Home Has anything been suppressed?
Has Anything Been Suppressed? PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:20

Note: This article takes up an alteration by the Church of Scientology in the technical procedure of auditing that has stopped thousands of people from receiving proper gains in auditing. If you have never had any auditing you may have some trouble trying to understand it. — 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.’


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.


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:


“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.



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.


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.


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.


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:


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.”)


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.)


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.”


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?”


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



+2 # Robin Rhyne 2011-10-19 06:50
holy hopping bat farts! I've been doing it all wrong!

Gracias Jim.
+1 # Tom M 2011-10-19 09:41
Thanks Jim for y our research. Very complete. You are the Master of Qual! Thank you again.

ML Tom
+1 # Michael Priv 2011-10-19 13:01
Wow! Great research, Jim, and good detective work! Thank you very much.
+1 # Ed Rhett 2011-10-19 14:41
This is well beyond my level of training, I never really completed NED. But it seems the church somehow forgot how to check for "suppressed", and that created a blind spot that allowed David Miscavage to suppressively take over the church. Or did I miss something?
+4 # Lana Mitchell 2011-10-19 18:30
I have witnessed the hundreds of hours you have spent painstakingly researching the subject of buttons, working to get to the bottom of a situation and get to the truth. I have watched as you meticulously worked it over till everything finally made sense and the strong was pulled on contradictory issues.
It was not done to prove anyone wrong, or make yourself right. It was done because you have such an intimate knowledge and understanding of the technologies of Scientology (ever-growing by the day) and have a huge heart and want to see that people get the gains they should be getting from the application of standard Scientology technology.
Thank you Jim. This, plus the other alterations you are finding, will prevent us from losing Scientology under Radical Corp Scientology, and enable people to move up the Bridge into the future.
+3 # PersonalJudas 2011-10-20 05:18
I whole-heartedly agree with what Lana said. I am not even auditor trained but this was clearly stated and immediately duplicable. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that if the tech survives (and is restored, for that matter!) it will be due in no small part to what you have done and continue to do, Jim.
I believe you exemplify the spirit and true intent of KSW 1.

Thank you.
0 # Claudio Lugli 2011-10-20 14:33
here we say MAMMA MIA!!!!!! What you wrote MAKES TOTAL SENSE and is a real analysis of buttons and there use with an understanding of what is actually happening in session and with the pc mind!!! Sorry but I think we, and I put myself in first row , to act ROBOTICALLY without really inspecting and challenging something that does not make total sense. Of course Class of Auditor has a strong bearing on it, but those ARE BASICS and in my 30 plus years in SCN those things have been applied the other way 'round. Thanks for giving the subject the integrity it deserves. Claudio
0 # Formost 2011-10-20 15:45
Thanks for that write-up, Jim.

It sure clarifies a lot.
+3 # plainoldthetan 2011-10-20 16:54
This is one of the big reasons why I refused to do a Class VI Interneship (retread) after I did the SHSBC Certainty Course. I didn't want to be caught on video misapplying the button tech, but I didn't want video evidence I wasn't "following the Golden Age of Tripe". Damned if I do, damned if I don't. So I just split.
+2 # OT8gal 2011-10-21 00:55

When I first read your 3 swing writeup last year, I blew charge. Having originally trained to class iv in the early 80s, the GAT training to get onto my OT levels left me absolutely stultified. I could not understand why I suddenly was having such a hard time "duplicating" the procedures. Everything I was being trained on butted up against the fluid understandings I'd had from the earlier LRH checksheets.

Reading this writeup brought up all those questions that arose during the GAT training -- and the recognition that I had two choices: abandon the nagging inconsistencies and just go along with the robotic "easy" way to audit or reach a standstill. With the altitude of supervisors and all of Flag standing behind this new "correct" way to audit, I chose the former.

Fast forward --- many many many thousands of dollars and hundreds of sec check hours later --- with the most grueling being the OT8 confessional -- with no further interest in auditing -- I found this article.

Long before finishing the article, I "got" the magnitude of the squirreldom I'd allowed. It explained a phenomenon I've been experiencing. I sat back from my computer for a moment. Anchor points long since pointed in dissipated. I never wanted to admit it ... but the inculcation of looking for overts when there WAS NOTHING FUCKING THERE (excuse me) created a stuck flow of ... well ... LOOKING IN!

IMO, this alteration creates beings who are easily suggestible and introverted. As long as they stay in that group they are tractable. When they come out (like me and others who finished 7 and 8) they don't want anything more to do with the auditing (my experience).

Thanks Jim. That was very very helpful.
+2 # Jim Logan 2011-10-21 16:23
What led me to look into this out-tech was the reports of those like you, on VII and VIII, getting these gruelling HCO Style Sec Checks. Aside from this point of mis-use of the buttons on questions, to do exactly as you have described, introvert a being into non-existent this that and the other thing, the omission of the correct methods of handling charge on pre-OTs from OT III up ends up with beings chasing down not only NOT charged questions, but then adding in the confusions that stem from NOT handling them with OT III and above techniques. Put in an arbitrary "three swing F/N" on uncharged or wrongly assigned questions, that aren't actually reading on the question in the first place and...

Well, it's no wonder that those undergoing this extremely reversed Scientology end up either solidly in some valence that is needed to just "get by" or any of the non-optimum manifestations we are witnessing.

Scientology auditing, OT auditing,is NOT like this when it's done right. It is a validation of the ability, a recognition of source and a return to a higher state of being.

That you were able to spot and blow some of the out-tech you experienced off, makes the whole cycle of finding and making this known worth every bit.
+1 # Worsel 2011-10-22 00:23
OT8gal, you are so right.
"If you get a wrong item on somebody they will now have that item .it persists; e.g. you run "sore toe" on somebody who doesn't have one, they'll end up with a sore toe! If you now try to handle sore toe with auditing it will worsen. Because it was a wrong item in the first place. You have to repair the wrong item."
The harder one ties to solve it the more lies are added. Whenever someone has one of these "unsolvable" problems, that has received lots of handling and has only gotten worse, then it has turned out often to be a good idea to check, if it was false in the first place. Only truth brings about as-is-ness.
0 # Worsel 2011-10-21 01:04
Thanks a lot, Jim. Always felt strange when I listened to the LRH-demos but never realized that it was that difference in the handling of the buttons and questions. LRH did not follow up a different question than he had asked!
0 # Bernie 2011-10-22 23:52
Thanks Jim for the superb clarification on this area. It has really brought home how duplication of the materials and duplication of the comm cycle go hand in hand in session.
0 # Trey Lotz 2011-10-24 02:30
Excellent research. Very helpful.
+1 # Les Warren 2011-10-24 09:44
Extremely well done, Jim.

Of course, to add insult to injury on the entire cycle of confessionals was the change from the original issue, "every reading question is taken to an F/N." This morphed into, "every question is taken to an F/N."

This leads the novice auditor (and the cult devotee) into believing that if there is no F/N then there is a withold and they are rigorously drilled to FIND the withold using their new technique of the endless button barrage.

0 # Expelled 4 Life 2011-10-28 10:06
Aren't you mixing up to different tech points? One situation is when you have a read but the PC doesn't have an answer, etc. In that case you use buttons to get the duplicate read, etc. The other situation is where a confessional question is not reading or not F/Ning.
0 # Jim Logan 2011-10-28 17:06
"Buttons" are used in both the circumstances you mention.
-1 # Expelled 4 Life 2011-10-29 03:53
Quoting Jim Logan:
"Buttons" are used in both the circumstances you mention.

Yes but the use is different. In one case the original read transfers to the button; in the other case you're trying to get a question to read through the use of the buttons.

Related question: Is there an LRH reference for getting all confessional questions to F/N?
0 # Jim Logan 2011-10-29 22:02
There is an LRH reference from 11 April 1982 in the HCOB SEC CHECKING IMPLANTS, under the section entitled NEEDLE BEHAVIOR on FNs and Confessional questions. "For one thing, if you cannot get an area of track (or list) to F/N, there is something wrong. (One can, of course, have a false read or a suppress or an assert or out-session ruds to prevent an F/N.)"
+1 # poet13c 2011-10-31 21:07
Thank you, Jim, for this excellent research and clarification. It's a breath of fresh air.
When I first got into Scn, many years ago, it puzzled me why Ron had so much to say about duplication.
But I get it now!
+2 # Polymath 2011-11-01 07:33
This reminds me of the "courseroom meter checks" being done at Flag, with relentless hammering of buttons. If the Sup or W/Cer didn't get a read on asking the question, "In your recent study..." then in would go the buttons. If none of the variations read, then he/she would vary the question. I recall being hammered with question variation after question variation, with buttons being put in on all of them, until eventually something read (probably protest). Then being sent to make a list of words from the same bulletins I'd studied and been word cleared on a hundred times. I asked the word clearer one day how this fit in with the HCOB on handling a read, and how did she know what the question had read on? My origination wasn't handled; I was just robotically sent to make a list of words etc. etc.

I think I ended up on a big "misunderstood of nothing" as a result of my time at Flag. Students as well as pcs can be totally chopped up with the misapplication of this tech.
+2 # Jim Logan 2011-11-01 16:32
Wow, there's an idiocy I hadn't thought of: Sec Checking a Recent Study check. Why not just FN a 53 on course? Or assess the Int Buttons? How about doing a full blown FPRD form?

And all based on what? Any piece of tech equals any piece of tech and so we've got Method 6 Assessing of "Have you enccountered any word you didn't fully understand?" and then HCO Style Sec Checking of the guy for encountering them and it wasn't a valid read in the first place gotten by some guy who has the TRs of an old raccoon.

How can we obfuscate the workable, let me count the ways and add this one to the list.
+2 # Jeff 2011-11-02 11:11
Jim, thank you so much. You deserve a commendation for this. Maybe a Kha Khan.

We need lots more LRH refs here on these types of sits. Maybe even some of the more uptoned OSA snoops will cog.

It helps, in part, explain why I've observed so many oddball dramatizations regarding "ethics" and "tech" through the years.

Several years ago at Flag I personally obsereved a conversaation that stuck my attention. In fact this was about 1 year after LRH dropped his body. Two guys were talking, and a brief statement about girls came up. The one guy said he had a nice date a few months earlier with a nice girl. He was uptoned about it, and said nothing more than that statement. The second guy, I think from Europe, responded instantly with - " Oh, you need to be sec checked". The first guy looked confused and asked why a sec check, for just a date. The second guy replied that - "Oh, you know... she could have been married, and didn't tell you..." The first guy said not the case, but even if it was, then it's not his sec check to get, but hers.

The second guy kept on with how a sec check was "needed" for him. Even though neither of these 2 guys were sea org members, so no strict rules would apply to them, especially for a simple date.

I got annoyed just hearing this squirrel view, as was the first fellow, and butted in. I asked this idiot European if he was auditor trained, and where he got the false idea that a sec check is needed after a simple date. I reminded him that the first fellow was not being 1.1 or nattery or critical, and a simple date is a pro survival action, not something sinister.

It ended up he was not trained, but came to Flag for the CCRD, and was put on a sec check himself. I thought - ok it's just one of these clowns that pushes his case off onto someone else. A few years later my spouse and I went to Flag again.

This time we were talking to a fellow who was on staff, but had routed off recently. My spouse made one of the most obscure mild mannered jokes you could imagine (not even about scientology or him) and the person snapped - "You need to be sec checked !!! " I was startled but figured again it's just one of these guys that pushes his case off onto others.

But recently I've heard where one fellow was on grades and doing great. Then went onto NED and did great. And originated clear. He went right to Flag for CCRD. But was told he had to do - Sec checks !!! He could not believe it. It made no sense at all. He had already recently done grade 2 expanded (O/W's). He already done NED on all flows (which includes - doing things to others - OW's).

So why the hell would he be programed to get more unecessary ow's pulled that he ALREADY got off in recent auditing ??? At the "Mecca of standard tech" ??? This actually ran a stop on his auditing, and to our knowledge he didn't even do his CCRD.

There are lots more to our observations, but this would turn into a novel. There is a trickle down effect here. Out Tech at the highest levels, which is then mimicked by the smaller lower toned beings who are out of valence, and can't make independant observations or decisions themselves. Just followers. Right out of KSW 1 .

What a nightmare. We sincerely hope it ends soon.
+1 # Watchful Navigator 2011-11-08 09:44
Spot on Jim. This makes perfect sense.

You know that I just realized that my effort to understand buttons was hanging up on this very point, making their use on me as a pc all these years, a bit hypnotic. The buttons as used were not making logical sense - they just "worked in mysterious ways" to achieve a read (often a false one, apparently!) There is no hidden data line or unreality on this for me now.

But even more important is its use for me as an auditor. Auditors take note - the dating drill EM-22 and use of buttons there needs to take all this into account - this is where the alter-is took root for me, and seems like a likely place to clean up the false data and observe its correct use. One can practice here, the two-way comm skills for getting charge off the button read and going back in for the item read.

What a valuable article in the movement to get Scientology working better for us. I am putting this know-how to work right away.
0 # Watchful Navigator 2011-11-10 19:53
Jim -
An interesting question comes up. I am not going to put you on the spot but rather ask if you have any reference to clarify the following any further:

I am still taking up a "compartmented read" on the question if it is instant on the wording of the original question and occurs before the button.

On the question, 'Do Fish Swim?'(FALL) has anything been suppressed? (no read)

Please comment and/or correct if you wish. Thanks.
0 # Jim Logan 2011-11-12 23:01
HCOB 28 Feb 71, CS Series 24, METERING READING ITEMS comes to mind. As well, 5 Aug 78, INSTANT READS, "that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor." (The same as EM DRILL 19). And of course, the one you mention on "compartmenting" from HCOB 25 May 62, EMETER, INSTANT READS.
0 # ZEPHYR 2011-11-15 02:13
Just found this belatedly. Awesome and thank you for doing all of this digging and exposing the 'SHERMAN TANK'. You are also keeping HCOPL VIEWPOINT completely IN.
This is highly appreciated and will help to shorten OUR Indie auditing time when applied properly.
0 # top of the vale 2011-11-18 20:01
Why We Can't Comment on this Petition about the Church of Scientology

Thank you for signing the petition "EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND ABUSE." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.

The We the People Terms of Participation explain that "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." The Department of Justice is charged with investigating federal crimes and enforcing federal criminal laws. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific law enforcement matter raised in this petition.

0 # Ed Rhett 2011-11-27 00:44
I studied NED auditing at a mission, and I lost interest after a staff member told me that there was nobody to co-audit with because people who studied the NED course "just wanted free auditing". I knew then that it would be difficult, if not impossiblr, to train and co-audit. Sort of like "Mission Impossable" but with the script already written, and not in my favor. So I dropped out of the church. At least I know now that somebody is working to restore the tech (actually, a lot of people) and there might just be a light at the end of the tunnel.
+1 # Class IV Auditor 2011-12-29 15:45
Your research seems to have missed the following quote from a lecture given on 30 March 1972, entitled Expanded Dianetics:

"Now to get something to read again you often have to say, “On this item has anything been suppressed? On this item has anything been invalidated?” Voom, voom. If you get a read on either suppressed or invalidated, the item is valid. You don’t have to go back and ask the item itself because invalidated transfers the read from the item to invalidated. You can be.... If you ask it again you would now get a read on what the item was. But the read transfers."

This is probably the most definitive reference that could be used to substantiate the practice of not rechecking questions when a button reads. LRH does say here that "you don't have to go back and ask the item itself."

What do you have to say about that?
0 # Jim Logan 2012-03-03 03:19
Class IV,
Excellent reference. Thank you. This EXDN ref is an important additon to the entire subject. I suppose it comes down the the final issues I referenced, HANDLING A READ and ARBITRARIES and knowing how to operate a meter and be in comm with your preclear. Again, good ref and again, thanks for pointing it up.
+1 # Jim Logan 2012-03-06 13:31
Class IV,
I’ve been thinking about this ref you’ve pointed up. Here’s a scenario for you. You ask “Have you stolen a grape?” and get no read. You check “On the question Have you stolen a grape, has anything been suppressed?” and get a Small Fall. You look at the fella and ask him what? What question are you asking? Is it “On the question - Suppressed?” or is it “Stolen a grape?”

So he says, “yes, something is suppressed, while you were asking me that question I was looking at that mole on your cheek and wondering if it grows a hair every once in a while and what do you do about it.” And while he says this – bong, the exact same Small Fall. What do you do? Do you now take up stealing grapes?

The reference you’ve given is exactly what it is. Does it then become a robotic application with no consideration of all the material related to meter reads, suppress, inval and the fact that all you know when the meter reads is that the meter reads? What it is reading on gives the duplicate read and when it is cleared that read is handled. You’ll note the quote you referenced also says IF you check the original question it will read. In the scenario I’ve given above, would you check the question again to see if IT is now reading?

The HCOBs on Arbitraries and Handling a Read, and ALL of the data in the meter drills and various tapes and bulletins applies unless some later discovery about metering say, cancels or clarifies some earlier material. The quote you have given does not cancel any other metering data. Indeed, the quote you gave comes from earlier observation in the 60s while researching GPM tech and the various Routine 3s. I didn’t put every single BC tape comment on the subject in this one article. I invite you to study them for yourself. Search “suppress” and “transfer” and you’ll find the exact route of observation and comment on the manifestations. My aim in this article is to point out an arbitrary that entered into the subject. Hence, the last refs I give are Arbitraries and Handling a Read.

Again, thankyou for the data from this EXDN tape. You’re right, I missed that in my research.
+1 # Jim Logan 2012-04-06 12:12
Hey there, I've just gotten a reminder of a Class VIII tape, THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING and this very subject. The whole tape should be referred to for the full description of this as there are various sections of it that go over the material, but there is one specifically dealing with the exact Law of L&N on "suppress" and rechecking the item. Again, this isn't an arbitrary thing and the tape should be fully studied. Here's a quote: "When you are nulling you just say on balderdash has anything been suppressed read. When you've got the item, say the item and then the su.. its read will come off. Otherwise its read will stay
on it. You've got to say the item again. On balderdash has anything been suppressed, on ragbags has anything been
suppressed, on .. bong. Balderdash is the only reading item on the list. You say, good balderdash, there is your read. All right, you say, your item is balderdash."
0 # Class IV Auditor 2012-04-30 19:06
Thank you Jim. I have come to the same conclusion. He's referring to an application of "Handling a Read", i.e. trying to get something to read AGAIN.

It's all a matter of judgement and understanding what the meter is actually reading on. And the arbitrary that you bring up is certainly a barrier to that!
0 # Frecciarossa 2012-01-14 04:34
OMG ... you just threw a bomb into my mind! I have trained at Flag from 2003 to 2008 and well yes, we were teached to get the read on the question or item even if the button read. When I tried to ask the sup or the cram off such thing they kept on insinuating I had mus somewhere. The problem is really that compiled HCOB. Thanks for the great work indeed.
0 # Guest 2013-02-17 09:31

I am reading the posts on this site because, obviously, I have questions about my Bridge and my Church.

But, your post here is the most confusing thing I have read. I am an interned Class IV (CC Int) and I am pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about. Let me explain:

You seem to be making a case that some sec check questions were wrongly taken up because a button read. Is this correct?

Here is what I think I know:
1. On Ruds, the buttons prevent the ruds from reading. You are cleaning the rud, not the button. If the PC balks you clean false or protest. This applies also the the mwh rud.
2. Confessional Procedure: there is a long list of buttons. If the buttons read, the question has charge.
3. L&N has LAWS. You follow those. Period.

What am I missing here? You make it seem like there is some big revelation here, but I don't see that.

Please explain. (Also, can we not refer to BTB's? These are all cancelled.)
0 # Guest 2013-02-17 09:39
This is the most confusing thing I have read. I am an Interned Class IV, Solo auditor. Here is the simplicity as I know it:

1. All BTB's were cancelled.
2. On ruds, if you put in buttons and the button reads, you take the rud to EP. If you PC balks you clear (i.e. F/N) False or Protest. This applies equally to the MW/H rud.
3. On Confessionals there is a long list of buttons given in the HCOBs. If the button reads, the question has charge. You clear the question, not the button. It is a GAE to leave such a question by clearing just the rud.
4. L&N has LAWS. You follow those. Exactly.

What is the confusion?
0 # Guest 2013-02-21 18:07
I have re-read your post again.
I think you take the quotes from the'75 tape of LRH and draw your own conclusion, and I think you get it wrong. At the very end of your post you discuss left and right hand buttons. This datum from '62 directly contraticts your conclusion, does it not?

I think you are taking something simple and making it extremely complicated in order to invalidate every question ever taken up due to reads on S or I buttons.

I like this site somewhat as I have questions about things. But, I totally disagree with your "analysis" of tech here.

I would love to see a response as I am not unwilling to look again at the issue. But, I think you should be careful throwing such datums out like this...

Add comment

Comments are moderated. Comments containing irrelevant links will be deleted and possibly blacklisted.

Security code

Who's Online

We have 228 guests online


Content View Hits : 3949556

Support this website

Help keep truth flowing out.

Bookmark, Share


Massive Ponzi Scheme

"So, on the model of an elaborate Ponzi scheme, Scientologists are coerced to 'invest' in the dissemination of Scientology... The Cob makes a show of carrying through, but in reality he pulls the funding..."  Learn More...

$70 Million Fraud

"The money is still coming in (approximately $70 million so far). The bank interest is about $200,000 per month and there is still over $200,000 in new donations per month... so you can see the strategy here..."  Learn More...

$100 Million Swindle

"The total amount spent to build his own office building (for Little Dickie and the few staff he has remaining) was right around $70 million... He spent another $30 million on the house next door (which is unoccupied)..."  Learn More...



"Specifically, on four separate occasions The Cob physically assaulted and violently battered individuals in my presence, sending a strong message that anyone in the room was likely to be next. Three other times he threw heavy objects at me or at my staff..."  Learn More...


"Assaulting staff members at the Int base became routine with many individuals being physically attacked over and over and over again. We are talking about repeated blows to the face, choking, dragging to the ground, ripping clothes, hitting with heavy objects and so forth..."  Learn More...

Human Trafficking


"Only when you see the history as well as the present will you see the whole picture, the fingerprints, the moving force behind it all and its sheer madness..."  Learn More...


"staff are "off-loaded" to far flung areas to work in "small, failing" organizations, bereft of their spouses and families..." Learn More...


"Little Dickie in his twisted sociopath mind sees normal, productive people as “threatening” and therefore sees a need to destroy them..."  Learn More...


"According to David Miscavige, demonstrated by his own actual statistics, 98% of the population is suppressive..."  Learn More...


Climate of Fear - Reign of Terror

"Ever-increasing savage actions created a climate of fear. You could be screamed at, ridiculed, spat on, embarrassed, threatened ferociously or beaten. You could lose Scientology, your friends, family, parents, split off from your spouse, no money, no job, cast out into the world penniless and alone if you ever dream of defying The Cob" Learn More...


"For example, through his destructive policies Miscavige forced hundreds of female Sea Org members at International Management to get abortions when they got pregnant. When the media started to investigate that, he came up with the solution: he ordered that husbands and wives at International Management get divorced...."  Learn More...


Shaking Down Scientologists for Cash

"Through his programs and subverted staff he extorts Scientologists into 'donating' huge sums of money, forcing thousands into debt. It's a protection racket no different from thugs 'shaking down' local business owners for cash. His specialty is crushing people..."  Learn More...

How Church Financials Really Work

"It's a lot more viable to chase down millionaires who will donate $10 million for a hand shake, some applause and a metal pin. It's not a matter of saving the planet and all the poor suffering people... it's 'Where's the BIG, FAT, EASY MONEY?' -- that's what we're talking about!..."  Learn More...


Tax Exemption by Blackmail

"Miscavige bragged that he collared the IRS Commissioner Fred Goldberg in the hallway outside his IRS office and threatened to expose him. Private investigators hired by Miscavige had caught Fred in some unethical activity. Miscavige told Fred if he didn’t cooperate, he’d immediately ruin him with full-page ads in USA Today..."  Learn More...

Extortion of a Federal Official

"He also bragged to a number of staff who were close to him about how he illegally obtained information which he was able to use to blackmail the IRS official who granted the church tax exemption..."  Learn More...


Annie Tidman: Imprisoned for 2 Years

"Annie Broeker Tidman, Hubbard's personal assistant right up to the time of his death, realized that Miscavige was systematically and forcefully taking over the church. She attempted to escape to rejoin her husband but was caught and brought back to California, isolated and kept under guard on a remote property for over 2 years..."  Learn More...

Sadism in the SP Hall

"His most infamous sadistic moment was when he told them they were going to play 'musical chairs' and only the last person to get a chair would stay and the rest would vanish without even a chance to say good-bye to friends and family, husbands or wives. The game went on for hours as staff wept bitter tears. This delighted The Cob."  Learn More...


Lisa McPherson's Demise

"Miscavige said he knew what was wrong and proceeded to write three paragraphs on what was to be said to this girl. The staff wondered how The Cob was even qualified to supervise auditing and even if he was, why hadn't he studied the folders first? The girl's name was Lisa McPherson and you know the rest."  Learn More...

Night of the Living Dead

"Moments later came a wail of inhuman agony unlike anything I have every heard in my lifetime, before or since. The screams were so incredibly loud. Louder than any sounds I could imagine a human could make. They filled the sky and the valley and my lonely office. 20 or 30 minutes they lasted..."  Learn More...



Discover what people really say about all things Scientology

Shocking, unbiased consumer reviews covering every Scientology book, lecture, course, auditing level, organization and program — more than 300 in all. Probe the depths or write your own honest reviews.

Click to see Scientology Reviews

The Voice of iScientology


An answer to the corrupt monopoly of Scientology

This website is a simple answer to those who tried to monopolize and corporatize spiritual freedom: An open gateway dedicated to helping people move up to higher levels of awareness and ability under their own steam.

Click to visit iScientology.org

31 Factors for Scientologists to Consider

The Pertinent Manifesto"Scientology has been taken over by a self-appointed dictator, David Miscavige, who has turned the Creed of the Church of Scientology, the Code of a Scientologist, and the Credo of a True Group Member on their heads and instituted the virtual practice of Reverse (Black) Dianetics..."  Learn More...

Opinion poll

Is David Miscavige a crook?
Website conceived, designed and optimized for search engines by Logo for Steve Hall Creative, Web Designer in Dallas, Texas