Search Results

Introduction: Determination and Courage: You could say that “those who say no” are more determined, and “those who say yes” more courageous. “Those who say yes” are the ones who set out for new horizons. They are the ones who invest in the future – and believe in it. Determination and Courage It is certainly a provocative statement, but to put it simply, you could say that "no-sayers" are more determined, "yes-sayers" more courageous. Being able to say no is actually a skill – the ability to set yourself apart and ensure that your own interests are not lost. It may be a selfish skill, but it is important nonetheless. Because someone who can't say no quickly becomes entangled in countless obligations. It is probably also the first time in many thousands of years that it is possible to simply say no. Today, we have achieved the level of prosperity that allows us to say no. But does that make "yes-sayers" the losers? There may be a spark of truth in this. Because our system massively supports this behavior. Nobody starves because they say: “No, I'm not working.” “No, I don't want children.” “No, I don't want this job.” “No, I'm not volunteering.” “No, I live alone because living together is too complicated.” Today, we can afford the luxury of saying no. But if I had acted as a "no-sayer", I would never have got to know Scientology and would never have practiced it. My boss at the time even invited me to an expensive restaurant as a 19-year-old just to persuade me to say no. I think "yes-sayers" are courageous people. They are people who set off for new horizons. They are the ones who invest in the future – and believe in it. To become an auditor, you have to say yes. There are countless reasons not to audit – because it's so much easier to say no. There are many stops that make it easy not to audit. In fact, work has even been done to fix auditors and staff on stops so that a session won't happen. In my decades as a training officer, I have had to remove many stops not written by Ron from the technology of auditing. It is so much easier not to audit. I could sing a song about it. Auditors will often remember for the rest of their lives when not to audit. That's the “safe side”. You won't be punished for it. Yes – an auditor has the right to say no. But then there is no session. I respect an auditor, even if they make mistakes – that can easily be corrected. But if an auditor doesn't get going in the first place, it's hopeless. Saying yes is the start, saying no is the stop. Both are needed – an auditor must also be able to say no. But the most important things are: Determination and Confidence . In Scientology terminology, we call this “Tone 40” – defined as intention without reservation. I want to give you some very important advice here. This advice is serious, and if you ever find yourself in an emergency situation, please remember it: If someone wants to rape you, If someone wants to shoot you, If someone wants to force you to kill someone, If someone wants to blackmail you, If someone wants to force a medication on you If someone wants to give you an implant – whatever : Just say no clearly and firmly . Repeat your no. You learn how to repeat yourself in the communication course. You may have to package your no diplomatically – but still say no firmly. You can also say an apparent yes – and still communicate a very clear, firm no. You learn this technique through TR 8. Determinism and Confidence are the be-all and end-all. Even if you want to audit someone: “There is nothing good – unless you do it.” Don't ask. Say what you are doing – and just get started. Below you will find an excerpt from a lecture by Capt. Bill Robertson in which he explains how to deal with suppressive characters: namely with TRs. Hard-trained TRs produce determined thetans. If Scientology wants to give you something, it is: Determination and Confidence . “In the beginning and forever is the decision, and the decision is to be .” – Factor #2 – Scientology 0-8 – L. Ron Hubbard Life begins with a determined yes. Much love Max Hauri Excerpt from Technical Briefing 2 Full Technical B riefing # 2 from Captain Bill Robertson – Senior C/S The main technology method of the Marcabian side is concentrating their intention on keeping people at fear and below on the Tone Scale. 1.0 all the way down to apathy. Because then they can control all the planet with their 1.1 actions. That is why they would then be the highest toned people on the planet. 1.1. They really cannot confront Scientologists at all, because my goodness, they are most all above 2.0 on the scale. And all those Marcabians have retained certain OT abilities themselves, because they are relatively new to the planet, the ones who are here recently. You can handle 99% of them by TRs. A good TR1, "Get out of here", and they will. So they are not very effective, except the cases where the people have so much spaghetti around them that they are restimulated by their intensity and their flow. And the thing they fear most, of course, is exposure of themselves: As being aliens to the planet, As being the masterminds behind trying to suppress all the people of earth, As being the people who are stealing you all blind of all your gold and real currencies, now owning more than 60% of the wealth of the world and Of having their basic false data exposed such as "man only lives once". You see, if man only lives once, then you can really scare the hell out of him with death. They are also being afraid of the money being found out to be worthless they are issuing. And they are also afraid of the wrath of humanity, once all the other four things are found out. They are very afraid of mob action against them. That's why they protect all their premises and so on with very heavy security operations. What other explanation do you have? They are running the terrorists. They are running the communists. They are running most of the politicians. So they can tell them, "Don't do anything to our area." No, they are afraid of people that aren't under their control. And there are lots of people that are not under their control. There are lots of people that are in apathy and don't know what to do. So that shows you that they don't have a control over the planet yet, and in fact, a very accurate analysis, they only have a great deal of control in the western world. They are only using 1.1 tactics with the rest of the world. And it is only at the top levels they have the control. They don't have the control through the middle and the bottom areas and the ordinary people in the street. They don't have that control. They try to enforce it with the 5th and 6th dynamic procedures I mentioned before – the drugs and electronics and radiation, and bla bla stories on TV and so on. So that gives you a pretty good picture of the world as it exists today.   Capt. Bill Robertson The 26. October 84

Ron's Org, Grenchen, Switzerland The Ron's Org, original free, independent Blog is happy to present many articles from L. Ron Hubbard's works. These articles will help you understand life better and do more with it. Sometimes understanding takes some effort, but it is rewarded by the fact that you can apply it. New data or knowledge allows you to see things differently and therefore live better. If you are curious about what is behind the categories, here is a brief overview that will help you choose the one you prefer. Individuality: We are all different and yet we have one thing in common: our mind. It works the same way for everyone. Family: Family, love and children are the pillars of our societies. Understanding them and being able to improve them is the wish of all human beings. Group: We are all part of a group governed by the same natural laws. It is possible to learn and apply them. Society: Today's society is very diversified. It has problems all over the world and it is possible to understand them, no matter where you come from. Life: Life is within us and around us. Everyone has the right to respect for their own kind. Discover, learn these rights and make life better for everyone! Exact sciences: Science is there to help Man to evolve and not to destroy him in the name of vested interests. Make your own opinion. Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion without a god, but with a guideline to follow to access higher levels of consciousness; accessible with Scientology. Dianetics: It opens the doors to the universe of the mind and what can be done to make trauma disappear and the true self emerge. Scientology: Every religion or culture has a piece of truth. Scientology combines these truths into a technology for the betterment of all. Technology: Every action, science and work has a well-defined technology for achieving a valuable result acceptable to all. Increase your knowledge, apply it, and enjoy the result. Please feel free to contact us with any additional questions. We, from Ron's Org, original free, independent Blog will be glad to answer. Your happiness is important to us! Ron's Org Grenchen – Switzerland +41 32 513 72 20

Introduction: The weird idea is that one only lives but once. Pas t lives as a subject is made distasteful, possibly purposely, by some who are fearing to have been a nobody… The weird idea is that one only lives but once. The story of Barbro Karlen has been public for some time and you can also find corresponding videos on YouTube (Anne Frank Barbro Karlen). Definitely worth reading and watching. Here is a link: https://reincarnationresearch.com/reincarnation-case-of-anne-frank-barbro-karlen/ I have also read Barbro Karlen's book. It is very informative if you want to understand reincarnation better. This story combines two elementary aspects of our science: a) How the restimulation of an engram works b) Reincarnation Further below and attached the bulletin “Past Lives”. HCOB 23.03.69 III Much love Max Hauri Past Lives Past Lives – Bulletin from 23. April 1969-III by L. Ron Hubbard The reason the first Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation had trouble was that its board of directors attempted to stop past lives from being run. When a group seeks to forward only what is currently acceptable it of course stalls all progress. Further it is dishonest to suppress or fail to reveal scientific discoveries. Disagreeing with the Law of Gravity could give one some very bad falls. Pre-Dianetic mental studies customarily threw out anything that did not agree with their pet theories or would be "unpopular" with authorities. Such was the dishonesty practised in the humanities that the whole field had fallen into brutal hands. Dianetics had to encounter the Dark Age atmosphere which then prevailed, complete with torture and murder of the insane. The facts are that what the auditor believes has little to do with the preclear's reality. If a practitioner challenges or demands proof of a patient's data the patient becomes ill – that is the bald fact of it. It's part of the Auditor's Code. As far as past lives are concerned, if you don't run mental image pictures from past lives when they come up on a chain, the preclear will not recover. A pathetic case of this occurred in early research. A girl crippled by polio was able to throw away her crutches after my first session. And would have become entirely well except that she recalled seeing and hearing Lincoln give his Gettysburg address. Her mother condemned her for such nonsense. The girl's lameness was confirmed and perpetuated by this and by a psychotic father who raved at me for daring to suggest such things. I didn't suggest anything. In auditing the girl she suddenly came up with being at Gettysburg listening to Lincoln. Seems a bit cruel to condemn a young girl to a lifetime of lameness just to satisfy a fixed idea. The weird idea is that one only lives but once. We have several times traced the graves of Preclears in a special project and they usually came up correct. One Preclear was very upset to find his friend has failed to erect the fitting paid for tombstone, substituting a common slab, possibly to pocket the difference. Some Preclear s have been so overwhelmed in the past by some great figure that they go into his valence in that life. This often throws discredit on past lives. I recall one girl who had been every famous figure in history who when we got her in valence turned up to have been only a victim to them. The great generals and politicians of history, it must be sadly remarked, aren't easily distinguished from mass murderers. But even famous figures are somewhere. Past lives as a subject is made distasteful, possibly purposely, by some who, by fearing to have been a nobody and seeking status, talk loudly to others about having been Napoleon, Julius Caesar and Brutus all at the same time. In a society which tries to hide in the current identity or seeks to mortalize everyone and make people only animals the subject of past lives can be a difficult one socially. The truth in auditing is, if you don't run the incidents given by the Preclear he doesn't get well. One spectacular recovery of an insane woman occurred when she ran an incident as a lion who ate her keeper. Freudian work hadn't been able to crack the case. The alienist at the sanitarium kept her in with trying to explain how it was all delusion (the current technique pre-Dianetics). A Dianetic Auditor found and ran it and she became sane at once and stayed so. It is not the auditor's role to handle the philosophic or social aspects of incidents. To chide a Preclear for having an anti-social engram or a record of a crime or to challenge his data or refuse him his past life will bar his road to recovery and is itself a crime. It will be found that Man is basically good. Only his aberrations are bad. When you run out his engrams he becomes social and reverts to being good. Auditing is auditing. Audit what the Preclear has to audit. Leave the social aspects of the case to others. It's not the auditor's job. L. Ron Hubbard

Introduction: How withholding is a strategy for survival? A fascinating text that you can use right away to start changing your viewpoints and better understand the society in which we all live. What makes a person? What is a thetan, and what does it mean to be "Clear" or "OT"? In Scientology, we have a fundamental unders tanding of how life works, and we teach this principle from the very first moment: it is the ARC Triangle – Affinity, Reality, and Communication. These three elements together make up understanding. One could also say: the more ARC, the more life there is. Because life is ARC. Moreover, we all strive, not just Scientologists, to reach a high, if not the highest, state. We all strive for things to go well for us and our dynamics. In one sentence, this means: to be connected. Affinity is expressed to a significant degree through emotions. An essential goal in Scientology is to be high on the tone scale – that is, emotionally high. However, this definition is somewhat inaccurate. The actual goal is to have all emotions available to you and to be able to live them, without being stuck in them. This way, you can easily and quickly find yourself back "on top." With the above points, we wish to convey three essential messages to every person: We should be connected – with our fellow humans, near and far – but also with the living and non-living world, such as animals, plants, and the material environment. The second message is about our emotions. We are not robots. Emotions are not weaknesses, even though they are sometimes seen as irrational. They represent humanity and empathy and are essential for creativity. Emotions are not a flaw but rather an expression of life. The third important point is learning and self-education. There is so much to learn, especially about life. There is so much to understand. It is like the ARC T riangle: The more you learn, the more you understand, and the more you can implement or achieve. This, in turn, allows you to learn more. This is a very important cycle: If you don’t apply your knowledge to the dynamics, studying helps little. But if you understand and apply this cycle, you reach unprecedented heights. Below is an excerpt from a lecture by Ron. As I studied the lecture, I could clearly see how Ron greatly benefited from this cycle. You can see beautifully how he gained a deep understanding of life through the application of studying people – that is, studying the PCs and their associated cases. The excerpt is fantastic, the lecture is brilliant. Much love Max Hauri Here you can find the transcript and the audio of the lecture: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16EhZCfmW50ZghxPSOzTTXDvLEjBflYuI?usp=sharing Withholding as a strategy for survival Excerpt from the lecture "Withholds" given by L. Ron Hubbard on the 6 February 1962 Withholds equate to survive. A withhold, reversely, would be holding onto a piece of information which would damage survival. A preservation of identity. The self-preservation of an identity. Now, you have to remember that a thetan can't be hurt. A thetan can only get connected with something that connects with something that connects with something and then he gets himself onto the circuit. So here is the thought involved in this: That a person withholds to preserve himself. You do not tell the police that you really did park three hours in the no parking zone, you see? You say, "I just arrived." Now, why do you withhold that information? That is the police could lessen your survival if they found it out. Correct? All right. The police could lessen your survival if they found it out. Now, therefore, the withholds which you have are things which you feel, rightly or wrongly, that if you let them be known, they would reduce your survival. That is, they would decrease your reputation or identity; people would think less of you – this is all part of the same thing, you see – people would think less of you if they knew. We've made the step now above the idea of a withhold being totally a matter of mores. Now, we've gone a little bit further and we have a little bit better rationale. And that rationale is that a withhold is something a person believes had better be withheld because, if he didn't withhold it, it would reduce his survival as, of course, an identity. If you were building an identity on repute – nothing wrong with this. It's a standard trick of the universe. Your credit is good. People think well of you, you see. All of those various things which go into repute. It's a standard trick of the universe. I mean, you can't even live in this universe without this trick – in a body, of course. And if you are working to enhance your repute to be a good citizen, a member of the community, a person on whom people can depend, a person who has good job references – all of the rest of this sort of thing. You got your nose clean with the government so it'll pay your old-age pension, you know, that kind of thing. All of these things. You've never been known to vote for law and order. You always wanted what the government wanted. But what are you doing there? You're building up a survival identity. All these things build up a survival identity. Nothing wrong with this, of course. Well now, a thetan goes on the cautious side of this, so he always withholds more than he has to. And naturally, all withholds, then, are built uniformly on the basis of self-preservation. The source and cause of any withhold is self-preservation. That's it. I mean, that's your technical fact. Withholds, self-preservation. Self-preservation, withhold. All these other things parade out from this fact: self-preservation. Now, self-preservation, of course, is a misnomer. A thetan doesn't have to preserve himself. It would be silly for a thetan to even try to preserve himself. A thetan is only involved in preserving an identity. So self-preservation is a misnomer in that it shouldn't be self-preservation. It should be the identity preservation. Preservation of an identity. Actually those things that would be stuck – now, let's be very technical – would only be those points where you failed to preserve your life. That would really be stuck because it's the failed postulate. See? But the postulate impulse, of course, was to preserve your life whether it won or lost. You see how that would be? Therefore, a death hangs up more than a life. The failed postulate mechanism is, of course, senior to all of these mechanisms. If the person has a withhold that he must then withhold he, of course, is in danger. Do you follow that through? You see, you can always enter one of these dangerous situations from two sides. A person must be in danger because there is a piece of hemp hanging over a tree. Now, that is restimulation. Has nothing whatsoever to do with anybody hanging him, but he knows a piece of hemp hanging over a tree is for hanging. So therefore, he can actually think he has done something to be hanged for. Now, do you see what withholds are? Do you see what withholds are all about? A withhold is an effort to survive. If you find yourself withholding, you must be trying to survive, is the conclusion that you could reach at that moment. You see, you've done it so often this way, it's such a grooved pattern, that you must be trying to survive. So therefore you must be in danger. He has found himself withholding. What are the immediate conclusions that run off automatically from that first conclusion? What are conclusions two and three? That they must be in danger. See, he found himself withholding, so, (1) he found himself withholding, (2) he must be in danger and (3) therefore that he must survive. That's sort of the actions that he take. So you miss a withhold on the pc, he gets two and three automatically – bang, bang. It doesn't matter which we call two and which we call three. But those are the conclusions he comes to. "Oh, I am sitting here withholding something and the auditor hasn't pulled the withhold." The instant reaction is "I must be in danger." And the immediate response is "I must survive" by which he means "defend myself." So he takes defending actions. He gets defensive actions at once. You miss a withhold on a pc, you get a defensive action. Wild animals are savage for only one reason – because nobody ever pulled their withholds. Wild animals are not natively savage. They just happen to be in a state where they can no longer get off their withholds. That's all. See, they're individuated. A wolf is being a wolf. That he is being a wolf means he has withholds. So therefore, if he found himself withholding something, he would attack you. Or oddly enough, if he found you withholding something, he would attack you. Any withhold will restimulate a wolf. He goes savage instantly. But do you know, wolves aren't necessarily savage? You know, they're the best fathers in the whole animal kingdom? They're rather interesting beings. But when they get the identity of wolf straight down the groove, they are very easily led to believe that they're withholding, that they are in danger and that they must attack. And these conclusions – it doesn't matter where you enter that triangle – they interpret almost anything that they're in danger. They interpret almost anything that they must attack. They interpret almost anything that they're being attacked and therefore they must interpret anything may kill them, so that they must withhold in the vicinity of almost anything. So you seldom run into them. In order to handle a wolf so that he wouldn't bite you, you would have to demonstrate to him conclusively that he was not withholding anything. Isn't that interesting And do you know, that I handle wolves that way, very successfully? That there is no point in withholding anything, that there's just no point. They get into a very jolly frame of mind. They tackle you and you pick them up on both sides of their jowls and you throw them about twenty-five feet and you go over and pick them up and pet them. Well, it sounds absolutely incredible, doesn't it. But there's no point in withholding anything because they're not going to damage you any and also you're not going to damage them. It's quite remarkable, you get right down to it. You get an idea – there is a meeting ground at which nobody is hurting anybody. It's just jolly good fun as we wrap each other around tree trunks, you know. A wolf will take an awful lot of punishment. You walk up to a wild animal as though you're withholding something and you've had it. You've had it right now. You walk up to a wild animal as though you're not withholding anything and he stands there and looks at you and wonders what you're doing. So you show him what you're doing. You very carefully always show him what you're doing. You don't excite his curiosity so you don't have a withhold involved and you can actually walk right up to one, he'll never attack you. It was not any magic that kept Daniel [ Book Daniel, Chapter 6. Daniel – a faithful servant of God – was thrown into a den of lions because of his unwavering faith, but he miraculously survived, as God protected him.] alive in the lion's den. It's just he never gave anybody the impression they were withholding. All right. Now, you've given the pc the impression in Security Checking that the pc is withholding. And then you didn't pull the withhold to show the pc the pc wasn't now, withholding. What do you think the pc's going to do? He's liable to leap out of the chair with all fangs bared and does. Not that pcs are wolves, but the one-two-three applies to the pc. If the pc is withholding then he must be in danger, then he had better defend himself. And that's how the missed withhold makes a pc so savage and what makes it such a deadly mechanism. And why you've to handle this mechanism and stop fooling around with it. Now, do you see what withholds are? Do you see what withholds are all about? A withhold is an effort to survive. If you find yourself withholding, you must be trying to survive, is the conclusion that you could reach at that moment. You see, you've done it so often this way, it's such a grooved pattern, that you must be trying to survive. So therefore you must be in danger. So you say with truth a man is his own worst enemy. And Scientology is that study whereby we're making a man his own best friend. That's true. Wouldn't you like to be a friend of yours? L. Ron Hubbard

Introduction: Scientology is the study and training of the fundamental principles of life. This education allows you to acquire and deepen this knowledge – it is truly a school of life. Books, the Bridge, Life The Bridge of Scientology consists of two essential elements: training and auditing. Both are necessary – one complements the other. Training doesn't exist just to make auditors. Studying and training are fundamentally important for a thetan because they provide stable data that help them better understand themselves, others, and thus life itself – leading to greater control over their own life. You can compare it to flying: an airplane can be repaired, maintained, cleaned, and brought into perfect condition. You can do "Reach and Withdraw" with the aspiring pilot and use auditing to free them from fears, dislikes, or false attitudes about flying. But if they want to fly, they still need solid training. Of course, they could try to teach themselves how to fly – but with structured training, it’s easier, safer, and more efficient. In other words: auditing and training complement each other and are inseparably connected. A society also essentially functions through education. Scientology is training in the fundamental principles of life. This training does not stand above other forms of education in the sense of being “more important,” but it offers a basis that helps make everything else more understandable and easier to apply. It’s worth acquiring and deepening this knowledge – it truly is a school of life. L. Ron Hubbard wrote down many of these fundamentals in his books. From personal experience, I can say: when you read them again after a few years – especially after further auditing or upon reaching the OT levels – you see much more in them. Auditing expands your reality, which makes the content of the books clearer and more applicable. The books are available digitally, and we also provide some in printed format. The printed editions are available in German and French; unfortunately, we only have a few in English. However, we do carry many used English books. You can download the books directly here: https://www.ronsorg.space/books The book “ Boots In The Sky – The Tale of Erica and Max Hauri” is now also available in English and can be obtained exclusively from us. Much love, Max Hauri

Introduction: Below is a letter from L. Ron Hubbard to the President of the John Howard Society in St. John's, Newfoundland, which also works with the Royal Commission of Canada. L. Ron Hubbard talks about Judiciary or Rehabilitative Dianetics, which could be advantageously applied in prisons, thus drastically reducing criminality. A challenging text today - but a fascinating topic.While translating it, I had to think of my newsletter from December, Prison Planet Earth . What if this principle is applied to us? "We might find then that insanity should be prohibited as a defense, but that at the same time all criminality defined as intentional harm against the society should be classified as a greater or lesser extent of insanity and that the criminal should be, as you suggest, uniformly detained for treatment. And we find also, as we examine this problem and see the disastrous effects of early and unqualified releases from prison upon the society, that a criminal should be detained until it could be ascertained with great certainty that he would not further victimize the society." In fact, I too have come to believe that a criminal had better prove that he is no longer one and not be given another chance in response to his pleas. As Ron says, forgiveness is not a high-sounding “virtue”: "If there is any saintly quality, it is not to forgive. “Forgiveness” is a much lower level action and is rather censorious." (From " What is Greatness " ) However, we have the tech to grab ourselves by the scruff of the neck and pull ourselves out of the mud. We really do. We have the chance, let's grab it. Much love Max Hauri Insanity as a Defense Professional Auditor's Bulletin – PAB 28 – 11 June 1954 from L. Ron Hubbard Mr. D. M. Clouston, President The John Howard Society St. John's, Newfoundland   My dear Mr. Clouston: I wish to thank you for your forceful letter on the subject of your testimony as it may be given before a Royal Commission of Canada on the subjects of "Insanity as a Defense" and "Criminal Sexual Psychopaths". You state that the Royal Commission of Canada has been set up for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon two questions: Whether there should be any amendment to the Criminal Law of Canada relating to "Insanity as a Defense". Whether there should be any amendment to the existing Laws of Canada relating to "Criminal Sexual Psychopaths". As I understand it, you intend to advance the fact that only a trained therapist with those detectors which may be at his disposal is competent to make a fair analysis of a person's degree of sanity and in the second case that you intend that, for arbitrary punishment now being imposed, periods of detention should be set during which the prisoner should receive therapeutic treatment (preferably Scientological) and dis­charged only when found free from the criminal tendencies for which he was detained. It is very encouraging that a Royal Commission should see fit to enquire into these ranges of justice, and it is quite heartening to find that it would invite a man of your calibre to express his views. It may be that something definite may emerge from this and it would appear to be a very hopeful view. You asked me whether or not I think your approach is sound and to invite appropriate suggestions as I may care to make. And I wish to thank you for this opportunity and your courtesy. On page 402 of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health [ NdT: In the Ron's Org edition: Chapter 10, page 301: Dianetics – Past and future – Judiciary Danetics.] there begins a three page essay on "Judiciary Dianetics" with which, I believe from your letter, you seem to have some acquaintance. For whatever they may be worth to you, may I give you my general comments on this matter. The whole subject of "insanity" in law is adrift since it is a chip launched into the already existing definition of criminality. Any confusion as to where to place insanity in law comes about through the basic definition in law itself of insanity and criminality. Law defines criminality more or less as "action despite knowledge of right and wrong" and "insanity" as an inability to differentiate between right and wrong. If law is based upon the idea that all people are selfish and self-centred, then we can differentiate between criminality and insanity. But if law were to consider man a social animal, basically it would have to consider that any act which was intentionally harmful would stem from a frame of mind which omitted dif­ferentiation of right from wrong. No man, in other words, who was sane in the fullest sense of the word would be motivated by actions which victimized his group or community since he would realize that he, with the others, would suffer for these activities. And even in a practical sense it is apparent that the thief in committing criminal acts strengthens the necessary force of law in the area and so further inhibits his own freedom. This is a problem, mainly, of the degree of enlightenment of law itself. It is a matter of what standard the law or the society, the will of which is represented by the law, is willing to recognize a higher standard of conduct than that enforced by law these many years past. Society is more and more inclined toward the understanding of criminality as "antisocial". Jurisprudence may content itself to remain with its definition that insanity is the inability to differentiate right from wrong. But this view may be broadened through such inquiries as that of the Royal Commission and by the public's own pressure, which actually such a Commission represents, to account insanity as, simply, the inability to differentiate. In the United States certain patterns of thought of recent years have obstructed the growth of justice. Chief amongst these has been a dwelling upon the "criminal mind" as a mind which is strangely distinct and different from the minds of others who are not criminal. But a slightly clearer view should demonstrate that even the "criminal mind" falls within law's own definition for insanity: the inability to differentiate right from wrong. It is obviously wrong for a being to harm his own species, his own group, his own society. Therefore, a being who would commit harmful acts is not differentiating between right and wrong and must at least savor of insanity. Here we have a problem of "where to draw the line". At what point does an individual cease to be sane and become criminal? At what point, then, does he cease to be criminal and become insane? Custom from which law itself was born has long proposed the solution to this problem in its own definition for insanity. In order to classify criminals, we would have to classify crime. We would discover that crime was subdivi ded into accidental and intentional crime. Society punishes crime only when it considers the crime to be intentional. If the crime is intentional, then the intent also included the intention of harming the society. Thus a criminal action, by a broad sweep, could be said to be an insane action – and all within the definition of law itself. It could be defined that when a man descends to intentionally harmful action against his fellow he has descended at least into the upper band of insanity. Law could cleave open a path for itself by applying the classification of "insane" to criminals. In view of the fact that past systems of punishment have not reformed criminality or abated it, law seems more inclined to take this view and would take it could it be demonstrated to them that this inability to differentiate right from wrong could be altered to the betterment of society. As prison systems have been found to produce even more hardened criminality than they have remedied, it is entirely possible that law might comfortably entertain a change of view on the subject and treat criminals for what they are: mentally deranged persons. With this other choice law finds itself often betrayed. That choice is the permitting of criminals to escape law by reason of "insanity". If a criminal is proven insane he is permitted, at least to some degree, to escape the penalty which would ordinarily be incurred by his act. Law, by retaining this segregation, defeats its own ends and deprives itself of its prey. Only in the face of an almost complete misunderstanding of insanity could the people engaged in government be persuaded that the label "insane" should permit criminals to escape punishment. Thus, to that degree, insanity itself seems to be feared and is tolerated. The blunt and terrible truth is that so long as insanity can continue to be used as a defense it will invite criminals into that state of being. Further, such laws as provide an escape from punishment thus unharness the energies of many against their fellow men who would otherwise be curbed. For example, a slightly insane person by reason of his "mental state" might feel it unnecessary to obey law which actually was within his full understanding. It is far from right that law should provide an escape for the guilty on such grounds. By concentrating its attention upon the fact that insanity, if proven, will permit a person to escape justice, law is overlooking the fact that crime apparently stems uniformly from an inability to differentiate to a degree which a sane man would ordinarily consider sane. Law is faced with the enigma of insanity as a means of thwarting justice. And thus insanity must continually be disproven in the field of criminality. Whereas, it is time that criminality be proven to be insanity. I have worked with many criminals and have been, in order to observe criminality, a police officer for a short time. And it is my very close observation that anyone subject to criminal tendencies is, in a much broader sense, insane, and that his insanity reaches much wider than the field of crime, but invades hallucination, persecution and mental disabilities which are in themselves symptoms of insanity. The insanity of the criminal has its incidence in a conviction that the first group, the family, has no function or need for him and develops upon the recognition that the society does not want him. This is apparently the genus of that antisocialness we call criminality. The insanity is further developed by continuous association with others who are of the same conviction and who form groups, which groups are motivated by a need for revenge against the society. Current methods of punishment and police handling only deepen this conviction, and it can be said so far as jail sentences are concerned that the more punishment a criminal receives, the more insane he becomes on the very subject of his criminality. Thus the society victimizes itself by bringing from the realm of delusion into the starkness of reality the fact that the individual is not wanted by any of his fellows save a few of his most intimate associates. By joining hands in their thirst for revenge against the society which rejects them, these criminals then form societies of their own. And the final result of this dwindling spiral is the deterioration of the society as a whole under duress of laws which, seeking to repress the few, suppress the many. Without such criminal gangs people such as Hitler, who depended utterly upon them for his ascent to power, would themselves be powerless. Thus the subject of criminality moves intimately into the field of government. We might find then that insanity should be prohibited as a defense, but that at the same time all criminality defined as intentional harm against the society should be classified as a greater or lesser extent of insanity and that the criminal should be, as you suggest, uniformly detained for treatment. And we find also, as we examine this problem and see the disastrous effects of early and unqualified releases from prison upon the society, that a criminal should be detained until it could be ascertained with great certainty that he would not further victimize the society. This last strikes directly at the parole system which is an unhappy one at best, and would make it the complete responsibility of parole boards to insure the society against further criminal acts on the part of the released prisoner. In the absence of a remedying treatment and practical means to effect it, such a course as this would be considered inhuman in the extreme. Even a hardened judge might recoil from the idea that insanity should never be used as a defense, and the intention to incarcerate criminals for their lifetime, if necessary to insure society against their depredations. These are very strong measures. Today, however, several experiments have demonstrated that treatment for criminality can be administered at very little cost to the state. This cost is as small as a few cents per prisoner. By means of group processing a great deal has been done in this field. The treatment itself is administered by magnetic tape recordings. The problem could not have been solved as long as individual application of therapy remained a necessity by reason of technology. But with the advance of group processing, the majority of criminals could be rehabilitated and freed by parole boards using sanity as their criteria without injury to the society. Even though this processing would not be effective upon all criminals to which it was administered, according to present standards and practices, it would at least be effective upon the majority. With regard to the second part of the purposes of the Royal Commission of Canada, it is my own opinion that laws relating to "Criminal Sexual Psychopaths" should be no different from laws relating to other criminalities. For the sexual psychopath, as Sigmund Freud long ago recognized, is a mentally ill person. In both these matters, we find the law capable of advancing to the degree that it is willing to accept its responsibility to the society at large. It is the purpose and function of law to safeguard the citizens of the society against the depredations or criminal practices of the few. If the law is totally responsible it would act to totally insure the citizenry against crime. This cannot be done by suppression of the citizenry at large, for this is the regulation of the many to monitor the few. Even without Scientology, without adopting its practices, law could be far more effective in safeguarding the society as a whole simply by reclassifying what it means by "criminal" and firmly observing its own definition for "insane". With Scientology, once it has segregated out the criminals and the insane, once it has made its purpose distinct and clear, its detention of criminals until they were once more social could be resolved by the administration of tested processes to the criminals and the release of those who had responded on a group level. This, however, is a very long view and is far too firm a stand to expect from the judiciary, as these cannot but go by the customs of the people whom they serve. A long mile could be commenced upon this road, however, by demonstrating that groups of prisoners detained in prisons could undergo individual change by a rearrangement of their ideas and by releasing those so benefitted into the society and by tracing their course until it was firmly established whether or not they had become social. With this step and with the evidence thus brought into being it might very well follow that a broad evolution in law would ensue. I wish to thank you very much for writing me. I hope you will let me hear more about this as I am intensely interested. My very best, L. Ron Hubbard

Introduction: “My Philosophy” is a wise text. The first principle  of my own philosophy is that wisdom is meant for anyone who wishes to reach for it. It is the servant of the commoner and king alike and should never be regarded with awe. We often hear that patents for free energy are being bought up. We also hear that inventors who develop such machines or devices are visited and that they then distance themselves from this research. Others have been murdered. There are also rumors that the FBI confiscated his materials after Nikola Tesla's death and that HAARP was later built on these foundations. Well, we may speculate about that. But my gut feeling tells me that there may be some truth in such statements. Where there's smoke, there's fire... Whether the above is true or not, the fact is that dark forces, often disguised as 3-letter organizations (APA, AMA, CIA, IRS, NSA, etc.) have worked hard, and may still be working, to change and destroy Scientology. “My Philosophy” is a wise text. This quote from it is profound and I don't doubt for a second the veracity of these words and maybe it's not just “selfish scholars”: "Selfish scholars seldom forgive anyone who seeks to break down the walls of mystery and let the people in. Will Durant, the modern American philosopher, was relegated to the scrap heap by his fellow scholars when he wrote a popular book on the subject. ‘The Outline of Philosophy’. Thus brick bats come the way of any who seek to bring wisdom to the people over the objections of the ‘inner circle’." The enemies that Scientology has are also the enemies of all sincere and peace-loving people. These psychopaths have created tremendous material resources and structures over the centuries just to create and maintain war, misery, poverty, disease, etc. Poverty is caused by a false and evil monetary system, and if we were allowed to correct it, we earthlings would be living in material abundance within a few years.  Back when I was studying the monetary system, the scales fell from my eyes. It made me realize the value of Scientology across the board, and people have never had a better friend than Ron. "So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others to help themselves. and one should keep going despite heavy weather for there is always a calm ahead. One should also ignore catcalls from the selfish intellectual who cries: ‘Don’t expose the mystery. Keep it all for ourselves. The people cannot understand.’"  – L. Ron Hubbard The Ron's Org is working hard to ensure that Ron's Tech and Admin are available to all and that there are orgs where you can receive the appropriate training. The Ron's Org gives everyone the opportunity to study and apply the technology and wisdom. It is how we can thank Ron for his work. Follow the Ron's Org on Telegram, using this link: https://t.me/+ChuKP12Vwm9kNWJk Much love, Max Hauri My Philosophy By L. Ron Hubbard – 1965 Also available on this website as "Inspiration" in "Media Center " The subject of philosophy is very ancient. The word means: „The love, study or pursuit of wisdom, or of knowledge of things and their causes, whether theoretical or practical.“ All we know of science or of religion comes from philosophy. It lies behind and above all other knowledge we have or use. For long regarded as a subject reserved for halls of learning and the intellectual, the subject, to a remarkable degree, has been denied the man in the street. Surrounded by protective coatings of impenetrable scholarliness, philosophy has been reserved to the privileged few. The first principle of my own philosophy is that wisdom is meant for anyone who wishes to reach for it. It is the servant of the commoner and king alike and should never be regarded with awe. Selfish scholars seldom forgive anyone who seeks to break down the walls of mystery and let the people in. Will Durant, the modern American philosopher, was relegated to the scrap heap by his fellow scholars when he wrote a popular book on the subject. ‘The Outline of Philosophy’. Thus brick bats come the way of any who seek to bring wisdom to the people over the objections of the ‘inner circle’. The second principle of my own philosophy is that it must be capable of being applied. Learning locked in mildewed books is of little use to anyone and therefore of no value unless it can be used. The third principle is that any philosophic knowledge is only valuable if it is true or if it works. These three principles are so strange to the field of philosophy, that I have given my philosophy a name: SCIENTOLOGY. This means only ‘knowing how to know’. A philosophy can only be a route to knowledge. It cannot be crammed down one’s throat. If one has a route, he can then find what is true for him. And that is Scientology. Know Thyself… and the truth shall set you free. Therefore, in Scientology, we are not concerned with individual actions and differences. We are only concerned with how to show Man how he can set himself or herself free. This, of course, is not very popular with those who depend upon the slavery of others for their living or power. But it happens to be the only way I have found that really improves an individual’s life. Suppression and oppression are the basic causes of depression. If you relieve those a person can lift his head, become well, become happy with life. And though it may be unpopular with the slave master, it is very popular with the people. Common man likes to be happy and well. He likes to be able to understand things, and he knows his route to freedom lies through knowledge. Therefore, for 15 years I have had Mankind knocking on my door. It has not mattered where I have lived or how remote, since I first published a book on the subject, my life has no longer been my own. I like to help others and count it as my greatest pleasure in life to see a person free himself of the shadows which darken his days. These shadows look so thick to him and weigh him down so that when he finds they are shadows and that he can see through them, walk through them and be again in the sun, he is enormously delighted. And I am afraid I am just as delighted as he is. I have seen much human misery. As a very young man I wandered through Asia and saw the agony and misery of overpopulated and underdeveloped lands. I have seen people uncaring and stepping over dying men in the streets. I have seen children less than rags and bones. And amongst this poverty and degradation I found holy places where wisdom was great, but where it was carefully hidden and given Out only as superstition. Later, in Western universities, I saw Man obsessed with materiality and with all his cunning. I saw him hide what little wisdom he really had in forbidding halls and make it inaccessible to the common and less favoured man. I have been through a terrible war and saw its terror and pain uneased by a single word of decency or humanity. I have lived no cloistered life and hold in contempt the wise man who has not lived and the scholar who will not share. There have been many wiser men than I, but few have travelled as much road. I have seen life from the top down and the bottom up. I know how it looks both ways. And I know there is wisdom and that there is hope. Blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame with physical injuries to hip and back, at the end of World War II, I faced an almost non-existent future. My Service record states: ‘This officer has no neurotic or psychotic tendencies of any kind whatsoever,’ but it also states ‘permanently disabled physically.’ And so there came a further blow… I was abandoned by family and friends as a supposedly hopeless cripple and a probable burden upon them for the rest of my days. I yet worked my way back to fitness and strength in less than two years, using only what I knew and could determine about Man and his relationship to the universe. I had no one to help me; what I had to know I had to find out. And it’s quite a trick studying when you cannot see. I became used to being told it was all impossible, that there was no way, no hope. Yet I came to see again and walk again, and I built an entirely new life. It is a happy life, a busy one and I hope a useful one. My only moments of sadness are those which come when bigoted men tell others all is bad and there is no route anywhere, no hope anywhere, nothing but sadness and sameness and desolation, and that every effort to help others is false. I know it is not true. So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others to help themselves. and one should keep going despite heavy weather for there is always a calm ahead. One should also ignore catcalls from the selfish intellectual who cries: ‘Don’t expose the mystery. Keep it all for ourselves. The people cannot understand.’ But as I have never seen wisdom do any good kept to oneself, and as I like to see others happy, and as I find the vast majority of the people can and do understand, I will keep on writing and working and teaching so long as I exist. For I know no man who has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others. If things were a little better known and understood, we would all lead happier lives. And there is a way to know them and there is a way to freedom. The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails. L. Ron Hubbard, 1965

Introduction: This incredible story of the number zero breakthrough, laid the foundation for modern mathematics , influencing everything from algebra to calculus, and eventually shaping the number system that the entire world uses today. A few years ago, I showed Ian a church in Bern. Our conversation turned to an inscription on the wall, written without any punctuation. Ian explained to me that, in the past, there were no spaces between words.  itwaswrittenlikethisandwentonwithoutanyspacesatall. The invention of spacing between words was clearly a major breakthrough! But it gets even more interesting – the origin of the empty space between words actually comes from religion, from the practice of clearing the mind. Meditation helped achieve a desired emptiness. It also contributed to a healthier connection between Thetan and body. It’s all about the right distance. This healthy distance is beneficial. One of the reasons why auditing works is that by looking at something and communicating with it, you create a certain distance. Using the communication formula "Cause-Distance-Effect," a gap is formed between the person and the problem – something that was once overwhelming and too close suddenly gains space. Below is an insightful text from Indian professor Manjul Bhargava.   At the beginning, there was TR 0: Today there is an INVITATION! I invite you all to join in every last Wednesday of the month at 07 pm ! TR 0 gives you that zero point in the stress of everyday life.   Much love. Max Hauri The Incredible Story of the Number Zero  From Upanishads to Brahmagupta – The Journey of Number 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osp-g6_fmkI Most people are not aware that Zero is India's contribution – and a very important one. The general public often does not fully understand what it means that India contributed Zero, why it is such a significant discovery, or how exactly it came to be in India. That story is truly incredible. I believe it demonstrates the power of multidisciplinary thinking and the importance of understanding ancient Indian knowledge – not just in terms of its historical significance but in how knowledge itself develops over time. It is also a fascinating story because Zero first emerged in India before spreading across the world. How did the concept of Zero originate? It actually began in ancient Indian philosophy . The first instance of the idea of Zero can be found in Indian philosophical texts – particularly in the Upanishads and various ancient Buddhist scriptures , which explored the power of meditation. What was the goal of meditation? It was to achieve a state known as Shunyata  – emptiness, or "zeroness". The objective was to clear the mind of emotions, ego, and thoughts to attain a certain state of connection between mind and body. This is the first recorded use of the word shunya , which later came to mean "Zero." Shunyata – the state of emptiness – dates back thousands of years. This is the earliest known appearance of the concept of zero  in world literature. The evolution of Zero: from philosophy to mathematics There were several key milestones in the development of zero. Philosophical Zero  – The first stage was the conceptual idea of zero, emerging in Indian philosophy through meditation and the notion of shunyata. Linguistic Zero  – The next major development was transforming this concept into a written symbol . The earliest recorded symbolic representation of zero appeared in the field of linguistics . The great grammarian Panini , who laid the foundations of modern linguistics, introduced a symbol for the empty syllable  – a syllable that represents nothingness. This symbol, known as avagraha (ऽ) , was a kind of linguistic Zero , marking an absence in speech and language. From linguistics, zero made its way into poetry . When poets needed a symbol to represent a pause or an empty beat in a poetic rhythm, they used the avagraha. Similarly, in music , when notating a rest (a pause in sound), this same symbol was used. At this point, zero existed in philosophy, literature, linguistics, and poetry , but it had not yet been adopted in mathematics . Zero enters mathematics By around the 3rd century CE  [Common Era] , Indian mathematicians began considering the idea of using a symbol to represent nothingness in calculations . The first known instance of this appears in the Bakhshali Manuscript (circa 300 CE), where Indian numerals – including Zero as a dot (•)  – were used in calculations. At this stage, Zero was still just a placeholder . It was not yet regarded as an independent number but simply a tool to help write numbers correctly within the Indian numeral system. By the 4th century , the concept of zero had already entered public consciousness. For example, in the 4th-century Sanskrit novel Vasavadatta , the night sky is poetically described as being filled with "Zero dots" scattered across the heavens  – a reference to how Zero was represented in writing at the time. However, it was not until Aryabhata , around the year 499 CE , that zero became a key part of mathematical computations. Aryabhata used the digits 0-9 to simplify astronomical calculations. This was a revolutionary step toward the number system we use today. Even then, Zero was still viewed as a placeholder rather than a full-fledged number. Brahmagupta: The moment Zero became a real number The final breakthrough came in 628 CE , when the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta formally defined zero as a number in its own right. Brahmagupta was the first to write mathematical rules for zero, such as: Any number plus Zero equals the number itself. Any number multiplied by Zero is Zero. He demonstrated that zero could be treated like any other number in arithmetic. This was a turning point in human history  – for the first time, zero was recognized not just as a placeholder but as a number with its own properties. This breakthrough laid the foundation for modern mathematics , influencing everything from algebra to calculus, and eventually shaping the number system that the entire world uses today. Fields Medalist and renowned Number Theorist Prof. Manjul Bhargava

Introduction: Judgment consists of familiarity and the ability to evaluate relative importances. Judgment consists of the importance of the fact with relationship to its surroundings. You will do to the extent that you recognize and observe and evaluate. You know why it is there and what it is and what it does. The more laws there are, the less judgment there is. Judgment Excerpt from: lecture " Rehabilitation of Judgment" given by L. Ron Hubbard on the 13 November 1959 You can't have a bunch of slaves and not have super moral codes and laws. Do you see that? In the absence of judgment you have to have all kinds of laws. And you can just put it down in your book that the more laws there are, the less judgment there is. In living a free life there is one thing that you give up. You give up to some degree a security against getting hanged. Because if a slave follows down an exact grooved course of conduct and always minds and obeys all the laws, every single law, he never gets hanged or punished, does he? Usually he makes it. He's good, safe, stupid and weak.… Never moves a hair out of line. But there's a security connected with that. In a loose way it's analogous to the fellow who holds down a job and gets a regular pay check and it's a fairly safe job and he isn't liable to be fired off of it. He never drives any, he never drives any Mercedes-Benz, but he always eats, see. Life doesn't have any peaks, but doesn't have any abysses, either. See? Security. An unchanging monotony. Nothing really wrong with it. It's a method of living. One obeys certain laws and subscribes to certain codes and after that he's OK. Judgment is the factor which has to be substituted for law. And a man can be as free as his judgment is rehabilitated. And that's as free as he'll ever get, 'cause oddly enough he himself will discover himself making a mistake and then put laws on himself. If you don't do it for him, he'll do it for himself. He'll say, "Well, I must never do that again," as he washed the bashed-in head of the baby. See? He just says, "I must never do that again." He has said in essence, without putting "Article four, section eight code penal infanticide, the slaughtering of babies shall be accompanied by punishment," you see. That isn't the way he phrased it. He just says, "Well, that's a bad act. A bad, stupid, senseless act and I am guilty of having accomplished one and therefore after this I shall not do this." He makes up his own law and he says, "I shalt not kill babies." Bang. Get the idea? Men, they live within their own area. He almost never says to himself another thought. He says, "Well, if I'm going to be around babies I've got to raise my judgment with regard to them." He doesn't do that. He usually puts on the emergency brakes and makes up a law. He doesn't really make an effort to further understand what he is having difficulty with and he is liable to makes laws about. So you see there were two choices he could make as he bashed the babies head in. One of them was to make up a law; "Infanticide. I shalt not commit infanticide here and after as aforestated me." See that was one direction. And he had an entirely different choice which was, "Here and after as a aforestated, if I can commit actions of this character with the consequences appertaining thereto, and I better not be so damned stupid about it, I better find out something about this and I had better increase my judgment on the subject of babies." Judgment consists of familiarity and the ability to evaluate relative importances. Relative importances. Guy jumps on deck with a knife in his teeth, you don't want any stimulus response machine which just shoots him because he might be a friend of yours who was simply skin diving. You don't want a stimulus response machine that simply polishes him off. You want judgment enough. Well, judgment consists of the importance of the fact with relationship to its surroundings. There he was, there he is, what are you going to do? Well you're going to do to the degree that you recognize and observe and evaluate. You know why he is there and what is he and what he's doing. That all depends on fairly quick observation. The more laws you have, the less you observed. You settle into the security of just following the law and one day the law goes out of style and there you are still following the law. And all of your aberrations are just laws that have gone out of style. L. Ron Hubbard

Introduction: Why "Reality is a bitch"? Reality, as part of the ARC triangle, is not the simplest component. It's the most fallacious part, because a person only sees “their own reality”, and the lower tone someone is, the more right they must be. Reality is a Bitch "Reality" is that part of the ARC triangle that one thinks is the simplest component. Reality is the most deceptive part because a person only sees "their own reality," and the lower someone is, the more they must be right. They have so little theta that they cannot afford to be wrong. A thetan must always be more right than wrong. If you convince someone that they are truly wrong, you overwhelm them in the worst way. An auditor must understand this very well. For someone to confront being wrong, one must first build up theta, improve and expand their healthy basis of being right. To some extent, one could also call "wrongness" "unreality." Reality is also the part that the thetan does not want to see and is often bent to fit their own perspective. Simply put, one could say they do not want to see it. It is their direct refusal to see what is. A little more than 30 years ago, I had a very important cognition. It is not really mine – it is from Ron. I recognized what Ron said because I was ready for it. In fact, it was not the first time I had studied that lecture, but years earlier, I had not seen it. I could only recognize it because I did not know whether I or the others were wrong. I spent about half a year searching for an answer. At that time, I was dealing with the monetary system and interest rates. It is an extremely fascinating topic, but apart from me and Scientologists in general, no one seems to understand it. The solution is ingenious and tested. But just because I read it and evaluate it as correct does not mean that it actually is. And the fact that my friends, Scientologists, see it the same way does not make it any more correct, especially when so many non-Scientologists do not see it that way. Do Scientologists simply agree with me because I am an opinion leader? In this lecture, I learned that people below 0.5 (Grief) on the Tone Scale can only be reached through effort – that is, through physical energy. As long as a threat exists (e.g., no product = no wage; or a direct punishment), they will do something. If this physical effort is missing, very little happens. We should not let this irritate us. People between 0.5 and approximately 2.2 (no assigned emotion) can be "motivated" with emotion. You can scare them, intimidate them, or make them angry. Our society is full of such emotions. The fear of disease can drive people to the most unexpected actions; a concept of an enemy is incredibly motivating. Someone stuck in sympathy is hard to stop, as is someone seeking revenge. Insurance companies thrive on this. There are even proverbs that fit, such as "Fear is a bad advisor." People who are above 2.2 on the Tone Scale can be reached through reason. Only above 2.2 does one begin to see reality more and more. One can evaluate, accept, reject, etc. True understanding becomes part of the game. One is willing to see both or multiple sides, and also willing to gather more data on a subject to achieve real understanding. One can also change their opinion. They can simply look and see what is. In another lecture, Scientology 0, dated September 25, 1963, Ron says: "… this the guy doesn’t believe his eyes and he goes off and says something else. And this practically breaks their hearts down in South Africa because it wrecks one of their stable data, which is 'if they could see it with their own eyes, then they would know'. And that doesn’t happen to be true. " … "You could think of many instances where people see things with their own eyes and don't believe them. In fact, they're probably more numerous than the reverse. So, you never count on that as a stable datum. There's not even any particular sense in being terribly good to prove to people you are good. Because if they're saying you are bad to that degree, then they are incapable of the power of observation to determine when you're good." Ron's statement is fundamental. When spreading Scientology, we often fail because we assume that the other person sees and understands our reality. The following statement from Ron must also be considered to round off the topic. He repeatedly states: "Reality is proportional to the charge that has been erased." He explicitly speaks of charge and not significance. It is not about significance. It is not about what one has experienced, who one was, what one has done, or with whom one was. It is solely about dissolving the associated energy and charge. Erased charge moves a person up the Tone Scale, and – summed up in one sentence – it is the only thing Scientology aims to achieve. The above is fundamental auditor knowledge. I can only recommend taking this training. Much love, Max Hauri

Introduction: Principle of Dangerousness: An extremely interesting aspect that Ron discusses in this article has fascinated me ever since I read The Creation of Human Ability. Dear Friends, An extremely interesting aspect that Ron discusses in this article has fascinated me ever since I read The Creation of Human Ability. Elsewhere, he writes that Scientology does not aim to create "good people." However, one should not assume that "bad" is the opposite of "good." Rather, Ron defines a "good person" as someone who blindly obeys and does everything they are told. The processes described in the book, on the other hand, promote independent thinking and empower individuals. From my own experience—both as an Auditor and as a Preclear – I can fully confirm this. I believe that someone who has achieved self-determinism knows for themselves what is "good." Much love. Max Hauri Principle of Dangerousness Excerpt from the lecture "The Role of Laughter in Processing", given by L. Ron Hubbard on July 5, 1954. There's principle in processing: The principle of dangerousness. We find that an individual declines at length into a state of mind whereby he believes that the only way he can occupy a space or continue to occupy a space or be permitted to go out of a space that he is occupying is by the passport of his own dangerousness. And when an individual is no longer dangerous, when he is no longer dangerous he then conceives the environment to be dangerous to him to such a degree that he has to stay where he's put and that he can't be where he wants to be. Things are too dangerous and therefore he cannot move himself around freely and as the definition of self-determinism is moving things around at will, we of course find this individual intimately overcome because he cannot move himself around at will. Why? He isn't sufficiently dangerous to guarantee an open passage on the courses he would like to take. On the other hand, the environment itself is sufficiently dangerous to him that he can be stopped or chased out. So we have this ratio in progress as almost a total therapy in itself. See, we talked about laughter as a total therapy. All right. Now something a little more serious, a little more down scale, you see, than laughter is this item of dangerousness. So if the sanity of your preclear could be said to depend upon any self determinism, could be said to depend upon the ratio of his own dangerousness compared to the dangerousness of his environment. When the environment is total danger, and an individual is no danger, you have somebody who is in very bad shape indeed. A badness of shape which is impossible to conceive, even to an auditor. Simply because it's never totally existed. It's an absolute. And let's get the other extreme – an individual who is totally dangerous to his environment and where nothing in his environment is dangerous to him. Also a totality which an auditor would find very difficult indeed to see. In the first place he would go out of the band of dangerousness before he would achieve that level.  It would go on a 50-50 basis. He's just as dangerous to the environment as the environment is to him and then he would go up to being able to reject the environment at will. And so we would have him passing out of the band of dangerousness. Just like that – he'd go right on out of it. You see that? All right. This ratio of dangerousness is an interesting principle. It was first written up in Excalibur in 1938 and the rule which was written up and which underlies this observation is: – a man's ability is dependent upon his belief in his dangerousness to his environment. It is only when an army man or a part of a military unit is convinced that he is no longer dangerous to the enemy that he falls apart. Beware having anything to do with a company, regiment, or division that has had any part in a rout. They will steal you blind and cut your throat in the dark no matter who you are or what. Their pride in self is gone. It's the most fantastic deterioration which you've ever witnessed in your life. Troops, they say, have to be seasoned but let's say it better than that. Troops have to have watched the enemy run under fire before they are really cocky troops. Now that's seasoning and they found out that they didn't run under fire. They have to find out these things before they are good. But there is dangerousness to the environment and you will find out any preclear that comes to you who's case is hard to handle has this as a basic factor in the case. This case believes the entire environment to be dangerous and no part of it to be safe. And a little higher on the tone scale than that believes that laughter is very dangerous, deadly and impossible.   Assist It might have better been expressed as capability but that was the way it was expressed in Excalibur in 1938. Says many, many workable principles. One of the earliest times you will run into it is when you have somebody who is out of communication and you're trying to get them to strike at your hand. We can administer to a cat, to a dog, to a horse, psychotherapy in this degree. And what do you know, it's very workable, very certain, sure fire psychotherapy. We get the animal to take a push or a little movement forward toward us at which moment taking great care not to be too rapid and so frighten this beast, we withdraw and we find the next time the person or beast is more willing to move overtly and then we withdraw more rapidly. We can do this with a hand. We can put our hand down alongside of a sick person who is almost totally out of communication, and they move their hand as though to push against our fingers and we retreat a little bit with our fingers. We find out they get a little bit more overt – this is curious to them and they'll get a little bit more overt and we retreat again a little harder. And the first thing you know, we find them picking up in consciousness and picking up in general activity and they then begin to conceive themselves as being at least slightly dangerous to their environment. I have brought children out of tantrums and cats out of neurosis and preclears into communication with this type of an activity. Get them to make a slight forward move at which moment I permit my hand to retreat. To give you some idea how early this can be worked. It worked on my little boy when he was about a month and a half old. He was not doing well. So, I was a little bit concerned with him and started to think about I wonder what the dickens I could do. All of a sudden it occurred to me – this fact of dangerousness and so I let my hand retreat – this is the youngest I ever worked, I worked it on other babies older than this but not on a month and a half for heaven sakes and I let my hand retreat from him a few times and he all of a sudden found out this was happening and this little boy hadn't done much in the way of laughing, he'd been very serious indeed, you see, and all of a sudden he broke out into a smile and we did this a few more times and I acted very terrified indeed and he broke out into a roaring laughter through the whole thing. It was the finest thing he ever saw and so on and then he became, as they quite ordinarily do, very affectionate and so on. It just raises them up unbelievably and that was the end of his real stomach trouble. There was no further stomach trouble after that. This was about 15 minutes of processing. The results are fast and they're good.   L. Ron Hubbard

Introduction: We all want a civilization without insanity, without crime and without war, like L. Ron Hubbard. A wonderful article on “What is Greatness?” And our third TR 0 – Eye Contact evening, to which all are invited. A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.  – L. Ron Hubbard We all live in a world where we too often turn a blind eye to everyday crime. But we must not allow the brutal and draining entheta to consume our inherent theta and turn it into entheta itself. Ron rightly says that confronting evil – or entheta – requires an extraordinary ability. It is truly unfortunate, and I often see many people adopting the survival strategy of burying their heads in the sand just to live a somewhat pleasant life. Ron makes it very clear: In order to clear a person, it is crucial to increase their theta. There is a simple equation: the less theta someone has, the less they can confront or handle. In other words, all the brutal and shocking crimes – many of which are committed, supported, and protected by governments – are nearly impossible for most people to confront. Sadly, our judicial system can only confront small crimes, those committed by the average citizen. When it comes to crimes involving billions, brutal wars, and terrorist attacks, there are no judges. That’s why the saying is far truer than we might like to admit: " The small are hanged, while the great go free."  We have the tools to transform this planet into a proud and ethical world. One of the best tools we have is TR 0. It expands space, theta, and the ability to confront. Those who have achieved significant, stable gains with TR 0 know that if only this were practiced in elementary school, we would be much closer to the goal mentioned above. In a recent email, I announced that on the last Wednesday of every month, we would hold an informational evening on Training Zero. We are now expanding this so that everyone who wishes can practice TR 0 on this evening. We want to turn this evening into an Eye Contact Event.   I want to thank everyone who is helping make the goal of Scientology a reality. It is amazing how much support we receive, and we work every day to apply Ron’s technology in a way that would make him proud.   Please join us and bring someone along from time to time.   The next Training Zero Information and Eye Contact Evening will take place on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 7:00 PM at Ron’s Org Grenchen.   Below, you will find the well-known article by L. Ron Hubbard, "What is Greatness" .  Much love Max Hauri What is Greatness? Article by L. Ron Hubbard from Certainty Magazine 13-3 [March 1966] The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one's fellows despite all reasons he should not. And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue. For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope. For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair, and these are not the things of which greatness or sanity or happiness are made. A primary trap is to succumb to invitations to hate. There are those who appoint one their executioners. Sometimes for the sake of the safety of others, it is necessary to act, but it is not necessary also to hate them. To do one's task without becoming furious at others who seek to prevent one is a mark of greatness – and sanity. And only then can one be happy. Seeking to achieve any single desirable quality in life is a noble thing. The one most difficult and most necessary to achieve is to love one's fellows despite all invitations to do otherwise. If there is any saintly quality, it is not to forgive. "Forgiveness" is a much lower level action and is rather censorious. True greatness merely refuses to change in the face of bad actions against one – and a truly great person loves his fellows because he understands them. After all, they are all in the same trap. Some are oblivious of it, some have gone mad because of it, some act like those who betrayed them. But all, all are in the same trap – the generals, the street sweepers, the presidents, the insane. They act the way they do because they are all subject to the same cruel pressures of this universe. Some of us are subject to those pressures and still go on doing our jobs. Others have long since succumbed and rave and torture and strut like the demented souls they are. To re-save some of them is a dangerous undertaking. Were you to approach many ruling heads in the world and offer to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did – he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own fellows about him. He could have used Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us, but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was. As we become stronger, we can be completely openhanded with our help. Until we do, we can at least understand the one fact that greatness does not stem from savage wars or being known. It stems from being true to one's own decency, from going on helping others whatever they do or think or say and despite all savage acts against one; to persevere without changing one's basic attitude toward Man. A fully trained Scientologist is in a far better position to understand than a partly trained one. For the Scientologist who really knows is able not only to retain confidence in himself and what he can do, but also can understand why others do what they do and so knowing, does not become baffled or dismayed by small defeats. To that degree, true greatness depends on total wisdom. They act as they do because they are what they are – trapped beings, crushed beneath an intolerable burden. And if they have gone mad for it and command the devastation of whole nations in errors of explanation, still one can understand why and can understand as well the extent of their madness. Why should one change and begin to hate just because others have lost themselves and their own destinies are too cruel for them to face. Justice, mercy, forgiveness, all are unimportant beside the ability not to change because of provocation or demands to do so. One must act, one must preserve order and decency, but one need not hate or seek vengeance. It is true that beings are frail and commit wrongs. Man is basically good but can act badly. He only acts badly when his acts done for order and the safety of others are done with hatred. Or when his disciplines are founded only upon safety for himself regardless of all others; or worse, when he acts only out of a taste for cruelty. To preserve no order at all is an insane act. One need only look at the possessions and environment of the insane to realize this. The able keep good order. When cruelty in the name of discipline dominates a race, that race has been taught to hate. And that race is doomed. The real lesson is to learn to love. He who would walk scatheless through his day must learn this. Never use what is done to one as a basis for hatred. Never desire revenge. It requires real strength to love Man. And to love him despite all invitations to do otherwise, all provocations and all reasons why one should not. Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe. L. Ron Hubbard