Scientology's Interrogation Tech

J. Swift · **Posted:** Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:36 am

I want to repost these questions. I am curious on exactly how sec checks occur in the Cult. How is LRH's policy that Caroline posted actually applied?

1. Who orders a sec check and why? My question here goes to threat level. If you are Sea Org or Staff, how many people can potentially order a sec check on you? If you are a public, how many people can potentially order a sec check on you? The next question becomes this: Are KR's written because people are afraid of sec checks? Does the threat of sec checks fuel the CoS Police State KR mentality where everyone reports on everyone else?

2. Does a presumption of guilt apply in a sec check? Is the attitude, "You have crimes and we will discover them!"

3. How accurate is a sec check? People talk about Scientology Tech not working, so what is the actual efficacy of a sec check? Is it 20% accurate or 100% accurate? How much does a person's belief in a sec check bias the result? In other words, how good of a lie detector is the E-Meter?

4. What does it feel like to have performed a brutal sec check on a person? Doesn't the person performing a sec check feel like it is an overt action?

5. Who sec checks the sec checkers? One of the flaws is a sec checker failing to report accurate data uplines. For example, Jesse Prince sec checked DM per LRH's order. Apparently, Pat Broeker never relayed the results to LRH. Does a sec checker get sec checked if he or she does not give their seniors the answers that were expected or wanted?

6. People who have escaped from Int Base have described months and months of sec checking. How long can a sec check last? Is a long duration sec check actually intended to break a person's will so that they become slavishly obedient and caved in?

/////

caroline · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:33 am

J. Swift wrote:

I want to repost these questions. I am curious on exactly how sec checks occur in the Cult. How is LRH's policy that Caroline posted actually applied?

To the letter. There is nothing social or nice-nice about a standard sec check.

J. Swift wrote:

1. Who orders a sec check and why? My question here goes to threat level. If you are Sea Org or Staff, how many people can potentially order a sec check on you? If you are a public, how many people can potentially order a sec check on you? The next question becomes this: Are KR's written because people are afraid of sec checks? Does the threat of sec checks fuel the CoS Police State KR mentality where everyone reports on everyone else?

Practically speaking, anyone senior to the individual can request or order a sec check on that person. The decision makers, however, are usually exec strata up to RTC (meaning Miscavige), but it could be case supervisors, Ethics personnel or OSA.

Routine sec checks such as "Eligibility for OT Levels" sec checks are done on everyone as a prerequisite for going on to OT levels. If you go away from Flag or AO for any length of time, you get a refresher sec check on your return. Solo auditors on OT VII get sec checked every six months. On staff there are "going on leave sec checks," "returning from leave sec checks," returning from mission sec checks," etc.

J. Swift wrote:

2. Does a presumption of guilt apply in a sec check? Is the attitude, "You have crimes and we will discover them!"

Depends on the circumstances. For an "Eligibility for OT Levels" sec check, the attitude might be something like "Let's get through this sec check so we can rocket you up the Bridge." If sec check questions don't read on the E-Meter, or if the sec checker doesn't find any dirt on the person, it's the sec checker's fault. Nobody's innocent for very long.

J. Swift wrote:

3. How accurate is a sec check? People talk about Scientology Tech not working, so what is the actual efficacy of a sec check? Is it 20% accurate or 100% accurate? How much does a person's belief in a sec check bias the result? In other words, how good of a lie detector is the E-Meter?

You mean if a person has something to hide, can s/he keep the sec checker from finding out? It happens, obviously, but not very often if you're a standard sec checker. Sec checkers know their own necks are on the line if they miss an overt or withhold. By the time someone gets to an AO, they're seasoned Scientologists who know they're going to get their sec checker in big trouble if they don't "Give!" when interrogated.

It is no feather in anyone's hat to come up with nothing on a sec check. "No-overts" cases are looked on with a good deal of suspicion.

J. Swift wrote:

4. What does it feel like to have performed a brutal sec check on a person? Doesn't the person performing a sec check feel like it is an overt action?

The biggest "overt" for sec checkers is to miss withholds on their subjects.

J. Swift wrote:

5. Who sec checks the sec checkers? One of the flaws is a sec checker failing to report accurate data uplines. For example, Jesse Prince sec checked DM per LRH's order. Apparently, Pat Broeker never relayed the results to LRH. Does a sec checker get sec checked if he or she does not give their seniors the answers that were expected or wanted?

Sec checkers get sec checked like everyone else. In your example above, both Broeker and Prince could have expected sec checks.

J. Swift wrote:

6. People who have escaped from Int Base have described months and months of sec checking. How long can a sec check last? Is a long duration sec check actually intended to break a person's will so that they become slavishly obedient and caved in?

/////

You're talking about SO staff sec checks, so yes. Months and months of sec check sessions. It is not unusual for sec checks to last 12 1/2 hours, 25 hours or more of in-the-chair time.

Scientology interrogations probably have similar effects as CIA interrogations, although the indoc, PR and the "carrots" make them "palatable" enough.

caroline · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:05 am

What do you know? The Golden Dawn has confessions too, although they are very different from Scientology's procedures. Scientologists don't get to forgive themselves, and God has no part in Scientology interrogations. Hubbard, of course, had, he said, a Guardian Angel, Flavia Julia, who he might have confessed to, but he withheld his relationship with her from his Scientologist elementals like me.

David Griffin wrote:

A Rite of Magical Confession

Introduction

Many Grimoires include some sort of Magical Confession in the early part of the Rituals. Although many of these confessions appear rather exaggerated to modern eyes, there in nonetheless sound psychological sense in including some sort of Magical Confession as a prelude to Magical Evocation. Even if it serves no other purpose, it liberates the Magician of guilt and fear, real or imagined, prior to the Evocation.

This is important when confronting Averse Forces, since they may attempt to exploit and manipulate the slightest sign of guilt or fear in the Magician. The following Rite of Magical Confession has been used successfully by the author on numerous occasions. It combines the essence of the Grimoire confessions, certain psychological insights, and a Magical Formula for the forgiveness of sins purportedly used by Christ himself, which derives from the Gnostic Gospel, Pistis Sophia.[11] The solitary practitioner may use this example, create his or her own personal confession, or entirely omit such a Rite as a prelude to Evocation.

Rite

Proclaim: "I confess my sins to God, to my Holy Guardian Angel, and to myself, that I may be free of all guilt, fear, and insecurity. I have at times acted contrary my values. I have even blamed myself for things which were not my doing, nor even my responsibility. I forgive myself for all wrongdoing, real or imaginary. I forgive myself for falling short of my ideals and expectations at times, for acting contrary to my values, and for blaming myself for things beyond my control. As I forgive myself, I ask forgiveness from God and my Holy Guardian Angel as well, that I may perform this Ritual of Magical Evocation at peace with myself and free from all guilt, fear, and insecurity. I Invoke Divine mercy, compassion, and forgiveness in the name of El and of the Sephirah of Chesed.

-----

[11] Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic Gospel, trans. G. R. S. Mead (Blauvelt: Spiritual Science Library), p. 310-311. Quoted in E. A. Wallis Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians [1904] (New York: Dover, 1969), vol. 1, pp. 280-281.

According to the Gnostics, Christ taught his disciples the following magical formula for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, that I may stand in purity in the presence of my Angel, let the forgiver of sins come, whose names are these: 'SIPHIREPSNIKHIEU, ZENEI, BER-IMOU, SOKHABRIKHER, EUTHARI, NANAI DIEIS BALMERIKH, MEUNIPOS, KHIRIE, ENTAIR, MOUTHIOUR, SMOUR, PEUKHER, OOUSKHOUS, MINIONOR, ISOKHOBORTHA.'

Hear me Invoking you, and purify me of all iniquity, real or imagined. I know thy great powers and invoke them: AUER, BEBRO, ATHRONI, EOUREPH, EONE, SOUPHEN, KNITOUSOKHREOPH, MAUONBI, MNEUOR, SOUOM, KHOKHETEOPH, KHOKHE, ET-EOPH, MEMOKH ANEMPH.'

Thus I am forgiven of all shortcomings and cleansed of all guilt, fear, and insecurity. I stand absolved and purified before myself, before my Angel, and before God."

Griffin, D. (1999). The Ritual Magic Manual: A Complete Course in Practical Magic. (pp. 556-7) Beverly Hills: Golden Dawn Publishing.

Wieber · **Joined:** Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm **Posts:** 8398

Did anyone ever sec check L. Ron Hubbard?

Could anyone have ever sec checked L. Ron Hubbard?

Can anyone sec check David Miscavige now?

Are some sec checks done covertly?
I have been asked sec check type questions while attached to an e-meter and "not being audited" but was not told that I was being sec checked. That leads to the next question.

If a person is being sec checked are they informed? Is the sec checker supposed to say, "This is a sec check?"

magoo1 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:52 am

Quote:

"Case gain" is another of those scientology terms where L. Ron Hubbard tells you right up front what he is doing and twists the scientological meaning to hide the fact that you wouldn't have even known you had a "CASE" let alone needed to pay a fortune to get rid of it if he hadn't convinced you that you had one in the 1st place!

"Case gain" basically means the opposite of what is presented as a good thing. It really means that more indoctrinated you get the more you gain belief in your imaginary case; hence the term "case gain".

Well put, Ladybird! That is some of THE most important information, and some of the most
over looked by many people. Perhaps it's just too easy, or perhaps it's ? I'm not sure, but to
me once I realized (having gotten out) that OT 8 at the end of the Bridge to Total Freedom (barf)
and Life Repair (the beginning of the Bridge) basically have VERY similar End phenomena's....
That and "Clear" having the EP of "I just realized I'm mocking up (creating) my reactive
mind"----THAT IS WHAT HUBBARD INSTILLED IN US!!! #-o

I am a Senior Security Checker, Flag Trained and Interned--so I'll answer those questions
next.

My best :alien:

Tory/Magoo

PS: It looks like Caroline answered J. Swift's questions. I may add my two cents tomorrow--
but that's just fine for now. Nite

caroline · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:56 pm

magoo1 wrote:

I may add my two cents tomorrow--but that's just fine for now. Nite

Good morning Tory,
Thanks for your input and anything else you and/or other sec checkers would like to contribute to the thread.

I have posted the list of materials for the Senior Sec Checker course here: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/key-documents-sp-doctrine/scientology-interrogation.

Most/all of the material on the course has been leaked by now, but it's helpful, I think, and in the public interest, to have it in one place for analysis.

Wieber · **Joined:** Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm **Posts:** 8398

I've read the first case history in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton. The narrative of it is of a person who spent a long time in a reeducation prison in China. Interrogation and confession went on continuously with that person. Interrogation and confession are very much a part of thought reform.

The questions themselves exert an influence on the person to whom they are being asked. For example, "Have you ever smoked Camel non filter cigarettes?" would imply to the person being asked that smoking those cigarettes is an unethical action.

Alright that's a bit facetious. How about this one, which is close to one actually asked of staff members. "Have you joined staff solely to get auditing and training?" To which the immediate thought is, 'That's a bad thing, right?' so you alter your intention and say, "No." Then when you, as a staff member, get no auditing, you aren't as likely to complain because of that question having been asked of you earlier on.

caroline · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:15 pm

Wieber wrote:

I've read the first case history in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton. The narrative of it is of a person who spent a long time in a reeducation prison in China. Interrogation and confession went on continuously with that person. Interrogation and confession are very much a part of thought reform.

The questions themselves exert an influence on the person to whom they are being asked. For example, "Have you ever smoked Camel non filter cigarettes?" would imply to the person being asked that smoking those cigarettes is an unethical action.

Alright that's a bit facetious. How about this one, which is close to one actually asked of staff members. "Have you joined staff solely to get auditing and training?" To which the immediate thought is, 'That's a bad thing, right?' so you alter your intention and say, "No." Then when you, as a staff member, get no auditing, you aren't as likely to complain because of that question having been asked of you earlier on.

Good point, Wieber! Just getting asked the sec check questions implies what behavior is ethical or unethical. The sec check environment is totally dominated and controlled by the sec checker, who's trained to really IMPINGE on the person's case, and get those questions to react on the E-Meter.

Some more examples:

Have you ever had unkind thoughts about LRH? (Joburg confessional)
Have you accepted services from an organization without being invoiced? (General Staff confessional list)
Is there something an Ethics Officer shouldn't know about you? (General Staff confessional list)
Have you permitted a preclear to have secrets from you? (Auditor Confessional)
Have you ever blamed the C/S or L. Ron Hubbard for you preclear's case not advancing? (Auditor Confessional)
Do you think that everybody really has the same troubles as you? (Auditor Confessional)
Do you feel you must be kind to preclears? (Auditor Confessional)

Dorothy · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:04 pm

Weiber wrote:

Quote:

Did anyone ever sec check L. Ron Hubbard?

Could anyone have ever sec checked L. Ron Hubbard?

Can anyone sec check David Miscavige now?

Are some sec checks done covertly?
I have been asked sec check type questions while attached to an e-meter and "not being audited" but was not told that I was being sec checked. That leads to the next question.

If a person is being sec checked are they informed? Is the sec checker supposed to say, "This is a sec check?"

There is a lecture titled "Individuation" where LRon specifically talks about how the (higher up) executives often do not get confessionals/sec checks (interrogations), because of their altitude. So they accumulate transgressions and then go off the rails. Because they do not get cleaned up when needed, they become worse and worse (he might even say abusive) and can do a lot of damage to organizations. (Rough paraphrasing) It is as if he were talking about our little Davey.

I don't agree with Caroline that scientology interrogation tech is always applied "to the letter". I have seen every possible kind of misapplication of it in my days. For example, one could be making marvelous "case gain" (by scientology standards) but you will still be ordered to interrogation for many reasons (ref. to Honesty and Case Gain). I will spare you the hundreds of examples of misapplications I could write about.

When you get a sec check/interrogation (not "auditing") as opposed to a "confessional" (which "is" auditing) you are always told by the handler "I am not auditing you". That way you know the data gotten is not considered confidential and indeed it is intended to be used against you. That data could even result in you being declared suppressive. Same deal when you write your transgressions down (called an O/W write-up).

I am in no way implying that data from confessionals is not sometimes also used wrongly. But it is not supposed to be. It is considered a violation to do so. That is why idiots like TD say "Oh we don't do that". It might not be in their scriptures to do it, but they do do it.

One of the problems I have with the scientology system is that LRon expected it to be applied with perfection, then he proceeded to create a system that is impossible for anyone to apply perfectly. And that is the real reason IMO that it is in the state that it is in today. In truth, the believers have only LRon to blame for what is happening to their religion. But they can't blame him. He did not create any way for the system to correct his errors, beyond him revising himself. See the problem? Therefore it is destined to fail. It will eat itself. And indeed it is.

magoo1 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:22 pm

Dorothy,
Your last point is the most important of all, and yes, they will and are eating themselves.
As I told them when I was "in", and have since I left: "YOU (C of $) are
C R E A T I N G your own enemies, daily".

Ok, let's try this: I'll put (C) for Caroline and (T) for myself. (It is long, but for those
interested, here's a bit more).

Quote:

J. Swift wrote:
I want to repost these questions. I am curious on exactly how sec checks occur in the Cult. How is LRH's policy that Caroline posted actually applied?

(C):To the letter. There is nothing social or nice-nice about a standard sec check.

(T): First the public needs to understand there are levels of "Security Checking".
1) Sea Org---re their 'overts' on staff, including just wanting to leave (and getting charged
big $$ for all the sec checking re this--IF they ever leave. It's called "A Freeloader's Debt"
Note: Staff also get security checked, although they're non-Sea Org)

2) Public: This depends on what level of "The Bridge" you're on. They don't really even start
until after Clear, I think. For me they didn't---until the OT levels. These are designed to see
"if you're ethical enough to be allowed on the OT levels. Can you keep "Security" (Secrets)
"in"?
3) OT's Security Checks: They get worse, the higher you get

J. Swift wrote:

Quote:

1. Who orders a sec check and why? My question here goes to threat level. If you are Sea Org or Staff, how many people can potentially order a sec check on you? If you are a public, how many people can potentially order a sec check on you? The next question becomes this: Are KR's written because people are afraid of sec checks? Does the threat of sec checks fuel the CoS Police State KR mentality where everyone reports on everyone else?

(C)Practically speaking, anyone senior to the individual can request or order a sec check on that person. The decision makers, however, are usually exec strata up to RTC (meaning Miscavige), but it could be case supervisors, Ethics personnel or OSA.

Routine sec checks such as "Eligibility for OT Levels" sec checks are done on everyone as a prerequisite for going on to OT levels. If you go away from Flag or AO for any length of time, you get a refresher sec check on your return. Solo auditors on OT VII get sec checked every six months. On staff there are "going on leave sec checks," "returning from leave sec checks," returning from mission sec checks," etc.

(T) Agreed, re what C wrote above. Re KR's---those are not written out of fear of Sec checks,
that fear is built in from day one, with KSW-Keeping Scientology Working, and remember,
your ENTIRE future, and every man, woman and child's as well as your future, lifetime, after lifetime, after lifetime--depends on you keeping in KSW, thus yes, writing KR's-not out of fear
of sec checks, but out of fear of ruining Scientology, forever, and blah blah blah.
No---again, it's ALL based on KSW. If you don't get it, watch "Tory Talks to CFI" in the programs
section of http://www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44 or on Xenutv.com
(It ALL boils down to $$$, basically)

J. Swift wrote:

Quote:

2. Does a presumption of guilt apply in a sec check? Is the attitude, "You have crimes and we will discover them!"

(C)Depends on the circumstances. For an "Eligibility for OT Levels" sec check, the attitude might be something like "Let's get through this sec check so we can rocket you up the Bridge." If sec check questions don't read on the E-Meter, or if the sec checker doesn't find any dirt on the person, it's the sec checker's fault. Nobody's innocent for very long.

(T) Actually, no. I was highly crammed at Flag for doing that-having a presumption of quilt,
when we were trying to find out IF there was a Plant there, trying to steal the new OT 8 materials.
(way back when it first came out).
My meter was reading like mad with this person "Are you here to steal the OT 8 materials?"
The more it read (indicating there was *something* on it)...the worse I got. They had filmed it all, as I was on an Internship, and it was so bad, we played it for all on the Internship on "How NOT to do a Security Check".

Per "the tech"---you're supposed to just ask the questions in a calm, inquiring way. Obviously different people are no doubt better at this than others. The worst isn't how it's done, imnsho, but the questions, themselves. The questions assume you are an evil snake there to steal, spread lies, harm $cientology, and it's up to you to NOT read on the meter,
and if so, prove it was "just a protest read" (meaning you were thinking, "No--I did NOT steal the damn OT 8 materials" ---but it can go on, and on and on.

The worst for me was once I helped get my Mother-in-law onto OT 8, and thus was what is known as her "FSM", where I should have gotten 10% of what she paid. The Sea Org can NEVER be FSM's as they are not field staff members. However, the registrar---Charmain---who took the money, her husband was on the ship when she arrived, so HE filled out an FSM slip and was paid.
I called the shit to explain, "I am her FSM and that money was supposed to go to me". He agreed, said he'd fix it.
They didn't--so I started calling Charmain, as I didn't have her husband's number.
They never sent me the money--he never called, so each week I'd call her.

Now it's my OT 7, 6 month check. I fly there, do my typical "OT 7 security check"
"Did you talk about OT 7 with anyone?" "Did you steal any of the materials"
"Have you harmed LRH" etc. Etc. NO, NO, NO!
((All the while, *I* have to pay for this, at $7,000 every 12 1/2 hours...which adds up.

Ok, finally we're done with that. I think I'm going to now go onto my either cramming
(correction, which we had to pay for also) OR auditing/repair/review.

No. "Tory, you have a tailor made sec check now" Me: HUH?

"Pick up the cans,,,,I am not auditing you".
" What overts do you have on Charmain?"
"What overts to you have on Sea Org Members?"
This FUCKING SEC CHECK WENT ON AND ON AND ON..........WHEN SHE AND HER
GOD DAMNED HUSBAND HAD *STOLEN* MY MONEY!!!!!
And *I* had to pay for this.
(Literally---and fuck you OSA if you're reading this---I was ready to leap over
the table and bop the 'auditor'---but I knew that would just cost WAY more money,
so I kept it together. I said "FU OSA" as they'll interpret this as:
"See? That's why she blew---she had overts she never told".
NO______YOU all did a "Sec check" on me, when it should have been on Charmain and
husband, AND my $$$$ returned, morons! She STILL OWES ME THE $500 and yes, I'm going
to KEEP talking about it until they pay me, with interest!
Are you getting the picture, J. Swift? I hope so. :wink:

J. Swift wrote:

Quote:

3. How accurate is a sec check? People talk about Scientology Tech not working, so what is the actual efficacy of a sec check? Is it 20% accurate or 100% accurate? How much does a person's belief in a sec check bias the result? In other words, how good of a lie detector is the E-Meter?

(C)You mean if a person has something to hide, can s/he keep the sec checker from finding out? It happens, obviously, but not very often if you're a standard sec checker. Sec checkers know their own necks are on the line if they miss an overt or withhold. By the time someone gets to an AO, they're seasoned Scientologists who know they're going to get their sec checker in big trouble if they don't "Give!" when interrogated.

It is no feather in anyone's hat to come up with nothing on a sec check. "No-overts" cases are looked on with a good deal of suspicion.

(T) Agree with C on this. Just so you know, IF a Security Checker misses ONE overt or withhold,
and it's found out------------they lose ALL (ALL --even if it took them years to earn up to Class 4 or 6 or 8 or 12)...of their certificates, and have to go back to go, retrain, re-paying for it all.
So most people don't want to create that kind of an effect, as Caroline says.

J. Swift wrote:

Quote:

4. What does it feel like to have performed a brutal sec check on a person? Doesn't the person performing a sec check feel like it is an overt action?

(C) The biggest "overt" for sec checkers is to miss withholds on their subjects.

(T) I think it's important to understand that most people doing security checks do not consider them "brutal". In fact, for me I bought Hubbard's line that it's like a confessional, where you go tell a priest your secrets, and thus feel better. Main diff is
1) In a real confessional, you originate what you want to say.
In Hubbard's---they ask you various questions, often ones that have *nothing* to do with
what you may or may not have done.
2) After a real confessional, you are to say various prayers---that's it.
After a Scientology confessional, your "overts" are written up to "Ethics", you go there,
and there you do various conditions on things you shouldn't have done. This is all per you,
not some arbitrary---although a tiny missing piece of info is it's never ending, really.
Even once you finish your "ethics conditions", if on the next Security Check, it comes up,
you'll be back to Ethics again, until it doesn't come up.
I would say there's a tiny relief after a Scientology security check, mostly that it's OVER.

(**Keep in mind I'm excluding Staff insanities like the Mission holder's conference in
1982 where, yes, those totally out tech "Sec Checks" (Group gang bangs really) done by
David-the whore-MISScavige, and were "brutal")

J. Swift wrote:

Quote:

5. Who sec checks the sec checkers? One of the flaws is a sec checker failing to report accurate data uplines. For example, Jesse Prince sec checked DM per LRH's order. Apparently, Pat Broeker never relayed the results to LRH. Does a sec checker get sec checked if he or she does not give their seniors the answers that were expected or wanted?

(C)Sec checkers get sec checked like everyone else. In your example above, both Broeker and Prince could have expected sec checks.

(T) Correct. And I *think* soon after that both of them left Scientology, forever, or were put
on the RPF...where an entire other set of crap comes up, just due to being there, per all I've read.

J. Swift wrote:

Quote:

6. People who have escaped from Int Base have described months and months of sec checking. How long can a sec check last? Is a long duration sec check actually intended to break a person's will so that they become slavishly obedient and caved in?

[/quote]

/////

(C)You're talking about SO staff sec checks, so yes. Months and months of sec check sessions. It is not unusual for sec checks to last 12 1/2 hours, 25 hours or more of in-the-chair time.

Scientology interrogations probably have similar effects as CIA interrogations, although the indoc, PR and the "carrots" make them "palatable" enough.

(T) Agree with C. Also, I've know young kids who were recruited into the Sea Org, promised
this and that, so they went.
Once they realized (Usually within days, if not a week or two) it was NOT what they thought,
they began asking to leave.
Thus began their security checks. Months of them, and once they finally left,
they were charged a HUGE amount of $$$ for these "Security Checks".
One of them I knew personally shot himself to death, and I have no doubt part of that
horribleness had to do with what they run on kids once they finally do leave.

IF You're lurking, and want out of $cientology, realize this:
1) You have a Constitutional right to leave.
2) You are NOT bad, horrible, a "DB" (degraded being) If you leave.
3) You may lose some friends, but as Andreas asked me, right before *I* left:
"What kind of friends could those be, if they're going to leave you just because
you changed your mind"
4) TONS of your friends are out---you just don't know it.
5) You are not a slave to C of $--no matter how much you may feel like it.

If you need help, give me a call.

Lots of love to all :love5:

Tory/Magoo
(*818) 588-3044
If you have questions, please watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.xenu.net
:alien:

caroline · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:22 pm

Thanks, Dorothy. I'm particularly interested in your comments about Individuation, and so put up the transcript to that lecture. The audio file is available too: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/1st-melbourne-acc-responsibility-state-ot-lectures-w-r2-45-a-44912/.

Dorothy wrote:

There is a lecture titled "Individuation" where LRon specifically talks about how the (higher up) executives often do not get confessionals/sec checks (interrogations), because of their altitude. So they accumulate transgressions and then go off the rails. Because they do not get cleaned up when needed, they become worse and worse (he might even say abusive) and can do a lot of damage to organizations. (Rough paraphrasing) It is as if he were talking about our little Davey.

I don't buy one word of what Hubbard said about individuation, but was this the excerpt you were thinking of?

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

It's been an awful long time since a top executive was fired. Actually, they quit. Actually, they quit. Now, I have been known to stop their paychecks two and three weeks after they disappeared. That sounds very funny, but you don't know the workings of these things unless you are right up against them, in tight, looking very hard at them. And that's more or less the truth of the situation. They have blown themselves off, or they've caused a circumstance to exist that they can't exist in anymore. And I would say—oh, there have been some that have simply been grabbed out of the line and booted out the front door. That's for true, you see? There have been some, but they're not in the majority to any way, shape or form. They blow themselves out. They blow themselves off post. And why do they do this? Isolation of command, overt acts, one more action.

It's almost impossible to administer a large number of people with absolute justice. And where the justice cog slips a little bit and they do something to the people, they're guilty of an overt act, don't you see? Then they recognize that they are and they've had it. So this one other factor is altitude. Altitude.

Now, you face up to one of these people that's famous in Scientology and that sort of thing, and if you as an auditor slip into a weak valence and start flubbing the dub on it, I'll growl at you, real hard, because that's normally what happens. Some guy is in an area, whether he's a field auditor or part of the organization or anything else, and because of his altitude he never gets any auditing. He's the Association Secretary, or he's the Director of Processing or the Director of Training, or he's in charge of a field operation of one kind or another, or he's the most important or best-known auditor in the area—in someplace—and immediately, any time anybody walks forward to audit him (he asks them to audit him, something like that), it kind of gets to be a sort of a self-audit. You see how?

Hubbard, L. R. (1959, 25 November ). Individuation. First Melbourne Advanced Clinical Course, (5911C25). Lecture conducted from Melbourne, Australia.

At the September 2010 Freezone/Independent Scientology Conference, Dexter Gelfand made a speech called "Conquering Individuation." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kD_8WMb0k
I'd be interested in hearing yours or anyone else's views on Gelfand's speech, too.

Carl Jung had a lot to say about individuation, and I think the topic is an important one, especially relating to interrogation.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 am

Quote:

I don't buy one word of what Hubbard said about individuation, but was this the excerpt you were thinking of?

Neither do I. There are so many possible reasons for individuation. Transgressions against "religious" morals and codes may or may not be one of them.

DK how much of that tape I might agree with today, if I were to listen to it now. That's the beginning of the part I was thinking of. I believe he goes on, on the subject. Thank you for the link. DK when/if I'll get to reading it though. I will say it is one of the LRon lectures that is rarely if ever actually applied in the church (from my experience).

Quote:

At the September 2010 Freezone/Independent Scientology Conference, Dexter Gelfand made a speech called "Conquering Individuation."...I'd be interested in hearing yours or anyone else's views on Gelfand's speech, too.

I can't believe you actually got me to listen to a Freezone lecture!

(okay, it wasn't that bad). Ironically, Dexter talks about the one thing that made me interested in OT Levels, and what I thought I would get from them, but realized would not necessarily get, so never did them.

I think empathy is a skill or maybe a virtue one can gain many different (free) ways, from a near death experience, to learning it from your mother. So Dexter got it from power processing. He still had to pay money for that, right? Whatever.

So he's basically saying if u can "be" your enemy, then how can they continue to be your enemy? Okay, I am sure there are other sources for that concept.

He defines scientology as "the bringing about of a better game". That's fine. But it won't happen in the current church. The current church brings about a worse game. A much worse game.

I think Dexter's talk (remember my only Freezone experience, wait, my second, I did an online auditing demo once)... is a good example of scientology in a kinder and gentler form.

It was a bit hard for me to listen to. Not just the bad audio, but all the scientologese makes it difficult. (My ears are no longer trained)

Quote:

Carl Jung had a lot to say about individuation, and I think the topic is an important one, especially relating to interrogation.

The only Carl Jung I am familiar with is dream interpretation, archetypes and the collective unconscious. I'm unfamiliar with his version of Individuation.

Is there a particular thing you want to know? I couldn't tell.

caroline · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:21 am

Earlier, I wrote:

Quote:

2. Does a presumption of guilt apply in a sec check? Is the attitude, "You have crimes and we will discover them!"

Depends on the circumstances. For an "Eligibility for OT Levels" sec check, the attitude might be something like "Let's get through this sec check so we can rocket you up the Bridge." If sec check questions don't read on the E-Meter, or if the sec checker doesn't find any dirt on the person, it's the sec checker's fault. Nobody's innocent for very long.

In response to this, Tory wrote:

(T) Actually, no. I was highly crammed at Flag for doing that-having a presumption of quilt,
when we were trying to find out IF there was a Plant there, trying to steal the new OT 8 materials.
(way back when it first came out).
My meter was reading like mad with this person "Are you here to steal the OT 8 materials?"
The more it read (indicating there was *something* on it)...the worse I got. They had filmed it all, as I was on an Internship, and it was so bad, we played it for all on the Internship on "How NOT to do a Security Check".

Per "the tech"---you're supposed to just ask the questions in a calm, inquiring way. Obviously different people are no doubt better at this than others. The worst isn't how it's done, imnsho, but the questions, themselves. The questions assume you are an evil snake there to steal, spread lies, harm $cientology, and it's up to you to NOT read on the meter,
and if so, prove it was "just a protest read" (meaning you were thinking, "No--I did NOT steal the damn OT 8 materials" ---but it can go on, and on and on.

What a nightmare, Tory, thanks for sharing this. I'll admit I couldn't help smiling a little about your fail video, because it reminded me of one or two of my worst flubs as a student auditor. :oops:

Luckily for me now, they didn't have to do with interrogations.

You also brought up a good point about there being levels (or gradients) of sec checking. For the public at least, lower level sec checks aren't as "tough" as they are later on. Also, gang bang sec checks are reserved for the Scientology leadership's personal sadism, and according to the testimony I've read, are certainly not done according to what's written on red on white, at least the red on white I saw. Homer Schomer's testimony about his gang bang is classic.

magoo1 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:26 am

Me too, Caroline, re the chuckle about my failed Sec check. We *all* had a HUGE laugh about it,
once it was done, and the supervisor pointed out it was ME leaning into the meter, asking a bit
more and more intense:
Did you steal the OT 8 materials?
(Long read)
Me: Did you steal the OT 8 materials?
(long read--pc "no!")
Me: DID YOU STEAL THE OT 8 MATERIALS??!

It went on and on and on. It was bad. Glad you got it :oops:

Re "Individuation"---OSA used that with me, when TONS of people I knew here in LA
left, after the Mission Holder's Conference, in 1982. They explained this tape will tell you why
"Executives" would do such a thing. It worked, I bought it....and stayed for 20 years more. #-o

My best

Tory/Magoo

caroline · **Posted:** Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:11 am

Hubbard often lectured on topics relating to sec checking, but only ten lectures were selected for the Hubbard Senior Sec Checker Course, so we know the lecture on individuation is important.

magoo1 wrote:

Re "Individuation"---OSA used that with me, when TONS of people I knew here in LA
left, after the Mission Holder's Conference, in 1982. They explained this tape will tell you why
"Executives" would do such a thing. It worked, I bought it....and stayed for 20 years more. #-o

I'm glad that you mentioned how OSA pushed the "individuation" button on you, Tory, as it illustrates how the organization uses this against people who try to think and act for themselves. Hubbard made individuation a negative thing, similar to the way that he disparaged "humanoids" who use reason. (Ref. Definition: reasonableness.) As an aside, his pronouncement in his definition of "reasonableness" that "an objective can always be achieved" is patently false and a sick way to make his slaves do anything to comply with his orders.

Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on individuation, as it actually means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation wrote:

Individuation (Latin: principium individuationis) is a concept which appears in numerous fields and may be encountered in work by Carl Jung, Gilbert Simondon, Bernard Stiegler, Gilles Deleuze, Henri Bergson, David Bohm, and Manuel De Landa. In very general terms, it is the name given to processes whereby the undifferentiated tends to become individual, or to those processes through which differentiated components become integrated into stable wholes.

In developmental psychology - particularly analytical psychology - individuation is the process through which a person becomes his/her 'true self'. Hence it is the process whereby the innate elements of personality; the different experiences of a person's life and the different aspects and components of the immature psyche become integrated over time into a well-functioning whole. Individuation might thus be summarised as the stabilizing of the personality.

[...]

According to Jungian psychology, individuation is a process of psychological integration, having for its goal the development of the individual personality. "In general, it is the process by which individual beings are formed and differentiated [from other human beings]; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology."

'The symbols of the individuation process...mark its stages like milestones', prominent among them for Jungians being '"the shadow, the Wise Old Man...and lastly the anima in man and the animus in woman"'. Thus 'there is often a movement from dealing with the persona at the start...to the ego at the second stage, to the shadow as the third stage, to the anima or animus, to the self as the final stage. Some would interpose the Wise Old Man and the Wise Old Woman as spiritual archetypes coming before the final step of the Self'.

In addition to Jung's theory of the Complexes, his theory of the individuation process forms conceptions of a phylogenetically acquired unconscious filled with mythic type images, a non-sexual libido, the general types of introversion and extroversion, the compensatory and prospective functions of dreams, and the synthetic and constructive approaches to fantasy formation and utilization.

Individuation is a process of transformation whereby the personal and collective unconscious is brought into consciousness (by means of dreams, active imagination or free association to take some examples) to be assimilated into the whole personality. It is a completely natural process necessary for the integration of the psyche to take place. Individuation has a holistic healing effect on the person, both mentally and physically.

Besides achieving physical and mental health, people who have advanced towards individuation tend to be harmonious, mature and responsible. They embody humane values such as freedom and justice and have a good understanding about the workings of human nature and the universe.]

That Dexter Gelfand and Scientologists in the Freezone also want to "conquer individuation" is a wonderful indictment of Hubbard's tech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kD_8WMb0k. They've got it seriously wrong.

Scientology's Interrogation Tech

Who is online