Wog Questions

[Babel]

The way that LRH built a massive Newspeak-style technical lingo is one of the more impressive/horrifying elements of the cult.

I'm getting a used dictionary online. Is there one that's the most comprehensive? I'm planning on reading all of it.
This one as good as any other? Not sure if they break down in to categories or not.

Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary L. Ron Hubbard for sale online | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary L. Ron Hubbard at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[Enthetan]

The way that LRH built a massive Newspeak-style technical lingo is one of the more impressive/horrifying elements of the cult.

I'm getting a used dictionary online. Is there one that's the most comprehensive? I'm planning on reading all of it.
This one as good as any other? Not sure if they break down in to categories or not.

Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary L. Ron Hubbard for sale online | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary L. Ron Hubbard at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

That's the technical dictionary, which covers auditing terms. There's a companion green dictionary which covers terms he used in his "administrative technology ", called "Modern management technology defined"

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

The way that LRH built a massive Newspeak-style technical lingo is one of the more impressive/horrifying elements of the cult.

I'm getting a used dictionary online. Is there one that's the most comprehensive? I'm planning on reading all of it.
This one as good as any other? Not sure if they break down in to categories or not.

Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary L. Ron Hubbard for sale online | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary L. Ron Hubbard at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

I find it interesting that you are learning so much about the subject of Scientology.

Your thread here is fun, but I still haven't got any clue at all WHY you would want to learn about it.

Do you have any plans to write about Scientology or Try it? Or make a movie about it. Or is it research for something else you are working on.

Okay, I surrender. No clue. I can't even guess why.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZ (that's the timing buzzer going off, shit, I blew it!!!)

If this was a game show, they would be give me a consolation prize-- thanking me for playing and quickly escorting me off stage to make room for a new contestant.

my consolation prize


It's not as bad as you think...they put
some free customized lettering
on the back that says
"LOSER"

lol​

 

[Babel]

I find it interesting that you are learning so much about the subject of Scientology.

Your thread here is fun, but I still haven't got any clue at all WHY you would want to learn about it.

Do you have any plans to write about Scientology or Try it? Or make a movie about it. Or is it research for something else you are working on.

Okay, I surrender. No clue. I can't even guess why.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZ (that's the timing buzzer going off, shit, I blew it!!!)

If this was a game show, they would be give me a consolation prize-- thanking me for playing and quickly escorting me off stage to make room for a new contestant.

Better luck next time!

While HelluvaHoax is in the hole, it's time for the oxford motivator analysis multi choice bonus round!
For the steal:
A) The history plays out like a Shakespearean drama.
B) it's an Orwellian horror show that was somehow able to hook a ton of intelligent, rational people who stayed voluntarily for long periods of time.
C) No matter how much you learn about it, there's always another bizarre detail that catches you offguard.
D) It's the adderall


(HINT: "All answers are equal, but some answers are more equal than others.")

Remember, if you guess correctly you will win the fabulous grand prize of cognating that every option was equally correct, and there was never a reason to make any selection in the first place.

 

[Zertel]

Better luck next time!

While HelluvaHoax is in the hole, it's time for the oxford motivator analysis multi choice bonus round!
For the steal:
A) The history plays out like a Shakespearean drama.
B) it's an Orwellian horror show that was somehow able to hook a ton of intelligent, rational people who stayed voluntarily for long periods of time.
C) No matter how much you learn about it, there's always another bizarre detail that catches you offguard.
D) It's the adderall


(HINT: "All answers are equal, but some answers are more equal than others.")

Remember, if you guess correctly you will win the fabulous grand prize of cognating that every option was equally correct, and there was never a reason to make any selection in the first place.

E) It's a hobby

Someone on a blog said that when he was in the military his Master Sergeant told his troops, "You gotta have a hobby."

F) AARP says senior citizens should keep their minds active.

(I don't like crossword puzzles or sudoku)

 

[Babel]

I've been reading Modern Management Technology Defined, and I'm wondering how literally these definitions are taken.

For example, the definition for "children"
1. people who have not passed check-sheets and have no paid posts in the sea org.
2. a child is one who cannot handle an org or ship post. He or she is not on payroll.

Should this definition be taken at face value? This would mean that if a person under the age of 18 is not a child if they occupy a paid post, therefore child-labor is an oxymoron.
Wouldn't a senior citizen who can't functionally occupy a post also be considered a child?

 

[Babel]

Another random question for any ex sea org staff. I'm under the impression that most of the sea org smokes cigarettes. Where I live, a pack of cigarettes costs upwards of $10. I've heard that sea org pay has gone up to $100/week in recent years, but when it was $50 or less, did the average staff member spend most of their pay on cigarettes? As a smoker, it seems like you'd hardly be able to keep up with the habit on that pay and would be constantly dealing with nicotine withdrawal.

 

[Paul Adams]

I've been reading Modern Management Technology Defined, and I'm wondering how literally these definitions are taken.

For example, the definition for "children"
1. people who have not passed check-sheets and have no paid posts in the sea org.
2. a child is one who cannot handle an org or ship post. He or she is not on payroll.

Should this definition be taken at face value? This would mean that if a person under the age of 18 is not a child if they occupy a paid post, therefore child-labor is an oxymoron.
Wouldn't a senior citizen who can't functionally occupy a post also be considered a child?

Definition 1 was pretty much the way it was. Definition 2 should be taken in the context of Definition 1 only.

I was in the SO for 23 years, at Saint Hill (UK) and ITO (in LA). I never worked with children of SO members in the sense of schooling them etc, but had experience of being bossed around by 13 year olds (CMO), almost all girls. Most of the time they were surprisingly adult. I guess it's like on the 1800s frontier where a 10 year old suddenly becomes the head of the household and has to "man up".

The cadets (kids) sometimes did projects like filing in Central Files.

 

[Paul Adams]

Another random question for any ex sea org staff. I'm under the impression that most of the sea org smokes cigarettes. Where I live, a pack of cigarettes costs upwards of $10. I've heard that sea org pay has gone up to $100/week in recent years, but when it was $50 or less, did the average staff member spend most of their pay on cigarettes? As a smoker, it seems like you'd hardly be able to keep up with the habit on that pay and would be constantly dealing with nicotine withdrawal.

Regular rolling tobacco was popular! I saw some people who would stoop to collecting random dog ends and make roll-ups from them, but that was just beyond the pale for me. I got used to not smoking that much. I gave up smoking after 8 years in the SO, which helped, but it wasn't because of the expense.

 

[Babel]

Definition 1 was pretty much the way it was. Definition 2 should be taken in the context of Definition 1 only.

I was in the SO for 23 years, at Saint Hill (UK) and ITO (in LA). I never worked with children of SO members in the sense of schooling them etc, but had experience of being bossed around by 13 year olds (CMO), almost all girls. Most of the time they were surprisingly adult. I guess it's like on the 1800s frontier where a 10 year old suddenly becomes the head of the household and has to "man up".

The cadets (kids) sometimes did projects like filing in Central Files.

It make's sense that the second definition is contingent on the first definition. Kinda what I'm asking is how young someone can be put on payroll. Even in the first definition it specifies that children are not on payroll. I'm not sure what "passing check sheets" consists of. How young could someone conciveably pass check sheets?

Basically, I just want to know if I'm understanding this right. If a 10 year old passes check sheets and operates a paid post, he's considered an adult, right? The number 18 has nothing to do with whether a Sea Org staff member would call someone a child.

 

[Babel]

Regular rolling tobacco was popular! I saw some people who would stoop to collecting random dog ends and make roll-ups from them, but that was just beyond the pale for me. I got used to not smoking that much. I gave up smoking after 8 years in the SO, which helped, but it wasn't because of the expense.

Wow. That makes total sense. I used rolling tobacco back when I smoked for the same reason, but it never occured to me that people were always rolling cigarettes on the base, haha. Thanks.

 

[Babel]

From a tactical standpoint, is there any reason that LRH puts so much emphasis on the fact that SP's speak in generalities but Social Personalities speak specifically?

I've never understood any rational for this, and it comes up a lot in Scientology materials. It's not part of the wog definition of anti social personality, and it seems really bizare to me that there's so much emphasis on it.

 

[Dotey OT]

From a tactical standpoint, is there any reason that LRH puts so much emphasis on the fact that SP's speak in generalities but Social Personalities speak specifically?

I've never understood any rational for this, and it comes up a lot in Scientology materials. It's not part of the wog definition of anti social personality, and it seems really bizare to me that there's so much emphasis on it.

If I recall, the idea is that speaking in generalities helps the protective coloration of the SP. The fact being that it's harder to locate the specific source of the bad news or exaggerations. And since the SP himself sees the whole world as a hostile generality to himself, logically he speaks that way. Just what I recall.

 

[Dotey OT]

If I recall, the idea is that speaking in generalities helps the protective coloration of the SP. The fact being that it's harder to locate the specific source of the bad news or exaggerations. And since the SP himself sees the whole world as a hostile generality to himself, logically he speaks that way. Just what I recall.

Then the next step would be to figure out the real reason why he made that up. It could stand to reason that the idea being he was trying to bring attention to someone that was complaining about scientology in some non-specific way, so as to make what they were saying valueless. Just another way to shelve complaints, because they weren't specific enough. I will have to chew on this to see what he was trying to achieve with this "datum". So many other of his "ethics" data had the specific purpose of trapping the person, or making ones that complain guilty of complaining against scn.

 

[Babel]

So many other of his "ethics" data had the specific purpose of trapping the person, or making ones that complain guilty of complaining against scn.

Yep. Seems pretty random. Maybe it's because he speaks in generalities about psyches. You're watching out for something, but you ignore the fact that you see it all the time.

 

[Dark]

Yep. Seems pretty random. Maybe it's because he speaks in generalities about psyches. You're watching out for something, but you ignore the fact that you see it all the time.

goofball contradicted hisself all the time. he wasn't very good at original thought. he was only good at copying art and pretending that he made it.

 

[Lee #28]

Getting back to murder......


Yes the American idiom...."getting away with murder..." is hyperbole...( I would hope, but perhaps not...)

But there are other places where Hubbard talks about murder.

Perhaps someone will remember what Hubbard says about underlings.....that take care of a problem for a Superior Exec....and don't tell him about it....( so as to not involve him / her ) and quietly disposes of the body.

I can't remember exactly where he states the above.....

And of course there is R-45.....in reference to a Colt 45 automatic pistol....and shooting someone in the head. Listed as Routine 45....in Scientology writings...

Then there is that reference to taking all the lepores in Venezuela ( Simon Bolivar ) and shipping off to an island and then blowing it all up...

And the Fair Game Policy doesn't preclude murder.....but is rather open ended...

There might be more....but can't remember of the top of my head...

 

[guanoloco]

Wog here. Have questions.

There's basically infinite data on Scientology all over the internet, so I try to avoid asking questions in the assumption that I'll find the answer eventually. There are some details I'd love some help on though.

1. KHA-KHAN
"In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic is up and can’t sneeze without a chop if it’s down. To do otherwise is to permit some suppressive person to simply Ethics chit every producer in the org out of existence. When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report. In an ancient army a particularly brave deed was recognized by an award of the title of Kha-Khan. It was not a rank. The person remained what he was, BUT he was entitled to be forgiven the death penalty ten times in case in the future he did anything wrong. That was a Kha-Khan. That’s what producing, high statistic staff members are – Kha-Khans. They can get away with murder without a blink from Ethics. The average fair to poor statistic staff member of course gets just routine ethics with hearings or courts for too many misdeeds. The low statistic fellow gets a court if he sneezes. Ethics must use all org discipline only in view of the production statistic of the staff member involved. And Ethics must recognize a Kha-Khan when it sees one – and tear up the bad report chits on the person with a yawn. To the staff member this means – if you do your job you are protected by Ethics. And if you aren’t so protected and your statistic is high, cable me. L. RON HUBBARD"

Anyone familiar with this? The only time I think I've heard it referenced was by Leah Remini. I believe she said that John Travolta was awarded with the title of Kha-Khan, meaning that Scientology will forgive murder up to ten times; that Scientology staff will just clean it up without a word. (forgive me if that's not exactly accurate. It's been in the back of my mind for a while. She said it on Joe Rogan)

From the LRH quotes I was able to pull up, it doesn't actually seem like a specific award. It seems like a blanket rule that applies to all staff with up stats. It doesn't seem like this is actually the case even at that level. How literal is "getting away with murder without a blink from ethics"? Does this mean:
a) they'd actually clean it up
b) They won't sec check you about it
c) They won't bring it up till your stats are down

He also defines it as forgiving the death penalty up to ten times, but Scientology doesn't have a death penalty. Would LRH be referring to an action that could result in the wog world death penalty? That doesn't seem likely, but it's the only explanation I can think of for the way Leah described it. Are there any other examples of it being awarded to a specific person, or any examples of it in practice?

It's a big show off ego thing that someone donated a ton of cash or something but it doesn't hold water after the crowds are gone. Maybe under Hubbard they were untouchable but not anywhere else after he was toast.

 

[guanoloco]

"THETA TRAPS, how can you trap a thetan? By curiosity, by giving him awards and prizes (of an implant), by retractor screens, by mock-ups, by ornate buildings which he will enter unsuspectingly to be electroniced down: by many such means
the thetan is reduced from knowing to a colonist, a slave, a MEST body. All theta traps have one thing in common: they use electronic force to knock the thetan into forgetting, into unknowingness, into effect. Their purpose is to rid the area of those nuisances, the thetans who cannot be policed, and gain personnel–always the former, not always the latter. (HOM, pp. 71-72)"

Serious language barrier on this one.

Does "trap a thetan" mean "confine to a body"?

Does "Awards and prizes (of an implant)" mean that the thetan's ambition is used against it (thetans are genderless, right?) and that when the thetan wins a prize he unknowingly receives an implant with it? Does refer to something specific? I don't remember the Xemu story including any awards or prizes with the implants. Is there any chance he's implying that each step up the bridge is awarded with one more implant?

What are "retractor screens"?
Is "electroniced" a scientology word? What does that mean?
Is a colonist a wog or a human?

"Their purpose is to rid the area of those nuisances, the thetans who cannot be policed, and gain personnel–always the former, not always the latter."
Can someone please translate this sentence?



Thanks for all the responses so far. Ya'll are the best.

That definition, itself, is a theta trap.

Here's how it works: I will translate that sentence for you and then you'll see it.

So, the sentence is suggesting that these thetans were so rebellious that they couldn't be policed because they were so self-determined. Also, they were so wild and rebellious that they would never join the side of trapping and enslaving thetans so they, being good guys, were dumped into the physical universe prison insane asylum called Earth and they're handled by being reduced to meat bodies and suffering life after life of amnesia and pain.

Now, being good guys, they're reading this definition from Ron and laughing to themselves with self-congratulatory accolades on how they are so wild and self-determined and it all makes so much sense now and because they're such rebels and non-conformists they then now become total adherents and followers of every single written word, command, rule, policy, procedure, goal and statement of L. Ron.

See how that works?

The definition strokes the ego and since it's openly in your face you would never, ever see that Ron is doing to you the very thing that he claims was done to you.

You then become a total compliant unquestioning follower that completely doesn't have any autonomy or self-determinism while all the time believing to yourself that you're totally self-determined with full autonomy and that you're some wild, rebellious non-conformist..all the time completely conforming to Ron's Scientology robot valence.

And what is that valence doing? Going out and enslaving others into the very same rigid, conformist enslavement and trap called Scientology. It's a prison of belief.

 

[pineapple]

Perhaps someone will remember what Hubbard says about underlings.....that take care of a problem for a Superior Exec....and don't tell him about it....( so as to not involve him / her ) and quietly disposes of the body.

I can't remember exactly where he states the above.....

It's in "The Responsibilities of Leaders" HCOPL 12 Feb 1967, the so-called Simon Bolivar Policy (which you mention later in your post). Execs were SO fond of quoting from this ,,,

“He (the person in power) doesn’t have to know all the bad news and if he’s a power really, he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?” And if you are clever, you never let it be thought he killed them—that weakens you and also hurts the power source. “Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.” “Well,” he’ll say if he really is a power, “why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you did it. Where’s my blue ink?” Or “Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along soon with your cook, Dober, and they’ll want to tell you he beat up Simson.” “Who’s Simson?” “He’s a clerk in the enemy office downtown.” “Good. When they’ve done it, take Dober down to the dispensary for any treatment he needs. Oh yes. Raise his pay.” Or “Sir, could I have the power to sign divisional orders?” “Sure.”

The Responsibility of Leaders

www.mikerindersblog.org

The link to the full PL at the end of Mike's article isn't working, but "The Responsibilities of Leaders" was reissued as an HCOB in 1979. You can find it here.

https://www.tep-online.info/laku/usa/reli/scien/SECRETDOX/1978_79.PDF