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

[Terril park]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

That's untrue, and you know it.

I've known a lot of FZers and Indies

I took the trouble to personally survey many who
had done OT levels. The majority didn't believe the OT 3 story
and also got good results.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Creative processing, OT III belief

How do you differentiate between believes in OT 3 and remembering
OT 3?

The same way I might remember what I ate yesterday for breakfast, scn tech assumes that one also remembers incidents as these are given by the file clerk. As Sr C/S I never saw and don't recall any pc ever inventing incidents unless they were doing so to avoid confronting a real incident. If a pc was mocking things up that didn't happen it would have been like lying to the auditor to avoid the actual session. I just can't even place your response since I've never heard of creative processing. My only way to understand creative processing is to compare with something like "Visualization" which is a common new age thing associated to affirmations, with roots to Crowley, NLP, etc. Such things, while being the basis of Scientology for Ron, were always off limits to scientologists and were considered other practices.

However it is not uncommon to mock up whole track incidents
to run. This is not out tech in principal.

During the entire time in scientology I never saw this and since it was not part of the tech I can only assume it was out-tech because it violates the structure of how processing, per LRH, worked. The assumptiion was that there were actual incidents, engrams, gpms, etc., and that these had charge and had to be keyed out. Auditing was offered as the way to do this by which these true experiences a person had actually remembered at such point as the incident was available. When such an incident was recalled it was run out. If an incident was not recalled it was because there was too much charge on that incident. In which case other incidents were run. Thus peeling an onion, one ran those incidents that were available to remember. Mockups would not be charged so would never arise as a target for auditing. If an incident did not exist then it never came up. That would be like running fake time tracks, fake case, in which case, why try to go Clear if it was all bogus and fake?

Not with creative processing a very powerful tool. I've
seen TV magicians running it to great effect very quickly.
Even did it briefly myself with results I never knew.

TV magicians? I have not kept up with the FZ so I had no idea they were doing this creative processing or that it was a thing done by TV magicians. Since I was formerly into shamanism I have nothing but disdain for magicians. They are like the dregs of the shaman ecosphere. Sorry but I know more about magic than I care to know and having given all that up this doesn't encourage my interest all that much. Been there, saw that, laughed. Not trying to be rude, just honestly expressing that of magic you may not know what you speak. Forgive me for being blunt but this is dark stuff and yes powerful but not good for anyone's health. To be avoided. Also, that it does not surprise me that an ex would turn to magic, since LRH based the tech on magic, I have a blog post on this very thing in the blogs section. The entire of scn was a magic trick or spell, as De Wolfe pointed out, Satanism. So does not surprise me that magic rears up in the connection of Scilon afterlives, FZ, et. al. One reason I don't practice any Scilon techniques is for that very reason, it is tainted. Even down to the Touch Assist and to the TRs.

An excellent case can be made for this.

However one may look again at this section of the auditors
code. Is it always wrong? For example in discussion forums
such as this one may give new-evaluated- data and it can be
very useful. Happens every day with any luck.

Much comments on logical reasoning which may be helpful
to many. Despite being evaluation.

"e·val·u·ate (ĭ-văl′yo͞o-āt′)
tr.v. e·val·u·at·ed, e·val·u·at·ing, e·val·u·ates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or amount of: evaluate the damage from the flood.
2. To determine the importance, effectiveness, or worth of; assess: evaluate teacher performance. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically."

From Scn Dict " Telling the PC what to think of his case"

Lakey did answer concerning eval so I'll let his answer stand.

Putting a PC on OT 1,2,3 does not necessarily tell the PC what to think of his case. I give myself as an example as I didn't believe the theory
in the first place. Yet got extraordinary wins.

Someone has just posted somewhere here that most on these levels didn't believe the OT 3 story. I surveyed this and came to the same conclusion.



I did run it without C/S instruction in fact. My second go I had
a C/S instruction to do stuff I did before and that prompted me to address the endocrine system. My idea.Thus more to run




Not sure how valid the bridge is. Lower levels seem golden.
Upper levels seem to me in the realm of creative processing.



Redoing the bridge seems to involve inval. Met some who have done 5 CCRDs. Not happy campers.

Thanks for the conversation.

I agree that redoing involves inval. Luckily when all that was going down I was gone and so I didn't go through that period where everyone was sec-checked until they passed out. I wouldn't have had the money to undergo that anyway, which is a reason I think that many pcs were not happy campers if ever I was auditing them and they had to redo anything. The mania to redo I think is tied to a purist point of view in which when the tech changes it is assumed that any process done before the tech changed was probably not really done. But if this was the case, then I'd also think that pcs should get a free redo given that it was out of their control if the tech was changed. Even if an auditor was later declared SP, it is not that easy to fake a session with a pc. One is writing quickly all the pc says, plus noting the meter, plus being there and listening and giving commands. An FES is sufficient to see where any outtech occurred and to fix only that instance without having to redo everything in a sort of scorched earth style. So the redo mentality just assumes that there are infinite resources and that everything done was out-tech, thus invalidating all that things that were run that a pc thought reflected wins. IT's very messed up.

I used to agree with you, when I was a believer that the tech was even tech, that we could be told we had BTs or that the volcano incident happened to us and that this was not eval. Now I feel very differently over time and have come to see all sorts of eval that goes on in CoS. The eval that someone is an SP when in reality there should be very few SPs in relation to the population, the eval that one is in a lower condition based on 'facts' having nothing to do with such a claim, the evals go on and on, including the eval about OT 3. I agree with you about mocking up fictional incidents like the OT 3 incident and the BTs. Since they don't exist and OTs have to remember them somehow to run them, then they mock them up. Since they mock them up, they run them out. I just don't think it has any therapeutic value and has no relationship to becoming OT or to having OT abilities or anything like that. Because why would I take a fictional event that did not bother me and did not exist on my radar and pay to run it out so I could go OT? I could pick up a work of fiction and within it find an imaginary incident and run that too. Would that make me go OT? Maybe I should run out scenes from Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov and see how soon I go OT.

I've written on some blog posts why I feel all and any Scn tech is worthless (at most a twisted form of hypnosis or NLP) and is not 'tech' at all and how the entire bridge is a form of magic (very poor magic indeed except for those who get to keep all the loot). So I won't repeat those conclusions here. But I do agree that OT III requires a magic trick, creative processing.

If for no other reason than the repressive acts that have poured forth from CoS, a logical reaction would be to question EVERY SINGLE SHRED OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE and until such "age of questioning" is complete, reject ALL OF IT IN THE MEANTIME.

Please understand the spirit in which I responded. I am not criticizing you at all and I can't tell anyone else what to think or believe. But the above is where I am.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

I've known a lot of FZers and Indies

I took the trouble to personally survey many who
had done OT levels. The majority didn't believe the OT 3 story
and also got good results.

I don't know any Scientologists, FZers or Indies. Nada. And had no clue what they believed. It was a bit shocking to see the weird Bill R. beliefs on the other thread where I posted. Like for real or is this a bit too much LSD kicking in? Sorry but that stuff seems, to my eyes that for years have had no contact, as crazy as OT 3 does.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

I think that the Ron's Org plus Ray Robles small group constitutes the entire FZ at this time. Back in 2010 and 2011 there was an L.A. Group, nominally headed up by Diana CLass VIII with a few helpers. That group has pretty much dissolved since that time. Trey''s field practice is the only remnant left of the L.A. group that is currently doing anything. Oh there are a few isolated field auditors here and there giving sessions but there is no real organization and they are not really part of the FZ. Also, no one seems to be giving training; the little that is being delivered in L.A. is almost all auditing and no training. There may some FZ activity in the SF Bay area, or Oregon and Washington State and that is about it.
Lakey

You are wrong. My own 2 FZ forums number about 1000. Only
a very few are in Rons Orgs. RO members are mostly in Europe
and Russia. 1500-2000 or so. Around 37 groups.

http://www.ronsorg.com/english/linksenglish.htm

My yahoo forums are not so busy
now and more FZ activity is observable on facebook groups, some
open some private. I'm on about 9 and that is not all of them.

This website below lists around 160 groups and auditors
all english speaking but also scattered in many countries.

http://www.freezoneauditors.org/auditor

This below lists about 21 auditors and groups.

http://internationalfreezone.net/auditor-directory.shtml

The two biggest FZ Orgs are Dror in Izrael and Helen Chen's
org in Taiwan which has 100 staff.


Last I counted there were approx 14 places to do training
in the english language. This compares badly to h0w many places one can recieve auditing.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Creative processing, OT III belief

The same way I might remember what I ate yesterday for breakfast, scn tech assumes that one also remembers incidents as these are given by the file clerk. As Sr C/S I never saw and don't recall any pc ever inventing incidents unless they were doing so to avoid confronting a real incident. If a pc was mocking things up that didn't happen it would have been like lying to the auditor to avoid the actual session. I just can't even place your response since I've never heard of creative processing. My only way to understand creative processing is to compare with something like "Visualization" which is a common new age thing associated to affirmations, with roots to Crowley, NLP, etc. Such things, while being the basis of Scientology for Ron, were always off limits to scientologists and were considered other practices.





During the entire time in scientology I never saw this and since it was not part of the tech I can only assume it was out-tech because it violates the structure of how processing, per LRH, worked. The assumptiion was that there were actual incidents, engrams, gpms, etc., and that these had charge and had to be keyed out. Auditing was offered as the way to do this by which these true experiences a person had actually remembered at such point as the incident was available. When such an incident was recalled it was run out. If an incident was not recalled it was because there was too much charge on that incident. In which case other incidents were run. Thus peeling an onion, one ran those incidents that were available to remember. Mockups would not be charged so would never arise as a target for auditing. If an incident did not exist then it never came up. That would be like running fake time tracks, fake case, in which case, why try to go Clear if it was all bogus and fake?



TV magicians? I have not kept up with the FZ so I had no idea they were doing this creative processing or that it was a thing done by TV magicians. Since I was formerly into shamanism I have nothing but disdain for magicians. They are like the dregs of the shaman ecosphere. Sorry but I know more about magic than I care to know and having given all that up this doesn't encourage my interest all that much. Been there, saw that, laughed. Not trying to be rude, just honestly expressing that of magic you may not know what you speak. Forgive me for being blunt but this is dark stuff and yes powerful but not good for anyone's health. To be avoided. Also, that it does not surprise me that an ex would turn to magic, since LRH based the tech on magic, I have a blog post on this very thing in the blogs section. The entire of scn was a magic trick or spell, as De Wolfe pointed out, Satanism. So does not surprise me that magic rears up in the connection of Scilon afterlives, FZ, et. al. One reason I don't practice any Scilon techniques is for that very reason, it is tainted. Even down to the Touch Assist and to the TRs.


Lakey did answer concerning eval so I'll let his answer stand.





I agree that redoing involves inval. Luckily when all that was going down I was gone and so I didn't go through that period where everyone was sec-checked until they passed out. I wouldn't have had the money to undergo that anyway, which is a reason I think that many pcs were not happy campers if ever I was auditing them and they had to redo anything. The mania to redo I think is tied to a purist point of view in which when the tech changes it is assumed that any process done before the tech changed was probably not really done. But if this was the case, then I'd also think that pcs should get a free redo given that it was out of their control if the tech was changed. Even if an auditor was later declared SP, it is not that easy to fake a session with a pc. One is writing quickly all the pc says, plus noting the meter, plus being there and listening and giving commands. An FES is sufficient to see where any outtech occurred and to fix only that instance without having to redo everything in a sort of scorched earth style. So the redo mentality just assumes that there are infinite resources and that everything done was out-tech, thus invalidating all that things that were run that a pc thought reflected wins. IT's very messed up.

I used to agree with you, when I was a believer that the tech was even tech, that we could be told we had BTs or that the volcano incident happened to us and that this was not eval. Now I feel very differently over time and have come to see all sorts of eval that goes on in CoS. The eval that someone is an SP when in reality there should be very few SPs in relation to the population, the eval that one is in a lower condition based on 'facts' having nothing to do with such a claim, the evals go on and on, including the eval about OT 3. I agree with you about mocking up fictional incidents like the OT 3 incident and the BTs. Since they don't exist and OTs have to remember them somehow to run them, then they mock them up. Since they mock them up, they run them out. I just don't think it has any therapeutic value and has no relationship to becoming OT or to having OT abilities or anything like that. Because why would I take a fictional event that did not bother me and did not exist on my radar and pay to run it out so I could go OT? I could pick up a work of fiction and within it find an imaginary incident and run that too. Would that make me go OT? Maybe I should run out scenes from Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov and see how soon I go OT.

I've written on some blog posts why I feel all and any Scn tech is worthless (at most a twisted form of hypnosis or NLP) and is not 'tech' at all and how the entire bridge is a form of magic (very poor magic indeed except for those who get to keep all the loot). So I won't repeat those conclusions here. But I do agree that OT III requires a magic trick, creative processing.

If for no other reason than the repressive acts that have poured forth from CoS, a logical reaction would be to question EVERY SINGLE SHRED OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE and until such "age of questioning" is complete, reject ALL OF IT IN THE MEANTIME.

Please understand the spirit in which I responded. I am not criticizing you at all and I can't tell anyone else what to think or believe. But the above is where I am.

Very fine post, I like the second paragraph which deals with eval the best. On the subject of eval, I have always, both before and after being in scientology, been in favor of what is called "constructive criticsm". When in COS, I was made to put a lid on that concept and never give constructive advise. LRH had to be the supreme authority for all advice. The closest a scientologist could come to giving advice was to cite an LRH reference and suggest that a person should read it. I never fully agreed to this concept but reluctantly adhered to it while I was in.

A real life example which exposes how stupid this piece of tech can be arose when architect Lawrence Woodcraft was sent to the Freewinds ship to help redesign ship's galley. Woodcraft immediately noticed that the ship's walls and ceiling were full of toxic and potentially deadly loose Blue Asbestos. He recommended that no further work be done on the ship until the Blue Asbestos was removed. None of the officers or crew had ever heard of asbestos and ordered Woodcraft to ignore it and proceed with his redesign but Woodcraft wouldn't budge. A head officer Bitty Miscavige showed up on the ship and at least she heard out what Woodcraft had to say. Bitty is the former Bitty Blythe who became a staff member at CCLA around 1972. She was very young and she and Bob Mithoff began going together. She later married DM's brother, Ronnie, and became Bitte Miscavige, the mother of the well know Jena Miscavige and DM's sister in law.

Bitty Miscavige did all that she could do as a Sea Org Officer. She went through all LRH materials on how to run a ship, looking for data on asbestos. She found no data at all on asbestos but did find some data on fiberglass insulation. She acted on the fiberglass insulation, doing what LRH said to do to to mitigate any potential damage from it. LRH had never encountered any information on asbestos and there was a good reason for that. Asbestos started being used somewhere in the 1940's and was legal to use in houses, ships, etc all the way to 1972 when it was discovered that the product was potentially very deadly and could lead to mesothelioma. Starting in 1972 it was declared illegal to use in the USA. LRH went to sea in 1966, while asbestos was still acceptable so he never became aware that it was dangerous. There you have it, COS's policy that no one but Hubbard can issue policy or revise existing policy reared its ugly head once again.

Closing out on constructive criticism, I still give it to others if I feel I know something they don't know which might help them. I do check with them first and make sure that it is okay with them if I evaluate for them. Almost no one says no. After clearing that it's okay with them, I give my opinion and that often includes evaluating for them. When I do evaluate, I always use the term, "correct me if I'm wrong" and then I evaluate for them. My results have been good. Only 2 or 3 times have I been told that I am wrong. I will sometimes approach someone who I respect and ask them to evaluate for me and tell me how they would handle such and such a problem.
Lakey

 

[Terril park]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

more tomorrow since it is so late here but a question for now- what is the point of inventing incidents and creative processing...why would it be needed to remove charge from non-existent incidents? In scn the goal is to remove charge. So what good comes of removing fictional creative charge? OT 2 gpms are supposed sources of charge as is OT 3. When one runs an incident one recalls it. Nothing in OT 3 says to mock it up. Or invent it. If one cannot recall it then how is the incident to be run out? Believe in the incident and believe in where the pilot...? Are you say one use visualization to imagine OT 3 happened so that then this fiction and its charge can be removed plus the fictional BTs? I know you asked questions and I hope to get to them after 3-4 pm ET. Thank you.

Thing is on OT 2&3 one is auditing other entities not
oneself. This seemed to have a great, and positive effect on them.
I've posted again below from PAB 12 for easy reference. It seems to me
this is a mock up process from the description below. But you are
mocking it up so that entities attached to one get the idea, and
perhaps run explosions which restim and discharge their own engrams.



"The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and,
for our purposes here, can be considered to be basicbasic. And it could be remarked with this PAB that basicbasic for all cases has been discovered and is being delivered into your hands to be run,"

"What exactly is the cycle of the explosion? One gets the preclear to
get nothingness, then a growing expanse of whiteness, then turn the whiteness black, have the black dwindle and get nothingness again. You will readily see the similarity of this to Black and White Processing and, indeed this is the furthest extension of Black and White Processing but is many times more effective and usefull."

"....It does not matter how poorly the preclear runs this. It does not matter if the nearest approach to whiteness is simply the idea that something might be white if he could see it"

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: Creative processing, OT III belief

Very fine post, I like the second paragraph which deals with eval the best. On the subject of eval, I have always, both before and after being in scientology, been in favor of what is called "constructive criticsm". When in COS, I was made to put a lid on that concept and never give constructive advise. LRH had to be the supreme authority for all advice. The closest a scientologist could come to giving advice was to recommend to someone to read a specific reference from LRH. I never agreed to this concept but reluctatly adhered to it while I was in.

A real life example which exposes how stupid this piece of tech is arose when architect Lawrence Woodcraft was sent to the Freewinds ship to help redesign part of the floor plan of the ship.
Woodcraft immediately notice that the ship's walls and ceiling were full of toxic and potentially deadly Blue Asbestos. He recommended that no further work be done on the ship until the Blue Asbestos was gotten rid of. None of the officers or crew had ever heard of asbestos and ordered Woodcraft to ignore the asbestos and proceed with his redesign but Woodcraft wouldn;t budge. A head officer Bitte Miscavige showed up on the ship and at least she heard out what Woodcraft had to say. Bitte is the former Bitte Blythe who became a staff member at CCLA around 1972. She was very young and she and Bob Mithoff began going tegether. She later married DM's brother, Ronnie and became Bitte Miscavige, the mother of the well know Jena Miscavige.

Anyway, Bitte Miscavige did all that she could do is a Sea Org Officer. She went through all LRH materials on how to run a ship, looking for data on asbestos. She found no data at all on asbestos but did find some data on fiberglass insulation. She actually acted on the fiberglass insulation, doing what LRH said to do to to mitigate any potential damage from asbestos. LRH had never encountered any information on asbestos and there was a good reason for that. Asbestos started being used somewhere in the 1940's and was legal to use in houses, ships, etc all the way to 1972 when it was discovered that the product was potentially very deadly and could lead to lung cancer. Starting in 1972 it was declared illegal to use in the USA.

This leads to the problem because LRH researched ship construction prior to 1972, actually going to sea around 1966. As a result, this supposed all knowing savant did not know of the dangers of asbestos and since he did not know of this danger, of course he did not wrote anything about it. The top brass of the S.O. stuck to their guns; LRH never wrote that it was harmful so anyone who says it is harmful must be ignored and his warning about how dangerous asbestos is must be ignored. There you have it, COS's policy that no one but Hubbard can issue policy or revise existing policy reared its ugly head again. With policy that idiotic, how long can such an organization last.

Closing out on constructive criticism, I still give it to others if I feel I know something they don't and if they knew it, they could handle a problem they now have. I do check with them first and tell them they I would like to make a recommendation to them, but only if they want to hear what I have to say. No one that I remember has ever said no, I don't want to hear it; well I take that back, during arguments with my ex wife, she frequently said no, but she was the only one who ever did. After clearing that it's okay with them, I give my opinion and some of the time that involves evaluating for them. When I do evaluate, I always use the term, correct me if I'm wrong and then I evaluate for them. My results have been good, most appreciate the advice, a few don't agree with the advice and only once or twice I have been told that I was wrong. I believe that type of evaluation has some value, I believe that so strongly that when I have been trapped in a problem, I will sometimes approach someone who I respect and ask them to evaluate for me and tell me how they would handle such a problem.
Lakey

I don't know if I would call seeking advice 'evaluation'. The problem with the term, is that it's Scn lingo. It's use in normal English, on both sides of the pond, is not liked to causing trauma, or the 'case'.
That said, I'd like to offer that the term is pointless and useless and rephrase things a bit.

1) If something tells me that something exists that does not and expects me to believe it, forces their truth on me, that is called abuse, brainwashing, etc. Not evaluation.
2) if someone gives advice, whether I ask for it or not, that is called opinion and anyone can have one as long as they don't force it on me. See #1.
3) If someone declares someone else an SP, that is called judging, a very bad trait in human beings and in my opinion very bad to ever judge someone's spiritual state since this is only allowed for God. Again my opinion. For those who don't believe in God, it's still bad and while I can see that in some cases it arises from pain, for example, we judge Hitler to be evil, those cases are rare. In cases that are not Hitler, judging others is a form of ad hominem and gossip.
4) If someone attacks another in anyway, such as stalking, harassing, name-calling, this is called an ad hominem attack, and in cases where the actions are illegal, a crime. Historically ad hominems are employed in legal cases, any lawyer out there can confirm this. They are used when all substantive, better arguments failed. This is a last resort form of verbal force since persuasion failed. Force is force. Force is abuse. Again, #1 above. One attacks someone with ad hominems, an extreme version of #1 and #3 above, because one is at the end of their rope and can't get their way by playing nice. Instead they must use bully tactics. Thus this sort of argument is viewed as a very weak, sort of desperate argument. A problem occurs that when someone resorts to this degree of attack, they have already lost or are on the losing end. Every time Scientology declares people, orders disconnections, harasses and follows people, attacks people, EVERY SINGLE TIME THESE THINGS HAPPEN, they slowly erode their own position because they are committing what are legally called crimes, they are making false representations and judgments, they are abusing their position and their followers and they are brainwashing their followers. THEY is not a generality. THEY are those who are often talked of on this board, the current overlords running the CoS PSYOP. They may win their little battles (in the sense that they vented and their egos feel a bit better) but continuing to expend and waste resources in this way will ruin them. Isn't there a term, snapping terminals? The problem with this form of attack is that they must take on the role of what they call SP in order to fight supposed enemies.

The term SP is a way to get around just using the term sociopath or psychopath.

Let us be clear, the word supressive is entirely vague. A doctor would say he is going to supress illness. Is that evil? No it is good. The words sociopath or pyschopath are not vague. They are established words in the English language that refer to persons who have a mental pathology in which they have no moral compass at all land do and say things that are harmful to others without any moral check, either because they are insane or because they lack empathy of any kind. A person who follows Ron's DO AS THOU WILT could eventually by following that edict graduate into a sociopath. Sociopaths are very rare, and actually their problem can be confirmed in the brain itself. A scan will confirm the pathology! Their brains are not the same as everyone else's. It is IMPOSSIBLE that all the folks declared are sociopaths or even psychopaths. Are they SPs? Yes! Because they refuse to follow the lie anymore and therefore they are supressing some element of CoS that is understood to be Insane, unhealthy, illegal etc. If all these people were sociopaths that would go against what medical sciences would ever claim, confirm or speculate.

I find it best to avoid all Scilon terminology and translate into English, since doing so really does shed a new light on what is being said and done. Because, if one uses the language of the censors in the novel 1984, one would ideed be censored oneself, just by using their language, and one would in the process lose the richness of meaning by the adoption of the slogans of those who would control the mind, and therefore lose control of one's ability to know, of knowledge. And as we know from 1984 knowledge IS power.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

You are wrong. My own 2 FZ forums number about 1000. Only
a very few are in Rons Orgs. RO members are mostly in Europe
and Russia. 1500-2000 or so. Around 37 groups.

http://www.ronsorg.com/english/linksenglish.htm

My yahoo forums are not so busy
now and more FZ activity is observable on facebook groups, some
open some private. I'm on about 9 and that is not all of them.

This website below lists around 160 groups and auditors
all english speaking but also scattered in many countries.

http://www.freezoneauditors.org/auditor

This below lists about 21 auditors and groups.

http://internationalfreezone.net/auditor-directory.shtml

The two biggest FZ Orgs are Dror in Izrael and Helen Chen's
org in Taiwan which has 100 staff.


Last I counted there were approx 14 places to do training
in the english language. This compares badly to h0w many places one can recieve auditing.

You may well be right. I dabbled in the FZ in 2011 and 2012. What I stated to be the case was how the FZ appeared to me with my limited exposure at that time. I quickly became disenchanted with the FZ and want nothing to do with it. I saw cliques, backbiting, dead agenting between rival FZ members, etc.. The only good I saw in it was that their prices were much lower than COS's prices, they only use LRH references up to 1983 or so, totally avoid ALL DM modified tech and all the new versions of the books and tapes. They do not have an equivalent to the IRS, they don't flood you with mail and nobody is calling you all the time trying to sell you something. Captain Bill Robertson seems like a fine man personally and he knew a lot about LRH and the early days but I was not impressed with his version of the tech.

I am very familiar with the Helen CHen Academy and deeply admire them. If I was ever wanting to do any training, that is the only place I would even consider going to. I didn't include her as an FZ outlet. To me her program is a for profit academy, and their fees are fairly high but they give a lot of exchange for one's money. They seem to be a comp for child development for you Taiwanese. They bring Taiwanese children to the US, teach them English, introduce them to many scientology principles but it is much more than that, they are taught art, dance, music, things of that nature, the focus a lot of their emphasis on the second dynamic, helping these Taiwanese youth find mates and encouraging to have children, Education in scientology did not seem to me to be their main focus. The focus is more to make young children into well rounded and ethical adults who are very happily married and begin right away to raise their own families. I am only familiar with the L.A. branch. I assume that their main academy in Taiwan is similar. I just never thought of this academy as being part of the FZ. To me, I see that they are affiliated with the FZ but their program is so much broader than just scientology that it's really not part of the FZ.

You know more about it than me, so if you insist that they are part of the FZ, I'll accept that.

As far as scuentology, ex scientology and the Free Zone, I don't want to do more services with any if those groups. I am done with all bridge type activities and all training activities. No amount of money or free services given to me could ever get me to set foot in any of the new orgs or Ideal Orgs. My only interest in scientology is to meet up with many of the ex members. A lot of really fine people were sucked in by Hubbard and stripped of our money, our sanity and our dignity. Here among the exes, a lot of old friendship can be rekindled and some new friendships can be formed. We can gain new incites on how it was that we camed to be duped and taken in by Hubbard. We can aid some of those who have only recently left COS. Often they need help in re adjusting to society and those of us who have already hashed all of this out for so long can help them and make their paths easier and perhaps make a new firend in the process of doing that. That is now my only reason for be on the board, except for the fact that it is kind of fun to be here as well.

If the FZ grows, expands and succeeds, I have no problem with that so I wish you the best in pursuing your interest in the FZ.
Lakey

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Helen (Hellen) Chen Academy is now aligned with Ron's Orgs.

Here's something from her husband, Helmut, from a while back, as posted on Mike Rinder's blog:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/taiwan-closes-its-doors-for-gag-ii/

_________Begin quote__________​

Helmut Flasch says
November 27, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Actually, we ( that is Hellen and Helmut ) have made more the a dozen of clears, about 6 OTIII, in the last year and are delivering the Excalibor (OT 7 & 8 ) as well.

I am on it personally, and me and another person are OT IV C/S’s —
Switzerland’s Ron’s Org has trained me is still helping us with C/Sing those upper OT levels and will also train us to deliver OT 7,8,9,10 and above...

Helmut​

__________End quote__________​

 

[Claire Swazey]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't really see a reason to have more reservations about Ron's Org outlets than re any other Indie or FZ venue. What's the point of all that chagrin? Is it because of the space opera?

 

[MrNobody]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Helen (Hellen) Chen Academy is now aligned with Ron's Orgs.

Here's something from her husband, Helmut, from a while back, as posted on Mike Rinder's blog:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/taiwan-closes-its-doors-for-gag-ii/

_________Begin quote__________​

Helmut Flasch says
November 27, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Actually, we ( that is Hellen and Helmut ) have made more the a dozen of clears, about 6 OTIII, in the last year and are delivering the Excalibor (OT 7 & 8 ) as well.

I am on it personally, and me and another person are OT IV C/S’s —
Switzerland’s Ron’s Org has trained me is still helping us with C/Sing those upper OT levels and will also train us to deliver OT 7,8,9,10 and above...

Helmut​

__________End quote__________​

In case he doesn't see it here, you might want to PM Udarnik about this. He might be interested.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

I put all of my comments in red above.
Lakey

For me I've tried to understand why OT3 worked so well
when I didn't even believe in incident 2. I've arrived, for now, at the conclusion that by mocking it up any of my associated entities
thus mocked it and ran lots of explosion type incidents and
restimmed and discharged any number of engrams of various sorts.

For example the OT2 electrical GPM could be considered like an explosion
also. Thus the entities iether ran or mocked up something similar
from their own track.

The PDC lectures Scn 8-0088 and 8-80 all go into creative
processes.They were considered very powerful but limited
processes. LRH says at one point someone could spend an
hour or two implanting someone and we can run it out with creative
processing in 15 mins.

This process is used today for example in getting people to
mock up past track incidents which then results in them starting
to run real [ or "real"? ] incidents. I did that once on my NED
interneship on a staff member. Not sure how it worked out as
I didn't audit him again.

My most memorable experience of mock ups was a stage
magician or similar on TV who got members of the audience on stage
and asked them for a troubled area then ran creative processes
on them to very good success, and very quickly. Can't remember who it was as I could then maybe find something on U-Tube.

You said:-

"Just as Clearly, it is not okay for someone to tell a PC what to think of his case. That is simply a major violation of the Auditor's Code and it is a High Crime in Scientology Ethics for anyone to do that. Doing that will always result in messing up someone's case and that is the reason why LRH put it in the Auditor;s Code. I am really surprised, Terril, that you opinion is to be lax on this matter and be sort of reasonable about it."

Well I've been called a squirrel before and it don't bother
me. And I'm not a fundamentalist.

However one may take the view that getting someone to run
OT 2&3 one is subjecting the entities to the auditing not the pre OT.
And one is educated first by HCOB "The nature of a being" which
stresses that one is not a single unit being.

On PAB 12 one is asked to mock up explosions. This is not
evaluative. OT 3 can be considered evaluative but it has
the same action as PAB 12.

I'm just trying to figure things out. Per ocdcam,s razor my idea here is simpler than Inc 2.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It must touch on something.

 

[Terril park]

Re: Creative processing, OT III belief

I just can't even place your response since I've never heard of creative processing. My only way to understand creative processing is to compare with something like "Visualization" which is a common new age thing associated to affirmations, with roots to Crowley, NLP, etc. Such things, while being the basis of Scientology for Ron, were always off limits to scientologists and were considered other practices.
During the entire time in scientology I never saw this and since it was not part of the tech I can only assume it was out-tech because it violates the structure of how processing, per LRH, worked. The assumptiion was that there were actual incidents, engrams, gpms, etc., and that these had charge and had to be keyed out.

I was in CO$ from around 1965 and I only saw one example of creative processing used. Its based on PDC lectures and the book Scn 8-0088

Heres a wonderful example of how miraculous it can be as done
by old timer Phil Spickler who worked with LRH when it was the latest and greatest stuff.

http://community.freezone-tech.info/phil-spickler/from-the-book-open-field/

TV magicians? I have not kept up with the FZ so I had no idea they were doing this creative processing or that it was a thing done by TV magicians. Since I was formerly into shamanism I have nothing but disdain for magicians.

The FZ and TV magicians are not connected. I'm not even interested in them. However I was sitting down and probably my wife had put a program on. I suddenly realized the guy was running creative processing on
people and getting good results real quick.

Now I feel very differently over time and have come to see all sorts of eval that goes on in CoS. The eval that someone is an SP when in reality there should be very few SPs in relation to the population,

My view is that CO$ primarily deals with reverse or black scn. Telling
someone what they should or should not look at for example.

If for no other reason than the repressive acts that have poured forth from CoS, a logical reaction would be to question EVERY SINGLE SHRED OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE and until such "age of questioning" is complete, reject ALL OF IT IN THE MEANTIME.

I agree and have that attitude to the admin which I know
relatively well. The tech I'm not so expert on, and it's complicated
in that I have had very good experiences with it.

Please understand the spirit in which I responded. I am not criticizing you at all and I can't tell anyone else what to think or believe. But the above is where I am.

Well I was asking sort of . I have a reverence for learning and you
not only did what was required to become a senior C/S but also
taught the history of Philosophy.

What's not to like

PS have you a link to your blog?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

For me I've tried to understand why OT3 worked so well
when I didn't even believe in incident 2. I've arrived, for now, at the conclusion that by mocking it up any of my associated entities
thus mocked it and ran lots of explosion type incidents and
restimmed and discharged any number of engrams of various sorts.

For example the OT2 electrical GPM could be considered like an explosion
also. Thus the entities iether ran or mocked up something similar
from their own track.

The PDC lectures Scn 8-0088 and 8-80 all go into creative
processes.They were considered very powerful but limited
processes. LRH says at one point someone could spend an
hour or two implanting someone and we can run it out with creative
processing in 15 mins.

This process is used today for example in getting people to
mock up past track incidents which then results in them starting
to run real [ or "real"? ] incidents. I did that once on my NED
interneship on a staff member. Not sure how it worked out as
I didn't audit him again.

My most memorable experience of mock ups was a stage
magician or similar on TV who got members of the audience on stage
and asked them for a troubled area then ran creative processes
on them to very good success, and very quickly. Can't remember who it was as I could then maybe find something on U-Tube.

You said:-

"Just as Clearly, it is not okay for someone to tell a PC what to think of his case. That is simply a major violation of the Auditor's Code and it is a High Crime in Scientology Ethics for anyone to do that. Doing that will always result in messing up someone's case and that is the reason why LRH put it in the Auditor;s Code. I am really surprised, Terril, that you opinion is to be lax on this matter and be sort of reasonable about it."

Well I've been called a squirrel before and it don't bother
me. And I'm not a fundamentalist.

However one may take the view that getting someone to run
OT 2&3 one is subjecting the entities to the auditing not the pre OT.
And one is educated first by HCOB "The nature of a being" which
stresses that one is not a single unit being.

On PAB 12 one is asked to mock up explosions. This is not
evaluative. OT 3 can be considered evaluative but it has
the same action as PAB 12.

I'm just trying to figure things out. Per ocdcam,s razor my idea here is simpler than Inc 2.

On your second to last paragraph, talking about explosions, in my opinion there is a huge difference between just mocking up explosions and mocking up A bomb explosions from an alleged OT3 incident where large numbers of people are place at the center of an A bomb explosion and are being murdered in a most bizarre and shocking way. I do not consider that these two activities are equivalent and are the same action.

BTW, I am so glad that I am totally out of having any interest whatsoever in pondering or dealing with these types of studies, discussions and speculations but I wish you well in your studies discussions and speculations having to do with these matters.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

For me I've tried to understand why OT3 worked so well
when I didn't even believe in incident 2. I've arrived, for now, at the conclusion that by mocking it up any of my associated entities
thus mocked it and ran lots of explosion type incidents and
restimmed and discharged any number of engrams of various sorts.

For example the OT2 electrical GPM could be considered like an explosion
also. Thus the entities iether ran or mocked up something similar
from their own track.

The PDC lectures Scn 8-0088 and 8-80 all go into creative
processes.They were considered very powerful but limited
processes. LRH says at one point someone could spend an
hour or two implanting someone and we can run it out with creative
processing in 15 mins.

This process is used today for example in getting people to
mock up past track incidents which then results in them starting
to run real [ or "real"? ] incidents. I did that once on my NED
interneship on a staff member. Not sure how it worked out as
I didn't audit him again.

My most memorable experience of mock ups was a stage
magician or similar on TV who got members of the audience on stage
and asked them for a troubled area then ran creative processes
on them to very good success, and very quickly. Can't remember who it was as I could then maybe find something on U-Tube.

You said:-

"Just as Clearly, it is not okay for someone to tell a PC what to think of his case. That is simply a major violation of the Auditor's Code and it is a High Crime in Scientology Ethics for anyone to do that. Doing that will always result in messing up someone's case and that is the reason why LRH put it in the Auditor;s Code. I am really surprised, Terril, that you opinion is to be lax on this matter and be sort of reasonable about it."

Well I've been called a squirrel before and it don't bother
me. And I'm not a fundamentalist.

However one may take the view that getting someone to run
OT 2&3 one is subjecting the entities to the auditing not the pre OT.
And one is educated first by HCOB "The nature of a being" which
stresses that one is not a single unit being.

On PAB 12 one is asked to mock up explosions. This is not
evaluative. OT 3 can be considered evaluative but it has
the same action as PAB 12.

I'm just trying to figure things out. Per ocdcam,s razor my idea here is simpler than Inc 2.

It's been a long time since I ran this stuff myself, 1976, but if I remember correctly, it is necessary to first put in your ruds and then run yourself through both Incident One and Incident Two. This is what the BT's get run on by you as the solo auditor so the pre OT does audit himself at the beginning of his first session on the same stuff which he audits on his BT's in that same session and in all subsequent sessions. My point is that this shoots down taking the view that one is getting someone else to run OT 3 and not being audited on it himself.

Then there is the HCOB, "The nature of a being" which stresses that one is not a single unit being. This news is a surprise to most but not all pre OT3's. This material is also an evaluation. LRH asserts it and states that it is true for all beings on Earth and we have to accept that as being true. Because of this fact, when we look for BT's and we think we have found some, that is already acting on evaluated data even before the BT's are run on anything. Doing this alone. the pre OT3 operates on evaluated data and since nothing has been run yet, your defense that we are auditing the BT and not the pre OT fails once again.

You might take these considerations into account as you try to figure things out.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: Creative processing, OT III belief

I was in CO$ from around 1965 and I only saw one example of creative processing used. Its based on PDC lectures and the book Scn 8-0088

Heres a wonderful example of how miraculous it can be as done
by old timer Phil Spickler who worked with LRH when it was the latest and greatest stuff.

http://community.freezone-tech.info/phil-spickler/from-the-book-open-field/

The FZ and TV magicians are not connected. I'm not even interested in them. However I was sitting down and probably my wife had put a program on. I suddenly realized the guy was running creative processing on
people and getting good results real quick.

My view is that CO$ primarily deals with reverse or black scn. Telling
someone what they should or should not look at for example.

I agree and have that attitude to the admin which I know
relatively well. The tech I'm not so expert on, and it's complicated
in that I have had very good experiences with it.

Well I was asking sort of . I have a reverence for learning and you
not only did what was required to become a senior C/S but also
taught the history of Philosophy.

What's not to like

PS have you a link to your blog?

Hi Terril, Thank you for the nice words. I appreciate it. Part of me stresses out when people argue and disagree here...even when I disagree I try to be nice. If I feel like things will get testy it makes me want to change gears....take in a new view or sunset so to speak.

Below are my blog posts. I don't keep a personal blog anywhere....just this. I don't really have much to say about things in general, so no point in setting up a big fancy blog. Anyway, worked in software too many years so like the dentist who's kids need braces I don't have a web at the moment.... Since I don't work I had time to come here and do a bit of memory lane/catch up with the exes.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/blog.php?13377785-Maria-Cuervo

My feeling about the blog is that the things I write are for myself, to clarify my own thoughts, to work out my own way in the world and that is it. I have very little drive or interest in convincing anyone since each person will do as is best for them and I am here mostly to just do memory lane. Plus when people are all angry they look sort of ugly so I try not to get to the name-calling level. That is probably what turns me off most about CoS at the moment, besides the fact they are wrong about everything. What turns me off is the way they yell at people. One has to become ugly, contort the face, look like a monster, etc. So yell at people. Ugliness is so...well....ugly. Let's do a bit of creative processing (neurolinguistic programming)....Imagine a room of beautiful people. It is a party, there is some jazzy music playing...a piano, people are in suits and ties, gowns.... Lots of celebrities are there....everyone is glamorous....suddenly Rinder's ex comes in screaming at someone at the top of her lungs. Some of the gorgeous people there just blink for a second like, what?, then they go back to talking about this or that and the music pipes in again. The screamer keeps screaming but no one looks at her since her actions are reminiscent of a bag lady screaming at passerbys asking for money. Not very attractive. As Somerset Maugham wrote in "Of Human Bondage", too much enthusiasm is a sign of ill-breeding....Well, CoS is certainly enthusiastic...and the ugly screaming faces do not have a look that would come off as sexy or even cool at a dinner party. I am thinking of the first party in Eyes Wide Shut. Very posh. Now visualize that party and the screamer entering. Doesn't fit does it? Where does it fit? What's that TV show where the trailer trash come on and yell and scream at their exes? Oh, it does fit there...Ok...so back to the dinner party, the jazz, the gorgeous beautiful people, they go back to smiling and talking and the jazz starts back up....and there are no screamers in sight. The eyes are soothed by beauty....don't you think?

A change of subject. As for wins and gains and so on...and if they exist or what is the cause. I think most of those gains are just NLP. Scientology employs a form of subtle hypnosis and by way of suggestion relief is obtained. Steve Jones has NLP courses. I have taken them just to see what it is and also NOT to use it on others but in order to know when it is being used on me so I can 'undo' it and deflect it. Basically NLP can be used surreptitiously, can be used sort of like creative processing, etc. (I think they are variations of the same thing). I think the wins of Scientology and the wins of creative processing are just the effects of hypnosis - based on the power of suggestion. This sort of 'magic' can all be found in NLP. I explain exactly why I think all this in my article which I linked below. It's a creative form of hypnosis. Scientology uses a mixture of that + control methods. It is called subtle communication, the form of hypnosis Scientology uses. Here is what I wrote.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?874-Tricks-lies-and-Scientology-magick

I am not trying to promote the article, but it explains why I wouldn't be interested in creative processing. I think that creative processing is emblematic of the problem with Scientology as a whole. I find subtle communication to be manipulative in the form of it that CoS uses it. As to online courses I took of Steve Jones. They were 10 dollars each or something, with videos, all online. Fascinating. I advise you to take the ones I took if curious. Very eye opening. Did I apply it to myself or others? No. Was it fascinating. Yes. Interesting use of affirmations to do creative processing. There are 100s of books on NLP. I used to have a number of them, to analyze. It becomes hard to avoid, for me, that Scientology is NLP on steroids, albeit a very specific and exclusive signature brand. Good thing Scn disallows other practices (even though Ron based Scn on these) cuz if CoS incorporated any of this people would be sunk. More brainwashed than ever. So yes on black Scn.

My feeling is that while human disciplines can be flawed and do not offer 'answers' in the way the Scilons believe they can, at least there is authenticity there in the academy where I studied philosophy. Such disciplines admit when they are wrong after all. I will take the history of philosophy over anything I learned in Scientology any day. I do not regret the people I met in Scientology, which is why I even come to this forum. We are all exes (excluding the OSA notetakers) so we have a lot to commiserate about! I just wish there was less in-fighting.

Well not sure I really responded all that well although I probably overextended myself! I'll reread your post and maybe reply again if there was something I neglected....
maria

P.S. And of course this is all my own opinion. I'm not a good persuader and I won't use force. At most I hope that interesting discussions could result, regardless of whether they ever reach 'agreement.'

 

[Little David]

Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

On your second to last paragraph, talking about explosions, in my opinion there is a huge difference between just mocking up explosions and mocking up A bomb explosions from an alleged OT3 incident where large numbers of people are place at the center of an A bomb explosion and are being murdered in a most bizarre and shocking way. I do not consider that these two activities are equivalent and are the same action.

BTW, I am so glad that I am totally out of having any interest whatsoever in pondering or dealing with these types of studies, discussions and speculations but I wish you well in your studies discussions and speculations having to do with these matters.
Lakey

Reading this made me think of Thursdays Tony Ortega blog where he wrote:

"Last time, we got a look for the first time at L. Ron Hubbard’s high school grades. This time, we spin forward to the 1950s, when Hubbard got crosswise with a couple of his most interesting early supporters. One of them, Volney Mathison, was the actual inventor of the device that Scientology today calls the “E-meter.” The other figure was Alphia Hart, whose Dianetics ‘zine, The Aberree, is an invaluable guide to the early days of Hubbard’s movement."

"Mathison was an inventor who had an interest in psychotherapy and found in Hubbard a man who was investigating similar lines. Hart was a writer who, after the war, had witnessed the Bikini Atoll atomic bomb test."

http://tonyortega.org/2015/03/12/do...ter-inventor-turn-against-hubbard/#more-20912

I wonder if LRH's fantasies about being a nuclear physicist and saving us from radiation were encouraged by his relationship with Alphia Hart.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril or anyone, why can FZ deliver 'tech' without being in legal trouble? I was looking at the Chen posts, they refer to delivering OT. CoS does not control use (terms / tech)?

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril or anyone, why can FZ deliver 'tech' without being in legal trouble? I was looking at the Chen posts, they refer to clear and OT. CoS does not control use?

They can and have hit hard re copyright. So copy an LRH bulletin
and they can have at you. Enid Vien lost a lawsuit when a disgruntled student turned in copies from I believe red vols she made to COS.
Search OCMB on lawsuits for that. Mayo also lost/won re copyrights after enduring 10 years of litigation.

Techniques or use delivered can not be copywrited. Copyright laws
were never designed to prevent further research. Or use of ideas.

I've been posting successes on ALL levels for 15 years and COS has not
communicated to me about that. Did get deadfiled thank goodness. So
hard to get off the mailing lists.

Karin Spaink and Zenon Parnousis, critics, posted upper levels and
after 5 lawsuits from CO$ per dutch courts freedom of speech,
or religion trumped copyright and CO$ can no longer take any
legal action on the issue. Nor go to the European court. Since
then ROs have been able to post any tech in the netherlands
without challenge from CO$ for many years now.

One can legally access all OT levels from the new website.

An interesting side point is that Karen, a Dutch journalist, and
Zenon, a Greek living in Sweden who one of his friends said
had a hobby of getting sued, became lovers with CO$ as the cupid

Great fun meeting them all in Amsterdam.