What are OT POWERS?

[lionheart]

Originally Posted by Case

I cannot disagree with this philosophy. But let me add my own.

If life is like a game of chess, this game on earth at the moment has most players nearing the end, where they have very little choice about what move to make, in order to survive a few more rounds of turns. They have only a King, and the opposition has a rook and a knight (and a king). So although there is causative choices being made by the player with the king to a certain degree, they are very limited (compared to earlier times in the game) and are dominated by an opposition who control more or less what they do, and who are planning to get a checkmate (total control).

That's one way I can use to describe how I see conditions at the moment, in terms of games and cause/effect.

How do you know that most players are nearing the end of the game? Who told you that?

[Case]

Originally Posted by lionheart

I started reading "From the Bottom to the Top" but it disappointingly just seems to be a re-wording of LRH's viewpoint so far. In what way is his a different viewpoint to LRH's tech viewpoint, which I am already familiar with?

L. Kin puts the tech and philosophy in context with other practices and philosophies of this planet. The first 2 chapters are where he does most of this work. The rest concentrates on upper level scientology stuff. Here is the contents:

http://www.metatech.org/scienterra_l...encontents.htm

[Case]

Originally Posted by lionheart

How do you know that most players are nearing the end of the game? Who told you that?

If one views life as being a game, then the conclusion I have made (from various sources of data and my experiences) is that most people appear to be limited in their choices (thus my analogy to the end of a game of chess is valid). Choices of who runs their country (check out brasscheck tv for more on that, or

Spin

as example of people being at effect on a political level), choices of healthcare (there is a lot of data on this), choices of lifestyle, choices of many different things...

[lionheart]

Originally Posted by Case

If one views life as being a game, then the conclusion I have made (from various sources of data and my experiences) is that most people appear to be limited in their choices (thus my analogy to the end of a game of chess is valid). Choices of who runs their country (check out brasscheck tv for more on that, or

as example of people being at effect on a political level), choices of healthcare (there is a lot of data on this), choices of lifestyle, choices of many different things...

Well, again, your view does match the one Mr Hubbard presented to his disciples doesn't it? Another coincidence? You and him do seem to be on a remarkably similar line of tech research and discovery!

Tell, me, from your knowledge of history, how much choice, existed in medieval times, over who ran the country? How much healthcare choice was there? How free were peasants to choose a lifestyle?

How do you know most players are nearing the end of the game? Where did this idea come from?

You might like to look at a thread I started some time ago about the "dwindling spiral". You might enjoy other viewpoints. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=332

[gomorrhan]

Originally Posted by Case

I cannot disagree with this philosophy. But let me add my own.

If life is like a game of chess, this game on earth at the moment has most players nearing the end, where they have very little choice about what move to make, in order to survive a few more rounds of turns. They have only a King, and the opposition has a rook and a knight (and a king). So although there is causative choices being made by the player with the king to a certain degree, they are very limited (compared to earlier times in the game) and are dominated by an opposition who control more or less what they do, and who are planning to get a checkmate (total control).

That's one way I can use to describe how I see conditions at the moment, in terms of games and cause/effect.

I don't see "the game" that way. I certainly have seen a lot of film that presents this view (total control by special interests), and I acknowledge that there is an effort by some of these folks to achieve this aim, but I don't think we're anywhere near the endgame. What you are describing is what Hubbard called "The Shades of Night", and it was a very grim prognostication. It is true that privacy is evaporating, and that the planet may come under a One World government controlled by central banking interests, but this doesn't have to be the End of Personal Growth, freedom, etc. I do believe that the central banking interests have to be "nationalized" for lack of a better term: they cannot be allowed to reside (as they do, presently, in nearly every country that isn't banging rocks together to make fire) in private hands or in the hands of corporations. Endless arguments could be had about that, and endless conspiracy theories could be spun about it.

I do believe that the internet has provided us a platform from which to view these problems as a group (not just of ex-scios, but as citizens of the world), and that the level of communication about these hidden influences is rising. They cannot stand close inspection, even their own existence is actually unconstitutional in the US, and eventually will be corrected, I believe.

I simply don't believe that the dangers are going to fully materialize: the possibility is there! I believe that technology and interconnection are very frightening, largely because of the lack of humanizing influences like clearing technology widely in use, but also because those technologies and connections aren't well understood by the bulk of the populace, and what we don't understand, we fear.

The end is not near, my friend. The sky is not falling. While Hubbard may have believed that, and it's easy to fall into such beliefs if you are watching the 24-hour news cycle, it's very different if you are interacting with people "on the street". The biggest problems I see are the lack of health care for people, and the concentration of wealth in privately owned financial institutions that make their greatest profits by loaning money, at interest, to governments, and the time the governments borrow the most money is when they are at war: so, it's in these financial corporation's interest to make sure we are continuously at war, but not to actually destroy the world or kill off "the workers".

The trick is to expose these people and influences, abolish corporate personhood, establish transparency and accountability in our governments, restore habeas corpus and the free press, and increase our spending on education of our children in the art of critical thinking, such that we aren't all idiots who can be manipulated by hot-button politics.

In other words, it's our own damned fault for accepting the bullshit.

And now, I'm off my soapbox.

[Veda]

Originally Posted by Case

Yes Veda, I have read this book before (I even did a critique of the chapter The Scientological Onion which you seem to forget). Even if LRH handed out copies of Psychopolitics to Scientologists, does it mean that Scientology is brainwashing!? No, of course not. It's a bit like me saying you are trying to brainwash people by giving a link to the book yourself! No, it amounts to LRH educating the people he cared about so that they would NOT fall prey to those psychopolitical organizations in the 50s - which was a very cloak and dagger time. LRH recommended many books and sources of information to Scientologists down the years...

Book? You mean 'L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?'. The chapter, 'Destructive Cult Defined, and the Gradients of Deception: The Layers of the Scientological Onion' only appeared in the 2nd and 3rd editions, and I seriously doubt if you actually read this book in any edition.

The 'Scientological Onion', which you "critiqued," was an excerpt from that chapter, and appears also in the paper 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels', where L. Ron Hubbard's "Russian" 'Textbook on Psycho-politics' ('Brainwashing Manual') is examined, quote:

"The following correspondences with the Brainwashing Manual are presented, for the most part, in accordance with their placement in the 'Scientological Onion'. The reader who wishes to search can find additional examples of Brainwashing Manual parallels - in Hubbard's writings and in descriptions of applications of those writings to be found in court records, affidavits, and other personal testimony."

You are avoiding those many correspondences like Superman avoids Kryptonite. I suppose I can understand why. Nonetheless those correspondences, those parallels, exist.

So that's one book, that you claim to have read, and one paper that you have not, and then there is L. Ron Hubbard's fraud upon Scientologists that he called a "Russian textbook," that just happened to mention 'Dianetics' six times, and is best known as the 'Brainwashing Manual'.

Did you at least read Hubbard's 1955 booklet that he called 'The Brainwashing Manual'? My guess is not, but you do accept Hubbard's story as to it "being slipped under the door," etc., and that he had it "published as a public service."

That's pretty amazing. You are an extremely gullible individual if you actually believe that.

For some reason you like to accuse others of finding equivalence. No where in any of the linked documents is there an assertion that "Scientology IS Brainwashing." It's more complicated than that, and you grandly miss the point.

Apparently, because you want to.

Give my regards to Lois lane and stay away from that green rock.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost....87&postcount=1

[Alan]

Originally Posted by lionheart

Alan, I'd really like to read your take on this if you wish to give one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Yes - every rundown includes both sides.

To permeate masses and charge requires the ability to be willing effect - to process the positive requires the willingness to be the effect of the consequences you have created.

The key to unlocking the Games Matrices Packages is entered in most cases by finding and being willing to permeate the effect point.

The effect point gives you and the client the holographic pattern of their harmful causes.

It is the resistence to being effect that sticks the person at effect - thus the "must be cause" solution idiocy!

EndQuote:

Alan

What a pity you or someone else at the time, back in the sixties, couldn't run Ron on processes like "What effect are you willing to let Governments/Bankers/SPs/Implanters/the bank/BTs/Entities (any and all of his opterms) have upon you?"

I wonder what the EP of that would have been in Ron? (If he'd ever sat still long enough to run the process!) And it's impact on Scn?

My releasing work works great when I or the processee allows whatever feeling. Like you, I've worked out that resistence to being effect is what causes the effect to persist. And Ron's body of work includes that concept too. (what you resist, you become or succomb to) Unfortunately too much of his "tech" ignores this datum.

I have other questions for you now!

In my work on myself I have found there are two kinds of "processing". One releases charge by allowing or letting go or stopping wanting to change some thing that one feels "charged" about.

This works extremely well to a point. But, as I've already said, cause/effect are just two polarities of the Illusion. Similarly, "charge" is an illusion caused by resistance to what is (effects).

Above this, and it seems senior to this "charge releasing", there is a more metaphysical approach. I think this may be often inaccesible until one has released fairly intensively to a point which LRH would maybe have called Keyed-out OT. A fancy term for something much more common, which could be described as "nothing bothering a person".

At this point there is no apparent "charge" to release, no "case" if you like to put it that way.

Does your "tech" move from this charge releasing tech into something more really real?

After lots of releasing, my life was/is wonderful and nothing bothers me most of the time. Here I discovered mystical/metaphysical techniques work wonderfully and I was sprung from the Illusion (my particular main methods were losing my head [www.headless.org] and mystical western/eastern practices.

Now "releasing charge" sometimes seems ridiculous to me, although I am trained in techniques to coach/audit others on this.

Do you ever get this phenomenon when you are auditing people with your techniques?

Does your technique move into this other area where one is no longer handling "charge"?

The 1st thing is charge is NOT a case condition!

It is always real time.

It is purely spiritual.

It occurs spontaneously.

There are 3 causes of charge:

1. A STOP.

2. A SLOW.

3. A NULLIFICATION.

It is always PT based.

Case accumulates from previous by-passed charged areas that have been "solved" by disconnection. It gives the apparency of being the source of charge - it is NOT - YOU ARE.

The more power you have the bigger the explosion then subsequent implosion of STOPPED power you create when you hit a stop, slow or nullification of the exercise of that power.

If you have ever been in a hurry to get somewhere on time and someone cuts in front of you and slows you down or you get in a traffic jam - you will experience the spontaneous creation of charge.

Scio to my knowledge has no tech to handle charge - it has the tech of handling by-passed charge - it does this by de-accessessing the case that accumulated connected to the charge.

Scio stopped handling the PT stops on charge in 1963 when Hubbard eliminated the "old model session".

Hubbard became more and more charged after he lost his auditor - MSH.

This occurred when she discovered he had betrayed her in September of 1962.

MSH became too charged to process correctly.

The loss of processor is one of the greatest causes of charge there is - as it stops the PT progress of the being.

BTW everyone on planet earth is a processor - they either run positive processes, negative processes or nullification processes. Depends on their levels of awareness and intent.

Alan

[alex]

Originally Posted by Veda

Book? You mean 'L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?'. The chapter, 'Destructive Cult Defined, and the Gradients of Deception: The Layers of the Scientological Onion' only appeared in the 2nd and 3rd editions, and I seriously doubt if you actually read this book in any edition.

The 'Scientological Onion', which you "critiqued," was an excerpt from that chapter, and appears also in the paper 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels', where L. Ron Hubbard's "Russian" 'Textbook on Psycho-politics' ('Brainwashing Manual') is examined, quote:

"The following correspondences with the Brainwashing Manual are presented, for the most part, in accordance with their placement in the 'Scientological Onion'. The reader who wishes to search can find additional examples of Brainwashing Manual parallels - in Hubbard's writings and in descriptions of applications of those writings to be found in court records, affidavits, and other personal testimony."

You are avoiding those many correspondences like Superman avoids Kryptonite. I suppose I can understand why. Nonetheless those correspondences, those parallels, exist.

So that's one book, that you claim to have read, and one paper that you have not, and then there is L. Ron Hubbard's fraud upon Scientologists that he called a "Russian textbook," that just happened to mention 'Dianetics' six times, and is best known as the 'Brainwashing Manual'.

Did you at least read Hubbard's 1955 booklet that he called 'The Brainwashing Manual'? My guess is not, but you do accept Hubbard's story as to it "being slipped under the door," etc., and that he had it "published as a public service."

That's pretty amazing. You are an extremely gullible individual if you actually believe that.

For some reason you like to accuse others of finding equivalence. No where in any of the linked documents is there an assertion that "Scientology IS Brainwashing." It's more complicated than that, and you grandly miss the point.

Apparently, because you want to.

Give my regards to Lois lane and stay away from that green rock.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost....87&postcount=1

Yes and what of Hubbards second (non) wife Sara?

And where exactly is Alexis these days?

Meditating at a heiau?

What would she have to say if she came out?

Is she perhap some harmonic of the moon child?

Much is not known. It is very complex.

alex

[Alan]

Originally Posted by alex

Yes and what of Hubbards second (non) wife Sara?

And where exactly is Alexis these days?

Meditating at a heiau?

What would she have to say if she came out?

Is she perhap some harmonic of the moon child?

Much is not known. It is very complex.

alex

I met Alexis in 1965 in LA - she was charming and very attractive - very classy lady.

[alex]

Originally Posted by Alan

The 1st thing is charge is NOT a case condition!

It is always real time.

It is purely spiritual.

It occurs spontaneously.

There are 3 causes of charge:

1. A STOP.

2. A SLOW.

3. A NULLIFICATION.

It is always PT based.

Case accumulates from previous by-passed charged areas that have been "solved" by disconnection. It gives the apparency of being the source of charge - it is NOT - YOU ARE.

The more power you have the bigger the explosion then subsequent implosion of STOPPED power you create when you hit a stop, slow or nullification of the exercise of that power.

If you have ever been in a hurry to get somewhere on time and someone cuts in front of you and slows you down or you get in a traffic jam - you will experience the spontaneous creation of charge.

Scio to my knowledge has no tech to handle charge - it has the tech of handling by-passed charge - it does this by de-accessessing the case that accumulated connected to the charge.

Scio stopped handling the PT stops on charge in 1963 when Hubbard eliminated the "old model session".

Hubbard became more and more charged after he lost his auditor - MSH.

This occurred when she discovered he had betrayed her in September of 1962.

MSH became too charged to process correctly.

The loss of processor is one of the greatest causes of charge there is - as it stops the PT progress of the being.

BTW everyone on planet earth is a processor - they either run positive processes, negative processes or nullification processes. Depends on their levels of awareness and intent.

Alan

The distinction that charge is pt and BPC is what is usually handled is something I had not previously given much thought to.

How would one handle charge (in pt)? By learning to not bypass it?

Do you have a "technique"?

What happened between MSH and LRH in '62 that was a betrayal?

Do you see me as a negative processor?

alex