[Remops] For those that haven't heard...

Mon Sep 19 23:20:08 BST 2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The Church of Scientology doesn't like non-Scientologists
operating remailers because it doesn't want an
auditor/critic like myself presenting a cogent analysis of
Scientology's ongoing fraud against the public without it
being able find and permanently silence the person. 

Their goal is at least one down per month with no new
non-Scientology remailers coming on line.  This month, stats
suggest they've been working on remailers "hastio",
"harmless", and "panta".  Also, the stats pages on
stats.melontraffickers.com are no longer being updated. 

I've already sent a draft version of what follows out to
many of you.  It's become longer but there are few if any
unnecessary words in it.  (An essay can be simplified only
so much before it becomes glib.) 

As things stand, turning off an independent remailer is
equivalent to saying you /want/ the Scientology fraud to
succeed, worldwide.  If that's your choice, at least let it
be an informed one...

======================

Understanding Scientology: Why Scientologist "Auditors"
Can't Audit...

To be deserving of the professional label "Auditor", it's
fair to expect a student to methodically examine the
standard English definitions of that which he intends to
concern himself with.

AUDIT, (from Merriam Webster's) n. [ME, fr. L /auditus/ act
of hearing, fr. /audire/]  1 a: a formal or official
examination and verification of books of account   b: a
methodical examination and review of a situation or
condition concluding with a detailed report of findings : a
rendering and settling of accounts  2: the final report
following a formal examination of books of account : an
account as adjusted by auditors : a final statement of
account  3 /archaic/: a judicial examination  

AUDIT,  vt. (from Merriam Webster's) 1: to examine and
verify.  synonym: SCRUTINIZE.

And what might a real auditor of Scientology audit?  Among
other things, she, or he would examine and verify
Scientology's books of account. 

ACCOUNT,  (from Merriam Webster's)  n.  ...  3 a: a
statement explaining one's conduct  b: a statement or
exposition of reasons, causes, or motives <no satisfactory ~
of these phenomena> c: a reason for an action: basis <on
that ~ I must refuse>  ...  5 a: value, importance <it's of
no ~ to me>  b: esteem <stood high in their ~>  ...  7 a:
careful thought: consideration <have to take many things
into ~> b: a usu. mental record: track <keep ~ of all you
do>  8: a description of facts, conditions, or events:
report, narrative <the newspaper ~ of the fire> <by all ~s
they're well-off>; also: performance <a straightforward ~ of
the sonata> 

Books of account in Scientology would include not just
financial books, but also, all materials that: 

* explain conduct
* state or expose reasons, causes, or motives
* justify actions
* have value or importance to Scientologists
* are esteemed by Scientologists
* result from careful thought and consideration
* contain a transcription of mental record
* contain a description of facts, conditions, or events
* report on something, or narrate
* derive from or go into a performance

Since the majority of Scientology's books of account are
works of literary art and since the behavior that results
from them is dramatic, a genuine auditor of Scientology also
qualifies as a type of critic:

CRITIC, (from Merriam Webster's) [MF & L; MF /critique/ fr.
L /criticus/, fr. Gk /kritikos/ able to discern or judge] n.
1 a: one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter (as
a work of art or a course of conduct) involving a judgment
of its value, truth, or righteousness, an appreciation of
its beauty or technique, or an interpretation  b: one who
engages often professionally in the analysis, artistic
evaluation, or appreciation of works of art (as literary or
dramatic works).

But as all Hubbard-Scientology "auditors" know, they're not
allowed to express independent opinions in an "auditing
session".  They don't methodically examine; they don't
verify; they don't make reasoned judgements about value,
truth, or righteousness.  Making evaluations of artistic
beauty or technique is prohibited.  They don't analyze
choice of words, or their meaning.  They never do an
interpretation.  They can't sit back and appreciate a
Scientologist's storytelling as is --- as a work of art.
They must act as if accepting and believing, regardless of
the content of what they've viewing.  The person who wears
the label "being audited" in Scientology could make the
improbable claim that a million and one years ago he was a
mouse living happily in the airless environment of the moon,
getting fat on green cheese.  You know what?  His "auditor"
would be breaking the rules if he simply identified what he
was watching.  He can't let on he's watching a narrative of
fantasy fiction; the character this "auditor" plays is
obtuse.  No matter how implausible or nonsensical the
stories that come his way, he must /always/ act as if he's
fallen for them.

- - From Scientology's "Auditor's Code":

* No evaluating the other's person's performance
* No interrupting the other person
* No telling the other person what he should think
* No invalidating the other person's imagined "gains" coming
from the illusion of having been "audited". 
* No implying disapproval by failing to keep appointments
* No being inconsiderate of the other person's basic needs
for food and sleep 
* No shifting the other person over to another "auditor" in
a way that suggests disapproval
* No mirroring or mocking of the other's words or feelings
* No letting the other leave dissatisfied
* No implying disapproval by walking out on the person
* No getting angry
* No persisting beyond a point of satisfaction for the other
person
* No rejecting the other person's lies and distortions of
identity; 
* No facial expressions or comments that could elicit in the
other, existential angst
* No using the other's secrets for punishment or personal
gain
* No reciting a scripted question or command without getting
the other person to a point where he's convinced he
"understands" it.

Requiring the above from someone wearing the name "auditor"
is like telling a person he's a "fireman", then giving him a
"Fireman's Code" that says he can't connect a hose to a fire
hydrant, he can't direct a spray of water away from him, and
he can't get within a mile of a burning building.  

Compare the standard English definition of "auditor" to the
gagging and straightjacketing of Scientology's "Auditor's
Code".  The divergence is striking.  It's more than obvious
that what's called "auditing" in Scientology is not auditing
and Scientology's "auditors" are not really auditors at all.
So we can refer to these people and their victims without
ambiguity, without applying to them a wrong description, we
need the technical terms used by Scientology's founders:

NOT-AUDITOR, n.  Scientology founders' descriptive label for
the people sporting the label "auditor" in Scientology. 

NOT-AUDIT, vt. : what not-auditors are trained to do.

NOT-AUDITING SESSION, n. : a period of loosely-scripted
interaction between a not-auditor and a not-auditee,
demarcated by the phrases "Start of Session" and "End of
Session", taking place under the jurisdiction of the Church
of Scientology. 

NOT-AUDITEE, n. : the other person(s) interacting with a
not-auditor in a not-auditing session.

NOT, n. often plural as NOTS  : founders' abbreviation for
anyone or anything in Scientology that is /not/ being what
it's claimed to be : an imposter. 

Well... if it's not auditing that's taking place within one
of Scientology's not-auditing sessions, what exactly is it? 

Consider the situation from the not-auditee's perspective.
He's sitting in a chair in a private room and he's being
confronted by two entities.  One of them is a person called
an "auditor".  The other is an object variously called a
"galvanometer", a "lie detector", or an "e-meter".  Before
the not-auditee leaves he'll be facing a third entity who
bears the name "examiner".  Consider the labels.  If the
not-auditee accepts them as valid, he will feel he's being
confronted by a trio of scrutinizers whose purpose is the
"auditing", "detecting", "metering", and "examining" of his
VERACITY.  That's the setting's implication.  Now, is what
he's about to say the truth?  Or is it a lie?  

In all not-auditing sessions that include a galvanometer,
there usually, if not always comes a point where the
not-auditee is asked to describe an "earlier similar"
version of an "incident".  The not-auditee scans his memory.
Perhaps he will find something earlier in his life that did
in fact happen to him and he will describe it to the best of
his ability.  But what if the not-auditee can't remember
having personally experienced something similar and earlier?
In that case, the not-auditor will gently repeat the
request.  But appearances here are deceiving.  Whether the
not-auditee can remember anything or not, he must now "move
to" or "recall" something "earlier" and "similar".  The
not-auditor will not take "no" for an answer.  He continues
to repeat the request until the not-auditee complies. 

At first glance there doesn't appear to be anything strange
or sinister in the not-auditor's persistence.  This is
because the verbs "move to" and "recall" are not commonly
regarded as being synonymous with the phrases "make up" or
"invent".  But put them into a context of a not-auditing
session where a not-auditee just can't remember anything
earlier/similar and their meaning will change.  

If the point of a grantable request is this: 

"/Narrate an accurate account of a similar event that
happened to you earlier than the one you just told me/"...

...then the meaning when nothing else can be remembered
swill be this:

"/Make up an altered version of the narrative you just told
me, and make believe it happed earlier in time/."

A not-auditee who laments that he "can't remember anything
earlier" --- just doesn't understand what he's being asked
to do.  He's being asked to lie about his identity.  This is
a recurring theme in Scientology.  For not-auditees who do
not "get" the implicit message, the not-auditor is under
strict instructions to repeat the request endlessly.  What
is the not-auditee to do?  He basically has three choices.
He can stall.  He can cave in to the tacit demand.  Or he
can leave the not-auditing session, never to return.  

But many Scientologists regard leaving with the intention of
"never returning" as just another variety of stalling.  That
leaves the not-auditee with two choices: stall... or cave
in. 

Here's the underlying cycle of action in not-auditing
sessions where the not-auditee is required to either speak
or imagine communication: 

1) The not-auditor implicitly asks the not-auditee, to lie
2) The not-auditee stalls; the not-auditor patiently waits
3) The not-auditor implicitly asks the not-auditee, to lie
2) The not-auditee stalls; the not-auditor patiently waits

{time passes; sub-cycle 2-3 repeats}

3) The not-auditor implicitly asks the not-auditee, to lie
4) The not-auditee caves in and lies
5) The not-auditor indicates, by implication, that both he
and the lie detector have not detected any lies
6) The not-examiner confirms the indication the lie detector
has not detected any lies.  

The sub-cycle from 2 to 3 will repeat until the not auditee
finally caves in.  Much of a not-auditee's time in
not-auditing may be spent stalling while much of a
not-auditor's time is spent waiting for the not-auditee to
cave in.  

Scientology founders referred to a not-auditing session as a
"NOTS MUSTER".  The full cycle of action, they called
"PASSING MUSTER"...

NOTS MUSTER, n. : an assembly of a representative sample of
NOTS, ostensibly organized for the purpose of auditing,
metering, examining, scrutinizing, etc.  

MUSTER (from Merriam-Webster's)  n. [ME mustre, fr. MF
mostre, monstre, fr. monstrer]  1: a representative
specimen: sample  2 a: an act of assembling; specifically:
formal military inspection  b: critical examination  c: an
assembled group: collection.

MUSTER, n. : an ostensibly critical examination by a
representative sample or an assembled group of NOTS (as in a
not-auditing session, or in a forum where the subject of
discussion is Scientology).  

PASS MUSTER, : to pass a test of thoughts -- written,
spoken, or implied -- for compatibility with Scientology
<if an expressed thought passes ~ then it does not in any
way diminish or damage the credibility of Scientology's
engrams and engram dramatizations>. 

ENGRAM, n. (short for enturbulation-gram, -gram referring to
drawing, writing, or record; deriving from the Greek
/gramma/: a letter, piece of writing)  1: any literary work,
artistic or dramatic performance that is not what it's
claimed to be (e.g., by Scientologists), conveys a false or
corrupted definition, and/or prevents the point or object of
the original definition from being understood  <~s always
lie about identity> 2: covertly confusing oratory or text
that misdirects behavior and/or implants an undetected false
image/picture of reality into the mind of a person exposed
to it.  Conveys a treacherous meaning; does not keep
faith...

SET-UP ENGRAM, n. : an engram that confuses its victim on an
identity he will discuss or address in an upcoming NOTS
muster. 

What does it do to a person to put faith in an engram?  It
makes them believe someone or something is /not/ what it
actually is.  Engrams cause people to misidentify things;
all NOTS in Scientology are generally a product of engrams.
Beyond that, engrams make people willing to act on their
misplaced faith and elaborate on the engram's lie(s) about
identity.  This is what not-auditees do in their
not-auditing sessions.  Engrams have set them up to lie in a
manner compatible with Scientology.  

Besides being language dependent, humans are social
creatures that put enormous value on what other people think
of them.  Social status is more coveted than wealth.  Like
wealth, status is conferred by others, the most valued
status-grants coming from those of equal or higher station.

What does the not-auditee want more?  To tell the truth?  Or
to be granted the /status/ of "truth-teller" by those of
higher station?  Imagine what it does to one who can't tell
the difference, or who tilts towards the latter choice ---
to have his lies about his identity pass an ostensibly
critical examination by a group of entities whose labels are
all non-descriptive of the person or thing that wears them.
That's like being tried for theft in a court where the
prosecutor, judge, and jury all make their living by
stealing things.  Moments ago the accused was implicitly
asked to steal something: a beingness -- a status
determiner.  Following that he caved in to temptation and
indeed stole a beingness not his own.  The court now has but
one interest.  They want to assure that the accused knows
who /not/ to steal from.  As long as he knows that, they
always pronounce him not-guilty.  

The not-auditee's reasoning goes something like this:  "Gee,
the 'e-meter' didn't register any lies when I told the past
life story about being a mouse on a moon made of green
cheese... and there I have an 'auditor' sitting right in
front of me... and after the 'auditing session' came an
'examiner'... and guess what? --- I passed.  Under that much
scrutiny there's no way I could get away with stealing
anything.  Besides, isn't my 'auditor' supposed to 'grant'
me beingness?  Why would I have to lie about identity if I'm
'granted' whatever beingness I want?"  

Were the not-auditor not under the heavy suppression of
Scientology's not-auditor's code, he might spot his
auditee's increasing confusion about identity and volunteer
a corrective indication. E.g. "Did you know the moon has
been visited?  It's not made of green cheese."  Or: "The
moon has no atmosphere.  How could you be a mouse living
happily on green cheese with no air to breathe?"  Reacting
like a real auditor would mean telling the auditee in so
many words --- that he's lying.  What's the normal reaction
to being correctly labeled as someone who alters his status
in people's minds with lies?  Justification, e.g. : "All
we're talking about here is a little mouse for cripe's
sake..."  When that fails, there's guilt and embarrassment.

But in come the requirements of Scientology's so-called
"Auditor's Code".  Point number 12 says "I promise to run
every major case action to a floating needle."  Combined
with the requirement that a not-auditor's indication of a
"floating needle" always be accompanied by signs of
happiness in the not-auditee, this means every not-auditee
must leave feeling satisfied.  They're not supposed to end
off feeling guilty or embarrassed for having lied in a
manner perfectly compatible with Scientology's engrams.
Not-auditors may acknowledge speech /containing/ lies about
identity, but they may not acknowledge the lies themselves.
To a far-fetched story the not auditor may say: "Thank you
for telling me that."  But never, "Thank you for lying."
The not-auditor's code is adamant on the issue: absolutely
no clues may be transmitted suggesting the not-auditee has
lied.  On the contrary, the not-auditor must tell the person
that his lies are "floating". 

Why "floating"?  A common metaphor for liars and con-artists
compares a lie to a balloon.  If it "goes over like a lead
balloon" then no one believes it.  But if it "floats" then
everyone's a believer; no auditor or critic in the vicinity
has shot it down.  

But not-auditors in Scientology are not allowed to
acknowledge lies as is --- as lies.  They must refer to them
obliquely.  This is how the acknowledgement is transformed: 

"Your lie is floating", becomes...
"Your lie detector needle is floating", becomes...
"Your needle is floating."

Notice the word "needle" has been dubbed in over the word
"lie".  This works exceptionally well because the word
"needle" is associated with a machine that supposedly
detects /lies/.  Not only that, but when a lie "floats", the
"needle" of a lie detector will not detect it.  

How would you expect a detector needle to react when it does
not detect a lie?   Falling is a reaction.  Rising is a
reaction.  But "floating" suggests no reaction.  That's why
"floating needle" = no detector reaction = "you're not
lying".

Whenever a not-auditor refers to his galvanometer needle as
if it were the not-auditee's own needle, he's giving a
double acknowledgement, one from himself, one from the
"detector":  "Thank you.  Your lies are floating.  Neither
auditor nor e-meter can shoot them down."

Why is the word "e-meter" dubbed in over "lie-detector"?
Once again, the primary goal of not-auditing is getting the
not-auditee to tell lies about identity without recognizing
them as lies.  Putting the word "lie" in his sphere of
attention was regarded by Scientology founders as
counterproductive.  When asked what the "e" stands for,
Scientologists will explain it's an abbreviation for
"electropsycho-", which if they pondered it, has a meaning
they will not find very appealing.  The letter "e" becomes
acceptable because they subconsciously reject the
unflattering meanings "electrode-carrying-psychotic" or
"electric-psychotic", as well as the trite and somewhat
redundant meaning "electric" --- in favor of the meaning
"ethics".  An "e" that stands for "ethics" produces a word
that closely parallels the significance of the word
"lie-detector", but without employing the word "lie". 

What kind of emotional reactions can we expect to a
situation where an "ethics meter", an "auditor", and an
"examiner" are completely /oblivious/ to a blatant theft of
beingness?  If the not-auditee were fully conscious of
having lied, a normal human reaction would be some comic
relief plus a thought like: "Ha, ha, I actually got away
with it."  But recall that the not-auditee has not seen
anyone apply the words "lie" or "stolen beingness" to
anything he's said in the not-auditing session.  There's no
considered, conscious thought in his mind about having
"gotten away with" anything.  Yet, he /has/ gotten away with
something, and deep down some part of him knows it.  The
response is a distinct sense of relief.  "Oh, my needle is
floating.  How nice."  

Yes, how sublime it must be for a religious
con-artist-in-training to lie and not have anyone in the
vicinity react critically or analytically.  "Floating on
air" is the metaphor people sometimes use to describe being
very happy.  If "your needle" is "floating" after having
lied, it sets an example that says, "It's ok for you to
float too."  Combine this with some excitement about the
assumed /significance/ of the lies that have just been told
in session, and you have the makings of some very, very
potent emotional rewards in Scientology for lying
unconsciously and in accord with Scientology's engrams. 

The damage done to the brain is long lasting.  Ask a
not-auditee, not-audited many years ago to clearly
distinguish "truth" from "lies" and you'll likely find the
person claiming that if a lie is "true /for/ someone" ---
meaning, if the person believes it --- then it really isn't
a lie at all.  

Consider a few ramifications of this belief.   If any lie is
subject to becoming "true" by reason of faith, then the more
people that can be persuaded to believe it, the less of a
lie a lie becomes.  What does this do to a healthy
motivation to tell the truth?  It transforms it into a
perverse motivation --- just as strong --- to convert people
into gullible saps and liars. 

Challenging a former not-auditee on these issues can rouse
them to vehemence.  Some even scoff at the idea that there
is such a thing as objective reality at all.  Interestingly,
this idea is not unique to Scientology.  We've all heard the
line about the physical Universe being "an illusion".
Others get trapped in this fallacy by the same basic
mechanism as Scientologists.  Somehow... somewhere... they
were persuaded to apply the meaning of the word "truth" to
an outright lie.  The name for this action is
miscontextualization.  It produces something that wears the
name of something else, in this case, a lie that wears the
name "truth".  But if a lie wears the name "truth", what
does that do to the meaning of "truth"?  It changes it.  And
if the meaning of "truth" changes in a person's mind such
that the word can no longer refer to what it did originally,
where does that leave statements that are factually true?
It leaves them looking more like lies.  And if a true
statement about reality looks more like a lie, then what
becomes of the real thing the statement refers to?   It
becomes an "illusion".  

Those are the steps one must take to reach the absurd
conclusion that there is no such thing as objective reality.

It's a clear case of word theft.  Someone doesn't want to
confront or confess to the plain as-is-ness of something, so
they steal a word to label it with in hopes the new word
will make people "see" something /other than/ what's really
there.  They're telling people lies.  But they don't want
them recognized as lies.  So they label them with the word
"truth".  Eventually, their victims are asserting things
like this: 

"What's true for you is what's true!"
"A lie is what's not true for you!"
"Reality is an agreement!"
"Reality is an illusion!
"Lies are truth!"
"Truth is a lie!"

... which is all absolute, utter nonsense.  

What is the speaker really trying to say? 

"MY lies are 'truth'!"
"YOUR truth is a 'lie'!"
"'Validate' my 'truth' with your agreement, or else!"

If you were to sheepishly accept the full import of the
miscontextualization, the definitions of "Lie" and "Truth"
would --- in your mind --- trade places.  A Scientologist in
whom this switch has taken place believes he has an
obligation to "Tell the Truth"... which roughly means, in
Scientology Newspeak:  "to thoroughly confuse people about
who's who and what's what and to suppress their ability to
react to and straighten out their confusion".  

To facilitate the process, everyone in Scientology wears
stolen names.  If a compulsive word thief were to imagine
his ideal scene, I assure you, he would imagine something
like Scientology.  Take the word "auditor".  What happens
when the word "auditor" is used to label analytically
attenuated Scientologists whose auditing potential has been
completely nulled?  What happens is that Scientologists who
accept the miscontextualization LOSE the word necessary to
refer to REAL auditors who fit the standard English
definition.  Without the necessary reference word, their
minds will report that all real auditors have vanished and
ceased to exist.  But the report cannot come in verbal form
because Scientologists no longer use the word "auditor" to
refer to real auditors.  Real auditors "aren't there",
subjectively.  In their place is an entirely different label
(e.g. "suppressive person", "criminal", etc.) that confirms
their absence. 

The process is repetitive.  If an "examiner" in Scientology
does not examine anything, what happens to actual examiners?
They become nameless in the minds of Scientologists.  If a
"preclear" in Scientology is on his way to being confused,
what happens to people who are honestly analyzing their way
to clarity?  For lack of a descriptive label, they tend to
vanish from the minds of Scientologists.  If Scientology
"ethics" labels a conditioning process that instills
misconceptions that make a person evil, what happens to real
ethics?  Poof!  It's gone.  

Whenever something has only one reference word, if that word
is miscontextualized, the object of its original point will
become an /anonym/ --- an unnamed, incorrectly named, or
incorrectly defined aspect of an identity.  Anonyms tend to
"vanish and cease to exist", subjectively, and this is
especially true if they are given non-descriptive names.  

Wherever the CofS goes, and in whatever guise, the pattern
repeats.  Scientology steals the names of anyone or anything
that might pose a threat to Scientology and misapplies the
names to whatever Scientology needs to function.
Scientology lurks as an anonym behind the miscontextualized
labels of its enemies.  Scientologists are fooled because
the people to whom the labels are applied are convincing
duplicates.  But how can they be convincing if they're so
different from the genuine articles?  Very simple.  There
are no real auditors, critics, lie detectors, examiners,
ethics meters, ethics officers, registrars, course
supervisors, case supervisors, etc. left in Scientology to
compare to.  And if the average Scientologist should
accidentally happen upon a real auditor/critic, they're
under strict orders to "disconnect" at once.  

To get a new Scientologist moving on this disastrous course,
there are engrams.  Lots and lots of engrams.  A whole
bookcase full of engrams!  Entire Usenet newsgroups full of
engrams!  In the midst of that, for those that trust the
engrams enough to act on them, there's not-auditing.
Not-auditing is essential to Scientology because it
displaces any real attempt to audit Scientology fiction.
Instead of auditing Scientology's engrams, Scientologists
are misdirected to not-audit not-engrams.  In the process,
the label "truth" migrates into intimate association with
lies, and what is perhaps the biggest threat to Scientology
- - --- TRUTH --- has lost its label; the honest truth about
Scientology becomes an anonym. 

With the stolen word "truth" repositioned to sanctify their
mendacious behavior, and no ethical auditors or critics able
to scrutinize the miscontextualizations, there's nothing
left to stop a Scientologist from taking word and beingness
theft to extremes.  A new Scientologist may start out by
telling little "white" lies about who or what they were in
"past lives", but they eventually learn to steal the
beingness of real people and to exteriorize their own
unwanted beingness in its place.  With so many varieties of
not-auditing, a Scientologist gets plenty of practice in the
dark art of wrongly positioning beingness.  But at the same
time, not-auditing also acts as a /motivator/.  The unspoken
rule for all not-auditors in all not-auditing sessions of
Hubbard Scientologists is this:  

DO UNTO THE NOT-AUDITEE WHAT L. RON
HUBBARD WOULD HAVE THE NOT-AUDITEE 
DEMAND IN HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH 
PEOPLE IN GENERAL. 

A corollary to the basic theory of not-auditing is that if
you repeatedly put a person in a situation where the only
available emotional rewards come from lying, he will learn
to punish anyone who seeks the truth.  

Let's examine this motivational perspective.  

We know that again and again in Scientology, lying is
rewarded.  It's not called "lying".  It's called "being
audited".  If you're "audited" successfully, you've gotten
away with lying.  At the end of the not-auditing session
comes your reward.  Motivation is always about endings.
People want to do things because they can see "in the end",
something will turn out better than had they not done
anything.  This is why the goal of every not-auditing
session is the placement of the "end" marker smack dab in
the middle of a moment of emotional bliss.  The actual
reasons for the bliss are unimportant here.  All that
matters is that 1) it follow compliance with the
not-auditor's tacit requests to lie in a manner compatible
with Scientology and 2) that the lies have not been
recognized by trusted entities that the not-auditee presumes
/should/ recognize them.  The temporal association between
the unlabeled lies and subsequent pleasure is interpreted by
the reptilian, motivational areas of the not-auditee's brain
as something that like an orgasm, very much deserves
repetition.  Now, how is this inner reptile to respond if it
wants another "end-of-session" moment but getting formally
not-audited is not presently an option?  This is precisely
what the timing of the phrase "End of Session" teaches.  The
not-auditee learns that if he wants to feel good in
communications with someone else --- /anyone/ else, it
doesn't matter who --- he must /somehow/ cause that person
to behave the way every not-auditor is trained to behave in
a not-auditing session.  

"Spoiled rotten" is a fitting metaphor for people who have
spent hundreds of hours practicing lies on a receptive
audience in a setting where non-receptivity just isn't
tolerated.  After having had so many Scientology-compatible
lies accepted by people who wear the names of Scientology's
enemies --- "auditor", "examiner", "ethics meter", "case
supervisor" --- the last thing a not-auditee expects from an
auditor is someone who does a critical, analytical
examination.  Under the gaze of so-called "auditors",
not-auditees have blithely repositioned (stolen) people's
beingness.  They've staged misleading performances.  They've
miscontextualized words that implant false definitions.
They've lied by implication.  But having practiced these
things so many, many times in the context of a con-artist's
ideal scene --- with an audience showing uncritical
acceptance --- not-auditees have grown extremely accustomed
to having their deceptions "float".  And not just before
anyone.  Their deceptions have floated before an audience
wearing the labels of Scientology's mortal enemies.  Not
auditees now KNOW with CERTAINTY that having an "auditor"
sit in a state of analytical attenuation while listening to
sheer nonsense --- is a guaranteed path to bliss.  So the
question becomes, what exactly will a spoiled not-auditee be
motivated by his not-auditing track to do to an
honest-to-goodness auditor who does not abide his lies?  

The instinctive human response to another not living up to
one's desires or demands is an urge to punish the
uncooperative person by treating him in a manner /exactly
the opposite/ of how one would like to see him behave.
Let's say someone is hitting you and, ok you're not kidding
this time --- you really want them to stop.  Instinct may
compel you to hit back.  Notice that hitting is what you DO
NOT want them to do.  Natural selection has created people
who become hypocritical when faced with behavior in another
that doesn't please them.  There's a practical reason for
this.  If you go far enough towards an extreme of doing a
rendition of what you don't want an opposing entity to do,
they will stop.  But why do they stop?  Aside from the
element of conditioning that's involved --- if they stop
then you'll stop --- there's something else.  Consider the
identity you're dealing with.  You're facing someone
attempting to act in opposition to you.  If you START doing
what you DO NOT want them to do, they --- identifying
themselves as your opposition --- may stupidly attempt to
continue "opposing" you by doing the OPPOSITE of whatever
they see you doing, which if you start hitting them, just
happens to be what you DO WANT THEM TO DO.  

The urge to take a hypocritical stance towards an opposing
entity has been bred into people by natural selection purely
because it works; but it works only because so many people
have a glib understanding of "opponent".  They roughly
define it as "not agreeing with or resembling" the person or
group being opposed.  But this is far too superficial a
definition.  What happens when they meet a hypocritical
opponent who's willing to ostensibly agree with and resemble
them?  If they are to retain their identity of "opponent"
then they must predictably react by altering their behavior
such that it no longer "resembles" or "agrees with" the
hypocrite.  And if they don't change?  Then they will find
themselves agreeing with and believing their enemy who may
now "as a friend", proceed to "advise" them straight into
suicide. 

The instinct to behave hypocritically also explains why
being "too nice" to a child can produce a very "spoiled"
child.  By being unconditionally nice, you're inviting the
child to coerce the same "nice" behavior from others by
behaving in a manner exactly the opposite to the nice way
they would like to see others behave: not nice. 

The thing is, we already know how the not-auditee has been
spoilt; we know exactly how they want others to treat them.
A summary of their desires are listed in Scientology's
"Auditor's Code" point by point.  To predict how a
not-auditee will respond to a /real/ auditor demonstrating
possession of a genuine, operating, analytical mind, all we
need do is invert the "Code".  

Let's take a look...

Confronted by someone /not/ treating them as their
not-auditor(s) did, expect a not-auditing completion who
will: 

* tag the auditor/critic's analysis with harsh and false
evaluations 
* continually interrupt, shout down or drown out the
auditor/critic's speech
* tell the auditor/critic what he or she should think
* arbitrarily invalidate the auditor/critic's judgement or
interpretation 
* imply disapproval by failing to show up for appointments
* attempt if at all possible to starve the auditor/critic of
basic needs like food or sleep
* reject the auditor/critic in favor of someone or something
else
* mirror the words and sentences the auditor/critic uses,
subtly miscontextualized
* mock the auditor/critic's sentiments
* always end off with the auditor/critic dissatisfied
* abruptly walk out just as the auditor/critic is making a
point
* get angry, very angry 
* always attempt to persist if the auditor/critic becomes
satisfied
* operate under the assumption -- and periodically announce
- - -- that everything the auditor/critic might say about
identity is a distortion or lie
* introduce facial expressions and comments intended to
produce in the auditor/critic, existential angst
* make use of any secrets the auditor/critic might reveal
for punishment or personal gain
* purposely respond to curiosity with gibberish that cannot
be understood

Is it surprising that the above is part of the Church of
Scientology's standard policy of dealing with anyone who
cares enough to be a real auditor or critic of Scientology?
It shouldn't be.  Remember that not-auditees have been
trained to expect an obtuse audience that lets their lies
"float".  No evaluating Scientology-compatible lies as lies,
no invalidating a stolen beingness, no letting the
conscienceless con-artist leave dissatisfied.  In the
presence of a not-auditee, you're permitted to be about as
full of contrary thoughts as a lump of modeling clay.
Meanwhile, they get to distort your understanding of
identities with impunity. 

To obtain a complete listing of what not-auditees will feel
compelled to do to real auditors, one would invert each and
every requirement or prohibition placed on a not-auditor
into its antithesis.  The Scientology name for the resulting
list and all the things that come of it is "Xenu".  Xenu is
a homonym of "The New".  

Not-auditees have embraced "Xenu Rules" with a religious
zeal unrestrained by the rules under which civilized people
normally live. This, I can verify from personal experience.
They lie viciously and systematically, without the slightest
twinge of conscience.  They lie in cooperation to "confirm"
one another's lies and to escape retribution.  They lie to
suppress real auditors, real examiners, real lie-detectors,
and real critics.  

This is not to say it's impossible to pass muster with an
audience of NOTS.  It is possible.  Scientology not-auditors
do it all the time.  

In a manner similar to not-auditors dealing with their
not-auditees, Xe-Nu not-critics (also known as "operatives")
are extremely persistent with real and potential auditors
and critics of Scientology.  They have their own underlying
"Xenu" cycle of action...  

1) Xe-Nu operative implicitly asks the would-be
auditor/critic to act in accord with a
Scientology-compatible lie
2) The would-be auditor/critic stalls; Xe-Nu operative
patiently waits
3) Xe-Nu operative implicitly asks the would-be
auditor/critic, to act in accord with a
Scientology-compatible lie
2) The would-be auditor/critic stalls; Xe-Nu operative
patiently waits

{time passes; sub-cycle 2-3 repeats}

3) Xe-Nu operative implicitly asks the would-be
auditor/critic, to act in accord with a
Scientology-compatible lie
4) The would-be auditor/critic caves in and behaves as if
the lie were "true"
5) The operative indicates that both he and his fellow
"critics" have detected nothing amiss
6) Another unfamiliar Xenu operative arrives to confirm the
indication that no one whom the caved-in auditor/critic
admires has detected anything amiss. 

Remember that the entities represented by the standard
English definitions of the following words would all be
mortal enemies of Scientology:

AUDITOR
CRITIC
CASE SUPERVISOR
COURSE SUPERVISOR
ETHICS METER
REGISTRAR (of names & definitions)
OPERATING ANALYTICAL MIND
PRE-CLEAR (on Scientology)
CLEAR (on Scientology) 

One becomes a not-critic and not-enemy of Scientology by
allowing the lies offered by Scientologists wearing the
foregoing names --- to float.  The first of those lies, of
course, is the name itself. 

Would-be auditor/critics who refuse to deal with Xe-Nu
operative/actors in character, as "critics", are reached
through a trusted friend or confidant recruited as a "via".
Vias are relay-terminals for engrams.

The theory behind Xe-Nu cycle of action is that acting on an
engram automatically requires one to treat it in the same
way as a not-auditor would in a not-auditing session -- as
truth.  This makes Xe-Nu cycle of action a variety of
not-auditor training; it habituates the victim to _not_
behaving as an auditor.  What's more, publicly professing
trust in an engram or engram carrier stakes the believer's
reputation on the veracity of its content.  In observing
minds, the credibility of someone who has put his personal
imprimatur on an engram, henceforth depends on the validity
of that engram.  Allow enough engrams to float and it
becomes impossible to shoot them down without also
shattering everyone's image of oneself.  After all, who's
the imbecile that fell for the engrams in the first place? 

The pain a long-time not-auditor must endure to audit the
hundreds of engrams he's accepted from Scientology --- is
immense.  But it's not reality, sans engrams, that hurts.
I've lived with a relatively non-religious,
superstitionless, engramless mind for several years now and
it feels just fine.  What hurts is the process of telling
long-cherished lies 'goodbye'. 

Remember that an engram is a lie about identity that one
accepts in place of the truth.  Engrams make their believers
incompetent; they dim down intelligence, they suppress clear
thinking.  But normally all of this is unconscious; the
believer is totally oblivious.  So what happens when an
auditor raises the believer's level of awareness for the
purpose of exposing and invalidating his engrams?  Now
instead of being unselfconsciously stupid, he's conscious of
it.  He feels a sense of uncertainty when it comes to
recognizing ideas and identities for what they really are.
In this state he's easily returned to unselfconscious
confusion.  All it takes is a few additional engrams
targeting the situation and its contents and the "ex-"
believer is pulled back.  

What might the retractor engrams say?  They say it's not the
believer's engrams that are being invalidated --- it's the
believer personally.  They say it's not a clearer state of
mind the believer is being guided to --- it's "confusion".
They say the person trying to help isn't really clear on
Scientology --- she or he is "suppressive".  Ironically, the
engrams used to pull the person back in contain many of the
same words and phrases the auditor might use to get the
person out of Scientology.  In this sense, retractor engrams
are also "mirror" engrams in that they attempt to duplicate
a real auditor's speech.   If the person listening to or
reading a retractor engram retains the non-analytical habits
of a not-auditor, they can /easily/ miss the fact that an
auditor/critic's words recited nearly verbatim by a Xe-Nu
operative do _NOT_ mean the same thing.  Recontextualization
reverses their meaning. 

I can tell you from an auditor's perspective, that it can be
very, very difficult to distinguish yourself from Xe-Nu
operatives who are mirroring your words, especially if those
words have been redefined according to Scientology Newspeak.
Consider this statement: 

"/It's not your engrams they're seeking to invalidate; it's
me, personally./"

Assuming "they" refers to Xe-Nu Scientologists, "your"
refers to the possessive link between a doubtful
Scientologist and Scientology engrams, and "me" refers to
me, the auditor --- the above statement is correct --- but
only if its reader makes use of the correct definitions of
"engram" and "invalidate". 

I've already given you the original definition of "engram":
it's a lie about identity.  

What about "invalidate"?  

Here's what the dictionary has to say: 

INVALIDATE, (from Merriam-Webster's)  vt. (1649): to make
invalid; esp: to weaken or destroy the cogency of.  synonym:
see nullify.  

COGENT, (from Merriam-Webster's) adj. [L cogent-, cogens,
prp. of cogere to drive together, collect, fr. co- + agere
to drive] (1659) 1: having power to compel or constrain <~
forces>  2 a: appealing forcibly to the mind or reason:
convincing <~ evidence> ... synonym: see valid. 

NULLIFY, (from Merriam-Webster's) vt. [LL nullificare, fr. L
nullus] (1535)  1: to make null; especially: to make legally
null and void   2: to make of no value or consequence.
Synonyms: /nullify/, /negate/, /annul/, /abrogate/,
/invalidate/ mean to deprive of effective or continued
existence.  /nullify/ implies counteracting completely the
force, effectiveness, or value of something <a penalty
nullified the touchdown>... /invalidate/ implies making
something powerless or unacceptable by declaration of its
logical or moral or legal unsoundness <the court invalidated
the statute>. 

Invalidating engrams and their carriers is the normal
function of an auditor of Scientology.  

But in Scientology Newspeak, "invalidate" has been subtly
redefined as follows: 

*invalidate* (as applied in Scientology)  vt. : to appeal to
emotion rather than to reason, as when assaulting a
Scientologist's character rather than his arguments : to
attack ad hominem.

Guess what.  Emotions can and do respond to reason.  If an
auditor clearly explains how engrams make their victims into
confused imbeciles, there will be an emotional reaction.
The clearer the reasoning and the more devastating its
conclusions, the more upset the engram victim will be by an
understanding of what's happened to him.  Xe-Nu operatives
attempt to misdirect the force of these feelings with their
mirror engrams.  Exempli gratia:

Xe-Nu mirror engram: "/It's not your engrams Lawkins  wants
to invalidate; it's you, personally./"

It's very easy, if you're using the Newspeak definitions of
"engrams" and "invalidate", and you're upset by what an
auditor has just told you, to mistake what the mirror engram
is saying for the truth.  

This is why Scientology engrams in general are like the tar
baby and the unwitting believer is like Brer Rabbit.
(Think: wads of bubble gum in your hair, unwanted tattoos,
wrinkles, or scars on your skin.  No matter how much you
want to get rid of this kind of thing, there's just no way
they're coming off or out totally painlessly.)  

Xe-Nu operatives are like Brer Fox when it comes to auditors
and critics of Scientology.  Day after day, posing as
"Scientology critics", they publish 100's of engrams on
Usenet newsgroups, in virtual chat rooms, and on the
Internet.   They're patiently waiting.  What they want to
see is a reaction that implies a potential auditor/critic
has caved in and accepted an engram...

Now, once they get this kind of reaction, how exactly do
Xe-Nu operatives /indicate/ they've detected nothing amiss?

Do they say, "Thank you for allowing our 'needles' to
float"?  

No.  

Instead they silently shift, for that person, from Xe-Nu
Rules back to Xe-First Rules as delineated in Scientology's
misnamed "Auditor's Code". 

The contrast between Xe-Nu and The First sides of
Scientology is extreme.  On one hand, the slightest attempt
to audit Scientology's engrams earns from Xe-Nu operatives,
cruelty and viciousness.  But show any signs of caving in
- - --- that is, behaving more like a not-auditor --- and you'll
be treated with "kid gloves" --- just as gently and as
sweetly as you can imagine.  There's no explanation or
verbal announcement of the demeanor shift.  It just happens.
Suddenly, the potential-enemy-become-a-not-enemy is being
rewarded in the same way a not-auditee gets rewarded in a
not-auditing session.  And just like that not-auditee, the
victim's motivating inner reptile is left to wordlessly
reckon what it must from then on do if it craves recognition
of high station or status from Scientologists operating
under the labels "Critics", "Auditors", "Case Supervisors",
etc. of Scientology.  

This reveals the first condition of exchange in Scientology:

"YOU ACCEPT OUR IDEAS ABOUT 
IDENTITY, WE'LL ACCEPT YOURS."  

Meaning: "Just swallow your engrams without reacting to them
analytically, and no one will get hurt.  Ok?"

;-)

Xe-Nu cycle of action repeats with increasingly
Scientology-compatible lies until the would-be
auditor/critic --- now deeply confused about identities ---
is ready to experience not-auditing as formally delivered
within the Church of Scientology.  

+++

Scientology's grand plan, summarized:

1)  With text engrams, train mock "auditors" who can't audit
Scientology, mock "critics" who can't criticize Scientology,
mock "examiners" who can't examine Scientology, etc., etc.  
2) Habituate Scientologists to lying under the mock scrutiny
of analytically attenuated and misdirected not-auditors,
not-critics, not-examiners, etc., etc. 
3) Give Scientologists who've been confused, conditioned and
habituated to obtaining pleasure from lies, Xe-Nu "Auditor's
Code" to apply to a mortal enemy of Scientology.  
4) Allow Scientologists motivated per step #2 and armed per
step #3 to go to work suppressing real auditors, critics,
and examiners,  etc. of Scientology. 
5) Watch, as all words necessary to expose Scientology are
one-by-one redefined and all persons wanting to expose the
fraud are either exterminated or insidiously converted into
Scientologists. 
6) Humanity has now lost its ability to defend itself
against the lies and misdirections in Scientology's engrams;
the date is "1984" forevermore. 

=============================== 
Sources:  
1) Katra Lawkins a.k.a. "KL", a.k.a. "Dorian's #1"

With continuing help from...

2) Ralph Dorian, a.k.a. "RD" a.k.a. the original editor of
published Scientology materials 

Katra's PGP Key ID: 0x3EC56EC9,
PGP fingerprint: DEDB EF4B 8580 EC1C C839  
D9AE 11A9 344B 3EC5 6EC9

Katra's key signed by PGP Key ID: 0x1A7A3ECA, in use 
since Nov-4-1998
PGP fingerprint of 0x1A7A3ECA: 222E 252F C976 52F4 B575 
CC27 4529 DCC0 1A7A 3ECA

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBQyyuARGpNEs+xW7JEQJrkQCg3yu1kC+7CbRyw2b1j26CrvWQ3+gAnjhk
cCLyBj4zpLW5rSpOR+DJpHlr
=FqVM
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Mon Sep 19 22:20:04 2005 GMT
From: kl at nym.alias.net