Scientology's sociopathic communication "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 sociopathic communication "tech"

Post by caroline » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:43 pm

When DM 's OT Ambassadors, disseminators, operatives and other outward-facing Scientologists feel that others are making them get covert, which is how Hubbard describes and labels the usual reaction to being asked questions like "Are you sure that's true?" or "How do you know that?" the Scientologists apply the bullying, sociopathic communication techniques they practice in a Scientology drill called "Handling Attacks by Staying in Control."

The drill is based on a Hubbard article or lecture that is republished with the title "Staying in Control" in the cult's Hubbard Dissemination Course © 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library. An excerpt follows. The whole article is very instructive on Scientology bullying tech. It also reveals just how pathetic the religion is that the Scientologists use this tech to disseminate.
Hubbard Dissemination Course (c) 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library wrote: STAYING IN CONTROL

When you are out talking overtly about Scientology, you will inevitably meet some people whose entire purpose is to make you be covert in your communication.

[...]

Recognize this about people who are objecting to you talking: When you're having any kind of a mess-up in trying to talk with somebody, the basic objection is the fact that you're talking. It's not true that everybody objects to your talking (don't let me give you that impression), but in this specialized case, where you're getting any kind of an objection—no matter how covert—the main objection is the fact that you're talking.

The way to overcome that objection is to simply drive it into apathy by talking more overtly, and more. Don't try to modify yourself for an agreement. You're sitting in the living room, and there are some friends around, and they have a guest. This guest says, "Well, isn't that a cult?" or something of this sort, after he's heard you're a Scientologist. Bird-dog him right there. His main objection is the fact that you're talking.

He probably considers himself attacked as an authority. After you go along a little further, you'll find out maybe he's a medical doctor or a psychologist. Perhaps he has some vested interest, or he minored in psychology in the barber college (that's where they teach that now), and he makes a nasty crack; he'll pretend some vested interest in what you're talking about. A proper reaction on your part is to just shift the subject entirely, skip it and talk about something that the rest are talking about or interested in and just shut up at that point, only shut up loudly. There are no halves about this; just shut up loudly. You just look at them with a little surprise, and look out and say, "It's nice weather we're having," or get off to some banality. Cut him to pieces and ignore him afterwards, because his main objection is to you talking. It didn't matter what you said; that's why he raised an objection.

[...]

Cut him to pieces by a loud silence, and shift the conversation the other way. There's no halfway point; you don't diddle along saying, "Well I don't know, a lot of people say it is a cult, but you know, between ourselves, really there are a lot of sincere people mixed up in this; I know there are a lot of . . ." You don't do that—that's what he hopes you'll do.

If you cut this guy dead (and this isn't just in the interest of being nasty), you leave a sudden vacuum. It is now up to him to try to lead into a subject which he knows nothing about, and he can get into the most dreadful morass you have ever heard of. You have just left a vacuum, and haven't given him a proper answer; you've left a communication line unfinished. This vacuum has been mocked up and he falls right into it. He'll have to talk about it; he has no other choice, and you can go on ignoring him. The longer you ignore him, the more upset he will be about the whole subject. But he will finally have to go out and buy a book to find out all about this subject so that he can do something to you about it.

Or you just cut him to pieces. You say, "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. It is the study of the human spirit in its relationship to the physical universe and other life and it does a lot of things for a lot of people." Start explaining it to him very carefully, and if you really want to be nasty about it, mock him up as a two-year-old kid and explain it very, very well to him.

You think the rest of the people at the party are going to turn on you for doing such a horrible thing—they're with you all the way. If you have nerve enough to do that, you've got nerve enough to lead them.

[...]

If you had not cut the individual to pieces, the second you left he would have told all the others some great untruth which he had read in the medical manual concerning Scientology, or something of the sort. He would have cooked any impression that you had made unless you had already cooked him.

That's a nasty crack, but the truth of the matter is, the next time this individual who objected to what you were saying is present and you're not, he will make hash out of you unless you've already made hash out of him. So just finish him on the spot.

Finish him by saying, "Did you ever study Scientology? Oh, you studied psychology. Oh, when was that? Ha-ha—when—when was that? Oh, that was from a regular university? Oh? Oh yeah, very interesting. But, did you ever study Scientology? Oh, you read something. Where did you read this? What issue was that? Who said that? Who said that? Oh, did you read all of the article? Did you ... I remember the article very well"—this throws him off board because he's just invented the article—"I remember the article very well, but in the last half it said it was very beneficial to man in general—didn't you get down to that? Oh, I see. Well, do you do everything in a perfunctory way like this?" Then drop him!

The art of conversation and the art of dueling have many things in common, and if you are ever dull enough to fail to see this similarity, you deserve everything you're going to get in a fight like that. The dueling trick of suddenly coming up with your weapon and dropping well back to invite a desperate lunge is very, very well known to a great many dead men. The other one is, even in the face of skill, if you just press in a thundering hard attack and just keep on attacking, sooner or later he's going to find a hedge or something at his back and fall into it; you're just taking a chance that way.

In view of the fact that nobody is in the kind of condition to really put up a good fight these days, you're taking a horrible advantage. This guy is dueling you with a hatpin and you have a broadsword. You just go in overtly and butcher him.

This has a lot to do with your procurement of preclears. You wouldn't think so, but it does. You use an overt communication line and people immediately say, "Look, this guy isn't scared. If he isn't scared then he must be a survivor type. If he's a survivor type, why, that's for me, because obviously I'm not a survivor type." All you have to do to demonstrate yourself as a survivor type (one test only), is continue to communicate!

Let's take this in a most horrible way (since we are talking about dueling and killing): Supposing you stabbed a fellow and he fell down, and he just lay there, stretched out, and he kept on talking to you in a rather undisturbed tone of voice. Suppose you then got your broadsword and hacked him into several pieces, and he kept on talking to you in a rather undisturbed tone of voice. And you then got a big keg of gunpowder, put it under him and blew him up and spattered him all over the scenery, and he kept on talking to you in an undisturbed tone of voice. Somewhere along the line you would have the idea that this was a survivor type.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Hubbard Dissemination Course © 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/sp/imag ... ontrol.pdf
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

ozzuk
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Tom Crusies Closet
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by ozzuk » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:25 pm

He really wasent the greatest literary icon of the last 50 years was he....

Man the more I seem to find out about the inner workings the more I realise that it's a set of clever step by step keep them under control club....

People get pulled in slowly and thus offer less ressistance a lucky few have been allowed to use their own logic to realise it's a bunch of BS...
"They say that evil prevails if good men fail to act"

User avatar
NattyP
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:27 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by NattyP » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:28 pm

What a cruel, psychotic douchebag he was.

Every time I read Jabba the Hub sh#t like this I ask myself how the Freezoners can continue to justify following his evil ramblings and honor him as "source."

This selection is beyond paranoid and narcissistic. This is full-on psycho.

Uuuugghhh...I hope one the exes soon to be on TV will read from this. Directly.

Nobody condems Hubbard better than he himself.
John Carmichael: Are you a homo? Have you come out of the closet?
ANONYMOUS: You're wearing tweed in the summer and you're asking ME if I'm a faggot? Xenu please ...
John Carmichael: What?

number 6
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Co. Springs
Contact:

Post by number 6 » Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:32 am

I couldn't even follow along with what he's saying. My God what a horrible writer.
[img]http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa286/kuffarjahideen/cos.jpg[/img]

User avatar
exstaff
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:09 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Scientology's sociopathic communication "tech"

Post by exstaff » Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:08 am

caroline wrote:When DM 's OT Ambassadors, disseminators, operatives and other outward-facing Scientologists feel that others are making them get covert, which is how Hubbard describes and labels the usual reaction to being asked questions like "Are you sure that's true?" or "How do you know that?" the Scientologists apply the bullying, sociopathic communication techniques they practice in a Scientology drill called "Handling Attacks by Staying in Control."

The drill is based on a Hubbard article or lecture that is republished with the title "Staying in Control" in the cult's Hubbard Dissemination Course © 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library. An excerpt follows. The whole article is very instructive on Scientology bullying tech. It also reveals just how pathetic the religion is that the Scientologists use this tech to disseminate.
Hubbard Dissemination Course (c) 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library wrote: STAYING IN CONTROL

When you are out talking overtly about Scientology, you will inevitably meet some people whose entire purpose is to make you be covert in your communication.

[...]

Recognize this about people who are objecting to you talking: When you're having any kind of a mess-up in trying to talk with somebody, the basic objection is the fact that you're talking. It's not true that everybody objects to your talking (don't let me give you that impression), but in this specialized case, where you're getting any kind of an objection—no matter how covert—the main objection is the fact that you're talking.

The way to overcome that objection is to simply drive it into apathy by talking more overtly, and more. Don't try to modify yourself for an agreement. You're sitting in the living room, and there are some friends around, and they have a guest. This guest says, "Well, isn't that a cult?" or something of this sort, after he's heard you're a Scientologist. Bird-dog him right there. His main objection is the fact that you're talking.

He probably considers himself attacked as an authority. After you go along a little further, you'll find out maybe he's a medical doctor or a psychologist. Perhaps he has some vested interest, or he minored in psychology in the barber college (that's where they teach that now), and he makes a nasty crack; he'll pretend some vested interest in what you're talking about. A proper reaction on your part is to just shift the subject entirely, skip it and talk about something that the rest are talking about or interested in and just shut up at that point, only shut up loudly. There are no halves about this; just shut up loudly. You just look at them with a little surprise, and look out and say, "It's nice weather we're having," or get off to some banality. Cut him to pieces and ignore him afterwards, because his main objection is to you talking. It didn't matter what you said; that's why he raised an objection.

[...]

Cut him to pieces by a loud silence, and shift the conversation the other way. There's no halfway point; you don't diddle along saying, "Well I don't know, a lot of people say it is a cult, but you know, between ourselves, really there are a lot of sincere people mixed up in this; I know there are a lot of . . ." You don't do that—that's what he hopes you'll do.

If you cut this guy dead (and this isn't just in the interest of being nasty), you leave a sudden vacuum. It is now up to him to try to lead into a subject which he knows nothing about, and he can get into the most dreadful morass you have ever heard of. You have just left a vacuum, and haven't given him a proper answer; you've left a communication line unfinished. This vacuum has been mocked up and he falls right into it. He'll have to talk about it; he has no other choice, and you can go on ignoring him. The longer you ignore him, the more upset he will be about the whole subject. But he will finally have to go out and buy a book to find out all about this subject so that he can do something to you about it.

Or you just cut him to pieces. You say, "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. It is the study of the human spirit in its relationship to the physical universe and other life and it does a lot of things for a lot of people." Start explaining it to him very carefully, and if you really want to be nasty about it, mock him up as a two-year-old kid and explain it very, very well to him.

You think the rest of the people at the party are going to turn on you for doing such a horrible thing—they're with you all the way. If you have nerve enough to do that, you've got nerve enough to lead them.

[...]

If you had not cut the individual to pieces, the second you left he would have told all the others some great untruth which he had read in the medical manual concerning Scientology, or something of the sort. He would have cooked any impression that you had made unless you had already cooked him.

That's a nasty crack, but the truth of the matter is, the next time this individual who objected to what you were saying is present and you're not, he will make hash out of you unless you've already made hash out of him. So just finish him on the spot.

Finish him by saying, "Did you ever study Scientology? Oh, you studied psychology. Oh, when was that? Ha-ha—when—when was that? Oh, that was from a regular university? Oh? Oh yeah, very interesting. But, did you ever study Scientology? Oh, you read something. Where did you read this? What issue was that? Who said that? Who said that? Oh, did you read all of the article? Did you ... I remember the article very well"—this throws him off board because he's just invented the article—"I remember the article very well, but in the last half it said it was very beneficial to man in general—didn't you get down to that? Oh, I see. Well, do you do everything in a perfunctory way like this?" Then drop him!

The art of conversation and the art of dueling have many things in common, and if you are ever dull enough to fail to see this similarity, you deserve everything you're going to get in a fight like that. The dueling trick of suddenly coming up with your weapon and dropping well back to invite a desperate lunge is very, very well known to a great many dead men. The other one is, even in the face of skill, if you just press in a thundering hard attack and just keep on attacking, sooner or later he's going to find a hedge or something at his back and fall into it; you're just taking a chance that way.

In view of the fact that nobody is in the kind of condition to really put up a good fight these days, you're taking a horrible advantage. This guy is dueling you with a hatpin and you have a broadsword. You just go in overtly and butcher him.

This has a lot to do with your procurement of preclears. You wouldn't think so, but it does. You use an overt communication line and people immediately say, "Look, this guy isn't scared. If he isn't scared then he must be a survivor type. If he's a survivor type, why, that's for me, because obviously I'm not a survivor type." All you have to do to demonstrate yourself as a survivor type (one test only), is continue to communicate!

Let's take this in a most horrible way (since we are talking about dueling and killing): Supposing you stabbed a fellow and he fell down, and he just lay there, stretched out, and he kept on talking to you in a rather undisturbed tone of voice. Suppose you then got your broadsword and hacked him into several pieces, and he kept on talking to you in a rather undisturbed tone of voice. And you then got a big keg of gunpowder, put it under him and blew him up and spattered him all over the scenery, and he kept on talking to you in an undisturbed tone of voice. Somewhere along the line you would have the idea that this was a survivor type.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Hubbard Dissemination Course © 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/sp/imag ... ontrol.pdf

Wow... L.Ron Hubbard was such a douche.... The Nazi's did alot of talking too...right up until Nuremburg. There have been lot's of psychos in the history books like Lafayette R. Hubbard. Each one has been put down like the Ker dogs they are... :lol:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dj67TXxrmM


:kneesucker:
We do not forgive,
We do not forget,
We will not relent,
We are legion,

Expect us!

"HEY OSA, your worldwide terrorist organization will be closed sooner than you think..."
"I would rather be alive and cool than dead and uncool"...

User avatar
Benny's Friend
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: AKA Resistance is Futile / AKA Patricia Curtis
Contact:

Post by Benny's Friend » Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:53 am

I hate being "handled." I hate that shuck-and-jive sideways speak to try and move me onto another subject without my notice. I always notice. This ain’t my first rodeo.
The more who speak out, the more who get out.

User avatar
RandomSpectator
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:37 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by RandomSpectator » Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:33 am

This is a particularly pointed excerpt, Caroline. Thanks for posting it in this form.

Reading this, I honestly find it hard to believe that people could be led to treat others in such a way - attacking rather than discussing reasonably, but then I've always had a bit more faith in humanity than people tell me its due.

Speaking from complete ignorance, so that it's clear, I'd have to assume that this exact text isn't what's taught from today. I would imagine there are classes, and the basic nature of what was written is taught, rather than falling back upon this text. My reasoning for this assumption, which of course anyone can come in and prove wrong by simply providing evidence to the contrary, is that ... this writing is simply difficult to follow, not particularly well thought out, and clearly hostile to anyone outside of Scientology. I would think that would be enough, in its pure form, to wake up a great many people. What do I know? Maybe it has.

Still, it's pretty clear that this is taught in some fashion or another. That 'always attack, never defend' strategem I hear so much about is apparent in everything Scientology does in relation to any of their critics. With some citation (page numbers, etc.) and links to the original copy, this is the kind of thing I would've said should be a sticky in any forum where people intend to debate with members of the "Church" of Scientology. Reading this is to know something of what to expect... and as the G.I. Joe generation is well aware, 'knowing is half the battle.'

- A Random Spectator

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

Post by caroline » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:33 am

RandomSpectator wrote:This is a particularly pointed excerpt, Caroline. Thanks for posting it in this form.

Reading this, I honestly find it hard to believe that people could be led to treat others in such a way - attacking rather than discussing reasonably, but then I've always had a bit more faith in humanity than people tell me its due.

Speaking from complete ignorance, so that it's clear, I'd have to assume that this exact text isn't what's taught from today. I would imagine there are classes, and the basic nature of what was written is taught, rather than falling back upon this text. My reasoning for this assumption, which of course anyone can come in and prove wrong by simply providing evidence to the contrary, is that ... this writing is simply difficult to follow, not particularly well thought out, and clearly hostile to anyone outside of Scientology. I would think that would be enough, in its pure form, to wake up a great many people. What do I know? Maybe it has.

Still, it's pretty clear that this is taught in some fashion or another. That 'always attack, never defend' strategem I hear so much about is apparent in everything Scientology does in relation to any of their critics. With some citation (page numbers, etc.) and links to the original copy, this is the kind of thing I would've said should be a sticky in any forum where people intend to debate with members of the "Church" of Scientology. Reading this is to know something of what to expect... and as the G.I. Joe generation is well aware, 'knowing is half the battle.'
- A Random Spectator

Thanks for your helpful comments.

Scientology typically beta tests its auditing programs and training courses in "pilot programs." I participated in such a pilot training program at Celebrity Centre in 1985, which completed that December and resulted in the Hubbard Dissemination Course manual, ©1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library.

Shortly after I attested to completing the pilot Dissem course, I believe within weeks, Bridge Publications came out with the hardbound Dissemination Course manual, which includes the checksheet, theory materials and drills. The Hubbard materials I studied, the drills I did and the practical requirements I completed on the pilot were essentially the same as what's in the 1986 Dissemination Course book.

Much of the material on the course comes from Hubbard's lectures, which is probably the case with the subsection called "Staying in Control." I have not found the original lecture.
The LRH Dissemination Materials Project wrote: For over two years, Ron's books, tapes and issues were carefully culled and the material prepared according to his specific instructions. For example, when dissemination techniques or principals were found in taped lectures, care was taken to perserve Ron's distinctive style when converting the spoken word to the written word.
— The LRH Dissemination Materials Project (Introduction)
Hubbard Dissemination Course wrote:STAYING IN CONTROL

When you are out talking overtly about Scientology, you will inevitably meet some people whose entire purpose is to make you be covert in your communication.

They'll say, "Ah well, are you sure that's true?" or "How do you know that?" or "Actually, well, I've heard of that cult/' throwing it off the line somehow or another, in order to drive you down and get you to soft-pedal1 or tone down2 what you were saying. The people who are doing this, in one way or another, simply cannot tolerate motion, and you're in motion and communicating. In general, they don't like this. It wouldn't matter what you were talking about.

If you were trying to communicate to them directly on a basis where they had very low agreement, you would be having a hard time too.

They will justify their objection to your communicating by objecting to what you're talking about.

If you have bird-dogged3 what you're talking about as the real objection (and you think that is a justified objection), after a while you will get very covert in your communication line. You should just recognize that people object to you talking, I don't care whether you talk mellifluously,4 ingratiatingly,5 overtly or roar like a bull; it doesn't matter, they're going to object one way or the other to the fact that you're communicating, and the worse off they are, the more terrifically covert they will be about this. They will be very covert—they'll really worm around the corners on it.

Recognize this about people who are objecting to you talking: When
__________
1. soft-pedal: to play down; give little attention to, make less noticeable, etc.
2. tone down: to make {something written or said) less strong, less forceful or less harsh. The term tone down has no similarity to tone level or Tone Scale. Tone down does not mean down tone or down the Tone Scale
or at a lower tone level. Tone down means simply to make less strong, less forceful or less harsh.
3. bird-dog: to search out diligently or pursue doggedly.
4. mellifluously: sweetly and smoothly.
5. ingratiatingly: so as to get oneself into favor; to gain grace or favor with; to render oneself agreeable to.

269

you're having any kind of a mess-up in trying to talk with somebody, the basic objection is the fact that you're talking. It's not true that everybody objects to your talking (don't let me give you that impression), but in this specialized case, where you're getting any kind of an objection—no matter how covert—the main objection is the fact that you're talking.

The way to overcome that objection is to simply drive it into apathy by talking more overtly, and more. Don't try to modify yourself for an agreement. You're sitting in the living room, and there are some friends around, and they have a guest. This guest says, "Well, isn't that a cult?" or something of this sort, after he's heard you're a Scientologist, Bird-dog him right there. His main objection is the fact that you're talking.

He probably considers himself attacked as an authority. After you go along a little further, you'll find out maybe he's a medical doctor or a psychologist. Perhaps he has some vested interest, or he minored in psychology in the barber college (that's where they teach that now), and he makes a nasty crack; he'll pretend some vested interest in what you're talking about. A proper reaction on your part is to just shift the subject entirely, skip it and talk about something that the rest are talking about or interested in and just shut up at that point, only shut up loudly. There are no halves about this; just shut up loudly. You just look at them with a little surprise, and look out and say, "It's nice weather we're having," or get off to some banality.6 Cut him to pieces and ignore him afterwards, because his main objection is to you talking. It didn't matter what you said; that's why he raised an objection.

He can't raise objections to you talking about things that are along certain social codes, because nobody objects to people talking about these certain things. The reason he can't object to you talking in general is because you generally would talk about things that are not socially objectionable, We have a social code that says it is permissible to discuss the weather, roads, automobile accidents, Aunt Agatha's operation, business conditions in general—whatever is in the news at the moment. You're not supposed to interrupt people when they're talking about those things. That's socially acceptable, so nobody dares object to those. But you get off the subject a little bit—for example, if you were to start talking about a Lama7—you'll find all of a sudden people now have the right to object because you're off the subject of their acceptance.

Cut him to pieces by a loud silence, and shift the conversation the other way. There's no halfway point; you don't diddle along saying, "Well I don't know, a lot of people say it is a cult, but you know, between ourselves, really there are a lot of sincere people mixed up in this; I know there are a lot of . . ." You don't do that—that's what he hopes you'll do.

__________
6. banality: a statement or action which is dull or stale because of overuse.
7. Lama: the title given to certain Buddhist priests of Mongolia and Tibet.

270

If you cut this guy dead (and this isn't just in the interest of being nasty), you leave a sudden vacuum. It is now up to him to try to lead into a subject which he knows nothing about, and he can get into the most dreadful morass8 you have ever heard of. You have just left a vacuum, and haven't given him a proper answer; you've left a communication line unfinished. This vacuum has been mocked up and he falls right into it. He'll have to talk about it; he has no other choice, and you can go on ignoring him. The longer you ignore him, the more upset he will be about the whole subject. But he will finally have to go out and buy a book to find out all about this subject so that he can do something to you about it.

Or you just cut him to pieces. You say, "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. It is the study of the human spirit in its relationship to the physical universe and other life and it does a lot of things for a lot of people." Start explaining it to him very carefully, and if you really want to be nasty about it, mock him up as a two-year-old kid and explain it very, very well to him.

You think the rest of the people at the party are going to turn on you for doing such a horrible thing—they're with you all the way. If you have nerve enough to do that, you've got nerve enough to lead them. But they won't be with you all the way if you sort of apologize for having brought it up and kind of mildly introduce the subject in one way or the other.

You might think this is contrary to your experience on the line, but if you'll think back over the times when you've been very covert, it might have been socially comfortable for you at the time it was happening, but it did not produce any subsequent result.

If you had not cut the individual to pieces, the second you left he would have told all the others some great untruth which he had read in the medical manual concerning Scientology, or something of the sort. He would have cooked any impression that you had made unless you had already cooked him.

That's a nasty crack, but the truth of the matter is, the next time this individual who objected to what you were saying is present and you're not, he will make hash out of you unless you've already made hash out of him. So just finish him on the spot.

Finish him by saying, "Did you ever study Scientology? Oh, you studied psychology. Oh, when was that? Ha-ha—when—when was that? Oh, that was from a regular university? Oh? Oh yeah, very interesting. But, did you ever study Scientology? Oh, you read something. Where did you read this? What issue was that? Who said that? Who said that? Oh, did you read all of the article? Did you . . . I remember the article very well"—this throws him off board because he's just invented the article—"I remember

__________
8. morass: used figuratively to mean a difficult, troublesome or perplexing stale of affairs.
271

the article very well, but in the last half it said it was very beneficial to man in general—didn't you get down to that? Oh, I see. Well, do you do everything in a perfunctory9 way like this?" Then drop him!

The art of conversation and the art of dueling have many things in common, and if you are ever dull enough to fail to see this similarity, you deserve everything you're going to get in a fight like that. The dueling trick of suddenly coming up with your weapon and dropping well back to invite a desperate lunge is very, very well known to a great many dead men. The other one is, even in the face of skill, if you just press in a thundering hard attack and just keep on attacking, sooner or later he's going to find a hedge or something at his back and fall into it; you're just taking a chance that way.

In view of the fact that nobody is in the kind of condition to really put up a good fight these days, you're taking a horrible advantage. This guy is dueling you with a hatpin and you have a broadsword. You just go in overtly and butcher him.

This has a lot to do with your procurement of preclears. You wouldn't think so, but it does. You use an overt communication line and people immediately say, "Look, this guy isn't scared. If he isn't scared then he must be a survivor type. If he's a survivor type, why, that's for me, because obviously I'm not a survivor type."

All you have to do to demonstrate yourself as a survivor type (one test only), is continue to communicate!

Let's take this in a most horrible way (since we are talking about dueling and killing): Supposing you stabbed a fellow and he fell down, and he just lay there, stretched out, and he kept on talking to you in a rather undisturbed tone of voice. Suppose you then got your broadsword and hacked him into several pieces, and he kept on talking to you in a rather undisturbed tone of voice. And you then got a big keg of gunpowder, put it under him and blew him up and spattered him all over the scenery, and he kept on talking to you in an undisturbed tone of voice. Somewhere along the line you would have the idea that this was a survivor type.

Do you know what would happen to you as a result? You would go into apathy. It is enough for a line of troops to simply keep on charging, no matter what the cost of loss, for the superior force to sooner or later throw their arms down if they can't stop this continual elan10 of charge, fall back, charge, fall back, charge, fall back, charge, fall back, charge. All of a sudden the troops who were winning will just throw their weapons down and leave. They can see dead men all over the place out there in front of them, and yet they obviously are not winning. It isn't the bullets that win, it's the idea behind the men firing them that in essence wins.

---------
9. perfunctory: done merely as a routine; superficial.
10. elan: spirit or enthusiasm; liveliness.

272

It wouldn't matter if a government had all the atom bombs and all the gold in the world. If an idea set in for any reason whatsoever in such a government, that it had been outboxed, and that it was being out-thought, and it became kind of confused about it, things that it hated continued to survive and continued to survive, eventually this government, armed to the teeth, would go into apathy about the whole thing. They would just quit. And they do.

I've seen this happen in hunting. I saw a fellow one time unable to kill a porcupine. He fired several high-caliber bullets into this porcupine and finally took a club to it. By this time he was getting frenziedly desperate about the whole thing. He stepped back, and the porcupine got up tremblingly, shook its quills, grunted a little bit and started to walk away. This guy didn't reattack the porcupine; he just started to scream.

You've watched the mechanism of a tantrum in a child; it's just the recognition of senior survival. All you have to do to demonstrate senior survival is continue to communicate; I don't mean monotonously, but when they all think you're dead, say something.

So conversationally, socially and in the conduct of a practice, if you just keep this kind of thing in mind—either drop it cold, so they fall in head over heels, or overtly attack, but never go in between—you'll get it. You can walk down the street and tell somebody to come around and see you. Of course he might get the idea you're bothering him; you'll occasionally get a rebuff, but so what?

If you were just to continue sending letters out into your community, regardless of whether they were ever replied to or not, and continued to send them repetitively to the same people, those people would start showing up. It takes three letters to begin that effect, and five letters are almost impossible to ignore. People would come around; they wouldn't have any other choice. For instance, don't send out one mailing to a mailing list; cut your mailing list one-third and send three mailings to that one third of the list, and you'll get more people coming in.

In other words, stay alive. And the best way to stay alive is just to be tremendously effective. If you're trying to stay alive in a practice, be effective, keep communicating, don't take no for an answer, never drop into this covert, apologetic line, and you will be very well in, believe me.

I hope I've solved a problem or two that you might have had.

273

274
(blank)


HUBBARD DISSEMINATION COURSE
DISSEMINATION DRILL 15


Name:
Handling Attacks by Staying in Control.

Reference: "Staying in Control" in this manual.

Purpose: To teach a Scientologist how to skillfully handle attacks and objections to one's talking about Dianetics and Scientology, by shifting the subject or calmly attacking back.

Position: The student sits with two other Scientologists in front of him. These two other Scientologists may be students on course. The coach sits or stands so that he can observe all three.

Patter: There is no set patter. The student and the two others all pretend they are at a social gathering and the two others helping in the drill also pretend that they are non-Scientologists.

Step A

1. The coach cuts into the conversation and says, "Well, isn't Scientology a cult?" or some similar antagonistic question. The student is to immediately look at the other students with a little surprise, then look out the window or away and say to one of the persons sitting next to the coach, "It's nice weather we're having," or something similar. The student just shifts the subject entirely, ignores the coach and continues to talk in an undisturbed manner about something else that the other persons may be interested in.

2. The coach tries to get his question answered, but the student must continue to talk to the other students about some plain social subject disrelated to Scientology (weather, a television show, a current movie, business conditions, etc.), ignoring the coach utterly and completely. Once the coach can see that his questions are not going to be answered by the student, he gets up and walks away from the group.
These steps are repeated until the student can do the drill flawlessly and with ease.

275

Training Stress: The coach must ensure that the gradient is kept in on this drill, going from lighter snide remarks and questions to heavier attacks and objections to the student's talking about Dianetics and Scientology. The student is flunked for getting riled or agitated or otherwise failing to handle the attack by shifting the subject in an undisturbed manner. Also flunked is any failure to smoothly control the conversation with the other persons helping in the drill while the coach is asking his snide questions. Note: There is only one coach for this drill. The other Scientologists helping in this drill may converse with the student on whatever topics he brings up, but they are not to do any coaching or bullbaiting.

Step B

1. The coach cuts into the conversation and says, "Well, isn't Scientology a cult?" or some similar antagonistic question. The student is to attack back in an overt (not covert), undisturbed, calm manner. The student does this by explaining very carefully how Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.

2. The coach continues to make snide, cutting remarks and now the student handles these by calmly attacking back with questions that challenge the coach. For example, questions such as "Did you ever study Scientology?" "Where did you read that?" "Who said that?" "You don't believe that nonsense do you?" "Do you always talk about things you don't know about?" etc., can be used by the student in attacking back.

3. Once the student sees that the coach has been cornered, he is to just drop him and start talking with the other students about some socially accepted subject (current events, a movie, etc.). The student is not to answer any of the coach's communications from that point on, despite all attempts from the coach to get him to do so.

4. Once the coach sees that the student is not going to answer any of his questions or respond to anything he says, he gets up and walks away from the group.

These steps are repeated until the student can do the drill flawlessly and with ease.

Training Stress: In coaching this drill, the coach must ensure that the attacks are done on a gradient, lighter to heavier. Stress is on the student

276

attacking back in an undisturbed, calm manner. The student is flunked for becoming dispersed or acting hesitant or dropping down into an apologetic attitude towards the coach. The student is also flunked for not controlling the overall conversation during the time when the student is questioning the coach as well as after the student drops the coach. Note: There is only one coach for this drill. The other Scientologists helping in this drill may converse with the student on whatever topics he brings up, but they are not to do any coaching or bullbaiting.

277
— Hubbard Dissemination Course © 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library
Dissem Course Checksheet (excerpts)
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/sp/mage ... ksheet.pdf
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/sp/imag ... trol-1.pdf
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Hoot
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:27 am
Location: Palm Springs
Contact:

Post by Hoot » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:10 am

Just...

Wow.
Tom, Tom, Tom, you're glib. You don't know the History of $cientology...we do.

http://www.exscientologykids.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATGjoS5aGOg

User avatar
exstaff
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:09 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by exstaff » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:26 am

Hoot wrote:Just...

Wow.

what it's only the L. RON HUBBARD PUBLIC MIND OBLITERATION COURSE
DISSEMINATION DRILL 15

no biggie... :lol:

This is the way we brainwash our kids, brainwash our kids, brainwash our kids, this is the way we brainwash our kids so early in the morning...

C'mon everyone... (you too David, no hiding in back, get up here you and sing along)... this is the way we brainwash our kids... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Another version, this is the way we push up our stats, push up our stats, push up our stats, this is the way we push up our stats so early thursday morning... :lol:

:kneesucker:
We do not forgive,
We do not forget,
We will not relent,
We are legion,

Expect us!

"HEY OSA, your worldwide terrorist organization will be closed sooner than you think..."
"I would rather be alive and cool than dead and uncool"...

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

Attention: Teegeeack (aka Planet Earth)

Post by caroline » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:23 am

OJ Simpson doesn't care what people think, what he craves is their attention. And when he gets it, he has a big win. Other celebrities of course exhibit the same craving. Scientology head David Miscavige also craves attention and has his minions staticize and report his success with column-inches of press. The minions have to sort the column-inches into positive and negative piles, because he doesn't morally understand the difference.

Attention is a necessary component in Hubbard's communication formula:
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary by L. Ron Hubbard wrote:COMMUNICATION FORMULA, 1 . communication is the interchange of ideas or objects between two people or terminals. (PXL Gloss) 2. the formula of communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention, Attention and Duplication with Understanding. (HCOB 5 Apr 73) L. Ron Hubbard
As banal and innocuous as the formula sounds, Scientologists know that in order to get their message across, they must first get their targets' attention. Scientologists always hide their real intentions, because if people of good hearts and minds were to understand Scientology's actual nature, they would reject it altogether.

Scientology's outreach programs seek to categorize all humanity so as to place each individual onto the cult's "organizing board." Scientologists manning these outreach programs seek to get the attention of human beings, and to get them under control for the good of Scientology.

David Miscavige took this concept a step further in his 2004 New Years speech, when he simply pronounced that his org board already encompasses all of humanity, knowing and unknowing beings alike.
International Scientology News Issue 27 wrote: Image
PUTTING EVERY BEING ON OUR ORG BOARD
As to increasing our numbers with the speed necessary to get the job done, the answer is to simply bring everyone on board. "That means the entire planet—Scientologists and non-Scientologists, alike. LRH put them all on our org board, and we're about to slam on their hats!" Mr. Miscavige said.


Now, according to DM, everyone must learn where they fit in on his org board and what Scientology expects of them. How people respond or react to Scientology dictates how Scientologists must treat them.

On board Scientologists act to forward DM 's "command intention" to expand Scientology worldwide so as to create a new civilization. They must pattern their behavior so as to do the Keeping Scientology Working. They are defined as Scientologists by their assertion that Scientology works, and their desire for others to have the same knowledge.
Tom Cruise 2004 Scientology recruitment video announcer Jeff Pomerantz wrote: Announcer: A Scientologist can be defined by a single question: “Would you want others to achieve the knowledge you now have?” In answering that question, Tom Cruise has introduced LRH technology to over one billion people of Earth and that’s only the first wave he’s unleashed, which is why the story of Tom Cruise, Scientologist, has only just begun.
Hubbard's global outreach programs parallel his psycho-therapy techniques for individuals. Scientologists call their outreach processing "auditing the 4th dynamic," which is to say, auditing mankind. DM and all his OT Ambassadors know, just as hypnotists know, that they must get the attention of their subjects before they can do anything to them or, as the Scientologists say so cynically, for them.
HCOB 23 May 1971R Basic Auditing Series 2R The Two Parts of Auditing by L. Ron Hubbard wrote:In order to do something for somebody, you have to have a communication line to that person.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity. And where an individual is too demanding, the affinity tends to break down slightly.

Processing goes in two stages.

1. To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.
2. Do something for him.
Scientology training, processing and ethics handlings reorganize human emotional "charge" that stems from their subconscious reactive minds and adversely influences their human behavior. Manipulating such emotion begins at Scientology's earliest introductory courses and programs such as Narconon and Criminon. Scientology auditing seeks to flatten emotional charge, i.e., to remove their inferior human emotion and reaction (HE& R), and to realign people's affinities, so that they more perfectly serve DM and his organization. Scientologists train to manipulate people with their emotions, and get and keep them on the Road to Total Freedom, and being "Cause over Matter, Energy Space, Time and Life."
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary by L. Ron Hubbard wrote:OPERATING THETAN, 1. a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time. ( SH Spec 82, 6611C29) 2 . willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 3 . an individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09) 4 . a Clear who has been re-familiarized with his capabilities. (HCOB 12 Jul 65) 5 . a being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from "able to operate without dependency on things" and thetan is the Greek letter theta (ø), which the Greeks used to represent "thought" or perhaps "spirit" to which an "n" is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (BCR, p. 10) 6. by operating thetan we mean theta clear plus ability to operate functionally against or with mest and other life forms. (SCP, p. 3) 7 . this state of being is attained by drills and familiarity after the state of Clear has been obtained. A real OT has no reactive bank, is cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought and is completely free. (HCOB 12 Jul 65) — L. Ron Hubbard
Once Scientologists have attention whether it be the attention of individuals, groups, or nations, they'll try to convert it to admiration. If the Scientologists determine they can't convert attention to admiration, they'll attack. As Cruise says, "It's rough and tumble. It's wild and woolly and it's a blast."
Scientology 0-8 The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hubbard wrote:In the opinion of the viewpoint [read DM], any beingness, any thing, is better than no thing, any effect is better than no effect, any universe is better than no universe, any particle is better than no particle, but the particle of admiration is best of all. [...] —Humbly tendered as a gift to Man by L. Ron Hubbard, April 23, 1953.
See also: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=240
Keeping Scientology Working: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=240
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Tsar von Humbug
Posts: 1523
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Hare Krishnas Moonies Heaven's Gate Scientology
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Tsar von Humbug » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:38 am

When someone criticises Scientology...
A proper reaction on your part is to just shift the subject entirely
Hubbard really did understand what he was about.
[url=http://www.mediafire.com/?x06z9idz1yb]Protest Flyer.[/url] [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?xw30w1xlydf]Tax Flyer.[/url] [url=http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst]Prof Touretzky's Site.[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li_rIfMguyg]London 3/15[/url]

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

The OT Committee Org Board

Post by caroline » Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:44 pm

Notice the OT Ambassadors symbol. OT Ambassadors "audit mankind" with specialized communications skills for the public, such as given in the Dissemination Course. OT Ambassadors swear to the following code:
Freewinds 38 (c) 2000 CSI wrote:Image

As an OT Ambassador - a representative of Scientology, International Management and the state of OT, a member of the team working to carry out the broad mission of handling this sector of the universe - I promise to follow the Code of an OT Ambassador to bring about the creation of an OT civilization.

I promise to assume the responsibility of salvaging mankind which goes hand in hand with being an Operating Thetan and to demonstrate knowing and willing cause over all dynamics.

I promise through my activities as an OT Ambassador, to help ensure that Scientology continues through the ages, not just for this lifetime but for future lifetimes as well.

I promise to protect and increase the repute of the state of OT through exemplary ethical conduct and by my actions so as to be a living example of the new civilization we are building.

I promise to take responsibility for bringing my own case into superlative shape and to keep it as such.

I promise to improve my worth to myself, Scientology and mankind by advancing my ability to apply the truth and technologies of Dianetics and Scientology as a highly trained and 100% standard auditor who is capable of clearing others.

I promise to inform others of the state of OT so as to bring about the reality that OT is attainable and to increase the desire of others to reach higher states of being so as to create an OT movement here on Earth.

I promise that, as I know OTs do best with other OTs, I shall take responsibility for forming up and participating in an active OT Committee so as to help LRH organize and channel OT forces, interests and resources for the greatest good for Scientology.

I promise to take an active role and do all I can to help expand my local orgs and all other orgs so they reach the size of old Saint Hill and beyond in order to create islands of sanity that bring peace and a safe environment to the world.

I promise to abide by this Code so that man may restore his determination, integrity and ability to help others to Total Freedom.

VFPs, Valuable Final Products are given at the bottom of each department, which culminate in the overall VFP:
© 2004 CSI wrote:VFP: Volumes of public moved up The Bridge to full OT
© 2004 CSI wrote: Image
OT Committee org board wrote: © 2004 CSI. All Rights Reserved. The OT AMBASSADOR symbol, THE BRIDGE and OT are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center and are used with its permission. Services relating to SCIENTOLOGY religious philosophy are delivered throughout the world exclusively by licensees of the Church of Scientology International, with the permission of Religious Technology Center, holder of the SCIENTOLOGY and DIANETICS trademarks. Printed in USA. Item 18904R
Org board as pdf: http://www.carolineletkeman.org/sp/imag ... d-2007.pdf
Obviously it is in the public interest to understand all components of the Scientology organization, and to engage Scientologists sensibly.
---
Edit: grammar, last sentence.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

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

Scientology Super Confidence Men

Post by caroline » Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:13 pm

Scientologists now attend Flag Dissemination and Help Conventions to drill dissemination tactics to audit mankind and get everyone moving on the "Bridge to Total Freedom."
Flag Dissemination Letter Special Edition 2005 wrote:Image
THE FLAG DISSEMINATION DRILLS BOOKLET
Fill out the census included in this newsletter. Tear it off, send it in to Flag and when we receive it we will mail you a copy of the new Flag Dissemination Drills Booklet at no charge.

The new Flag Dissemination Drills Booklet contains brand new and very extensive drills on: Help, Control, Communication, obtaining Interest, answering basic questions, the Tone Scale and Ruin Finding. Also included in the same booklet are the LRH™ references giving the vital technology of FSM TRs, Dissemination Drill, How to Sell Scientology to Your Friends, as well as a copy of the HCOB "Coaching" to guide you through them.

The new drills covering the material of the London Congress on Dissemination and Help have been piloted on almost 1,000 people at the now famous Flag Dissemination and Help Conventions. These drills WILL give you better dissemination skills, higher confront and the ability to get the people you are talking to through their Q&A and onto Scientology services. And you will find yourself living in a saner environment with more Scientologists!

"I had no idea it would be so easy. It's not hard for me to talk to people—I just didn't know what to say! I've confused a lot of people I am sure— all those losses for me and I thought it had to be some magical thing only talented people could do. But with a small time investment, I now have the data and of course—it's really simple!!"
- H.K.

"Actually getting in comm with my twin on these different approaches to Help builds confidence and is FUN. A personal win is that I really see the power of these simple questions. They impinge!" - C.P.

"I loved the drills! The drills gradiently move you from not having a clue how to handle dissemination, over to fully knowing that you can definitely disseminate. That is a really incredible product!" - S.G.
We're very interested in obtaining this Flag Dissemination Drills Booklet, and particularly interested in what answers Miscavige has disseminators provide to the basic questions. If you have this booklet, or can get one, please let us know.

Scientology disseminators get their lulz luring in wogs. Related: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=182
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

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

Dissemination Census (c) 2005 CSFSO

Post by caroline » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:14 am

Image
The quote from KSW at the top of Scientology's Dissemination Census form is easily one of the most identifiable Hubbard quotes, and snaps any Scientologist into the policy letter. In this newsletter, everyone's next endless trillions years is made to depend on Scientologists disseminating.
KSW 1 by L. Ron Hubbard wrote:The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. - LRH
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=240

Scientology and Scientologists view, or really portray or PR and reward, successful disseminators as being among the group's most ethical members, and even give them "ethics protection." Tom Cruise implied his own success is due to his ruthlessly putting in ethics on himself.

Also motivating Scientologists is the parallel "tech" and practice of considering and treating dissemination failures as a manifestation of missed withholds.

Missed withhold: Scientologese for a hidden crime or transgression which is subsequently "restimulated" in the person's mind.
Definition: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=165

In my opinion, this technical bulletin is a guilt-generator that induces certain behaviors, including efforts to disseminate, indeed disseminate something about which they have doubts that are serious enough to make them feel they'd rather not disseminate it.

As the bulletin below shows, people who are upset (ARC broken) have missed withholds.
HCOB 3 May 1962 ARC BREAKS MISSED WITHHOLDS by L. Ron Hubbard wrote:HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1962

ARC BREAKS [1]
MISSED WITHHOLDS [2]

(HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN. WHEN AN AUDITOR OR STUDENT HAS TROUBLE WITH AN “ARC BREAKY PC” OR NO GAIN, OR WHEN AN AUDITOR IS FOUND TO BE USING FREAK CONTROL METHODS OR PROCESSES TO “KEEP A PC IN SESSION”, THE HCO SEC, D OF T OR D OF P SHOULD JUST HAND A COPY OF THIS BULLETIN TO THE AUDITOR AND MAKE HIM OR HER STUDY IT AND TAKE AN HCO EXAM ON IT.)

After some months of careful observation and tests, I can state conclusively that:

ALL ARC BREAKS STEM FROM MISSED WITHHOLDS.

This is vital technology, vital to the auditor and to anyone who wants to live.

Conversely:

THERE ARE NO ARC BREAKS WHEN MISSED WITHHOLDS HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP.

By WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT.

By MISSED WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT WHICH HAS BEEN RESTIMULATED BY ANOTHER BUT NOT DISCLOSED.

[...]

Here are some of the manifestations cured by asking for missed withholds.

1. Pc failing to make progress.
2. Pc critical of or angry at auditor.
3. Pc refusing to talk to auditor.
4. Pc attempting to leave session.
5. Pc not desirous of being audited (or anybody not desirous of being audited).
6. Pc boiling off.
7. Pc exhausted.
8. Pc feeling foggy at session end.
9. Dropped havingness.
10. Pc telling others the auditor is no good.
11. Pc demanding redress of wrongs.
12. Pc critical of organizations or people of Scientology.
13. People critical of Scientology.
14. Lack of auditing results.
15. Dissemination failures.

Now I think you will agree that in the above list we have every ill we suffer from in the activities of auditing.

Now PLEASE believe me when I tell you there is ONE CURE for the lot and ONLY that one. There are no other cures.

The cure is contained in the simple question or its variations “Have I missed a withhold on you ? “

[...]

[1] ARC Break= Scientologese for an "upset".
Definitions: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=165

[2] Missed withhold: Scientologese for a hidden crime or transgression which is subsequently "restimulated" in the person's mind.
Definition: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=165

The Dissemination Census provides the main categories of dissemination tech, all of which Hubbard covered in his books, directives and lectures.
The form asks for information valuable to sales and intelligence personnel.

Notice that Scientology "enlightenment" occurs prior to actually doing the service. The cult enlightens their disseminatees' wallets before they do Flag Services, so I guess that's actually true.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests