by Thoughtful

I wonder what would happen if all those people out there who perhaps made deals with the devil (accepted money for silence) would come to their senses and speak out anyway?

Making a deal with criminal is a mistake. When you realize the mistake, the deal is off. You are no longer bound by the "deal" because it wasn't a fair deal in the first place — it was a cheat and a fraud!

A “deal” made under false pretenses is a no deal.

When one makes a “deal” with malignant person or group one is immediately enslaved by that group. One's future becomes degradation, disease, death. It is a matter of self preservation to cauterize the wound, and you do that by speaking out.

Publicly exposing any conspiracy is part of the first step of A to E — how an individual ceases to be part of a suppressive group. People who make deals with suppressives instantly become themselves members of a suppressive group. They are suppressive group members because they are in fact supporting and condoning suppression. And if that isn't a suicidal route to cancer, heart attacks, stroke and death then I don't know what is.

Annie Tidman just died. So have many more. The list goes on and on and on. Staying quiet, staying under the radar… at what cost?

Tough love: All those who are keeping quiet because you have family inside the Church or because you accepted money... I care about you and that’s why I’m telling you now that you'd better wake up. While many of you write and post here and secretly support the Indie movement which is a step in the right direction, you are still following a treacherous (maybe even suicidal) path. Do you know that? The best thing you can do for your "family members" who are really not your family anymore (but traitors) is to shake off the suppression entirely and speak out loud and clear. That is called setting a good example. Maybe some people may take this as incendiary, but it is a kindness to warn people of danger. I am warning you of self destruction at your own hands.

Destroying yourself in the name of help doesn't do your "family members" inside the CoS any good does it?  Destroying yourself for any reason is not a solution.

It's no different than Annie Tidman quietly dying inside the CoS. She stayed connected and she died like every single person does. And she actually betrayed her own purposes and helped DM by doing so.

To stay quiet is to help the CoS and help David Miscavige.

If you haven't fully left the CoS, then you are still inside to a degree (it's a gradient scale) and you ARE in fact killing yourself by staying connected to a source of toxicity.

However, back to the main point of our human resources — there are many more people who have not spoken out and who need to come forward. With every new voice we stretch DM's resources. Any deal made with a suppressive person or group is OFF the instant you realize the error of your ways. Really people. The reason for that is because PURPOSE is senior to Policy.  (LRH's Admin Scale):

GOALS
PURPOSES
POLICY
PLANS
PROGRAMS
PROJECTS
ORDERS
IDEAL SCENES
STATS
VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS

But it's even sillier than that. Does anyone remember the placards that were posted on the walls of every org in the world starting in 1969? It was called Counterespionage. That Church Policy stated it was perfectly permissible to accept money from those forwarding the subversion of Scientology. It said you may keep the money, but you must also report the full particulars:

REWARD

As Industrial espionage is an ordinary occurrence in most companies, the staff is requested to be alert for

1. Any theft of documents or materials.
2. Orders or directions which will result destructively.
3. Any disturbance of files, bills or addresses.
4. False reports or advices to staff or customers or preached defeatism.
5. Willful corruption of tech.

Anyone detecting any of the above should report the matter at once to the nearest Guardian's Office with names and full particulars. Should further investigation result in the disclosure and apprehension or arrest of persons attempting willful harm to this organization A REWARD OF $250 will be paid by the Guardian's Office. Should a staff member be approached and asked to attempt any of the above actions he should promptly seem to agree, should accept any money offered (which he may keep) and should quickly and quietly report the matter to the nearest Guardian's Office so that the instigators can be traced and arrested, at which time the $250 reward will be paid.

Another reward of $100 will be paid any staff member or person in the field who should hear of or be subjected to any provocative anti-organization activity in the field and who then forwards the criminal background and connections of the provocative person in such form that it may be given to the police by the Guardian's Office.

______

Should any staff member have knowledge of any financial irregularity within the organization and furnish proof of it to the Guardian's Office promptly along with evidence sufficient to prosecute he shall be given 25% of all monies recovered.

______

BLACKMAIL

Any person or agency attempting to accomplish any of the above five points by reason of attempted BLACKMAIL of a staff member is liable to arrest. In this case the reward is also paid to the staff member on the arrest and conviction of those attempting it and the Guardian's Office will defend the person even before law and excuse the misdemeanor or crime being used in the blackmail attempt.   

LRH, HCO PL 1 Sep 1969 COUNTER-ESPIONAGE

The Policy was updated in 1983 to replace the Guardian’s Office with RTC (yuk, yuk) and to increase the reward. Of course it does no good to report espionage crimes to RTC when RTC is the source of the criminality and abuse. Every lower organization has been subverted. It is idiocy itself to think that reporting the matter to RTC is going to do anything other than tell DM who his enemies are — since all reports to RTC go to DM and he is the one doing the subversion.

When everyone inside is gone, that leaves the outside world.

But the route out is even clearer than that. If you ever did anything to support David Miscavige, you were (mistakenly or not) a member of a group which is itself suppressive. The first step to distance yourself from that group is obviously #1 stop supporting the group. Supporting and even condoning DM's "church" would have amounted to a continuous overt act for you. The second step LRH gives is for you to make a public announcement to the effect that you realize your actions were ignorant and unfounded and stating, where possible, the influences or motivations which caused you to attempt to support David Miscavige and his malignant empire. LRH goes on to say "the letter should be calculated to expose any conspiracy to suppress Scientology or the preclear or Scientologist if such existed." Is there a conspiracy? Hell, yes: DM is the heart of it. Thus LRH says clearly to expose the conspiracy to the outside world.

Where is all this written? In the Scientology Ethics book under the steps laying out how to recover yourself if you ever mistakenly become a member of a suppressive group. DM attempted to use this last reference in reverse to force allegiance to him. But that would only leave you degraded and enslaved, back in DM's trap.

LRH said keep the money!

So Debbie, Wayne and all others you know who you are — it's not only the principle of the matter that will protect you, it's even in LRH Policy. The right thing to do is keep the money and expose those guilty of points (1 to 5) above. And just to be specific,

1. Any theft of documents or materials. David Miscavige stole LRH's OT materials from Pat Broeker by tricking Pat into thinking an FBI raid was en route. Miscavige had all the materials loaded into vehicles and the theft was complete. Marty already wrote all about that incident. There was also the destruction of the 1978 CBO (Central Bureaux Order) in which LRH outlawed "international events" because they knock people off post, disrupt normal wearing of hats in orgs and thereby depress stats. Miscavige is also responsible for denying the upper OT levels above OT VIII to the world despite promising their release as "eminent" since 1985.

2. Orders or directions which will result destructively. Miscavige has issued practically nothing but destructive orders including ordering individual staff members to keep quiet about legalities in clear violation of LRH's most basic Policy, Keeping Scientology Working. Through various intermediaries, Miscavige has approached ex-staff (victims and eye witnesses) and attempted to buy their silence with bribes and money. Miscavige also authored the New Era of Mismanagement (which destroyed the Flag-Folo-Org line). He destroyed the Eval Corps (the body responsible for issuing programs to orgs). He destroyed the Watch Dog Committee and the Exec Strata, and the Central Marketing Unit. Miscavige's "Golden Age of Tech" destroyed the training Bridge, mis-assigning the standard of perfection to beginning auditors instead of to Class VIII which is how LRH designed it to be. Miscavige is the source of numerous Tech Degrades such as boasting to the speed of delivery in sessions at Flag on the Grades. Acting in ways calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology such as blaming his own criminal actions on Tech and Policy. Miscavgie also is the single person ordering continual "international events" since 1986 all of which knock staff off post particularly in the Public Divisions, rob the orgs of cash, and propagandize his own persona as the replacement of LRH. Miscavige implemented the IAS as a fundraising activity in direct violation of LRH orders forbidding ALL straight fundraising activities because they are a rip off and deliver nothing in exchange (exchange condition one — "rip off"). Further destructive orders from David Miscavige include his 1986 order (issued through Miscavige's patsy, ED Int) banning children from the Sea Org, thus cross ordering the most basic ideals of fundamental of Scientology — that a being lives across 8 dynamics, not one. Further illegal orders including blanket C/Sing of cases, ordering everyone onto Key to Life course, etc.

3. Any disturbance of files, bills or addresses. Ordering the destruction of vast volumes of files containing Tech such as org and continental mimeo offices; destroying reel to reel tapes in Qual Libraries in orgs; destroying the marketing files in Central Marketing and the Dissem Bureaux FCB; destroying old book stocks; ordering the destruction of all older editions of LRH books; illegally saddling veteran Sea Org members who who were witnesses to felonies or who left in protest of forced abortion, human trafficking, torture, false imprisonment and abuse, huge "freeloader" bills to bury them so they stay quiet — an example being my own debt for $82,000 (which I published in the St Petersburg Times — the first actual illegal Freeloader's bill ever exposed in in a newspaper), which incidentally was date coincident with the DM changing CoS policy — a good example of getting Ethics in).  Central files were disturbed through the centralization of all names so that public now get junk email from orgs they've never even been to instead of their own local org.

4. False reports or advices to staff or customers or preached defeatism. Of course this includes ordering individual staff to silence to stop them from blowing the whistle on criminal activities that are rampant in David Miscavige's "church." Miscavige is guilty of false reports circulated on whistle blowers to media attempting to assassinate their character by falsely labeling them as "adulterers," "kooks," "bitter apostates," etc. Such false reports are also combined with falsely labeling ex staff who leave due to abuse as "suppressive persons." He has labeled more than 60% of ex staff who worked for LRH at Saint Hill and ex-staff who worked at the Int base as "suppressives" — yet nearly all these staff had spectacular production records, gave years of dedicated service (in many cases the best years of their health), in which they sacrificed families and fortune in order to help make a better world. False reports, and falsely labeling staff is also combined with gross and flagrant abuse of disconnection policy — a policy that LRH himself cancelled, to produce an atmosphere of defeatism. Added to that is the intentional misapplication of tech in reverse — assigning wrong and blanket conditions to willing staff, continual heavy ethics, inspection before the fact, org board scrambles, cross orders, unintelligible orders, setting himself up as "command intention" and "Department 21" instead of LRH; Using heavy ethics to come down on any and all political enemies and even those imagined as being capable of becoming political enemies one day.

5. Willful corruption of tech. This is almost too rife to mention, but includes obfuscating the simplicity of being able to read an E-Meter by adding in the false datum that it can be seen in slow motion (a fact which LRH outlaws in the SHSBC lectures). Corrupting the perception of floating needles with the 3-swing rule, ignoring basic LRH tech on "fleeting FNs" ala "Are you waiting for the meter to play Dixie?" Blanket declaring of Clears who have validly attained the state as "not clear." Forcing OTs to run Solo NOTs twice. Forcing Scientologists to run the same rundown twice. Running Clears on Dianetics. Invalidating the state of OT. Forcing OTs and Clears to run objectives. Interrupting the "No Interference Zone" of Solo NOTs with extensive and frivolous security checks designed to introvert OTs into non-existent ethics issues. Invalidating auditors who were personally trained by LRH including as Class VIs, Class VIIIs and Class XII auditors and Case Supervisors as "the blind leading the blind" and then actually falsely cancelling their certificates and banning them from auditing people. Corrupting policy such as the system of Missions that LRH set up to spread Scientology delivery, sending in Finance Police to destroy reputations and verbally declaring people without recourse without proper justice procedures. So he is also guilty of corrupting the entire Scientology justice system and turning it into his own personal secret police force. Ditto with the old Guardians Office, throwing Mary Sue Hubbard out and burying the #1 person who helped LRH make Scientology what it is and helped it survive through it's formative years. DM's corruption of tech also includes the alteration of "freeloader" policy to create a political weapon in clear violation of state labor laws, billing veteran staff training and auditing they earned or were ordered to undergo.

Ex-staff and public who accepted hush money from Miscavige flunkies need to take back ownership of their lives.

You guys have a huge group — the entire power base of the Sea Org — who left in a mass exodus are now outside and ready to support you. All the movers and shakers — your old friends — are here and nearly all of them except a few are willing to help.

Annie Tidman died and died hard — why? Her purpose was with LRH. Below that, at the level of Policy, she agreed to keep quiet (agreements = policy). So she corrupted her own life and sent herself off purpose. The definition of living is “having and following a purpose.” No longer following her purpose, she died — first by definition and then the real thing.

Will you be next?

Dying to protect your son, daughter, parents, or a prevent a court battle isn’t any way to live.

Please, throw off suppression and come back to LIFE.

Thoughtful

Thoughtful

Written by Jim Logan

A recent discovery that the issue entitled Confessional Procedure, ( a compilation of LRH materials going back to 1972 where it was part of the Integrity Processing Series of Board Technical Bulletins/BTBs) from 30 Nov 1978 had been changed significantly on 26 August 1996 has led to further revelations concerning the application of so-called ‘buttons’ to questions from rudiments, to listing and nulling, Dianetics and any question, list, item in the broad spectrum of techniques employed in Dianetics and Scientology.

This article is not an attempt to provide every single issue or tape related to the areas discussed but to clarify several exact points of mis-application and in some cases (the revision of Confessional Procedure e.g.) out-right alteration of well-proven LRH data on the use of rudiments questions and ‘buttons.’

BUTTONS

During the research and development of techniques to uncover and resolve the Goals Problem Mass, conducted at St. Hill in the early 1960s, a procedure know as “Preparatory (to)clearing” “Prepclearing” and subsequently called “Prepchecking” was developed to “get the rudiments in with a crunch” in preparation for Clearing under a series of Routines 3, or R3.

Initially Prepchecking was used in and of itself.  It was an entire procedure aimed at getting a “chain of withholds” and was a thorough method of doing so. Introduced in HCOB 12 February 1962, HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS, the system laid out in the bulletin was described as a “preview” of “Prepclearing” used to “prepare a preclear’s rudiments so they can’t go out” during Routine 3 Clearing procedures.

Within the same few weeks the name changed to Prepchecking (reference HCOB 1 March 1962 PREPCHECKING), which has stayed with us as a name ever since, though the processes of Prepchecking have themselves changed.

On 29 April 1962 one of the various R3 processes (those directed toward discovering and dealing with the Goals Problem Mass, its goals, the items/identities involved in achieving or thwarting the goal, the problems-intention/counter-intentions associated with it and the resultant mental mass developed in that contest), designated as Routine 3G, was introduced in a bulletin.

This point is made by this HCOB: “Finding a goal was blocked by out-rudiments, invalidations and missed withholds.”

R3G used the techniques of “listing and nulling” (listing: you ask a question of the pc, the pc gives you item, item, item; nulling (from “null”/ uncharged subjects): the auditor’s action in saying items from a list to a pc and noting the reactions of the pc by use of an e-meter)  to attain first a goal, and then a list of “items,” the identities/valences that were attempting to gain the goal, (also called the “terminal”) and those opposing the goal (the “opposition terminal”).  All three of these points were determined by the exact methods of listing (gaining the list of possible Goals and then Items, both Terminals and Opp-Terminals) and then Nulling the List to a single Item for the Goal and then each type of Term/Opp-Term.

The procedure of R3G was described in the bulletin as to its aim:

“In theory, when the terminal is attained by a goals assessment and a resulting list of items, and when the opposing item is obtained, if both lists were complete, the two items should “blow” and the goal cease to react. This then would make repetitive auditing unnecessary.”

As well, the role of rudiments in this Routine was reiterated in the materials:

“Incomplete listing, invalidations and out-rudiments are the main faults of Routine 3 processes.”

The Laws of Listing and Nulling (codified in HCOB  1 August 1968), developed at the same time as these Routine 3 processes were researched and expanded upon.  The same bulletin of April 62 describes one such phenomenon (see point 3 below) referred to in Law 9 of the Laws of L&N bulletin:

“On an item that is suppressed or invalidated the read will transfer exactly from the item to the button and when the button is gotten in the item will again read.”

“A goal is checked (whether new or old) by:
1. Nulling down to one goal.
2. Getting rudiments carefully in.
3. Taking off any invalidations (invalidations when present read the same as the
goal or item while the goal or item does not read).” (Emphasis added, JL.)

Again from the 1 March 62 issue PREPCHECKING it states:

“The purpose of Prepchecking is to set up a pc’s rudiments so they will stay in during further clearing of the bank.”

(Routine 3 was  a Clearing process and developed later with various ‘R3’ versions and eventually several R4’s and in the end Routine 6, the final numbering of these Routines for Clearing.  Routine 6 handling End Words of stated Goals (to catch catfish, with ‘catfish’ as the End Word and ‘Catch’ as the so-called Root word of this Goal) or R6EW remains as a Grade on the modern Grade Chart after Grade 5 and 5A, Power and Power Plus respectively. The single Routine 3 that did not address Goals and the GPM was directed to engram running and remains designated to this day as Routine 3 Revised, or R3R with R3RA being the final version and used in New Era Dianetics auditing.)

Rudiments (the purpose of rudiments is to set up a case to run, not to run a case, see Technical Dictionary) were gotten ‘in’ i.e., handled before during and at the end of these Routine 3 sessions.  The ones used in the middle of the session were referred to as Middle Rudiments and consisted of various questions asked of the preclear.

In a taped lecture of 3 May 1962, CRAFTSMANSHIP, FUNDAMENTALS is the following description of the use of ‘rudiments’:

“He was picking off missed withholds, invalidations and suppressions and getting the read and getting the read off suppressions, missed withholds and invalidations and getting the read back on the goal. Then he had to test all of the goals that had been there to make sure each one of those didn’t have invalidations, suppressions do you see, or missed withholds, on them and about them, you see? And he had to check those to make sure that they were not still reading – make sure they were null.” (Emphasis added, JL.)

On 11 June 1962, PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS was issued.  It states:

“The Routine Three Auditor…, as the first action in finding a goal and before listing (or before the auditor adds to list), is to prepcheck the following...

On goals have you ever suggested anything?
On goals have you ever had anything suggested?
On goals have you ever suppressed?
On goals have you ever had anything suppressed?
On goals have you ever invalidated?
On goals have you ever had anything invalidated?
On goals have you ever failed to reveal anything?
On goals have you ever been careful of anything?
On goals have you ever told any half truths?
On goals have you ever told any untruths?
On goals have you ever influenced a meter?
On goals have you ever tried not to influence a meter?”

Notice the above questions are familiar to many as similar to the Rudiments Check of E-Meter Drill 18, INSTANT RUDIMENT READS,  as well as a listing of the familiar ‘buttons’, suppressed, invalidated etc.

Further in the bulletin of 11 June 62 it states:

“The reason for this care and the use of Middle Ruds every time you check a goal or the pc stops listing, is because a goal can stay in with a tick when only invalidated, but would go out if the invalidation is listed.  A goal then will go nul if the Middle Ruds are out, or a wrong goal will get active if the Middle Ruds are out.

“I have seen so many bum findings on goals that I have finally worked out the above as a solution to being double sure.” (Emphasis added, JL.)


On 12 June 1962, in a taped lecture, HOW TO DO A GOALS ASSESSMENT, LRH is describing the use of Prepcheck and the ‘middle ruds’ and buttons, suppress, inval, failed to reveal etc:

“I don’t know why you’re writing them down in your notebook. It’s just the – with one single addition, it’s the middle ruds and the beginning of the end ruds. And the single addition is ‘suggested’ because we have auditors around who suggested things to the pc. You can get a goal stuck in by suggesting the goal  to the pc and it will then consistently register thereafter. Or the auditor has suggested the goal be worded a little differently and that will stick the goal too, and you will get a read on it and it won’t be the read of the goal. Do you understand that?” (Emphasis added, JL.)

On 24 July 1962, in a taped lecture ROUTINE 3GA Part II, it states:

“There are four things out which can make a goal read. It’s the wrong goal but boy will it read – it’ll read beautifully every time…

“You in actual fact have only three of these which are capable of making the goal read that isn’t the goal – only three of them – but the fourth is supplementary to it: suppressed. Because the wrongness you see won’t read. If you’ve suppressed the invalidation you don’t get the invalidation to read don’t you see?” (Note the four buttons are suppressed, invalidated, suggested and failed to reveal, JL.)

In this tape LRH covers thoroughly the use of these buttons to get in the button, that is, get all the suppressed, suggested, invalidated and failed to reveals off and then  re-check the goal for a read.  Every time the goal is rechecked to see if it is a validly reading item. (For further study of this technique, see “Tiger Drilling” in the early 60’s Technical Volume for the drill using the Goal “To be a tiger” and the use of the buttons to verify a reading, valid Goal.)

This is further described in a lecture two days later, given on 26 July 1962, PREPCHECKING and the phenomena of these buttons either preventing a read or giving a false read, and when they are gotten it, the item is always rechecked to see if the read was valid.  

On 7 August 1962 in a taped lecture ROUTINE 3GA DATA ON GOALS Part I, it states:

“…the goal charge transfers over to a secondary goal which merely fires (sic; reads) once as it frees itself from the main goal chain. But that charge while it remains on a secondary – not the goal but a close cousin – can transfer over to an invalidation or evaluation you see. You get substitutes, get a series of substitutes here, see. So you pick off the invalidations and evaluations, and then you pick off the charge off the secondary goals of the list, and then you hit the goal and it goes pow – every time, pow, pow, pow.” (Emphasis added, JL.)

The Laws of Listing and Nulling, gleaned from the processes dealing with the GPM, are summarized in HCOB 1 August 1968.  In point #9 of that issue it states:

“On an item that is suppressed or invalidated the read will transfer exactly from the item to the button and when the button is gotten in the item will again read.”

NOTE: the Law states the item will again read.  There is no assumption that the item has read if the button reads.

USE OF BUTTONS

In HCOB 15 August 1969, FLYING RUDS putting in the button Suppress is described:

“If a rud doesn’t read, put in Suppress and recheck.”

Further it states:

“To fly all ruds you ask for an ARC Brk, if no read, put in Suppress. If it reads take it, do ARCU CDEI…” (Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding/Curious about, Desired, Enforced, Inhibited A,R,C or U, as per the bulletin.)

To reiterate: you ask for an ARC Break, if it doesn’t read, you put in Suppress, if “it” does read, you find out if it’s a break in A, R, C or U and which aspect of that, Curious about, Desired, Enforced or Inhibited.

Here’s an example of a run through of a Present Time Problem rud taken from the Class VIII tape #2, WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES:

(AUD) "Well, do you have a present time problem? Well that's clean."

(PC) "That's funny."

(AUD) "Why? "

(PC) "Well, I was sitting here worrying about my wife.”

(AUD) "Alright, on that question has anything been suppressed?"

(PC) "Oh yeah, well I've always had to suppress this problem, and so forth, it's always been a terrific worry to me. I've been suppressing it for years. "

(AUD) "Well good enough. Alright, anything been suppressed? That's clean. Alright. Do you have a present time problem?"

(PC) "No."

Also, from HCOB 27 May 1970, UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS, the last section of the issue states:

“THINGS THAT DON’T READ WON’T RUN.

“The Case Supervisor always counts on the AUDITOR to test Questions and Items for read before running them.

“The auditor, when a Question or Item doesn’t read, can and should always put in ‘Suppress’ and ‘Invalidate.’ ‘On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Suppressed?’ ‘On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Invalidated?’ If either one read, the question or item will also read. The Case Supervisor also counts on the AUDITOR to use Suppress and Invalidate on a Question or Item. If after this there is still no read on the Question or Item, that’s it. Don’t use it, don’t list it. Go to the next action on the C/S or end off.”

NOTE: this aligns perfectly with the foregoing data on the use of buttons in Routines 3, and the summary of the Laws of L&N.  The button is gotten in, and then the item is rechecked.  Nowhere is it stated or assumed that a button read means an item or in the case of the FLYING RUDS issue, an ARC Break (or Present Time Problem, or Missed Withhold) itself has read.  The item and exactly as stated in the FLYING RUDS issue, the ARC Break (or other rud) are RECHECKED for a read.*

In HCOB 29 January 1970, NULL LISTS IN DIANETICS,  it states:

It happens all too often in Dianetic auditing that:

(a) No further items on the assessment list read but

(b) The pc still has these somatics.

This is quite a problem. It cuts short the number of hours that can be delivered and leaves an unhappy pc.

But what do you know, the list isn’t null. It is suppressed or invalidated.

Here is where the Dianetic Auditor bridges over into Scientology, to which this action properly belongs.

There are many many such Scientology actions which the Dianetic Auditor will learn how to do when he studies to become a Scientology class auditor.

However, the great importance of the problem of a null or apparently dead list makes it necessary to teach the Dianetic Auditor this technique.

SITUATION: NO ITEM ON THE Health Form or List NOW READS, ONE OR MORE HAVE BEEN RUN, THE PC STILL HAS SYMPTOMS THAT ARE ON THE LIST. BUT THEY WON’T READ.

SOLUTION: THE DN AUDITOR NULLS BY SUPPRESS “BUTTON” AND IF NEEDED, THE INVALIDATE BUTTON.

This is normally called “getting in the suppress button” or “getting in the invalidate button”.

It is called BUTTON because when you push it (say it) you can get a meter reaction.

In Scientology, this is called “Nulling by suppress.”

All right, the list comes out all X—nothing reading.

The auditor, watching the needle out of the corner of his eye and also looking at the list (a trick you must be able to do so as never to miss a read on the meter), nulls down the list on all unrun items.

“On the item ‘dizzy feeling’ has anything been suppressed?”

“On the item ‘painful head’ has anything been suppressed? That reads.”

PC: “Yes, I suppress it all the time.”

Auditor: “Painful head. That reads. Are you interested in running that item?”

PC: “Yes! I kept wondering why it never read.”

The auditor then runs R3R.

In the case of Invalidate, if suppress doesn’t read, one “puts in the invalidate button”.

Auditor, reading an apparently null list:

“On the item ‘dizzy feeling’ has anything been invalidated?”

“On the item ‘sore feet’ has anything been invalidated? That reads.”

PC: “Yes, because it didn’t read in the first place.”

“Sore feet. That reads. Are you interested in running that item?”

PC: “Yes!”

So the auditor runs R3R.

As you will learn in Scientology, when the pc suppresses or invalidates something, the read transfers to suppress or invalidate, whichever they did. Suppress or invalidate now read, the item itself doesn’t until one puts the button (suppress or invalidate) in.

DON’T LET A DIANETIC PC OFF AUDITING JUST BECAUSE HIS UNRUN LIST ITEMS WON’T READ ON THE METER.

Get in Suppress and Invalidate on the items as above.

It is a rapid action, not two way comm between items. You ask the meter, not the pc.

Hope this helps.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

NOTE: Per later material, e.g., HCOB 23 May 1971, Issue IX, METERING, one no longer comments “That reads” “That didn’t read” and so on.

*HCOB 11 August 1978, Issue I, RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND PATTER, is an issue compiled by LRH Tech Research and Compilations (RTRC) and approved by L. Ron Hubbard.  Reading the section entitled “Suppress” it states:

“If a rudiment doesn’t read and is not F/Ning, put in the Suppress button, using: “On the question ‘Do you have an ARC break?’ has anything been suppressed?”

“If it reads, take it and ask ARCU, CDEINR, earlier similar, etc.”

Please note, this is taken  out of the original FLYING RUDS HCOB of 15 August 1969, with various rewording changes.

Compare the original FLYING RUDS issue’s statement:

“If a rud doesn’t read, put in Suppress and recheck. If it gets any comment, natter or protest or bewilderment, put in False and clean it.

“To fly all ruds you ask for an ARC Brk, if no read, put in Suppress. If it reads take it, do ARCU CDEI Earlier ARCU CDEI Earlier until you get an F/N. Then do the same with PTP. Then with MW/Hs.

“If in starting a rud does not read or F/N even if Suppress is put in go to the next rud until you get one that does read. Follow it earlier to F/N.

“Then F/N the 2 that didn’t read.”

As is plain, several parts were taken from the original issue. The one beginning “If a rud doesn’t read…” becomes “If a rudiment doesn’t read and is not F/Ning, put in the Suppress button…”

However in the later issue, the compilation approved by LRH, RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONS and PATTER, the next sentence in the Suppress section says “If it reads, take it and ask ARCU CDEINR (with No and Refused added)…” could lead one to believe that the “it” referred to is the Suppressed button.  If this is construed in that manner then it contradicts all previous bulletins and tapes on the use of the buttons on an item, question etc.  It contradicts the LRH written  example of the use of the buttons in NULL LISTS IN DIANETICS.  It contradicts the statement in the original FLYING RUDS HCOB, “put in Suppress and recheck” (emphasis added, JL).

If the latter issue is taken in the context of the many LRH authored bulletins, lectures and the research line and use of the buttons, and the clear statements made in all of these, then the RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND PATTER HCOB must be understood as LRH understood it, the button is gotten in using that question, and then the item is rechecked and if IT reads, it is taken to F/Ning with ARCU/CDEINR and Earlier Similar as needed.

ARBITRARY INTRODUCED

The only  place I have found where it is stated that if a button reads it means the item or question itself has read is in an issue first compiled in 1972 as a Board Technical Bulletin that was part of the Integrity Processing Series, 2RA of 5 DECEMBER 1972RA Revised 13 May 1975 , PROCEDURE.  However, even that compilation refers back to a very clear LRH issue, THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING, and the exact point covered above, Law #9.

Here is the section of the BTB:

“10. If the question does not read and does not F/N put in Suppress on the question (and if necessary Invalidate, Abandoned, Not-Is, etc.) asking, “On the question ______ has anything been suppressed?” and noting any instant read. If Suppress (or one of the other buttons read) has read it means the read has transferred from the question to the button, so take up the question as in 8 above to F/N. If there is no read on the buttons the question should just F/N). After the question is taken to F/N there is no need to then check Suppress. Just go on to the next question.”

The next compilation of the procedure for a confessional is BTB 31 August 72RB, CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE,  which is in turn replaced by a compilation HCOB of  30 November 1978, same title, which states:

“13. DO NOT TAKE UP UNREADING QUESTIONS.

a) If a question does not read and does not F/N you can put in the buttons Suppress and Invalidate, asking:
“On the question________ has anything been suppressed?”
“On the question________ has anything been invalidated?”

“But don’t require it to be answered and don’t look up at the pc expectantly either. If it’s not reading, tell him so and go on.

“b) If Suppress or Invalidate reads, it means the read has transferred exactly from the Confessional question to the button. (Ref: HCOB 1 Aug 68, THE LAWS OF LISTING & NULLING.) Put in the button (simply get what the pc has to say and acknowledge), then take up the question.”

(NOTE: LRH refers to this compilation, the original BTB and the re-compilation to be made that becomes HCOB 30 Nov 78, in the LRH authored issue of 24 Jan 77, TECH CORRECTION ROUNDUP, wherein he states:

“BTB 31 Aug 1972RA “HCO CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE” clarified the Matter* but this bulletin was on a very limited distribution and is not known. It contains the tech I developed on Sec Checking in the autumn of ‘72.

“There should be no further confusion in this matter. “Sec Checking,” “Integrity Processing” and “Confessionals” are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.

“The materials when all recollected and consolidated and reissued will be under the title of “Confessionals.””

*The “matter” clarified is the use of Sec Checking/Confessionals/Integrity Processing as a valuable technology.

NOTE: For any not familiar with how this works,  the original BTB and the later issued HCOB, CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE, were compiled by LRH Tech Research and Compilations, RTRC, utilizing LRH authored briefings or written instructions.  The subsequent issues formulated were sent through the lines to eventually be checked over and authorized by L. Ron Hubbard.  Despite great care and attention to detail for this line and the many, many valid issues that it produced, it still holds true that the dictum from Keeping Scientology Working applies, i.e.,

“There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”)

FURTHER DATA FROM THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH ON CONFESSIONALS

In addition, in the original research done in 1972,  as compiled in the BTBs of the Integrity Processing Series and to which LRH refers in the 77 issue TECH CORRECTION ROUNDUP, in Integrity Processing Series 16RA, INTEGRITY PROCESSING INFO, of 6 JUNE 1968 RA, Revised 13 May 1975, it states:

“Follow each non-reading question with suppress and leave each reading question only when it has been taken to EP (per HCO B 13 Dec 72R, Integrity Processing Series 10R, “Integrity Processing Questions Must Be F/Ned”). If suppression is found, start the cycle over with the question itself after suppress is clean.”

“Beware of a “false read,” which is thinking something read which didn’t. Protest can then give you a read. Clean up questions with “Protest”, “Suppress”, “Inval” buttons where the PC says there’s nothing there. Then if it still reads on check, there is something there. False reads (saying something read which really didn’t) can wreck a case. Can also check for demanding a withhold he doesn’t have.” (Emphasis added, JL.)

HANDLING A READ

The following is from HCOB 7 March 1996, HANDLING A READ, which is from an LRH lecture of 12 November 1975. The issue states at the top that the lecture is restricted to Flag Auditors as part of the New Vitality Rundown series, #14 “but the following data is applicable to all metered auditing”. The R-factor also gives the circumstance of the Question and Answer as “LRH was talking about handling reading items on an L4B” which today is an L4BRB, a Correction lists for Listing and Nulling actions. A student had brought up the topic again and this is the excerpt:

Student: "You asked him, 'Did you check the question?' and he said, 'No,” and you said, 'Flunk.' This after it read one time. Did you mean did he check the question again?"

LRH: "The question's in dispute."

Student: "So should he have checked it again to see if he made a misassessment?"

LRH: "You always check questions. It would be one of the most ordinary and usual things that you did in any kind of question, even an auditing question. If you weren't getting anyplace with it."

Student: "If the pc sat there and tried to figure it out for a few minutes, would you
then tell the pc the question had no charge on it?"

LRH: "Don't you guys know how to handle a read?

“Okay, when you get up in the morning you usually put your shoes on, you know, and – the laces and you cross them over like that and you pull them up. (audience laughter)

"If I have any question about a read, I go through quite a song and dance until I got it clean as a wolf’s tooth. I don't go by on the thing on a mechanical robot scene.

"You're asking for some sort of a scene like the thing read and the pc said, 'I don't have any answers' and you're trying to apply just straight VIII tech and say, 'Well, was it a false read?' you see, or something like that. No. Very mysterious – the thing read, didn't read, well, maybe the pc dropped her shoe, who knows? Maybe she wiggled her finger at the right moment. Maybe she protested the question. Maybe she had a thought simultaneously with the end of the instant read point. How many things can cause something to read?"

Student: "A lot."

LRH: "When there doesn't seem to be any sense to this scene —you're going down a list and you got a great big juicy read and then the pc says, 'No, I don't have any answers.' Well, you could badger the pc or you could mess up the pc, but normally speaking, if the pc were running well, you'd say, 'Okay,' and you'd get your F/N back.

"Now supposing you didn't, then the TA went up. Well, you'd better find out what's the score here. It might not be with the question. It might be with the session. There's something gone wrong. You're trying to run a machine now which is going kcch, kcckch, grrrr, it's not going purrrrrrrrr. And you do something. You don't just go by and let it drown.

"We've had a question read, it didn't F/N, the pc is in mystery about it, we're going to walk off and leave the pc in this condition? No.

"Now what things can you do? Well, it depends on what happened. We might be doing something over a whole packet of out-ruds.

"But just as a general auditing practice, why, I don't go by something like that without finding out what happened. Now that comes under the heading of the duplicate read.

"This just goes back to elementary metering. Do you know that when you hit the
item which made the thing read or the thing which made it read, you will get the same read? A good auditor always knows what the read looked like when he first saw it, and he remembers what the read looked like. It isn't a generality. It went whssssh or it went zzzzz or it dipped an inch, or it dipped an inch and a half or something. He knows what that read is.

"Now, when he hits what the read was again, he sees it. It's the technique of a duplicate read, and so the pc says, 'No, I can't find any answer to that,’ you say, 'Well, what was it, protest? or false read? or did you suppress the item? or invalidate what you thought of? or . . .'

"On one of those you'll get the same read, or the question will give you the same read. All right, that's the thing you clean up. You can find out what made it read if you know your basic theory and so forth. And I don't nag a pc, but I work these reads over. I don't leave a mystery on the track.

"But the thing reads the way it read. That's uniform. It's also a transference of read. So let us say the pc read half-a-dial drop at a certain speed, half-a-dial drop, and then says, 'No, I can't think of an answer.' If you say, 'Well, did you invalidate it?' and you get the same read back, the read is transferred over to invalidate. 'Well, what did you invalidate?' 'Well, er, rah, rah, bluh, bluh, blah, blah . . .' F/N.

"This is just skilled meter handling.

"And it isn't that only I can do it.

"I expect it of you."

L. Ron Hubbard

(End quote).

HCOB of 23 August 1968, ARBITRARIES states:

“Here’s one—when the needle on an E-Meter read in the response to an auditor’s question, all you know is that the needle on the E-Meter read. That’s all you know. Now in the next few seconds you will prove out, as to whether the read was to the question or to something else like a protest. To assume anything else in regard to meter reads is an arbitrary and will close up that pc with a bang.”

The only point that does not align with every other verified and established technical issue and/or lecture is the introduction of the arbitrary that if a button reads then the item or question is assumed to have read which starts with the initial  BTB of the Integrity Processing Series, entitled “PROCEDURE”.

The arbitrary that if one checks a button on a non-reading question and gets a read on that button that read then means the question itself is reading has been continued in each subsequent revision of the Confessional Procedure to the present, with the latest revision by David Miscavige’s crew coming in 1996. That issue has even more arbitraries that will be the subject of another article on how those on NOTs/Solo NOTs are being put through a vicious squirrel form of Confessional Procedure violating not only the above data, but further violations of specific techniques to be used on those OT III and above introduced by David Miscavige himself to alter even further the original and verified actual Scientology technology.

To ask the question “On (item, question, etc.) has anything been suppressed?” and then not get an answer to that exact question, but assume some other question is being answered, is a violation of TR3.  TR3 is the Training Routine that has as one of its purposes: “To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked.”

ADDITIONAL DATA ON BUTTONS

Right and Left Hand Buttons are described in the Technical Dictionary as excerpted from the LRH Lecture of the SHSBC from 10 Jan 63, HOW TO AUDIT:

Left Hand – Suppress, careful of, nearly found out, they prevent things from reading. All the other buttons cause things to read unnecessarily.

Right Hand – Mistake, suggest, decide, protest, these all makes things read. They don’t keep things from reading.

The origin of these terms, “right hand buttons” and “left hand buttons,” is SH Special Briefing Course lecture of 27 September 1962, 3GA Listing, Part 1. Here is LRH describing to the audience using a large pad on the podium:

“…you’ve got over on the left side – if you can envision it here – you’ve got three buttons here; you’ve got Suppress, you’ve got Careful of and you’ve got Failed to Reveal. They’re the guard of the left. And here we have; Invalidate, Suggest and Mistake.  They’re the guard of the right. You got these now?”

CONCLUSION

The conclusion reached is that in 1972 in the compilation of the LRH research data of that time period on the subject of Integrity Processing/Confessionals, the step of the issue on PROCEDURE and the use of the buttons when a question was not reading entered in the arbitrary that if a button question read then it is assumed the Integrity Processing/Confessional question was reading violates LRH authored or spoken data and examples of how to use these buttons on non-reading (and falsely reading) questions.

The single place where this arbitrary assumption exists in any bulletin or issue is in the original compilation of the Procedure of Integrity Processing, which point itself violates and contradicts further data in the Integrity Processing Series itself, and all other LRH written or spoken data gleaned from actual auditing experience on the use of buttons on non-reading or falsely reading questions.

This false datum has continued on through each subsequent revision of Confessional Procedure to the present.

Written by Jim Logan

I am hereby declaring myself no longer associated with the corporation that professes to be Scientology. That corporation being one that, while wearing the outward trappings of and professing to represent the works and dreams of L. Ron Hubbard, is in reality an inverse corollary.

In 1978 I encountered Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and my life was irrevocably and forever changed for the better. The path to enlightenment and spiritual freedom was laid before me and I chose to step on the carpet and take the ride on up.  To say that my reality of the world around me changed radically is an understatement that only someone who has had the same experience can appreciate. For anyone who has not, I’ll use the analogy of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus.  A rough analogy but nonetheless one that relates the degree of shift of viewpoint that I experienced in a short window of time.  I burned the midnight oil, trained as an auditor and then shortly thereafter joined staff at the old Southwest Mission. I was out to change myself and the world!

Not too long after joining staff, things began to come unraveled. The Mission Holder was declared, turmoil ensued, it seemed that things turned upside-down. And there was a shift in the undercurrent that could be felt, just ever so slightly.

Time marched on, I ran into stops and barriers, as one is wont to do in life. I soldiered on with my eye on the goal of becoming a professional auditor. Finally, after many years of work I made it! Auditing at the org was a dream come true! But the external pressures filtered down, I saw things, experienced things, that did not line up with what I’d studied in the works of LRH. I put it down to my inadequacies. I needed to get up the Bridge, I needed to pop out of whatever false valence (personality) I was acting out. This was Ron’s church, they could not be wrong. These people from Florida and California who arrived to dictate could not be wrong. Therefore that left me as the faulty cog.

Let me digress here for a moment to state that 97.5% of the missionares who cam to Dallas were good people, people with the similar ideals as mine. That they were under the pall of a malign influence, that they forwarded a malign purpose never occurred to me. Hence it was too easy to grant myself the title of “source of all the bad feelings” or whatever the item was that I must have been giving myself at the time.Five year contract up, agreement fulfilled. The pressures and inconsistencies of the IAS and upper management pressure were filtering down to my level. I decided that I was done. But I was the only auditor in the HGC. So I stayed on. I started moonlighting in order to cover rent and bills. Then came the big hack job of a missionaire who told me that I would be declared if I did not quit my job and come on full time staff. I made my choice, I walked.  Calmer heads prevailed and I was allowed to complete my routing off form.Fast forward, I was married and had a family. A call from the org to come in and help recover public. How exciting! I was on my way. This was where I learned the first of several hard lessons about how management operates. I was bums rushed into coming on staff to audit at night. Keep my job, just get GAT updates done and no big sweat. Against my better judgment I agreed. Off to Flag to get GAT updates done. This was all feeling way too creepy. But that was just the evil little monster inside me, my risible fears were to be disregarded.  As the van crossed the causeway and I caught sight of the Ft.Harrison, a sense of dread filled me like I have not felt my entire lifetime. It was as though I was Frodo staring at the gates to Mordor knowing that I had to walk the path to the Cracks of Doom. I went to the MAA, told her that I did not need to be here, that I needed to go home! I got pooh poohed and sent on my way, told how the world was in horrible shape and my staying at Flag was the solution. I got sick almost immediately. First clue. Failed to recognize it. Stuck in a little room with seven other sick folks. Finally got on a routing form and was told that I had to do my entire training Bridge all over again. This was not panning out to be the three week excursion and back to Dallas that I’d been promised. No money coming in at home, family waiting on me. PTPed is a good description.  Then came the registered letter that I was going to be fired from my job if I was not back in Dallas within a week. For this I was relegated to sitting in an underground vault reading Ethics materials and doing MEST work all day. I felt like a low life, I decided that I must be a low life. I finally took off on my own, rode a bus to the Tampa airport where I got a call from the CC Int missionaire in Dallas who had started this fiasco. I had apparently kicked off a firestorm of a clusterf**k. Never once did it dawn upon me that I was in any way or shape in the right for wanting to take care of my family. Finally I got my ass out of Clearwater and back home where I elected that I was not interested in participating in the staff “thang” any more. I attended events, went to the Christmas parties, read books. But nothing more.

By now you’d think that I’d learned my lesson. Apparently not. The ideal org rolling road show came to town and I went on down, thrilled by the prospect of Scientology expanding. You see, I had never lost that inner fire, that desire to help, that desire to see the world become a better place and for mankind to go free. First thing that happened, we were taken into a room and told that there were suppressives in Dallas and that they were gonna be rooted out. Grim solemnity filled the room and I revisited my secret fears that I was basically evil unlike the rest of the world.  But I was by God gonna make it go right and help despite being basically evil! I made calls, I attended every single fund raiser, I did my level best. Then came the fateful night at the Los Colinas Country Club where I got the bum’s rush of all time.  Ganged up on and there I was with a pen in my hand, deciding that I had no choice but to sign. Oh the regret as soon as I did sign. Instead of elation I felt morbidly fearful. What had I done?

What followed was a two year debacle of trying to get someone to listen to me, that I did not want to be on staff. My words fell upon deaf ears. I was hopeless, no one would listen. I still wanted to do the right thing in the right way.

Then I found out that my old friend Steve Hall had been declared. This just did not seem right. I contacted Steve. Funny, he didn’t sound like a suppressive person. Further research opened my eyes. So many other people who suddenly up and morphed into suppressives? Shot full of outpoints! I saw more and more that what Ron had intended as a vehicle to carry his work forward to the world had been hijacked and “1984ed”.

As the scales fell off of my eyes I realized how much of my self determinism I had surrendered lo those years. I’d been feeling creepy around certain persons for good reasons! I’d been disagreeing with certain actions and policies for good reasons! As this period of research and epiphany continued I began to gain a renewed confidence in myself. My gains began to materialize. Gains that had been submerged by out and out PTSness to a group. And that group, per the S&D material is represented by one person - David Miscavige.

So to the 97.5 % good people who still walk the halls of corporate greed, I announce to you that I am no longer a member of your group. I can no longer maintain any shred of connection to such an operation. My wish and hope is that you take Ron’s words to heart and look for yourself. Be a skeptic as he describes in “How to Study Scientology”. Don’t let others fill your head with “now I’m supposed to”.

One final thing to say. I am a Scientologist. I have been since that fateful day in Fort Worth over thirty years ago when i first laid eyes upon DMSMH.

I am a Scientologist, I am not a robot.

I am a Scientologist, I spent over thirty years trying to Clear the planet through the vehicle of the corporate organization called Church of Scientology in spite of all my internal misgivings and gut feelings that something was wrong. That’s over. I am me.

— Robin Rhyne

Post Script: I did not delve into the details of all that I found disagreeable. Suffice it to say that there are websites that perform that task meticulously, namely:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/
http://www.friendsoflrh.org/
http://www.savescientology.com/
http://www.scientology-cult.com

by Outside the Box

If the normal, average Joe, were to report a historical event, for the most part, he would say it like it happened. Of course, other factors can enter into any narrative, include hyperbole, slants, and prejudice – that is an unfortunate part of the human mentality.

But, that aside, most people would try to say it like it happened. I know this is a moot point, and that some will object, but the fact is that there are so many holes in the history books, omitting those “bits” and “pieces” that would otherwise be condemnable, that it is no wonder that the subject gets a yawn in classrooms. The truth is far more riveting than that pampered, waxed and polished version that is “acceptable” learning.  Honestly, you wouldn’t want your children to know that a certain US institution helped to supply the Nazi war machine, or the details of who, and why, the WW II allies sold out the Polish people and Poland to communist Russia after the Poles did so much to fight for their freedom – in fact, lost so much in defending their land. But alas, this article is about the Church of Scientology, and the above lead-in, though it might stir some mental soup in people, helps to makes a point. History is written and manipulated by people in power, a fact which can be proven many times over. You will not find the sordid details of the Inquisition being taught by the Catholic Church in their books, nor grimy facts surrounding CIA covert operations in SE Asia during the Vietnam war, nor the details of how invading countries took over new lands by pawning off drugs to make drug addicts out of locals, degrading and manipulating them under control. No – we hear the details that people want us to know, and the real truths, typically speaking, are brought to bear and public attention, by individuals who care to dig them up. I’m not pointing fingers, just ramping up to the relevant point of this article.

The Church of Scientology is no different. You will not find publicly recorded and available information which details the fabulous, in fact, heroic works of countless former Sea Org members, who gave everything, to help build the Scientology dream. You won’t read about the fact that Jeff Hawkins actually forged and executed one of the most effective book marketing campaigns in history, with his Dianetics campaign of the early and mid-1980s, one which drove countless thousands through the doors to find out about Dianetics, and a campaign unprecedented in results since then. To the Church of today, if they know anything about Jeff Hawkins at all, it is the fact that he is a “bad person”, he is “attacking the Church”, and other unsavory modifiers. No one, except those of us who were there, will ever know the truth about what Jeff did to change the face of Scientology in those days. Today, Mike Rinder is positioned as the “anti-christ” of Scientology – the “turncoat”, or whatever glossy descriptive terms the church’s media-machine churns out about anyone who stands up against it. Mike Rinder was an anchor, legally, and defensively speaking, keeping the road cleared and paved for years, so that Scientology could get out there and propagate the philosophy.

Today he is relegated to “the enemy” because he no longer agrees with the ways of the church dictator, David Miscavige.  Mike, no doubt, has been written out of the “history” books of Scientology, along with most anyone else who has stepped across the line of defiance – attempting to expose the truth about the current regime, its methods and tactics in controlling, abusing and shutting people up – in short, cutting the freedom speech.

The truth eventually always comes out, and even with the Church of Scientology, when the doors are finally opened up, and the world can look in and see, with transparency, the secrets locked up and hidden by David Miscavige and his camp, well, then on that day, we will have the real Scientology again – and not the fake, edited, rewritten version that is being pawned off to the world now.

OTB