A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST
This is one of the most powerful processes I've ever run. It dissolves solidities, blows somatics, undercuts problems and just about everything else.
The area addressed is "protest" and that is probably the most critical unhandled button on anyone who has had orthodox Scientology grades. It is a key basic right up there with problems, overts, and ARC breaks. In orthodox handling, the protests get bypassed with only the lightest lick and a promise and they accumulate. Eventually the former Scientologist ends up out there with a picket sign protesting the whole damn subject.
I had taken a stab at this area before and there is a chapter on it in the Self Clearing book. But as I mentioned in a recent post, the chapter is only a first pass and more work was needed. So I was thinking about that and trying things.
And I'd just put together those axioms of creation, and doing that improved my view of early track.
I've previously theorized that the downward spiral begins with willful decisions not to communicate. And I could see that eventually the being would be tying to communicate a protest and could not get it across (because of out communication) and therefore would begin to mock up something compulsively to communicate that protest.
That does run nicely and is still a good start on handling protest (in expanded grades, we learned not to discard the earlier processes when we hit upon a more advanced one in an area).
But it is not basic. There is an earlier action connected with protest on the track. Before he begins trying to communicate his protest, he must have something that he is protesting. So it begins with an inflow that he objects to and pushes a protest against.
So I came to the following concept:
Imagine that Joe is busily creating things. He has all sorts of interesting mockups and spaces and so forth. So do other people. They exchange creations.
One day Bill puts something in Joe's space. Joe and Bill are already slightly out of communication. So Joe doesn't feel like communicating with Bill and doesn't want to take Bill's viewpoint for the moment necessary to vanish the creation. So instead of admiring/acknowledging the creation for a moment and then as-ising (uncreating) it to get rid of it, he protests against it.
In protesting against it, he cannot now create it and therefore cannot uncreate it and as a result it becomes solid and he is stuck with it. And so he protests more. And the more he protests, the more solid it becomes and the harder it is for him to control or handle it. Soon he has problems in the area and then he's committing overts to solve the problems and down we go.
A friend helped with the next part. We were bouncing around ideas on protest in the coffee shop and he realized that admiring something was the correct opposite to protesting the existence of it. Soon we were alternately admiring and protesting the existence of objects on the table and that was one hell of a process all by itself.
Then I added a third step, based on the idea that the correct handling was to take the viewpoint of creating something to dissolve it instead of protesting it.
With that I quickly knocked out a back somatic that had been troubling me all that morning (more on this later) and he tried running protest on the location that he was in and knocked himself right out of his head.
I've been playing with it since then and the process is wild. It runs extremely fast (usually just a few cycles through the commands) and runs on just about anything with spectacular results.
The commands are:
a) Protest the existence of ....
b) Admire the existence of ....
c) Get the viewpoint of creating the existence of ....
At basic, protest is an outflow. So on the first command, you are projecting a protest at the target. It is not passive and it is not merely disliking it or detesting it, it is an active flow of protest, a sort of "get it out of here".
The assumption here is that anything which is in your space which you don't want is, at some level, being protested. So we have the pc do consciously what he is doinging unconsciously, which in this case is to protest.
Considering how well this runs on objects selected at random, I might even theorize that at some level (maybe deeply suppressed), one is protesting the entire universe and that is what makes it solid and holds one trapped here.
And notice that the command is to protest the existence of rather than to protest something about something. If you want to run a spot on a salt shaker, you protest the existence of the spot (ignoring the salt shaker) rather than protesting the fact that the salt shaker has a spot on it. If you do it the other way, you wouldn't have a pure protest and it doesn't run right, you're trying to hold the salt shaker there at the same time that you're protesting the spot on it.
The admiration step is very important. Generally you will find that as you run through the commands a few times you will begin permeating and acknowledging the target for its existence. If necessary you could make a point of permeating it on this step, but it seems better to just let that come about naturally.
Generally on the first pass you are mostly protesting and only willing to give it a tiny grudging bit of admiration and then distastefully get a vague idea of creating such a thing. But that lets you really protest it heavily on the second time and then you find that you really can admire it a bit and start really getting the viewpoint of creating it.
And that "get the viewpoint of creating" is another wild part of this. Often there is a bit of a feeling of motion at some spiritual level and sometimes you get thoughts that seem connected with the creation of what you were protesting. It is just fantastic.
And then on the next pass something feels like it is really coming apart. Often you feel like you are permeating it on the protest step and that is frequently accompanied by a feeling of warmth and energy releasing. And often it starts to seem like a huge joke and the thing that you were protesting seems immensely funny, like a practical joke that you had pulled on yourself.
And you'll find that when this happens, somatics disappear, if that was what you were running. Or things seem different and situations seem to change. Or perceptions change if you were running this on an object.
The biggest limitation seems to be on how much you can knock out on one run.
I mentioned that I tried it immediately on a back somatic. I had been lifting things the night before and what it really was was a bunch of little aches and pains, just the usual morning after effects of using muscles that were out of shape.
I'd run a few little assists on it in spare moments and eased it up a bit, but I hadn't had the time to clean it up properly, I know from experience that somatics from sore muscles run slowly for me. This was at lunch time, by the way, so I hadn't had too many spare moments and it was one of these deals where you pretty much ache all over.
So I took a shot at it right away, protesting the somatic, admiring, and creating it in rotation. A few commands and the somatic blew completely. Until, that is, I moved around and a different set of muscles started aching.
So I did it again, this time being very careful to protest the entire business, not just the ones that hurt in the particular position I was in. Again, just a couple of commands and the somatics were gone.
And I turned my head far to the side and there were more somatics. Run it again. Twist my shoulder around. Run it again. Shift into a weird position. Run it again.
It took a half dozen runs before I was moving around comfortably with no more back somatics. On the first few I kept trying to get the whole thing, and later I didn't bother, just getting my protest at the muscles that were now hurting. It didn't seem to make any difference in the process.
The individual runs were fast (especially the later ones) and the whole business still only took a few minutes. But there was this odd effect of only getting a small or limited amount of as-isness even when I tried to run a broader target.
Of course I tried running the entire physical universe as a single item. It runs well too. And some weight of oppression seems to dissolve, but it is hard to say exactly what, the itsa is not good on such a broad target. But the universe was still here for me afterwards. And I found that I could run that one again, and another little weight seemed gone, but not the whole universe. This one is fun, but it is probably using a teaspoon against the ocean.
Narrower and more specific targets produce better results. And there is much better itsa, so that is the way to go. You might try a broader target occasionally just to see what you can pick up, but don't get into grinding away at a big one over and over.
Use it on things that you currently feel heavy protest towards and you can feel the charge lifting off in great chunks.
And of course I've been running this on various things that I protest in CofS. It is amazing how much protest that organization can engender. Note that you do not run "CofS assigning lower conditions" because you end up holding CofS solid while trying to run the lower conditions out of it. Just run "the existence of lower conditions" or a specific lower condition assignment you were given once or something like that where the entire item is a target of the process.
Unfortunately there does seem to be that limitation on how much really dissolves on each run of the process. But I wonder if enough freezoner's ran off enough protest at CofS whether it might cause the unpleasant solidities in that place to dissolve.
Note that in the ideal scene, one can create everything but only chooses to create some things. It is restoration of choice over the existence of things rather than an irrevocable vanishment. So don't be afraid of as-ising something you like, you'd just put it right back.
This might also unblock the road on running positive mockups successfully. The big barrier to this was that it doesn't work well to try to mockup a good leg to handle the fact of a bad leg. Although this tends to be explained in terms of alter-is and not-is, we could also describe it as being due to his protest at the bad leg blocking his ability to create a good leg. That does fall under the same theory (the later condition persists) but opens the door to a simpler handling.
The theory would be to first blow all your protests in an area and then run a positive create to mockup what you want.
The maximum strength positive create process from the early ACCs is to mockup others creating the item. At one point Ron suggests using self analysis and running the commands as "mockup another creating ..."
That all pretty much fell by the wayside because of the good leg / bad leg problem that would get in the way of positive create. So there wasn't as much work on this as on other variations of creative processing.
My feeling on this is that if one is going to create a specific rather than vary the thing being created, then one should vary the terminal that one is mocking up to create it. In other words, "mockup Joe creating X", "mockup Bill creating X" alternately. Even better might be to use dichotomies for classes of terminals as in "mockup a strong person creating X" alternated with "mockup a weak person creating X".
This might also be helpful for people working with TROM since that has a positive create process in its lineup.
This protest business might also be the basic bug on creative processing. According to Ron (I think around 1957 - possibly it was the 16th ACC), occasionally somebody's TA would soar out the roof on trying to do a mockup command. We know from modern tech (C/S series 1) that protest can drive the TA up. So my hypothesis now is that occasionally a creative process would restimulate this protest at other's creations and cause the TA to soar.
How far one could go with this remains to be seen. But I can say for sure that there are big gains and cogs to be had running the protest process given above.