Possibly Helpful Advice

Finding your way after leaving the cult of Scientology

A Common Base for the Freezone and all other Independents

If you have read Going Clear by Lawrence Wright or Let’s sell these people A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack, you may reach the conclusion that many others have reached long ago, the Church of Scientology is all about indoctrination and making docile and obedient members. You will also disabuse yourself of the notion that Ron Hubbard was Source of the technology.

After reading these, you might wonder as one of my preclears did recently, “Is there any LRH process that is worth using?

My response was, “Most of the work that was done by experienced auditors seems to have produced useful results. I use only those processes I have validated through personal use.” In 2010, I decided that the sanest approach was to use those bits of technology that I could personally verify and to build on these to accomplish what was needed to help any particular pc. There are a growing number of other auditors who are doing the same, extending the technology through actual research and through consultation with other professionals handling the same problems.

We have discovered once again, that  useful technology requires a huge quantity of work and it is best done by many individuals working together. Open communication of results and problems makes for speedy progress in resolving any issues.

I recently discovered that this topic of cooperation had been discussed in 1999 by Ken Ogger. His article deserves a thorough understanding if  we are not to  repeat the errors of the failing Church of Scientology, now known as one of the most dangerous cults in the world, at least to its loyal members.


A Common Base for the Freezone

The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings – from Post62 – July 1999

A true science requires a huge quantity of work. It is never  the product of one man.

But a strong tech finder will indeed begin acting as a “source”  of tech.The research gets done by individuals, not committees.

That leaves us with the problem of how to pull together unique  and individual source points into a cohesive whole which might  actually achieve real OT.

We can’t make it on individual gurus no matter how brilliant  and charismatic they are. If anyone could have done that,  it would have been LRH, and he failed. And his attempt to  do it as an only one almost killed the research line.

We should all have learned our lesson from that. I for one  know that I wouldn’t make it alone. And so I imitate Ron  as he acted in the 1950s when he was being “the great organizer”  rather than the “source” of tech (see LRH quotes on the  Scientology Reformer’s Homepage).

Without a common base, we will have one genius making light bulbs  that lack a power source and another pouring concrete for a  power dam that is useless to everyone, and a third stringing  transmission lines to nowhere.

The broadest base ever defined in this field is the original  definition of Scientology. Not the abberrant concept that  Scientology is LRH tech or that it is some narrow standard,  but the original definition which says that Scientology is  the subject of “Knowing How To KNOW”.

Scientology was not just LRH. He did not define it that way.

He said that if the Arabs find some way of sifting sand that  increases knowingness and reveals truth, then it is part  of Scientology. (see the History of Man lectures).

In this case, the CofS is using a SQUIRREL definition of  Scientology as being standard tech, and in this case I mean  True Squirrel which means altering the subject so as to  make it unworkable, because with this abberrated definition  they have destroyed the actual workability of the subject  as a way to achieve truth and knowledge.

The old definition for Squirrel was destructive alter-is,  and on that basis, the only squirrel group around is the CofS itself.

There is nothing wrong with having a standard tech. What  is wrong is to knock out all but a narrow subset of the  tech and destroy the research line.

If it works, it is Scientology by definition. That’s what  L. Ron Hubbard said.

That doesn’t mean that the CofS has to deliver it. They have  their specific delivery lineup. There is nothing wrong with  that either.

You have a workable standard and you use it. And somebody  else has a different workable standard and they use that.  And yet another group has an even different workable standard  and they use that. These are the practicalities of delivering  a product.

You can have more than one brand of car. They are built a  little bit different from each other. Some have better  acceleration. Some have better gas mileage. Some are  build for rough terrain and some are made for the racetrack.  Some people own more than one car. The manufacturers don’t  mind if they do that.

So there is room for many standards.

And yet we will not make it if each of us goes drifting  off in our own direction.

We do need a common base. Ron’s work in the 1950s is the best starting point that  this planet has ever seen.

Modern CofS standard tech could be though of as one of  many possible lines that evolved off of that platform.

Things like Avatar and Trom are just as well aligned  with that early base as standard tech. They are definitely  Scientology per LRH’s definition in the 1950s.

And so we need LRH for that broad vision and the foundations  that we are building on.

Unfortunately,it has been CofS’s effort to blow people  away from LRH, attacking anyone who could think for themselves  to the point where many turned their backs in disgust on  the entire rotten mess.

That is the real reason that freezone groups drift away from basic Scientology and early LRH. It is not that  there is a natural tendency to drift away. It is that  they are forced off with sixteen inch naval guns.

The Pilot
Ken Ogger



Number of views:8614


Elizabeth Hamree  on March 15th, 2013

”You have a workable standard and you use it. And somebody
else has a different workable standard and they use that.
And yet another group has an even different workable standard
and they use that. These are the practicalities of delivering
a product.”
”So there is room for many standards.”

This is a great post, my self I used nothing but standard tech and attained the results I wanted. And yet I been called by many a “squirrel” which in my reality was not the fact because I never alterd the auditing commands or the tech it-self.
I just used what I have found was working for me..

Interesting viewponts realities people have and they judge others by their own reality.

crane007  on March 18th, 2013

I’m taking the HQS course and its like drinking whiskey that hasn’t been watered down. We have fun in the Independent field and the courses are served straight up!

hncollazo  on April 18th, 2013

I had downloaded Pilot Self Clear book about 2 years ago. Not sure if is safe working with it. Is there any experiences on getting cleared or OT using these processes? Thanks, H.

OldAuditor  on April 18th, 2013

Dear H,
If you persist and follow the directions, you should experience benefit from the book.
I did not see anything particularly dangerous in the material.

Perhaps some of our readers have personal experience using this material.

hncollazo  on April 20th, 2013

That is a relief. I live in outside the continental USA and the only way to get processed is at a local Org. Too much pressure for donations and sales, invalidation of all my courses and auditing wins. There is no Freezoner down here and I had bought all basics, lectures and conference, management books, and auditor courses though ebay and love the subject. I had helped myself very much by just reading the material and applying it to my daily life. I was hoping to use SelfClearing to start the Bridge. Thanks H.

Leave a Comment