- (1) Keeping Scientology Working - Today's significance
(Includes: a) Am I getting the results I am supposed to have?; b) Qual Libraries vs Missing information; c) A rundown of the understanding required today ...; d) “Having the correct technology” vs “Standing in the shadow”)
- (2) It doesn't look good for ‘David Mayo’, or does it?
(Includes: a) Who is David Mayo? and the ‘Church of Scientology’; b) The ‘Church of Scientology’/Scientology offshoots vs The ‘David Mayo Bridge’; c) Educating out the previous education vs Blind spots; d) The position of various Free Zone groups regarding which Bridge to use; e) It just doesn't look very good for David Mayo ...; f) Fact vs Myth? Whose Bridge are we traveling on?; g) Man vs Sheep)
It would appear these pages were in need of a disclaimer up front. A variety of people have been assuming and believing all sorts of things. So, here they are dealt with.
Who or what is behind this website?
Well, this is a research project! These pages do not aim to get persons hooked up on this Church of Scientology or even the topic. There have been all sorts of people assuming this would have been the aim of these pages. Well, it is just not! Not sure how people would have figured that actually, it must have been that they were not looking any further than their noses were long. There is no affiliation with the Church of Scientology found here, nor the Free Zone or any other offshoots for that matter. This website addresses the topic and tracks its travel (changes and distortions) though time. This is pretty much all it does.
This website and all that you find on it are personal initiatives. No other persons than the website owner has been deciding what is to be on there. Many suggestions however have been forwarded by a variety of persons. There is no dictating entity found behind this website. There is no propaganda purpose found here. It just aims to present missing information, to tell the untold story. It examines suppressed information. It doesn't try to convince you of anything. It just sorts, records and investigates information. It is a step back into past (largely forgotten) history.
I hope this settles that for once and for all.
The common people
I will further note here that there have been frequent responses that supported the common belief of many a person, that this Scientology matter was just some made up thing of one individual for personal profit only. It is implied that these topics of Dianetics and Scientology are just a hotchpotch of information taken from common psychology, reincarnation therapy, some other, and even black magic, and that thus would have no particular value. Well, things are just not explained-away that easily! There is really more to it. Problem is that people persistently have been fed with all sorts of inaccurate information, ideas, made up stories, this throughout the media and the Internet. It's a pity though that there is so much ignorance all about!
The situation here is that on the overall people have no other information then what this media and/or Internet has told them what it consists of and how to interpret it all! Well, they then are missing out on a lot of information. I even find that many of those individuals that call themselves Scientologists do not seem to have understood too much of the subject matter either. Which is why we see that people that have been part of the organization for may be some 10-20 years suddenly quit the whole thing and then say they had been had! A reality is here that these people just have been going around there and were joining that obedient and heedless flock that we find within that organization (and any assemblage of people). They haven't been discriminating information.
I will though say here that the present Church of Scientology (particularly as established during the early 80's till today) has been complicating matters. And that Free Zone (offshoot groups) out there hasn't being helping so very much either. Everyone of these groups seems to believe and have adopted some other (nonetheless similar) but still inaccurate version of the tale. But we find that all are doing their own thang, so to say. Now, if any of these groups still abide to the original information (and application thereof), that may indeed be the question to ask!
These, the common people, should ask themselves why we find such an tremendous amount of distortion and twisting all around this topic of Scientology and its founder. Now, why did various people bother to do that? Just ask yourself that very question. It would appear that the non-Scientologist, Scientologist and anti-Scientologist appear all equally confused and misguided.
Anyhow, if you are honestly interested in what this topic actually consists of and how things fit together (non-Scientologists, Scientologists and anti-Scientologists alike), then you yourself simply need to get active. You should look, not listen. These pages here attempt to put various pertinent information out in the open. Different (seldom forwarded) angles are being explored. Addressing what may be good about it, what may be bad about it, how it has been misused and misinterpreted. How people may have been led behind the curtain, and may have tempered with the original writings/technology. There is a base found in these topics of Dianetics and Scientology that is worthwhile examining. And even if that wasn't the case, seeing how people have dealt with it, it will provide for some interesting insights in human behaviour.
Various notices regarding this research
Brief introduction to this initiative for research ...
The Scientology organization since its founding in the early 50's went through various phases. My experiences and the wonderings that I had motivated me to check out the history side on various matters. These pages aim to give some perspective on that from a purely historical point of view. Generally this initiative has been very much appreciated, although I have been met with a certain resistance. This from both Scientologists (inside and outside of the actual church) and those that predominantly have condemned the whole topic, so-called anti-Scientologists. It appears that various persons belonging to either of these groups prefer to only have that version of the story published that support their convictions, their aims or their beliefs. For these persons an objective presentation is just not an option. Instead it is counteracted, invalidated, ridiculed or simply ignored. Pressure is put on both the site itself, but also on the webmaster of this site. All this is unfortunate, but can not be helped. Through history man has always resorted to doing like that. The history lesson says: “You are either with me, or you are against me!”. Indeed... Well, it's just that one can not please everyone. It's not the aim either to even please anyone. This is research, remember...
At present we have an avalanche of conflicting information being around regarding these topics known as Dianetics and Scientology. This not only in the media, but also internally within the official organization, this being the Church of Scientology. You see, you can't have opposing writings, definitions and information occupying the same space. Another matter is about application of one's own rules, in regards to the Church of Scientology this is a conflict that surfaces. My first hand experiences and observations during a number of years in this area have placed questionmarks which can not just jbe explained away that easily.
To be very brief about this. This research has, at least in part, turned into a means to establish if the original technology as it had been in use during its first crucial 20 years of existence (1950-70), if this still would be actually around and in use this day. With this I don't refer only to the official organization, but also all its offshoot groups known as Free Zone, Ron's Org, Independents or whatever they may call themselves. This was not my original outset, but this is what it had grown to be simply because of the things that I had found! So, an effort has been made to find out if the application of the mass of information that we call Dianetics and Scientology is still equally workable this day!
And so, with that I have taken it upon myself to see to it that history is not forgotten! I present what I found, and you will have then to make up your mind about that information.
So, in essence what you see here on this site is part of me taking responsibility for the things that I know, have experienced, and have seen. Sometimes you will find yourself in a position that if you are to follow your own integrity that you can not refrain yourself from doing certain things. If this happens it appears then that often you do not really have a choice. The approach of this information is presented and arranged as actual research. Voilà! Let come that will come from it ...
20 May 2007 (revised 1 Feb 2013, 24 Nov 2014)
Some why's, approaches and motivations regarding this research project ...
These studies witness of a vast level of scrutiny. They simply had to be as no questions should be left unanswered! All options for interpretation had to be put to the test wherever possible. This means that sometimes the presentations may appear a bit overly scrutinous with pesky details. One main reason for me doing so has been that as soon as I left out some details some person came along and used that as an argument to find wrong with me or attack me and/or the presented research. Therefore you will find that the researches offer very complete information, virtually every criticism that I have received during the years have been implemented or are addressed some way or another.
A second reason for the detailness is that there are many missing data and blind spots in how this topic of Dianetics, Scientology, and its affiliated organization(s) have been dealt with since its inception. Rather many things that have been implemented/changed by either persons or the organization simply have not adequately been explained. To be able to get a somewhat complete picture of the happenings then what you need is access to all the available data that you can get your hands on. The more data you have the easier and more confidently you can fill in the blanks.
A third reason would be that I have seen a variety of people discussing the subject of Scientology on their sites. Most of the time they are either in favour of Scientology or they are totally against it. There exist only a few exceptions to this. The far majority of these sites out on the Internet would focus on the data that would support their claim, whatever this claim may be. This means that they have picked the information they wish to present and accordingly tend to ignore mentioning any conflicting information. Then the usual often prejudiced conclusions are being drawn from this and presented.
Now, what about an objective approach? I wanted my Scientology
pages to be different, I intended it to be a source of data.
Don't focus on solely that data that is in favour of your opinion, simply present all of it, and offer various options of how this data could be interpreted! It appears that a majority of Scientologists and various visitors of my pages in fact appreciate my objective approach. I received a variety of very nice responses from them, but some have also been critical. Those not approving of Scientology however appear to have condemned my pages, this according to responses received.
To my knowledge there is no anti-Scientology site that links to my pages.
My approach has always been to present everything as objective as possible
with data directly taken from the original sources. People have to be able to
figure it out for themselves, just present the data. One should thus keep in mind that they are in fact a result of actual research. I do provide for extensive documentation, so that you as the reader basically can verify how I came to certain conclusions. Generally these pages may also not be for the layman who does know little to nothing about these topics themselves.
A crucial point probably is that someone has to answer to the questions being asked and does supply adequate with information! Out on the Internet it appears that you mostly only find bits and pieces. To get the answers then someone needed to have done the kind of detailed research like the one that I have performed. I find it unlikely that another would do as I have done, so that someone became me. The data is here, what you think of it, well, that's your concern. Just keep in mind though that there are always two sides to a coin.
Just regard these studies as a database for practical use. You probably will be able to find the data you want because of its thoroughness and completeness.
Findings too controversial?
Indeed this has been a critique which regularly is directed to my person. Particularly various individuals appear to find it rather ridiculous
that I would or could support the plausibility that the person L. Ron Hubbard could have left the scene somewhere about late 1972. Well, I am not the first nor the only one having forwarded that option. When the idea first was forwarded to me I myself actually opposed to it and discarded of it. Well, that is until it earned credence when I found myself seriously digging into recorded Scientology history.
New with me was that I came to my findings almost entirely based on following the tech line. While doing that I found mismatch after mismatch. Now how are we going to explain all these mismatches? What does anyone expect me to do with these mismatches, wash it over, ignore it or polish them up? Accordingly I would challenge any person out there to come forward with factual information to dethrone that possibility and for all adequately explain the gross inconsistencies that since have come to light through research performed.
Mind though that it came forward as a possibility. I challenge this outside chance, I put it to the test. If you research, that is what you do! You don't look at if the outcome would be contrary to your own limited vision, you look at what the information gives you as plausible options. If it is incorrect, it will enervate itself. But the persons that have approached me, and spoke about this, and ridiculed, and failed to forward arguments or data that would effectively oppose the option, and didn't look any further than their nose is long, well are these persons may be just a little bit obtuse?
Now, are these individuals following the tech line, or have they just chosen to emphatically stick to their beliefs?
You see, ridicule doesn't disprove a thing... why then exerting it?
“Each time instantaneous action is demanded of the group by compressed time situations, and commands are given by the selected individual or individuals to cope with those moments of emergency, it can be observed that an engram has been implanted in the group. The instantaneous orders and commands are indicators of an engram. The engram actually was received during a moment of shock when the ideals, ethics, rationale and general thought and energy of the group collided forcefully with MEST. ... Groups customarily answer such emergency situations by instantaneous orders and commands without consideration by the whole group but which are accepted by the whole group as necessary for survival through the emergency. The clearing of such a moment of turbulence is done simply by exposing all facets of it to the general view of all the individuals who compose the group. ... Should such moments of emergency remain unexplained, they are not analytically understood by other members of the group and so, as engrams, distort the ideals and ethics and rationale of the group.” LRH (from ‘Notes on the Lectures’ (1951, 1968 edition p132-33)
* engram. 1. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10) 2. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69). * MEST. A coined word, meaning matter, energy, space and time, the physical universe.
It is my intent on these pages to make people aware of some things generally not known or not being reflected upon, this in regards to the subject of Scientology. Or I may just note down some observations made and force some kind of comparison on that. It may help people on certain areas with this information, and it may eliminate any misconception they may have on any of these subjects discussed. In my opinion if you have information worthwhile knowing and some understanding going along with it you are obliged to share it with others, so to say you don't keep yourself locked up in some ivory tower. I share it in the hope that the understanding and awareness of people will rise and something good will come out of it.
Important: You have to realize that the evaluations and/or conclusions that I may draw are not always what I believe to be fact!
What I supply is still primarily information and I offer this solely for educational purposes. I do not intend to sell anything. I've attempted to be as objective and as specific as possible about matters, and I can very well be wrong about things as well. You may say that I base my approach upon my essay ‘Witch hunt & sect behaviour’ (consult here, separate window).
It is simply as follows: “You have to find out for yourself what is true for you!”. If you feel alarmed about any of your findings you have to act accordingly.
In my opinion information can lead to understanding. Absence of information will not allow you to find out about things. If you do not have information you will fill up the holes with something else, usually this will be distorted information or untruths.
Any of my findings of more serious nature which you may find on these pages have been reported to the proper church instances, but do not allow this to stop you from responding to your own self-determinism!
“WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself
And when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know—
What you know is what you know—
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity
And there is no other integrity.” LRH (from ‘Ability 125’, Feb 61 “Personal Integrity”)
“Never compromise with your own reality.” LRH (from ‘PAB 40’, 26 Nov 54 “Code of Honor”)
‘Keeping Scientology Working’
Further this is thus also a matter of an obvious Keeping Scientology Working. Regularly it has been pointed out to me by churchgoing Scientologists that I may not criticize management, but that I have to get matters addressed and handled by using the proper channels within the Church of Scientology hierarchy. It is even said that me going on the Internet would be considered a suppressive act of sorts.
Well, factually we have various rights as individuals as well and a responsibility. We are risking here that then no person will find out about matters, as the persons that know would have been silenced. Submitting to this in itself would be a suppressive act. It is very agreeable to me to first try these channels, and this has been done rather extensively, but if no changes occur or responses are gotten, one's responsibility will force one to find other channels in an effort to inform and educate people! After all this is EXACTLY what Keeping Scientology Working is about!!! If it is found that I would be wrong about matters, then this will have to enervate itself.
I address various of these rights and obligations in great detail in the chapters listed at section ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ in the link here below: (separate window)
Interference of OSA Int & ‘Fair use of copyrighted work’
As it appears matters like having a site on the Internet about this subject matter falls under the jurisdiction of this OSA section within the Church of Scientology. OSA is short for Office of Special Affairs and is involved in legal affairs and such. Somewhere mid-2004 I was contacted by the Director of Special Affairs (DSA) of the local Scientology organization. This person informed me that critique had arisen at OSA International (OSA headquarters in USA) in regards to the Scientology pages on my website. And according to them some handling was deemed indispensable to remove the cause for the critique. This practically meant that my pages were being scrutinized by the local OSA section, then a long list (8 pages) of exact critique was forwarded to me.
Wherever these critique were agreeable to me I have adjusted/rephrased/reorganized/removed text on various pages. Where however the critique was not agreeable to me I had send in a query in writing with exact references that would support my stance and defended my rights. This in the final end actually caused my page “A word about Criticism: Critical responses received and my defence” to be written which I released in March 2005. Anyhow, after the corrections/improvements having been implemented, and accordingly verified by DSA, and having send in a few written queries on some other issues, the local DSA was pleased. He then send all this information up to OSA Int, and I didn't hear any more about it. And so I figured that all was well now. For some time afterwards I even kept this local DSA informed about more sensitive new pages added to my site. And I invited him to tell me if something could be bettered on them. This was no demand from the DSA, this was something that I originated, as I simply wished to avoid later complains. And there have been none since from that side.
I found this on the main site of the Church of Scientology (www.scientology.org) as an answer to below listed question:
“CAN ONE MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY?
One can and indeed one should. Scientology enables a person to think for themselves. There is no purpose served in practicing or studying Scientology because someone else wants one to.”
(source, external link (last checked: 10 Jul 2013))
So there you go!
My studies, although they have been expanding, the approach and the tone found on these pages have not particularly changed since. My pages have always been and still are about educating people and are providing for information and offer relevant evaluations. Its purpose is understanding. I do get frequent responses to these studies, and through the years they have even rehabilitated a variety of persons that felt they had been wronged. Other persons rekindled their interest in Scientology. Some of these persons that had been away in as much as 20 to 30 years now wanted to get involved again. I also received responses from non-Scientology persons saying that my information had changed their view on the subject matter to something more positive. It even managed to have some of these persons to become practioners in the subject matter, creating this change after initially having been rather critical towards this subject matter.
“The essences of a true group are participation and contribution.
Group members must be able to participate in action to become a true team.
And each must be permitted to contribute to the action for a group to generate a life of it's own.” LRH (from HCO PL 3 Dec 68 “Gung-Ho Groups, Poltr # 2”)
One thing should be very clearly understood though, I do not serve the Church of Scientology, and I also do not serve the Free Zone or any other Scientology offshoots. I note this as each of these options have been suggested by various persons from time to time. The situation here is that I only serve the subject matter itself, and where ever research leads me to. That basically means that no person other than myself does control these pages or can decide what is going to be found on them. This means not without my explicit approval and verification. But make your case, give me your data, convince me, and I will consider implementation.
“That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.” LRH (from ‘The Creed of the Church of Scientology’ (1954, 70))
Fair use is made of any copyrighted work:
“The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
Any that you will find on my site I believe to be ór (1) in the Public Domain because of expired copyrights ór (2) never registered for copyright ór (3) Fair Use has been made for research and study purposes.
If the situation arises that it is found that I am in error regarding any of these as found on my site and I would be in actual violation concerning my use of copyrighted works, then I would expect to be contacted first about this and given specifics before any other action taken.
The present day situation regarding the subject of Scientology and those that practice it
A preview of the information you will find researched on these pages ...
(Includes: a) Am I getting the results I am supposed to have?; b) Qual Libraries vs Missing information; c) A rundown of the understanding required today ...; d) “Having the correct technology” vs “Standing in the shadow”)
(Includes: a) Who is David Mayo? and the ‘Church of Scientology’; b) The ‘Church of Scientology’/Scientology offshoots vs The ‘David Mayo Bridge’; c) Educating out the previous education vs Blind spots; d) The position of various Free Zone groups regarding which Bridge to use; e) It just doesn't look very good for David Mayo ...; f) Fact vs Myth? Whose Bridge are we traveling on?; g) Man vs Sheep)
(1) Keeping Scientology Working - Today's significance
a) Am I getting the results I am supposed to have?
My studies performed at a later date, more particularly those published as “Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’” & “Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 versus A lost Bridge” (see main Scientology pages index at “6”), do point at a particular situation. It is here you do have to ask yourself some questions such as: “Am I getting the results I was supposed to get from auditing and training according to the original prognosis?”. For those persons that came into Scientology at a later date this would be a bit hard to determine. This is simply because they have no data to compare with! And they could not even know about that, as all the data is physically (as in printed materials) simply not in sight for them!
All that may be observed, i.e. if they observe more closely, is that there are some particular indications to be seen. Indications like why the Qual Libraries are not set up as per the rather clear guidelines set by L. Ron Hubbard. As today we only find the newest of the newest materials presented in these places. Earlier versions of all sort of references have been gotten rid of. The same goes for earlier prints of the books. Then we have the matter of these old Scientology periodicals for example Ability, Certainty, The Auditor, and various other that offer a treasure of information about how things used to be, and that even captured the wonderings and the thoughts of persons from these earlier days.
It has been said: “It's an org* library and you just get your hands on at least two of every pack on tech or policy or anything else that has ever been issued.” LRH (taken from lecture given 5 Sept 71 “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, also in HCO PL 3 Mar 82 “The Qual Library”). We thus face a situation here that we physically have been robbed from a source of information in where we otherwise would have had an opportunity to find out how things were in the earlier years of the Scientology community. If you have this sort of original materials, you have a means that you can use to determine if some information would have been filtered out. And it is a simple reality this day that the present Church of Scientology is deliberately filtering out information. On these pages here there is a tremendous amount of data that address many of such occurrences.
More about this can be found here: (separate window)
c) A rundown of the understanding required today ...
Today for a full understanding of these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology it appears to be required that we have:
a complete chronological rundown of the technical aspects of the technology itself;
a complete chronological rundown of how the organization and its administrative policies came about, its development, and its changes through time;
an actual comparison study of in particular technical changes through time, coupled with a thorough overview of the very organizational changes, and the comings and goings of the Scientology parishioners in general.
(1) used to be accounted for, but is being tampered with (in particular regarding the status quo of the technology up to 1977 compared to 1978 to present); (2) has been seriously interfered with; and (3) was omitted. We used to be without (3) simply because there was no need to have it, but these days this is more than just necessary as it will guide us while determining if we still really have the correct technology.
The present Scientologist in the final end will find out that he has to face 2 distinctive situations:
Firstly that the same route (Bridge) that is offered by the Church of Scientology is available in the various Free Zone (those that practice Scientology outside the scope and control of the official Church of Scientology). This would then be the so called ‘David Mayo Bridge’, as established during 1978-82 while David Mayo was posted as the Senior C/S International (top technical person after L. Ron Hubbard).
Secondly (which is much harder to uncover and finally admit to), that the original LRH Bridge and route is hardly available anywhere at all.
d) “Having the correct technology” vs “Standing in the shadow”
You see, just because we once were “Having the correct technology.”, does not mean that it will sustain into eternity. The policy letter written about this “Keeping Scientology Working” was written in 1965, this is quite a while ago now. Many things can happen. See the comments from L. Ron Hubbard about this in chapter: “Keeping Scientology Working (1) - A workable technology”) on my page “Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard - An introduction”, consult here (separate window).
Now, regarding all this one may want to keep in mind that any cure, process, or any such that is based on or taken from an accurately working procedure. Well, be confident here with that you may get various seemingly nice results, but ... it will not likely get you where you were meant to arrive at. But as always, it is up to you, and only you, in what swimming pool you wish to dabble. But if you follow blindly what others tell you to do, you certainly will pay the price of freedom, meaning you will never arrive at that. Well, if you are satisfied with standing in the shadow, but convince yourself that you are standing in the sun, and thus giving this choice of preference all of your sympathy and your adoration, alright then, but it will be your choice and your concern only ...
Sound snippet (1:31)
(Extract from Rolling Stones song)
“Have you seen your mother, baby, standing in the shadow?
Have you had another, baby, standing in the shadow?
I'm glad I opened your eyes
The have-nots would have tried to freeze you in ice
Have you seen your brother, baby, standing in the shadow?
Have you had another, baby, standing in the shadow?
I was just passing the time
I'm all alone, won't you give all your sympathy to mine?
Tell me a story about how you adore me
Live in the shadow, see through the shadow,
Live through the shadow, tear at the shadow
Hate in the shadow, and love in your shadowy life”
The purpose for all of my studies would be to provide for information that enables one to make a comparison. I relate on these pages about matters that most persons have not even considered, and how could they? If you lack the information. Ah well, here you have it! Now its up to you to do something with it, you could also simply ignore it, or just ridicule it, or even attack the person that is forwarding it. It ALL has been done already anyway ...
Further advised reading about this is found in the introduction of my page “Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 or When the Route to Freedom was interfered with and turned upside down”. Consult in link here below:
a) Who is David Mayo? and the ‘Church of Scientology’
First of all, who the heck is David Mayo? To find out about that you have to travel back a little in time. Persons that came into the Church of Scientology at a more recent date will not hear anything about him at all. Nonetheless this person had been in Scientology since as early as 1962, became the Flag C/S in September 1973, and was posted as the Snr C/S Int during 1978-82. These positions basically meant that he was the top technical person after L. Ron Hubbard during a period of a whole 10 years. All that was ongoing until late August 1982 at which time he was forcefully removed from this position. And by March 1983 he had been expelled from the Church of Scientology and was literally deemed to be the worst of all evils. And this is why you don't hear about him in the Church of Scientology.
b) The ‘Church of Scientology’/Scientology offshoots vs The ‘David Mayo Bridge’
You do however hear about him in the various offshoots of Scientology groups such as the Free Zone and Ron's Orgs, groups that practice Scientology outside of the control of the Church of Scientology. It does appear that in particular the Free Zone groups had embraced all of him. The Ron's Org on the other hand did their own continued research, which nonetheless at least in part is based on procedures that David Mayo had released. More importantly is that either of these groups have their focus on the 1978 and later version of the technology. They for example all deliver New Era Dianetics (released 1978) instead of Standard Dianetics (released 1969).
Anyhow it may have been figured that a person that was expelled and referred to as the worst of evils by the Church of Scientology must be something good to have. May be so ..., but the strangest of it all is that the version of the technology that David Mayo had left in the Church of Scientology is presently in full use in BOTH these opposing sides! During the time that David Mayo was posted as this Snr C/S Int we have actually seen a complete Grade Chart (Bridge) turnaround occurring, which was, very strangely, not reversed after they had kicked him out. Of course they cancelled and rewrote a whole bunch of references that were witnessing the involvement of David Mayo, but the fact remains that the Bridge that he left was kept INTACT! These Free Zone groups out there on the other hand liked David Mayo, and so they have that same Bridge there as well. Indeed, a very, very strange state of affairs!
You see, if some worst of evils gets kicked, you follow his track and you restore to the former status quo. That this was not done makes the Church of Scientology representatives look very suspect indeed!
c) Educating out the previous education vs Blind spots
Even a child could figure out here that something is not quite right here! Nonetheless the Church of Scientology parishioners have gloriously missed this. The younger ones simply don't know because of no data, where the old-timer Scientologists within the Church of Scientology appear to have kept themselves blind. The question is if the situation would be any better for these Free Zoners, Ron's Orgers, and even these people calling themselves for Independent Scientologists (a misnomer actually, as a true Scientologist is already from the very beginning an independent!, nonetheless we see more and more of these Declarations of Independence out on the Internet, people that then had turned their back to the Church of Scientology). Anyhow this Free Zone and Ron's Orgs appear not to be really straightforwardly looking either. There is factual data around that a majority of them just don't want to look at and/or consider its actual significances! Facts however are a bit difficult to just ignore, and so we just turn our head and look at some other direction. This has thus far been my general experience with any such persons, with an occasional exception on that rule. The reason for this is that it appears very hard to leave behind or change in that which one has thought to be correct for such and such a long time. This is largely a matter of educating out the previous education, and is also of course an ego problem. The first step is the hardest which is making a realization about that there may be any truth contained in such possibilities as forwarded on this site, and then to be able to see the consequences of that. You see, that an old dog doesn't learn new tricks, offers more angles for interpretation than one may have thought once!
d) The position of various Free Zone groups regarding which Bridge to use
Special mention needs to be made for such groups that appear to actively blocking persons and denies membership to those that wish to focus on the 1972 status quo of the tech. Meaning Standard Dianetics and all that came with it.
There is a serious problem present here, because they would then have taken it upon themselves to decide which is the correct tech. Worse it gets if this is enforced upon one's members! And if you do not adapt to such a reality, then you are just not welcome, and out through the exit door you go!
Well, so much for the claims they display on some of these Internet sites that I have seen. It may be found that it would be full with claims that they deliver unaltered pure tech and more such things. Take your pick: “Preserve the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for all mankind so it is available for future use.”. But THEY would decide what tech that would be! And what do we find? It is usually that Bridge that had been established during 1978-82. Which, big surprise, is the same Bridge that is being offered by the Church of Scientology.
On such sites you also find claims about that a Scientologist would be a free person, yeah, but ONLY as free as the rulers of this group ALLOWS you to be! Haven't we seen all this before, hmmm? Wake up people! Decide for yourself! Don't let anyone limit you or decide for you what you can or can not do, or what you can practice or can not practice!
It seems to me that some people are overlooking some things here:
“So technical progress has been:
CLASS VIII - 1968.
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.” LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
Can it be said any more clear than this?
You see, with this demand that we find within this group they are factually banning Standard Dianetics. New Era Dianetics and Standard Dianetics just don't go so well together. Virtually always a choice is made by some auditor which he wants to deliver, excluding the other.
“Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.” LRH
(from HCOB 26 Feb 70 “Standard Tech and Invalidation”)
“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. ...
A subject can be reorganized and made more workable. That was done in 1969 for Dianetics. ...
This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.” LRH
(from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)
“Yeah”, you say, “but this or that group carry a whole bunch of really high classed auditors amongst their members. Wow! Must be alright then!”. Well, If you are into authority worship and not following your own understanding, that will be your choice. You want to go free, or you don't want to go free, that is pending the choice you will be making! All that I say is, “Don't let anyone fool ya!”. Individual members of such a group may also have a different opinion about this then the general line that is pushed by ruling and approving comittees. So be sure to check out any of these things by yourself. Don't let anyone tie your shoes for you!
e) It just doesn't look very good for David Mayo ...
Without a doubt this message will not be liked by various persons. This however can simply not be helped. Nor should one care about that. No person either is supposed to embrace the things that I relate, each person has the find out for him or herself. Just look and make it out for yourself. See, this is just not a matter of opinion. At least not anymore!
Recent studies expose that during March 1982 that the person David Mayo was heavily involved in an increasing implementation of the use of so-called Confessionals, that technically were in fact Security Checks. It goes even that far as effectively interfering with this that is known as the No-Interference Area. See HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone”. This is basically the area from Dianetic Clear to OT III, in which period you do not do other than just completing and being active on these levels. The same rule applies when you are on any of these later New OT levels, they are not to be interfered with while you are on them. March 1982 marks the time that it suddenly was ok that they were being interfered with. All this culminating amongst other into ‘6 month (security) checks’ for New OT VII that are lacking ANY and EVERY reference to approve of such an action. As a side note March 1982 also marks the exact time that the original OT Levels IV-VIII were dropped, replacing them with what you can call the NOT's (NED for OT's) Levels. A coincidence? Not very likely!
Even HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82 “Confessional Tech Policies” issued by David Mayo directs that “Anyone who refuses a Confessional or who refuses to answer a reading question should be turned over to the Ethics Officer” is not without significance.
These 6 references that were issued in the 6-10 March time span, and that all had their focus on Confessional/Security Checking procedures, they all carried the signature of David Mayo. A signature that was removed in each and every one of them after he had been expunged from the Church of Scientology.
Now, we see that he is noted at the signatory area of these references as an assistant in these. But what does that mean? This is very clearly explained in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that was pathing the way for a radical change in regards to the signatures that we find at the bottom of references. In where authors (other than L. Ron hubbard) simply enough got demoted to be referred to as assistants. Strangely enough was this as well passed by at the time by the members of the Scientology community. The whole thing then escalated particularly during 1980-82 when an avalanche of non-LRH issues such as BPL's and BTB's got transferred into HCO PL's and HCOB's as if written by L. Ron Hubbard himself. Where detailed studies show definitely that they were not.
This HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” in turn has been very detailedly analyzed which conclusively adjudicates that it would virtually be an impossibility that L. Ron Hubbard would have written it or was involved in it at all. It contains really a staggering amount of tech errors, errors of logic, errors of intelligence, etc.. This too had been missed by virtually EVERYONE!! People just adopted, swallowed it, didn't think, and went along ...
More information about these various matters here: (separate windows)
f) Fact vs Myth? Whose Bridge are we traveling on?
Mind that all this is not just an opinion anymore, we have the studies that back it up!
In turn if it be so that these things had been happening in these later 70's, then it raises some very serious questionmarks about EVERY tech that came about AFTER the release of this HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. Questionmarks about NED, about NOT's, about the entire Bridge turnaround during 1978-82.
Nonetheless this pretty much has all been ignored, we have many persons today that swear by NED, swear even more by NOT's. This whole Bridge has been embraced by both the Free Zone, Ron's Org and the Church of Scientology. They all offer virtually the SAME Bridge. Now, isn't that a bit well strange and contradictive? But whose Bridge is this actually?
Well, I guess they are all singing ...
“Oh, that's the way, uh-huh uh-huh,
I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh. That's the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh.”
And now all together ...
“That's the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh. That's the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh. ...
And singing they do indeed, in choir, and that all the time, and they very much would like you to sing with them ... Yeah, but who is actually they?
Wakey, wakey, people ... !!
g) Man vs Sheep
People follow a stream, do like anyone else, do what is popular, do what is accepted by some (silent) majority vote, they are just not going to be a rock in that brook!
People do also tend to just not listen if in some degree you are making them wrong. You can repeat things tens of times, forward analysis from experts, throw infallible not to be questioned evidence on the table, then the next time you are faced with the same erroneous statement from this same opponent. It is as if you hadn't said anything. People are not just going to admit they had wrong or were in error. They will either deny, or change the topic. This world is not made up of a lot of people that abide to objectivity. Common people don't want to be wrong, it is as simple as that. The problem is that many have not come to realize yet, that if one can not admit having been in error about an obvious matter, that you would have made yourself even look more ridiculous!
Another angle of this is of course authority submission. People just seem to love that, follow the stream set by some oppressor, look left nor right, just go right on, I lead, you follow. Such an oppressor may seem to know matters because of the adopted authority he displays, but when getting down to facts, he will, theoretically at least, have lost all of his credibility. Amazingly enough though the sheep continues to follow that oppressor and instead persists in finding fault with he that exposed him!
Thus, only a limited (although not too limited!), enough awaken intelligent individuals, not too stuck in themselves, not too much into authority adoration, are actually willing to really, and I mean really, look. The same would apply to me writing all this here. “So, why are you wasting your time on this then!”, you may ask. Well, I haven't actually been wasting my time. For one, a lie can only be upheld so and so long. Secondly I have been on a personal adventure, all I do is sharing my notted down annotations of the things that occurred and that were found on that travel.
“Also received an offer once to work in a certain place in the world, to make men ‘more suggestible.’ It was at a dinner party. That was no less an official offer, because that's why I was at the dinner party—I didn't find out till I got there—to make men more suggestible! And I sat there, and the fellow evidently thought I was in a stunned silence. And I sat there with my dessert spoon halfway suspended, hoping against hope that I wouldn't break out in the hysterical laughter which I felt. I held it back, but I have never heard a better joke. That's carrying coals to Newcastle. Make him more suggestible! All you'd have to do is lean on him slightly and he'd go sound asleep!” LRH (from The Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress tape lecture #15 “What Scientology Is Doing – Organizations, The Control & Division of Man”, given on 6 Jun 55)
Sound snippet (1:33)
Today's relevance of ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ concept
Originally a work of fiction going by that title written by Richard Condon and published in 1959. It is basically about the creation of a puppet (brainwashed individual) that can be activated (by showing some picture) to do what he has been programmed to, does it, and then has no recall of it. A creation thus of a so-called sleeper agent. Already in 1962 the book was made into a film with Frank Sinatra (remade in 2004 with Denzel Washington, but one should stick with the 1962 version). A similar concept was used by author Walter Wager in his book ‘Telefon’ (1975). A film version, with the same title, was released only 2 years later in 1977, directed by Don Siegel and starring Charles Bronson who had to hunt down a defector that had obtained a list with such sleeper agents and who was activating them through a simple phone call in where a short phrase was uttered. And again in the trilogy written by Robert Ludlum starting in 1980 with ‘The Bourne Identity’. During the 2000's we have Matt Damon playing that character in a series of films. It is all the same concept.
We find it further used in the ‘Columbo’ television series episode ‘A Deadly State of Mind’ from 1975, where we find a hypnotist in action. Particularly interesting is the 1973 episode ‘Double Exposure’ in where the perpetrator is inducing a programmed behaviour on his victim by use of subliminal cuts in a film which gets that victim killed. A technique which Inspector Columbo (Peter Falk) later in the episode uses to have the perpetrator expose himself.
Then during the 50's and 60's we also have this MK Ultra project of the CIA which was all about experimentation with these sorts of phenomena.
This concept however had more or less already been touched and was immortalized on celluloid by Fritz Lang in 1922 with the release of ‘Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler - Ein Bild der Zeit’, and again in 1933 with ‘Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse’ (after the books by Norbert Jacques). A super-villain or master-manipulator working with mind control through use of the will (telepathic hypnosis). Dr. Mabuse is also a master of disguise. His powers go beyond enjailment (asylum) or even the grave. The aim is to coerce people to do things you want them to do, without them realizing that they are doing that.
Purposely creating this state of mind in individuals is a phenomena that in Scientology is referred to as PDH, or Pain-Drugs-Hypnosis. Here you subject a person to Pain and/or Drug the person (in order to create an in part unconscious state of mind), and then (im)plant your commands into the person's mind through the method of Hypnosis. This is actually easier done than commonly is thought. It is also much more widely spread than commonly is thought. In fact we see it all around us, as man generally is just not very awake or aware. It is the actual reason why advertising techniques do result in huge results in regards to sales figures, and why they are still pursuing it! After all they are trying to convince (or program you) to get some item or something you do not actually need. Man is constantly subjected to all sorts of brainwash.
And indeed it is so very easily achieved as for example Paul McKenna (hypnotist) clearly has demonstrated numerous of times live on television and elsewhere. Derren Brown is another such a person, a British illusionist. As late as Oct/Nov 2011 he appeared in a series of television programs ‘Derren Brown: The Experiments’. Particularly noteworthy is its first episode, entitled “The Assassin”, in where Derren Brown successfully hypnotised a member of the public to ‘assassinate’ Stephen Fry (a British celebrity) while he was live performing on stage. One of the questions asked with this test was if it would be possible to hypnotise (program) a person to perform such an act even it was against the morals of the person that was set up for it. Then committing the act and have no memory of having done that afterwards. The results were interesting as the person set up for this said afterwards that his focus was on aiming at a target and not on anything else. It would thus appear that one can bypass any morals.
Further we have Jesse Ventura that has this television program ‘Conspiracy Theory’, one of these episodes is ‘Manchurian Candidate’ (2010). Jesse: “You don't think this stuff is real? Think again!”.
We find it recorded in some HCOB's that even the first-born son of L. Ron Hubbard would have been subjected to that (see HCOB 19 Jan 60 “Casualties” & HCOB 9 Feb 60 “Cancellation of Certificates”). Here it resulted in that ‘Nibs’ Hubbard then took his belongings and left, not ever to return to the organization or his father. His behaviour in later years can be described as erratic, as he is going back and forth, making devastating claims and then retracting them as easily, not once, not twice, no, he did that 3 times. (more about all that here, separate window)
Now, how would you go about to disrupt an area, a group or an organization? Right, you could program some person(s), and send him/her/them out. The person him/herself would not know about it, and thus, rather conveniently, can then not confess anything either, but he/she will carry out what he/she has been programmed to carry out. You could in fact send out a whole bunch of such persons out there. You can be assured that matters will get disrupted if you send out such person(s) into the field. Into organizations, the Church of Scientology, the Free Zone, Greenpeace or anywhere. You let them infiltrate and let them then function as an authority of sorts. In essence they would be rather convincing in the claims they will make, as after all they are convinced themselves they have right. Success basically will be assured as people will follow authorities rather easily, no questions asked.
Thus you let them infiltrate, get them to do some bad things (or let them coerce other persons to do that), and then get these bad deeds exposed publicly. For example get some government entity perform a raid or sorts, and somehow get the confiscated papers in the hands of the public or media. Evidently that organization (whichever it is) will receive a blow. Now you can easily influence the public take on that organization or group overall.
Now, how realistic would it be to think that schemes like this would have been brought about? Is it all science fiction? Well, this technique is there, it actually exists. It may not work equally well on every person, but if you get into it, and test it out on a bunch of people, you are likely to get your perfect sleeper agent(s)! You just create your factory where such persons easily can be made. Mind that advertisements techniques that we see on television and the likes only works because man is that susceptible!
I won't delve into this any further then I have done here above. Just mind this:
“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.” LRH
(from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 I “Security Risks Infiltration”)
“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .” LRH
(from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)
And so, if you are diligent and subtle enough, you can get a subject to actually change direction, and have people adjust to that and swallow all of it. And of course the area or degree of application of this technique are manifold. It will in addition facilitate matters if you leave false leads and contradictory data all over the place, lots and lots of them. Simply confuse the area. There are patterns to be recognized here. Then the technique will work on very many levels indeed, as man is already living an illusion. He will get swayed just like that!
Data and information is to be understood and fully evaluated, compared with, etc., it is never supposed to be blindly followed. If you follow anyway, then you will likely get or have been tricked already. Just count on that!
I have been forwarded the following report: (pop-up window)
A warning signal may be if some person hides behind certificates and brag about that they are auditor Class such and such, and supposedly have done this and that. (who is going to check them out anyway)
So, a person that is putting far too much weight and attention onto his/her certificates (Auditor Class or other) or is getting annoyed because you don't immediately adopt the things the person forwards or claims. This should get you alarmed!
So, a person that wants to be believed or followed only for his word and upon his authority rather than it being based on clear verified data, and accordingly refrains from, simply refuses, or in any other fashion avoids to give any explanation or clarification and being factual about matters, or even justifies the lack of this, then you know that this person as a rule does not know what he is talking about. He does not offer anything, only because he has nothing to offer.
“I don't expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren't a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what's said, try it, and if it's good for them, use it. ... In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.” LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)
Brief overview of the studies, release notices
How did it all start? A summary of the studies and how they came about ...
Mar 2003/Nov 2007: The various studies undertaken were initially not a planned operation as a whole. Some issues attracted my attention which I looked into. Then some further wonderings were raised while doing these, and so one thing lead to another. It started basically in 2003, the original objective reached its completion in 2007 with the release of “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology”, “L. Ron Hubbard vs Pricing policies” & “Scientology in the media and on the Internet” during Sept-Nov 2007.
Aug 2010, Aug 2012/May 2013: As time went on I continued to implement updates, then some further topics were bought to my attention. The basic research was completed with the release of “Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge” in August 2010, and “Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’” released in August 2012. Matters were pretty much wrapped up by September 2012. Now a process started to to implement a better synchronization of the various pages facilitating to present it as a whole. This involved amongst other some rather extensive rewriting of the early studies, cleaning up the pages overall, also implementing a standard for referencing and more such matters. A new page was then compiled which extracted all Security Checking/Confessional information that in part was found at various places in these studies and releasing it as “Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology” in January 2013. A variety of somewhat significant chapters clarifiying misconceptions regarding the matter of ethics were written and added to page “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified” in April-May 2013. This included the interesting study issued as “The transformation of the book ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1968-2007)”. These last measures taken basically wrapped up this Scientology Research Project.
Main projects undertaken
1. History of a policy letter project - For brief overview how I originally got started on this see here , 3rd paragraph (separate window). It came about after/during conversions with Caspar de Rijk somewhere early 2003. One thing lead to another. Addresses amongst other Ethics Orders (Declares), Fair Game & Disconnection.
2. ‘New Order’ or ‘New World Order’ concept project - While working on History of a policy letter project various New World Order (NWO) related concepts got involved. It fairly quickly evolved into 2 specifically separated parts. The first part was (in)directly relating to NWO topics (Conspiracy, Censoring & Copyrights). The second part became a study of old tech/practices discontinued and new tech/practices introduced (this later came to include Primary Rundown & Golden Age of Tech studies).
Took awhile before I dared to release the original History of a policy letter & the original NWO page(s) (more than a year later). See in time track further below in this chapter.
3. David Mayo project - Then a friend proposed an interest for a dive into David Mayo. For brief overview how it was incited see here (separate window). I took the SO ED written on David Mayo as a base that turned into an extensive project. It came to include Clear and Grade Chart study.
These above were the original main 3 big projects later re-released and divided up in various pages.
4. LRH whereabouts project - The 4th and last project (LRH Whereabouts idea) sort of slumbered in the background. Planned as part of the NWO study that turned to a project of its own. The idea being to check out ‘Where is LRH?’ in anything that could somehow be perceived as suspect or seen as a discredit to the subject of Scientology.
At a later date I added 2 more that turned into projects in their own right:
5. Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 project - A collecting together of the main tech changes implemented in named time frame.
6. HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” project - An introduction basically to #5.
A listing of the various studies with original release notices
A chronological release list for the various pages is found here (pop-up window).
This offers data about how and why various of the pages came about. Since 1998 all that I had was a brief introduction to the works of one L. Ron Hubbard on my site. But not much more was happening with the subject until 5 years later in 2003.
These are my original release notices. Probably not too interesting for most people, but I left them here although now rearranged in index order.
1. General overview, introduction, and common misconceptions clarified
“An overview of the studies, synopsis and clarification & A notice to all readers - Disclaimer”
(released March 2005) - It was about time that I did this one. There is an initial reason for why one writes about things. This page goes in little detail about how, when and why I created any of these pages.
“Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard - An introduction or ‘Keeping Scientology Working’, yesterday and today ...”
(rewritten released 7 March 2004) - General introduction and addressing Keeping Scientology Working.
“Scientology in the media and on the Internet or How reliable is the information found? vs propaganda”
(released 18 November 2007) - For a variety of years I had subjected myself to the flow of information that exists on this thing called the Internet, its forums, its people and all that. There are some warning signals to put out in regards to this.
“Scientology: Is its true history being exposed? or Independent publications that confirm various crucial elements of the tale as suggested on this website”
(released 26 June 2016) - A promotional page intending to give attention to various efforts made by other people then myself that through their book publications do confirm various of my findings,
“A printing history of the materials of Scientology & Some proposals to solution for dubiousnesses found”
“Scientology: History of a Policy Letter - Introduction” (added 4 July 2004) - It explains and lays out various background data about especially policy letters, its distribution, cancellation process, its relation to the Qual Library and various other relevant information.
“Scientology related Question & Answer session or Answers to common questions and usual misconceptions clarified”
(released at least 12 April 2003) - This page offers
a collection of questions & answers from email discussions. Simply a miscellaneous
collection on various subjects. I also discuss the controversy about Xenu on that page. I have been criticized for having that there, the argument was
that I was giving a search word to people that they can search for on the Internet. But people
seem to have forgotten that this word is on the Internet about everywhere, search
for the word ‘Scientology’, and Xenu will pop up all over
the place, it simply needed to be addressed and clarified!
“External links collection - Sources for further study”
(released 7 November 2009) - After thorough consideration I have found it necessary to finally add this page. Keeping in mind that its only purpose is furthering additional reading in related matters concerning the subject of Scientology and related as tackled in the thus far presented studies as found on my site.
“Restoration of Tech project - Want list of materials”
(re-released 5 May 2011) - This had been available quite a while as a pop-up window as a ‘List with wanted materials’. Here released as a searchable page to facilitate the process of actually making known that materials actually were wanted.
“Recommended Dianetics and Scientology related materials or A listing of so-called ‘lost tech’ and further information”
(released 3 November 2012) - Just a listing of materials and some brief synopsis and further data worth knowing about particular materials, tapes, and so on.
2. Various topics of general interest
“Scientology membership: HASI vs IAS - A comparison or Fundraising, how to go about it and how not to go about it”
(released 7 March 2004) - This
was a subject of personal interest. I've attempted to figure out the differences
and similarities between these 2 organizations. I found that few Scientologists
were thoroughly acquainted with the details about this. Various persons told
me different things.
“The story of Mary Sue Hubbard (1931-2002) or A summary of her achievements and downfall”
(released 17 March 2006) - Besides some general information about her it is my idea and my intent to try to address various about her that is not found already elsewhere else on the Internet.
“L. Ron Hubbard vs Pricing policies or How much should a Scientology service cost?”
(released 18 November 2007) - This page had been in the planning for a long time. Some information was not always easy to get a hold of. In particular price inserts/lists that would enable me to make an accurate chronological list of how pricings had shifted during a longer period of time. A sensitive subject as it is about money!
“Holy Scriptures vs Scientology - A parallel With added the ‘Fathers of the Church’ and ‘Taoism’”
(released 11 June 2005) - Many parallels can be discovered between these. This is simply quotations taken from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and paralleled with quotations from the bible. Based on a little book published in 1967. Attempts to give you a greater understanding of the Bible and also Scientology.
I was transcribing the original booklet, then the idea of putting it out on the Internet grew slowly but steadily, and all of a sudden it was there.
“L. Ron Hubbard about Dictionaries or “Dinky Dictionaries” vs ‘World Book Dictionary’”
(released April 2003) - One thing
that had bothered me for a long time was the traceless removal of the ‘World
Book Dictionary’ reference from the present version of that HCOB
“Dinky Dictionaries” as found in the previous 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.
During many years I had attention on that. Once I had read about this recommendation
for this dictionary when I did the Student Hat Course. And then I could
not find it anymore. The details about this are laid out on this page.
“Quotations from L. Ron Hubbard on the theory of evolution”
(released at least 15 April 2003) - A minor issue
was the agreement of many Scientologists that believed that L. Ron Hubbard was
in favour of the theory of evolution. This they were basing on the book ‘Scientology: The History
of Man’. I located all the relevant information relating to that and put
it all out on this page.
“L. Ron Hubbard and his works of fiction”
“L. Ron Hubbard and his Fiction Stories” (released 11 April 2005) - I
had been directed to a discussion that took place on a newsgroup on the Internet. It made various claims about that the majority of the actual fiction writing of L. Ron Hubbard was Science Fiction. Then I decided to make that clear for once and for all what the scene is on that.
3. Responses to my Scientology pages
“A collection of appreciative responses to my Scientology pages”
(released 16 September 2005) - To put out a page like this has been a suggestion from a friend of mine. Initially I was not so very much in favour of it. Later I started to realize that for some reason people would think that there was something not alright with my pages. The fact on the matter is that my pages have been a great help to various people, and the information has enabled them to clear up some things. So, why not let them speak for themselves (naturally their identity is protected).
“A word about Criticism: Critical responses received and my defence & Some common one-liners used by Scientologists clarified”
(released March 2005) - It's
funny to have been compiling a page like this, and it was in fact a difficult task. It's basically all about criticism, and my experiences with it. Bits and pieces of this subject have been for a while part of other pages, then I decided to collect all these criticism parts on this one page. It's a subject that I have been willing to write more about for some time, but I did not know exactly where to start. I got help and motivation through a few Scientologists that thought I was too critical, and that I was black PR-ing Scientology. Various papers were send to me, laying out in detail which was not found acceptable. Then I thought: “Now, wait a minute ... !” And I had started to put my defence together. Various of the criticisms that I received were however agreeable to me, and adjustments have been implemented, some passages were even removed, and others were rewritten.
4. Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?)
“L. Ron Hubbard vs Alterations (introduction) or How to deal with them if they happen to come your way”
(released 27 November 2003) - Here I am addressing the Scientology material that is being based on the writings of L. Ron
Hubbard. An argument here is that supposedly the technology will only work if
it remains unaltered. This is something that is pushed very, very hard by L.
Ron Hubbard himself. There
are obvious dangers involved when doing compilations of material.
Co-researched and released with page “‘Based on the Works of L. Ron Hubbard’ publications”.
“Non-LRH turns into LRH? What happened here? or The times they are a-changin' re accredited authorship”
(released March 2005)- Some time had passed before I tackled this one. I was doing some research about the Primary Rundown. In LRH ED 178 L. Ron Hubbard tells us how
this action was. This PRD basically consists of doing Method 1 Word Clearing on the Student Hat materials. And it has not been in use since the early 80s. Well, various references found in old packs of the Student Hat were compared with the newer versions. My findings motivated me to write this page.
“The story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? or A crucial part of the Scientology technology”
(released 15 February 2006)
“‘Based on the Works of L. Ron Hubbard’ publications or ‘The ‘A Scientology Life Improvement Course’ series”
(released 27 November 2003) - Gives some more detailed information about the rules to be followed, and
examples are given from which we learn how subtle this is and how easy it can
5. Topics surrounded with controversiality
“Scientology: Freeloaders and Ex-staff members examined or What shall we do with our old?”
(released April 2003) - The word went around that I was knowledgeable in certain area's, and various started to contact me. About all of these were inquiring about Freeloaders. Various who had been staff in the organization had a situation which they needed to get
handled. For a while I responded via email and to each person individually.
I also received some requests from staff in local organizations, because I was
able to handle my own situation very successfully. They had some public wanting to take services
in their organizations, but this public had this condition assignment of being a ‘freeloader’
stopping him. I was also contacted by Scientologists in the field who had their
own companies and wanted to hire personnel who also had such unresolved situations.
Then I figured that it would be much easier if I would compile all this data
and create a page on my site, then I would just direct people to that particular
page. This goal was realized in April 2003. On the overall the responses have been very good, and
various were able to handle their situation.
It may sound odd that various came to me for advice, to me,
a public? Were the rules not clearly laid out within the organization
itself? It appears they are not, this becomes clear when one consults this page.
There is an obvious confusion about the subject, various agreements are attached to it, and because of that the subject has been seriously misunderstood
and has therefore been misapplied.
“Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified”
“Scientology: History of a Policy Letter (2) - A detailed study or The transformation of HCO PL 23 Dec 65” (released 5 June 2004) - This
was my largest and most difficult project to date. First I needed to compile and find
all the relevant information. It actually started with that I could not figure
out the phenomena Disconnection. First there was some use for this,
then it was cancelled in 1968, till it reappeared again in 1983. Various angles
of this really didn't make sense to me. So I started digging. My findings and
considerations are on this page. The result became a very thorough analysis of this HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts”.
It also lays out in detail the controversial Fair Game. Here we can
see the actual history of it as seen from the actual writings. I have been hesitating
a while prior to releasing this page. (re-released on a page of its own 6 February 2007)
“Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study or What it is about and misconceptions regarding clarified”
Co-researched and released with page “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified”. (re-released on a page of its own 6 February 2007)
“Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study or What it means and how it has been dealt with through the years”
Co-researched and released with page “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified”. (re-released on a page of its own 14 April 2006)
“Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology or How ‘Confessionals’ were regarded as the years passed by”
(released 25 January 2013) - A new page, but only a few chapters have been newly added. The information from the chapters “Sec Checking (1): Integrity Processing/Confessionals (Dec 72-Jun 76)”, “‘No-Interference Area’ outruled? (since Mar 82-Oct 83-Mar 84-Jul 85)” and “Sec Checking (2): ‘False Purpose Rundown’ (FPRD) (Jun 84)” from the “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology” have been extracted and rearranged on this page.
6. ‘New Order’ or ‘New World Order’ concept project
“L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (1) or Predictions, Copyrights, Conspiracies & Then and now”
“LRH vs A New Order (1) - Copyrights and who ‘owns’ Scientology” (released 20 July 2004)- A matter
of personal interest. There are various who have their own opinion about what
happened with the Scientology organization after L. Ron Hubbard disappeared
from the public's view. Also on the Internet there is a variety of information
to be found. I have attempted to put together relevant information from the
writings of L. Ron Hubbard concerning this controversial subject. In this I
wove some of my personal observations and experiences. There are various approaches
here, the only thing that binds these chapters together is that they somehow relate to a New Order or New
World Order. All these chapters basically stand all by themselves and can be
read independently from each other. The chapters about the copyright needed some serious digging.
I have been very reluctant before I finally decided to release this/these page(s).
It follows up on respectively 2 directions:
1: “Predictions, Copyrights, Conspiracies & Then and now” (The topic of Scientology under attack) &
2: “Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after” (Internal Administrative and Tech issues).
Co-researched and released with page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”.
“The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology or A closer look at 1972, 1977 & 1982”
(released 17 September 2007) - A planned chapter on my page ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (1)’ given a space of its own. Through the years I have been collecting various information and worked my way through a lot of data. In a sense this page is a logical result of all the things that I found and which I disclose on my other Scientology related pages. It could be perceived as a final explanation for why I did make these various discoveries within the previous history of Scientology.
“L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) or Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after”
“LRH vs A New Order (2) - Information (disappearance & arrival) and Qual Library” (released 20 July 2004)
Co-researched and released with page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”.
“Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’ or A prelude to a deliberate ‘change of direction’?”
(released 20 August 2012) - A sort of a missing link in the story. A probable deliberate change of direction presented with authority through the claimed authorship of L. Ron Hubbard.
“Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge or When the Route to Freedom was interfered with and turned upside down”
(released 15 August 2010)
7. David Mayo project (Definition of Clear - NED for OT's - Training Routines - The Bridge)
“David Mayo project pages” (provisional release 24 November 2006, public release 6 December 2006) - A study about David Mayo was never something I intended to do. The person simply is a charged subject. Finally I found that I could not go around it. In the final end as I progressed it turned to a total of as many as 6 relevant studies:
“(1) The story of David Mayo (Snr C/S Int 1978-82) or A detailed analysis of the data found in publications relating”
“(2) ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” - Main analysis page”
“(3a) The definition of ‘Clear’ or A detailed tracking of how it was subjected to change through time”
“(3b) Notes on NED for OT's (NOT's) and its relation to the state of ‘Clear’”
“(4) ‘Training Routines’ (TR's), with notes on auditor training (part of ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis)”
“(5a) ‘The Bridge to a New World’ (History of the Grade Chart) - a) General overview”
“(5b) ‘The Bridge to a New World’ (History of the Grade Chart) - b) Detailed analysis”
“(6) Chronological David Mayo reference list”
Various lists or series of references collected (as used on this site)
On my pages I make use of or refer to various reference lists. The main one's (or most relevant) also have been linked from this chapter for convenience and easy access. Various further information about series of references may be found at various locations on my site.
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked. BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked. C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn, XDN):
(1) “its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint.”; (2) about the course: “Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions.” (What Is Scientology? (1978), p 10 & 12) Free Zone: Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). Grade Chart or Gradation Chart:
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO) HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window). HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649) PAB:
‘Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other. PDH, PDHed:
‘Pain Drugs Hypnosis’. A person is put into a trance through use of pain, drugs and hypnosis and is told things. Roughly it means you have become stimulus response without really having control of yourself anymore. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor. Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’. Snr C/S Int:
‘SeniorCase/Supervisor’. The leading technical person in an organization or group. See further at ‘C/S’ in vocabulary. Snr C/S Int:
‘SeniorCase/Supervisor International’. The highest ranking technical (relating to auditing) person within the Church of Scientology after L. Ron hubbard. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). XDN or Ex Dn:
Short for ‘Expanded Dianetics’. See at that entry in vocabulary.