GE Electronic Mail
To: C.BAZIN
Sub: More from Paul

Hi Carla,

No, we, Sue and I (paulswife), don't think of ourselves as
clears or OT's. 'Clear' is something that has SO MANY
definitions in Scn anyway. But the idea of being in control over
one's life, dealing with unwanted thoughts, etc., is not
something that was discovered in Dianetics. A huge black mass of
chains and past-lives and overts and forces and entities and
gawd-knows-what-else, was.

Yes, the entire structure depends on *their* facts. Yes,
they say that if Scn says it is a fact, it is a *fact*. And no,
they don't want you to start disbelieving things, because if you
do, the concept of clear and OT are going to seem like a
*belief*.

I know what you mean about the KSW thing. Hubbard's tech
can never be wrong, if you accept that KSW is a *fact*.

About OT 3 - 8 and so on, there will always be "reasons",
but they will be meant primarily for the Scn community. The fact
that OT materials had gotten into the public domain was, I
imagine, devastating for many members, especially those high-up.
Because people weren't dropping like flies was probably a slap in
the fact-face for many others.

Carla, I did the clearing-course. There were films of
Hubbard demonstrating the R-6 bank, talking about implants, etc.
He said on those films that if this data ever got out people
would be dying horrible deaths - keying-in all kinds of stuff,
etc. We clearing-course students were actually scared, afraid
that these materials might someday get into the wrong hands. We
were told that just a word form those materials could do someone
in. This was the lightning of life! And we believed it. Sucked
it in hook-line-and-sinker. That we didn't go mad was "proof"
that we had fully completed our "lower" levels, but for someone
else... who wasn't prepared ... oh, man! There just aren't any
reasons (other than he was either lying, or so fully believed in
it himself) for why NO one gets even a twitch when having the
entire story told to them. His *fact* about the materials being
so powerful, that they'd kill people, was painfully found to be
*false*. And the same applies to the rest of it.

So, if you *believe* in Hubbard's facts Scn will work for
you. Question those *facts*, find out that they're not all
facts, then Scn itself looses credibility, and Hubbard can't be
believed; hence, the OT levels are just a belief (not mine).

As to the question of OT abilities (I know you must be
thinking about that) I have a question for you that I think is
important. Have you ever seen *any* OT demonstrate his/her
"power", such as, move a match stick without touching it, let
alone a planet? Or, are said "powers" collectively thought of as
existing, but that they can't be demonstrated, for the sake of
others?

Regarding the anti-scn materials, I think there's a
misunderstanding. We were getting stuff from the library.
Because I had still thought of myself as an OT, and that if the
OT materials were to fall into my wife's hands, that she would be
harmed, I'd black some of the OT stuff out of the article. But
the anti-scn stuff was still read. Later, she on her own, went
back to the library and got the OT materials (contained in the
articles) for herself. It was only after I has found out about
this, and saw for myself that she wasn't in any way harmed, that
I started to think about the OT levels in a different way (as
explained above).

How do you sound? Sue says, on the BB, you sound like a
"Neutral Fairy Godmother". <g> I thought of you as a needed
check-and-balance.

During our correspondence, here, you sound to me as an ex-
member who has not let go of the rope, but that you are willing
to investigate the eventual possibility. There, now having said
that, let me also say that I DON'T want to be the one that makes
you let go! Whether you do or don't is going to be up to you,
and it is a deeply personal decision that sometimes requires
years of thought. ESPECIALLY if you have been in SO for so long.

I know that you know that, but I want you to know that I
know it too.

And DON'T do anything "rash", such as "fight" them. I'm
doing it because I don't care any more. The door has slammed
shut on me, totally, and I like it that way. But I didn't always
feel that way. I was like you for many years - laid back and
cool. And it was fine. It's just that now, it doesn't seem fine
anymore. I'm really not that big of a threat anyway. But, for
me to speak out, posting my real name, took a lot of thought.

This whole Scn thing peels off in layers. I guess I'm down
to the core, now - don't know.

Some of my experiences in Scn were very high. Some were the
lowest of low and totally degrading. I haven't forgotten the
lows - don't think I ever will. It feels good to get it off my
chest too. Thanks for talking with me too.

Take care,

Paul

Religion & Ethics RT
Category 15, Topic 6

Carla:

<If I am self determined, and I KNOW that something is true,
then it's true for me.>

Yes, it is; for you as an individual.

<We're not talking about the boiling point of water...>

No, we are not.

<Further, since I am THAT WHICH KNOWS or THAT WHICH IS AWARE
of BEING AWARE, I guess I know it. Ok, fine. Um, but it sounds
circular to me. Like Kant's Apriori Knowledge, that which is
given by God at Birth...>

Yes. Also, like Descartes' I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

<I am not the picture of the cat I have in my mind. So,
feelings are things we have, they are not us.>

I'm not so sure that a feeling and a picture are the same
thing, but this debate has been going on since ancient times.

<So, if I deny those things which I am familiar with as
being me, then I need an explanation of what's *really* me...
someone has to give me something in it's place.>

I think you have illustrated wonderfully the difference
between a belief (like a religious conviction) and a so-called
fact; like a boiling-point. You seem to be saying that you are
entitled to believe in anything you as an individual want, and I
would whole-heartedly support that. But, if you were to cross
the line and assert that your belief is fact, or, criticize
another for not accepting your belief as fact, then, I think, you
would have made yourself a target for challenge. If, on the
other hand, you accepted your belief for what it was, stayed with
the idea that it is a belief and that it is your right to believe
it, then there would be no need to have the belief replaced by
something else. Your belief would be yours, personally, and,
because you would not feel the need to scientifically "prove" its
validity, there'd be no *legitimate* reason to challenge you.

'Knowing How to Know', seems to be a way to personally
reinforce the conviction that Scientology is a science. Perhaps
KHTK is a needed concept, because the "science" part doesn't
stand up.

You know, talking about circular arguments, Scientologists
say that their science is a religion and that their religion is a
science. When challenged on scientific turf, the argument is
usually "You are attacking my religion!", like that which
Theta.Man has fallen back upon a number of times. When
challenged on religious turf, its, "Our religion is a science".

Very interesting post, Carla.

Religion & Ethics RT
Category 15, Topic 6

Randy:

I'd like to rap this TR 3 thing, and some other stuff up.

First of all, you do not have the right, either under the
Constitution of the U.S., nor in Nature, to get an answer to a
question that you have posed. Even though I thoroughly
*answered* your question promptly after you asked it, and because
you are not happy with quality of it, as a show of good faith, I
will answer your question in more detail.

Why am I here on this topic? Well, some call it a veil,
some call it by other names, but I call it a "bubble", that used
to be suspended around me when I was a Scientologist. This
bubble was a filter, and skewed perceptions. Perceiving the
writings of Hubbard, while having this bubble, hid the
inconsistencies and what I have since learned were bogus claims.
Now this bubble is gone, and Hubbard looks very different.

So when the Genie system came to my attention, and when I
read some of the posts in this topic, because I saw the same
bubble around others, I felt compelled to respond.

Re something of value from Scientology: at various points
throughout my roughly fifteen-year tenure, I would say, yes.
There were friendships with people I'd known my whole life. I
met my wife while in Scientology. I enjoyed a sense of
comradeship; and even the myth that there was a world conspiracy
against us, because if I were a member of such an "important"
group that the world was after us, well, it made me feel very
"special" and "elite" - like I must really be onto something.

As for the "tech", I believed it "worked", just like you do
now, and at that time it was very valuable to me. The processing
was also valuable to me at the time, but mostly not now, because
after the bubble "burst", it became immediately apparent that the
processing I'd received was *never* directed toward anything
other than what Hubbard said I needed, and since it became
apparent that Hubbard was not a Messiah, I didn't have to take
his word anymore.

Now, a few last things. I think you should fully define the
word god-like. You really have it wrong. That's god-like, not,
god.

As to your tip-toe and dance-around-the-issue tactics, they
have offended me.

Your writing is eloquent, but you avoid the most significant
and obvious counter-arguments. Instead, you have probed around
for my personal feelings and/or personal motives. I think of
your probing as a camel's nose sniffing under the tent. Ah, but
that's a tactic, isn't it.

John:

My opinion is that I am *not* on the far side of this. I am
probably somewhere in the middle. It has been my experience that
those who fall on the far side of the spectrum, will likely not
talk at all. And I don't blame them. These people would have
been more affected than I. I'm not saying that they don't talk
because they are *worse* off than I am. They do; just not
publicly. They're probably smarter than I am, too. But I think
that most ex-members who had gone higher than clear, would agree
that from that point on as they progressed "upward", in
retrospect they realized that they had really closed down, like
an inverted funnel. It's hard to get data on this because the
materials that do this to them are confidential. I haven't
brought any confidential materials to this forum to date (not
that I wont sometime) because I want an ace up my sleeve, so to
speak, in case I am physically threatened, set-up, harassed, etc.
(See the end of this post)

Bonsaiman:

My post of last night was a coincidence. <really> Don't
let it interfere with any plans you and Randy may make.

Carla:

Great! Re: CAN'T DO THAT. I like that very, very much.

Sir M.:

Thanks for the info on the SO orders. As a follow-up, the
words, "Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any
means by any Scientologist without discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed",
are from HCOPL "Penalties for Lower Conditions," 18 October 1967
(Not in OEC's)

Chip:

Re my "false" statements. Sorry, I should have said, "to a
greater or lesser degree". Also, if you've been in for a little
while, perhaps it isn't so bad with you yet. But if you've been
in for any great length of time, I'd question the veracity of
your response to me. Still, there's the possibility that you are
for some reason unique in this respect.

Da Sloth:

Usually, at 10:30 p.m., in every course-room of every org,
the course supervisors call their students together for "muster".
This is a period of time in which students are asked if they wish
to express the "wins" they have had while either studying, or
having applied scientology techniques to their lives. After each
who wishes has spoken, the course supervisors direct the
students' attention to the course room picture of Hubbard,
usually prominently displayed on the wall. "Now", speaks the
course sup', "lets have a BIG hand for Ron!", and the course room
students, facing Hubbard, clap and clap and clap and often cheer.
Sometimes, depending upon where you are in the country, at Flag,
for example, hip hip's are often shouted, and a room can erupt
with adulation. I don't have a clue as to what sequence of loops
and circles Randy was taking about when he implied I, or we,
"prayed", to Ron. I think that was an attempted smear, because I
caught him trying to get out of it. I don't know.

To whom it may concern:

I don't remember who it was that asked about internal
arguments; I just remember the answer, from Sir M., I think. But
there's more to what he said. Internal arguments are forbidden.
To generate one is a very serious matter. Something like that
would be very dangerous because any such activity would be
thought of as an attack against orgs or Hubbard, and it would be
smashed instantly. The "evidence" of an internal rift would mean
there are SP's at work, and the SP's would be subject to the Fair
Game policy.

Speaking of Sp's and Fair Game, I am going to take a couple
of days off here, and check my traps, re-adjust my lasers, re-
charge my electric fence, and make sure I have plenty of ammo in
the house (though I may not even be in my house) Smile. If Allen,
or, Randy, or, whoever, is sending my posts to the powers that
be, and if Sir M. was serious when he thought he'd like to shoot
me, then I might have a problem <seriously>. I hope that it is
true that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Talk with you all in a few days,

Paul

Religion & Ethics RT
Category 15, Topic 6

Randy:

Re your response to open mind: Thank you for expanding on
the concept.

Re an altered attitude, my prior post was clear on the point
that the alteration comes *before* auditing begins, which was the
significance of the whole thing.

Re the god like thing, I'd say that we just have a
difference of opinion over that, because your definition explains
what I said, but you seem to have posted it as a form of
rebuttal.

Re the powers that be, I'd question the veracity of your
response; unless you are playing on the word "post" opposed to
"report".

Re the E-Meter. General Semantics Seminar 1937. Transcript
of Notes From Lectures in General Semantics. Given at Olivet
College, by, Alfred Korzybsky. The E-meter wasn't the only thing
Hubbard took credit for.

In case you didn't know, Korzybsky developed a "science"
which studied words and their effects on people. I think he died
in 1950. He believed that words themselves could be demonstrated
to impact the way people would think. He believed that the
Aristotelian system of categorizing, was harmful, for, upon close
inspection, every single thing can be shown to have differences,
even if slight. Therefore, important distinctions can be
overlooked with words that conform to Aristotelian logic, he
said, resulting in irrational decisions. His feeling was that
man must learn to think differently, by changing, or, dumping
certain words from the vocabulary. This concept is suspiciously
close to Hubbard's everything-equals-everything-equals-everything
idea, contained in dianetics theory. The only mention of
Korzybsky by Hubbard, was, I believe, as the butt to one of his
jokes - but on this I'm not certain.

I personally found a lot of Korzybsky's ideas helpful. For
example, by dumping the Scientological terminology from my
vocabulary, I was *forced* to find other words and meanings that
fit certain circumstances in my life. I found that by doing this
I was *thinking*, not *relating* to categories.

For example: Hearing a person making a snide remark, instead
of saying to myself, "there's a 1.1.", and having the entire
Hubbardian idea of what a 1.1. was like flash before me like a
film, I'd have to think about what I saw, perhaps look at the
person again, and think some more, picking words that described
what I saw, without reference to a previous indictment of a whole
*class* of people, as the 1.1. definition in fact is. Enough of
this in relation to Scientology terminology - which is very
categorical, perhaps extremely so - and I began seeing the slight
differences in people and things that I otherwise would not be
allowed to see had I clung to the 1.1. concept.

I'm not a member of any religion, organized or cult. As for
missing the fold, the answer is no. Those whom I knew that are
still Scientologists today, are mostly fanatics, since you asked
me

Re the tip-toeing. Forget it. The record's clear.

Talk to you later,

Paul

GE Electronic Mail
To: C.BAZIN
Sub: Hi from Paul

Hi Carla,

Geez. Carla, I had the feeling that you'd gotten pounded in
CMO. First of all, let me say thanks for telling me this. So
you had been exposed to the real thing, *during* your period as
an active Scientologist. Probably over a period of time too; not
all at once.

Re wasted time: that's a hard one. I know a few ex-members
personally here. One of them has spent a few years with the idea
that he had "wasted" 18 years. I see his point. But this
outlook hasn't helped him much. He isn't moving forward at any
great pace.

Yes. We "wasted" time, because we were duped, really. But
we have also survived the experience. Yes. We were betrayed to
the max. How to deal with it? All I can say is *try* to draw on
any positive aspects - like knowing your never again going to
fall for loaded and/or bogus claims.

About the shock over Hubbard. There's so much, really.
Paulette Cooper, Snow White, Hubbard taking in millions after he
"resigned". Hubbard's personality, heavy ethics, and yes, CMO.
It's a domino effect. It all shocks me, because nearly
everything that was true about Hubbard was, in the end, SO
DIFFERENT than what we as public, and staff, thought of him and
his religion. If you could ask me specifically about something,
I'd be glade to elaborate. I don't want to talk your ear off on
something that wont help.

Yeah. I did most of my training at Evanston, though It
moved to Chicago some years ago. Don't have a clue as to how
it's doing now.

Anyway, at the risk of "evaluating", it wouldn't surprise me
that CMO was a tough experience for you. I had a few dealings
with a guy named Cliff, a black guy back in '84 from CMO. He was
a BASTARD! The thought of BEING with him (or the likes of) makes
me want to start a fight. He was horrible; and he was PURE
Scientology (the real stuff). If you were around people like
that, or, actually been like that, you'd have had to turn
something inside of you off just to tolerate it. This guy was
mean and nasty, and was out to save the world by busting anyone
in his way. Heads were rolling! for looking sideways. Did you
by any chance know of him? (probably not - thought I'd ask
though) Smile

Moreover, maybe you just grew to accept what Scientology and
Hubbard really were, while you were still in. As you said, you
had to deal with this stuff so that you *could* stay in. Perhaps
you knew a lot more than the average person (like me), and
*that's* why. Anyway, to have found out that Hubbard was the
opposite of what I had grown to believe, to say the least, was a
shock, and of course it led to anger.

I really liked your last post. Well thought out and makes a
lot of sense.

Hope this helps. Let me know if I've forgotten anything, or
if I can respond more fully in some way.

Take care,

Paul



----------
GE Electronic Mail
To: C.BAZIN
Sub: A bit more...

Carla,

And the other one, post 639, *that's* a good one too! (Just
saw it)

Paul
----------
Religion & Ethics RT
Category 15, Topic 6

Da Sloth:

I'd like to clarify Type H. "Persons who 'have an open
mind'" is the statement of who is to be labeled type H. "but no
personal desires for auditing or knowingness" is an explanation
of what Hubbard felt comprised an "open mind", and, "as they
really don't have an open mind at all", means, having an open
mind isn't what you (the reader/adherent) think having an open
mind is, and, "but a lack of ability to decide about things" ...
etc., means, there's something wrong with this open minded guy,
and, "'to convince them'", I take to mean, to *convince* them
(they have to be willing that the processing will work *before*
it starts, otherwise, it's a "waste of time".)

Hope this helps.

Paul

Religion & Ethics RT
Category 15, Topic 6

Hi John,

I just saw your last post 657. I'll elaborate on that
tomorrow a bit, and try to tie it in. For now, here's what I've
got to date.

Scientology has a code of justice. There are Errors,
Misdemeanors, Crimes, and High Crimes, in that order.

Errors are minor omissions and mistakes.

Misdemeanors are a bit more serious: "Non-compliance",
"Refusing an E-meter check", "Discourtesy and insubordination",
for example.

More serious yet are Crimes. I have counted sixty-seven of
them from the reference I have. Crimes cover offenses normally
considered criminal. "Theft", "Mayhem", "Reselling org material
for private gain", "Non-compliance with urgent and vital orders
resulting in public disrepute", for example.

Then there are have High Crimes. High Crimes are considered
to be Suppressive Acts. Suppressive Persons (SP's) commit Sup-
Acts. There is a lot of doctrine regarding Suppressive Persons.
Sp's are evil. They seek to destroy. SP's are thought to be
acting psychotics. SP's reward only "down statistics" and never
reward an "up statistic". They "automatically and immediately
will curve any betterment activity into something evil or bad".
And perhaps most importantly, they are people who don't make case
gain (respond to processing), because of there deeply routed
psychosis.

So when we talk of High Crimes, we are talking of those who
even Scientology can't "help", unless they "come to their
senses".

Simply being with a Suppressive Person will cause one to
become a Potential Trouble Source, or, PTS. It is believed that
all war and insanity is caused by SP's and those PTS's to whom
the SP has attached. Moreover, "Due to the extreme urgency of
our mission I" [Hubbard] "have worked to remove some of the
fundamental barriers from our progress. The chief stumbling
block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with Potential
Trouble Sources and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or
Groups." So, to the average Scientologist, an SP and his/her
acts, are taken very seriously, for SP's are given as the reason
underlying all evil.

The acts of an SP are what High Crimes are.

Again, there are many High Crimes listed. However, as this
pertains to criticism, these follow. "Public disavowal of
Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology
organizations", "Public statements against Scientology or
Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened",
"Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-
Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press",
"Testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public".

Just remember. High Crimes, Suppressive Acts, Suppressive
Persons; synonymous for the most part.

Now, in addition to the above, there is what is called in
Scientology, the "Overt-Act". Again, this is a huge subject, and
I couldn't possible cover it all here. Summarily, an overt-act
is another word for "transgression".

Regarding criticism, there is this maxim in Scientology:
all criticism stems from overt-acts. That means that if one is
critical of someone, the person who is doing the criticizing, is
thought of as a *guilty* party. This is because Hubbard claimed
that if a person committed a transgression, but *didn't* confess
it, the "guilt" of having done a harm to someone would eventually
manifest itself in the form of criticism.

Conversely, a person criticizing indicates a person who has
transgressed. To criticize a friend, a neighbor, or Scientology,
means, that the person doing the criticizing, must be *guilty* of
having committed a transgression, further, though to be against
that which he is criticizing.

This is every day stuff. This is "tech".

And a very powerful control mechanism. To even think
critically of Scientology or a fellow Scientologist, if you are
aware of this maxim, is cause enough to make you question whether
*you* are guilty of some wrong doing. And of course to withhold
that you have critical thoughts is also considered a
transgression.

For example, when I attempted to speak to my sister (who is
a member) critically of Scientology, she suggested to me that I
had committed crimes against it, as a *reason* for my being
critical. When I told her that I had not done something bad to
Scientology, but that my opinions had changed about it, she fell
back on the maxim: all criticism stems from overt-acts, and
promptly wrote a report to the "powers that be". She also wrote
me a letter in which she expressed her hope that I would confess
what I had done to Scientology, in an effort to "repair" our
relationship. Needless to say, any dialogue with her is next to
impossible; unless, of course, I'm never critical of the doctrine
that makes her think this way.

So, you have the High Crimes on one hand. If you commit a
High Crimes(s), you can be declared a Suppressive Person; kicked
out of the religion; loose family members and friends, etc. On
the other hand you have the maxim of the overt-act and all that
that implies. So there probably wont be any internal disputes or
arguments within Scientology. To do so would mean expulsion.
And I've explained in earlier posts how much Scientologists (to a
greater or lesser degree) fear that.

Paul

GE Electronic Mail
To: C.BAZIN
Sub: Some thoughts part 1

Hi Carla,

Happy holidays to you too! And thanks. It's been great
talking with you. Smile

I'm sorry if my letter caused you pain. I didn't want that
to happen. I'm just telling you things as it comes off the top.

There are some points you made in your first letter I'd like
to answer in response to your last question about Mind Control.

This is how I see it; Scn is a game of persuasion. I can't
think of anything about Scn that doesn't attempt to get your
agreement. Getting your agreement. Whatever it takes to get
your agreement. Ron says to do this or that, and, you'll agree.
Ethics is a form of getting your agreement. Nothing works in Scn
unless you first agree. You must agree. If you don't... well.

Read Hubbard's words in most any form. They're persuasive
words, loaded with buzz terms, broad generalities, unfounded
claims, fear mongering do-it-now-or-else stuff. The man was on a
mission to get your agreement. Whatever it takes. He'll say
he's a scientist, a great thinker, he'll act as a saviour, he'll
*do whatever it takes to get you to agree*.

This is my theory. Hubbard's tremendous volume of work is
simply an on going response to those who have not been persuaded.
That goes for auditing, especially. From this point of view his
body of work is proof that he *was* opposed. He would have stuck
with the one-shot-clear theory if this isn't true.

In the beginning Hubbard made a hypothesis. It was the
Reactive Mind. Who knows where this came from; whether it dawned
on him, or whether he stole the idea from someone else. But he
said what he said about it in DMSMH. He was obviously convinced
that he was right. He made no bones about that. Now he had to
sell the idea; and he did quite successfully at first. But in
scientific fields, people argue the theories posited. They *try*
to find flaws and inconsistencies.

Hubbard couldn't handle this, though. That is very obvious
throughout Scn writings. So he started his life's work when the
opposition started coming in.

He'd have to persuade people that he was right, rather than
cow tow and test his theories. There must be something wrong
with THEM, he must have thought... and he'd do some "research" to
come up with what it was (they have overts, or, they are
dramatizing this or that), and he'd offer this up to his group of
followers.

It's a very backward approach.

Hubbard did this his whole life in one way or another. His
tech is one huge argument, or, solution, to man's opposition to
his hypothesis. If this or that process wouldn't work, he'd find
ways to make them work by adding this or that undercut process.
When they worked, they were a "breakthrough" and worked because
something earlier persuaded the pc.

Objective Processes are a great example of this. They are a
huge make-wrong, in my opinion. Objectives were only put in to
get the pc to run a "higher" process that he otherwise wouldn't
or couldn't run at all. Objective are a solution to something
that wouldn't work before.

This was an on going thing with Hubbard. He was warped. If
this or that process didn't work (there are hundreds of processes
in the tech vol's that were abandoned) he'd slam something in
sideways to *make* it work. Like sec-checks. This or that
process wont work unless one is first sec-checked. It's endless.
The whole bridge can be viewed in this way. It's one long
argument. Ethics, the GO, all of it, was created as a "needed"
method for the pc to agree with Hubbard's hypothesis of the
Reactive Mind.

And then came the OT levels. Ha! Now, man can't be saved
unless the OT levels are done. Ha! Because this or that process
didn't work, was now being explained because of undone OT levels.
So and so remains a DB because of his BT's. This guy wont handle
this or that *until* he does his OT levels. It's an endless
argument, and it requires your agreement.

Everything in Scn requires your agreement. If you "say no",
BAAAAMMM! Saying no became a crime, as you know.

So this convoluted system called the bridge; a system in
which all opposition is challenged with new processes or ethics
policy, is now so huge that the loyal followers carry on the
work. They must get your agreement now. If you can't agree,
you're bad. If you agree, you're good. If you agree, you can
get euphoric from the processes. (But you know and I know that
the euphoria is short lived) Well... that's because we need the
next level... Ha!

So yes, I think Scn deals in what could be termed Mind
Control, though I don't know if this was what the intention was.
Control is used heavily. There are even arguments as to why
control is "good", an indication of how extensive its use.

In your first letter you mentioned to me about not wanting
to be where you are today; that you were worn down; that it was
difficult to return from the state you were in while in CMO; that
Scn was far from what you believed it was; that you wanted a game
that would allow you to win; that you were spiritually wounded;
that they say you have "whopping overts". All because you said
"no".

This is what happened to me too. And I'm sure there's more
on your end, because there's more on my end.

These are things that we feel when we have been slammed for
asserting our natural selves against a system whose purpose is to
change that natural self. I think this is destructive. I think
Scn is a High Control Group. As abrasive as Sloth can be, he
said something on the board a few weeks back that made sense to
me. There is no cult while you're a member; only after you're
out were you in a cult... something like that.

However. My theory extends a solution too!

If it is true that Scn works because you have agreed with it
(I think I could prove that this is the case), then, that means
that YOU have the power; YOU had the power; YOU will always have
the power. If you can articulate your disagreement, or just make
sense to yourself, you can dismantle the whole ball of crap. You
might not be able to change the past, but you can definitely make
the present a lot better. This whole mess can be undone.

You don't have to find another religion to cancel-out the
other, etc. You can if you want to, though. But to accept or
reject something is a tremendous form of power. It's the same
power that allowed Scn to get into your head. It's the same
power that can blow it out of there too. It's the power of
reason, and reason is spiritual power.

It might be painful to accept that you've been scammed. It
was for me. It's painful to accept that you burned bridges *for
no good reason*. But it's better to accept this than to not
exercise your power of reason and choice. You are an autonomous
person. You have free will. If you use these assets the Scn net
can crumble. And it can stay that way. Of course to return to
Scn would mean that these assets must be given up, and that is
why, I think, you mentioned that it would be degrading to return.
I feel the exact same way.

Yes.... you just said no.... and it IS interesting.

(I'm going to store this and continue on a second letter... I
don't know how long these things can be on Genie) Smile

GE Electronic Mail
To: C.BAZIN
Sub: Some thoughts part 2

Hi, Carla,

Okay. We were handled by CMO when they came to the Chicago
Org to get the stats up. Sue and I had been in a major clash
with the majority of OT's in the area. I had a grievance with
one guy, and he called to arms every person he knew in the area,
and was an expert with the use of "third-party". He had been
sexually harassing Sue. This went against every known policy and
ideal in Scn. This guy, Don Burgett, (now OT Cool had spread into
the field that Sue was an SP. There was no com eve. But because
he was OT, everyone believed him. Of course, when I came to
Sue's defense, I was attacked as well. Eventually, neither Sue
nor I were able to continue on the bridge because we were so
upset with this. Wierd and slanted investigations were done,
reports were written by our best friends, against us. It was a
nightmare.

Eventually, the whole field was stirred up. Com eve's were
done (by my request) and a lot of the truth came out. But then
Don Burgett and his other OT buddies started the rumor that the
com eve was bogus, and two years of work went down the drain.
The field was stirred up again. I took it to Flag, and had a
Chaplain's Court. Burgett refused to show up. We had a decision
then, in our favor. He was to pay us $ plus do a lot of ethics
handling, etc.

Then he went to Flag behind our backs, and persuaded the new
Chaplain to drop the charges. Now three years of work was
worthless. By now all of our friends were of the belief that we
were crazy. It was really bad.

Burgett was on NOTS all this time. We were made out to look
like we had impeded his progress, Ha!

So, CMO got us all by the throats. Sue and I had been
fingered for stirring up the field; Cliff threatened to declare
us on the spot if we didn't drop all charges against Don Burgett.
He called Flag and ordered the Chaplain to drop the cycle. That
was that. Real Scn. What's best for the greatest number stuff.

I did make it back to Flag one last time. It was horrible.
I was viewed as some sort of psycho who let his case get in the
way of his progress, and who could not drop a non-winning game.
It was very degrading for me.

So Sue and I were left hanging out to dry. To this day we
have but one friend who could be tentatively said to be a
Scn's... That's Joe Clennon. But he's about to fall off the
fence, if he hasn't already.

We were sacrificed and made an example of to the field.

I had devoted my life to Scn. It was too much to take. I
started having second thoughts. You know the rest.

Now none of these guys scare me anymore. Don Burgett is OT
8, and he is scared to death of me. If he sees me walking on the
street, he turns and runs. It's really funny. I owe him in a
funny sort of way for making it possible for me to get the hell
out.

But I didn't want that at the time. I wanted to be IN. But
years have passed now. I'm glad I'm out now.

So do you see what I mean? My experience was not as intense
as others'. But it WAS very degrading for me, and Sue too.
Because she was "only" clear, and this other guy was an OT, well,
she was an easy target. But I kicked their asses all the way
back to hell, and only lost because there were to many of them.
It was a real battle! Of course when we withdrew, everything
settled down.

They never declared us. I think that they know that if they
do I will sue them for libel. I wrote the Chicago Org some years
back to told them that if I see one more picture of Hubbard in my
mail box, I'd call the post office on them. They stopped sending
the mailings to me, but they still send them to Sue. We got a
letter from the Office of Special Affairs after this. It said my
only terminal was them. I laughed my ass off. I'm laughing now.
The sheer arrogance of this, that they can tell me whom I may
speak to, is too much to take. Smile Smile Smile

Anyway, Carla, I don't want you to feel pain when I write
you. If you do, I'm sorry.

There is a great book that I'd recommend. It's called 'The
Hero With A Thousand Faces', by, the late Joseph Campbell. This
is a fascinating book, which historically covers the power of
myth and different belief systems and their effects on man (and
women) Smile. He brings a wonderful tolerance of different beliefs
to the reader, because he approaches the subject of religion and
myth as a human creation, that the great religions of history
have as their source of power, the belief in them. So he never
questions whether a belief is true or false. I came away from it
with the sense that everyone can believe in what they want to
believe, because there IS no right or wrong when it comes to
belief, only what they do with it. Hitler had a belief. Anyway,
it's real good.

So to sum up: Scn must get your agreement; Hubbard would not
stop at anything to gain your agreement - he'd lie, he'd claim,
he'd persuade, he'd coerce. Once you agree, you have no need to
verify his words. Now you believe. Suddenly you "see" body
thetans, and it is because you believe in them, that they exist;
just like Christ exists for Christians, or Mohammed exists for
Muslims, or Shiva exists for the Hindus. The only way to get rid
of the residuals of Scn, is to recognize that *you* created
Hubbard's Bank and Body Thetans, because you were told to believe
in them by a man who *wanted* you to believe in them. He had you
"make" this stuff. He made you agree that this stuff was "real",
through his method of argument, which was coercive and forceful.
He was making a hypothesis, and then *forcing* you to agree with
it by giving you no choice - agree, or, die a black death. You
have one chance - now, or, never.

Now the great religions don't require that you "dismantle"
the mechanisms of belief and power, because most of them *help*
people (I'm an atheist BTW, so I don't have an agenda here).
That they help people is reason enough to not screw around with
the reasons they work. (Although there are a lot of ex-Catholics
with some horror stories - and these people choose not to believe
in the party-line as a means to "recovery".)

But after leaving Scn, it does require a close look be taken
at the why's and how's. Anyway, try thinking of Hubbard as a
spoiled child who never really grew up and who *had to be right*
about what man's problem was (Marcab Second Comings), and rather
than allow his hypothesis to undergo testing, he attempted to
change the entire world first! I realize this is a very
unorthodox way to view Hubbard and his bridge and his reactive
mind, etc. But try it. It's not going to hurt anything. It's
just another point of view. And don't forget. *Hubbard* was the
one that said you *must* replace a torn down belief with another;
that to do otherwise was to *invalidate*. But is that really
true? Couldn't someone dump the falsehood first, take solace in
the fact that the garbage is out, and then search for truth and
meaning? That's sort of what I did, because I don't have a
belief now - though I do have faith in the human condition.

Take care,

Paul