Posted on

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”]

Posted on

Bridge Changes since 1972

The Free Scientologists work according to the original bridge that was published in June 1970 and is available today.1)You can request a PDF copy of this bridge via email. Address and title “Delivery of bridge 1970 requested” is sufficient. Later editions have been squirreled and were never approved by Ron. You can definitely have a win on these squirrel bridges but, in the long run, they will lead the PC into perdition and not onto a new level of existence. Continue reading “Bridge Changes since 1972”

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ You can request a PDF copy of this bridge via email. Address and title “Delivery of bridge 1970 requested” is sufficient.
Posted on

Basis for PCs, auditors and case supervisors: Dianetics Dianetics-Auditing: Vital basis for every PC

Dianetics„And we taught the Class VIIIs that if you omit somebody’s Grades, they won’t make it. And what do you know, there was the biggest Grade of all had been omitted, and that was Dianetics. And with that Grade omitted, they weren’t making the Grade on up the line.”

[Hubbard, LaFayette Ron: Lecture 29 May 1969 First Standard Dianetics Graduation – The Dianetics Program]

Dianetics must be completed prior to the grades

“Dianetics came before Scientology. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. This was a Present Time Problem to the thetan. In the presence of a PTP no case gain results (an old discovery).” … “I found that Dianetics had been forgotten for a dozen years and was being given a light brush-off as a course and that auditors and pcs were trying to use Scientology grades to handle body ills such as headaches, chronic somatics and so on. – Man’s usual PTP is his body. So if one gave him gold ornaments he’d try to use them to cure his aches and pains. – Thus Dianetics was forgotten and unused and Scientology was being made to attempt cures. Thus they were, both subjects, busily being made to fail to some degree.

Dianetics as it now exists is so simple, so elementary and so broadly applicable to the body that it requires a real effort to complicate it or make it unworking. Keep the two separate in both application and use.” [HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1969 Dianetics vs Scientology]

It is astonishing how auditors since the 1980s could be so easily convinced to place dianetics after the grades even though the original arguments from Ron had not been invalidated. Illnesses are a PTP for the PC. Beyond the PTP, there are no case gains. Dianetics is supposed to handle the illnesses before the PC can be audited on Scientology.

Every auditor needs Dianetics case gain

“All you have to do is make very sure when you train somebody to audit, before you put that certificate in his hands that you yourself are very satisfied that he himself has had case gains from Dianetics, and that he himself has brought about good case gains and can be counted upon to do so on his preclears.“ [Hubbard, LaFayette Ron: Lecture 29 May 1969 First Standard Dianetics Graduation – The Dianetics Program]

Every C/S has to be a good auditor first

„When you’re a good auditor, you can case supervise. When you can’t audit you can’t case supervise. That’s for sure.“ [Hubbard, LaFayette Ron in Cl. VIII-lecture No. 3 of 26 Sep 1968 The Laws of Case-Supervision]

Actually one should assume that this is so definite and obvious that it does not require any explanation. But that is not the case: Nowadays, there are a lot of people in Scientology on OT levels who had never received any Dianetics auditing; auditors who neither received dianetics nor have the ability to audit, and even C/Se for the OT levels who do not audit Dianetics themselves but send people to the OT levels!

Let’s get Ron’s work back to life: His Bridge as of 1972!

Andreas Gross

for the

Independent Scientologists

Copyright © 2014 by Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross, All Rights reserved

Posted on

Where should I do my bridge? In the CoS or outside of it?

brückeWhere should I do my bridge? In the CoS or outside of it?1)This composition of doubt was published again in 2005 because it may help others make a similar one. It is important to compare the right alternatives. It is not about belonging to either the Church or the Freezone. There is nothing wrong about being a member in the Church which Ron supported for years. It is simply about where you will be able to walk up the bridge quicker or even at all.

When one cannot make up one’s mind as to an individual,
a group, organization or project a Condition of Doubt exists.

(This and the following cursive quotes are taken from the doubt condition
by L. Ron Hubbard, „Introduction To Scientology Ethics“- Book 1979)

A year ago, I had already been asked by friends to “work out my doubts about the Scientology Church”. Back then, I rejected it because I had not found the right approach yet.

On one hand, I didn’t find it particularly smart to place doubt between the CoS and the Freezone. Both groups mostly consist of good guys and are infiltrated by SPs who try to sabotage them. Nor do I have any statistics about either group that I could compare. I don’t want to condemn the CoS nor do I want to paint the Freezone white.

The difference could rather be found along the lines of “LRH-oriented Scientologists” versus “Squirrels”. But I never had any doubts there so there wasn’t anything to work out.

I recognized the real composition of a doubt recently while helping a friend with it: It is simply about where you want to and will go up your bridge. It is a very pragmatic decision that everyone needs to make for themselves. You just cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. If you audit independently, the CoS will see it as treason. So I had to make a decision.

In fact, I had made the decision exactly one year ago when I took my first auditing outside the Church. I just wasn’t ready at the time to “publicly announce it to both sides.” And then you’re still sticking to this condition. That is why I am doing the written composition and publication now. Some of my friends realized that I didn’t even had a choice since I had been declared SP. I can see a bit of envy of supposedly having had this difficult decision taken off my shoulders. But that is not the case. I had – like anybody else – the chance and the choice over and over: stand by LRH or get broken. I repeatedly chose LRH and, thus, I have been thrown out of the Church step by step along with many dozen gradients. Only 2 years ago, the Int Justice Chief ordered that I should receive more confessionals in a higher Org at my own expense. Since it was off-policy, I denied. Of course I took part in every free Sec Check, policy obliges every Scientologist to do so. But this payment of indulgence2)Payments of indulgence were paid by religious people to the Catholic Church in medieval times. By doing so, they were relieved of their sins and were allowed into heaven. is simply preposterous. A friendly executive officer, who had fallen into the same position, “saved her bridge once again” by spending ca. 50’000 Marks for Sec Checks in a higher Org3)This exec from the CC Düsseldorf could have got the same confessionals in her own Org for free. But it was obvious to her that it was more about paying the sum and the accompanying act of subjugation. Horrific!. Friends came on to me: “Just for once do what the Int Justice Chief expects of you, this is it!” – No: I preferred to be thrown out than to deviate from LRH! So I had made the decision. You simply cannot crawl up the bridge, you have to walk it up straight.4)At the time I was postulating this sentence, I had not realized how right I would be. Back then I actually believed there was no alternative to the OT levels outside the Church. But the opposite proved to be right: For a quarter of a century you have not been able to go Clear or OT in the Church! But I was only able to find out about it years later. – But that’s just how it is when you want to show some backbone first.

For three months I had been sure that my reports to the RTC about the SP-Declare would save me. Only after not receiving a saving letter did I start my Internet research about the CoS and found a lot of informative data that corresponded with my own experiences and that unveiled an outrageous situation that can hardly be confronted. But just read for yourself:

1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all bias and rumour.

This group is the “Church of Scientology” in which I had been a member in the Hamburg Org since the summer of 1987. I audited as a field auditor for 2500 hours and in cooperation with my wife started more than 220 people in the Org on the bridge. There had been quarrelling about the FSMC and other difficult outpoints for 10 years. I was probably cheated out of a 6-digit commission amount and it could not be fixed even though I personally contacted all executives all the way up to David Miscavige.

I went Clear5)Hah! I thought so back then. It turned out to be a transient release condition. In fact, I recently went Clear for sure – on the Clearing Course and I’m currently auditing on OT III. in this group and became a Class 1 auditor6)By now I am Class V and I’m studying on the SHSBC on the second level. and I received a lot of good services for which I thank the auditors and course supervisors. However: Today, I have to admit that the opposition also holds a very strong position in this group and is more and more able to twist the tech to ineffectiveness.

2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.

For some time now, the Church has not been publishing any key statistics any more or been displaying completely wrong data (“8 million members”) or, at video events, stat graphs without any figures for fractions of a second.

That alone is a no-report – i. e. betrayal. But here and there figures do come through:

The stats of the new management have been declining in the last 25 years: Fewer and fewer Clears (the figures have not been published any more since the mid-90s). Shrinking Class 5 Orgs worldwide.

Another result thereof is that there haven’t been any OT VII completions recorded, and that after decades of deliveries! The reason for this OT avoidance is known and has been reported: the illegal 6-Months-Check. Nonetheless, the RTC is sticking to this Alter-is and prefers to remove the two auditors Mike and Virginia McClaughry via the SP-Declares, who reported these deviations thoroughly to the RTC.

OT IX and X are obviously never to be released, which can be seen from the fact that “prerequisites” are being published that will never be able to be fulfilled. These are also occasionally changed, allowing even the most trusting person to see that the prerequisites cannot originate from LRH.

The largest part of the publics has been denied the bridge since 1976 due to off-policy and excessive prices anyway. They focus Scientologists on MEST games instead of training them to be auditors.

Recently, the Golden-Age-of-Tech (GAT) was introduced, assuring that, instead of word-clearing and understanding, robot-like “auditors” are trained who are certain they are not able to audit error free and, thus, don’t even risk it in most cases.

Just like my fellow students, I was not able to apply the learned material from level 0 and I after finishing the course.

Instead of giving up I have been writing reports hoping to change tack and boost the self-correction of the Church. But far from it: I was declared SP without any accusations and a trial (Comm Ev), which I have the right to according to LRH policy! There was no chance for a revision, despite it also being guaranteed by LRH. Furthermore, this SP-Declare nor any other, which has taken place since the beginning of the 80s by the “new management” (which the governing body of the Church took over in one go), has given the impression that the wheat is being separated from the chaff according to the 12 characteristics which LRH formulated in the respective HCOBs to identify the SP and protect the social personality.

In fact, you can view this criminal handling of justice for the protection of the real SPs and agents of the opposite side and at the expense of thousands of good guys, who have been declared in the past 20 years, as the key point that makes sure that the remaining squirreling of the tech, admin and ethics goes through without protests. Scientologists read the KSW series 1 with every course and receive the hat of LRH to guarantee the purity of the tech, but orally, every Scientologist knows that this hat has long been delegated to RTC and he can take it easy. In the best case he will still write a report. Whether or not this report finds any consideration is not his responsibility any more as “he is just a cog in the wheel.” Furthermore, he doesn’t want to fall into the mill of justice – as others have that he watched – and ruin the “Bridge to total freedom™”. This thing is far too serious to throw it away.

My observation rather suggests that both groups (Church and Freezone) have had decreasing statistics for a quarter of a century. So Scientology – no matter which group – is in danger.

3. Decide on the basis of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” (Dynamics: The urge, thrust and purpose of life-SURVIVE!-in its eight manifestations. See Glossary for these) whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.

From all this I have realized:

The bridge up to OT does not exist any more in the CoS and its existence was not intended by the top management. Quite the opposite: the management is in the hands of Scientology’s opponents: the psychiatric establishment, the government behind the government.

The auditor’s training was perverted in such a way that auditors suffer from losses and stop auditing.

Therefore, fewer and fewer Clears, OT VIIs (not to mention the actual product: OTs) are being created.

Top-notch people that want to effectively improve the Church are being stopped, put out and, in the worst case, thrown out by an SP-Declare.

The remaining Scientologists have missed the opportunity to bring in tech, admin and ethics into their Church and “are waiting for better times.”

Thus, the project of going up the bridge within the CoS has failed. I have tried my best to bring in KSW via reports and call other people’s attention to this bad state of affairs. That is why the RTC has decided I should be SP-Declared and that is how it happened. No application of LRH justice, no possibility for defence, no right for appeal. Out!

4. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.

My goal is to become a free being and walk the path that LRH has left us with his life’s work. My main task in this is to become an excellent auditor and go the predetermined path to full OT and protect and spread Scientology.

5. Evaluate one’s own or one’s group~ project or organization’s statistics.

My statistics as a field auditor (2500 WDAH), FSM (220+ new persons started on the Bridge) and as a student (more than 40 courses in the CoS) speak a very clear language and show that I mean it and that I am capable of receiving the intended products. I naturally operate on power (even before Scientology) when following my goals.

Since I have put the Church behind me a year ago, I have created the following products:

I have rehabilitated my study auto didactically in so far that I can now produce the products as a Class 0 and I auditor.

This required recognizing the distortions in the auditor’s training from the CoS and distancing myself from this wrong data. I published my findings, as in this FSB.

Furthermore, I have successfully completed Class II and I’m in the middle of the Class III course.

I have given up all other jobs and projects that are not part of this goal.

I have new PCs and audit on these levels as a professional auditor.

I keep in touch with many highly qualified auditors and C/Ss who are also sworn into standard tech via LRH and are internationally connected in Comm and mutual support. I visit training courses and training weeks to further improve my qualifications.

I own a complete LRH library, including materials for the higher levels (OT levels) and I am convinced that I can go this path successfully as a highly qualified auditor.

6. Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.

I see that I am not being stopped any more outside the Church and I am free to complete the auditor’s training according to LRH and practice as an auditor without restraint. My operating principle is to commit no legal breaches. This is very well possible for an independent Scientologist. Thus, there is no PTSness to the Church.

Even if I was given the choice to return to the Church today, I would not take it before a rehabilitation by LRH would have happened there. Without fair justice, members will hardly be able to apply KSW without fear of losing the bridge. That is precisely why they have lost their bridge.

I love my newly gained freedom outside the Church and pity that the opponents haven’t thrown me out much sooner! I myself was too stubborn to leave on my own. I didn’t want to “blow”, I wanted to correct the Church. But I lost sight of my most important goal: Becoming a good auditor and using this short time to reach total freedom as an OT.

7. Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organization one has remained in or joined.

I continue to work hard and study and audit daily. I can only recommend this to every Scientologist: Don’t let yourself be jacked around any longer. Take the LRH materials and simply apply Scientology: Study, audit, go up the bridge and become clear and help others study, audit and become clear. – No one can stop you if you recognize the trap that the CoS presents for its members nowadays: The Church of Scientology has become an institutional church, controlled by its own opponents, serving to prevent Scientology. It went the same path as other churches prior to it: infiltrated, twisted, corrupted. – Free yourselves!

8. Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one’s status.

Next I will work on the liability and then the Non-Ex of which you will hear again!7)Now, I have gotten out of the Non-Ex by now. Among other things, it is expressed on our website www.FreieScientologen.de.

Note: I may have made some outrageous accusations that often don’t seem real to a member of the Church. I made these doubts more for myself so that I can soon put them behind me. It is not meant to convince others. An extensive composition with a lot of data material and LRH quotes would be required for that, but it goes far beyond the work of this paper. However, everything I claimed above can be substantiated by me. So if you would like, you may feel free to contact me and ask direct questions or start an Internet search yourself8)The just-mentioned website is also a great start to find all the data proving the takeover. Furthermore, I recommend all FSBs of the Scientology Engram Prior Beginning Series. .

All the best for your path, may all beings be happy!

Andreas Gross

for the

Independent Scientologists

Copyright © 2001, 2014 by Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross, All Rights reserved

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ This composition of doubt was published again in 2005 because it may help others make a similar one. It is important to compare the right alternatives. It is not about belonging to either the Church or the Freezone. There is nothing wrong about being a member in the Church which Ron supported for years. It is simply about where you will be able to walk up the bridge quicker or even at all.
2. ↑ Payments of indulgence were paid by religious people to the Catholic Church in medieval times. By doing so, they were relieved of their sins and were allowed into heaven.
3. ↑ This exec from the CC Düsseldorf could have got the same confessionals in her own Org for free. But it was obvious to her that it was more about paying the sum and the accompanying act of subjugation. Horrific!
4. ↑ At the time I was postulating this sentence, I had not realized how right I would be. Back then I actually believed there was no alternative to the OT levels outside the Church. But the opposite proved to be right: For a quarter of a century you have not been able to go Clear or OT in the Church! But I was only able to find out about it years later. – But that’s just how it is when you want to show some backbone first.
5. ↑ Hah! I thought so back then. It turned out to be a transient release condition. In fact, I recently went Clear for sure – on the Clearing Course and I’m currently auditing on OT III.
6. ↑ By now I am Class V and I’m studying on the SHSBC on the second level.
7. ↑ Now, I have gotten out of the Non-Ex by now. Among other things, it is expressed on our website www.FreieScientologen.de.
8. ↑ The just-mentioned website is also a great start to find all the data proving the takeover. Furthermore, I recommend all FSBs of the Scientology Engram Prior Beginning Series.
Posted on

The directing of attention It’s more blessed to give than receive

dog listening with big earEvery child knows: “Knife, scissors, fire and light are not for small children!”1)Translated from a German proverb

And every educated mother nowadays knows how to best enforce this control with small children. Manipulation psychology offers parents a tool from the trick box: Instead of taking away the object desired by the child – which would lead to a big fit – you hand the child something else to play with and direct the attention elsewhere. “It’s more blessed to give than receive.”

Nowadays, every government knows how to use this tactic on its people. About 100 years ago, governments were a lot less competent. We had censorship, books were banned and burned. Gatherings were supervised and broken up by the police if issues “got out of hand.” Instead of brutally taking away the critical books and gatherings from the people, they are controlled like little children: You put them in front of the TV with a bottle and everything is good. “It’s more blessed to give than receive”. Continue reading “The directing of attention It’s more blessed to give than receive”

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ Translated from a German proverb
Posted on

Bridge to total freedom – a no-game Condition

Since 1965, Ron has simply called our bridge, the “Classification and Gradation Chart”
Since 1983, the new Church management has renamed the bridge to “Bridge to Total Freedom”!

This issue tells you, why that is evil:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2005/02/FSB-20050219RA-The-Bridge-to-Total-Freedom-A-No-Game-Condition.pdf”]