Wog Questions

[pineapple]

Am I also correct in assuming that the actual process of auditing BT's is almost the same as auditing engrams?
Auditing an engram mainly consists of running an incident over and over until the engram is handled.
Does auditing BT's consist of running incidents from the BT's POV? Or are you having a conversation with the BT and convincing them to leave?

I never did the OT levels, so someone else could give you a more authoritative answer. AFAIK it's usually having a conversation with the BT and convincing them to leave -- but it CAN entail telepathicallly auditing the BT as you would audit another person. See R. Kaufman's Inside Scientology where Kaufman's auditor audits the spirit of Kaufman's dead mother (who is in effect one of Kaufman's BT's) from ARC S/W through Power. I think that's kind of unusual, though.

Is this also the concept he's trying to convey in the ashtray drill? Like, you're willing an intention into an object that isn't actually capable of intention, and in doing so you manipulate reality?

The ashtray drill's official name is TR-8. It's part of a series of drills (TR's 6-9) called Upper Indocs. These are designed to teach you (as an auditor) to physically control the person you're auditing. Or any other person, for that matter. You learn to place an intention in an object as a "gradient" (very big deal in scn, one of Hubb's "discoveries") to placing intention in a person.

Here's the rundown on TR's 6-9, from a freezone site. This should clarify it a great deal (if it doesn't just get you more confused, but that's scn).

https://freezoneearth.org/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/sub1/class1/indoc_trs_print.htm

Edit: As an aside, one of the few times I saw someone in scn behave like a stereotypical hypnotized subject was during this drill. Expressionless, fixed stare, zombie-like. We used to kid around about how we were "hypnotized," but even then it struck me as creepy. Afterwards the guy told me he felt he had "become the ashtray" during the drill.

 

[pineapple]

On some level though, I really get the impression that it has its own kind of formal logic. It teaches you how to think. Not just what to think. I'm pretty sure that's a constant truth of "mind control" regardless of what group is practicing it.

I think ultimately it teaches you NOT to think. After years of trying to grasp the never-ending stream of Hubbard's convoluted and contradictory "tech" your mind gives up in exhaustion. Rather than try to figure it out, it's easier just to do what Ron says.

I think this was definitely the intention.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

BABEL QUESTIONS & HELLUVAHOAX ANSWERS:

Am I also correct in assuming that the actual process of auditing BT's is almost the same as auditing engrams?​

Completely different. There are two super-quickie ways to "blow" a BT. If they don't blow on the first question ("Who Are You?") they are virtually guaranteed to blow on the second ("What Are You?") . ​

​

In the very rare case that the BT doesn't quickly blow because they are resistive (yes, the impeach Trump "Resistance" began 75m years ago when that racist bastard was Xenu) there are some other highly technical auditing actions you can take to get rid of something that isn't actually there in the first place. ​

​

​

Auditing an engram mainly consists of running an incident over and over until the engram is handled. Does auditing BT's consist of running incidents from the BT's POV? Or are you having a conversation with the BT and convincing them to leave? ​

There are no "conversations" per se, inside an auditing session or outside an auditing session in Scientology. Only "commands" that must be obeyed. by doing something or answering a standard question. Scientology very aggressively discourages conversations between Scientologists unless they are collaboratively working on a short term project to liquidate assets or borrow cash, in order to donate it. ​

​

..​

 

[Babel]

I think ultimately it teaches you NOT to think. After years of trying to grasp the never-ending stream of Hubbard's convoluted and contradictory "tech" your mind gives up in exhaustion. Rather than try to figure it out, it's easier just to do what Ron says.

I think this was definitely the intention.

Ah. That puts all the comments telling me "just give up, it's a waste of time" in context.

 

[Babel]

Edit: As an aside, one of the few times I saw someone in scn behave like a stereotypical hypnotized subject was during this drill. Expressionless, fixed stare, zombie-like. We used to kid around about how we were "hypnotized," but even then it struck me as creepy. Afterwards the guy told me he felt he had "become the ashtray" during the drill.

It clicked very recently with me that one goal of auditing is to induce a hypnotic state. I know people talk about the euphoric feeling coming out of a session, and how writing wins down immediately after gives you positive associations despite the fact that your euphoria isnt necessarily directly connected with your win. Which I get on a common sense level.
However, the first description of hypnotism that made any real sense to me is "guided imagination".
On first reading (and without much context it terms of actual tech) it feels like TR 6-9 is hypnotizing the student by introducing the idea that placing intention into an object is something that he's actually doing. Like it's a muscle he's flexing. The student imagines the intention in the ashtray, and through repetition and zoning out to the point where you obey without reacting, it starts to feel like something is actually happening. It's like meditation, but someone's messing with your perception and preconceptions while you guard is down.

The other thing that occured to me is that the drill is teaching a tone of commands that a hypnotist would probably use.

 

[Babel]

Completely different. There are two super-quickie ways to "blow" a BT. If they don't blow on the first question ("Who Are You?") they are virtually guaranteed to blow on the second ("What Are You?") .

This is actually very surprising to me. I also didn't know that the term blow was used in reference to BTs.
I suppose most OT auditing consists of looking for BTs and, once you found one, getting rid of it immediately. Then you keep looking. Is that about right?

Is there an easy explanation for why those two questions work?

(yes, the impeach Trump "Resistance" began 75m years ago when that racist bastard was Xenu)

Called it

there are some other highly technical auditing actions you can take to get rid of something that isn't actually there in the first place.

It makes sense to me that an imaginary problem wouldn't have a simple solution.
Simple commonplace problems (i.e. socks are dusty) hardly ever have convoluted megalomaniac schemes that require years of training to execute. Convoluted nonsensical problems can't just be solved by dusting socks, so all of this seems to be above board.

There are no "conversations" per se, inside an auditing session or outside an auditing session in Scientology. Only "commands" that must be obeyed.

Ok, i get that. Like how in that TR the trainer commands the student and vice versa, then the student commands the ashtray as the trainer is commanding him to command it.

I suppose that makes it easier to just surrender to commands without trying to work out exactly what the hell source is talking about.

No case on post doesn't become stable datum until OT, right? So what rational is given for not interacting on a casual conversational level before then?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

BABEL asked:
This is actually very surprising to me. I also didn't know that the term blow was used in reference to BTs. I suppose most OT auditing consists of looking for BTs and, once you found one, getting rid of it immediately. Then you keep looking. Is that about right? Is there an easy explanation for why those two questions work?

It's an interesting question. In my opinion those questions provide a very clever portal through which to access & exercise one's creative imaginative muscles. In effect you are asking yourself to imagine what nature of alien entity could be the source of (UNWANTED CONDITION IN YOUR BODY AND/OR LIFE)? It's a Faustian bargain, OT levels, in that you there is a price to be paid for all those moments of creative fun during flights of fancy---you have to surrender a bit of your sanity each time you do so. Artists do this type of thing for fun and profit, but in Scn there is no "profit" to the alien hunters--far from it! And as far as hunting invisible BT spirits goes, it's not really "fun" either, it turns out, to have been defrauded by a looney cult.


I suppose that makes it easier to just surrender to commands without trying to work out exactly what the hell source is talking about.
Scientologists are impressed with the self-assured CERTAINTY in their leader's voices. It has a calming effect much like bed-time stories do to small children who then soon fall asleep. Hubbard and Miscavige have a limited number of these playfully delightful stories about a Harry Potter-like little boy with magical powers. In Scientology the series of stories, the hero is a red haired little boy "OTTO THE OT" who also has supernatural powers that he engages to save the world. Scientologists never grow weary of hearing these miraculous adventure tales over and over again.

No case on post doesn't become stable datum until OT, right?
"No case on post" applies from day one, the moment a new Scientologist joins the cult. All Scientologists are expected to "rise above" their reactive mind in order to solve whatever is preventing them from reaching great success. There is, however, one area of Scientology where it's strictly forbidden to suggest to another Scientologist that they should apply "no case on post" technology. Inside the office of the REGISTRAR. Inside those confines, it would be tantamount to a crime to infer that a being can do anything whatsoever to solve or overcome the nightmarish "RUIN" that is destroying their lives. Only buying auditing can do that!


.

 

[Enthetan]

After thinking on that and Hubbard's Law of Commotion for a bit, it actually clears things up a lot (so to speak).

I do understand that the cult is fundamentally a scam that's always dangling a new carrot, or announcing that they finally realized the last carrot you ate was actually an orange turd and that this time it really is a carrot. I get that asking what the beliefs are is equivalent to asking what the scam is.

On some level though, I really get the impression that it has its own kind of formal logic. It teaches you how to think. Not just what to think. I'm pretty sure that's a constant truth of "mind control" regardless of what group is practicing it.

You are correct. It has it's own formal logic (the "Data Series" and ethics conditions) which are designed to lead people into thinking a certain way.

 

[pineapple]

You are correct. It has it's own formal logic (the "Data Series" and ethics conditions) which are designed to lead people into thinking a certain way.

When I was in scn I knew of the Data Series, but didn't actually know anything about it. I used to hear the execs talk about it, but I generally ignored green-on-white unless it directly pertained to auditing or training.

As for the ethics conditions, when I was a public and still believed I could pick and choose the parts of scn I wanted to apply, I ignored the conditions, too. After I joined staff I was somewhat startled when I was asked to actually apply them to myself. (At that point they were being applied gently, so I was 2w/c'ed about it.) I accepted them as an unavoidable part of being a staff member, but I was never enthusiastic about them.

I was always suspicious of green-on-white because in spite of all this wonderful policy, things always seemed so f**ked up. No matter how many "whys" were found, it never really corrected things. And staff never consistently got paid a living wage, and had to depend on wog jobs to survive. THAT was the biggest indicator of something very wrong right there.

 

[Operating DB]

.
TECH TIP: There is no standard whatsoever of what constitutes the "State of Clear". Because, the qualifications to "attest" to being Clear have changed constantly since 1950, largely dependent upon:

-- The latest thrilling "miraculous breakthrough Clearing discovery", which solved the reason the previous "miraculous breakthrough Clearing discovery" failed to produce a Clear.​

​

-- The economics of what auditing rundown, grade chart level or sellable services were the most profitable.​

​

ANALOGY: In order to better understand Scientology's states of "Clear" and "OT", it's very helpful to momentarily avoid the use of Scientology terms and concepts, because each of those is densely embedded with false, random and contradictory definitions. Thus, to understand the state of Clear, one could begin by noting that SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY IS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED. Let's assume that in 1950 Hubbard released a different book than "Dianetics" and called it "Ghettonetics", billing it as the first time in human history that the reason for impoverished and violent war zones exist in modern cities.

-- And "Ghettonetics" promised a 'world without Ghettos"​

-- And since 1950 every place where Ghettonetics was sold and "applied", no ghetto ever once experienced any statistical improvement in its crime rates, employment rates, personal income or other quality of life metrics. ​

-- And since 1950 the number of square miles of ghettos and number of people living within ghettos dramatically spiked up. ​

-- And since 1950 all of Hubbard's professional organizations and staff members themselves lived in ghetto conditions. ​

-- And since 1950 the world headquarters of Ghettonetics was a vast desert village that had worse living conditions than the rest of the ghettos not under applying the 100% workable technology of Ghettonetics.​

Having articulated this analogy, take a moment and attempt to imagine why it would be impossible to have a rational discussion about the state of Ghetto-Clear, an imaginary "ideal scene" that results after applying Ghettonetics to any village, town or city.

CONCLUSION: None of the above absurdities would prevent the heroic leaders of the Ghettonetics movement from regularly scheduling gala public awards events and parades in hell-hole ghettos--- to celebrate their miraculous achievements and victories that solved and "erased" ghettos..

I like Helluvahoax's statement "SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY IS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED".

May I put an additional spin on this. SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY IS A SOLUTION TO A MADE UP PROBLEM THAT NEVER EXISTED AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

​

I was always suspicious of green-on-white because in spite of all this wonderful policy, things always seemed so f**ked up. No matter how many "whys" were found, it never really corrected things. And staff never consistently got paid a living wage, and had to depend on wog jobs to survive. THAT was the biggest indicator of something very wrong right there.

What you are saying is contrary to scientific evidence.

In fact, the WHY for the staff unit being substantially below the poverty level is that standard LRH finance policy was not being followed and applied. Those who did apply policy flourished and prospered. There are so many easily provable examples of this! I know some of you with a low OCA score are still critical of green-on-white, so I will give just one (1) example so that you can forever shut your critical pie holes:

- - - Unlike DB staff members who were broke because they refused to apply his tech, Ron applied policy and as a result he had many luxury vehicles, owned multiple luxury homes and on his staff pay was still able to save and deposit over $ 300,000,000 in Swiss bank accounts. ​

CONCLUSION: Becoming a super-upstat is so easy to do i you are on staff like Ron. Anyone can do it!

.

 

[Zertel]

In an auditing session my auditor said, "Locate an incident of...........................(whatever negatively impinging attitude, emotion, sensation or pain it was at the time)". I looked for an incident and then there seemed to be a mist like appearance above my auditor's head which swirled away and disappeared. I laughed loudly and exclaimed, "Joe - It's just a joke! There's nothing there."

I guess that qualified as the clear cognition since they gave me a Dianetic Clear certificate. Maybe everyone who attests to Clear has some type of subjective experience, if nothing else than a letting go of the past. The man on the street would say, "You can't change the past so live for today." After an indeterminate number of hours of introspecting on the past in formal counselling sessions a Clear might have a greater subjective reality on that truism.

 

[Babel]

It seems like "green on white" refers to policy letters. I never fully understood what part these play in the organization.

My impression is that they were used to manage scientology while LRH was in hiding. Are they treated as courses, or mainly studied by management?

 

[programmer_guy]

@Babel

IIRC, Hubbard was writing the HCO PLs long before he went into hiding in the Bluebird motor home in California.

 

[pineapple]

@Babel

IIRC, Hubbard was writing the HCO PLs long before he went into hiding in the Bluebird motor home in California.

The PL's go back to at least the late 50's, IIRC, and had already been codified into the "green volumes" by the time I joined up in 1975. Those volumes already looked very well-thumbed by that time, too, like they'd been around for years. The green volumes predated the red volumes (Tech Volumes), which began appearing in the mid-70's.

@Babel, the green volumes (or green-on-white) are policy letters written by Hubbard concerning how scn organizations should be run. The red volumes (red-on-white) concern "tech" issues (like how to run a particular process) as opposed to policy. There is some overlap however, and some issues were released as BOTH, so this is something of a simplification.

"Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW) is probably the most famous (or infamous) policy, which dates from 1965. (This is where Hubbard "turned the brainwashing up to high," as another member -- Veda? -- said.) Another well-known policy is the "Simon Bolivar" policy, "The Responsibility of Leaders," from 1967.

"While Hubbard was in hiding" usually refers to the period from 1975 on, after Hubbard came ashore in the US, but really it's ambiguous. You could say Hubbard was in hiding after he left England with the Sea Org in 1966 (though he did give an interview aboard the Apollo in 1968), and he temporarily left the Apollo and hid out in Queens, NY in the early 70's, to avoid arrest by French authorities.

I think you could say he was in hiding to some extent from 1950 on. But the degree to which he physically dramatized it increased over the years.

 

[Chuck J.]

It seems like "green on white" refers to policy letters. I never fully understood what part these play in the organization.

My impression is that they were used to manage scientology while LRH was in hiding. Are they treated as courses, or mainly studied by management?

The PL's are the framework for the organization. It's what you're supposed to follow in doing your job. You have a "hat" - (which is your job), and you'd have a thick bunch of PL's called a hatpack that relate to your position, and various other PL's also, and of course KSW PL's which is in every hat pack. You're expected know all this stuff in the PL's. You would do starrate check out's, and word clearing to make sure you understand, etc.

OK. In theory that's great. However in $cientology reality there is this thing called The Hubbard Law of Commotion. I'm sure you've heard of it.


"THE HUBBARD LAW OF COMMOTION: It's similar to Newton's Law of Motion but so much more useful, as follows: "In Scientology for every policy, piece of tech and definition there is an equal and opposite policy, piece of tech and definition."


You're trying to do something and someone says you can't. They quote some piece of policy (Green on White) that explains why you can't. You quote some other piece of policy that you thought you were operating on.... there ya go, Hubbard Law of Commotion.

 

[Babel]

You're trying to do something and someone says you can't. They quote some piece of policy (Green on White) that explains why you can't. You quote some other piece of policy that you thought you were operating on.... there ya go, Hubbard Law of Commotion.

When this happens, what is the solution? Does it come down to rank? Do you chalk it up to MUs and reread everything, or just employ doublethink and accept that both options are valid?

 

[marra]

When this happens, what is the solution? Does it come down to rank? Do you chalk it up to MUs and reread everything, or just employ doublethink and accept that both options are valid?

I was a member of public but I'd studied all of the green volumes twice so I knew Policy quite well. On one occasion at Saint Hill in the UK I was being told by two sea org members to do something that was in a policy letter which they quoted. These guys were from RTC, which is a pretty important part of the sea org, so I, being a mere member of public was supposed to just do what they said. However, I quoted another policy letter to them which contradicted the one they were quoting and I pointed out that the one I quoted was much more relevant to the actual situation they wanted me to handle therefore that is the one I should use.

They didn't like that so they just told me again to do what their policy letter said. So I quoted another policy letter which said that if someone was using LRH policy to make a situation worse then they were acting off-policy, which is a bad thing to do in scientology. And I explained how the situation would become worse if I did what they said therefore they were being off-policy.

I think they realised they were being out-gunned in the policy stakes so they passed a message to me via another sea org member and the message was that I needed to realise I was dealing with RTC! In other words they were of such a high status that they expected me to just do what they said.

Well, I didn't do what they said so I was forbidden from going further up the Bridge. I left scientology soon after that so it was a huge foot bullet for them.

 

[Chuck J.]

When this happens, what is the solution? Does it come down to rank? Do you chalk it up to MUs and reread everything, or just employ doublethink and accept that both options are valid?

Both options? Oh no, no no.
non.
nyet.

That's is not how a $cientology organization functions. It's VERY hierarchical.
What happens to you i.e. the lower ranking, depends on how much you pissed off the higher ranking, if they like you or don't like you - and what they can get away with.

People in $cientology organizations like to pretend they have some moral or ethical superiority in dealing with each other because of Ron's policy/"scriptures." But in my experience I've worked in average "wog" companies that were better at following their own policies and being fairer to employee's.

 

[programmer_guy]

@Babel

AFAIK, Hubbard started writing the HCOBs in 1962.

EDIT: the Technical Bulletins go back to 1950s before he started calling them HCOBs in 1962.