Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned (2)  or
     The position of Free Zone, Ron's Org and Independent Scientologists identified

(Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.


Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned  (page 2)

Go to “Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned” index page



Go back (situation 3) A questionable circumstance of affairs ...
(About copying website materials without permission and/or giving credit)

Here I just wish to relate about some observations made about using materials without permission or giving credit. Morally I did not find it all so very proper.


A ‘Russian’ affair

Back in August 2010 I found out that some person had replicated my whole page about Mary Sue Hubbard in an article on some blog. No one ever asked me permission for doing so. The text followed with it, as did the illustrations, but the design turned out rather different (didn't look so very good). I thus urged this person to take it down. I received in response:
        
“Most of the articles on my site including yours have link to the source at the beginning or at the end of the article. The purpose of this site was to collect valuable info on Scientology in one place and link back to the other sites that are worth to study.”
        
But replicating a whole page? Further defence I received was that it was indicated where the information was coming from. Although I pointed out that responses given at the end of article gave that website owner the credit for the article (as if that person had compiled it) and not me. I guess it wasn't that clear indicated then. Anyhow I wrote back:
        
“Again, you can quote extracts, and you can note that the full article can be consulted at [site address in full]. But you can NOT reproduce whole articles of which I own the copyright.”
        
For me there was also the matter that I regularly revised articles, and of course the replication on that page would never be revised. It was removed from the website/blog and that was the end of that.

A few years later I found that the same person from that same website/blog had collected all sorts of stuff from and about David Mayo. Here I then saw that it had used 4 illustrations from my David Mayo pages and used them on that website/blog. I don't mind people using them, but then at least ask the person, and give some credit. These illustrations were scans taken from own materials. And since then they have surfaced on even more websites. Apparently people don't always realize (bother or want to) that everything on the Internet is just not all free for the taking.


The ‘US’ affair

A while back, Nov-Dec 2013, I got into a clinch with this individual (a Free Zoner) that also seemed to want to control and supervise everything. He run this website, mixing Scientology and Wikipedia into one name.
There he hosted 2 articles from someone about technical matters that I thought would be very suitable to have on my website. I contacted the authoress who replied: “Certainly is all right with me if you publish them.” She only asked me to inform that website owner about it, but she was certain it would be okay with him: “Tell him fine with me, just want to be sure its ok with him.” I got the reply from that website owner saying that he didn't want to give away his ‘copyright’ for this: “You do NOT have my permission to simply copy/paste my content. [She] can send you original copies of anything she has written if she wants to but I'm certainly not signing away my copyrights.”. I notified the authoress of the articles of this who replied: “I gave [him] permission to print, not to copyright.”. I was wondering if this website owner was having some misconceptions about copyrights.

While scanning a bit through that website I then discovered 2 articles that were replicated from my own site (pop-up windows), but it failed to indicate where he had gotten them from. He told me that he didn't recall where he got them from, but assured me(?) he didn't got it from my website. Ah, okay. But then, they are not found anywhere else on the Internet, and I check such things on a regular basis.
Then I additionally found another fairly long article that he had replicated from another personal website, without having asked permission from the author (I had notified the author). The name of the author was given only in very small characters at the very bottom of the page. I figured it should be clearly indicated who had written it somewhere near the top of the article and clearly indicated where the original can be found. Since that time the name of the author received a link to the source of the article. Still small characters though, and still somewhere at the bottom of the page. Ah, well.

We may understand a little bit better now why he responded to me the way he did?! Anyhow, the whole thing resulted in me receiving basically 3 sort of lengthy emails pretty much finding wrong with and questioning me all over in a rather unpleasant manner. And, also inviting me to write articles on his website. Excuse me? Now, why would he want me to do that for? (or me for that matter) After all he wasn't showing much respect for me in his latest three emails. I would reckon he just invites anyone to write on his website. It is pretty much a mixture of many things on that website, most of them relating to Scientology. Well, I finally simply wrote back to him that I didn't particularly looked forward to receive a fourth email filled with unpleasant insinuations, and I therewith terminated the communication with this individual, naturally.

Recently (May 2015) I found that the website of the individual appears to carry a tribute page for Jimmy Wales the founder of this Wikipedia. The ‘encyclopaedia’ system that exercises “whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia”. (more about Wikipedia's foundation here, separate window)

Go to index


Go back (situation 4) “Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about.”

 
Go back
My entry into an ‘Independent’ Scientology forum


“No one on my tail?”

I had some interesting experiences on this one forum. I was invited by another person and thought let's look around and give it a few postings. And so I did. The more I got to learn about the approach taken of in particular its forum owner the less I wanted anything to do with it. Membership turned out to be short-lived, but this was just because of an overly controlling forum owner that banned me within 2 days (26-28 Jan 2014).
The exchanges I had however give insight into the position that apparently quite a few persons, that are active outside of the control of the Church of Scientology, have taken. And it is not so very promising.
I contributed in 3 discussions, with a total of 11 inputs signed with Roadrunner. My messages apparently weren't particularly appreciated by the forum owner. He prompted me with an interrogation through personal messages (pm's) send through the forum system. Demanding me to answer various questions as he figured that I did “not fit the pattern of our other forum members”. Here I declined basically to submit to his questioning. Briefly afterwards when I tried to get into the forum it got an error message printed on the screen saying: “Sorry Roadrunner, you are banned from using this forum!”. With explanation given: “Will not provide information requested. Behavior is consistent with OSA operative.”. Ah, OSA operative? Me? Well, we probably have to hold up a mirror here. It is usually OSA that is accused of being occupied with investigatory procedures, and it really wasn't me doing that here!

These pretty much function as an archetype state of mind and they present beliefs that seem to be prevalent among a whole variety of these Scientologists that are active outside of the reign of the Church of Scientology. People may call themselves for Free Zoners, Ron's Orgers or Independents. It doesn't really make much difference what they call themselves. Particular ideas may appear to flourish and prosper in these groups.
But there is found a particular agreement shared by quite a few of them.They may be referred to though as uncritical believers, they are not willing to really investigate the matter themselves. I have found that they simply don't want to have their stable datum's shaken. As soon as you do that, they will protest. Here there is not really a platform left for any discussion for this. After all, they have their already formed frame of mind of how things fit together and that pretty much sums it all up.
You see, in exactly the same way that you have people within the Church of Scientology that share a certain reality, common belief and agreements. Exactly the same phenomena you can see flourishing in these Free Zone type of groups. Each have their own stigma, paradigms and beliefs. It is just that they have accepted different paradigms! And you better not doubt these too much, or you are in for it. It is the same pattern of behaviour though and they will say: “We know and you don't! You need to educate yourself!”. With other words, blindly accept/adopt their belief system.

It is ironic actually, as the subject matter of all of Scientology promotes, urges and provides tools for independent thinking and acting. The behaviour of these various indiduals and/or groups however does not invalidate the subject matter, it's just that the follower can not duplicate nor apply it's information. That's all there is to it.

 
Go back Discussion 1:  The E-meter incident

The interesting note to give here is that no appreciation is given if you share information about what L. Ron Hubbard said about the use of E-meters. It is more like an obvious depreciation! Nonetheless this forum owner calls himself a Scientologist?

On 14 Jan 2014 a thread was started about the subject of Self Clearing, posted was some article about it written by somebody, 1½ page long. Now, this ‘Leon’ had pulled out an excerpt from that article about Self Clearing and posted it separately as follows:  
        
“It is not necessary to use a meter, in fact the book is written on the basis that you do not have a meter. For four or five years Scientology did not use e-meters, and I suspect someone not using a meter will increase in intuition (knowingness) faster than with the use of a meter.”  
        
To which I responded:
        
“The reliability and functionality of the E-meter has been improved  markedly because of the development of the transistor during the 50's. Its developers received the Nobel price for that in 1956.
In 1966 LRH even advised:
‘E-Meters must be used and regardless of whether the student knows anything about them or not the pc ‘must be on the cans’. We don't care if the student learns much or little about meters at this stage but a bright student will catch on fast. There is no E-Meter training at this stage. ...
THE MATERIAL IN THIS HCO B TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY DIANETIC MATERIAL, BOOKS OR TAPES INCLUDING DIANETICS THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH WHERE A CONFLICT MAY OR MAY SEEM TO EXIST.’          LRH
         (from HCOB 3 Apr 66 “Dianetics Auditing Course”)
The question to ask is: ‘Are we going to wait till all have developed an “increase in intuition (knowingness) faster than with the use of a meter”, as it is suggested earlier?’ This may be a rather huge mistake!!”
        

Member ‘Antony’ had posted:  
        
“... In 1954 (Easter) my father tried to audit me on a very primitive emeter. When I trained in 1956/7 no meters were used, and this fact and an explanation for dropping use of the emeter occurred in the book Dianetics ’55. Later editions of that book (probably up to ’83 at least) have various footnotes to explain the return of the e-meter and one footnote I saw took nearly a whole page of small print.
In my eyes it is possible, and perhaps preferable, to audit many processes without an emeter. ...”  
        
To which I responded:
        
“The only notice that I can find in Dianetics 55! is in chapter X ‘Communication Lag’, see first paragraph. Since the 1968 edition it got this footnote on that page. In the 1989 edition the footnote was rephrased, but the paragraph was kept as it was. With the Basics version (2007 edition) the whole paragraph was removed in its entirety. ...”
        

In the brief email exchange that followed after this forum owner had banned me from his forum he accused me of the following: “You also show yourself ignorant of forum etiquette by hijacking a thread on emeter use in Self Clearing and running off on your hobby horse of whether Ron did or didn't approve of emeters and when he did it and all of the missing chapter information that had nothing to do with the original thread.”.

Well, this thread had only received a couple of responses. At the time that I arrived there had been no activity for almost 2 weeks. I contributed with 2 postings. And all this is then regarded as showing oneself “ignorant of forum etiquette” and “hijacking a thread” ?
And at that he explicitly says that he does not appear to care what L. Ron Hubbard had said or not said about these E-meters. And nonetheless calling himself a Scientologist? I would also say that I kept being on topic. I took up the E-meter thing where apparently the forum owner's mind was wholly set on this Self Clearing. A bit subjective, all this.

 
Go back Discussion 2:  Becoming an ‘Independent’ Scientologist

This was about a write-up that the forum owner had written in 2009 which was to be a guide of sorts for helping those persons that had ‘broken lose’ from the official organization to find their way in becoming so-called Independent Scientologists. It was in total some 3 pages of text long. It basically presented the concept that when you were associated with the Church of Scientology that you were in an effect position (no exceptions!), and as soon as you left that organization, you now basically had to find out and realize how tricked you had been, and suggesting that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't so brilliant after all. I found it bothering that it just assumed everyone had to have been tricked if they had stayed on any longer period of time! Then it is promoted that the Independent Scientologist would help you to make the adjustment, and shake off all the electrickery and the having been led behind the curtain. Just talk about it with the Independent Scientologist, or something like that. It is pretty much implying that everyone would have been an idiot for having been hooked up in the topic.

The writing even goes on to put down the validity of the original materials. There are passages like “Some may wish to preserve Scientology as it was in the Sixties, or Seventies,” saying “That is their privilege”. Further stating that “They probably do not realize that the rigid top-down control of the Tech is history.”. And elsewhere saying: “Do I care that Jack Parsons studies in Black Magic may have influenced LRH? No!”.
I actually resent the outset of the whole writing and the way it is written. It is deceiving. It is a mispresentation.

On that thread I replicated the following piece:
        
“As you become independent of the Church of Scientology, you will be exposed to new data on Ron’s life and career, the development of the technology, and an intimate history of the Church that you have never seen before.
You have left an environment where ANY questioning of the Tech, Policy, Management, or Ron causes severe repercussions and have entered this new environment where you are permitted to ask questions and are encouraged to make up your own mind!
Can this shake your stable data? It sure can, especially when you start looking at aspects of the Tech, of the Church itself, and LRH that you have never permitted yourself to see before. For some of you, this can be a bit overwhelming at first.
Just remember that you have left a structured environment where you wore self-imposed blinders and are now free  to observe and comment on your observations.”
        
And responded to that with:
        
“To me this is very awkward. Being involved with Scientology is not about joining a church, or this or that group. It all falls under these aims of Scientology. Any Scientologist is from the very start an independent. In my 30+ years I have never felt that I belong to a church, the CoS or sorts. The technology, the information was the ONLY guiding factor, it was this 30+ years ago for me, when I first learned about it, and it is today.
I have never felt inhibited or limited by some church or its followers. Mind that the policy letters provide for a rather effective defense against people that will try to interfere with your integrity, and that which is true to you. If you know the references, you understand them and actually dare to enforce ruthlessly what they say, then they will defend you. It doesn't matter if you have been staff, SO or just public. I've been there.
As I said. This talking about becoming independent is sort of alien to me. It is what the subject matter is about, it is ALL what it is about!”
        
The forum owner then responded to that with:
        
“Uh, Roadrunner, this may come as a surprise to you but hundreds of staff are held in conditions of slavery. Most of the top executives have spent years in a barred building known as the ‘hole’.
I do not know where you have spent the last 30 years, but it appears that it was not in the church.
If you do not recognize that you left an environment where ANY questioning of the Tech, Policy, Management, or Ron causes severe repercussions, I don't know how to break it to you that you spent the last 30+ years in a cult.
Most of us are happy to get on with our lives but those of us who are counseling ex public and ex staff have to deal with the effects of the severe indoctrination these people have been subjected to.
I am glad for you that it was all sweetness and roses, but the unpleasant truth is that we who audit have an enormous job ahead in getting people back on their feet with real first and second dynamics.”
        
To which I in return responded:
        
“Did I ever say I have been walking on sweetness and roses? Let me gently tell you, I have not! I have seen what you talk about, but these are things that people, because of authority admiration, no independence, no personal understanding, or because of fear - have allowed themselves to submit to. The matter of Scientology is freedom, to grow high integrity, and understanding. You are in trouble only if you have been an actual ‘follower’. You can't indoctrinate a non-(blind)follower.
Didn't LRH say some place: ‘If you know policy, and you apply it, you can not be the adverse effect of it.’?”
        
And this was the end of this thread.

It would appear here that this forum owner really lives by what he wrote in the original article. And he is unable to perceive that we haven't all submitted ourselves to sectarian behaviour, blindness, fear, subjecting oneself to slavery and/or selling out one's integrity!
In the brief email exchange later on he repeated himself and wrote: “It is totally OK for you to keep your blinders on, lots of people are happier that way, but if you wish to establish any credibility with this forum, you need to deal in the truth.”. Meaning “the truth” of the forum owner and whomever has adopted the same.

According what he tells about himself, the cooperation he has had with the Church of Scientology is that he had run a Mission of the Church of Scientology for 10 years. This means you haven't been intern in the Scientology organization itself. It is not having been staff, which is quite a different thing. Running such a mission is more like a partnership. It makes one wonder what he actually personally knows and has seen himself? Judging from what I have read about his revelations on the Internet it looks more like that he has been listening to tales and finally decided to simply adopt these.

I wrote an article about these so-called ‘Declarations of Independence’ here (separate window). In essence it is a misnomer.

 
Go back Discussion 3:  Authentication and signature dilemma

Some person posted this confidential briefing about OT VIII that was attributed to have been written by L. Ron hubbard and issued in 1980. The forum owner wrote as a response:
        
“This is a worthy addition to the reference material we have gathered over the years and are now collecting in one place.
It is entirely fitting that we have documentation from the bottom to the top of Ron's bridge, since so many of us are extending and revising it.”
        
The forum owner thus is as uncritical as one possibly could get! He is just taking it all in, no questions asked. No notion for verification of authenticity, nothing! He is also mistaken about his reference to “Ron's Bridge”, he is not working with that, he is referring here to what is called the David Mayo Bridge. (more info here, separate window)
To this another member noted:
        
“I've seen some discussions on blogs about this OT VIII narrative, where the consensus was that it just proves LRH was crazy. ...”
        
Then again another member (‘Leon’) responded:
        
“There's still a good deal of uncertainty over whether this ‘Student Briefing’ is genuine LRH or not.  I don't know the final answer. But there are certainly elements of truth in it, for example the ‘controlled historic events’ business which keep the implants in restim.  911 was a recent one such.  And there are other hints in the briefing that the writer was on to something.  I just take it as it stands and wait to see how it all pans out. Meantime I do my own thing.”
        
Here we get an annotation. It poses here if it be “genuine LRH or not”, and establishing that “elements of truth” were contained within it. Not sure how it get to “911” though?! That association sounds a bit well farfetched to me.
Then my first response addressing the last posting:
        
“I seriously doubt that it is. We had the RTRC writing all sorts of LRH issues. There are many references appearing since the later 70's carrying the LRH signature that were later proven to have been written by someone else. Even the CoS admits to very many of these instances.
Of course there are some truths contained within the writing. Without it the lies would never stick!”
        
To which this ‘Leon’ responded:
        
“What's RTRC?”
        
A response that surprised me, because this individual as per what he told elsewhere had been around and was involved in Scientology for quite a while.
Well, we get an explanation from another member that did know:
        
“Leon, I think RTRC stands for LRH Technical Research and Compilations. That's the unit Dan Koon was over at one time, and I believe Dan has written posts saying that quite a few issues were written by others from LRH's notes.
Roadrunner, you are probably right that LRH didn't write this HCOB. In the interview I linked, Jesse Prince says that Ray Mithoff wrote it from LRH's notes.”
        
An intelligent response, because she actually did check up on some things and managed to perform a logical evaluation. (about RTRC see here, separate window)
My reaction:
        
“Yes, that's what RTRC stands for. The group within the CoS that thought it was entirely alright to write LRH issues, then to be issued with the LRH signature. As if LRH would have needed someone to write his stuff for him?
What a shame!What a shame!What a shame!What a shame!What a shame!
If LRH did not transform his ‘notes’ into references back then, then why do we need these now???
In essence the expression of ‘LRH notes’ is in violation of HCO PL The Hidden Data Line. We'll be better off without ANY claimed LRH notes. No such thing, it has been coined to justify altering old issues and continue to issue ‘NEW LRH’ into eternity.”
        
Then this ‘Leon’ responded:
        
“Oh he always did have others write bulletins up for him and then he'd OK it and put his signature to it. This is nothing new.”
        
To which I responded with:
        
“And since WHEN exactly was ‘he’ doing that? And how was it ALWAYS done before that?”
        

Here it was the forum owner that responded to that as follows in the thread:
        
“Roadrunner, you have some catching up to do.
If you haven't been using the Internet to keep up with events of Ron's life, I suggest that you read ‘Church history you may not wish to confront’ on [I removed link]
You should also read the charter for this forum. This is not [name removed]. This is a forum to discuss technical matters and what changes can be made to improve and expand processes to handle the problems of real life individuals.
If you really feel that Ron had all the answers, you should be posting on friends of LRH where they have his picture and everything!
Some of [us] use the early works of the 1950s which were originated by others as well as Hubbard. Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about.
Others use technology that is age old because it produces results.
Results are what count, not who wrote the processes.”
        
A forum owner that shares more of his philosophy and his beliefs. Much respect he does not seem to have for the person L. Ron Hubbard. After all he flamboyantly states: “Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about.”.

I responded:
        
“I believe my response was:
‘And since WHEN exactly was ‘he’ doing that? And how was it ALWAYS done before that?’
What catching up? I Believe my research has been more than just thorough.
This is in essence a question about which technology is actually condoned by and really stemming form LRH. How can you discuss technical matters if you are unable to properly establish that?
My question by the way has NOT been answered.
I have not a clue how you come to as if I believe that LRH had all the answers. That is not the point here. The point here is that if LRH wrote something it carried his signature, if someone else wrote something, it carried that persons’ signature. At some point in time this changed radically and suddenly.
That valuable tech has been forwarded to and was written by others is thus not the point here. The [falsely] attributed signature is.”
        
We didn't hear back from our forum owner in this thread.

There was also a further response from this ‘Leon’ on this. I replicate the interesting parts here below:
        
“... Numerous attempts have been made to separate out the LRH written from the someone-else written materials but the task can't really be done as the shades of grey are just too fuzzy. No one knows nor can say what is ‘pure LRH’ and what isn't, and besides that - if we were to remove all issues written by others and/or developments made by others and incorporated by LRH as being his then we'd lose too much of the accepted and agreed-upon  tech.
So I suggest you abandon the attempt of wanting only ‘pure LRH’ written stuff.  It can't be done.”
        
To which I responded with:
        
“... Sorry, there is no grey if one has done proper research.
Sorry, it HAS been done... Anything issued prior to 1973 can be trusted in regards to signatures (excepting only a few minor references). Starting with 1973 it becomes a matter of judgment. You put a text to the test, and if it gives the expected result or can be verified, use it.
This should not be a problem either way though considering:
“So technical progress has been:
CLASS VIII - 1968.
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
This is quite an achievement.”     L. Ron Hubbard              
     (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”) ...”
        
The problem we run into here is that it is commonly thought or assumed by Free Zoners and such that L. Ron Hubbard would have been active until 1982. At the time that the Religious Technology Center (RTC) was formed they believe that Mr. Miscavige sort of took full control and pushed L. Ron Hubbard to the side (or something like that). And naturally you get yourself into serious problems if you want to try to authenticate materials released between so about 1974-82. It basically can't be done. (more info here, separate window).
But if you work according to that quoted LRH ED there is just no problem here.

The position of the forum owner though seems to be rather clear on this. In an email send to me later he refers back to the incident in this thread. He writes:
        
“Do you ask technical questions? Do you engage in meaningful discussions?
No! You dive into minutiae about whether stuff was published over Ron's signature or not!
Most of us could care less about Ron's admin or lack of it.”
        
Now, ain't that interesting. He has zero interest to verify authenticity to any extend! And because he doesn't he uses it to find wrong with me, solely on the ground that I crave verification. For him it appears all based on (as he wrote in this thread): “Others use technology that is age old because it produces results. Results are what count, not who wrote the processes.”. So, there we have it!

 
Go back Aftermath (interrogation, getting banned and a flair of dishonesty)

Exactly 68 minutes after my last contribution on the forum I received this personal message (pm) from the forum owner that read:
        
“Roadrunner,
Your anonymity is guaranteed on this forum, but you do not fit the pattern of our other forum members and I would like to get to know you better so that I have a better understanding of what you want from this forum.
Can you share with me your staff experience and when you left the church?
Have you done any auditing in or out of the church?
Your information will not be shared, but I want enough so that I know why you are here.
Thanks,
DL [name hidden]”
        
Now we got thus the interrogation phase.
I responded:
        
“Quite frankly I have not really a clue about what you mean, other than that we don't appear to share the same reality, and that you don't like that I share my different views on matters while I say against you. I thought we were all Scientologists, we are all different. Scientology is about education, understanding, having the right technology, information, and so on. I have no other purpose. I am here by invitation of Antony Phillips.
I am not obliged to answer your other questions. To me it resembles too much the CoS feel of wanting to control those that ‘get out of line’. To that I say: ‘No thank you.’
Roadrunner”
        
The next time I tried to come into the forum I got this error message printed on the screen:
        
“Sorry Roadrunner, you are banned from using this forum!
Will not provide information requested. Behavior is consistent with OSA operative.
If he changes his attitude he can contact me.
This ban is not set to expire.”
        
Well, now who is acting like OSA here really?

Here I pulled his email address and send him an email with my regular email address (carrying my name in the headers). I replicated part of the screen text and send a message as follows:
        
| Will not provide information requested. Behavior is consistent with OSA operative.
“And you call me for an OSA operative when I choose not to answer your ‘investigative’ questions!
It would appear you don't like people that don't agree with you, and particularly not when they oppose you as I did.
When is this EVER going to change... and they call them themselves SCIENTOLOGIST... :-\
Roadrunner”
        
Well, he did manage to figure out who I was. A 32 minutes later he send a response that started with:
        
“Hi Michael!
I have long admired your website as it seemed to present some rational ideas.
It still does!”
        
I hadn't told him about my website, all he got was my email address and my name. But he figured it all out. (although misspelling my name, he apologized later)
He then let this intro follow directly with:
        
“So why are you behaving like such an absolute ass when you come on this forum?
Do you ask technical questions? Do you engage in meaningful discussions?
No! You dive into minutiae about whether stuff was published over Ron's signature or not!
Most of us could care less about Ron's admin or lack of it.”

        
Ah, ok. So I failed to “engage in meaningful discussions”, basically because I didn't ask the right questions (that one's that don't make him feel uncomfortable). Ok, got it!

At the end of the email it got reversed:  
        
“I think you could contribute a lot to the forum if you would care to.
We need intelligent people who ask difficult questions to push us to do better research. We support those who want to do research themselves and wish to develop better methodologies to set people free from the indoctrination they have experienced.
If you think you can do those things, I am quite willing to have you on the forum as long as you wish.
Your choice. Let me know if you are interested.”
        
Now why is he inviting me for all this? Was it because he now knew that it was me who had that website? Well, may be. It would actually be needless to say that I was just not interested! I really didn't want to have anything at all to do with this! “develop better methodologies” ? What for? Didn't we had already one that actually worked? Just restore that, and make sure you understand it well.
Besides that we have seen already how this individual had behaved thus far towards me. So, why would there be any difference in his behaviour to me from now on? See, the whole problem was that he does not want to be criticized himself! He will continue to not like that! He just wants me to follow his path. Well, “No, thank you!!!”.

So, he had thus “long admired” my “website”, but his website (that listed an large array of links) did not include a link to mine nonetheless! It still doesn't till this day. Although in a later email he wrote about that: “You are correct. I have checked my links and there does not seem to be one yet.”. He says ‘yet’? If he had long since admired my website why then wasn't there one already?! Well, he didn't bother thus to add one either! Let's simply settle with the obvious that he simply never liked it! See, it doesn't support his take of things, why then promote it?
Mind that he actually wrote about my website: “it seemed to present some rational ideas” ? Ah, it ‘seemed’? Well, considering that I present actual studies into the topic. Now, the way he expresses himself does not involve an honest or real appreciation. You see, something is just not quite right here!

An irony can also be found, when he at one point responded to me on his forum and suggested that I go over to his website and check out the sites that he had listed in a section headed: “Church history you may not wish to confront”! Ain't that all so very interesting! He for sure doesn't wish to confront my findings! Well, remember holding up that mirror?

 
Go back The philosophy of this forum owner (1) versus L. Ron Hubbard as a person

From the messages that this individual posted on his own forum we already received various evident clues about his actual philosophy. And I heard things I didn't particularly appreciate or could agree to. But he dives even deeper in explaining his philosophy in the brief email exchange that followed after he had banned me from his forum. In these emails I just told him up front what I figured about his ban on me and this philosophy of his in these few emails. I also revealed my name. It was actually my intent to challenge him and get him to explain himself. And he did, sort of.

Those that wish can consult the full email exchange:   part 1,   part 2,   part 3  (pop-up windows)

On the forum itself our forum owner had revealed:
        
“Roadrunner, you have some catching up to do.
If you haven't been using the Internet to keep up with events of Ron's life, I suggest that you read ‘Church history you may not wish to confront’ on [I removed link] ...

Some of [us] use the early works of the 1950s which were originated by others as well as Hubbard. Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about.
Others use technology that is age old because it produces results.
Results are what count, not who wrote the processes.”
        
Well, if you really endorse that “Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about,” then why would one still be involved with Scientology and calling yourself still a Scientologist? It just beats me.


Our forum owner doesn't appear to think much of L. Ron Hubbard either. In an email he writes:
        
“We happily overlook his extramarital affairs and his drinking and drug use and his bloviating about his abilities when he demonstrably had lost much of them.”
        
I wondered where he got that from. I responded:
        
“Drinking? Drug use? Are we listening to Nibs and the other complainers now?”
        
Nibs here refers to the first-born son of L. Ron Hubbard whose behaviour one could say had been a bit well conflicting and unpredictable. (more info here, separate window)
Our forum owner responded with:
        
“Hello? Where have you been for the past thirty years? If you are such an expert on Ron's character, I suggest that you read his letters to the Explorer's Club where he mentions his drug use as a usual thing. Perhaps you might also read Going Clear, Lets Sell them a Piece of Blue Sky, Madman or Messiah, and Janet Reitman's book.”
        
It would seem here that he just absorbs a lot of information from books and other places. He is not particularly examining it, he is just absorbing it all.
Well, I have looked into all that, and there is a lot that simply does not add up. People like telling stories, and some people may often just copy these and pass them on, where other people say against these. So, who are we going to believe? The archival papers may be that came into light with the affair with Gerry Armstrong? (more info here, separate window)  
There are many inconsistencies found here. I would suggest this forum owner starting to look for himself, and stop listening so much. I wouldn't actually recommend any of these books that he is listing in his answer. They are very one-sided, contain complaints, and do not succeed very well in getting into the gist of the topic of Scientology.

We further find that this forum owner on his website he lists an array of links leading to various famed anti-Scientology websites, forums, blogs and persons. In the category headed with “Church history you may not wish to confront” we find for example a link like “Bare-Faced Messiah” leading you to a famed anti-Scientology website where they present an on-line version of this book written by Russell Miller. (more info here, separate window)
The problem is that many of these websites contain really a lot of misinformation. Some of them are in fact outright attack sites. Why does our forum owner think that one would be able to get reliable answers to questions there? They are more likely to very seriously confuse you. It would seem it did a very good job on him.

I had this guy whom I had send a link to this article. He had figured out all by himself who I was writing about. He forwarded to me: “And yes I agree that frankly he thinks he knows better than Hubbard and others (not that Hubbard was perfect) and knows what he is talking about, but the truth is that he doesn't actually seem to know what he is talking about in all of my conversations with him. Nor does he really come up with anything original in my complete view of his site as of late last year. ... I find it odd that DL does mention there is value in Scientology, and yet what he delivers is pretty much that for all his criticism of it.”.


The forum owner also wrote to me:
        
“I think you could contribute a lot to the forum if you would care to.
We need intelligent people who ask difficult questions to push us to do better research.”
        
To only say in the next email (just 10 hours later):
        
“I am beginning to see that you lack judgement as far as Scientology is concerned. Your Pollyanna attitude about what Scientology has become does not give me confidence that you can make any contribution to any group that encourages questions.”
        
Talking about changing one's mind. And he says that to me! Who has this website that exposes a whole lot of things. Can you as the reader figure this one out? I sure can't.

 
Go back The philosophy of this forum owner (2) versus ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ (KSW)

Keeping Scientology Working then?
        
“His early work was brilliant and pointed the way for others to expand upon the early work. If he had learned to handle his body thetans, he might not have written the infamous KSW policies.
We use his material as a point of departure, letting the KSW Soldiers of Light to fend for themselves in a world where Scientology is a broken brand.”
        
“His early work was brilliant” ? Up to what time exactly? Up to 1972 may be? I may be should have asked him.
“Soldiers of Light” ? What is he talking about here? My studies into history show clearly it is not the “brand” that is something wrong with. It is people that allowed themselves to get distracted.

This approach of this forum owner in principle already sets the door wide open to any incorrect technology. He also wrote to me: “We would rather deal in useful technology of which there is some in Scientology.”. We see that he writes “some”!
See, the whole idea behind this Keeping Scientology Working (KSW) was that a workable technology had in fact been established. Make some changes here and there, and it will not work anymore. This individual here thus question this seriously and wants to adapt to the previous uncertain status quo! There are some references found here: “The danger points of the past and of the future” (separate window).

In a later email he says:
        
“the first 6 points of KSW are perfectly logical for any methodology. The last four points are what tipped the organization into full cult mode. Once LRH created the militant priesthood of the Sea Org to enforce KSW, the transformation to a cult was assured.”
        
I wonder if he has been in this Sea Org. I find that many that say as he does, that they have not. I was, and I disagree with what he says. So, there is nothing particularly wrong with the Sea Org. It's just an overseeing organization. It's most important tool has been sending out missions to areas for corrections. I have been there. I know all about the writing and policies behind it. Nothing much wrong with the original outset, but there have been some changes in the outset since, and then there is people.
See, if you are going to say that KSW points 7-10 “tipped the organization into full cult mode,” then you have to show something for it. You have to show that there is something awfully wrong with its writings, and that it is not because of faked materials or illiteracy, thus unable to properly understand texts! Commonly it is people that determine if something is a sect, not the organization.
Did “LRH created ... the Sea Org to enforce KSW” ? Funny that, as I have never seen it that way. The Sea Org came into being in 1967 when it was going to sea. It did send out missions to correct matters, and through this way get in ethics, it wasn't per sé about to “enforce KSW”.
It was created to be at sea, but then in the early 70's it went in land. Different situation. Nonetheless we have the ‘butler’ of L. Ron Hubbard creating this undeserving Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) in 1974. What for? You don't need that if you are on land! (more info here, separate window)

This is thus basically a matter of actually understanding texts. And man has a huge problem with that. For which reason L. Ron Hubbard finally in 1972 developed this Primary Rundown (PRD). (more info here, separate window)  You can't hold a person ultimately responsible for matters because people persist in being illiterate. You always have to regard matters in the correct context. You can't just take one sentence (isolated from the rest) and base any and all action on just that.
Since the Church of Scientology has pretty much wiped it out of existence (it is unavailable), and as far as I know there is no group outside of the organization offering it as a service either! (more info here, separate window)

Let's close this with saying that this forum owner and I disagree with one another gravely. Unfortunately I have found that many of these people going around in these groups that are active outside of the reign of the Church of Scientology share his or very similar ideas.

 
Go back Aftermath

I sometimes check back on forums and places on the Internet and check them out a bit. I checked back on the blog/forum of this individual on 1 Dec 2015. I found that some old threads had been discarded of. Then some other threads, in where I had participated, were still actually there, but with my postings deleted. (I don't actually exactly know when he has done this, but at least as of 1 Dec 2015)

It does appear here that this individual thus likes editing the contents of his own forum. For sure he doesn't like to be criticized, for everyone to read on the Internet, instead he seeks control through the means of editing.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index A Free Zone association that actively block persons that focus on the 1972 status quo of the technology?

 
Go back
Introduction to this association; The RTC of the Free Zone?

It appears to be so that there are Free Zone groups that set their own rules and are reported to actively blocking applicants from joining if they do not wish to adapt to the status quo of the technology that was established during the 1978-82 time frame! Now, I have been provided with the full application information of a person that applied for membership. The focus of this applicant was on the 1972 status quo of the tech. He applied in April 2012.

Here I have taken this as a critique of my studies and therefore I found it applicable to place this here on this page. Do mind here that I do not wish to disclose exactly which group it is. This is not published for reason to attack. This is only published to make people aware of a situation. I refer to the group as ‘[FZ group]’ and thus cover up the name it goes by. Although a mythological clue can be found in the illustration that I attributed to this group.
One should additionally mind that I have found that not all its members adhere to the position that various ruling entities in this particular group have taken. They just use it as a means to get clients.

When I was forwarded these materials the applicant commented to me:
        
“I have tried to become member of [FZ group], but this organizations seems to be the RTC of the freezone. Enforcing ‘standard tech’=Davids version of the bridge.”
        
(David's version of the bridge = David Mayo, i.e. the Bridge that was established during 1978-82)
And after having gone thoroughly over the materials, gone over this website that this group uses and all that. It is rather unfortunate that one has to surrender to that conclusion.

Some noteworthy notifications are found in the first response that the applicant received. Its first 2 paragraphs read:  (underlining is mine)
        
“Thank you for your application for membership in [FZ group]. I'm happy to be able to respond to your request for membership and to take this opportunity to explain the requirements for membership in [FZ group].
[FZ group] is an Association of Professional Independent Scientologists who practice LRH standard technology and which has the common purpose of preserving and protecting LRH tech as written by him in HCOBs, spoken by him on tapes, or in any other form such as HCOPLs, LRH EDs, books, etc. In this way, [FZ group] – through its website and through its members – ensures a standard approach to Scientology according to LRH.”
        
Now, all that sound very promising indeed, ain't that so! Their website is actually full of this sort of talk and claims. Either way that last sentence here above is an actual misnomer, it would be a lot more truthful if it had read: “ensures a standard approach to Scientology according to [FZ group]”!

 
Go back
An applicant gets his membership rejected

I give you up front on what said grounds the acting Senior C/S of this group denied membership to this applicant. This person formulated it as follows:
        
“I am not denying your right to use the full array of 1972 tech, I am saying that [FZ group] provides a referral page to auditors who practice ALL of the tech, not just some of it, and that based on your application and on my knowledge of the tech - as well as other highly trained terminals - you do not provide that service, therefore do not meet the technical requirements for membership in [FZ group].”
        
And with that this group has a viewpoint in regards to the following lines from L. Ron Hubbard found in ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases” that clearly says:
        
“So technical progress has been:
        
 
CLASS VIII - 1968.
 
 
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
 
 
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
 
Apparently this group does not find that this bears any significance at all! Nonetheless “They believe that, since the death of the founder of the movement, the Church of Scientology has completely strayed from the original philosophy and purpose of the group which Hubbard first researched and developed.”. And “As the members of [FZ group] do not wish to participate in the practice of an altered philosophy they have elected to practice their chosen philosophy independently of the church.” (from their website).
In fact they are calling themselves for an Independent Scientologists Association. Thus independent from the church, not independent from the Bridge one supports, not even if it would be an original LRH Bridge!

Thus independent only from the official church, but as it appears they make up their own set of rules that are enforced unto its members! Although it becomes all a bit well ironical when they claim that “[FZ group] is for scientologists who believe in and practice the original philosophy and working technology”, and then in turn places demands on applicants that they familiarize themselves and can deliver that technology that came out after L. Ron Hubbard already had announced that the work was actually completed!  Now, does one actually need to know any more about this group? As THEY wish to decide for you which is the correct tech! We find that they solely promote that Bridge that had been established during 1978-82. And that very Bridge is the very same that is being delivered in the Church of Scientology. The Bridge that came about under the reign of the then Snr C/S International David Mayo.

Now, adopting that 1978-82 Bridge will also involve that you basically jump over Grades V-VII. As HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear” directed “There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”. And according to HCOB 25 Jun 70RA (Revised 6 Oct 78) II “Glossary of C/S Terms”: “A Dianetic Clear is not run on Power [Grade V], R6EW [Grade VI] or the Clearing Course [Grade VII], but goes directly onto OT I (after doing the Solo Auditor Course).”.
Nonetheless L. Ron Hubbard did advice:
        
“—and there is no shortcut for VI and VII. Anybody who comes along and tells you there's any shortcut for VI and VII, he's just trying to cut your throat. Remember that. There is no shortcut.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #72, renumbered 1991: #435 “Dianetic Auditing and the Mind”, given on 28 Jul 66)
        
 
sound  Sound snippet (1:03) 
 
        
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
        

So, it is basically up to you what you will do and to whom you will go ...

Mind however that you going free as a person is entirely pending your own choice. The website of this group proudly presents a whole list of very high classed and top level trained auditors. This group has even developed an own certification, a so-called [FZ group] Certification. As if all these certifications would carry so much significance. Of course, it will have some, but the only valuable ruling factor would be actual results that would actually match those installed by L. Ron Hubbard! See, this is not about some Auditor Certificate that some person can hang on the wall. So, just feeling great will just not do!
Well, here you may get some idea:
    “What to expect: ‘Ability Gained’ and ‘Inability Lost’ (1969-70)” (separate window)
So, “Don't let anyone fool ya!”.

 
Go back
The applicant needs to give answers that comply with the demands of this group

The applicant send in his information after which some questions were asked. Two of these questions are of particular interest to go deeper into here. The applicant on both of these accounts provided for a clear, documented, and somewhat lengthy rebuttals. Of these rebuttals I only give a selection of the forwarded arguments that are particularly relevant in the matter and that do not contain confidential information.

    
Question #3 read: “Please clarify if you run Dianetics on Clears and OTs (i.e., run Dianetics after Clear, or use R3R or any Dianetic application on OT III).”
    
(R3R = Routine 3 Revised is the basic Standard Dianetics auditing routine)
Applicant's rebuttal:  (selection)
        
“yes, of course! ... ‘Dianetics forbidden on Clears and OTs’ was written by the RTRC-Team headed by David Majo [sic Mayo] and not acknowledged by LRH. ...”
        
(RTRC = LRH Technical Research and Compilations)
The applicant refers here to HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”. Thus a reference that was issued during the 1978-82 time frame. This was the reference that forbade running Dianetics on Clears and OT's. Noteworthy here is that it does not explain anything, it only directs. It says: “Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO [Advanced Organization] of Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.”.
New Era Dianetics (NED) was released on 30 Jul ’78, this routine at the time of release of this reference had only existed for just 6 weeks! The reference also does not make any mention of Standard Dianetics which was in full use prior to 30 Jul ’78. We only find a generalization in the title that names “Dianetics”, but the text specifically refers to New Era Dianetics. We thus do not find Standard Dianetics being criticized here. In addition we have 2 HCOB'S, both considered valid till this day in in unaltered form, that actually advice that Dianetics be run on either Clears or OT's if somatics occur, and that deem that this was just a skipped gradient. These references are HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” and HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”. May be this group would care to explain why these references are still around? Quite obviously this would be seriously clashing information! Further information on this can be consulted here (separate window).
The applicant further mentions David Mayo, which should be rather spot on as it has pretty much been confirmed that it was him that compiled the referred to “NED Rundown for OTs” (NOT's). After all the 1978 changes in the tech came in a package. At this time NOT's was still just a rundown, but in March 1982 strangely enough it was made into a mandatory action and became New OT V & VI.

    
And question #5 read: “Please clarify what LRH policies or advices – or what evidence – on which you are basing your cut-off date of 1972 as regards standard LRH-written technology. If LRH was indeed off tech lines after that point, how do you explain the New Vitality Rundown lectures given by LRH to auditors at Flag in 1974/5?”
    
Applicant's rebuttal:  (selection)
        
“There are no lectures by LRH availabel [sic] to the public after 1972, no new books, no photos of him, no public appearances. ...
And we find, that there are even attempts to fake lectures by him, which were later hidden by the church as these fakes are too revealing. ...
This is per LRH: I have a right to my own reality and truth.
As the tech up to 1972 was a valid and standard tech in the year of 1972, it can not be squirrel today.
But as we can agree on the fact, that the current output of tech by RTC-controlled church is squirrel, one has the right and the duty to put up the question: when did the alteris [sic alter-is] of this tech start? ...
In fact at least since 1978 the tech was rewritten very thouroughly. And LRH was not available even to the RTRC-team who did the rewriting, instead ‘Ron communicated by telex’ with them and told them what to write and what is ok and what not. This procedure did not change until his mysterious death.
When I take 1972 as my stable datum I am on the safe side. ...”
        
Each of the above forwarded points would be, or at least can be interpreted as, per the data that is avalable, historically correct. A few comments: (1) the referred to “New Vitality Rundown lectures” have not ever been available to any public, where virtually every other lecture including those considered confidential have been on sale to public at one time or another even as late as the early 80's on reel to reel; (2) together with these “New Vitality Rundown lectures” various other lectures have been exempted from mention since 1992. Which is in fact a rather curious affair, see here (separate window).

See, the whole point is here that there is no base to found this line of questioning on! The applicant does not have to explain himself. Nonetheless it is this Senior C/S that persists in have a discussion and finding fault. L. Ron Hubbard announced through ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases” that the technology was done! And if some person wished to focus solely on that status quo than this is that applicant's right! Some Senior C/S has no right to interfere with that.

 
Go back
Reasons given for membership rejection examined in detail

The following response to this was then received by the applicant:
        
“Regarding your application, I offer the following comments:”
        
I might say here, after already having gone over these “comments” written by the Senior C/S of this group, that I do not perceive these as comments, but rather as demands that have be complied with! If you do not, an application for membership will automatically be denied.
In the 8 paragraphs long refusal letter we can see very clearly that the applicant is literally forced to adjust to the demands set by this group. The applicant basically is compelled to embrace and adjust to the tech from the 1978-98 time period. This Senior C/S pounds on this again and again and again. We can also see a knowbest attitude of the Senior C/S that is writing these lines. It is simply implied that the applicant is in error, and is pretty much told to come to his senses!

This part of the response is 8 paragraphs in full. For clarity reason I will address each paragraph separately. I have numbered each paragraph [par:1] to [par:8]. Here under I will let them follow with my comments.
Following that I have made available the actual response of the applicant to it, and the final response from this Free Zone group representative (its Senior C/S) as pop-up windows.

        
[par:1] “You state you were the top field auditor in the 80s and 90s in the German-speaking areas of Germany, Austria and Switzerland and was acknowledged by ED Int and CLO EU. At this time, you must have been auditing using post-1972 issues, including NOT auditing Dianetics on Clears and OTs. So, since then you have decided that was not valid LRH tech. However, you have shown no proof that tech after 1972 is not LRH. I grant that there have been some alterations by others when LRH was around, and many more since his passing in 1986 - one must be that much more vigilant and on guard - but to apply a blanket condition that anything after 1972 is false is a misapplication of the Data Series and Study Tech and various HCOBs and PLs.”
        
My response:  Well, this response is all a bit overly evaluative and opinionated without showing a whole lot to support what it says. Now, the writer does not actually know what had been audited by the applicant in these 80's and 90's, and thus the writer is lacking a base for his assumption. If an applicant forwards a detailed documented explanantion then that it is not either a matter of operating on the basis of “since then you have decided that was not valid LRH tech”. Regarding having “shown no proof that tech after 1972 is not LRH”. Well, there exists a whole lot of information and indications that a lot of tech that came about after 1972 may very well not have been a work from L. Ron Hubbard. We don't either find an indication that the applicant has forwarded “a blanket condition that anything after 1972 is false”. After all the applicant has very clearly indicated: “When I take 1972 as my stable datum I am on the safe side.”. Then the writer mentions “Data Series and Study Tech and various HCOBs and PLs”, but the question is who should actually look at that ...
As the most significant tech changes date back to the 1978-82 time frame, and if it sufficiently can be shown that for particularly HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” not likely was written or had been devised by L. Ron Hubbard, then this also hints at that we can question any tech alteration that was implemented directly after its release. It appears that gross errors and faults have been detected, consult full analysis here (separate window).

        
[par:2] “It has been ascertained through various sources that LRH indeed did pen the issues that forbid auditing Dianetics on Clears and OTs. If one understands what occurs when one goes Clear, one can see why this is the case. You have shown no evidence that contravenes this datum.”
        
My response:  So, and what might these “various sources that LRH indeed did pen the issues that forbid auditing Dianetics on Clears and OTs” actually be? We do not learn about that from this writer. The phrase: “If one understands what occurs when one goes Clear, one can see why this is the case.”, does not explain anything. L. Ron Hubbard wrote in 1970: “COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”  LRH  (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”). And then a whole 8 years later this is suddenly not true, then is the writer saying that L. Ron Hubbard had missed “If one understands what occurs when one goes Clear” for a whole 8 years? We still don't know what the writer is actually talking about when he says that.

        
[par:3] “You mention auditing R3R, but not R3RA. Thus I can assume you do not get the postulate for the chains you audit. The action of getting the postulate the pc made at the time of the incident can be found in the basics of Dianetics and Scientology, including the axioms. It was a valid advancement over Standard Dianetics (R3R).”
        
My response:  Routine 3 Revised (R3R) is the main auditing routing used in Standard Dianetics (1969), whereas R3RA (R3R again revised) is the adjusted one used in New Era Dianetics (1978). Here this writer makes the very erroneous assumption that the postulate will not get found. The matter is that if the routine (R3R) is properly applied, that the preclear will simply originate this postulate, as that will release the chain that has been run. It could even be asked for. This technical data was known long before even 1969! Here this writer thus folds out very clearly that he does not know what he talks about!! Worse it gets, as without getting the postulate off you will not get the person to that release of the chain. Nonetheless L. Ron hubbard did announce in 1970: “COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969”. So, what is this person thinking?? This matter is analyzed here (separate window).

        
[par:4] “There are other advancements and breakthroughs developed by LRH since 1972 as well that if denied a pc, can harm their progress or prevent them from attaining the full EPs of the grades, Dianetics and even the OT levels. Further, I have spoken to individuals who worked with Ron into the early 80s and who carried out his instructions regarding tech and ran missions for him, and who saw him personally. He was still on the lines. ”
        
My response:  This writer does not seem to agree with L. Ron Hubbard when he announced already in 1970: “COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”  LRH  (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”). This writer also fails to provide for any specification. What this writer does not appear to understand is that one has to actually follow the tech-line itself. L. Ron Hubbard would never act against earlier established basics, he would instead only better them. See, that is how you would know! Now, who cares about some people that say some things about seeing some person? And so very few these even are! Since some L. Ron Hubbard returned in September 1973 things were never going to be the same ever again, we have a person carefully shunning public and so on. See detailed study about LRH's whereabouts here (separate window).

        
[par:5] “[FZ group] holds a firm line in relation to the tech of LRH and must be firm in this regard as people come here to look for auditors and C/Ses who practice standard tech. In effect, [FZ group] acts as a referral point by listing only those auditors who apply ALL of the tech available, standardly, in accordance with various issues and advices of LRH. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, your argument is without merit and you have not proven your case for membership with [FZ group].”
        
My response:  This would make it rather clear what this group would stand for, and what it wants! However amongst their members I find even individuals that are simply not that highly trained (Class IV). The matter is that only the highest trained auditors can apply all of the tech. Meanwhile lower trained auditors should comfortably be able to handle anything up to their training level. Here the writer is thus in reality saying that you as an auditor HAVE TO INCLUDE these technical ‘improvements’ that were added at a later date (1978-81). We should be very clear about that here. From this follows that if you wish to abide to the status quo of : “COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”  LRH, then a membership in this group will be rejected!

        
[par:6] “By way of this email, I have informed others involved in the selection of members of my conclusions and recommendations. My word is not the final word as the Membership Unit holds that responsibility; however, they do ask the technical and policy people to advise them on any membership application.”
        
My response:  Nonetheless a decision had already been made by the Sr C/S of this group. And as it always goes in such groups, no one would go against that decision already made.

        
[par:7] “Should your circumstances or viewpoints change, you may revisit these points; however, you will need to provide substantiation (scanned sessions or videos, etc.) to show how you now apply all of the tech LRH left us to the benefit of your pcs.”
        
My response:  Actually this writer should start looking and not decide for others what is true to them! Factually the writer is invalidating the applicant. In their list of members one can even see listed for example Class IV auditors and similar. As if auditors at that level know and can “apply all of the tech”?  As if this group only would accept Class XII auditors, as theoretically these would be the only ones that can “apply all of the tech”. This rather simple observation makes it rather clear that the applicant is not wanted simply because he only wants to work with the 1972 status quo of the tech! Which nonetheless is the applicant's right. But this group is actively trying to crush that right! Now, do you see how this one goes?

        
[par:8] “I wish you well in your practice and thank you for what you are doing. I encourage you to maybe look again at your decision and perhaps see if there may be different truths to reveal.”
        
My response:  And again this urging from this writer to get the applicant reverting to the 1978-82 status quo of the tech. So said the blind man to the onlooker!

 
Go back
Full response from applicant to Sr C/S [FZ group] and final reply from this Sr C/S

Here I have made available the actual response of the applicant to that above message of the Sr C/S of this group. I also included the final response of this Sr C/S to that. The reason why I make them available (with permission of the applicant himself), is for the behavourial patterns that can be observed in these texts. For this reason I have covered up the actual names of the persons involved. This is thus not about persons! These texts are presented as-is, are unaltered, and may or may not present my personal take on these matters. (pop-up windows)
    from Applicant to Sr C/S [FZ group], April 7, 2012
  from Sr C/S [FZ group] to Applicant, April 9, 2012 (final response)

 
Go back
A reported tale of another applicant

It would appear that other persons have disappointing experiences with Free Zone groups. They also report about a control and demand factor being present. See at below link:
    “A reported tale of another applicant”  (pop-up window)
The applicant here was Patricia Krenik, a Class VI auditor and founding Scientologist from 1951.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Now, what's up with these ‘Independents’?

Well, it's true that I have had some disappointing experiences that are just not so very promising. I guess you need them to tell where they stand (they may not know that), and what they are willing to provide. You will soon enough know if you have to move on to the next. There are good persons to be found there as well, and they may have been misled, and that not necessarily even have adopted these general convictions. One should not assume anything though. They are just all human beings.

Another possibly significant problem is that a variety of them may quibble or disagree about various details of the tech they deliver. Everyone seems to want to do their own thing. Because of this there is no real cooperation found either. You have people that make up own processes, deliver auditing over the telephone or the Internet, there is all kinds. A general agreement about the 1978-82 Bridge can be found, only to find they may differ about various details. These adversaries may even call each other for squirrels, which they both may deny. For example the blog owner in Situation 2 calls the forum owner in Situation 4 for a squirrel, where both of them question the findings on my website.

I received this warning though from someone:
        
“In a nutshell, the indie field is buyer beware (ignoring the bridge issue): At least some of the indies themselves give the impression being suppressive persons I have found, but there are of course good people mixed in. One just needs to do their homework and ask around, read reviews, ask questions, etc.”
        
Indeed, one has to do one's homework.

Only if the demand grows that people want to travel that original Bridge one will be able to make a change here. So ask them, and if they will not oblige you, then go on to the next and ask. It is pretty much the only way to have that difference. Unfortunately it will take a while.

 

Vocabulary:

     alter-is:
1. A composite word meaning the action of altering or changing the reality of something. Is-ness means the way it is. When something sees it differently he is doing an alter-is; in other words, is altering the way it is. (LRH Def. Notes)  2. To introduce a change and therefore time and persistence in an as-is-ness to obtain persistency. An introduction of an alter-is is therefore the addition of a lie to the real which causes it to persist and not to blow or as-is. (HCOB 11 May 65)
     C/S:
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     NED:
New Era Dianetics’. Offcially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     R3R:
Routine 3 Revised’. R3R is the basic Standard Dianetics (St Dn) auditing routine.
     R3RA:
Routine 3 Re-revised’. R3RA is the basic New Era Dianetics (NED) auditing routine.
     RTC:
Religious Technology Center’. The highest echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)


Go to top of this page


Advertisement