On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:43:50 +0200, in article <REPOST-9ak9q5$e8j$5@news2.isdnet.net>, roger gonnet stated... >> "I once told a bill collector what and who we were and that he had
>> wronged a good person and a half hour later he threw a hundred grains
>> of Veronal down his throat and was lugged off to hospital, a suicide."
>> [HCOB 31 Dec. 1959 "Blow-offs"]
>
> Really? I don't remember that sentence; though it should have been in a
> level 2 auditor's course, the title of which seems familiar to me.

The quote is in the referenced HCOB below alright, exactly as stated here. It is in the 6th from last paragraph of the 3-page bulletin. In the newest edition of the tech volumes, the quote is on page 262 of volume V. To put it into context just a little for baby-face nelson who asked, it is all about "leaving." Here's a smidgen of it for you.... The first sentence of the bulletin states; "Scientology technology recently has been extended to include the factual explanation of departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas." You noticed he said "factual" so therefore it's bound to be true from actual research, right? In the next paragraph, Hubbard states the following; "This is one of the things man thought he knew all about and therefore never bothered to investigate. Yet this amongst all other things gave him the most trouble." Yet *another* thing that has given man the most trouble. Has anyone ever culled through to see how many items have been *the* source of man's troubles? A little later in the issue he states: "For instance, man has been frantic about the high divorce rate, about high job turnover in plants, about labor unrest and many other items, all stemming from the same source - sudden departures or gradual departures." Well, has this "technology" actually proved so miraculous that it has made it's way into society and turned things around, such as divorce rates? Look at the last 40 years since it was written and *you* be the judge. And I remember asking this next question the first time I read this bulletin over 25 years ago. Is there any other kind of departure other than a sudden one or a gradual one?? So he is saying *all* departures anywhere, anytime. Skipping down just a bit in the bulletin; "In Scientology we have the phenomenon of preclears in session or students on courses deciding to leave and never coming back. And that gives us more trouble than most other things all combined." So he had to come up with a good justification for them leaving that didn't involve the technology, the organization, the supervisors or auditors I suppose. I bet it just pissed him off that people could even think about quitting his philosophy for any reason and therefore a technology was needed to explain preclears and students leaving (as they always had and always will do). And since we have to reason away why people are leaving our orgs, let's just extend that "technology" to include *all* departures from *any* place. Skipping down a bit, we get to the meat of the matter, quoted here; "People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and hard-bound rule. A man with a clean heart can't be hurt. The man or woman who must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn't matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job or a session. The cause is the same" Hey, I'll be the first to tell you that there can be some relief found in "coming clean" and a some confession when needed. But, then that isn't a new or unique concept is it? But, this cranks that baby up to a whole other level of an actual technology which is applicable to all departures everywhere. Ever moved? Departed from a friendship or acquaintance? Left school? Quit a club? It's all because of your overts/withholds. And it's more than a fact - it's a "factual fact." I'll skip through a whole bunch of the explanation of this "technology" so that I don't bore you more than I already have (though, if you leave this then you have overts/withholds that you need to confront even if you're bored). We come to this statement in the bulletin; "A recent Secretarial Executive Directive to all Central Organizations states that before a person may draw his last paycheck from an organization he is leaving of his own volition he must write down all his overts and withholds against the organization and its related personnel and have these checked out by the HCO Secretary on an E-Meter." I know for a fact that this even includes when a staff member has finished a contract and satisfied a previously understood and agreed upon obligation. Been there, done that. Interesting mechanism for any staff that wants to leave of his *own* volition. But, it's being done for his *own* good, right? Yeah, right. This "technology" is factual, remember, and there is much research to back this up. Yeah, right. Here's from the next paragraph; "To do less than this is cruelty itself. ... Further, he goes around spouting lies about the organization and its related personnel, and every lie he utters makes him just that much sicker. By permitting a blow-off without clearing it we are degrading people, for I assure you, and with some sorrow, people have not often recovered from overts against Scientology., its organizations and related persons. They don't recover because they know in their hearts even while they lie that they are wronging people who have done and are doing enormous amounts of good in the world and who definitely do not deserve libel and slander. Literally, it kills them, and if you don't believe it I can show you the long death list." Since I've had full clearing on this upon leaving, then at least I'm not degraded nor telling any lies about these fine people. But wait, if anyone leaves the sea org, for example, then they are a degraded being no matter what. Even if they *did* do a full confessional. I have (somewhere) and read the issue it's quite clear in that *anyone* that is ex-Sea Org = degraded being. Heck, they're worse than someone who never lifted a finger to help their cause, but that's a whole other subject. The above quote simply makes a feeble attempt at pointing the other finger at people who may have become dismayed with the subject, organization and/or people. It is trying to *create* a reason for the people who leave and so now we have a "technology" to handle these people. So, I guess that handled that and no more students, preclears and staff have left since this revelation and solution, right?! By the way, I would like to see that long death list since it was offered. Who's keeping it? Is it any longer after 40+ more years? This leads us up to the original quote in this thread. Just prior in the same paragraph, it states; "The only evil thing we are doing is to be good, if that makes sense to you. For by being good, things done to us out of carelessness or viciousness are all out of proportion to the evil done to others. This often applies to people who are not Scientologists." I see what he is trying to say, but does it make sense to me? Ummmm plainly no. He next describes an electrician who robbed HCO with "false bills and bad workmanship" and how he one day woke up to the fact of what he had done to such a gloriously helpful organization - so he "lay dying in a London hospital" with TB. And that brings us directly to the quote below about a person committing suicide. IMHO, it's pure story-telling, as someone else here had said. Even if it were true, there sure isn't an ounce of compassion for these people in his words, nor a hint of anything to be done to help the fellow with TB, for instance. In summary, you take a simple confession and cleansing of the soul concept, and blow it up into a big "factual technology" that explains all people leaving everywhere which is really to solely justify why people leave *your* philosophy and organization and may not like you for any reason. And then make it look like it's done to help the other person so *they* don't become the victims of horrible things. And makes for a good control mechanism that, if you buy it, you're hooked and won't leave. Anyone still involved with the church here ever considered just for a minute in a rush of silliness that maybe it's not such a hardbound rule and fact as it states. Just for a hoot, see if you could even consider that possibility. No, wait! Don't think that thought! ;-) Sorry that this got longer than I originally intended. It's kind of therapeutic though to go through some of this stuff after a few decades of dedicated service to that subject. Damn glad to see the light and as the saying goes .... better late than never!

Alfred E. Noumenon "The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." - Albert Einstein

Go Back