Possibly Helpful Advice


Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult
Vista

Ideal Org predators and R2-40

Note to readers: this post describes something very technical in Scientology philosophy that you must understand to armor yourself against constant predatory demands from the “church” of Scientology Inc for pure donations. The explanation can get a little heavy, so if you find yourself spinny, make sure you’ve cleared the words and demo’d the principles involved. And use the comments section to ask questions.

SuicideI just read the story over on the South Africans’ Back in Comm blog about the Corbetts’ experience with the church of Perpetual Donations.

Their post is here.

When you read that post, you will see something that I have observed happening in Scientology Inc over the past ten years.

Not only do “registrars” show up willy-nilly to try to get money out of you, but they keep coming back to people who have donated before.

If you said “no” and managed to escape the reg cycle, they don’t come back.

If you asked a bunch of challenging questions that the reg couldn’t answer or show you references for, and then you said “no”, the reg they won’t come back.

But if you gave them money, even if it was “just to get the reg cycle over with”, they return, and return again, and return again, and don’t leave on the return trips until they’ve managed to get you to cough up something.

A few years ago, I watched one of these fixated leeches hammer on a friend of mine…hour after hour after hour…until my friend caved in and went off to get a bunch of credit cards for the reg to find out which ones had “extra room on them” or which ones could have their credit limits raised.

While he was off doing that, I asked the reg why he doggedly kept coming back to my friend time after time for donations, even when it was getting more and more evident my friend was getting stretched thin.

The reg told me that my friend had already decided to donate, so he was just leveraging that postulate to get more money.

I said I thought it seemed heartless to go about it this way.

The reg told me it was LRH.

WHAT!?! That’s LRH?!?

“Yep, it’s right in Creation of Human Ability, under R2-40.”

“Huh?”

“Go look it up when you get home.”

And I did.

R2-40 is basically a process named “Conceiving a Static”, which is essentially the process command.

But before the process is described are several paragraphs based on the principle of Ultimate Truth, which comes from the Axioms:

35. THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.

A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of ‘Basic Truth’.

36. A LIE IS A SECOND POSTULATE, STATEMENT OR CONDITION DESIGNED TO MASK A PRIMARY POSTULATE WHICH IS PERMITTED TO REMAIN.

Examples:

Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another.

A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle, not having moved, did move. The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different.

37. WHEN A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IS ALTERED BUT STILL EXISTS, PERSISTENCE IS ACHIEVED FOR THE ALTERING CONSIDERATION.

All persistence depends on the Basic Truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the Basic Truth has neither persistence nor impersistence.

The chapter states:

R2-40: CONCEIVING A STATIC THIS IS A HEAVY PROCESS. IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CASES HAVING ANY REAL DIFFICULTY.

Here we use the discovery and principle of Ultimate Truth (see Summary of Scientology).

If one has no prior postulate and makes a postulate, then that postulate cannot be a lie.

If one then makes a denying postulate second to this primary postulate, he then has accomplished a lie.

A prime postulate on any subject cannot be a lie. A second postulate can be a lie. In such a case, the second postulate permits the prime postulate to exist. But in such a case it is the second postulate, the lie, which persists. All second postulates depend on prime postulates for their force.

1. All evil depends upon a prime postulate of goodness if the evil is to persist.

2. The Satanists claim that Satan is God after He made the universe.

3. A hatred of a person depends for its only strength upon a love for that person prior to the hatred. The hatred persists but only has strength from the love.

4. A man considers himself to be worthless. This state of mind, persisting, denotes that he must have had a considerable opinion of himself before he felt worthless.

But beware of thinking that ‘all is good’ or ‘all is evil’. The force comes from prime postulate, the state persisting from the second postulate.

EXAMPLE:

1. A doctor considers himself a good, charitable man, a wholly unselfish healer. On examination we see the second postulate persists, so his goodness must be the second postulate. It must have force from a prime postulate it denies and so we find this doctor entered medicine because it had more chance of easy sex. Then he denied this to himself and argued he did it from humanity. His pious mien ceases to persist and he is freed from this pose by straight-wiring the prime postulate.

RULE:

Always straight-wire out a condition contradicting the condition which exists.

EXAMPLE:

1. We have a preclear with bad legs. We see that bad legs are persisting. Thus we know that the forceful postulate is prior and opposite so we straight-wire out good legs.

2. A man is sick because of a jilt in love. We straight-wire out not the jilt, but the times he loved the girl.

3. Our interiorized preclear is stuck, won’t exteriorize. We straight-wire the time he was free and so discharge the stuck (the second) postulate, and thus exteriorize him.

RULE:

That which is closer to an ultimate truth (the Static) gives power to that which

contradicts it.

The process, and a vicious one it is, contains only the command, repeated over and over, ‘Conceive a thetan’.

Caution: this is a long process. The auditor may have to remedy the havingness of the preclear. (Do not forget SOP 8-C Opening Procedure if the preclear bogs.)

The ‘top buttons’ of the Chart of Attitudes (see Scientology 8-8008) are the main qualities of a Static. A Static has no quantity: it does have quality and consideration.

————————————–

Basically, the reg was telling me he’d been trained to use the theory of R2-40 to keep people donating to “the cause”, because once the person decided, the power of that postulate was senior to any newer, counter-postulate, and the reg could penetrate postulate two to get back to postulate one: the original postulate to donate.

In fact, the postulate to go Clear or to go OT can be penetrated and overridden if the person has an earlier postulate to “help his church survive” or “donate money to cause X”.

So a reg returning to a person who has already made a donation is actually making the reg’s job easier. The reg doesn’t have to penetrate the mark’s second postulates to get him to donate again.

A person making a sizeable donation to a persistent reg actually sets himself up to be victimized by predatory reges in the future.

This is yet another example of Black Scientology: using the principles of Scientology for evil instead of good.

Possibly Helpful Advice

It’s probably too late to suggest this, but this week’s Possibly Helpful Advice is: Don’t make any pure donations to the “church” of Scientology Inc. Ever.

Payments made in direct exchange for a service, such as a course or auditing or books, will keep the evil “church” of Scientology Inc from using the Ultimate Truth…a static…you…against you.

And don’t make “advanced payments” to the “church”. Recent events definitely show us that the church refuses to refund or repay “advanced payments”. And your “advanced payments” don’t earn interest.

So a better strategy to protect yourself and your money consists of: (1) not making pure donations to the “church”, ever, and (2) not making “advanced payments” to the church, ever.

Just so you know.

— written by Plain Old Thetan

Number of views:71
  

2 Comments

iknowbetter  on November 12th, 2013

I remember thinking before that if you give money to a reg, and if it puts him in Affluence, then of course he applies the Affluence formula. Part of that formula is “look at what caused the affluence and strengthen it.”

So if I gave them money I contributed to the Affluence so they will come back for more. So I learned early on I NEVER gave money at the end of a stat week.

PlainOldThetan  on November 12th, 2013

Good point. Good tactic.

You applied REWARDS AND PENALTIES and didn’t REWARD the undesired behavior and activity on the part of the reg!

Leave a Comment


9 − one =