Possibly Helpful Advice


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

How to make an SP – by Plain Old Thetan

My old friend who posts under the name of Plain Old Thetan has done it again.

In this essay he shows how some individuals in the Sea Organization, Scientology’s upper Executive strata, and Scientology-based businesses have been transformed into out of valence Suppressive Persons.

I have seen the results of this transformation time and time again, but have not seen the complete mechanism explained until now. Many of you may recognize what has happened to some of your old acquaintances after reading this.  I certainly did.

20 March 2010
How to make an SP

One thing that bothered me through my Scientology studies was: how does an SP become an SP?  And by SP, I mean a real shrieking 2½ percenter (dramatizing the overt or covert but always complex and continuous determination to harm or destroy), not the administrative SPs created when they get declared after annoying DM, or speaking out on the internet.

Ron says in HCOB 20 April 1972 R I SUPPRESSED PCs AND PTS TECH (EXPANDED DIANETICS SERIES 4) that

“suppressive persons are themselves PTS to themselves”. When I originally read this, I said to myself that it was an curious datum, but as Ron didn’t go on to explain it further in that bulletin, I chalked it up to something I’d have to figure out someday.

In HCOB 17 July 1971 R OUT OF VALENCE Ron says that

“If you look into suppressive person tech, you will find an SP has to be out of valence to be an SP. He does not know that he is because he is himself in a nonself valence. He is “somebody else” and is denying that he himself exists, which is to say denying himself as a self.”

In HCOB 3 June 1972 RA PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP Ron says that

The theory is that SPs are SPs because they deny havingness and enforce unwanted havingness.  They also deny “do” and enforce unwanted “do”.  They also deny “be” and enforce unwanted “be”.

Notably, Ron doesn’t specify the flows on which the denial and enforcement occur.

And in HCO PL 3 May 1972 RA  ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES Ron says

Out-ethics people go rapidly into Treason against the group. A person whose ethics have been out over a long period goes “out of valence”. They are “not themselves.”

In lecture 12 November 1959 THE RULE OF THE WEAK VALENCE, Ron says

…actually, it’s something that has steadily, currently, constantly, habitually demanded his attention to such a degree that he now can’t even see what it was that was demanding his attention. Got that? Well that’s the weakest valence, that’s what he’s looking at.  That is the weakest valence. Now, basically, the rule of the weakest valence is, in order to establish the person, you split off the weakest valences, not the strongest valences!

In the Tech Dictionary Ron defines BEINGNESS as (1) the result of having assumed an identity and (3) essentially, an identification of self with an object.

In lecture 6 April 1955 ON THE SECOND DYNAMIC Ron points out that being there and communicating is unforgivable.

The Treason Formula as given in HCO PL 16 October 1968 TREASON FORMULA is simply: “Found out that you are.” One definition of the word that is definition 3 in the Macmillan Dictionary for Students (1984):

that, pronoun, 3. used in restrictive clauses in place of who, whom, or which: the boy that lives next door, the man that I saw, the animals that are native to Africa.

In lecture 02 January 1960 WHY PEOPLE DON’T LIKE YOU (State of Man Congress) Ron 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. (p.40 cassette transcript)

With these ingredients, it is possible to assemble the recipe for making an SP.

1.  Recruit a person into an activity. Like Scientology, or Church of Scientology staff. Or the Sea Org. Or a Scientology company.

2.  As part of the recruitment cycle, lie to the recruit (the recruiter very often has to lie to himself first; it lessens the overt that way). Tell him what he wants to hear; like he’s on the bleeding front edge of the largest spiritual movement in history; that he’ll really be able to help others achieve spiritual freedom; that he’ll get as much free auditing as he wants.

Whatever you do, make sure he’s decided to assume the beingness of a member of the organization he knows only by the lies he’s been told. Make sure he thinks he’s joining something good for the purpose of doing something good.

And especially, make sure that he knows that since the organization is based on clearly written and uniformly applied policy, he’ll be able to perform his duties in the world’s only ethical environment.

3.  Put him in the organization. Get money from him, remove his possessions from him, don’t pay him (making his reserves dwindle to zero), remove his contacts to his former life.

If he notes how expensive everything is and that he hasn’t gotten what he joined for, point out the obvious flaw is that he just hasn’t spent enough money.

Make him take indoctrination courses in which he learns he’s been lied to.

4.  When he tries to do something about having been lied to, assign him a lower condition, because long-time Scientologists and seniors can’t be suppressive, and accusing a long-time Scientologist and senior of being suppressive is a sign of False PTSness, so he needs to do an O/W write-up.

When he does the O/W write-up, including F/Ning at the examiner, be sure to look it over and say “it’s not long enough”. Drive him into a state of missed withholds of nothing by demanding more than he’s got. Now that he’s got missed withholds, he’ll have motivators.

5.  When he tries to do the condition, alter the Ethics tech from altitude. Don’t let him actually DO a Treason Formula. (This includes not letting him have the beingness to select/be his own ethical identity.

It also includes insisting that he only select a definition of the word that from the KTL Small Common Words Defined book, instead of one that actually works for the person.) Only allow him to do a muddied up Treason Formula that yields the result that you want: a cowed, out of valence person who is now willing to “go along to get along”. Make sure the beingness he arrives at is one that is malleable in the hands of seniors.

Publish the assignment broadly so everyone knows what a bad boy he is. If he produces a product, make sure not to publish anything about that, so that the group only has a bad datum to identify the person.

6.  The person who has done the incorrect conditions using incorrect formulas will now have enforced on himself a nonself beingness; one he assumed in order to ensure his own survival in the midst of this confusion. Complicate the matter. Make sure the nonself beingness he has selected is the same as the out-ethics oppressive senior running the cycle behind the scenes.

7.  When the person does his formulas and returns to post, get him to do more and more things on “orders”. Don’t back the “orders” with actual policies or programs or statistics or evaluated data. Make sure the orders are verbal so he has nothing with which he can actually do an ORDERS, QUERY OF.

Punish him if he does anything but pay attention to the orders instead of the policy. Make him absolutely frightened to do anything other than pay attention to the source of the “orders”.

8.  If he has the ‘nads to write up an ORDERS, QUERY OF, ignore it. If he writes KRs or TTSBs, ignore them. Label him a troublemaker and nonconformist. Form a cabal in the upper echelons with a whispering campaign to make sure that “the real base of power” knows the “truth”. Treat him like the outsider he obviously is, not a true group member.

9.  When he doesn’t produce the off-policy or out-ethics thing that was ordered, assign him Danger and have him do an O/W write-up. Make sure he knows that he’s guilty of overts. Oh, yeah, make sure he knows that the senior issuing the order knows best, even though the order was contrary to in-writing, published policy and tech.

10.  If the O/W write-up fails to produce the desired conformance, assign him a lower condition. Go to Step 5.

11.  After weeks, months, or years of out-ethics, out-lists (from incorrect condition assignments and incorrect enforced formulas), out-tech, continuous overts, and continuous missed withholds, the person will now be solidly out-of-valence and enforcing a nonself beingness on himself.

As the person starts applying the rule of the weak valence, watch uncaringly as the person slips solidly into the valence of the senior who can’t follow policy or programs and issues out-ethics orders.

12.  Now you have what you wanted: an SP. Now, you can declare him and issue him a bill for $400,000 or demand an Ideal Org “donation” for $400,000 if he really, really, really wants to ensure his immortality. Or extract a resignation from him (so you don’t have to pay his unemployment).

13.  Since the person is now MEST, he’s caved in and won’t even think of doing anything but giving you your $400,000. Or collapsing unseen into the dust. Or dissolving into the RPF.

14.  Find a new person. Go to Step 1.

Welcome to the Church of Scientology, you SP, you.  Or, more aptly, it could be Welcome to the  CSI where we are  Creating SPs Intentionally.

Written by Plain Old Thetan

[Note to newcomers and persons checking into Scientology: The above recipe is NOT what L. Ron Hubbard says to do with Scientology data. It is, however, what appears to be happening in places like the Sea Organization, Scientology’s upper Executive strata, Scientology-based businesses, the upper OT levels, and heck, planet Earth. It is an example of how Black Scientology can come to exist, not how to really use Scientology to improve conditions in life or on this planet. – P.O.T.]

10 Comments

Paul Adams  on March 20th, 2010

Interesting. One small point — I didn’t get the thing with “that” in the Treason formula. I did KTL and there is an obvious 6C definition that fits in the formula (= the fact being …). Is something different being insisted on for the Treason formula in the CofS now?

Paul

Plain Old Thetan  on March 20th, 2010

Paul: Very good. That’s exactly the enforced definition that keeps people in Treason indefinitely. Perhaps you found another route out.

idle org  on March 20th, 2010

Treason: Find out that you are.

Enemy: Find out who you really are.

Can anybody please give me the correct definition of “that” in the Treason formula? Without saying “go look it up yourself” because I’ve been given that answer for 20 years and when you have course supervisors, word clearers, auditors and other students still debating the word, you tend to just give up on the thing, no matter how big the dictionaries get. Many thanks to anyone who really knows and can share the definition of the word “that” per the Treason formula! :-)

Maria  on March 20th, 2010

Excellent summary. An additional point would be that as the individual compromises and commits overt acts their tone level drops. When the tone level hits the skids below 2.0 on a chronic basis, then the succumb vector kicks in, perception and awareness dwindles, the person doesn’t see, doesn’t respond to reason, doesn’t seek survival solutions no matter he/she appears to be doing…

Nancy P.  on March 20th, 2010

This is confusing to me, and I just realized that I have never understood it with certainty. I always took the meaning to mean “find out that you are in treason.” Did I miss something?

Plain Old Thetan  on March 21st, 2010

Idle org, Nancy P. : I gave the definition of THAT that got me permanently out of Treason in the article. Read the definition carefully.

that, pronoun, 3. used in restrictive clauses in place of who, whom, or which

For me, I simply substituted the word that with the word WHO. So the formula became:

Find out WHO you are.

For me, this meant to name the identity I was being that got me the Treason assignment. Once I did that it was obviously an identity that was an ENEMY to the group. So then I could easily do ENEMY (big surprise).

Find out who you really are.

(If you’ve done OT V, you’ll see the parallel in the application of TREASON and ENEMY to the procedure used on that level.)

But pplying the THAT definition I used in the Treason formula, then doing the ENEMY formula, immediately gave me the “two sides” to run in the Doubt formula.

And it gave me the individual, group or activity I had to do Liability to.

I found it surprisingly easy and almost automatic, once I understood the definition of THAT that I used.

John Doe  on March 21st, 2010

Plain Old Thetan: I think your analysis is excellent, but do disagree on one point.

IMO, the definition of “that” which you are using is incorrect, because to use this definition then turns the Treason formula into a restatement of the Enemy formula which is next in sequence.

In case this helps anyone, let me state my understanding of this: If someone is in a state of treason, the formula “Find out that you are” is asking that person to recognize that they have any kind of beingness at all, that they do indeed exist as a life force, as opposed to non-living MEST. Once a person acknowledges this, or “finds this out”, then that person has assumed, to whatever small degree, a Cause viewpoint and a separation from and differentiation from, MEST.

Then, the next step, “Find out who you really are” is asking the person to at least recognize that they have a beingness that is uniquely theirs. Very powerful stuff indeed, if done correctly.

This Enemy formula is where it breaks down for many trying to apply this condition in an insane and suppressive environment. They write up a formula of “who they really are” that they think will be acceptable to someone they are severely PTS to. The rest of the article is quite insightful explaining the consequences of that.

OldAuditor  on March 22nd, 2010

Trying to do conditions formulas to satisfy a CofS ethics handling was generally a losing game because the expected outcome was that you would come up with the result that satisfied the needs of the church regardless of the cost to your other dynamics.

When I started getting in all eight dynamics again, my conditions formulas worked very fast and the results were permanent.

In my many adventures getting out of Confusion on various dynamics, I found that finding out that I was in Treason was enough to complete the conditions formula for that step.

Finding out who I really was took more work as I had usually adopted a First Dynamic beingness that fit my Third Dynamic role. (usually at great cost to my First Dynamic)

I can see Plain Old Thetan found his solution to be workable, but a more general definition of “that” has always worked well for me. Completing the formula for Treason requires that you have a cognition. It doesn’t take an essay.

You cognite or you don’t, except if your cognitions means that your CofS senior does not get his stat this week, you may be forced to go back and re-cognite in a more acceptable manner. :)

Actually, the test of a properly done conditions formula for me was that I now had the certainty to change my life and would accept no barriers from seniors with another agenda than mine.

One more point. Trying to do conditions formulas while you are violating your Code of Honor is a waste of time. I have done that also and speak from experience.

idle org  on March 22nd, 2010

A long-time ethics officer in my city (now an Independent), has this to offer regarding the word “That”: Definition of that which applies is:”That thing” see wictionary also if you use that definition with the Hats not wearing HCOPL it talks about a person on a post who does not know that he is the ______ Post name is in treason to the group.

lunamoth  on March 22nd, 2010

Whether inside the church or one of it’s front groups/satellite organizations, the assumption that
the furtherance of the church’s agenda was the greatest good sabotaged many doubt formulas. If you came up with anything that did not include increasing your efforts toward furthering that agenda, preferably by sacrificing something on one of your other (less important dynamics), you did not do the condition “correctly.”

Knowing correct stats by which to actually do the steps is also crucial, and who ever had the correct stats? I have to conclude that once one goes down the conditions in the c of s there is no way to honestly and truly come back up through doubt.

Leave a Comment

Total number of pages read by visitors: