What’s Wrong With the Church, Part 1: Floating Needles
In the next series of posts, I’d like to highlight what appears to be wrong with the current Church of Scientology. In some cases, I will provide the dates of reference policies, but I will not be quoting from L. Ron Hubbard. I don’t want to run afoul of the Church, effectively asking for a “violation of copyright” claim. Yes, of course, quoting short passages from Ron’s published works would be “fair use”, but that doesn’t mean the Church can’t still harass my hosting provider or file a frivolous suit nonetheless. In some cases, I may simply state the principle provided in Ron’s policy or technology. If you seriously object to the “verbal data”, feel free to seek the references out and correct me if you find my statements incorrect.
Some will be disappointed when I don’t provide “proof” of my claims. Many of the claims cannot be decisively proven without access to internal Church records, which I don’t have. Some of the claims I cite will be things I’ve seen for myself. Most will be claims made by others in the field who say they have witnessed these things themselves. You will have to decide, based on your own observations, whether they are telling the truth or not. Many of the claims I discuss are being made by people who have “resigned” or been expelled from the Church of Scientology. The Church has become fond lately of automatically dismissing claims made by such people, because of their status with regard to the Church. Realize that, regardless of whether someone is on good or bad terms with the Church, their status has no effect on whether they are telling the truth or not. Many may simply be on bad terms with the Church because of injustice. Or even because of the fact that they have witnessed so many bad things taking place inside the Church that they could no longer in good conscience continue to contribute to what they believe the Church has become.
There is a long standing principle in Scientology: Look, don’t listen. Another similar principle forwarded by Ron is: If it’s not true for you, it’s not true. Keep those two things in mind.
The first, and perhaps most frightening thing that appears to have happened within the Church is that the e-meter phenomenon known as a “floating needle” has been redefined. I have not personally seen the reference which redefines it, but there appears to be unanimous agreement this such an alteration has occurred (remember, I’ve been off lines for many years). It appears to have be redefined in such a way that it now requires three swings back and forth to qualify as a floating needle.
Let me point out that if you know what a floating needle is and represents, and why the meter reacts that way, you will at once recognize that the above redefinition of a floating needle is absurd at best. If you have full conceptual understanding of the term “floating needle”, then you could not possibly accept the idea that is must swing back and forth a fixed number of times to qualify as a free or floating needle. Such an idea is completely contrary to the concept.
Now, let’s imagine what would happen if the whole technical community of the Church accepted such a redefinition. The first and most pronounced repercussion would be widespread overrun. Think about it– you’re the PC or pre-OT and your needle floats per the real definition of “floating needle”. This could signal the end of a session, an action, a level or a rundown. But because of the redefinition of a floating needle, your auditor must now wait for the needle to repeat its course some arbitrary number of times in order to call it. So he continues listing. Or doesn’t end the session when he should. Or doesn’t allow you to go to the examiner to attest to the level or rundown you just completed. And some types of auditing are so sensitive that bypassing an F/N like this can royally snarl a case.
Of course, this redefinition is purported to be based on LRH’s work and research. Again, if you understand the concept of a floating needle, the redefinition could not possibly be based on LRH’s work or research. I learned what a floating needle was back in about 1976, and I’ve likely read every single reference where LRH ever defined or described a floating needle. Nowhere in all those references did LRH ever refer to any number of repetitive swings in defining a floating needle. Any such redefinition is false technology.
Let me be clear: considering how basic a piece of technology the floating needle is, this type of alteration of the Technology is a suppressive act of the highest magnitude. When you consider its full ramifications across the whole of Scientology, there are several things that should become clear to you:
- Whoever proposed and/or wrote up such a tech alteration is unquestionably suppressive. Not only for the tech alteration itself, but for making the claim that this redefinition came from LRH. Such acts could not be undertaken out of ignorance. Such acts would be those of a genuine 2-1/2 percent Suppressive Person.
- Whoever approved of such an alteration richly deserves a Committee of Evidence and possibly their own suppressive person declare.
- Any trained tech terminal who accepted and/or followed such a redefinition, or allowed it in his sphere of technical influence needs a full cram (likely in clay) on Keeping Scientology Working, Safeguarding Technology, and Technical Degrades. At least.
Again, let me state that I have not seen the issue which lays out this redefinition. There is some question about whether such an issue exists, but none on the fact that this alteration is being pushed on Tech staff. So I will assume it does exist. There also appears to be widespread agreement that this alteration was authored by David Miscavige, current Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center. If so, then number one above would apply to him, solely on the basis of this one item, regardless of whatever else he might have done or not done with regard to the Church.