Possibly Helpful Advice

Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult

Miscavige’s knee-jerk SP declare miscalculation (Part 5)

Continuing with this series, there’s more insight to be had into Miscavige’s knee-jerk SP declare program that backs up my conclusion that Miscavige is running the program as part of a campaign to ensure planetary clearing doesn’t occur.

As I described earlier in the series, Scientology Inc is involved in a covert program to reverse the gains of its parishioners by taking those parishioners and adding to their case, which results in longer times for existing parishioners to make Bridge progress.

In this installment, I’ll go into more on how Miscavige is enforcing things on parishioners that make expansion impossible. No matter how many unnecessary Purification Rundown and Objectives and PTS/SP course retreads are ordered and done.

Overts, Withholds, and Missed Withholds

Being shown one of Scientology Inc’s top-secret declares usually results in a MISSED WITHHOLD for the parishioner, because the parishioner, at some point in the past, made a decision…a postulate…that they would associate with or befriend or parent the person who’s now being labeled a Suppressive Person. And the Church is now saying that’s an overt.

From the Tech Dictionary: OVERT ACT, 1. an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (HCO PL1 Nov 70 III) 2. an intentionally committed harmful act committed in an effort to resolve a problem. (6410C27) 3. that thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you. (6009C14)

Handing a parishioner a top-secret declare notice enforces on the parishioner that he’s messed up; he’s let down the Church and his own opportunity to get a guaranteed paid-for un-evadable “eternity”. It tells him he’s now a target of the church’s “secret police”.

What the parishioner doesn’t realize is that, in classic Reverse Scientology style, the church is committing one of the earliest-on-the-track overts on the parishioner.

A lot of overt/withhold tech is contained in the State of Man congress lectures. If you study lecture 6001C01 RESPONSIBILITY, you’ll hear about The greatest overt act in the world is making other people guilty of overt acts. (chapter 4 of the CD lecture)

Of course, the declare order itself is an effort to make the declared person guilty of overt acts.

But when the parishioner sees his family member or friend being made guilty of fabricated overt acts, he wonders what fabricated overt acts he’s going to be made guilty of.

And the one the church’s Ethics Officer tells him is an overt right up front is communicating with the now-declared person.

In fact, the Ethics Officer expends no end of energy informing the parishioner that he’s guilty of a future overt act…communicating with the now-declared person.

There’s more on committing an overt by making someone guilty in SHSBC-132 (6203C27) PREPCHECKING DATA.

LRH says in lecture 6110C05 SEC CHECKING: TYPES OF WITHHOLDS SHSBC-067 that Scientology doesn’t combine with other therapies, such as making the guy guilty (with the addition of punishment and condemnation and assignment to hell). (SHSBC cassette lecture transcript p.43) So maybe Scientology Inc can be accusing an innocent person of overt acts that justify declaring him, but it ain’t Scientology. Those mechanisms are from other practices, including Miscavology, the Salem witch trials, and the Inquisition.

This same lecture says that the Sec Check auditor is not the enforcer of public mores, because it makes the auditor commit an overt of making someone withhold.

Another lecture that concerns itself with this phenomena is 6112C31 HAVINGNESS, QUALITY OF REACH, in the Clean Hands Congress (Expansion of Havingness on cassettes). In that lecture LRH says that “prevented reach” is an overt and “make guilty of” is an overt. If anything is an enforced prevented reach, it’s dragging a parishioner into an office and telling him he can’t communicate with someone.

So there’s at least three overts being committed by the church showing a parishioner the top-secret declare. It makes the person being declared guilty of overts. It makes the parishioner guilty of overts and future overts. And the declare itself is littered with deliberate generalities, deliberate falsehoods, and deliberate misdirection, the issuance and enforcement of the declare order itself is a lie.

One of the next things that happens when a parishioner reads the embellished and fabricated report of what the now-declared person has done is to wonder what he’s done that the church will consider an unforgivable overt act.

This gets into some dicey territory, but the obvious mechanism it evokes is a missed withhold of nothing.

From the Tech Dictionary: MISSED WITHHOLD OF NOTHING, 1. there is nothing there, yet the auditor tries to get it and the pc ARC breaks. This gives the pc a missed withhold of nothing. (HCO PL16 Apr 65) 2. “cleaning” a rudiment that has already registered null gives the pc a missed withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. To ask again something already null is to leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness. (HCOB 4 Jul 62)

Missed withhold of nothingness is also described in HCOB 9 September 1963 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING.

There is also a phenomena called an UNINTENTIONAL WITHHOLD, as described in lecture 6201C16 NATURE OF WITHHOLDS (SHSBC-104).

From the tech Dictionary: UNINTENTIONAL WITHHOLD, he doesn’t intend to withhold it but he finds himself in a position of doing so because nobody will listen. (6110C05)

(Write a report uplines saying the “GAT” has 1200 errors in it, giving chapter and verse of what LRH directive was violated and what page number of what drill pack it occurs on. You will never get a response back, leaving you with the impression that nobody listened.)

In the case of church declares, both parishioners and declared people find themselves in the boat containing other people with unintentional withholds.

LRH gives an example of a person being ejected from a tribe but not told why and not listened to or communicated with when he asks why.

That puts him on an unintentional withhold. And it messes up his co-motion (or co-action) horribly!

But it’s still a withhold, so the persons having an unintentional withhold will manifest withhold phenomena, including the existence of motivators.

But for the parishioner still in-church, when that unintentional withhold is missed, he’ll complain and gripe and motivate like crazy. And he’ll become of a mind to not disseminate Scientology and not to take services and not to make donations for overbloated Ideal Orgs. Or any of the other 16 manifestations of a missed withhold.

In another lecture from the State of Man congress called Why People Don’t Like You (6001C02)  LRH says “Now, you actually perform, to some degree, an overt against a person — looking at this in a very loose, sloppy fashion — by letting a person do an overt to you.  And that’s about as close as you can get to performing an overt is to let somebody perform an overt against you without doing something about it. Because he’ll wind up with a mechanism which we will call lessening the overt — the mechanism of lessening the overt.”

So if you sit in the Ethics office and let someone accuse a friend of monstrous unverifiable suppressive acts that you can’t call the person and ask about…that’s enforcement of mores on you that you don’t ascribe to. And if you sit there and accept that enforcement of mores then you’re letting the church commit overts on you and you’re letting the church commit overts on your friends and family.

You may walk away beaten and cowed from the Ethics office because you accepted the church’s insanity as reality.

And don’t forget the adverse effect that happen to the Ethics officer when he lies to you about your declared friend.

He’s lying and has to withhold that.

It’s not good for his case or his state of mind. Yet this is the guy who you’re supposed to go to and sort out problems that you have with honest and straightforward communication.

When the Ethics officer is committing overts on you and is untrustworthy, the logical thing to do is to extract yourself from the situation…rather than to open your mouth and get slammed with $15,000 or $30,000 of sec checking (when the Ethics officer is the one who really needs the sec checking).

I’ve written before on the bypassed charge being accumulated by “Ideal Org” staff members.

There’s hidden factors with regard to the effect of these unintentional withholds and withholds and “guilty of” overts that aren’t intuitively evident. In the 5th London ACC lectures in Lecture 12A 11 Nov 1958 THE SKILL OF AN AUDITOR, PART I, QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD Ron gives an exposition with data on the OCA I had never heard before. (pgs 183-187 in the transcript) Ron explains how a withhold can be a PT problem and lead to an unchanging OCA. This same point is made in lecture 6101C02 WHY CASES DON’T MOVE, PART II. (CD transcript pp.46-47)

When it comes to overts/withholds/missed withholds, there’s more co-motion (co-action) involved, like there is with problems (see Part 4)

Listen to lecture 6110C04 (SHSBC 066) MORAL CODES: WHAT IS A WITHHOLD?; LRH gives the anatomy of the reactive bank, which starts with an early co-action followed by an overt or withhold, which sticks the person on the time track. LRH repeats the necessity of this sequence in lecture 6110C24 CLEARING (SHSBC 074) by saying that co-action must precede an overt or withhold. He amplifies on it by describing the sequence involved:
▶ There’s an agreement to join the group (follow mores of the group)
▶ followed by co-action
▶ followed by overts
▶ followed by withholds
▶ followed by more Overts and Withholds
▶ followed by the person totally withholding himself from participation in the group.

This co-action ▶ overt ▶ withhold sequence explains why it is so hard to find auditors or staff members for Ideal Orgs. By joining staff, the person will be operating against his own moral code and thereby commits an overt. As a result the easiest way not to commit the overt is not to join staff at the Ideal Org!

Or, if the executives or HCO terminals lie to the public and staff, they’re already deep into the cycle. So the staff members go out-ruds on day-to-day life. And the onlines public know they’re not seeing “70x expansion” so they’re lying and withholding from each other and the staff too.

So when a declare comes down the line for someone a parishioner knows, one of the early things that happens — parishioner or staff — is the person goes: “What did my now-declared associate know and when did he know it?” But he dare not say it out loud because that’s the kind of comment that’ll get the parishioner or staff member shredded. Snap! It’s now a withhold!

Who in Scientology Inc is withholding? Who lies to themselves in Scientology Inc? Who lies to the press? Who’s lied to Tom Cruise? Who’s lied to you? Which church terminals made problems for you instead of helping you arrive at solutions?

It’s all withholds.

And the church ensnares you into its web of lies by trying to handle you using ethics policy rather than handling itself using ethics policy.

It’s the old prestidigitator’s trick: “look over here”, while doing something deceptive when he’s got you distracted.

And don’t forget that loading up existing parishioners with mass, overts, withholds, and missed withholds is an anti-planetary-clearing technology.

You can’t move up the Bridge when it’s one step forward, followed by two steps backward.

And auditing over problems results in no TA motion. (ref: HCOB 23 August 1971 AUDITOR’S RIGHTS)

Auditing over out-rudiments can build up mass, too. (Same ref.)

Both of those situations are no-auditing situations.

And therefore contribute to Miscavige’s anti-planetary-clearing campaign.

More on other malevolent effects of Miscavige’s knee-jerk declare program in part 6.

— written by Plain Old Thetan

Number of views:80972


SamU  on October 18th, 2012

I just had an enormous cognition!

Maybe all this (covert programs) could be avoided if you just never allow your KNOWINGNESS to be invalidated. It’s that simple. I think that’s the difference between a Free Scientologist and a COS Scientologist. A Free Scientologist doesn’t allow himself to be invalidated.

Thank you for putting all this out here. I just could not understand why anyone would remain in the COS and stomach that type of treatment.

Maybe that’s why auditors are less tolerant of Black Dianetics than other people, because they know this game that’s being played. I cannot even fully express how many cognitions I’m having right now.

Thank you a 1000 times.

PlainOldThetan  on October 18th, 2012

SamU: That’s a great idea and it’s way up there in line with the Code of Honor…with this cautionary note: if what a person thinks is knowingness is actually PRETENDED knowingness…if the knowingness comes from a service facsimile, for example, any opposition to his “knowingness” just helps implant the service fac deeper and buries it under new service facs. A service facsimile is a computation adopted by a person that SUBSTITUTES FOR KNOWINGNESS and PREVENTS OBSERVATION. For example you might hear someone say “All blondes are stupid.” The person saying it doesn’t have to observe or think or evaluate. The person KNOWS all blondes are stupid, and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Oh, wait, that’s how every one of DM’s OT Committee members behaves.

They just KNOW DM isn’t lying to them. And they won’t have that idea invalidated.

PRETENDED KNOWINGNESS, is actually denial of knowingness. (6108C08) (Tech Dictionary)

The lecture 6108C22 SHSBC-047 PTPs, UNKNOWNNESS also talks about pretended knowingness, as does lecture 6109C05 SHSBC-053 PRINCIPLES OF AUDITING, where LRH says pretended knowingness and pretended understanding can occur after one has not observed.

I’m not saying your cognition is wrong. I’m saying I’ve crossed a lot of swords with people claiming knowingness that wasn’t knowingness; it was PRETENDED knowingness.

By the way, BY NOT BEING HONEST WITH PARISHIONERS, like by making it impossible to see the true stats of the church, for example, Miscavige forces parishioners from knowingness into PRETENDED knowingness. Ooops.

Hapexamendios  on October 18th, 2012

Something else that LRH says in the State of Man lectures that I’ve long found intriguing is that the worst overt act is making others guilty of overt acts. And that’s exactly what you’re seeing in the church these days. “Oh you listened to those awful critics, you’ve been a very naughty boy.” or “You’re committing a terrible overt by standing by your friend or spouse who we saw fit to declare. You must be punished!” It’s a mechanism to suppress and cave people in.

plainoldthetan  on October 18th, 2012

Hapexamendios: I cited that passage in my post:

“A lot of overt/withhold tech is contained in the State of Man congress lectures. If you study lecture 6001C01 RESPONSIBILITY, you’ll hear about The greatest overt act in the world is making other people guilty of overt acts. (chapter 4 of the CD lecture)
Of course, the declare order itself is an effort to make the declared person guilty of overt acts.”

But your underscoring it helps make the point: the church is making people’s cases worse, not better. And not taking responsibility for it.

SamU  on October 19th, 2012

When I look at this series of articles that you’ve written, I’m agreeing that the COS is making people’s cases worse. I don’t even need to be an auditor to tell you that. The simple fact that I was “in the box” (on the Purification Rundown) with people who were OTs and one Clear was evidence enough for me. I’m thinking to myself WTF why would they agree to that? I asked one day, because I didn’t know better. I was told the C/S ordered it and that it was done wrong before which is why their going up the bridge slowly. I’m thinking (Technical Perfection), I don’t think they know what this means. Couldn’t it be that you’re going up the Bridge slowly because you’re being audited incorrectly? (Why do people have to make things so complicated?) They were each very nonchalant about redoing something they did years ago. I think that instead of fighting the “system” they just agreed to it and succumbed. I could at least tell that by the communication I had and still have with one of the OTs who is on a do-over, that it really bothers him to being doing it again. I’m sure it affects his auditing.

What I didn’t understand is why and how 20 year Public Scientologists or Veteran Staff members would tolerate it. So what you’re saying is that there could be an implanted service facsimile that causes these people to stay inside and subject themselves to Black Dianetics. Does this service facsimile have a name or certain characteristics that could help someone spot them?

This below part is a statement for you to understand me better. I’m quite new to the Scientology world, but not so new to the Tech, which I cannot fully explain. That is my knowingness, whether it’s from a service facsimile or me, is left to be seen, except that it is more true for me than not. I’ll find out in another auditing adventure.

Here’s my example of what I think knowingness is. You could have told me about entities just 2 months ago and I’d never believe you, until I really looked and observed the millions, billions and quadrillions of them. Now, I know they’re all around because I can observe them and communicate with them. There is no shortage. What I’m trying to figure out is the why this all is. I’m trying to discover if there is a way I can as-is it all (case) by just observing the entire scene (MEST-THETA UNIVERSE, or whatever) by pulling myself so far back from the scene that I see all. I have to tell you that I’m struggling with that one, but when I can do that, I can say what that (MEST-THETA UNIVERSE) is, that I will become my knowingness.

For now, I’m very happy to get all the tech and ideas you are willing to share. BTW, I would never suspect you to come right out and tell me that my knowingness was wrong or pretended. I’m sure you’ve crossed swords with many people who manifested pretended knowingness. I’m ok with those types of people, because it’s a knowingness for them and it doesn’t affect me. Wow, another cog!

Hapexamendios  on October 19th, 2012

Doh! My bad, I managed to completely overlook that before.

PlainOldThetan  on October 19th, 2012

Hapex: No worries, mate!!

PlainOldThetan  on October 20th, 2012

Sam: here’s some responses.

“Does this service facsimile have a name or certain characteristics that could help someone spot them?”

Service Facsimile tech is studied on Level IV auditor training, which means it’s a bit up on the training side of the Bridge. You’ve indicated you’re fairly new at this Scientology stuff, so you may not have access to all the materials. But I would recommend studying

BOOK Advanced Procedure and Axioms, Chap.13 COMPUTATIONS
BOOK Advanced Procedure and Axioms, Chap.14 SERVICE FACSIMILES
DIANETICS Tech.Vol. XI:241
BOOK Handbook for Preclears (Sixth Act, Tenth Act, Eleventh Act),
BOOK Problems of Work Chapter 2
HCOB Anatomy of Service Facsimile 5 September 1978 (XI:232)
HCOB R3SC Slow Assessment (VII:326)
Grade IV data in Scientology Picture book.
HCOB 1 September 1963 ROUTINE THREE SC Tech.Vol. VII:288

That’s all useful for learning how to AUDIT Service Facs, but the real beginner’s guide to Service Facs is Advanced Procedure and Axioms and the Scientology Picture Book.

Figuring out if someone’s talking to you out of a service fac goes something like this:
“All blondes are stupid.”
“Huh. I like Ann Coulter, and she doesn’t seem so stupid to me. Opinionated, maybe, but not stupid.”
“Nope. All blondes are stupid, even Ann Coulter.”
“Huh. I kinda thought Taylor Swift was pretty bright. Same for Claire Danes. Chelsea Handler’s published more books than me, so she’s got to have some kind of smarts I don’t have.”
“Nope, you idiot! All blondes are stupid!”
“Is it just blonde women, or anyone with blond hair?”
“You f-in’ idiot. They’re all stupid. Maybe you dye your hair or else your stupidity would be showing through and you could see how stupid you are in the mirror.”
The characteristics of a service facsimile are that it is a computation held in place to
1. Make self right.
2. Make others wrong.
3. Dominate others.
4. Escape domination.
5. Enhance own survival
6. Injure the survival of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)

Basically, if you’re with a person “in” the church and you say something offhandedly like: “Last year’s IAS event said that every sector of Scientology has expanded 70x and I just don’t see it.” (/?p=5466)

If the person responds by saying, “That’s entheta! COB is working as hard as he can every day to make it go right and make Scientology expand and you’re just criticizing him and invalidating his efforts” his “knowingness” is coming out of a service fac.

If the person says, “Yeah, I’ve been worried about that, too, but we shouldn’t be caught talking about it” you can be pretty much assured his knowingness isn’t coming out of a service fac.

“I’m sure you’ve crossed swords with many people who manifested pretended knowingness. I’m ok with those types of people, because it’s a knowingness for them and it doesn’t effect me.”

Impressive. You’ve somehow evaded the in-life situations where a boss or parent or 2D has “certainty” about something that you disagree with and they’ll make your life miserable until you come around.

Don’t sign a Sea Org “contract” or your immunity to others’ pretended knowingness will change for sure.

I believe the other things you want to discuss are covered over on the Workable Technology website.

Jane Doe  on January 27th, 2014

Plain Old Thetan, Wonderful article. I just found this web site and never visited before cuz I didn’t know it existed. what is your email address? I’d love to have a private comm with you. Great article on W/H and all related stuff.

PlainOldThetan  on January 27th, 2014

You can send a private message to the site personnel using the links found on our “about the authors” page.

Leave a Comment

8 × = seventy two