When a person goes into agreement with his case, he is being his case, and he does not DIFFERENTIATE between his case and himself - that is what out ethics is. There is no distance between him and his case because by agreeing with it, he has BECOME it and he is BEING his case.

Thus, he believes case thoughts and ideas to be his own ideas - no differentiation there you see, and so he ACTS on those thoughts, because he accepted them as his thoughts, and that is dramatization and that is overts.

The enemy formula is a real case cracking process when done right.

When done properly, it can cause astonishing case change.

The reason for that - the enemy formula "Find Out Who You Really Are" - gets the guy to DIFFERENTIATE between himself and his case. Thus, he gets distance between himself and his case, thus he can see that he is not his case, thus he goes out of agreement with it as it is not him. Then ethics are in.

What is the whole bridge but a long process of Find Out Who You Really Are?

Because in the end - the reward is - to re-discover basic personality - you.

You get you back - the REAL you. And the REAL you is sane and basically good.

There is never any reason to hate any living being. Beings who have their enemy formula out and therefore dramatize and commit overts resulting in illogical destruction - are still basically good but their actions are bad. One can hate a beings actions - but when you hate the being himself that is you NOT DIFFERENTIATING between that being and that being's case.

Ethics officers in the church do not understand ethics and therefore MISAPPLY it - resulting in destruction. They do not differentiate between the being and his case and so they believe that beings are bad. So they handle people with the philosophy that beings are bad. And, thereby they CAUSE OUT ETHICS by throwing the person's enemy formula OUT.

Allow me to tell a story to illustrate correct application of ethics. A friend of ours had a daughter who was being a criminal and took drugs and encouraged others to act the same way. Efforts were made to handle her by church ethics officers without success. She hated Scientology and ethics as a result. Her dramatizations and out ethics continued.

Now the only reason to ever have an auditing session or an ethics handling is to help the person receiving it. The session belongs to the pc, he owns it, it is his session and therefore it is done for only one reason - only to help him - not to help anybody else.

Our friend's daughter came to visit with us. I asked her if she would like some help and told her my only interest in offering was simply to help her - I did not care about anybody else but her. She found that concept acceptable and said yes.

I then hatted her on the tone scale. I told her that the purpose of a session was to cause a rise on the tone scale - to make her a more happy person. She found an increase in happiness for herself was also an acceptable idea and said yes again.

I then hatted her on the Overt Motivator sequence, including getting her to understand what a justifier is. I then said to her - people think you are bad, don't they? She said yes. I said that includes church ethics officers, they also think you are bad, don't they? She said yes. I said that includes you - you also believe you are bad, don't you? She said yes.

I then said here is the auditing process we are going to run -

Find Out Who You Really Are

We cleared up the word find out - which means discover.

We cleared the word discover as being the act of UNCOVERING.

So, in order to discover, one has to UNCOVER something that is COVERED UP.

Well, what is being COVERED UP here is the real YOU.

Whatever is COVERING you up so you can't see the real you - is what we need to handle here. When she understood that, we began.

I asked her what bad actions she might have been doing in her lifetime and she started telling me some. I would then get her to spot her JUSTIFIERS for those actions - because just getting someone to tell you an overt does nothing for the case - because they don't think it was an overt. They have justifiers for the overts you see - so in their mind it really was not an overt because its justified. So, to take an overt OFF the case - you do not audit overts - you audit justifiers.

So, I would ask her "why wasn't it an overt?". She gave me the usual justifiers - they are assholes, they deserved it, they did such and such to me, etc. After auditing justifiers for awhile - I said to her - I'm confused about something. She asked what?

I said - I thought you told me you are a bad person. She said I did tell you that. I said - well what is confusing me is I'm wondering why a bad person would justify overts. Wouldn't a bad person just do the overts without feeling any need to justify them? This gave her pause and she looked at me like a ghost had just entered the room - now there was a unique thought, never looked at it that way.

So, I said - let's continue on now - and had her give me more overts and justifiers for those overts. Then we hit the one I was looking for. She was telling me about cheating on her boyfriend and she felt bad about that one. I could see she was suppressing grief. So, I asked her - do you feel like crying? She burst into tears.

We took a little time to get the grief charge off.

I then asked her how did it make her feel that she had cheated on her boyfriend. She said shitty. I then said - when you hurt other people, how does it make YOU feel? She said shitty.

I then said - I'm confused about something again. She said what? I said - why would a bad person feel shitty about cheating on their boyfriend? Or feel shitty when they hurt someone else? She finally got it. She said they wouldn't feel bad.

She then cognited and said -

Oh my god! I'm not a bad person - I'm a good person who just does bad things!

I said I agree - that's the end of the process - Find Out Who You Really Are.

She then said that she had been unhappy her whole life and she saw that other people were happier than she was and felt that was unfair. Why should they be happy when she was not? So, she intended to pull them down to unhappiness with her by doing what she could to make them unhappy too.

I then told her - I did not want to play that game -and get pulled down to unhappiness with you. I reminded her of the tone scale and the purpose of auditing - to move a person UP the tone scale. I said I have a better idea - why don't you come UP the tone scale to where I am and we can both be happy and treat each other right and be friends? She said I like that idea.

Then she asked me if she was a Scientologist. I said which way do you want to go on the tone scale, up or down? She said up. I said - well, that's what its all about, going UP the tone scale, becoming a happier person. She said - well, then I'm a Scientologist because I want to go up the tone scale. I said I agree.

I told her that she was mishandled by church ethics because those ethics officers also have their enemy formula out and handle people in such a way as to knock the other person's enemy formula out, instead of getting it in.I said when you leave ethics with the idea you are a bad person - your enemy formula is out and of course you are going to continue committing overts because what else does a bad person do - except commit overts?

I then hatted her a little more on the Overt Motivator Sequence - with her new understanding that she was basically good. Now it made a lot of sense to her.

I taught her that the Overt Motivator sequence is NOT a natural law. Just because someone commits an overt on you, does not mean you have to commit one back on them. In fact, because you are basically good, you are a fool if you do, because now you are going to put yourself in hell.

Ron says the Overt Motivator sequence is THE mental mechanism that makes life on earth hell.

Lets examine why that would be. A being who is basically good but who is committing overts will cave himself in in various ways in the effort to stop himself from committing overts because he really does not like harming others.

Thus when he harms another dynamic he feels bad about having done so. Thus he feels a need to justify the overt to reduce the guilt he feels. So, he levels unwarrented criticism at the dynamic he harmed and thus he also mocks up Motivators. Those motivators really hurt too, because he is using it to JUSTIFY his overt against the other dynamic.

But, ALL justifiers are lies, because what the being is saying is this:

It wasn't really an overt because....

That is a lie, no matter what he fills in the blank with, because the truth is - it WAS an overt. And deep down inside himself, even despite his efforts to hide this fact from himself - he secretly knows it was an overt.

And secretly knowing it was an overt - he will now punish himself for having committed it. There are various ways he will punish himself - one way being to mock up a painful motivator that he clutches to his bosom and won't let go of for dear life.

Because he is basically good, he continually seeks to get his ethics in and restrain himself from committing any more overts against that dynamic. Thus you have a decline of his abilities - the result is inabilities and illnesses. These are self-imposed as an effort to prevent himself from committing overts.

If the being finds he still cannot restrain himself from committing overts - his final solution is to leave. The reason he is leaving the area is because he is BASICALLY GOOD. He has concluded that he cannot restrain himself from harming that dynamic so IN ORDER TO PROTECT THAT DYNAMIC FROM ANY MORE HARM BY HIM - he leaves.

That's his way of putting his ethics in when he concludes that he cannot stop himself from harming that dynamic - he leaves.

All of the above phenomena is PROOF that he is BASICALLY GOOD:

1. Justification 2. Harming himself with self-imposed inabilities and illnesses 3. Leaving an area to protect it from any further harm from him

What I taught this girl was that because she was basically good - that if she committed overts - she would punish herself in the above various ways for having done so. The Overt Motivator sequence is the primary way one descends down the tone scale into unhappiness. Therefore, undoing and rising above this mental mechanism is the way one goes back up the tone scale and remains up.

What I got her to see was that if she comitted an overt - she would then destroy her own happiness, and regardless of how it affects anyone else - she should not commit overts out of her own self interests - to protect herself from destroying herself and sending herself down tone.

In light of the fact that the overt motivator sequence is NOT a natural law - one can rise above this mental mechanism by recognizing this fact - just because someone commits an overt on you - does not mean you have to commit one back on them. In fact, you are a fool if you do - because now you will destroy your own happiness and enter your own self-made hell.

This is where this datum has use -

What is greatness = the ability to love one's fellow man despite all reasons not to.

Ron also said that probably the biggest secret to this universe is love.

Here is how to take an overt off a case and restore love:

The definition of responsibility is two ABILITIES.

Ability to admit causation (justification prohibits recognition of having been cause)

Ability to withhold (oneself from committing overts)

So, by getting a person to tell you an overt - you have accomplished nothing for the case because he does not think it was an overt because he has justified it. So, you do not audit overts, you audit justifiers. Why wasn't it an overt is the auditing question. You audit justifiers for an overt until you get the following End Phenomena:

The End Phenomena has two statements of recognition.

The person says -

That was a helluva thing to do to Joe - even if it could have been explained. Yea - I actually did commit an overt there - regardless of any reasons - I hurt Joe.

He also recognizes and says -

There was a point in time there just before I did that to Joe - where I was deciding whether to commit the overt or not - and I decided to do it. Yea - I didn't HAVE to do it - I just decided to.

When you get the above two recognitions - you have taken one overt off the case.

Notice that the above End Phenomena is RESPONSIBILITY.

Ability to admit causation Ability to withhold

The person has not only recognized that he did in fact harm another, but he OPERATED AT CAUSE in doing so. He did not HAVE to do it - he ELECTED to do it. He can now see that the Overt Motivator sequence is NOT a natural law -

It is only a mental mechanism which he foolishly chooses to employ and the reason he is foolish is because in employing the mental mechanism, he is COVERING UP the fact that he is BASICALLY GOOD and will now punish himself in various ways for having done harm to another dynamic. Thus his ENEMY FORMULA GOES OUT.

In order to commit an overt he has to NOT-IS his and the other being's basic goodness. Thus he has COVERED UP - Who he really is.

Thus the enemy formula - Find Out Who You Really Are - for people who do harm.

It is especially applicable to those who do constant harm because they have lost ALL of their ability to withhold - meaning restrain themselves from commiting overts.

When his enemy formula goes out, he believes himself and others are bad. He can get into a state wherein he is believing so much that he is bad, that he loses ALL of his ability to WITHHOLD himself from harming others and then you have an SP - a person who harms others all day long every day. He cannot restrain himself at all and has given up even trying to. He has gone into apathy about restraining himself from doing harm.

In this state he has gone completely into agreement with his case, he has become his case, to such a degree that he can no longer see his basic self any more - the being is gone - completely COVERED UP. There is no distance between himself and his case because he is BEING his case.

And so he cannot DIFFERENTIATE between himself and his case and thus get some distance between it and himself and so he confuses all case thoughts as being his thoughts and so he accepts those thoughts as his own thoughts and acts on them. Thus he dramatizes his case and commits overts and harms others regularly. And so his Enemy formula is out and thus his ethics are out.

Getting back to our story with our friends daughter - I hatted her on all of the above. I spent about 10 hours with her doing all the above and then she went home.

About a month later I got a call from her mother. Her mother asked me - what did you do with my daughter? Nobody here recognizes her anymore, I don't recognize her anymore, she is a totally different person than she has ever been. She has discontinued all criminal relationships she used to have, she no longer takes drugs, she has found all new decent friends, she likes Scientology and goes to the org to do ethics and takes services. What happened?

Allow me to say that people do not understand Scientology.

Thus they MISAPPLY it.

When they MISAPPLY it - they get losses and can even cause destruction.

Then, they call their Misapplication "Scientology" - when it really wasn't - then the tech gets an undeserved bad rap.

Putting people on an ethics post who are not Class II auditors who really understand all the above - is pure folly. Those people, who have their own Enemy formula out, then proceed to knock other people's Enemy formulas out by mishandling them in ethics. The result is a disaster.

In our Evaluation we did on the church - the WHY we found is -


The indicator of MISAPPLICATION is - the individual goes down tone.

The indicator of correct application is - the individual goes up tone.

"The auditor is not trying to cure anything. He is simply raising tone." - SOS

So, if you are practicing "Scientology" and what you are doing is driving the recipient down tone - that is NOT Scientology. It is the opposite of it.

The WHOLE IDEA of Scientology is to bring individuals and thus other dynamics -


"If it isn't fun it isn't Scientology." --- R




Happy Hun-Ting




31 Jan 2007 @ 16:57 by vaxen : Yes...
I guess I could have cleared up some of the Jargon for non Scientologists but who is going to read this anyway? Yeah. No one...

Thus I take this all as another exercise towards the ultimate whatever which is still a long ways downline, true, yet is here and now for those(self determined) who have eyes to see a nd ears to hear with. Tata...


Around the world, as a second carrier group moves toward the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the "team" and the policy for "regime change" in Iran: Michele Steinberg / Executive Intelligence Review

Make no mistake about it ~ Lewis Libby took the fall for Cheney in the plamegate indictments. But the greatest crime of this administration is their crime against peace ~ for which they have yet to be indicted.

Let's go back in time.

Libby and his mentor Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the illegal invasion of Iraq just one week after the Twin Towers fell in 2001 ~ and both reported to Dick Cheney.

Guy Dinsmore, Financial Times UK, profiled Libby and writes;

" Together with the vice-president, Mr. Libby launched the push to invade Iraq .... And, together with Cheney, Libby has "worked hard to block signs of engagement with Iran, resist direct talks with North Korea, and undermine U.S. legislation prohibiting torture and degrading treatment of detainees."

As such, Libby was Cheney's disciple and hit man and was obviously chosen to out Valerie Plame by Darth Vader himself ~ Dick Cheney.

Expect a Bush pardon and eventually a medal if Libby is found guilty. Loyalty to the chief outweighs everything in this den of thieves.

However, the last thing Cheney wants is now happening ~ Fitzgerald digging deeper into Cheney's secret government and other more flagrant crimes against peace. Fitzgeralds's ominous last words at his press conference a year ago" It's not over ~ we may be closer to the beginning than the end " should strike fear in Cheney's heart ( if he has one ) ~ for Fitzgerald's method is to usually go for the aides before he tackles the leaders.

And that is precisely my point ~ Dick Cheney is being rightfully targeted for impeachment and Michelle Steinberg, Executive Intelligence Review, calls it a ' perfect storm .'

Allen L Roland

A 'Perfect Storm' Is Rising to Oust Dick Cheney

by Michele Steinberg

This article appears in the February 2, 2007 issue of
Executive Intelligence Review

With the combination of the most somber and serious Congressional hearings since Watergate, and the opening of the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice, there is a "window of opportunity" for impeachment of the Vice President-and Cheney is jumping right through it.

On Jan. 24, one day after Cheney was exposed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, as directing the campaign to discredit a credible, eyewitness critic, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, by exposing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, who worked as a covert agent of the CIA, Cheney went on national television to announce that the White House will ignore any resolution from Congress that criticizes the escalation of force in Iraq.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when asked about the Senate resolution against the "surge," which had just been passed by the Foreign Relations Committee, Cheney boasted, "That won't stop us . . . we are moving forward . . . the President has made his decision."

In short, Cheney's own foul mouth, in bragging that the White House will ignore the Senate resolution against Bush's surge, just hours after the Senate committee passed the bipartisan Biden-Hagel-Levin measure, creates the "perfect storm" that could finally sweep Cheney out of the White House.

The exposure of Cheney's role in the Scooter Libby case, and his outrageous dismissal of the constitutional role of the Congress, affords the Bush family-which enlisted Cheney to craft George W. Bush's Presidential run in 2000-an opportunity now to take action to get him out.

This is not a matter of partisan, or revenge politics, but a matter of the national interest. Around the world, as a second carrier group move towards the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the "team" and the policy for "regime change" in Iran.

Now Is the Time

Pundits-especially those favorable to Cheney's chickenhawk policies-have said that impeachment is unlikely because the Vice President is a "constitutionally elected official" who can only be removed under charges of criminality, or by voluntarily resigning. But, with the opening statement by Special Counsel Fitzgerald in the Libby trial, on Jan. 23, in which he alleged that Cheney issued a hand-written memo to Libby on discrediting Wilson, the situation changed. Not only did Fitzgerald disclose the existence of the memo, but he charged that Libby had "wiped out" that incriminating piece of evidence.

However, reportedly through the combination of computer memory recovery methods, and the testimony of witnesses who also knew about Cheney's memo, Fitzgerald was able to introduce the matter in his opening remarks.

Now, to all those who say "impeachment is off the table," one must ask-what would the trial of Richard Nixon's aides Haldeman, Ehrlichman, et al., have looked like, if a hand-written note from Nixon, directing them to break into the offices of Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel, had been disclosed?

Washington insiders report that the Bush family may be the critical factor in getting rid of Cheney, a scenario which is being mooted in the media.

On Jan. 25, Keith Olbermann, the host of the popular "Countdown" show on MSNBC, did a five-minute spot called, "Should Cheney Go?" He pointed to longtime Bush family operative, James Baker III, as the person who tried-and failed-to save G.W. Bush from the Cheney disaster.

Olbermann opened his show saying, "Piece by piece testimony at the Scooter Libby trial is dismantling the already tattered reputation of the nation's Vice President, portraying him as consumed with retaliating against a serious credible critic of his attempts to sell the war. . . ."

Later in the program, Olbermann said, "Another friend of this show, Craig Crawford, reported today that Jim Baker not only led the Iraq Study Group, he was also leading a kind of a private attempt to wrench the President away from Mr. Cheney's influence and ideology, and ultimately failed in that, judging from what the President is trying to do in Iraq now, in light of the Baker Commission. . . ."

The phrase being increasingly heard in the halls of Congress and around Washington is, "the time is now." It is being used in the appeals from Republicans to the Bush family to save the Party and the Bush legacy-by getting Cheney out. And, it has been heard in open Congressional hearings, such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of Jan. 24 on the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution that condemned Bush's "surge" in Iraq. Senators said "now is the time" that Congress must take decisive action, such as capping the number of troops in Iraq, or cutting off the funds for the war, using the "power of the purse."

Impeach Cheney Now

According to a well-informed Washington intelligence source, the major question after day one of the Libby trial was, "Why was the Vice President not indicted along with Libby?" Fitzgerald apparently did not want to influence the outcome of the 2006 election by issuing an indictment before the vote-but, there is no obstacle now. And, a massive outpouring from the voters could actually bring it about.

In three days of trial, evidence has been introduced that it was Cheney who was obsessed with discrediting Wilson, and it was Cheney who personally directed the anti-Wilson campaign, which included the "outing" of Plame (who was, ironically, trying to track down weapons of mass destruction in Iran!).

Even Voice of America, a news service wholly owned by the U.S. government, pointed to Cheney. On Jan. 26, an unusual article, signed only as "By VOA News," said the following:

"A former spokeswoman to Vice President Dick Cheney says she informed Cheney and his former chief-of-staff, Lewis `Scooter' Libby, about the identity of a CIA operative married to a Bush administration critic.

"[Cathie] Martin testified that she informed Cheney and Libby of Plame's identity after learning it from a CIA official. She also said Cheney personally directed efforts to discredit Wilson's allegations."

Coming on the heels of Fitzgerald's disclosure of the Cheney memo, written during a trip to Norfolk, Virginia, which included Cathie Martin, Cheney, and Libby, there is growing pressure to prosecute Cheney.

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on Conscious talk radio


Allen Roland’s weblog:

21 Feb 2007 @ 03:27 by solomoreno : More on the Overt-Motivator sequence...
I really like this one! Your clarity is exceptional and the personal anecdote was very helpful. Reminds of when I was reading some of Electra's stuff, when she writes that one can easily confront nearly anything another being can throw at oneself but it's the sins one has committed against others that can be so difficult to confront. Coming up the bridge, all of that flowery talk on forgiveness in the gospels really begins to make a lot of sense. Once one begins to 'understand' others and this idea of out ethics, one can really feel this infinite source of forgiveness within oneself.

More technically, I was thinking that justifiers are put into place to prevent the person from returning to a position of power--the position where it was so possible to commit the overt in the first place.

Furthermore, I was thinking about what you said about getting at the justifiers rather than the overts. Justifiers are the alter-isness on the original postulate, the original creative act, which was the overt. As you say, discovering is about uncovering, which amounts to spotting all of the lies that shroud the truth, the as-isness. "To get the right idea, get the wrong idea."  

24 Feb 2007 @ 04:42 by vaxen : Just so...
Yes Solomoreno. A stable datum doesn't have to be 'real' in order to stabilize apparent chaos. Dis, don't forget, was the ancient Latin God of light. ;)  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

[< Back] [MEGATRENDS] [PermaLink]?