Anonycat
Crusader
I came across an interesting blog today, and wanted to share some of it with you. Please check out the whole blog if you like, the link is at the bottom of this post. Tip of the hat to Dave Fagen 
First of all, the Golden Age of Tech was supposed to have SOLVED, UTTERLY, the problem of not being able to make VOLUMES of perfect auditors anywhere in the world. That was the main claim. From 1996 on, we were supposed to witness and experience the biggest training boom in the history of Scientology. I have already gone over this. Since the Golden Age of Tech, the number of auditors made has obviously been going down and is at an all-time low. Any executive with such an important stat that low and that unviable, for any length of time, would normally be removed from post with emphasis!
Part of my so-called “Dead Agent Handling” was to give me some data (that the DSA had gotten from her uplines OSA terminals) that was supposed to show me that the church has made more auditors since the start of the Golden Age of Tech. It said that since the Golden Age of Tech began, there had been over 14,000 auditors made in the church (I read this in February or March of 2010). It said that this was more than double the amount of auditors made in the decade before the Golden Age of Tech, including auditors made on Solo levels. The outpoints in that claim were obvious.
The first outpoint in the OSA claim was that they were comparing a period of 14 years since the start of the Golden Age of Tech to only a decade before the Golden Age of Tech. It seemed very strange that they would make a comparison with such an obvious outpoint as that, but I re-examined what it said to make sure I wasn’t missing something, and that is in fact what it said. It was comparing the period from 1986-1996 to the period from 1996-2010 by saying how many auditors had been made since the start of the GAT and comparing that to the amount that were made in the decade before that.
Secondly, the fact that they were including in their comparison the number of auditors made on Solo levels – well, that missed my point entirely. I was talking about the number of auditors on non-Solo levels. The policies that I’ve gone over were referring to auditors that audit other people. That is the main thing, in my opinion, that is destroying Scientology. And the references I quoted above are clearly and blatantly being violated overall. How many auditors has your org made recently? How many do you think are needed to clear the planet?
Add to this the fact that ALL of the auditors who were trained before the Golden Age of Tech, including Solo auditors, were forced to re-train all of their auditor training, regardless of their previous auditing record. I’m sure that every time an auditor finished a re-train on each level he had to re-train on, that that was part of the stat of this 14,000 auditors made. But I was not interested in how the Golden Age of Tech increased the stat of “Auditors Made” where a large number (most, in my opinion) of those “auditors made” were auditors that had ALREADY BEEN MADE years before.
So I don’t think that the Golden Age of Tech was the solution to a training boom at all. As I said, I do have some agreements with certain aspects of it, but that is different from thinking that it is a correct why for the entire training situation in Scientology. At this writing, sixteen years have gone by since the beginning of the Golden Age of Tech. That’s more than enough time for a correct why to raise the stats. COB claimed that they had found the why. But this couldn’t have been the right why for volume of auditors made because if it were, the amount of auditors made would have gone up legitimately and it did not.
“The real WHY when found and corrected leads straight back to improved stats.
“A wrong Why, corrected, will further depress stats.” – LRH (HCO PL 13 Oct 70, Data Series 19, The Real Why)
“All such evaluations should be REVIEWED as soon as the actions have had time to take effect.
“An idiot optimism can suppose all is well and that it is needless to review.
“But if this WHY was wrong then the situation will deteriorate and a worsening situation will be apparent.
“Thus a sharp watch has to be set. No thirst for ‘always being right’ or arrogance about never being wrong must prevent an honest review.
“WAS the ideal scene approached or attained?
“Or was it a wrong Why and now is all Hades breaking loose?
“Now we don’t have just renewed insistence that the WHY was right and that the program must go in in spite of all.
“We have a wrong Why.” – LRH (HCO PL 17 Feb 72, Data Series 23, Proper Format and Correct Action, Management Series Vol 3, page 558)
The point I’m making here in quoting these references is that COB should have honestly looked at the stats of new auditors being made and whether or not they increased after he supposedly found his Why. If he would have done that and if he would have followed LRH policy, he would have then gone back in and looked further and then found another Why, a correct Why. But fifteen years have passed and the stat of auditors made is down long-term, regardless of how many or how few wins people have had from the Golden Age of Tech. So even if you think the Golden Age of Tech is a good thing, as did I, you can’t argue with the stats.
Nothing wrong with finding a wrong Why as long as you take the actions necessary to verify your why and to change it when you see that it is wrong.
I admit I didn’t do this either. That’s part of why I assigned myself Treason. I also have done the Data Series Evaluator’s Course and I should have known better. I would like to see COB assign himself Treason on this point as well. That would be the first sign that, just maybe, he actually was fit to lead.
