Scientology's "Whole Track Security Check"

Response

Have you ever knowingly hidden the rape of group member (unfortunately recently discovered to be true) because the rapist was on staff?
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
A reasonable approach would be to abandon any thoughts of right or wrong in any individual, but to attempt to understand that person. Really, if anyone has any belief that the aforementioned list is a good idea I'd say that an examination of the way things really work would point out that it is strictly and only keeping another under control. Such a list could not lead to freedom or relief. In terms of spiritual understanding it is insanity. God help the poor who participate on either end.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
What's *survival* when you're one great of 30,000 potentially even *greater* songs?

Source made Himself nuts.

Zinj
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
A reasonable approach would be to abandon any thoughts of right or wrong in any individual, but to attempt to understand that person. Really, if anyone has any belief that the aforementioned list is a good idea I'd say that an examination of the way things really work would point out that it is strictly and only keeping another under control. Such a list could not lead to freedom or relief. In terms of spiritual understanding it is insanity. God help the poor who participate on either end.


Back in the early '70s Sec Checking was known as Integrity processing. This "whole Track" list came from there and was renamed "sec Check" only later when the Sea Org went totally mad.

But as Integrity Processing there was no thought of right or wrong at all. It dealt purely with what the pc came up with that was a transgression in the society he was part of at the time, and so he built up charge on it. Which charge was being relieved with the process.

So acts that were "overts" in one society were not overts in another. It all depended on context. All the auditor cared about was getting the charge off the question (if it read). Things such as making reports to the Ethics Officer were a total travesty of the auditor's role and were never done.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Security Checking was renamed "Integrity Processing" for public relations purposes after a "PR flap." Some years later, Hubbard re-instituted the name "Security Checking."

As for page after page of "have you ever"-type questions, regarding "bad actions" - questions asked in a totalist (manipulating/dominating cult) environment - one can draw his own conclusions as to what that's about. http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=149467&postcount=4

The other type Security Check question is "In this lifetime," and this is the type mainly used for the collection of possible blackmail. And the collection of blackmail has been occurring in Scientology since at least 1960, although most auditors (and rank and file Scientologists) were/are unaware to this practice, while unknowingly, in various ways, participating in it.

As with anything else, "case gain" can occur during Security Checking, just to put at ease anyone who wants to make that point. More than not, though, what is taken to be "case gain" is an added degree of smoothness and roundness as a Scientology co-operating human ball-bearing. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=56246&postcount=798

However, yes, almost anything can produce "case gain," sometimes, on some people. That doesn't change the other things that occur, or alter the shady motives, and practices, behind it.

So, Security Checking was L. Ron Hubbard's idea, and after some public relations difficulties, the name was changed to Integrity Processing (which was promoted as "new," and to confirm it as a "new" and exciting "breakthrough," a collection of new lists was made, including, I think, the Integrity Processing list on this thread) which was sold to public by Registrars. This went on for a few years, and then Hubbard decided to change the name back to Security Checking.
 

Good twin

Floater
While reading this thread it occurred to me that these whole track overt questions sort of take the wind out of the sails of any folder data being used for blackmail. I mean I may have confessed to adultery, but I also confessed to Intergalactic conspiracy. :confused2:
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Back in the early '70s Sec Checking was known as Integrity processing. This "whole Track" list came from there and was renamed "sec Check" only later when the Sea Org went totally mad.

But as Integrity Processing there was no thought of right or wrong at all. It dealt purely with what the pc came up with that was a transgression in the society he was part of at the time, and so he built up charge on it. Which charge was being relieved with the process.

So acts that were "overts" in one society were not overts in another. It all depended on context. All the auditor cared about was getting the charge off the question (if it read). Things such as making reports to the Ethics Officer were a total travesty of the auditor's role and were never done.

A person is never wrong. That fundamental should not be violated. To ensure it one would check only what the person has a problem with in present time, in other words what a person conciously wants changed. In this case the list and the auditor is deciding, not the person.

My issues with SCN tech include its scope. The path is far shorter and easier than it is made out to be. All one should be doing is helping free up the person's viewpoint so he can see for himself. That isn't a long stretch.

That is my opinion of course. But there is a reason for the tremendous backlash against the COS. I believe it is simple: one is not allowed to become free then pursue one's own path. It isn't that some didn't find a free enough viewpoint to operate, it is that they weren't really free to find different viewpoints which keeps the freeing process going. That takes life. One sees best through other viewpoints, not auditing. Auditing looks within. One needs to look out.
 

Wisened One

Crusader
Nexus: I like your post. Hubby and I also felt like this was the way scn SHOULD be run on others. :thumbsup:

A person is never wrong. That fundamental should not be violated. To ensure it one would check only what the person has a problem with in present time, in other words what a person conciously wants changed. In this case the list and the auditor is deciding, not the person.

My issues with SCN tech include its scope. The path is far shorter and easier than it is made out to be. All one should be doing is helping free up the person's viewpoint so he can see for himself. That isn't a long stretch.

That is my opinion of course. But there is a reason for the tremendous backlash against the COS. I believe it is simple: one is not allowed to become free then pursue one's own path. It isn't that some didn't find a free enough viewpoint to operate, it is that they weren't really free to find different viewpoints which keeps the freeing process going. That takes life. One sees best through other viewpoints, not auditing. Auditing looks within. One needs to look out.
 
Top