No case on post demonstrates Scientology is a Con

All of the scientology materials are available here so maybe you can find the relevant reference yourself:

http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientol...?dir=COURSES+&+CHECKSHEETS/SRD+CHS+PE130580%2

 

I'm seeing this thread for the first time today.

IMHO no case on post is reasonable (and I'm not advocating don't-be-reasonable). While it's okay to discuss your case with others, at times when you're not busy actively working (not that that ever happens); I'm assuming no case on post means not screaming at a public because she reminds you of your ex-wife or whatever.

So if you can't have your case then, when can you have it? In a proper session, of course. And to me THAT'S where the C of S went wrong, in not scheduling regular and frequent sessions for staff so they can go up the bridge, too. In fact, staff enhancements are even MORE important than servicing the paying public, because that's not only how you make a stronger group, that's the main way you encourage people to join staff in the first place.

Disclaimer: I have never been on staff.

Helena

 

" And to me THAT'S where the C of S went wrong, in not scheduling regular and frequent sessions for staff so they can go up the bridge, too. In fact, staff enhancements are even MORE important than servicing the paying public, because that's not only how you make a stronger group, that's the main way you encourage people to join staff in the first place."

Hmm.. If the 'tech' actually didn't work, then scheduling regular and frequent sessions for staff would result in swift disaster as staff would quickly come to realize that the 'tech' was a crock of shit.

 

Hubbard wrote HCOPL 20 July 1970 Cases And Morale Of Staff wherein he says exactly what you say about staff enhancement. The problem in the CofS is that everyone is constantly being pushed to get stats up and that means they don't have the time to spend on staff auditing.

There are so many HCOPLs that, taken on their own, make perfect sense but when you enter the madhouse that is a scientology org it becomes every man/woman for himself/herself and you can usually find a policy that justifies anything you do or neglect to do.

 

[QUOTE="Helena Handbasket, post: 1]reasonable (and I'm not advocating don't-be-reasonable). While it's okay to discuss your case with others, at times when you're not busy actively working (not that that ever happens); I'm assuming no case on post means not screaming at a public because she reminds you of your ex-wife or whatever.

So if you can't have your case then, when can you have it? In a proper session, of course. And to me THAT'S where the C of S went wrong, in not scheduling regular and frequent sessions for staff so they can go up the bridge, too. In fact, staff enhancements are even MORE important than servicing the paying public, because that's not only how you make a stronger group, that's the main way you encourage people to join staff in the first place.

Disclaimer: I have never been on staff.

Helena[/QUOTE]

The fact that staff and SO did not get much of any auditing should serve as proof that LRH did not think auditing worked, as far as increasing ability

Auditing makes the subject more suggestible and easier to manipulate, rather than more able. This is something you want for public, but NOT for the staff who are supposed to dominate the public.

 

The fact that staff and SO did not get much of any auditing should serve as proof that LRH did not think auditing worked, as far as increasing ability

Auditing makes the subject more suggestible and easier to manipulate, rather than more able. This is something you want for public, but NOT for the staff who are supposed to dominate the public.

LRH's main consideration in rapid expansion, getting the stats up, and a shoulder-to-shoulder push was that he was trying to make an "OT army" to fight the enemy, which he called SMERSH. He considered he had not much time to make the number of OT's needed, so that's where his "now, now now!" attitude came from.

He figured the fastest way to expand was to increase public $ervices first, then handle the staff. This didn't work.

Helena

 

Hi HH,

SMERSH. Interesting! Do you know the date of the above? Any copy of it written? I kinda recall it too....

The organization, SMERSH is an acronym invented by British Spy Novelist, Ian Flemming.
Apparently it first appeared in his novel Casino Royal, published in 1953.

Hubbard was certainly aware of Ian Flemming and his novels because he talks about him briefly on the BC tapes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMERSH_(James_Bond)

 

SMERSH was an umbrella organisation for three independent counter-intelligence agencies in the Red Army formed in late 1942 or even earlier, but officially announced only on 14 April 1943. The name SMERSH was coined by Joseph Stalin.

Dox

 

I thought so....but couldn't find it....

thanks.

my bad.

 

SMERSH was also popularized in Ian Fleming's James Bond books. (The movies changed the name to SPECTRE). I would imagine LRH read them.

 

We still come back to the fact that even LRH didn't think that auditing made people more able. If LRH thought that auditing would make staff more able (and thus more able to EXPAND scientology), then why didn't he make orgs deliver to staff?

 

The fact that staff and SO did not get much of any auditing should serve as proof that LRH did not think auditing worked, as far as increasing ability

Auditing makes the subject more suggestible and easier to manipulate, rather than more able. This is something you want for public, but NOT for the staff who are supposed to dominate the public.[/QUOTE]

?????

You are usually more sensible than this ET...

 

When I was on staff I never suffered for want of auditing. I got my grades 0 - VI free and then later the triples. Any reviews I needed I received and since I spent most of my SO career on the RPF I got a lot of auditing there too.

As Tech Sec I sent letters to Hubbard regarding various aspects of the 'Tek' and I received detailed responses from him (in his own scrawly handwriting, not phony form letters) which would indicate that he very much thought that auditing did work.

 

No case on post was also about the fact that your post will prove to be more enturbulating and aberrative than your actual case ever was on your worst day so post became senior to case by tens of degrees of magnitude.
Your own case didn't stand a chance and had to pipe down or be trampled by the sheer toxic mania generated by your post and getting your stats up.
You had to synthesize the attributes of the purported state of clear in order to not look like the flaming lunatic you were becoming due to the insurmountable pressures put upon you by the demands of your post, further creating the illusion that "Scientology must work, just look how rock solid the staff seem..."