The 'Safe Asks Papers' -- The Real Why
The Real Why

It's Safe to Ask

From: (Afolderman)
Date: 23 Jan 2000 04:48:55 GMT
Subject: The Real Why

FZA DBoard

By Q1 on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 10:31 am:

I hear many freezoners say that "the official Church is beyond hope." When I first learned to drive, I thought this about my car every time that the alternator or the radiator or some other minor thing would go wrong. Seemed like the end of the world, until I discovered the proper why.

It is easy to assume that such a major problem as the takeover of the official church and perversion of it's purposes must have behind it a very long and complicated why.Investigations into the events have uncovered most of the relevant information, so the why isn't even lack of investigation any more, or lack of evidence, as it once was. That was a why once, but there is a much simpler why and a much much simpler solution.

The internal affairs of an organization are left up to that organzation , including enforcement of policies and basic security.

There are plenty who are aware that basic policies are out, but to present this to ethics usually reasults in these submissions being rejected, or condemned as nattering and ethics administered sometimes by "liability formulas" to be conducted on the level of ethics.

We now know that David Misc arrived at his position by force or by threat of force(anytime someone threatens a person, as in a copyright lawsuit, it is really a threat of force, of being imprisoned or forced to pay a fine by threat of force.)

We know that he has no right to be there, but he maintains his position by threat of force. We know that we could present the evidence but it would be rejected and a criminal charge possibly brought against you (threat of force.) SO David Misc and the RTC remain in power by force or threat of force.

If however David Misc is found to be operating counter to church policies, a congregation does have a right to exercise those policies, as their donations pay for the property upon which the policies are to be exerciesed, so long as these are reasonable policies.

But of course to approach David Misc and ask him to step down would end in you being escorted by security to have criminal charges brought against you.(threat of force.)

WHo is authorized to use force. The off policy higher ups, right? And who is not authorized, us right?

Still not to the why yet, but some stuff first.

Just because a lawsuit would be filed against the Church if it ousted the RTC and began producing copyrighted materials, doesn't mean that we can't do it and doesn't mean that the lawsuit would win. Given the criminal evidence that we have, it would be stupid of the RTC to even pursue the suit. But, as is often said, posession is 9/10ths of the law. So tThe church doesn't like paying money to the RTC but it does because (and this still isn't the why) NO ONE WILL CORRECT THE SITUATION. Who are we waiting to correct the situation? SOmeone who is authorized to use force.

I come from a babtist church, and if the preacher did some corrupt things, but someohow obtained the right to his position, he would be kicked out first, and our legal position in doing so would be corrected later. That is proper sequence. We swouldn't wait for him to kick himself out. A few guys in the front row would have to grab him by the arm, whether they had the right to or not, while the ones in teh back held the door.

But just so you don't get bored, my proposition as to the proper why is the unwillingness of junior terminals to confront and handle force

Isn't there a policy on a statement like HCO BRING ORDER, or some order for removing distrubances. I just can't place it, and I have few books..

Can someone share the referance. I really don't know enough policy but I remember a situation when there were intruders and everyone ganged up on them and threw them out. What is the referance anyone?

By Anonymous on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 07:49 pm:

Those of us who were willing to confront the outness in the church were kicked out long ago. Paranoia born of "KSW" and "Ethics" has kept us from speaking to each other. 90+% of the church is on the outside. Without a comm line, we were separated from each other. We need to unite. Until we do, we are easily defeated by the "church"

By Anonymous on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 08:28 pm:

You're not as weak as all that Anon.

1 being operating at cause is worth a million operating at effect. I'm beginning to notice my own ability to effect the situation spiritually. You can too.

Really, I think we're looking at a rise in consciousness.

I hear your points, anon. but really if you take a new look at things, evaluate data, and really realize that KSW and ethics were written to handle the current situation not to defend it, then you will find that the possibilities start opening up.

Uniting those outside is 1 of a million possible solutions. Scientology is where it is, and where it contributes to survival and it is nowhere else. Scientology is yours as much as always, and where it is applied that's where the church is, and the church can win against a few control happy banker types who'se position depends upon threats and the ability to keep truths from being known. SO KSW will clean things up. If you were made to have a distaste for KSW, then that was a trick. Scientology and only Scientology properly applied will straighten this thing up.

Let's go at it with some real intention right now, and make some effect right now, on some gradient, even if that effect is only making our intention felt.

Here's how it seems to me.

The first step is to make a decision, find out who you're friends are. Find out who the enemy is.

Once it is decided who the enemy is, then that person is the enemy, it becomes a matter of handling the enemy. In doing so, we are Scientlogy, and Scientology appplied wins, that was the original postulate.We have a right to the title of Scientolgists. We can't win if our very words grant authority to the enemy and no authority to ourselves.

Once upon a time a Sheriff was taking a drunk to jail, but before he reached the cell, the drunk proclaimed very loudly, "I'm the sheriff, you're the drunk."

The deputy walked in, and seeing this and being very stupid, took the "Sheriff out of the cell and put the "drunk" in.

NO, I'm the sheriff, he said, as the deputy put him away.

Now the deputy was very confused. He could see that this new "drunk" was wearing a sheriffs uniform, but it could be trick, he thought.

FInally the man behind the bars said, ask the drunk, He'll tell you. Ask the drunk he screamed at the top of his lungs.

But the drunk turned a deaf ear. Finally the real drunk on the outside said to the man behind the bars, "I'm not the drunk, I'm the sheriff". SO the man behind bars screamed, "OK then, ASK THE SHERIFF, ASK THE SHERIFF!!!!!!!"

"That settles that question", thought the deputy, so they left the room, him and the "Sheriff" with whiskey on his breath, and lived happily ever after.

Ed spoke of being in a lower condition, as if he isn't authorized to act or make his intentions felt. Those higher posts who have "authority" now have it because they have granted themselves authority and because others grant them authority. Every appeal, every validation of the identities or conditions that they assign, validates the self assigned authority of the enemy.

The next IMPORTANT step toward handling the situation is knowing that anything that comes from the source of the enemy, be it an assigned condition, an assigned identity, an interpretation of the tech, a means of operation, needs to be rejected as wrong source(listed by Ron as an outpoint.)

Along with that is, in your intentions, in your postulates and in your communcations, do not grant the enemy any authority whatsoever. This means make no appeals to them, do not call them by their post names without putting quotation marks around them, because these have no REAL posts, they are intruders and operate off policy, they have no right to be there by policy and have no right to use force, including the use of security to enforce their declares, as this is no more than a direct physical assauslt. This step is just seeng things correctly and communicatating what we see correctly.

Those who have "taken charge" started right in placing people in time and place and in assigning identities by a disproportional interest in ethics folders and signifigances. The whole operation has been suppressed to the level of mechanics where it can be controlled.

Arbiraries have been entered in, through methods of thought control, by altered importances in the tech, by interpretations, so what should be a question of "How do we handle the counter intention" has become a question of "How do we handle the counter intention while holding on to these arbitraries" They operate very stricly mechanically, through mechanics. We don't have to operate that way.

WHile there are advantages to appealing to a higher power as in the US government or the "higher ups" in Scientology, the other side of the coin is that dealing with the legal scene, or as mentioned, knowing the law, or even "handling" this thing by a long drawn out series of appeals, suggestions and/or compliances can become a show of jumping through hoops.

Ron said in his "what do I think of auditors" PL, I count on initiative. Also that's in the code of a group member. Initiative.

and finally, this:

By Q1 on Sunday, November 14, 1999 - 04:53 am:
from PAB 79

I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think, I think of auditors and Scientologists as free people....

I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn't approve of it. In our churches and out, I count upon INITIATIVE and GOOD JUDGEMENT.
L Ron Hubbard


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank