Scientology's Interrogation Tech

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Scientology's Interrogation Tech

Post by caroline » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:25 pm

The Suppressive Person Defense League is assembling material concerning Scientology's interrogation technology. Interrogations in Scientology using its e-meter lie detector are also called "security checks" or "sec checks," "gang bang sec checks," "confessionals," "integrity processing," "o/w pulling" (overts and withholds pulling), "False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) auditing," "rollbacks" and "rudiments." Scientology's interrogation tech also includes "interrogatories," "o/w write-ups," "marriage counseling" and "ethics handlings."

Recent discussions* on OCMB have made it clear to us that the treatment ordered by Hubbard's antisocial interrogation directives is not adequately understood, and that the public interest is served by publishing this material. Most or all of the material has been made public previously, but not in a format that facilitates academic research and publication.

We have begun this project with the material given on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course, which includes key material for Scientology interrogators. That material is here:

http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/sci ... errogation

Image
Image

--
* Recent OCMB threads include:
1. Please Note: "Natter" is a compassionless $cientology word;
2. Lisa Hamilton's Ethics Interrogatory of David Miscavige
3. Scientology and "Suppression".

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:05 pm

Scientology is Ughism. Hubbard knew it, and for sure DM and Rathbun know it. Ugh.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:By hypnotism, we have a somebody there who not-knows. We get him fixated on a piece of knowingness. We make him forget it and then he remembers it in terms of action. And we have there the entire explanation, mechanics and modus operandi of hypnotism and hypnotism at last is completely explained.

Another way to hypnotize somebody would be to put him in the middle of chaos, everything going in all directions, everybody shooting at him and suddenly throw him a stable datum, and make it a successful stable datum so that it's all called off once – the moment he grabs this. And this gives you the entire formula of brainwashing: interrogate, question, lights, pain, upset, accusation, duress, fear, privation and we throw him the stable datum.

We say, "If you'll just adopt 'Ughism' which is the most wonderful thing in the world, all this will cease," and finally the fellow says, "All right, I'm an 'Ugh.' " Immediately you stop torturing him and pat him on the head and he's all set.

Ever after he would believe that the moment he deserted "Ughism," he would be drowned in chaos and that "Ughism" alone was the thing which kept the world stable; and he would sell his life or his grandmother to keep "Ughism" going. And there we have to do with the whole subject of loyalty, except – except that we haven't dealt with loyalty at all on an analytical level but the whole subject of loyalty is a reactive subject we have dealt with.


Hubbard, L. R. (1955, 14 September). Postulates 1, 2, 3, 4 In Processing – New Understanding of Axiom 36. Conquest of Chaos, (5509C14). Lecture conducted from Washington, DC.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:41 am

Scientology often compares its interrogation tech to Catholic confessionals, for purposes of PR and legal. This Hubbard lecture exposes that lie, and reveals the necessary factor of making someone guilty in order for the process to work.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:Now, you can just see some blood-dripping priest of the Old Testament asking how somebody has transgressed against the ark of the covenant or something of the sort and having some member of the cult, you see, practically faint at the idea of having to come up with the fact that one day they accidentally spat as it was being borne by. And yet this would be a very aberrative fact, you see?

Now, having released this into the open air, we get less individuation involved.

Now, the Catholic confession is only one type of Security Check that is a kind of an automaticity trick, which doesn’t depend in the least on interrogation, but just depends on whether or not somebody out of the goodness of his heart is going to spill the goods and get a few paternosters or something and go his way happily. And it actually has ceased to have very much punch.

But it’s transgressions against the Catholic mores. Only that. And there is no wider perimeter to it. And it isn’t actually a Security Check at all because it’s just whatever the person feels guilty about, which means that no criminal would ever walk near the confession box.

And, of course, the whole Catholic religion was done in by criminals. The reason it hasn’t the worldwide sweep that it has today is they just had a few too many, particularly in their own high places. Alexander the Fourth is a very good example. He made lots of money for the Church. The Church became a big business under Alexander the Fourth, but I don’t think he’d have anybody in occupying a cardinal’s hat or a bishopric unless the fellow had a long and involved record of some kind or another. He held his position by poisoning. You know it today as a cliche of Lucrezia Borgia. That was his, I think, niece. Anyway, he used her in that fashion.

So you see, that type of Security Check lets everything go by the boards that doesn’t register, because if the person doesn’t feel guilty about it, it isn’t freed. Don’t you see? So it requires the factor of make-guilty in order to make the process work.


Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 26 September). Teaching the Field Sec Checks. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, (6109C26). Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:27 am

From the Suppressive Person Defense League:

HCOB 1 May 1985 "Honesty and Case Gain" is an extremely important piece of Hubbard’s scripture, both for Scientologists who practice it, and for wogs who want to understand and deal with the Scientology evil. Hubbard wrote it (and it is definitely his) less than a year after he was declared by Judge Breckenridge in the Scientology v. Armstrong case to be a pathological liar, and less than a year before he, or someone else, would end his life.

Judge Breckenridge wrote:The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.
The Breckenridge Decision
“Natter,” as the term is used in Scientology, means telling the critical truth about Hubbard, Scientology Scientologist leaders such as Miscavige or Rathbun, and their victims, the Suppressive Person class. Telling the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists such as Miscavige or Rathbun and SPs signals to Scientology execs, OSA, C/Ses, sec checkers or auditors to interrogate the natterers and pull their withholds. The action of pulling natterers’ withholds is intended to introvert them, redirect their attention from the critical truth, or cave them in, and reconvert them into uncritical, compliant subjects. [Ref. Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 21 September). Smoothness of Auditing. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, (6109C21). East Grinstead, Sussex.]

SPs are almost synonymous with natterers, because SPs are people who tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists such as Miscavige or Rathbun, but will not stop telling the truth and will not be reconverted by the Scientologists applying the “tech” to them. That’s what it means when Hubbard says in Scientology scripture and Scientologists say that SPs don’t make case gain. These are the people – who tell the truth and won’t stop despite the tech – that Scientology scripture states are to be disposed of quietly and without sorrow.

The withholds these Scientologists seek from the natterers, interrogate them about, and want them to confess to, are the “overts” the natterers have against Hubbard, Scientology or Scientologist leaders. These “overts” include, very significantly, the truth the natterers have told about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologist leaders, and their SP victims.

A C/S, auditor or sec checker would never ask people for the truth about Hubbard, Scientology or Scientologists leaders. And if a C/S, auditor or sec checker did so, he would be immediately be targeted, and interrogated or sec checked about his own “overts” against Hubbard, Scientology or Scientologist leaders.

The truth is that in Scientology it is virtually impossible for Scientologists to tell the truth about what is really important in their lives – Hubbard, Scientology, Miscavige and SPs if the Scientologists are in DM’s faction; or Hubbard, Scientology, Rathbun and SPs if they’re in Marty’s faction. This can be seen clearly in Marty’s faction by his visible dramatization of prohibiting the truth on his blog, and his labeling of the forums where the truth can be told about Hubbard, Scientology and himself as “natter boards.” Rathbun performed this same function of suppressing the truth, and punishing natterers or SPs who told the truth, while in the Sea Org.

Although Rathbun and Miscavige call each other SPs, neither can possibly be an SP because neither tells the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, themselves and SPs. Both Rathbun and Miscavige interrogate people or have them interrogated or sec checked and use Scientology tech to introvert them, redirect their attention from the critical truth, cave them in, reconvert them and render them uncritical and compliant.

Thus, this HCOB, which Hubbard undoubtedly wrote to cloak the fact that he had just been exposed as a pathological liar, is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the truth. “Case gain” depends entirely on the Scientologists’ lying, about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists and SPs. OT VII’s and VIII's, who have progressed to the top of Scientology’s grade chart, got there by consistently never telling the truth about these things.

Hubbard, source of the grade chart, and as OT as OTs come, was perhaps the most dishonest person to have ever walked on planet earth. Does anyone know any other person who told more lies than Hubbard? Can any Scientologist identify any other person who told more lies than Hubbard?

Scientologists, I know, are for the most party able to view the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, their leaders, fellow Scientologists and SPs. But the Scientologists must lie about the truth they view, in order to make case gain, and, of course, to avoid the pain and horror of reconversion or being declared SP.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote: HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MAY 1985

Remimeo
BPI
C/Ses
Ethics Courses
Hubbard Senior Sec Checker Course

C/S Series 120
HONESTY AND CASE GAIN

Refs:

HCOB 5 Oct. 61 CLEAN HANDS MAKE A HAPPY LIFE
HCOB 8 Feb. 60 HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO
HCOB 15 Nov. 72 II STUDENTS WHO SUCCEED
HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S
Book: The Way To Happiness
Book: Axioms and Logics

DISHONESTY CAN PREVENT CASE GAIN.

Case gain depends entirely upon the person’s ability to view the truth of something in order to bring about an as-isness. (Ref: The Axioms of Scientology, Booklet: Axioms and Logics)

This ability is gained or regained on a gradient scale. The Grade Chart is designed to assist one to view gradiently larger areas of truth at each level. As one progresses up the Chart his ability to view the truth of things improves and expands. The accumulated masses and burdens and problems and falsities of a lifetime or lifetimes are dissolved and vanished, leaving the being free and clean and in control of his life and environment.

But to receive help as a pc or pre-OT, one has to be honest with his auditor.

Dishonest people have withholds, and withholds stack up mass and bring about stupidity. They cut the person’s reach and his ability to perceive. They hold in place the masses that imprison and pin the being at the level of Homo sapiens— and a miserable Homo sapiens, at that! Who is such a person really fooling?

Thus, one can bar his own way up the Bridge by dishonesty.

I always feel a bit sad when I see somebody doing himself in this way. It is so pointless.

One sees this in those who, for whatever irrational reason, cling knowingly to withholds and wind up critical, nattery and generating hostility. If one finds himself feeling hounded or persecuted, he should ask himself what his condition is on the first dynamic instead of going around persuading others to do him in.

How precious, after all, are one’s dishonesties, withholds and falsities in the face of the real freedom there is to be gained?

One CAN be honest. He will find it a happier, more comfortable existence when he is.

And more important—he’ll find the route to stable case gain is now open to him.

HONESTY OPENS THE DOOR TO CASE GAIN.

That is the route to sanity. It is the route up the Bridge to OT and real freedom. With honesty, one can make it and make it all the way!

Why settle for anything less?

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


Hubbard, L. R. (1985, 1 May). Honesty and Case Gain. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XIII, pp. 14-15). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm

Post by Ladybird » Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:26 pm

"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".

Here are some more good Hubbard jokes for all the scientologists, freezoners, indies, etc. who still consider themselves beneficiaries of "the tech" and are still plodding up the bridge on the bloody stumps of their friends, family and finances and still firmly harnessed in L. Ron Hubbards fantasies:

Did you know that the entirety of OT VIII consists of getting *star*-rated on the book "Scientology: A History of Man" and then auditing your past lives with true and false questions until you find out they were almost all false?

Hence, the EP of OT 8: "Now I know who I am not, and am ready to find out who I am".

Gee, that sounds like back to square one, only hundreds of thousands of dollars poorer, and after trashing most every part of your life.

That old ElWrong, he sure did have a great sense of humor, didn't he?

Here are a few more zingers from mankinds greatest jester:

The EP of Clear: I mocked up my own reactive mind. (Of course you wouldn't have known you had one if the old joker hadn't made up all those funnies about engrams, past lives, AAs and basic basic, etc.)

The EP of OT7: I mocked up my own BTs. ( You wouldn't have imagined those either without his hilarious rendition of the Sci Fi Xenu story, which he told with a straight face, only laughing behind your back all the way to HIS bank.)

And of course the ever popular "Highest Holy Level" OT8, where you find out again that you mocked it all up. (But are still kept on the edge of your seat by the buffoonery of being assured that the next OT level holds the TRUE keys to the universe.)

Keep it in your pants, please (your WALLET, sheesh!) for this newest voyage of discovery into the outer limits of mans gullibility.

This truly is an epic journey "L. Reel-em-in Huckster" devised for his enjoyment at your expense.

So for those of you who still don't get the joke, here are a couple of Ladybirds favorite rundowns: (at a cost considerably less than $360,000.00)

The EP of scientology is: I mocked it all up.

The EP of SP is: I am now free from scientology.


Hubbard is gone, LRH and his lies have been proven over and over.

Stop being the butt of DMs jokes, he is not funny at all.
[i]"There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth...it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late"~LRH[/i]

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm

Post by Ladybird » Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:44 pm

caroline wrote:Scientology is Ughism. Hubbard knew it, and for sure DM and Rathbun know it. Ugh.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:By hypnotism, we have a somebody there who not-knows. We get him fixated on a piece of knowingness. We make him forget it and then he remembers it in terms of action. And we have there the entire explanation, mechanics and modus operandi of hypnotism and hypnotism at last is completely explained.

Another way to hypnotize somebody would be to put him in the middle of chaos, everything going in all directions, everybody shooting at him and suddenly throw him a stable datum, and make it a successful stable datum so that it's all called off once – the moment he grabs this. And this gives you the entire formula of brainwashing: interrogate, question, lights, pain, upset, accusation, duress, fear, privation and we throw him the stable datum.

We say, "If you'll just adopt 'Ughism' which is the most wonderful thing in the world, all this will cease," and finally the fellow says, "All right, I'm an 'Ugh.' " Immediately you stop torturing him and pat him on the head and he's all set.

Ever after he would believe that the moment he deserted "Ughism," he would be drowned in chaos and that "Ughism" alone was the thing which kept the world stable; and he would sell his life or his grandmother to keep "Ughism" going. And there we have to do with the whole subject of loyalty, except – except that we haven't dealt with loyalty at all on an analytical level but the whole subject of loyalty is a reactive subject we have dealt with.


Hubbard, L. R. (1955, 14 September). Postulates 1, 2, 3, 4 In Processing – New Understanding of Axiom 36. Conquest of Chaos, (5509C14). Lecture conducted from Washington, DC.
I would say that this reference explains quite well that L. Ron Hubbard WAS in fact using covert hypnotism and hypnotic techniques to control people.

Many of us EX-scientologists who have studied hypnotism see now exactly what Hubbard was doing and how "Model Session" and other techniques were L. Ron Hubbards purposeful attempts to teach auditors, registrars, recruiters, etc. to unwittingly use hypnotic techniques on other scientologists all the while howling to high heaven that scientology had nothing to do with hypnotism.

There is a ton of information about this on the 'Net and in your local library. Please look it up? Here is a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_hypnosis
[i]"There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth...it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late"~LRH[/i]

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm

Re: Scientology's Interrogation Tech

Post by Ladybird » Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:45 pm

caroline wrote:The Suppressive Person Defense League is assembling material concerning Scientology's interrogation technology. Interrogations in Scientology using its e-meter lie detector are also called "security checks" or "sec checks," "gang bang sec checks," "confessionals," "integrity processing," "o/w pulling" (overts and withholds pulling), "False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) auditing," "rollbacks" and "rudiments." Scientology's interrogation tech also includes "interrogatories," "o/w write-ups," "marriage counseling" and "ethics handlings."

Recent discussions* on OCMB have made it clear to us that the treatment ordered by Hubbard's antisocial interrogation directives is not adequately understood, and that the public interest is served by publishing this material. Most or all of the material has been made public previously, but not in a format that facilitates academic research and publication.

We have begun this project with the material given on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course, which includes key material for Scientology interrogators. That material is here:

http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/sci ... errogation

Image
Image

--
* Recent OCMB threads include:
1. Please Note: "Natter" is a compassionless $cientology word;
2. Lisa Hamilton's Ethics Interrogatory of David Miscavige
3. Scientology and "Suppression".
Per the LRH quote in the above promo "Swinish suspicion" is one of the "misunderstood words" that I could easily direct a student to when I was on FSO lines as an "HPWCC" / "HPCSC". Clearing that term was guaranteed to bring "VGI"'s and a line charge or LFBD to the student. (Look up those scientology made up words, it might lead you to some other truths about the silly made-up language of the cult. Look up "MU"'s and "Study Tech" while you are at it.)

So here is the real definition of "swinish suspicion".
The truffle hog or truffle pig is a domestic pig used for locating and extracting truffles from temperate forests in Europe and North America. The pigs have a good sense of smell and a natural affinity for rooting in the earth for food, and are trained to hunt truffles by walking on a leash.[1]

History
The use of the pig to hunt truffles is said to date back to Roman Empire, but the first well-documented use comes from Bartolomeo Platina in the 15th century.[1] Later references to truffle pigs include John Ray in the 17th century.[1]

In 1875, a truffle hog could cost up to $200 [2]. A skilled truffler could more than make up for this investment due to the high price of truffles on the gourmet food market. Today it is common for dogs (known as "Truffle hounds") as well as truffle hogs to be used in the gathering of truffles because hogs have been known to eat too many truffles in the field.[3] However, traditionalists argue that the swine have more sensitive noses and their particular taste for truffles leads to a more devoted beast. It is frequent for the hog to be more of a family pet of the truffler.

"Swinish suspicion" is NOT meant to give free reign to piggish/ schweinhund like bad boorish behaviour. Apparently many scientology sec-checkers have an MU on this word yet today judging by their behaviour. No, LRH was not asking sec-checkers to act like pigdogs, he was asking them to dig like truffle hunting pet pigs on leashes!

http://herbarium.usu.edu/fungi/funfacts/truffind.htm

Pardon the verbal tech :roll:
Last edited by Ladybird on Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
[i]"There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth...it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late"~LRH[/i]

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10214
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Re: Scientology's Interrogation Tech

Post by J. Swift » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:38 am

caroline wrote:Recent discussions* on OCMB have made it clear to us that the treatment ordered by Hubbard's antisocial interrogation directives is not adequately understood...
Caroline, your pronouncement is ironically very Scientology in nature: I apparently went past a word, or perhaps even hundreds of words, that I did not understand in the SPDL scriptures. Therefore, a new round of indoc is needed to bring posters such as myself into compliance with the SPDL ideology. After all, as your reasoning argues, anyone who understands SPDL writings will naturally agree and comply with its scriptural nature. Only people like me who do not understand would make posts that show a lack of understanding sufficient for the SPDL to issue a formal statement damning my writings as a menace to the social order.

God forbid that the SPDL deem me PTS or that I become the SPDL's first declared Suppressive Person. :shock:

/////
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am

truffle hunting

Post by RedPill » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:25 pm

One last bit of info regarding using pigs for truffle hunting ... it is the sow that is used. This is because the truffle emits an odor that is is similar to some odor of a male pig that gets the sows excited.

Pete

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Scientology's Interrogation Tech

Post by caroline » Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:18 pm

J. Swift wrote:
caroline wrote:Recent discussions* on OCMB have made it clear to us that the treatment ordered by Hubbard's antisocial interrogation directives is not adequately understood...
Caroline, your pronouncement is ironically very Scientology in nature: I apparently went past a word, or perhaps even hundreds of words, that I did not understand in the SPDL scriptures. Therefore, a new round of indoc is needed to bring posters such as myself into compliance with the SPDL ideology. After all, as your reasoning argues, anyone who understands SPDL writings will naturally agree and comply with its scriptural nature. Only people like me who do not understand would make posts that show a lack of understanding sufficient for the SPDL to issue a formal statement damning my writings as a menace to the social order.

God forbid that the SPDL deem me PTS or that I become the SPDL's first declared Suppressive Person. :shock:

/////
Oh no, J. Swift, I've known from discussions here on OCMB that there isn't anything you don't fully understand.

And please don't be concerned that SPDL is pretending to be a spiritual teaching or attracting a community of people who are attracted to the teaching. That's your province, and we aren't in competition with you for followers. SPDL simply confronts Scientology's Suppressive Person doctrine and its practitioners and effects in the physical universe.

Be of good cheer.

RedPill and Ladybird, thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking input. Wow.

Image

The featured quote was extracted from this HCOB:
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 NOVEMBER 1984R
REVISED 18 JUNE 1989

Remimeo
All Sec Checkers
Auditors
C/Ses
MAAs/Ethics Offs
Academy Supers
Intern Supers
HSSC Course
Academy Level II
Tech/Qual
HCO

SECURITY CHECKER BEINGNESS

Refs:
HCOB 10 Apr. 80 AUDITOR BEINGNESS
HCOB 4 Apr. 65 ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
HCOB 26 May 60 SECURITY CHECKS
HCOB 24 Aug. 64 SESSION MUST-NOTS
HCOB 26 Apr. 71 I TRs AND COGNITIONS
HCOB 10 May 62 PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING
HCOB 12 Feb. 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
HCOB 28 Nov. 78 AUDITORS WHO MISS WITHHOLDS, PENALTY
Tape: 6201C16 "Nature of Withholds"
Tape: 6202C14 "Directing Attention"
Book: E-Meter Essentials, Chapter H, "Confessionals"

Just as a professional auditor must fully assume the BEINGNESS of a professional auditor in order to be a success, so must a Security Checker understand and fully assume the BEINGNESS of a Sec Checker. There is such a beingness, and it is distinctly itself.

A Sec Check session can be technically correct but for one key ingredient: the Sec Checker's beingness. In other words, the correct questions were asked, the metering was faultless, the Auditor's Code was observed to the letter and the pc was in-session. Yet the Sec Checker missed. He was being an auditor or an observer, when he should have been a SECURITY CHECKER.

BEINGNESS

A Sec Checker is a detective. He is there to FIND OUT.

Any theetie-weetie attitude or a coy "You don't have any withholds do you?" approach are straight routes to failure as a Sec Checker.

The good Sec Checker is marked by his thoroughness, his willingness to pry, his swinish suspicion. He's a believer in the meter and little else when he is on the trail of a pc's withhold.

This does not, however, mean that a Sec Checker should be misemotional or accusative. It means that he sees what he sees. He knows that when his meter tells him something is there, something is there—and he knows when he's gotten it all. He knows well what sort of misdirection a preclear can volunteer in an effort to hang on to a withhold. He understands what is going on and smoothly and unconcernedly goes right ahead and gets the job done with ARC. And so his pcs win. Remember that a Sec Check, even when being done for justice or investigatory purposes, is for the pc.

The beingness of a Sec Checker is that of a detective.

ATTITUDE

Live communication with the pc (that is to say, flawless TRs) is essential. A wrong or challenging auditor attitude can throw the scene off as there is a destroyed comm cycle. Instead of bringing up the pc's confront and willingness to dig and get off his transgressions, an accusative attitude on the part of the Sec Checker backs the pc into the reactive bank. The law from Dianetics: The Original Thesis applies: Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank.

Sometimes the pc needs an R-factor, such as a helpful "I am trying to complete this Sec Check so you can get on with your next level, so let's buckle down and get it all cleaned up."

SEQUENCE

One should first be well trained in the technical skills of Sec Checking. His TRs must be faultless; he has to be a metering ace and have his admin and procedure down cold. He must have certainty of his tools and his ability to use them. Just as it is a waste of time for an auditor to attempt a full sort-out of his auditor beingness before he has mastered TRs and the other technical basics of auditing, it is fruitless for a Sec Checker to attempt this step before he knows his Sec Checking tech inside and out.

Having duplicated and gained an understanding of Sec Checking basics and mastered its mechanics, the Sec Checker can then fully assume the proper beingness. The evidence of his having done so will appear in the Sec Checks he does: They will roll along successfully, with the pc well controlled and rapidly shedding the burden of his transgressions.

L. RON HUBBARD Founder
Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations

LRH:RTRC:rw.dk.gm

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 8 November). Security Checker Beingness. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 611-612). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
Compare Hubbard's directive with what's stated on this subject in the KUBARK Counterintelligence manual:
In KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, declassified, the CIA wrote: The skilled interrogator can save a great deal of time by understanding the emotional needs of the interrogates. Most people confronted by an official -- and dimly powerful -- representative of a foreign power will get down to cases much faster if made to feel, from the start, that they are being treated as individuals. So simple a matter as greeting an interrogatee by his name at the opening of the session establishes in his mind the comforting awareness that he is considered as a person, not a squeezable sponge. This is not to say that egotistic types should be allowed to bask at length in the warmth of individual recognition. But it is important to assuage the fear of denigration which afflicts many people when first interrogated by making it clear that the individuality of the interrogatee is recognized. With this common understanding established, the interrogation can move on to impersonal matters and will not later be thwarted or interrupted -- or at least not as often -- by irrelevant answers designed not to provide facts but to prove that the interrogatee is a respectable member of the human race.

Although it is often necessary to trick people into telling what we need to know, especially in CI interrogations, the initial question which the interrogator asks of himself should be, "How can I make him want to tell me what he knows?" rather than "How can I trap him into disclosing what he knows?" If the person being questioned is genuinely hostile for ideological reasons, techniques of manipulation are in order. But the assumption of hostility -- or at least the use of pressure tactics at the first encounter -- may make difficult subjects even out of those who would respond to recognition of individuality and an initial assumption of good will.


KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation. (1963, July). Retrieved 15 August 2010 from http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/neuro/k1.html

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10214
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:44 pm

Questions for John Peeler and others who have performed sec checks:

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?


/////
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10204
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:30 pm

How much sec would a sec checker check
When a sec checker checks some sec?
A sec checker would check all the sec a sec checker could check,
When a sec checker checks some sec.


There. Now it's in your head, too.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10214
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:24 pm

Wieber wrote:How much sec would a sec checker check
When a sec checker checks some sec?
A sec checker would check all the sec a sec checker could check,
When a sec checker checks some sec.


There. Now it's in your head, too.
Damn you Wieber! It is stuck in my head! Now what do I do?
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10204
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:38 pm

J. Swift wrote:
Wieber wrote:How much sec would a sec checker check
When a sec checker checks some sec?
A sec checker would check all the sec a sec checker could check,
When a sec checker checks some sec.


There. Now it's in your head, too.
Damn you Wieber! It is stuck in my head! Now what do I do?
Say it ten times really fast. Unless you make errors that should run it out.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Simonymous
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:48 am

Post by Simonymous » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:08 pm

Wieber wrote:How much sec would a sec checker check
When a sec checker checks some sec?
A sec checker would check all the sec a sec checker could check,
When a sec checker checks some sec.


There. Now it's in your head, too.
Pretty bad when the Checks are part of a totalitarian group, but the Czechs are free!
“...the injuries that {Hubbard} handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” --Tommy Davis

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], RobertUnpam and 18 guests