A Spectacularly Successful Application of Technical Basics, Especially The 7 Laws Of Power.

A Writeup on Kingsley Wimbush's "Subtle Internal Suppression" Handling

27 September 2003

The debrief below was written 27th September, 2003, at the request of Marianne Hagen, Senior C/S, RON'S Org USA, by someone who personally experienced the effectiveness of Kingsley Wimbush's application of basics. This is an edited version of the original briefing obtained. The writer prefers to remain anonymous. Other accounts of this have shown similar results, in fact there were many accounts of statistics soaring when this approach was implemented in the Missions.

There are references to part of this procedure on the Web, searchable by "De-Dinging", or Kingsley Wimbush. The second part of the program covering the application of the 7 Laws of Power in the Simon Bolivar policy as described here, seems to be missing from the articles on the net.

So here below is the debrief.

First we got a briefing on the whole program.

Step No 1 was to handle charge accumulated on subtle invalidations and stops. The idea was to address all the many little situations where one felt stopped or invalidated by subtle suppression such as: not being acked for a product one was presenting proudly, all kind of small wrong indications like "oh you are slow today" (when in actual fact one did not feel slow at all), not being greeted in the morning when coming to work, only mentioning what is not going so well and no mention of what is going well etc. etc. — all these many little things that seems too small to be picked up yet stick in the mind with some tiny little amount of charge attached to them (and sometimes some big charge attached to them) and thus accumulate. Also, any big charge was to be included (when not already handled in session, which big charge is more likely to be) such as being labeled "stupid" as a child too often etc. Anything one has charge on, whether an actual suppression or just a seeming suppression was to be picked up. To make more real what this kind of charge is I think the issue on "middle class PTSness" was also used to illustrate how many small suppressions even in the form of "being supposed to" etc do occur and are bypassed – in terms of never really protested or disagreed and generally not considered important enough to be given attention.

The discharge was done in the form of itsa in a twin system. One would twin up with someone and on the basic question "What has been suppressing you, stopping you, invalidating you?" one would itsa anything that came up. It was done, as far as I remember, about 30 minutes one person and then 30 minutes the other. We did it about 1 to 2 hrs per day and then ended off for the day and then continued the next day.

If there was something communicated about a fellow staff member to your twin, the rule was also to tell it to the respective staff member to ensure no 3P situations would come up.

This step lasted from about 4 hrs per person up to 10 or 15 hrs per person — depending on how much someone has to itsa.

As far as I remember no one got into a situation where some charge was sticking and had to be flattened in session.

The purpose of this step was just to get rid of accumulated BPC.

It of course also made one much more aware of all these "little things" and their importance, on all flows, being the receipt point of invalidations but also having invalidated others. Even though the discharging did not include specifically Flow 2 it came up also, sudden awareness of having invalidated others.

Also it increased affinity amongst staff quite a bit by all this communication back and forth.

Step 2 was the important step (step 1 being only kind of the set-up for it).

This consisted of studying up the 7 laws of power in the Simon Bolivar PL and getting aware of these 7 laws. There was a lecture on it by Kingsley Wimbush, with many, many examples from daily life.

Then one would note down (or become aware of) who is a power source for oneself in a rather differentiated matter, i.e. not just a power source but a power source for what.

For example the boss might be a power source for having a job in the first place and for being able to run it, a fellow staff member is a power source for a specific situation, for example a good auditor turning out a client that wants more sessions is a power source for the salesman who can sell more service and get commissions. Or vice-versa, the salesman closing a sale is a power source for the staff member now having someone to deliver to. The cleaning lady doing a superb job might be a power source (the cleaning lady rearranging your desk so you can’t find anything anymore but hardly cleaning things up at all would not exactly be considered a power source as she would be giving you quite some trouble in comparison to the benefit).

Then one would figure out how to ack and support this power source according to the 7 laws of power and push power to it, above any regular agreed exchange, as to really produce more power.

In the beginning we did this very demonstratively by sharing money with these power sources. For example you would walk up to the boss and give him 10% of your income for the power extended to you by providing the job. Or share a sales-commission with the auditor who did a good job on the client or give the salesmen some extra money for providing an additional client. Giving money was in the beginning more like a demonstration of principle, but it did have quite an amazing effect. In a way it was so outrageous that it really knocked out all think-patterns one might have on the issue. Imagine how often it has happened to you in your life that someone walks up to you and tells you "you did a fantastic job and I benefited from it and here is 50 dollars of my income to share with you".

However, none of this was enforced or claimed in any way. If one wanted to do it, one did, those who did not want to, did not.

Also sharing money was probably the most spectacular and direct way of showing support, not the only one however by far. One could also walk up to a person asking if one could help him with a job, do an errand for him, help him with a particular task etc, putting some flowers on his desk, anything one felt like and could think of. However, it was not the idea to just give someone something, it should be something he could actually use, something which would increase his power.

This brought about scenes that when leaving at night and someone was still working, one would check if he could use any help on his task to be able to go home as well etc.

Step 3 was to also include the clients in the set-up. They were also briefed on the 7 Laws of Power and made aware of power sources and invited to join in pushing power to their power-sources, in respect to doing services but also in respect to any other subject in their life.

This was done by a lecture with many examples and of course they also were briefed on the subtle invalidations and the effects the accumulated BPC from this would produce.

They were not put on the co-audit at large, but I guess if they wanted to do it it was offered to them as well.

However, they did get the message and started to cooperate with the Staff much better. They realized that quite a number of staff members were power sources for them and instead of having all kinds of games conditions one sometimes gets, it started to turn into a good cooperation.

People would pay in advance, or pay without having to be nudged, sometimes help on certain actions, bring in a cake, do their levels faster as this adds power to not only themselves but the whole operation etc. etc. Again — none of this was ever enforced or demanded, not even "strongly suggested" or "peer-pressured in". It has to be a self-determined choice!

Also, the mission as a unit would note its external power sources and for example send some people for training to the local org (instead of running the usual games condition that was dominating the Org/Mission-relations at that time), sent a lot of people to the AO without having the AO call and nag and demand it. They were quite startled in the beginning, to say the least.

The effect this all had was: much higher affinity amongst all involved, general enthusiasm, the production and sales stats tripled in a period of about 3 months. Some of this might have been "backlog-stats", for example someone who was due to pay for quite some time did pay and would of course not pay again in a week, but certainly not all of it was backlog. Also there was an increase in new people developing which would maintain the level of production — not just boost it, exhaust all resources and have it crash again.

The initial very demonstrative exchange of money was lessening as time went by (everybody made more money than ever anyway based on the increased production) but it was not abolished — sales commissions were routinely shared with those who produced the product that lead to a new sale etc.

Needless to say that all the little stops and invalidations that occur were much less to none, as people really were aware of what it creates and how senseless it is in the first place trying to splash a possible charge one has this way all over the show. (Like kicking the cat when the office day was rough.)

It all got stopped by the arrival of the "finance police" which happened after Kingsley Wimbush was declared in that famous Mission Holder Meeting in the USA at the beginning of 1983 — where the internal suppression in the CofX for the first time really showed its face.

We never used any of this "de-dinging" (I am not even really sure of what this is supposed to be) but as I heard it was telling each person who did invalidate something or someone that they should not do so. If this is even the right understanding of it, I personally believe that it is not worth constantly keeping the attention on what others do wrong and point it out.

The whole world is engaged in this game and it obviously leads to no improvement.

The major importance was "pushing power to power" and this is what developed the power and made more of it. It requires of course an understanding of what power is — it is not "power to status". It was very much validating actual products and actions, bringing in basics such as ethics protection, validation, cooperation etc.”