Bill Frank's story about blackmail

[Div6]

Where did Bill go?

[Sindy]

Tubs wanted to have dirt files on everyone (just in case he needed it later) and the auditors and HCO were trained for this very purpose ... they were really interested in dirt.

Apparently Rex Fowler did something like 22 intensives of dirt hunting (they call it sec checking) prior to being allowed to get onto solo nots?

I am shaking my head in astonishment at the stupidity of it all.

I thought I saw it was even worse at 27 intensives! Either way, that would drive anyone insane. 22 intensives of interrogation by one of the most unethical organizations on earth....and for a mere, what, 5,000 an intensive at Flag? He must have felt like a complete piece of shit.

[Sindy]

What I'm about to say will sound otherworldly to many here, but I'll say it anyway, just to show how much the Scientology experience varied for different people.

To my recollection, as a Class IV auditor and while getting audited through OT IV, I neither received a sec check nor gave anybody a sec check. No one ever said to me, and I never said to anyone else while I or they were holding the cans, "I am not auditing you."

Perhaps my memory is faulty and I had a sec check. If so, it wasn't expensive or traumatic. Frankly, I don't think I ever had one.

I remember ruds, including O/Ws, as something that got checked quickly before getting to the meat of a session. No big deal.

I have no way of knowing whether my pc folders were culled for incriminating information of any kind that might have been put into a different kind of folder. Certainly, no one ever suggested to me I was a slimeball or unworthy or a criminal.

And for the record, I never gave a dime to the IAS.

Speaking purely rhetorically, WTF happened to Scientology?

Please, no answer is required. It really was a rhetorical question.

TG1

Sec checks are auditing. HCO Confessionals are not. Maybe you never had the latter. Sounds like you had a better experience than many.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Just a note...

The entire theory of O/W's is essentially this process:

1. Imagine yourself as an idealized, infinitely powerful, perfect being whose every action is holy, flawless and successful.

2. Okay, now look at your own life buddy and tell me every single moment you failed to manifest that perfection. We call those overts. Now, tell me in excruciating detail how you failed.

3. I'd like to give you the r-factor that the reason you are still not a perfect OT is that there is more. Much more. Take a look. That...that....that.....that....that.....that..... that....that....that.............

The process is run 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....

The EP is a person who is able to give themselves the commands, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3......

Get it? THAT'S the end phenomenon.

In essence, the obsession with O/W's, crimes, sec checks et al is what you do to solve the simple fact that the TECH did not raise the person up to that exalted, perfect state. It's right in KSW. When a person says that the process "didn't work" you must immediately "attack them" and demand to know "What did you actually do?"

The use of sec checks, itself, is an admission that the tech didn't work.

[Infinite]

Just a note...

The entire theory of O/W's is essentially this process:

1. Imagine yourself as an idealized, infinitely powerful, perfect being whose every action is holy, flawless and successful.

2. Okay, now look at your own life buddy and tell me every single moment you failed to manifest that perfection.

3. I'd like to give you the r-factor that there is more. Much more. Take a look. That...that....that.....that....that.....that..... that....that....that.............

The process is run 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....

The EP is a person who is able to give themselves the commands, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3......

In essence, the obsession with O/W's, crimes, sec checks et al is what you do to solve the simple fact that the TECH did not raise the person up to that exalted, perfect state. It's right in KSW. When a person says that the process "didn't work" you must immediately "attack them" and demand to know "What did you actually do?"

The use of sec checks, itself, is an admission that the tech didn't work.

THIS ^^^^^

Take a bow, Mr Hoax.

[Panda Termint]

Meanwhile - anyone who has worked in Division 20 of Scientology knows where the bulk of the hours of effort are directed. Primarily this work is about "handling cases" and keeping a person under control. This has been a function of Scientology since the 1960s for which much tech was written and personally overseen by L Ron Hubbard. The fact that the effect of this activity doesn't appear to have sunk in is quite understandable: its scripture and, as such, cannot be wrong. Anyone who doubts that obviously has overts.

You'd probably need to see some actual Session Worksheets to understand what I'm trying to communicate to you. A very large percentage of them have nothing to do with material which might possibly be used to blackmail or coerce a person. Your assertions about the activities of Department (not Division) 20 as regards PC Folders are somewhat overstated as far as I'm aware.

I'm not arguing that violation of Priest/Penitent Confidentiality doesn't occur, that's a given, I'm just trying to keep it real.

[Gottabrain]

What I'm about to say will sound otherworldly to many here, but I'll say it anyway, just to show how much the Scientology experience varied for different people.

To my recollection, as a Class IV auditor and while getting audited through OT IV, I neither received a sec check nor gave anybody a sec check. No one ever said to me, and I never said to anyone else while I or they were holding the cans, "I am not auditing you."

Perhaps my memory is faulty and I had a sec check. If so, it wasn't expensive or traumatic. Frankly, I don't think I ever had one.

I remember ruds, including O/Ws, as something that got checked quickly before getting to the meat of a session. No big deal.

I have no way of knowing whether my pc folders were culled for incriminating information of any kind that might have been put into a different kind of folder. Certainly, no one ever suggested to me I was a slimeball or unworthy or a criminal.

And for the record, I never gave a dime to the IAS.

Speaking purely rhetorically, WTF happened to Scientology?

Please, no answer is required. It really was a rhetorical question.

TG1

TG1,

The liberal use of security checks, prefaced with "I am not auditing you" in order to make all statements actionable, has been standard practice since at least the early 70s, perhaps earlier - long, long before e-meters were confiscated by the FDA in LA in 1977, long, long before the IRS problems in the 80s. Long before DM came to management. From that time onward, nobody got onto staff or OT levels without passing these security clearances. I don't know the exact date it started. Maybe someone else here does (?)

[Infinite]

You'd probably need to see some actual Session Worksheets to understand what I'm trying to communicate to you. A very large percentage of them have nothing to do with material which might possibly be used to blackmail or coerce a person. Your assertions about the activities of Department (not Division) 20 as regards PC Folders are somewhat overstated as far as I'm aware.

Thank you for the correction (I'm often in need of such). I understand what you are saying in suggesting that the bulk of the work of Scientology is dedicated to delivering the Bridge, as opposed to the dirty tricks. However, it is duplicitous to suggest that scripture does not include the express and highly detailed instruction to use personal information for blackmail. Delivering the Bridge goes hand-in-hand with the blackmail; if Scientology can't do one, it does the other. That is the tech as written by L Ron Hubbard.

Anyone participating in the delivery of services outside of the cult would do well to insist on retaining their own PC Folder and being present whenever it is opened. This has obvious benefits for both the PC and auditor.

[Panda Termint]

Well, it would be duplicitious if I'd said that but I didn't.

I'm just pointing out that it's not quite what you (or my friend) seem to think.

Yes, Folder data can be used to commit great evil but if anyone is going to deliver scientology in the prescribed manner, PC Folders are required. If you don't use the Hubbard Folder system it's going to add up to something other than scientology.

[Infinite]

Well, it would be duplicitious if I'd said that but I didn't.

Here's what you said:

Right, I get what you're saying but that's not how scientology tech actually utilises folder content. Despite the current obsession with Overts and Enforced Confession, O/W tech is just a small part of the overall practice. Hard to believe, I know!

Subsequently,

I'm just pointing out that it's not quite what you (or my friend) seem to think.

Yes, Folder data can be used to commit great evil but if anyone is going to deliver scientology in the prescribed manner, PC Folders are required. If you don't use the Hubbard Folder system it's going to add up to something other than scientology.

I agree. And, if you don't use PC Folder material for blackmail, that too is going to add up to something other than Scientology.