Using scientology to break free from Scientology.

Ed8

Active member
Solo auditing is not done that way, amigo. Also, you failed to state the End Phenomena of this process you made up.
You can solo Grade 5 style processes. The church says no you cannot, but fuck them.
No I will not feed you the cog of this process.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
Here's one from Steve Bisbey, C/S of the old AAC (Advanced Ability Centre) in East Grinstead. Run these alternately to a good win;

1 / What was it safe to say to (a person in the CofS)

2 / What was it not safe to say to (the same person in the CofS)

(Note from Steve; be prepared for a long session.)

It's a long time since I read his suggestions, but I think Steve would have selected the "people in the CofS" as reading items from a list.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ed8

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
@Cat's Squirrel ... please refer to post#23.

;)

Seriously, any adult needing a 'process' like the ones mentioned on this thread would probably benefit greatly from seeing a genuine therapist.

I'm so tired of the dumbing down (amongst other things) that we are seeing around the world in the last few decades, it's incredibly sad and quite scary.

Hubbard was well ahead of his time when he cobbled scientology together and made fools of some good people.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Here's one from Steve Bisbey, C/S of the old AAC (Advanced Ability Centre) in East Grinstead. Run these alternately to a good win;

1 / What was it safe to say to (a person in the CofS)

2 / What was it not safe to say to (the same person in the CofS)

(Note from Steve; be prepared for a long session.)

It's a long time since I read his suggestions, but I think Steve would have selected the "people in the CofS" as reading items from a list.


Here's a link that contains much information, including some processes from over a hundred years ago. The Drill, drill, drill thread.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
To those who know how to solo:
Tell me a time you agreed with Scientology/Scientologists.
Tell me a time you disagreed with Scientology/Scientologists.​
Alternate the two commands to ep. Those should break you free of their morphic field / group mind.
.

Great commands! I was very excited to see your breakthrough process so I went directly in session. But I ran into some difficulties and am wondering if you also have additional free commands to handle my by-passed charge?

Well, here is what happened. . .

I ran the first command and bogged down. I could not remember any time I really agreed with Scientology. Per my worksheet records, I TR 3'd that command 1,592 times but still could not locate such a moment. That's when I remembered an audio lecture where Ron talks about using the Self Analysis Perceptic Wheel in order to nudge or "turn on" perception of otherwise occluded incidents. So I took out my WHEEL and suddenly I remembered the first time I agreed with Scientology and walked inside a mission to find out what it was all about.

Using the Perceptic Wheel it landed on "OLFACTORY". So I asked myself "How did Scientology smell?"


The only answer I could come up with was: "Fishy".

After that, every time I recalled a Scientology incident (either command #1 or command #2) the same thing happened again and again. (i.e. "How did it smell?" -- "Fishy!").

Thus I feel I am totally bogged and perhaps wondering if i hit some kind of "REPEATER" implant down the track.

I sure could use some new commands to dig out of this huge mass and failed purpose that I am now stuck in!

Many Thanks in advance!
HH


.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Seriously, any adult needing a 'process' like the ones mentioned on this thread would probably benefit greatly from seeing a genuine therapist.
.

Try to remember to look at the positive side of things. For example, right now I am offering 100% standard auditing commands at a 50% discount off the manufacturer's suggested retail price.

Even if an adult doesn't feel the need to run commands on themselves, they make great stocking stuffer gifts during the holidays!

.
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
@Cat's Squirrel ... please refer to post#23.

;)

Seriously, any adult needing a 'process' like the ones mentioned on this thread would probably benefit greatly from seeing a genuine therapist.

I'm so tired of the dumbing down (amongst other things) that we are seeing around the world in the last few decades, it's incredibly sad and quite scary.

Hubbard was well ahead of his time when he cobbled scientology together and made fools of some good people.
Sorry in advance if what follows sounds patronising, but I don't see much of a difference between someone offering a process based on Scn tech, such as the one I posted, and what you see on a non-Scn website such as Emoclear - if it helps, it's good whatever it is.


I think it may be different for people who have spent a long time in the CofS and for whom any mention of Scn has a lot of unpleasant memories of their time "in" (even I have some of those, and I wasn't in the CofS for all that long and was never on staff).

Since I mentioned Steve Bisbey, it's only fair to point out that he moved away from standard tech over the time I knew him; when I first went there in 1986, he was so pro-standard tech that I even had to fill in a KSW form after I'd completed an auditing cycle or a training course (he dropped this requirement later on). He later became one of the founders of Metapsychology.

I'm by no means a standard tech purist myself; my main problem with it when I was having auditing was that I didn't think it went "deep enough".

Lastly;

"I don't have to "make it clear to newbies that they shouldn't attempt to visit a scn org for any reason either, not even out of curiosity"."

I can't speak for anyone else here but I would be very concerned if I discovered that my posts here had that effect on people reading them (especially newbies), to the point where it would probably stop me posting here.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Sorry in advance if what follows sounds patronising, but I don't see much of a difference between someone offering a process based on Scn tech, such as the one I posted, and what you see on a non-Scn website such as Emoclear - if it helps, it's good whatever it is.


I think it may be different for people who have spent a long time in the CofS and for whom any mention of Scn has a lot of unpleasant memories of their time "in" (even I have some of those, and I wasn't in the CofS for all that long and was never on staff).

Since I mentioned Steve Bisbey, it's only fair to point out that he moved away from standard tech over the time I knew him; when I first went there in 1986, he was so pro-standard tech that I even had to fill in a KSW form after I'd completed an auditing cycle or a training course (he dropped this requirement later on). He later became one of the founders of Metapsychology.

I'm by no means a standard tech purist myself; my main problem with it when I was having auditing was that I didn't think it went "deep enough".

Lastly;

"I don't have to "make it clear to newbies that they shouldn't attempt to visit a scn org for any reason either, not even out of curiosity"."

I can't speak for anyone else here but I would be very concerned if I discovered that my posts here had that effect on people reading them (especially newbies), to the point where it would probably stop me posting here.

Cats, we see things differently, we always have done. I'm not keen on what I consider to be the self-absorption of people that take too seriously sites like the one you linked to above (I had a very quick glance) so I doubt we will ever agree on much in that department. I prefer to handle any issues I may have myself and usually do that by being pragmatic and then 'getting on with things'. It works for me. I believe there is far too much attention these days on mental health, some people seem to wear 'mental illness' as a badge of honour and it has become almost trendy to tell the world about every little thing that flits through the minds of the (self) inflicted and the self-absorbed. I'm aware that I wouldn't have made a good auditor (lol) and certainly won't be volunteering any time soon to be on the end of one of those phones that people ring when they are feeling down ... I'm not talking about people who have very real issues, of course I'm not, I feel nothing but caring towards anyone in genuine need of help ... but why do people want to go looking for issues as if they are on a treasure hunt? Scientology did that to many people, it gave them problems and issues that had to be resolved, at a price ... issues that they didn't even know they had ... because they didn't.

You mention that for you scientology didn't go deep enough ... I'm the exact opposite, I feel it (tried) to go way too deep and I resented the attempted intrusion and attempts to create issues that were not there and that's probably why I take exception now to faux therapists dropping in here and assuming we are all cot cases eagerly awaiting their magnificent ministrations ... I find it rude and condescending at best.

I don't understand your final paragraph ... all I was saying (by repeating and rejecting exactly what you had written earlier) is that I don't feel the way you do about "making it clear to newbies that they shouldn't attempt to visit a scn org for any reason either, not even out of curiosity" ... it is not my place to tell people what to do or not do with their lives or their money, scientologists do enough of that for all of us and there are other ways of alerting people to potential danger and these days it is very easy for people to research the cult.


:)
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
On the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics; I would say that it is far better to leave Scientology.

If that is too drastic for some, on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics; I would say that it is far better to read Scientology books, stay off lines, stay away from registrars and staff recruiters, and only pay for services that you have saved up for because at least there is a chance you will wake up from the scam if you are given enough time to be away from the cult environment.
 

Veda

Well-known member
During a time - and a saner and more civil time it was, in contrast to now - when there were protest gatherings at various Hubbard monuments (Orgs) and properties, there was discussion of what words might be shown on a placard, or spoken or politely shouted, to the occasionally spotted Hubbard monument caretaker or customer.

Some people had the idea of a succinct "one shot clear command" that would pop people out of Scientological indoctrination: "release" them from the Scientological implant of "Scientology = Survive!/No Scientology = Succumb," or "blow" their Scientological "circuits."

(Kind of) a reverse, benign (well intentioned) version of this:



Aleister Crowley's terse summation of Yoga - "Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get Out!" - comes to mind as an example of a prototype of Hubbard's (P. T. Barnum-esque) "Be three feet back of your head!"

As far as I know, no one ever came up with an effective "one shot clear of Scientology" command.

A less abrupt, more gradual, approach, as provided by the op of this thread, might be more realistic.

:waiting: No?

Then consider the statements of some ex Scientologists as to some processes that were discontinued in Scientology because they (supposedly) resulted in people thinking they didn't need Scientology anymore. Is there anything to that?

In any event, there was a time before there was a Grade Chart, and people would sometimes bounce in, and then out, of Scientology, sometimes becoming the gurus of their own movements.

Hubbard found this distressing and, subsequently, invented Fair Game, Disconnection, "Ethics," and the Grade Chart with its ever-present and mysterious, and vital, next level.

The ever-lengthening Grade Chart being introduced





Page three of a Non Remimeo HCO Executive Letter, regarding "squirrels," of 27 September 1965,
"to Org staff from Ron."​



It's pretty obvious that Hubbard did not want people passing through Scientology. He wanted Scientology to possess them.

Breaking the spell of that possession, rather than making a person renounce every tiny piece of the subject, seems to be a valid objective.

Yet, there are those who think that's silly and we should just...

 

Ed8

Active member
During a time - and a saner and more civil time it was, in contrast to now - when there were protest gatherings at various Hubbard monuments (Orgs) and properties, there was discussion of what words might be shown on a placard, or spoken or politely shouted, to the occasionally spotted Hubbard monument caretaker or customer.

Some people had the idea of a succinct "one shot clear command" that would pop people out of Scientological indoctrination: "release" them from the Scientological implant of "Scientology = Survive!/No Scientology = Succumb," or "blow" their Scientological "circuits."

(Kind of) a reverse, benign (well intentioned) version of this:



Aleister Crowley's terse summation of Yoga - "Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get Out!" - comes to mind as an example of a prototype of Hubbard's (P. T. Barnum-esque) "Be three feet back of your head!"

As far as I know, no one ever came up with an effective "one shot clear of Scientology" command.

A less abrupt, more gradual, approach, as provided by the op of this thread, might be more realistic.

:waiting: No?

Then consider the statements of some ex Scientologists as to some processes that were discontinued in Scientology because they (supposedly) resulted in people thinking they didn't need Scientology anymore. Is there anything to that?

In any event, there was a time before there was a Grade Chart, and people would sometimes bounce in, and then out, of Scientology, sometimes becoming the gurus of their own movements.

Hubbard found this distressing and, subsequently, invented Fair Game, Disconnection, "Ethics," and the Grade Chart with its ever-present and mysterious, and vital, next level.

The ever-lengthening Grade Chart being introduced





Page three of a Non Remimeo HCO Executive Letter, regarding "squirrels," of 27 September 1965,
"to Org staff from Ron."​



It's pretty obvious that Hubbard did not want people passing through Scientology. He wanted Scientology to possess them.

Breaking the spell of that possession, rather than making a person renounce every tiny piece of the subject, seems to be a valid objective.

Yet, there are those who think that's silly and we should just...

Just a note that Hubbard did not originate "Be 3 feet in back of your head". Another person invented it, and Hubbard squirreled it. I met this man, and believe him. He said the original command was "Try not to be 3 feet in back of your head." I do not recall his name. I met him at one of Aida Thomas' oldtimers get-togethers. Maybe she remembers who he was. Or maybe Trey Lotz knows.
Ed
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Years ago Alanzo had a topic called "How to stop Thinking and Feeling with Scientology". He even wrote a "process" for it and I think you were supposed to "run it" for two weeks.

Another part of it was identifying all clamspeak terms which come to mind and replacing them with King's English.

I mentioned to him that the word "process" itself is sort of clamspeak. Most therapies would refer to their "procedures" and he agreed. People don't go into a therapy or a practice to get "processed". Processing occurs in sausage factories or as in scientology you go in as raw meat and come out as something else. 😇
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Years ago Alanzo had a topic called "How to stop Thinking and Feeling with Scientology". He even wrote a "process" for it and I think you were supposed to "run it" for two weeks.

Another part of it was identifying all clamspeak terms which come to mind and replacing them with King's English.

I mentioned to him that the word "process" itself is sort of clamspeak. Most therapies would refer to their "procedures" and he agreed. People don't go into a therapy or a practice to get "processed". Processing occurs in sausage factories. 😇

Agreed, giving all of the silly cult terminology the flick is the first and best thing a person can do if they want to rejoin society and cease thinking as a scientologist. If a word doesn't exist that explains something it almost certainly means it's unnecessary and/or cultic.

;)
 

Veda

Well-known member
Just a note that Hubbard did not originate "Be 3 feet in back of your head". Another person invented it, and Hubbard squirreled it. I met this man, and believe him. He said the original command was "Try not to be 3 feet in back of your head." I do not recall his name. I met him at one of Aida Thomas' oldtimers get-togethers. Maybe she remembers who he was. Or maybe Trey Lotz knows.
Ed
The person's name was Evans Farber.

During 1984 Nibs (L. Ron Hubbard Junior) put out a cassette titled Nibs to the Field. It had a lot of "inside track" as John Sanborn would describe it. Sanborn was Hubbard's book editor and the editor of Ability magazine, and also had a lot of 'inside track," confirming much of what Nibs said on his cassette tape.

Nibs said Farber "invented exteriorization."

What was Hubbard trying to do with the "Be three back of your head" command? Was he really trying to have people exteriorize?

A similar technique, from Magic(k), is supposed "to create a sense of vertigo in which the mind is freed from its ordinary bounds."

So exteriorization may not have been the objective, rather a state of vertigo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed8

Riddick

I clap to no man
Just a note that Hubbard did not originate "Be 3 feet in back of your head". Another person invented it, and Hubbard squirreled it. I met this man, and believe him. He said the original command was "Try not to be 3 feet in back of your head." I do not recall his name. I met him at one of Aida Thomas' oldtimers get-togethers. Maybe she remembers who he was. Or maybe Trey Lotz knows.
Ed
that may be true or not. Doesn't matter, that one process never really created exterior from the body, nor did any scientology process to OT8. Nobody has been able to exteriorize freely from the body at will. You know, free being.

I believe the process is in COHA book, creation of human ability, or maybe the PDC's, forget now.

Anyways, it's bullshit really.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
that may be true or not. Doesn't matter, that one process never really created exterior from the body, nor did any scientology process to OT8. Nobody has been able to exteriorize freely from the body at will. You know, free being.

I believe the process is in COHA book, creation of human ability, or maybe the PDC's, forget now.

Anyways, it's bullshit really.
here's the stupid rhetoric book:


It's called Route 1, be 3 feet back of your head.

And if that doesn't work, why go on to the next step. Means really in the end become a scientologists and a follower to achieve OT or human ability. What rhetoric in the end it all is because being OT never happened, once.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
kind of funny, my tag line is I clap to no man.

And yet the Hubbard said in his COHA book, in the beginning:

"salute no man by the way."

Fuck you Hubbard, asshole.
 
Top