent involved with.

Than I got strongly restimulated to a point where heavy somatics were hitting me. So despite of all risks I thought to address it myself with what I knew from solo auditing but without a meter as mine was not operational anymore. So I started to run the clusters and BTs out as I used to do on OT3 with telepathic ARC.

It worked and I felt I could handle my case. Bit by bit I started to ask me questions like: How come I do have some more BTs when I thought they had all gone away on the level? Is it possible that some are outside of my body also? Soon I found out I could get in comm with them and without invalidating anything I could just address them and did what I found out later were a bit the commands used in Nots. Who are you, what are you, what do you want and so on...

Now when I read you or other very knowledgeable tech terminals here on ESMB lots are invalidating the tech and the reality of the state of clear and the BT and cluster thing. Some say one is mocking his case up. Some say also that there isn't a reactive mind or OT abilities and so on.

Honestly I don't know what to think really. Am I dellusional, am I crazy? Do things like entities really exis? You've been on OT7 so you should know. Why do I feel nobody seem to really state things truly?

One thing I found that made sense to me is in the case these BTs and Clusters do exist what do we have to do about them. Just running them out doesn't seem to be enough if one wishes to take full responsability that is the real state of OT.

But you've been sea org too and I'm sure apart from the bad things witnessed there you kind of got this concept that there is no greater feeling that to be fully on purpose along the 8th dynamics and it made sense. OT is about being operational and that isn't a state of being but has to do with what you can accomplish. And to my opinion there isn't anything comparable to a true competent sea org member and I did meet some and felt at times to be one of them. Nowhere else I had experienced such a powerfull feeling.

Well I don't know :confused2:

I think I said enough for now

All2UAll

JB:
Do you have someone that you can just sit down and talk with?
Someone who is safe?

maybe they could just run you on a prepcheck

something like "In auditing, has anything been suppressed?

Here is a reference to find a prepcheck list:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=387796&postcount=1747

you don't need a meter. Just have the question answered until nothing more comes up.