37 % der ersten 131 Clears zum SP declared

Ich möchte hier eine eMail Briefwechsel zitieren, den ich von Alan C. Walter – den Clear Nr. 8 weltweit – erhalten habe: 49 der ersten 131 von LRH selbst zertifizierten Clears wurden inzwischen vom Internationalen Management zum SP erklärt. Das sind über 37 %.

Neben vielen Merkmalen eines SPs gibt es ein letztendliches Kriterium: Ein SP hat keinen Fallgewinn:

Die unterdrückerische Person ist ein Spezialist darin, anderen mit verallgemeinertem Entheta, das hauptsächlich aus Lügen besteht, ARK-Brüche zu verursachen. Sie ist ebenfalls ein Fall ohne Gewinn. Solche Leute sind so begierig, andere mit verdeckten oder offenen Mitteln fertigzumachen, daß ihr Fall festgefahren ist und sich unter Routine-Prozessing nicht bewegen wird.

LRH im HCOPL 5.4.65 Handling the Suppressive Person


Wie ist es dann möglich, dass 37 % der ersten Clears SPs sein sollen? Hat LRH sich geirrt, als er sie Clear attestieren lies oder hat sich das Management “geirrt”, als sie declared wurden? – Entscheide selbst.

Mir liegen keine Zahlen darüber vor, wieviel Prozent der mittlerweile 50.000 Clears declared wurden – aber die meisten SP-declareten der letzten 20 Jahre sind nach meiner Kenntnis Clears und OTs. (Unter anderem auch ich)

Andreas


Von: Alan C. Walter <wisdom@cyberstation.net>
An: <COSinvestigations@egroups.com>
Betreff: [COSinvestigations] Where are they now
Datum: 3. Okt 2000 09:13

I added most of the designations.

A.

DDG14TC@aol.com wrote:

Where are they now and, equally important, how did they get there? The answers to those questions will produce a ton of out-points for eval. The most immediate plus-point that I see is an apparency that the staff auditing program must have been pretty well in place because there are an aweful lot of Saint Hill Staff on the list.

The Auditor Worldwide #19 proclaims on its front page, “1967 THE YEAR OF EXPANSION.”

Inside: “NOW THERE ARE 131 CLEARS.”

Clear No. 1 John McMaster, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
2 John Imburgia, Buffalo, NY – In Texas – Declared SP
3 Pam Pearcy, Saint Hill Staff – With Ralph – Out of Scio
4 Pat Scrufari, Niagara Falls, NY – Declared SP
5 Terry Milner, Los Angeles Staff – Deceased
6 Anne Greig, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
7 Reg Sharpe, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
8 Alan Walter, Dallas, TX – Declared SP
9 Philip Quirino, Saint Hill Staff – In Scio
10 Leon Steinberg, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
11 John McCoy, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP….maybe reinstated…not active
12 Ray Thacker, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
13 Otis Halliday, Houston, TX – Deceased
14 Ralph Pearcy, Saint Hill Staff – With Angelique – Out of Scio
15 Jennifer Edmonds, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
16 George Galpin, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
17 J.J. Delance, Saint Hill Staff – I believe Deceased
18 Bernie Green, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP – Deceased
19 Jim Crawley, England – Unkown
20 Tony Dunleavy, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
21 Gareth McCoy, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP….maybe reinstated…not active
22 Joan Thomas, Saint Hill Staff – Not active…maybe Deceased
23 Julia Galpin, Saint Hill Staff – Unkown
24 Dalene Regenas, Saint Hill Staff – Unknown
25 Otto Roos, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
26 Felice Green, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
27 Walter Stille, Hamburg, Germany
28 John Lawrence, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
29 Connie Broadbent, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP-
30 Craig Lipsitz, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP?
31 Marilynn Routsong, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
32 Fred Hare, Saint Hill Staff – In LA…still a Scio
33 Ellen Carder
34 Peggy Bankston, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
35 Brian Livingston, Saint Hill Interne – Declared SP
36 Joan de Veulle, London Staff – Deceased?
37 Haskell Cooke, Saint Hill Staff – Was at Gold
38 Chris Weideman, Johannesburg Staff
39 Virginia Downsborough, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP…Is Avatar Practitioner
40 Joe Van Staden, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
41 Sheena Fairchild, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
42 Myra Elliott, Hawaii Staff – Deceased?
43 Yvonne Gillham, Saint Hill Staff -Deceased
44 Pete Peterman, Hawaii, U.S.A.
45 Scott Leland, Interning for Washington, D.C. – Declared SP
46 Helen Hancock, New Jersey, U.S.A. – Deceased?
47 Helen Pollen, Saint Hill Interne – Deceased? – Declared SP
48 John Elliott, Hawaii Staff
49 Fred Fairchild, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
50 Dorothy Knight, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
51 David Gaiman, Portsmouth, U.K. Still in Scio
52 Peter Goodwin, Portsmouth, U.K.
53 Anton James, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
54 Jenny Parkhouse, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
55 Herbie Parkhouse, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
56 Judy Gray, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
57 Cal Wigney, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
58 Mary Long, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
59 Chester Halliday, Houston, TX
60 Hana Eltringham, Los Angeles Staff – Declared SP
61 Bill Robertson, Saint Hill Interne – Declared SP…Deceased
62 Linda Nussbaum, Saint Hill Interne – Declared SP
63 Peter Imburgia, Buffalo NY – Declared SP
64 Marie (Aberegg) Oakes, Los Angeles Staff – Deceased?
65 Mildred Mathews, Sydney Staff – Deceased
66 Marguerite Wirick, San Diego Staff – Out of Scio
67 Joan Davis, Saint Hill Staff
68 Beth Fordyce, Detroit Staff – Declared SP
69 Ron Pook, Saint Hill Interne – Still in Scio
70 Wal Wilkinson, Adelaide Staff – Deceased
71 Allan Ferguson, Detroit Staff – Declared SP
72 Hank Laarhuis, Saint Hill Staff –
73 Robin Lindsell, Saint Hill Staff – Declared SP
74 Claire Louwrens, Cape Town Staff
75 Penny Khaled, East Grinstead In SA…Still in Scio?
76 Helen Whitney, Saint Hill Staff Deceased
77 Vern Gale, Interning for Washington, D.C. – Deceased
78 Wally Collis, Aukland, New Zealand
79 Joy Walter, Dallas, TX – Out of Scio
80 Margaret Gormley, Johannesburg, South Africa
81 David Ziff, Saint Hill Staff – Still in Scio
82 Dick Moor, London Staff – Declared SP
83 Leila Flanagan, Houston, TX – Declared SP
84 Pat Flanagan, Houston, TX – Declared SP
85 Betty Halliday, Houston, TX – In Scio
86 Ray Kemp, Tustin, CA – Declared SP – Deceased
87 Val Wigney, Saint Hill Interne – Declared SP
88 Tom Koon, California, U.S.A. – Out
89 Douglas Shrewsbury, Seattle, WA
90 Helen Kitchin, San Diego, CA – Deceased?
91 Peter Khaled, Saint Hill Staff
92 Ellen Arnold, London Staff – Declared SP
93 Jim Watson, Hawaii, U.S.A. – Declared SP
94 Mark Jones, London Staff – Declared SP
95 Douglas Hancock, New Jersey, U.S.A.
96 Mary Edwards, Saint Hill Staff
97 Norma Maier, Hawaii, U.S.A. – Deceased
98 Linda Munk, Toronto, Canada – Out
99 Bert Rossouw, Saint Hill Staff
100 Dave Hunter, Saint Hill Staff
101 Dan Rutenberg, London Staff
102 Phoebe Mauerer, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
103 Joy Ollemans, Port Elizabeth Staff – Deceased?
104 Ron Reynolds, Saint Hill Staff
105 Edith Hoyseth, Saint Hill Interne – Declared SP
106 Phyl Stevens, Auckland Staff – Runs AUST AO/ASHO
107 Roger Biddell, Saint Hill Interne – Declared SP
108 Julia Salmen, Los Angeles Staff – Deceased
109 Ken Salmen, Los Angeles Staff – Deceased
110 Pamela Kemp, Tustin, CA – Declared SP
111 Burt Griswold, Hawaii Staff
112 Page Thomas, New York Staff
113 Joan Bristow, Durban Staff – Deceased?
114 Bob Thomas, New York Staff – Declared SP
115 Deon Satterfield, Copenhagen, Denmark – Out of Scio
116 Gertrude Brown, Washiongton, D.C.
117 Jane Kember, Saint Hill Staff – Selling Jewelry…Still in Scio
118 Lucy Meilczarek, Saint Hill Staff – Deceased
119 Nicky Mendoza, London Staff -Deceased
120 Ken Rains, Hawaii Staff -Out
121 Mario Feninger, Paris Staff – Still in…
122 Kevin Kember, Saint Hill Interne – Still in
123 Liz Sabine, Melbourne, Australia – Out
124 Anne Bergin, Durban Staff
125 Elsie Griffiths, Vancouver, Canada – Deceased
126 Frayne Badger, California, U.S.A. – Deceased?
127 Frank Freedman, Saint Hill Foundation Staff – Declared SP
128 Eunice Ford, New York Staff – Deceased
129 Donna Reeve, Washington, D.C. Staff – Still in…
130 June Kay, Durban Staff – Deceased?
131 Pierre Ollemans, Port Elizabeth Staff – Deceased

Anyway, there’s some Scio history, some of the personalities that Scio tries to erase.

Brought back a lot of great times and great people – thanks for posting this
Ted.

Alan

 

Steuer- und Regierungsbeamten werden vom umgeschriebenen HCOPL beschönigt.

Vergleiche die HCOPL-Ausgabe von 1982 mit der von 1991

HCO PL 10 September 1982, Austausch, Einnahmen der Org und Entlohnung der Mitarbeiter.
“Lasst uns zuerst eine Gruppe betrachten, die Geld einnimmt, aber nichts als Austausch dafür liefert. Dies wird Raub genannt. Es ist der Zustand des “Austauschs” von Räubern, Finanzbeamten, Regierungen und anderen kriminellen Elementen.” (meine Übersetzung)

Wer es nicht glaubt, überprüfe es selbst. Hier ist das englische Original HCO PL:
“First consider a group which takes in money but does not deliver anything in exchange.
This is called rip-off. It is the ‘exchange’ condition of robbers, tax men, governments and other criminal elements.”
L. Ron Hubbard

“Betrachten wir zunächst eine Gruppe, die Geld kassiert, aber nichts dafür im Austausch liefert. Das nennt man Betrug. Das ist der “Austausch”-Zustand von Dieben, den meisten Finanzbeamten, vielen Regierungen und kriminellen Elementen.” zitiert aus “Ein Scientology-Kurs zur Verbesserung des Lebens: Geld und seine Dynamik”. Gegründet auf die Werke von L. Ron Hubbard. Copyright 1991 by L. Ron Hubbard Library.

Der einzige Nutznießer dieser Veränderung ist einerseits das Finanzamt und andererseits die Regierung. Wer hat sie veranlaßt?

Vermutlich war schon das “Original-HCOPL” nicht von LRH, sondern nur eine Persiflage auf LRH und musste später entschärft werden.

Wissenschaftliche Beweise für OT-Phänomene

“Wo sind die wissenschaftlichen Beweise für übersinnliche, sogenannte PSI-Phänomene? Zeigen Sie mir die Beweise!”, so oder so ähnlich klingt die Standardforderung von Skeptikern, wenn es um den Nachweis von Phänomenen wie Fernheilung, Fernwahrnehmung, Telepathie (Gedankenübertragung), Vorahnungen oder die Kraft des Geistes über die Materie (Telekinese) geht und mit der zugleich unterstellt wird, dass es eben diese wissenschaftlichen Beweise nicht gäbe.

Mehr zu diesem Thema:
grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.blogspot.de/20…che-beweise-fur.html

Und hier die empfohlene Liste:
www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Scientific evidence for OT phenomena

“Where are the scientific evidence for psychic, so-called PSI phenomena? Show me the evidence!”The standard demand of skeptics sounds like this or something similar when it comes to the proof of phenomena such as distance healing, remote perception, telepathy (transmission of thoughts), premonitions or the power of the mind over matter (Telekinesis) and at the same time it is assumed that these scientific proofs do not exist.

Here you can find scientific evidence:

www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Wir leben in einer Krise mit deflationärer Inflation

Inflation
Inflation

Als Scientologe macht man sich keine Hoffnungen mehr, dass einen die Massenmedien über kommende Gefahren und Bedrohungen korrekt informieren. Um Angsthandel zu betreiben, werden unbedeutende Bedrohungen aufgebauscht  und wirkliche Bedrohungen unterschlagen.

So informieren wir uns halt über alternative Medien und müssen uns selbst orientieren, um uns auf das Kommende angemessen vorzubereiten. Eine gute Infoquelle zum Thema findet sich hier: http://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2013/10/inflation.htm

Da ich mit dem Konzept von deflationärer Inflation nicht denken konnte, suchte ich weiter und wurde fündig. Um andere daran anteil haben zu lassen, habe ich einen Aufsatz dazu geschrieben:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FSPL-20170915-Deflationäre-Inflation-erklärt.pdf”]

Streaming LRH Lectures

I happily forward this Good News to you:

SCIENTOLiPEDIA.org

The ‘Flagship’ for Scientology Outside the Church (#ScientologyOTC)

Free Streaming – ALL LRH Lectures

Scientolipedia.org is very happy to announce the launch of a Free Streaming service which lets you listen to any and all of L Ron Hubbard’s lectures on your home computer, Android device or iOS (iPhone/iPad) device.

No downloading necessary.

Simple – Fast – Easy setup that even the most “technologically challenged” can do.

This is a tremendous breakthrough in the effort to make LRH’s wisdom available to anyone, anytime, any way you want it.

Hip, hip hooray!

Start Here

Scientolipedia.org is the “Flagship” for #ScientologyOTC (outside the church) and is leading the charge to innovate by taking advantage of existing technologies.
Our Facebook presence:Scientolipedia, Mary Sue Hubbard:, Yvonne Gillham Jentzsch:, Twitter Feed:, YouTube Channel: Newsletter:
and the largest positive Facebook Group on the subject (over 500 members)…
all get out the message that Scientology is a GOOD THING!

All those who are helping with these efforts are thanked and should “Take A Win”.
We need your help too.
Reply to this email with the word “action” in the subject field to  be added to our private mailings to helpers and supporters.

Unclear on Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing

When I first read Andreas’ analysis of outpoints and squirreling on the Bridge, I had a hard time believing it. Full article here: Bridge changes since 1972

In particular was the issue of the Method One Co-Audit, the first step on the training side. I asked myself how could a person who trains to become a Word Clearer can have misunderstood words or cannot notice contradicting data in this step, let alone any experienced C/S or auditor for that matter?

I actually wrote to Andreas in order to correct him, stating that I thought there was a mistake in his reasoning, which he writes as follows:

“M1-Co-Auditing. New on the bridge since 1990. Apparently, LRH is still publishing further parts of the bridge out of his grave – which is a total contradiction to HCO B September 6, 1971 W/C Series 21 Correct Sequence – Qualifications of Word Clearers”. At the end of this HCOB LRH writes: (A Class III Academy Auditor qualification is required to do Method No. 1 as the action requires assessing and the handling of ARC Breaks, problems and withholds, for which a Class III is trained. Anyone who is able to handle a meter is qualified to do Method No. 2. Any person can do Method No. 3.)”

The above section in parentheses fall under the section WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS to be used in the rare scenario in which no Word Clearers (WD CLEARERS) are present in an org. In fact there are six steps to be done:

  1. Choose 2 word clearers who then work on each other.

  2. Any Progress Program for each one.

  3. Word Clear the Word Clearing Series by Method 2.

  4. Check out on the auditing required for Method 1.

  5. Do Method No. 1 on each other.

  6. Do Purpose Clearing on each other.

It also explicitly states right after this section: “(Note: A “Progress Program” or a “Repair Program” is a Scientology auditing program to clean up upsets in life.)” Also, “(Purpose Clearing also requires a Class III Academy Auditor.)”

This is key as the reference here relates to training to become a Word Clearer in order to fill the post on a staff without one, as opposed merely to getting Method One Word Clearing while as a PC. It wasn’t until I realized that I had assumed that Method One Word Clearing was the first step of the current bridge that I saw my mistake. When I carefully checked it clearly states that Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing comes as the first official step on the current Bridge.

Seeing that distinction was a revelation to me as I was confusing receiving M1WC as a PC with training for M1WC as an auditor. What is more, by default one must understand how to operate an e-meter as step 3 (Method 2) requires this. Yet, one does not even become a Hubbard Professional Metering Course Graduate for another 4 steps on the current Bridge! In addition, the final three steps of checking out on auditing for Method No. 1, doing Method No. 1 and Purpose Clearing absolutely require a Class III auditor quite explicitly while this reference has never been canceled.

In fairness, the course packs from the 1990s on Method One Co-Auditing do teach some e-meter skills, but by no means is one a professional at this level – let alone can they claim to have properly checked out on the auditing for Method One as they are not a Class III auditor. This is incredibly out-gradient and out-sequence.

This might be a bit confusing as it was for me, because at the top of this same HCOB it explains what should happen for those GETTING word clearing as a PC – which I initially misunderstood for use in training:

“The principal methods of word clearing are numbered No. 1 for the full in-session rundown, No. 2 for the metered action of clearing up words in specific materials and No. 3 for looking up words seen and not understood by the student or reader.

This is correct sequence for doing the three types of word clearing.

By doing No. 1 in full session, using the list for assessment, one obtains the basic word and meaning errors of the past. By getting these out-of-the-way, it is now possible to clean up current materials much more rapidly with Method 2, where the person is put on a meter and reads the material to another who is watching the meter and catching each read.

With Method 1 out-of-the-way, Method 2 becomes more rapid.

Method 3 will then be done by the person himself because he now knows better.

No. 2 and No. 3 can be used on and on one or the other.

If you do it backwards, beginning with Method No. 3, much more time is consumed. If Method No. 2 is used without No. 1 being done, much more work has to be done to clean up an existing piece of study material or text.

So the correct sequence is No. 1, No. 2 and then No. 3.

This does not mean you cannot start with No. 3 or No. 2. It just means it is much faster to do them in correct sequence.”

Nevertheless, I resisted as I believed to have found another contradiction in a bulletin when Hubbard was indisputably alive: WC1 COMES FIRST of HCOB 2 JANUARY 1972

Here Hubbard says M1WC must be done before M2WC, but that M3WC is all right – and I argued that this contradicts step 3 (Method 2) of WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS here. It also contradicts the earlier part of the bulletin which says that it’s OK to do 3, 2, 1 but that it’s less ideal, not correct sequence and takes more time. Again, I didn’t see that this applies only in terms of auditing a PC – not for training to be an auditor or Word Clearer; one could still use M3WC before M1WC on the PC, but it’s more time consuming and an improper sequence.

In any case, further searching yielded the main bug for the problem in Word Clearing Series 8RC – HCOB 30 JUNE 1971 Issue II – Revised 3 MARCH 1989 (please note that it has been revised 4 times, and the original HCOB is markedly different, as the following reference does not appear anywhere until after 1986):

“Method One requires an Academy Class III Auditor to deliver the rundown professionally in HGCs, but it can be learned and done on a co-audit course which teaches unclassed students how to audit the procedure on each other.”

Carefully read that statement again. It acknowledges a requirement for a Class III or higher Auditor to deliver the rundown professionally, but at the same time states unclassed students can not only learn but actually do Method One on each other. This is self-contradictory to the extreme as they not only skip step 3 (Method 2) which comes before, but they also have not been Word Cleared on Method 1 themselves let alone handled basic ARCX, problems and upsets which come prior to actually word clearing. Unsurprisingly, it is repeated multiple times in the course packets from the 1990s in which a student is required to drill (memorize) the material as opposed to questioning or examining it. Yet nobody seems to have noticed this, and all explanations for this fall short as no references cancel it nor do they offer a better solution.

Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing is definitely out-sequence and the current references to support it are undoubtedly altered to suit an agenda. This is a quickie action in any event and more harmful than helpful. It must be removed from both the Church of Scientology as well as the independent field as a training method, and if it is to be restored, it should move somewhere after Class III if to be used at all.

Thank you Andreas for opening my eyes. If the very first step of training is this badly bugged, one can only imagine how altered the rest of the bridge would be from this point forward.

Here the original HCOB for your reference:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HCO-BULLETIN-OF-6-SEPTEMBER-1971-Word-Clearing-Series-21.pdf”]

Mißverständnisse bei Ron‘s FSM‑Programm

In den 1980er und 1990er Jahren waren meine Frau und ich sehr aktiv als Vollzeit-Feldauditoren und FSMs für die deutschen Orgs, vor allem die Hamburger Org.

In dieser Zeit hatte ich viel zu tun, um alle Missverständnisse über Rons FSM-Programm aufzuklären. Außerhalb der Kirche bekam ich auch die Idee, dass FSMing vernachlässigt wird, obwohl diese Technik auch hier vorteilhaft sein könnte.

Also veröffentliche ich jetzt einen Artikel, den ich ursprünglich im Jahr 1992 geschrieben habe und nur an einige Div-6-Executives geschickt hatte. Aber ich denke, viele FSMs werden davon profitieren und sie könnten diesen Artikel mit Hilfe von Google finden:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Mißverständnisse-bei-Rons-FSM-Programm.pdf”]

Ich hatte diesen Brief im Jahr 1995 an David Miscavige COB RTC geschickt und bekam diese Bestätigung und ermutigende Antwort:

[Pdf-embedder url = “http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/950824-COB-RTC-acknowledges-AGs-writeup-on-FSM-MUs.pdf”]

Ja, und Flag wurde für eine Weile korrigiert und gab neue Richtlinien in Übereinstimmung mit LRHs FSM-Policy heraus.

Hier noch ein paar Zitate aus einem SHSBC-Vortrag, wo Ron das gleiche Konzept präsentiert:

And you get an immediate appointment as a Field Staff Member Provisional. And that’s Field Staff Member Provisional and there you are with a staff member rating, with the privileges of a Provisional-which are considerable by the way. They’re up above intern, applicant and so forth. …
And the public book coming out, all of its addresses will be available because you are a staff member. In other words, you’re not being asked to talk to, or write or meet or something, people who are unknown. The point is that you’ve got a tailor-made audience, and it is shoved straight towards you. …
Now, your field staff member, of course, is a bona fide staff member. At the end of about 10 months or something like that, why, he ought to apply to the organization to have the provisional status removed and he becomes a general staff member of the organization. …
And while a Saint Hill staff member you could also be on another organizational staff. You see, you could be something, like you could be D of P of let us say, Washington, and a field staff member, Saint Hill.
Well, the trick of the field staff member is to select people for clearing. And that’s what he is doing: he’s trying to select people out of the society and send them in to straighten up. There are many things that he can offer in this particular wise. If as a field staff member of Washington, you selected somebody to go to Saint Hill, the percentage would be paid to Washington as an organization, so everybody could share in your selection.
Zitate aus “THE LOWEST LEVELS” LRH lecture given on 13 April 1965