| Sabotaging Case Gain - Misapplication of
O/M Tech Prerequisite reading: Sabotaging Case Gain - Misapplication of
Ethics The Enslavers know a Thetan is basically good and he will keep himself trapped if his ethics are out and he is committing overts. Thus a primary target for misapplication is ethics tech and Overt tech, since they are vital to going up tone to Free Spiritual Being. The Bridge is - Getting in ethics so you go up tone to the state of Free Spiritual Being. Getting in ethics is accomplished by: 1. Stop agreeing with your case and thereby committing overts. Sabotaging Case Gain - Misapplication of Ethics tells you how to do step 1. For step 2 - an auditor is one who listens and computes. What he is computing is what mental mechanism the pc is stuck in and then he selects the proper process to handle it. So, put on your auditor hat to do step 2. The overt-motivator sequence is one of those mental mechanisms and the following tech for handling it is being intentionally misapplied by Enslaver agents who pose as auditors.
The Overt/Motivator Sequence HCOB 20 May 1968 Overt-Motivator Sequence “There was an important discovery made in 1952 on the subject of engrams which did not get included in “Book One,” Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health. This was the overt-motivator sequence of engrams. An OVERT… is an aggressive or destructive act by the individual against one or another of the eight dynamics… A MOTIVATOR is an aggressive or destructive received by the person or one of the dynamics. In running engrams you will find
The two types of engram then are OVERT engrams and MOTIVATOR engrams. Example of overt engram - Shooting a dog When you can’t run out (erase) a dog bite engram, why, then you find the “shoot dog” engram. Psychosomatic ills or aberrations that do not resolve by running one side, usually resolve by finding and running the other.“
“The cycle is misunderstood word or symbol - separation from ARC with the things associated with the word or symbol - overt committed - motivator felt necessary to justify the overt = decline of freedom, activeness, intelligence, well-being and health. This is the stuff of which Hades is made. This is the trap. This is why people get sick. This is stupidity and lack of ability.”
My comments on the above LRH references: The point I want to make here is that the mental mechanism called the overt-motivator sequence is how a Being goes down the tone scale and how he becomes entrapped. And, the proper handling of that mental mechanism is vital to raising a Being back up the tone scale to freedom. That is why ethics tech and O/M tech is a primary target for misapplication by Enslavers.
Responsibility and OT HCOB 28 January 1960 The Key To All Cases - Responsibility “Pcs in general pretend they would much rather be victims than causative sources - which is what is wrong with their cases. A thetan accumulates mental mass, pictures, ridges, circuits, etc., to the degree that he misassigns responsibility. If he does something and then says that it was done by something or someone else, then he has failed to assign cause rightly and, doing so, he is of course left with an apparently uncaused mass. This to us is the bank. He therefore has as much bank as he has denied cause. As he is the only cause that could hang himself with a mass, the only misassigned cause therefore is self cause. Here we have the anatomy of the reactive mind. The common denominator of all these ridges, masses, pictures, engrams, etc., is responsibility. The discovery of the direct anatomy of responsibility is as follows: Able to admit causation. A thetan will not restore his own ability until he is certain he can withhold from things. When he finds he cannot withhold, then he reduces his own power. When he causes something he thinks then is bad, he next seeks to withhold. If he cannot withhold, then he begins to compulsively cause things that are bad and you have overt acts happening. Overt acts proceed from irresponsibility. Therefore, when responsibility declines, overt acts can occur. When responsibility declines to zero, then a person doing overt acts no longer conceives them to be overt acts… If all the factors involved in a case are well handled as given herein,
you will have a Theta Clear who will be able to do a lot of things humans
can’t do. And if you handled a case totally with this material and its
specialized skills, then you would have an Operating Thetan.” HCOB 23 December 1959 Responsibility “If the definition of operating thetan is knowing and willing cause over all dynamics then we can see at once that responsibility must go hand in hand with making an operating thetan.”
Justification is Irresponsibility HCOB 8 June 1984 Clearing Justifications “Where the pc is justifying, he is in nonconfront of his own causation. By justifying he is lessening the severity of the overt, and as long as he has an overt justified, he hasn’t taken responsibility for it and it will still be charged. Thus, pulling off the pc’s justifications is invaluable in raising his cause and responsibility level.”
End Phenomena for Auditing Overts LRH tape lecture - 2 July 1964 O/W Modernized and Reviewed: ““What overt have you committed?” Think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think. “Well, I upset Joe.” “All right. Fine.” You think you’ve gotten some place now. Of course you haven’t gotten anyplace: your tone arm hasn’t moved; there’s been no cognition - there’s been nothing like this. Now, you think perhaps that his having told you, now, should somehow or another magically discharge this thing. No, why should it magically discharge it? He hasn’t answered the auditing question, for one thing. He doesn’t think it was an overt. And you say, well, O/W doesn’t work because nothing happened. Man, you didn’t even get your big toenail wet on the side of the Pacific. The sixty-four dollar question now is “Well, why wasn’t it an overt?” “Oh, well, it wasn’t an overt because Joe is a heel and because of this and because of that, and so forth, and he deserved it, and it’s the common thing to do in those circumstances; everybody expected me to do it, and of course it was natural that I would because I have a reactive bank, and it forced me to do it.” Now, a guy can go on for some time on the justification of this overt. And you start to get tone arm action, tone arm action, tone arm action. Until you get the thing worn down and eventually, all of a sudden he says, “Well, even though it could have been explained, you know, that was one hell of a thing to do to Joe. I shouldn’t have done that to Joe. I’d completely forgotten. I had it completely in my choice whether I did it or didn’t do it. And I did it. And you see it blow. You got one “done,” see, one “done” off the pc. Now there is the auditing of O/W.”
Correct application of O/M Tech The above LRH issues tell us the O/M sequence is how a Being goes down tone into entrapment and how to handle the O/M sequence so the Being goes up tone to freedom. We also learn several other important datums from the above LRH issues:
Let’s examine all this. We have an odd situation here - a Thetan, who is basically good, is
committing overts. One of the main things a Thetan doesn’t know about himself - is just
how good he is. Another thing a Thetan doesn’t know about himself, he is an expert at Axiom 29: “In order to cause an as-is-ness to persist, one must assign other authorship to the creation than his own. Otherwise his view of it would cause its vanishment.” He creates things and then he hides from himself that he created it and
tells a lie that someone or something else created it. He is very good at
hiding his own Cause from himself. Now, let’s simplify and make sense of all the above by using a real life example. Prior to any action, a Being engages in a thought process. First he thinks about it, then he reaches a conclusion to do it or not do it. Now we are going to closely examine the thoughts of a person who commits overts. John has a problem of not having enough money to pay rent where he lives. To solve this problem, he is considering committing an overt - stealing money from his friend, Pete. John has some native qualities that he must somehow cover up before he can reach a conclusion to commit an overt. One of those native qualities is that he is basically good. Another one is his knowingness from his perception. Another one is his native quality to be responsible - able to admit causation and able to withhold from. John is going to have to “cover up” all those native qualities somehow in order to reach a conclusion to commit an overt. And remember that he acts as his own judge, jury and executioner. And in that role, he is very tough on himself. He is a very unreasonable and truthful judge of himself. Going with the idea that a being is his own judge, jury, and executioner, let’s continue with that courtroom type of scenario to illustrate what a being actually does. Although humorously done, the parallels to actual actions by a being are easily visible, as the contortions a being goes through to cover up his basic goodness are pretty amazing, to say the least. So, John’s problem is - how is he going to convince himself as this tough, unreasonable, truthful judge - to reach a conclusion that its ok to commit an overt? Again, using the courtroom type of scenario, John assumes the role of defense attorney and then tries to present a case before himself, as the judge, that it’s ok to commit the overt. As defense attorney, John will use alter-is-ness and not-is-ness to cover up his native qualities that stand in the road of committing the overt. Presented as defense attorney: “Your honor, this quality that the defendant is basically good - we
want to not-is that by forgetting it or by covering it up with a mental
black screen so we don’t have to look at it. “Your honor, this knowingness that Pete is the defendant’s friend and that Pete has often helped the defendant, we would like to not-is that perception too. Just look away from it.” “Your honor, this perception that there is some wrongness in stealing money from Pete - we want to introduce some alter-is-ness here to do away with that knowingness. Here are some justifiers we thought up for that: It wouldn’t really be an overt because Pete owes the defendant, John,
some money. “Your honor, this quality that the defendant is responsible, we want to alter-is and not-is that. We want to say that he is unable to admit causation and unable to withhold from.” “What was that you said, your honor? It’s all bullcrap and you find the
defendant guilty? That’s your ruling? Well, your honor, we are going to
not-is that decision and go ahead and commit the overt anyway. We are
going to go with our presented case over your decision.” And so John goes ahead and commits the overt. After committing the
overt: Defense Attorney: “What’s that your honor? You’re going to abide by your ruling and
impose a sentence on the defendant for committing the overt?” Judge: “ Sentence is as follows. Loss of freedom, pride, ability, happiness and all of that accompanied by illness.” Defense Attorney: “Why such a harsh sentence, your honor?” Judge: “Because the truth is that no one has to commit an overt, despite pressure to from engrams or any other source. That truth comes from the anatomy of responsibility - able to admit causation and able to withhold from. I also find that John applied Axiom 29 and hid from himself that he operated at Cause when he reached the conclusion to go ahead and steal the money. I also find that John practiced alter-is-ness and not-is-ness in reaching the conclusion to commit the overt. I find that in doing that he had disregard for his perception of the truth, that he knew there was something wrong with stealing from Pete. I also find that every one of his justifiers are lies. Even though it is true that Pete owed John money, the statement “it wasn’t really be an overt because” _____ is always a lie. Because the truth is, it really was an overt. And the defendant perceived the wrongness of stealing from Pete prior to reaching the conclusion to do it and he practiced alter-is-ness and not-is-ness to do away with that perception and knowingness. And so, I find that John’s ethics are out for reaching the conclusion
to steal from Pete. John then usually not-ises the whole proceeding, however he still carries out the self imposed sentence, even if on an “un-knowing” basis. While the above may be somewhat humorous, it is not too far off as to
what is John’s condition when he sits down in front of the auditor for a
session. Let’s say John shows up for a session and we are the auditor. John says that Pete is creating bad effects on him and making him feel bad because Pete did something unkind to John. In other words, John is saying he has a motivator from Pete. So, we ask John if has done something to Pete. John says that he stole money from Pete. Now, as an auditor who understands O/M tech, here is what we know: John has the overt of stealing money from Pete justified and so he is below recognition of his responsibility - able to admit causation and able to withhold from. The auditor’s hat is to get the pc to as-is the overt by: Getting the pc to recognize that it is an overt In other words, return the pc to Cause by attaining responsibility on the overt: Able to admit causation So, we audit John on his overt against Pete by getting John to tell us why it was not an overt. We keep getting John to give us justifiers for stealing Pete’s money until he says: “Yes, I see that I caused Pete some destruction there, and I didn’t
have to do that.” Here are some other tips I have used in getting a return of responsibility on an overt - The pc is still wondering whether it was an overt. And he is having trouble spotting the point in time when he knew it was an overt. I will ask him - when you were first deciding whether to commit the overt or not, did you mock up justifiers as part of your decision making process? The pc says yes. I then point out that no one has to justify right actions. There must have been something about it that you knew was wrong that caused you to start mocking up justifiers for it. What did you know was wrong with it? Then he sees it. I was auditing a trained pc on an overt. So the pc knew the EP he was
supposed to have. So, the pc was tricky and said that he knew it was an
overt, without any relief and an F/N. So, I got tricky and asked the pc to
explain to me how it is an overt then, what destruction did you cause the
other person with that overt? As the pc explained the destruction, he came
to actually see that he really had committed an overt on the person. And
then, there was still no F/N because the pc was now feeling regret for
having done it. So, I ran the process - “What part of that incident could
you be responsible for?” until the pc came up tone and attained relief
with VGIs and an F/N. HCOB 10 July 1964 Overts - Order Of Effectiveness In Processing “The realization that one has really done something is a return of responsibility… Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself and withholds self from action.”
O/M tech and OT When we say we want to make an OT - we have said we want to make a
Being Cause. There are issues wherein Ron says the overt motivator sequence is not a
high natural law. Thus, if we do a proper job of handling the O/M sequence - one day the thetan will rise above it, and be Cause, which means he will be OT. He will know that it is a mental mechanism that he unwisely chooses to employ and then hides the fact from himself that he operated at cause. And in doing so, he sends himself and other dynamics down tone. The Bridge is - Getting in ethics so you go up tone to the state of Free Spiritual Being. Getting in ethics is accomplished by: 1. Stop agreeing with your case, and thereby committing overts. Notice that number 1 and 2 above align with responsibility. Number 1 is - able to withhold from (committing overts) That’s how you make Clears, Theta Clears, OTs, and Free Spiritual Beings.
Rons Org Misapplication of O/M Tech Going OT is about becoming Cause. That is only accomplished by increasing responsibility level. You can’t make an OT by decreasing responsibility level, that’s misapplication. Marianne Hagen of Rons Org preaches and practices a philosophy of irresponsibility. In telephone conversations I had with Marianne, she would repeatedly talk about Xenu did this and Xenu did that, as the WHY for someone’s bad condition. She also expressed the concept that you can’t hold a person responsible for their actions because the Excalibur case can overwhelm a Thetan. One day I got tired of hearing about Xenu is the WHY for all and told her that Xenu has nothing to do with my actions, I decide what I do, not Xenu. I said that this idea “Xenu made me do it” is the same as the Christian justifier for overts “The devil made me do it.” And the idea that you can’t hold a Thetan responsible for his actions because he is overwhelmed by his Excalibur case - is a misapplication of ethics tech and O/M tech. In fact, it is suppressive because it is making it ok to be out ethics and commit overts. The poor guy just couldn’t help himself, he just had to do the overt because of his Excal case. Bullcrap. That’s justification of an overt - which leaves the Being at effect. What kind of an auditor agrees with a person’s justifiers for his overts? Worse than that, the auditor provides the person with justifiers for their overts? You never agree with a Being’s justifiers, in or out of session, that’s gross misapplication. What better way could you have for sabotaging case gain and the entire Bridge, than that? Another Rons Org C/S, Otfried Krumpholz, participated in the ongoing black propaganda campaign against HASI terminals. When he was asked to retract certain false statements, he said - But I didn’t do anything, all I did was say something. So I go to the police and tell them a lie that I saw Joe rob a store, and then Joe gets put in jail for that. Then I say - But I didn’t do anything, all I did was say something. That’s justification of an overt, isn’t it? I am not confronting the damage I caused with a lie. Another Rons Org terminal, Kenton Meyer, participated in the ongoing black propaganda campaign against HASI terminals. He is Div 6 for Marianne Hagen. When we asked Marianne to handle Kenton, she said I can’t because his stats are up. Well, you don’t assign conditions based on stats alone. The letter reg wrote 10 letters last week. This week she wrote 15 letters but she also burned down the org. Her condition is not normal because of 5 more letters out - her condition is enemy for destroying the org. So, here we go again with Marianne providing justifiers for
overts. So, we have these RO people who have no clue what they are doing in handling a case. They do not seem to understand that the key to all cases is responsibility and that what they are supposed to do is return the Thetan to Cause by getting him to increase his responsibility level. Instead, they sabotage case gain by: Demonstrating that they have no clue what a justifier is Agreeing with and providing justifiers for the person’s overts is allowing them to not get their ethics in and stop committing overts and that not only sabotages case gain, it will sabotage the entire bridge. The guy will never make it to OT. They preach and practice a philosophy of effect instead of preaching and practicing a philosophy of cause. How is it that you can make an OT (a thetan at Cause) by making him into an effect? So, is it any wonder that Rons Org has not produced any actual OTs? It’s no surprise that Black Auditors who practice Reverse Scientology do not make OTs. The current Rons Org defined - One of the freezone places where you can misapply tech and go backwards
on the Bridge. HCOB 29 September 1965 The Continuing Overt Act “The case who continually commits overts before, during and after processing… won’t make it.” HCOB 21 January 1960 Justification “Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral. One commits overt
acts unwittingly. He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing
blame. This leads him into further overts against the same terminals which
leads to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.” My comments on the above two LRH references: You want to continue down the dwindling spiral into further degradation? The current Ron’s Org is a good place to do it. But Rons Org has no monopoly on that - the Church and the entire Freezone do that too.
Church Misapplication of O/M Tech The Church sabotages case gain and the entire Bridge the same way the Freezone does it. My wife, Virginia, was receiving mandatory six-month sec checks while on OT 7. Then she read C/S Series 73 and that says people who are doing well on OT 7 should not be interrupted with sec checks or anything else. That made six-month sec checks out tech, for those who were doing well on OT 7. RTC and Flag refused to apply C/S Series 73 to her or anyone else, regardless of the fact they were doing well on OT 7. Virginia applied KSW and insisted they apply the HCOB. One of their solutions to Virginia applying KSW, was to give her reverse auditing by Therese Blum at Flag. In one reverse auditing session, the auditor’s code was misapplied by Therese when she evaluated for and invalidated Virginia for about an hour and a half. In addition to that, Virginia said that she had committed an overt of not applying KSW when she first found out about C/S Series 73. Therese then provided justifiers to Virginia for that overt, including flat out saying it was not an overt. She even went so far as asking Virginia to compare which one is a bigger overt, not doing OT 7 or not applying a few words out of some LRH bulletin. All Scientologists in the Church are guilty of the suppressive act of not applying KSW to RTC for altering LRH issues. But we do not see Church auditors handling this overt by finding out what justifiers these Scientologists have for their overt of not applying KSW. People are afraid to apply KSW to RTC for unethical selfish reasons. One of their justifiers for that overt is - if RTC expells me I will lose my job, my friends and my Bridge. Well, that and all other justifiers for it do not make it any less of an overt. So you lose your job. So what? Get another job. That’s nothing compared to losing your integrity. So you lose some phoney friends. So what? Find some real friends. So you lose a sabotaged Bridge. So what? Get on the real Bridge. The insanity of staying in the Off-Source Church is - at the cost of losing your integrity, you are receiving a sabotaged Bridge. Fear of RTC - you are creating that effect on yourself. You don’t have to.
Misapplication of Confessional Tech Another piece of vital tech generally omitted by RO and the entire
Freezone is FPRD. And, you may think the Church does a better job of handling FPRD than
the Freezone. Now why would a squirrel such as David Miscavige love security checks? Did you know that he owns a patent on a bugging device? It’s one that you can covertly wear on your clothing. He has also ordered all rooms bugged at CSI. This shows why he loves security checks - his tone level is fear. Because he is in fear, he mistrusts people to such a degree that he feels the need to spy on everyone. Every one is out to get me is the viewpoint of an SP. They live in terror of others. Uneasy rests the head with blood on its hands. So, I believe that his interest in ordering confessionals is for intelligence gathering, not for case gain. He compulsively needs to know if anyone is catching on to him and his suppressive acts, such as altering LRH issues. And if anyone in the Church is found to be catching on to him being a suppressive - he has Fair Game actions applied to the person. Fair Game attacks include, but are not limited to, a black propaganda campaign to destroy their reputation, reverse auditing, manufactured false reports, false comm.evs, expulsion, enforced disconnection, and black intelligence operations on the person to destroy their business, etc. Psychic Warfare in the form of Black NOTs is also used to attack them. And that fact tells me David Miscavige is not interested in case gain - his fear demands intelligence on real or imagined potential threats to his political control of the Church. C/S Series 73 says not to interrupt an OT 7 doing well with sec checks or anything else. Well, it would seem that David’s psychosis of fearing others - that makes him compulsively collect intelligence on people - overrides HCOB C/S Series 73.
|