This valuable tech eval I got from Caspar de Rijk, a class IX 14 years ago. I want to make that public now as a service to auditors, who might still apply this out-tech:
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:
-
Choose 2 word clearers who then work on each other.
-
Any Progress Program for each one.
-
Word Clear the Word Clearing Series by Method 2.
-
Check out on the auditing required for Method 1.
-
Do Method No. 1 on each other.
-
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”]
Quicky Dianetics was the beginning of the failed Bridge
I just listened to this lecture by L. Ron Hubbard: 6905C29 First Standard Dianetics Graduation – The Dianetic Program and found a way to totally destroy Scientology & its Bridge:
Somebody gets up and he’s been ramming around and going into orgs and HGCs and so forth, and then we catch him at something on the order of OT II, and we read this and it says “he’s still trying to get rid of his injected eyeballs – he is gone to OT VI”, and “he’s gone to OT VI, and he doesn’t think he’s made it, because he still has a small rash on his nose, and he’s been trying ever since he got into an org to get rid of it,” …
And we taught the Class VIIIs that if you omit somebody’s Grades, he 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. Now you are going start to seeing people fly. …
In the first place, it means that when somebody gets their [Dianetics-]certificate, he can audit. Do you understand: that’s what a certificate is. There are two qualifications to a Dianetics certificate now. And those two qualifications are: has had case gains on Dianetics, and has been able to administer Dianetics so as to give case gains with it. And that is what a Dianetics auditor is. Is not somebody who has been through the checksheets a large number of times, or somebody who knows the Director of Certs and Awards [laughter]. And that is the tradition which we are beginning.
And the HCOPL 8. 6. 70 II Student Auditing says:
And then I took a look at the original Dianetic-Checksheet of that time in my possession and find this in the HSDC-Checksheet HCOPL 1 Dec 1969, update of 25 July 1969, which the Student completed in his org on 14. January 1971:
HCOPL101074RA Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet:
So instead to study the theory 3 times through, as LRH demanded in his checksheet, he was allowed to study it only twice. And instead of the following requirements, he just needed to deliver 3 well done sessions:
AUDITING
25 hours total session in time as an auditor.
This Auditing must include the following:
A. Touch Assists
B. Contact Assists
C. Changing the life of someone who has lost a loved one by running the secondary or chain to GIs
D. Running straight engrams of former injuries.
E. Auditing assists on ill PCs, taking or tracing down every manifested symptom to its engramic incident or chain
F. Doing TRs with PCs and indoctrinating them as PCs.
The 25 hours must contain one or more remarkable cases demonstrating changes in the physical condition or well being of preclear or continued with added hours until it does. [HCOPL 1 Dec 1969, update of 25 July 1969]
This quicky action was done a year after Ron warned us in HCOPL 7.2.65 reissued 15.6.70 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING 1:
Note: Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES.
It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.
So these quicky actions,these high crimes denying case gain still went on in the orgs and although very obvious – as the checksheets had to be manually altered – where not handled by students or staff.
After Ron disappeared late in 1972 these „test balloons“ where put into „policy“, even if not by LRH: BPL 10. Oct 74RA 2.12.76:
Instead of 3 times through, you just studied it once and instead of 25 hours auditing or 3 well done sessions one just audits to „a definite PC result“, which you usually achiev in a single well done session:
A few months later this was cancelled and replaced by BPL 31. March 1977 I Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet, which gives even an easier requirement:
Not even any win or „a definite PC result“ (like a cognition VGIs, F/N) is needed, you just need to satisfy the C/S, that he can not find a fault in three sessions.
Compare that to the „two qualifications“ Ron demanded from us, before a Dn-Cert might be given:
-
has had case gains on Dianetics, and
-
has been able to administer Dianetics so as to give case gains with it. And that is what a Dianetics auditor is.
No wonder, that nearly no Scientologist today is still delivering Dianetics Auditing.
The skipped gradient.
And this is a safe method to destroy Scientology and its Bridge: just continue to skip this gradient: as an Auditor and as a PC.
Quicky Dianetik war der Anfang vom Ende der Brücke
Ich habe gerade diesen Vortrag von L. Ron Hubbard gehört: 6905C29 “Erste Standard Dianetik Graduation – Das Dianetische Programm” und fand einen Weg, um Scientology & seine Brücke völlig zu zerstören:
Jemand steht auf und er dramatisiert herum und geht in Orgs und HGCs und so weiter, und dann schnappen wir ihn etwa auf OT II, und wir lesen den Bericht und der besagt: “Er versucht immer noch, seine eingedrückten Augäpfel loszuwerden – er ist zu OT VI gegangen”, und “er ist zu OT VI gelangt, und er glaubt nicht, dass er es geschafft hat, denn er hat noch eine kleine Rötung auf der Nase, und er versucht schon seit er in eine Org kam sie loszuwerden,” …
Und wir lehrten den Klasse VIIIs, dass, wenn Sie jemandes Grade weglassen, er es nicht machen wird. Und weißt du was, da war der größte Grad von allen weggelassen worden, und das war Dianetik. Und mit diesem weggelassenen Grad, schafften sie nicht die weiteren Grade. …
Zuallererst, wenn jemand sein [Dianetik-]Zertifikat bekommt, kann er auditieren. Verstehst du: das ist ein Zertifikat. Es gibt zwei Qualifikationen für ein Dianetik-Zertifikat. Und diese beiden Qualifikationen sind: er hat Fallgewinn auf Dianetik erlangt und kann Dianetik anwenden, um Fallgewinne zu geben. Und das ist ein Dianetik-Auditor. Das ist niemand, der Checksheets ein paar mal durchstudiert hat, oder jemand, der den Direktor von Certs und Awards [Lachen] kennt. Und das ist die Tradition, die jetzt beginnt.
Und das HCOPL 8. 6. 70 II Studenten Auditing sagt:
Und dann habe ich mir das Original Dianetik-Checksheet aus jener Zeit angesehen, das in meinem Besitz ist und finde dies im HSDC-Checksheet HCOPL 1. Dezember 1969, Update vom 25. Juli 1969, welches der Student am 14. Januar 1971 in seiner Org abgeschlossen hat:
Statt die Theorie dreimal zu studieren, wie LRH im Checksheet verlangt hat, wurde es ihm erlaubt es nur zweimal studieren. Und anstatt der folgenden Voraussetzungen musste er nur drei gut gemachte Sessions liefern:
AUDITING
25 Stunden Gesamt-Sessionzeit als Auditor.
Dies Auditing muss Folgendes enthalten:
A. Berührungsassists
B. Kontaktassists
C. Das Leben von jemandem, der einen geliebten Menschen verloren hat, verändern, indem er das Secondary oder die Kette bis GIs auditiert.
D. Laufen von Engrammen früherer Verletzungen.
E. Auditingassists bei kranken PCs, indem er jedes manifestierte Symptom auf sein engrammisches Geschehnis oder seine Kette zurückverfolgt.
F. Er macht TRs mit PCs und führt sie als PCs ins Auditing ein.
Die 25 Stunden müssen einen oder mehrere bemerkenswerte Fälle enthalten, die Veränderungen in der körperlichen Verfassung oder dem Wohlbefinden von Preclear zeigen oder mit zusätzlichen Stunden fortgesetzt werden, bis es geschieht. [HCOPL 1 Dez 1969, Aktualisierung vom 25. Juli 1969]
Diese Quicky-Aktion wurde schon ein Jahr später betrieben, nachdem Ron uns in HCOPL 7.2.65 rev. 15.6.70 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING 1 gewarnt hatte:
Anmerkung: Die Nichtbeachtung dieses Policy Letters brachte Mitarbeitern eine harte Zeit, kostete unzählige Millionen und machte es 1970 notwendig, umfassende internationale Anstrengungen zur Wiederherstellung der Grundlage von Scientology auf der ganzen Welt zu unternehmen. Innerhalb von fünf Jahren nach der Herausgabe dieses Policy Letters, als ich mich nicht auf den Linien befand, hatte die Verletzung dieser Richtlinien beinahe zur Zerstörung von Organisationen geführt. ”Auf die Schnelle gemachte Grade” schlichen sich ein, und dadurch wurde Zehntausenden von Fällen Fallgewinn vorenthalten. Deshalb sind Handlungen, die diesen Policy Letter ignorieren oder verletzen, SCHWERVERBRECHEN, die Komitees der Beweisaufnahme für VERWALTUNGSPERSONAL und FÜHRUNGSKRÄFTE zur Folge haben. Es ist nicht ”lediglich eine Tech-Angelegenheit”, denn die Missachtung dieser Richtlinien zerstört Organisationen und verursachte eine zwei Jahre andauernde Krise. ES IST DIE AUFGABE EINES JEDEN MITARBEITERS, ihre Befolgung durchzusetzen.
Also diese Quickie-Aktionen, diese Schwerverbrechen, die den Fallgewinn verweigerten, gingen immer noch in den Orgs weiter und obwohl sehr offensichtlich – denn die Checksheets mussten noch handschriftlich verändert werden – wurden sie nicht von den Studenten oder Mitarbeitern gehandhabt.
Nachdem Ron Ende 1972 verschwunden war, wurden diese “Testballons” in “Policy” gesetzt, auch wenn nicht von LRH: BPL 10. Okt 74RA:
Statt 3 mal durch, wurde es nur einmal einmal studiert und anstatt 25 Stunden Auditing oder 3 gut gemacht Sessions hat man nur auf “ein definitives PC Ergebnis” hin auditiert, was Sie in der Regel in einer einzigen gut gemacht Session erreichen konnten:
Ein paar Monate später wurde dies storniert und durch BPL 31. März 1977 I “Hubbard Standard Dianetik Kurs Checksheet” ersetzt, was sogar noch eine einfachere Bedingung stellt:
Nicht einmal irgendein Gewinn oder “ein definitives PC-Ergebnis” (wie eine Cognition VGIs, F/N) wird benötigt, muss man nur den C/S befriedigen, dass er in drei Sessions keinen Fehler finden kann.
Vergleichen Sie das mit den “zwei Qualifikationen”, die Ron von uns verlangt hat, bevor ein Dn-Zertifikat gegeben werden konnte:
- Hat Fallgewinne auf Dianetik, und
- War in der Lage, Dianetik anzuwenden, um Fallgewinne zu geben. Und das ist ein Dianetik-Auditor.
Kein Wunder, dass fast kein Scientologe heute noch Dianetik-Auditing liefert.
Der übersprungene Gradient.
Und das ist eine sichere Methode, um Scientology und seine Brücke zu zerstören: einfach darin weitermachen, diesen Gradient zu überspringen: als Auditor und als PC.
The purpose of RTCs PRO-TRs Course is to get rid of the TRs on the long run
David wrote a nice article about Pizzagate, the pederasty scandal of Hitlory Clinton and her friends in Washington DC.
Pizzagate is a “nice subject” which has to be confronted. The cannibalism, satanism and child abuses of the ruling class and their officers. You need your TR0 welldone to be able to confront this. Otherwise people can “read and hear” about all these crimes and think: “Oh, they are just playing”. – As you move forward on the Bridge – right and left side – you will realize more and more of such things and you will need more TR-training on each new level. This was the original setup by LRH: TRs the hard way on every new class (auditors as well as admin courses). – This was replaced by RTCs “Pro TRs Course”, where you – still at the start of the bridge – “get in your TRs till full EP”. “Once and for all”. So if you finally achieved the “EP of the TRs”, you are not likely willing to do the TRs again “the hard way”. So THAT is why we end up with so many Scientologists, who are not willing or able to confront too much any more. Otherwise RTC would have had a hard time to cheat Scientologists and lead them into a squirrel sect.
After every big case change, one should do the TRs again – especially TR0 and TR0BB – this is a training – not much unlike the training of a bodybuilder – which has to be done your whole life. An athlete would find the idea of a physical “training to EP” a stupid idea. The same with the TRs: there is no EP as the TRs are no process. They are a training and you will achieve always a new level of confront and ability. So also the “EP of the Pro TRs course” is total bullshit: “…being who can handle anyone with communication alone and whose communication can stand up faultlessly to any session or social situation no matter how rough.” fake-HCOB 24 DECEMBER 1979 TRs BASICS RESURRECTED. There is no such EP. To claim this, gives the students only one certainty: That he did not achieve this EP as there might be people and social situations, which he – after the Pro TRs – can not handle with communication alone. – You have to improve your TRs permanently and never stop improving them.
Davids article gives us a nice opportunity for a test of our Trs. 🙂
Here is his article about Pizzagate.
Confusion on CC, CC RD and DCSI introduced
One of my happy followers wrote me by email:
1. I am curious if the clear certainly rundown CCRD is the same as the Clearing Course CC? I know the placement of clear is wrong on the bridge but curious if there is any real difference?
2. If one is not clear on this rundown per the location and skipped grades 5a, 6 & 7 then how does one attest or show it on the meter if not? Aren’t there objective ways to tell?
To answer the 1.:
Yes, this similarity in the nomenclature and the consequent confusion seems to be intended: CC and CC RD are very different. The CC RD was created by the RTC-takeover-team to get rid of the CC, to get rid of our chance to get free and Clear.
CCRD stands for “Clear Certainty Rundown”. It had a forerunner, the DCSI: Dianetic Clear Special Intensive. It was a small and short action since 1979 done by many Class IV auditors who had studied a small checksheet. The changes of the 1979 DCSI to CCRD in 1985 are mainly made to cover up that the DCSI was an invention by the Squirrel David Mayo. Since Clear is the obvious EP of the Clearing-Course, there is no need to establish Rundown for this EP. The CCRD/DSCI only covers up the removal of the Clearing-Course and serves to rehabilitate (i.e. by a process called “date and locate”) Release Conditions and wrongfully call them Clears. A Key-Out (which can key-in again and then you can rehabilitate the key-out and get it back) is not a Clear Condition, as that is stable and without any risk. Since 1978, a reference by David Mayo – the Squirrel and RTC founder – wants to make us believe that a Clear is at risk: a Clear is a high and stable condition and anything but “at risk”. It’s quite the opposite: everyone who is not Clear yet is at risk because they dramatize and somatize bank.
Here Michel Snoeck wrote a thorough analysis about the DCSI and CCRD: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mayo3a_clearb.html#dcsi
The CC is a Solo-auditing level, where you audit daily for about a year or two on given platens to get rid of the very first GPMs on your whole track and you finally go – without any doubt and any questions – Clear.
The CCRD is an audited action estimated to need 5 hours, where the Auditor tries to find a moment in your life, where you thought you might have gone clear. Then he – using a list 1)HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1979RB ISSUE II DIANETIC CLEAR SPECIAL INTENSIVE ASSESSMENT LIST – gets all bypassed charge, i.e. outruds, invalidations and evaluations off that idea and dates-and-locates that moment to get back a nice release state2)see in detail HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1979R I DIANETIC CLEAR SPECIAL INTENSIVE. This might give you nice feelings (for the moment), but can not make you Clear, if you did not soloaudit on the Clearing Course till end phenomena.
When you have access to both the materials of the CC and the CCRD 3)and both is “on the internet” today, digitalized and available for the interested person it will become very obvious that no resemblance whatsoever is found between these and that they are very different actions.
CC = Clearing Course (a hatting course where you study materials and solo-audit GPMs) vs. CCRD = Clear Certainty Rundown (you’re hooked on the E-meter and asked questions which needle reaction is registered by the auditor and later evaluated by the C/S)
To answer the 2.:
What would the Standard Tech way be to check out a clear? This was also researched very well by Michel: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mayo3a_clearb.html#clear1967
This is the valid LRH-Tech:
HCO PL 13 Sept 67 “Clear Check Outs” lists a simple procedure:
“1. Has run the materials of the Clearing Course to free needle.
2. Is the person’s TA between 2 and 3 with a loose or flowing needle?
3. Rehabbing ALL grades from Dianetic Release up to Clear, making sure they have actually, each one, been run and attained.
4. A marked change in the person.
5. Is the person cheerful and happy about being Clear?” LRH
I have solo audited the Clearing Course to full EP and I can assure you: When you got THAT EP, you do not need any “Clear Certainty RD” or other repair or rehab because you REALLY KNOW without doubt that you are Clear.
But if you do not believe me, perhaps you believe LRH and here is what LRH wrote how to achieve Clear: You can only become Clear on the Clearing-Course! Read all his quotes in the posting, they leave no doubt.
References
| 1. | ↑ | HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1979RB ISSUE II DIANETIC CLEAR SPECIAL INTENSIVE ASSESSMENT LIST |
| 2. | ↑ | see in detail HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1979R I DIANETIC CLEAR SPECIAL INTENSIVE |
| 3. | ↑ | and both is “on the internet” today, digitalized and available for the interested person |
Quentin died due to the endless alter-is of the C/S 53 – What a mess!
The C/S Series 53 is one of the most changed, altered, faked and destroyed LRH
-tech I know of.
Quentin Hubbard was the most prominent casualty because of this black tech. Continue reading “Quentin died due to the endless alter-is of the C/S 53 – What a mess!”
How to overwhelm Scientology with Entheta
If you want to overwhelm Scientology with Entheta, just apply what you have learned from LRH:
Here then is the cycle of a group receiving an engram: the group ideas and rationale in handling or attacking MEST receive a shock from the MEST which it is attacking, making an emergency situation exist. There is a turbulent area created between the ideals and rationale of the group and the MEST. The emergency status of the situation has to do with the compressed time—something obviously is happening so swiftly that a full use of communication is not possible and must be supplanted by arbitrary rules or commands. As soon as the emergency is over, it can be seen that an engram has been implanted in the group. Continue reading “How to overwhelm Scientology with Entheta”
RTC is confused about R3R – crashing MU reveals non-involvement of LRH
Do you need a proof, that NED or R3RA is a fake? It was written by someone with a crashing MU – definitely not LRH: Continue reading “RTC is confused about R3R – crashing MU reveals non-involvement of LRH”
With LRH successfully audit Repetitive Prepchecking
Repetitive Prepchecking is a very simple but effective Tech. It was revised in 1978 by the RTRC, and thus bungled. This study shows the LRH original texts, and how you can use this power full tech again:
[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FSB-20160217-With-LRH-successfully-audit-Repetitive-Prepchecking.pdf”]