10 MYTHS ABOUT STANDARD TECH DEBUNKED
What should have been seen for a true Crown Jewel, was instead relegated by some to the status of a Dirty Word.
GENERAL MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT STANDARD TECH
Probably no Scientology related topic, articulated by hard-core Church zealots all the way down to FZ anarchists, is prone to so much disinformation and inaccurate ideas as the subject of “Standard Tech”
The author of this article finds it no surprise that every single one of those inaccurate interpretations were made by individuals who never trained on the Class VIII course or beyond.
Possibly the individuals the most guilty of misunderstanding (or as some say, deliberately altering it so as to legitimize their own off-beat contraptions) are those who invented the sub-classes of “Progressive Standard Tech” VS “and Conservative/Classic Standard Tech”. What is not openly admitted is that seeking to apply different and conflicting “Standards” to two different groups under the same label is the very definition of “Double Standards”, where one is redefines the rules as they fit one’s set of preconceived ideas. To prove my point, the individual advocating that idea the most went as far as comparing numerous groups by giving arbitrary points for alleged adherence to “Standards” to a number of FZ and Church practices and even other therapies. Not surprisingly an individual who never trained to any high level of training and openly advertise his contempt for “Standard tech” had the highest rating and was found significantly “more standard” than high Classed auditors trained by Hubbard himself.
Whether independently developed technology is workable or
possibly even better than Hubbard’s own brand is entirely beside the point and does
not change the fact that “Standard Tech”(Scientology)
will always and forever remain what is taught on the Class VIII course. Not
because it is better, more “correct” or fits anyone’s idea, but because the
entire idea of establishing a “STANDARD” is by the very definition in the English
Language “SOMETHING that is developed from authoritative rules or principles as
a model or pattern for guidance. Using an established standard, one can by
comparison determine the degree of excellence, correctness and adherence with .it
by something else. One of the best examples is the “Meter” located in the
office of the International Office of Weights and Measures in
All meters measurements across the globe are made by using meters that are close copies of that meter. The fact that the definition of the meter was eventually revised to define it in atomic terms does not change the fact that the using the original meter remains the relevant standard for all measurements but those involving microscopic increments.
One can but wonder if one day the intense derision a country in its quest to reject what it views as oppressive Western authoritarianism, would generate, if it decided to not only reject the measuring meter (It could adopt feet, cubits or some newly invented measurement), but insisted in calling its own measurement “the true and standard meter” and insisted that everybody else on earth was wrong (even those who invented the measuring meter)
Yet the same is done daily by some misguided individuals in the Free Zone. It will therefore come as no surprise why so many professionals have been avoiding it or why the FZ has acquired little credibility outside of the relatively small circle of departed Scientologists who is currently still largely populating it.
Hubbard is the authority who I the incontestable author of the definition of auditing, the Scientology Axiom, the Auditor code and all major principles. He personally trained people to a specific set of standards. Those in turned trained others. It is an obvious admitted fact in any field outside of Scientology (safe for those ruled by anarchy) that highly and expertly trained, experienced and interned practitioners are invariably those who the are most knowledgeable about a discipline or a Science, especially when their training spanned several decades of intensive work to perfect and hone their skills.
A number of individuals who seek to support the claim that they believe having found more accurate answers about life and the Universe than Hubbard, unhappy with merely rejecting or repudiating his doctrine, attempt to appoint themselves as the new “Source” and “Authority” over it, not realizing that they are actually seeking to not only redefine it, but transforming it as well. The truth is that what they have evolved, however highly workable and marvelous it may be, is simply not “Standard Tech”.
Finally, it should also be noted that Hubbard ideas are for the most part based on careful observation of thousands of auditors and cases over the better part of three decades and that he had an entire organization dedicated at supporting him. Most rules evolved are the result of logical deductions from Scientology Axioms and observation of what was found to be workable.
STANDARD TECH CORRECTLY DEFINED
One of the most misinterpreted definitions of Standard Tech is “a definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose” (Class VIII tape Number 4). By taking that quote out of context, some people have interpreted it to mean “Doing anything, however sloppy, unprofessional, or in violation of accepted practice, as long as it achieves the stated purpose of the auditing”. To someone who actually listened over a dozen time to those tapes (three times on the course alone), the intent of LRH was extremely clear to me and meant the exact opposite. Hubbard sought to elevate the caliber of auditors to a new plateau, not only by making them achieve a previously unachieved level of professionalism, but by ensuring that the entirety of the Scientology Technology so well refined that it could now be crystallized into its final form. By doing so, one would not only increase the level of predictability but considerably increase the effectiveness of both product correction and quality control.
One for one each of those who made that pronouncement had never listened to the original Class VIII tapes (due to their unavailability) and were rather content with the fact that they had merely been using an edited transcript and/or the verbal opinions of another.
Another definition about Standard tech is “that Tech which has no arbitraries”. From that definition alone, it becomes abundantly clear that any auditing or programming which neglect the core basics of auditing which are rapidly and fully dealing with any bad indicators as they occur, maintain at all times High ARC and a superlative communication cycle with the preclear at all times, and processing someone on a program designed specifically for him rather than an arbitrary or unworkable set of rules, cannot possibly be labeled as “Standard Tech”, except by those who either misunderstand what it is or have a vested interested in it not being applied.
STANDARD TECH MYTHS
1- ST is Robotic
2- ST is inflexible
3- ST prevent thinking
4- ST is opposed to anyt creative activity
5- ST is only used as propaganda
6- ST doesnt work
7- ST doesn’t produce results
8- There is no new Tech in Standard Tech
9- ST is responsible for bad results
10- ST is solely Hubabrd Arbitrary Viewpoint
11- Cant work because all cases are different
prebnts creative thought (contray good tech = creative so he can think, robot cant think & create)
creativity is in doing the session, not inventing processes.
Thre is someone at Flag who to the shame of the level she widely professes as having atatined (OT8 truth revelead) who
is aon a campaign of dinformation to rep[ress dissenters.
Her name is Kathy True (previously known as Kathy SNow, now divorced for well meaming SNow who could no lonerr stand
her fanaticism and her gleeful desire toc adge the powerful).
Armed with an incapacitated intellect she scours teh Internet to report to Upper Management adn OSA Int the prewence
of subversives sio that can be blackmailed, bullied, terrorrized or failing those slandered by the concoction of
imaginary tales and stories.
Generalities is her trademark. Apaprent fiornly while quietly rerporting those she is smailing to is her Modud
Operandi (defined as Covert Hostily on the tome scale by L Ron Hiubbard.
She manifest the cataceristic of 1.1 in Chart of huiamkn ability
Becaue she was teh least pc I ever red tagged (a full four years before I left Flag;Per her own asdmission she was
She was A NCG in her auditing with me. This was at teh time where All Church Leaders unanimously stated that I was
Flag top auditor and that I cosnistently passed under the closests of scrutinity.
Virtually all my cases were winning. Kathy True, like 2 1/2 % of them was one o fthe pcs I sought to help but was
unable to get case gain, per her own public admission at tyeh time.
Lest one, (typically one who ahs allied himself to OSA) would falsely claim that IO revealed the "secrets opf a pcs"
(never mind taht those atatcking me of such have a long history of doing tgeh same adn other violations and covertly
seek to atatck others in a futile attempt to hide their own tarsngressions.
Kathy Snow is OSA's darling and is the architect of over 300 Supressive persons declares (thought she technically did
not authored these declares, gher statements were quoted verbatim in many Supressive Eperrson declars.
An analysysis of thirty at random of thgose decalres reveal a propsentiy at Inveting facts so ast to fit a theory.
Kathy True (who contarily to her name is seeking teh revelation of anything but teh truth) in each and everyone sought
to expalin the individual's
immoral tactics,k but teh a priori conculsion that "they must be SP, because the Church is always right. After all the
because anything negeative ever said by anyone against the church can only be a vicious lie.