Home > Church of Scientology, Getting something done, Scientology philosophy, Thoughts > Alternatives, SPs and the current scene

Alternatives, SPs and the current scene

Quite a few OTs are leaving the church. Ex Int-base staff are going public with human rights violations at the very top. There is more light on the mismanagement of the church than ever before.

Many Scientologists are hesitating to take responsible steps to handle the current scene and stop the abuses in the church. Some are scared they will be declared SPs and “loose their eternity”.

First of all; You cannot loose your eternity. Eternity is within you. Besides that, you will not even loose immediate spiritual progress. You see, there are plenty of alternatives for getting training and auditing outside the Church of Scientology. The more the church is using force, the more people will walk out and find theta and standard delivery groups and individuals. You can get the standard Bridge more places than you can shake a stick at.

As for being declared an SP by a suppressive group… well, I don’t know how stressed one should be about that. Very few SP declares are being written these days – I have seen none on myself, Jason Beghe, Dan Koon or even Marty Rathbun. As one reader here notes; If SP declares were issued on all the OTs leaving the ship, the notice board in the MAA office at Flag would be crowded. People would ask unpleasant questions and start doing their own research. After all, if the top OTs are SPs, then the system must be broken.

Did you ever wonder what the definition of an SP really is? You have the twelve characteristics of an SP. Then you have people being declared SPs. The two are not the same. One is a definition of an anti-social person, the other is an administrative procedure to remove people the church don’t like. But with the same term used, declaring a person suppressive is tantamount to giving that person a wrong item – something that any auditor knows may have dire consequences. Maybe that is the whole point? Giving a person a wrong item will bring the person down the tone scale. It parallels what is called “reverse processing”.

Pierre Ethier recently released a video showing how reverse processing is used to get the individual into trouble.

Punishment is most effective as a “motivational tool” if the individual is below 2.0 on the tone scale. Reason is most effective when the person is above 2.0. As the current Church of Scientology has given up on reason as a means to help people, the urge to punish through heavy ethics kicks in. Bringing people down below 2.0, will make them more susceptible to force, duress and punishment: Making them fear “the SPs”, inducing a belief of “the dangerous environment”, telling how bad the media is, making the public afraid of loosing their spiritual progress and threatening to pull the check mate card “we’ll declare you SP”. All these bring people down to more subservient levels. The message is clear: Do not look, do not confront, do not thing freely and do not act outside of the “supposed to’s” invented by the church management.

It may be worth remembering these words from Mahatma Ghandi: “The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. Freedom and slavery are mental states

ice cathedral

Advertisements
  1. a simple observant
    2009-10-18 at 20:01

    threats and force are used by the truly week ones, the ones that cannot present good reasons for someone to obey when there aren’t any. the one’s who want to control others more than they can control themselves.

    it’s also very sad to see mankind still struggling with power issues instead of surrendering to all that is: love.

    i find general definitions very dangerous, like this one, and i think this kind of label used in people (when people are so different from eachother) is very discriminatory. it makes some people want to hide and/or pretend what they are not, so they are not persecuted for being different. i am not pro-supression, on the contrary, and that’s why i find this definition of SP supressive in itself and with characteristics that can be so similar to a ‘normal’ person that he or she may feel accused only by reading such vague thing. specially when a ‘different person’ feels strange a lot of times and being away from the ones like him, can get pretty paranoid. i know all that ’cause i remember my infinite travels in the tone scale. how wouldn’t i know the difference that got me into scientology in the first place?

    only when someone has a lot to hide needs to use great protections such as all the secrecy used by the church and thus comes fear. if we wouldn’t have pointed out ‘enemies’ maybe there wouldn’t be any, maybe it’s the act of pointing them out somehow that turned them into enemies in the first place. for each action, a response. for each light, its respective a shadow. for each image, a reflection.

    i don’t know, i’m just saying. i know nothing. i just find that the things that constitute our present world don’t make much sense and we should be living in another level of existence by now.

  2. KSW1Fan
    2009-10-18 at 20:06

    I agree. We just looked in our files were we had all the KR`s and Communications with Org and Sea Org Terminals stored. We just found out that the Int Justice Chief wrote us 3,5 years ago that a Review Comm Ev will be done the next day. We never got any new recommendations. No declare, no new yellow paper, just nothing. I think that now is the best time to come up with every Out-Tech, Out-Ethic, unusial solutions you have noticed. Please do it for LRH, it was what he wanted from us per Keeping Scientology Working. And please make it public.

  3. Mark A. Baker
    2009-10-18 at 20:13

    Another name for “Reverse Processing” is “Black Scientology”.

    The Co$ is the principle force behind the performance of “Black Scientology” currently acting on the planet. Hard to “clear the planet” or “get ethics in” when you are busy performing “Black Scientology”.

    Funnily enough, I fail to recall anywhere in the Auditor’s Code or The Code of a Scientologist where “Black Scientology” is a recommended practice.

    I consider that we see in these past SP declares has been mostly a feature of “projection” on the part of those actually dramatizing the characteristics of suppression.

  4. a simple observant
    2009-10-18 at 20:30

    scientology or any other called religion shouldn’t have data focused on negatively labeled people or a defined image of an enemy, in the first place. it becomes part of the whole programming but its also a programming older than scientology as we were long ago taught to believe that life is a dangerous problem. things can be much easier and i see them becoming lighter and simpler through time. it wasn’t about time for there are so much better games for us to play. games where all the involved ones are happy and we have enough knowledge of our colective responsability to stop finding scapegoats for our own faults. games with no starving beings!

  5. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-18 at 20:31

    Good point about the twelve characteristics of an SP and an SP-declare. Important to differentiate between all those things: CoS, Scientology, SP-characteristics, SP-declare etc. Not the same thing.

    Losing your eternity is not something most people should be afraid of for the nearest very long time. But I think, talking about an eternity as a perspective, which is a VERY long time, it might be possible. There are some people as of right now who might have lost their eternity, e.g. some real nutcases in mental insititutions, but as you say, there are plenty of other ways to get processing etc. Also, some of these nutcases might get a normal life next life, who knows?

    Hubbard have also talked about cycles of a thetan, dwindling spirals, the first one being something like billions of years, but perhaps now a couple of tens of thousands of years for most people, or something like that. At least now there’s some kind of technology to reverse the dwindling spiral.

    All of these enlightening blogs are very important, and keep spreading the word.

    • a simple observant
      2009-10-18 at 20:49

      i don’t think there are lost cases. i think freedom is possible for all because freedom is our deepest essence. it’s a matter of time we reconnect to it. and we never know the ones we call nutcases aren’t free, just because that appearence or form doesn’t fit our definition, image or ideal of freedom… one cannot really know sometimes who are the real teachers in this planet. roles get switched all the time. i would say the nuts live in other spheres and i find many nuts inoffensive compared to certain bright people. but anyway, it seems there is space and place for all and everything, at some point in the universe. it’s the way we see things that transform reality… or not.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-18 at 21:08

        To clarify, I think ANYTHING is possible, but Hubbard said something interesting in a text: “What if there will no be no OT’s left to save us all, has anybody thought about that?” (something like that).

        Yup, the nutcases sometimes have more interesting views etc, but some people with serious mental diseases can be quite non-OT.

        • a simple observant
          2009-10-18 at 21:51

          there have always been beings with more apparent ability to love than others, or at least more aware of that ability and they have been the ones carrying us all up to this point. OT’s. i just don’t see it useful to have those nomenclatures that stablish such difference and distance between beings. maybe by not using them, ‘other, normal’ people can regain their own confidence by seeing more similarities between them and the ‘greatest beings’. i don’t see any great beings needing to make use of their spiritual status (said by who?) unless they need that status to act in a specific realm, like in this particular case, of OT’s being the upper bridge and thus stimulating questioning, reevaluation and giving great reasons to rethink scientology and/or the church. but besides that, a great being makes others level up with no compulsive need to create an effect. they are at cause and loving by doing the opposite: allowing themselves to be effect to grant beingness to others. and they don’t fear to lose themselves in it as they are sure they can get back to anywhere they want the moment they choose. i find these marks, nouns, words, categories and definitions capable of being quite evaluative and invalidative. i find it elitist and sectarian.

          and by the way, why do you need to quote LRH to support your opinion? i’m sure you have your own arguments.
          don’t get me wrong, i am just asking and i have nothing against you nor against your beliefs. we are just communicating friendly, here.

          • Hubbardianen
            2009-10-19 at 08:54

            I do not need to quote LRH, but I do it sometimes because I think he got very interesting points. I quote other people as well from time to time. Of course, I could claim it was my original thoughts, but then I would be lying.

            • imu
              2009-10-19 at 12:28

              you would indeed be lying but only because we were taught to believe thoughts belong to someone or were created by someone specific. i don’t share that opinion but i understand it and respect it even knowing there’s a huge social and economical system based on it. probably you know as much or even more than i do, regarding this. in fact i know nothing, my visions are only of the future. they don’t fit in this time… yet.
              anyway, may the peace in our hearts rein in the world.

  6. StarsAwait
    2009-10-18 at 20:46

    Insightful words, Geir.

  7. Overdriver
    2009-10-18 at 21:33

    Really good post indeed. The Church should be “reformed” from within or from without and start to use some more reason at least start to use it on a gradient… Something I haven’t experienced in the last decade only from a small number of persons. I would call them Scientologists. They set a good example. But what about processing staff members? I think that would help.

    • 2009-10-19 at 07:21

      It is indeed a shame that most staff members are on the bottom of the Bridge, not setting a good example at all – and also being very prone to HE&R.

  8. Axiom
    2009-10-18 at 22:05

    Thank you for what you´re doing,Geir!:)
    A very insightful article that at least makes me see that we can´t allow this suppression going on without doing anything about it!
    Now is the time to act, to do something to stop this insanity and start to focus on something much more important – Total Freedom!!!
    Scientology has gone backwards now for decades and the only reason that people still have gotten wins despite all the changes is the power of Ron´s tech! If we stop this downward spiral inside Scientology we can start to do something about the downward spiral of Society so that we ALL can begin to get more Freedom!

    Ron said: “We´re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn´t cute or something to do for lack of something better.”
    Anyone that knows enough has some kind of responsibility for that knowledge and can do at least something to change things for the better. So let´s do that something now!:)

  9. RJ
    2009-10-18 at 23:09

    Yes Geir you have succinctly stated what the sword of Damocles is that prevent many Scientologists from telling management or Miscavige same thing to screw off when they commit their usual high crimes, crimes and misdemeanors to “clear the planet”.

    Unfortunately, it would be nice to live in a world where there were no suppressive individuals or groups, such a virtual Shangri La or Utopia would be nice (strains of John Lennon’s “Imagine”) but the fact is we live and a world where certain individuals enjoy suppressing others David Miscavige is a perfect example. Not all the right thoughts about how the world should be is going to change the fact that certain evils still exist.

  10. Disinfected
    2009-10-18 at 23:25

    Good thoughts, Geir.
    A group such as Scientology must have the right to exclude individuals that are overtly acting against it or making it difficult for others to progress.
    An individual must have the right to refuse to associate with toxic individuals in his own environment.
    The rightful place of the concept of a “suppressive person” is the latter and, IMO, limited to the privacy of the person’s interaction with his counselor, i.e. no broad public declaration of ANYONE as an SP. The person decides for himself if another person is harming him and then works out a handling without anyone needing to label anyone.
    As far as the group, the application of ethics gradients can simply end with expulsion from the Church, there is no need for labeling or disconnection on a group basis.
    We should also look at the spider’s web of “Suppressive Acts” guaranteed to catch any of us. “Violation of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working”!?! I thought only Ron was doing 7, 8, 9, and 10. We are all of us guilty. When a “government” creates such a confusing collection of overlapping and inescapable “crimes” one wonders if their intention (there is that word again) is to prevent crimes or make all “citizens” criminals.

  11. Alex
    2009-10-19 at 01:17

    Great post Geir,
    I agree with this and with what Pierre said in his video clip. Although I looked at the reference he mentioned and did not see what he says is there. I do agree that there is something wrong with the way the COS uses O/W tech. They must be misusing it based on all the bad results that they are getting. I realized for myself recently that for myself and maybe others there could be two reasons for leaving the COS:
    1. to put in ethics on the COS.
    2. to de-PTS themselves.
    For me it is both. I feel that I cannot hide anymore and try to help people from a hiding position. Al the out-points I see and have gone into apathy on has put me at effect. I cannot pretend to aid a group that I no longer trust. There are some great people in the COS, but ran by an SP they cannot really be effective.
    ARC,
    Alex

  12. TRUTH
    2009-10-19 at 04:20

    KSW1Fan,

    You are absolutely right! Are you going to come out with your real name soon too?

    • KSW1Fan
      2009-10-19 at 11:16

      If Plan A isn`t working, than I will make Plan B and this is to go public. Plan A is to handle it from inside.

      • Jim Logan
        2009-10-19 at 13:04

        KSW1fan,
        Exhaust all possible within org avenues. That’s KRs, reports of various kinds, Courts, Comm Evs, all the sundry points of Scientology justice. My opinion is that when you do follow those procedures, be it a standard Doubt formula, as in Geir’s case say, or reports followed up, or demanding some aspect of our system of justice, that puts order in. There will be confusion blown off. Keep putting order in. If the procedures aren’t followed within the org, then you’ll know just how far off policy and purpose it is. Then you’ll have to take further steps. USE Scientology, tech, admin and ethics and you’ll do just fine.

  13. TRUTH
    2009-10-19 at 04:22

    Geir!

    Great post. Thank you!!

  14. Chris
    2009-10-19 at 04:47

    Wow,Geir it’s nice that you used one of Pierre’s videos as a reference.
    Are you 2 in Comm?
    Project Collaboration of any kind?
    Thanks.

    • 2009-10-19 at 07:27

      Not in comm with Pierre, yet.

  15. TRUTH
    2009-10-19 at 09:07

    Alex,

    You nailed it. Your true theta & effective group is out here, not inside the CoS. We as an independent Scientologists group away from the suppressed CoS can do much more for those inside the CoS.

    • Maria
      2009-10-19 at 13:44

      In response to “and by the way, why do you need to quote LRH to support your opinion? i’m sure you have your own arguments.”

      The answer to this question is that this blog is primarily about the subject of misapplying LRH works or altering them, which decays the C of S, so of course, LRH quotes/works are referenced as points are made.

      An enlightening bit of information is in the 1997 RPF Series 15, taken from a 1978 LRH Advice. It discusses the importance of re-educating an individual after they have been cleaned up of suppressive characteristics. As you can see, LRH had no problem recommending the materials of other individuals.

      “…when they’re cleaned up you have somebody whose track training and experience is all involved with overts. He has little or no experience being a good guy.”

      “…give him a full PR course, a course in grooming, etiquette and some books to read about nice guys.” (Note: part of Church PR training is on a PR manual that was not written by L. Ron Hubbard)

      “One would have him read for sure and do some practical on ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ by Dale Carnegie.”

      http://book.4ewriting.com/download/WinFriendsAnd_InfluencePeople.pdf

  16. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-19 at 22:06

    Blows charge, this one does. Nice posting, Geir! Thanks.

    Yes, there are those 12 suppressive characteristics. And who here did not feel his face flaming as he read through them the first time, and realized he had dramatized nearly all at least once or twice? Aaaargh! 😀

    Mercifully, LRH did not neglect to also post the characteristics of a social personality, for that very reason.

    And let’s not forget: the decisive factor is, “Does the guy get case gain?”

  17. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-19 at 22:31

    Good posting. Thanks, Geir.

    Ha ha on the 12 characteristics of an SP. Who here hasn’t dramatized most of them at least once in his life? And a few were downright useful sometimes. 😀

    But seriously, an SP is not someone DM is having a hissy fit about on a given day.

    No, IMHO, an SP in LRH’s day was someone who wanted to stop Scientology, not because of a media attack, or an over-zealous reg cycle, or an argument about it between some mouthy son/daughter and parents, but because he KNEW IT WORKED.

  18. Briana Volta
    2009-10-21 at 08:44

    Nom de Plume :Good posting. Thanks, Geir.
    Ha ha on the 12 characteristics of an SP. Who here hasn’t dramatized most of them at least once in his life? And a few were downright useful sometimes.
    But seriously, an SP is not someone DM is having a hissy fit about on a given day.
    No, IMHO, an SP in LRH’s day was someone who wanted to stop Scientology, not because of a media attack, or an over-zealous reg cycle, or an argument about it between some mouthy son/daughter and parents, but because he KNEW IT WORKED.

    If I understand you correctly, a person becomes a Scientologist, knows that it works, and then, desiring that others not be helped, seeks to stop it, and that – “in LRH’s day” – was an “SP.”

    Consulting the historical record, and LRH’s own writings. Here’s a link that was posted earlier on a related thread (from 1965):

    http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=30

    From the 7 March 1965 Policy Letter, ‘Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law’ (Note, after 1968 the *term* ‘Fair Game’ was dropped as it “causes bad public relations.” The *practice* of Fair Gaming continued, however the public use of the term “Fair Game” was forbidden.)

    How did one qualify as an “SP” in LRH’s day?

    There were many ways to qualify, two were:

    “Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations; public statements against Scientology.”

    The most common “crime,” which resulted in someone being Declared an SP was publicly disagreeing with – being “against” – some part of Scientology, the Scientology organization, or LRH, and engaging in auditing without the approval of LRH.

    Jack Horner, mentioned in the above link, was a Scientologist for many years, held the fist ‘Doctor of Scientology’ certificate, and was an active auditor for decades. He was Fair Gamed, also, for decades, by Scientology.

    His primary disagreement with LRH was over LRH’s (1965) insistence that he (LRH) was *the* “Source.” (See ‘KSW’, 1965). Horner recognized many sources, and considered that a healthy subject would also recognize many sources – for this he was Declared an “SP,” and he was far from the only one so categorized for that reason.

    It had nothing to do with his wanting to stop Scientology because he “knew it worked.”

    • 2009-10-21 at 18:24

      It seems that LRH had two different definitions of an SP: The SP case and the administrative declaring of a person as SP. The two are not the same as evident from the handling of each: The SP case is handled by Power Processing or by NOTs, while the declared SP is handled by the A-E steps. Differentiation is the key.

  19. Briana Volta
    2009-10-21 at 08:52

    Nom de Plume :Good posting. Thanks, Geir.
    Ha ha on the 12 characteristics of an SP. Who here hasn’t dramatized most of them at least once in his life? And a few were downright useful sometimes.
    But seriously, an SP is not someone DM is having a hissy fit about on a given day.
    No, IMHO, an SP in LRH’s day was someone who wanted to stop Scientology, not because of a media attack, or an over-zealous reg cycle, or an argument about it between some mouthy son/daughter and parents, but because he KNEW IT WORKED.

    If I understand you correctly, a person becomes a Scientologist, knows that it works, and then, desiring that others not be helped, seeks to stop it, and that – “in LRH’s day” – was an “SP.”

    Consulting the historical record, and LRH’s own writings. Here’s a link that was posted earlier on a related thread (from 1965):

    http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=30

    From the 7 March 1965 Policy Letter, ‘Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law’ (Note, after 1968 the *term* ‘Fair Game’ was dropped as it “causes bad public relations.” The *practice* of Fair Gaming continued, however the public use of the term “Fair Game” was forbidden.)

    How did one qualify as an “SP” in LRH’s day?

    There were many ways to qualify, two were:

    “Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations; public statements against Scientology.”

    The most common “crime,” which resulted in someone being Declared an SP was publicly disagreeing with – being “against” – some part of Scientology, the Scientology organization, or LRH, and engaging in auditing without the approval of LRH.

    Jack Horner, mentioned in the above link, was a Scientologist for many years, held the first ‘Doctor of Scientology’ certificate, and was an active auditor for decades. He was Fair Gamed, also, for decades, by Scientology.

    His primary disagreement with LRH was over LRH’s (1965) insistence that he (LRH) was *the* “Source.” (See ‘KSW’, 1965). Horner recognized many sources, and considered that a healthy subject would also recognize many sources – for this he was Declared an “SP,” and he was far from the only one so categorized for that reason.

    It had nothing to do with his wanting to stop Scientology because he “knew it worked.”

    P.S. Here’s the related thread:

    https://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/hubbards-view-on-the-chances-of-meeting-an-sp-in-scientology

    • RJ
      2009-10-21 at 19:05

      “Jack Horner, mentioned in the above link, was a Scientologist for many years, held the first ‘Doctor of Scientology’ certificate, and was an active auditor for decades. He was Fair Gamed, also, for decades, by Scientology.

      “His primary disagreement with LRH was over LRH’s (1965) insistence that he (LRH) was *the* “Source.” (See ‘KSW’, 1965). Horner recognized many sources, and considered that a healthy subject would also recognize many sources – for this he was Declared an “SP,” and he was far from the only one so categorized for that reason.”

      Right. Uh Huh.

      Jack Horner committed an act of espionage against the FCDC by stealing various case records and addresses of public on lines there and then tried to go in competition against the church by setting up his own squirrel group called ‘Amprinistics’. It wasn’t because he merely disagreed with Ron.

      He was lucky he wasn’t arrested and sent to jail for theft!

  20. Briana Volta
    2009-10-21 at 19:04

    isene :It seems that LRH had two different definitions of an SP: The SP case and the administrative declaring of a person as SP. The two are not the same as evident from the handling of each: The SP case is handled by Power Processing or by NOTs, while the declared SP is handled by the A-E steps. Differentiation is the key.

    And if the “SP” did not wish to do “A-E”?

    In 1965, 66, 67, 68 – and, yes, after that time, and through the 1970s – “SPs” were “handled,” mainly, with Disconnection and with Fair Game actions.

    People – even then – wished to exercise the freedom to leave (depart, disavow) Scientology (publicly), speak out regarding Scientology “critically,” and also, sometimes, provide counseling – or auditing – outside of the controls of the Scientology organization. However, if they exercised any of these freedoms, they were classified, and treated, as “Suppressive Persons,” and subjected to being harassed and attacked. (See above link.)

    • 2009-10-21 at 19:34

      I would say that an SP case who was also declared an SP by the administrative actions would have to do the proper SP case handlings as part of the step A (to get case gain).

  21. Briana Volta
    2009-10-21 at 20:11

    isene :I would say that an SP case who was also declared an SP by the administrative actions would have to do the proper SP case handlings as part of the step A (to get case gain).

    And if the “SP” did not wish to? Then what?

    • 2009-10-21 at 20:27

      He would of course walk away, why?

  22. Briana Volta
    2009-10-21 at 21:29

    isene :He would of course walk away, why?

    I think you’ll find that those who were harassed and attacked during the 1960s and 1970s by Scientology did “walk away” first. Scientology came after them.

    Others, who were never in Scientology, such as author Paulette Cooper and Mayor Gabe Cazares of Clearwater, Fl., were harassed and attacked also. The (mostly covert) attack actions against Cazares occurred during the 1970s, and the (mostly covert) attack actions against Paulette Cooper occurred during the 1970s, including a 2nd attempt to frame her in 1976.

    I’m curious. Have you read any books such as ‘Barefaced Messiah’, or ‘Piece of Blue sky’, or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?’

    Have you read David Mayo’s 1986 interview by Russell Miller?

    Have you examined the materials revealed as a result of the issuing of federal search warrants in 1977?

    And, going off topic somewhat, have you examined accounts of those who were RPFed and RPF RPFed during the mid 1970s?

    • 2009-10-21 at 21:38

      Mostly yes to all the questions.

    • RJ
      2009-10-21 at 22:42

      Yeah I read Russell Miller’s poorly written hit piece and character assassination called “Bare Faced Messiah”. Any relationship to reality or truth in Miller’s case was purely accidential.

      It’s interesting that CIA almost holds the same opinion of Miller’s flights of fancy that he calls “history”. This is the summary of Hayden Peake who reviewed his book ‘Code Name Tricycle’for “The Intelligence Officer’s Bookshelf Intelligence in Recent Public Literature” a CSI publication:

      https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/bookshelf_10.html

      “Finally, the careless errors and many undocumented comments place the book in the easy-to-read-but-of-limited-scholarly-value category.”

      It seems even when Miller admires the subject he still can’t get it right.

      Regarding poor St. Paulette Cooper. The fact is that if the GO hadn’t kicked up such a fuss about her turgid and torpid “expose” brimming with inaccuracies called the “Scandal of Scientology” it probably would have died a slow death in the discount book bin and she probably would have remained an obscure Harvard Psychology professor. Instead of a cause célèbre of people who chose to remain ignorant of subject while pretending to be “informed”.

      The same people who believe anything written by Government, the FBI has any actual veracity like for instance the Stipulation of “Evidence” you mention which has enough holes in it to drive a whole fleet of Peter Builts through.

      • Briana Volta
        2009-10-22 at 08:32

        The books written – in the 1980s -about Scientology, consulted the experiences of many dozens of former Scientology insiders, from former C/S International and Class 12 David Mayo, to founder of the Delphi School Martin Samuels, to Class 7&8 auditor and FEBC-Grad and Mission holder Bent Corydon, to former editor of LRH’s books John Sanborn, and on and on.

        These books also consulted confidential LRH writings (and I don’t mean the OT levels, but other confidential writings) of which most rank and file members had been unaware.

        That they were written was a victory for telling the whole story, not just the Scientology PR version.

        And take a fresh look at Paulette Cooper’s 1970s book. It not “turgid and torpid” at all. It was an attempt by a very courageous lady to tell the hidden truth about a secretive cult.

        And, by the way, the orders to attack her came straight from the Flagship – I’ve seen the telexes, and these are part of court’s evidence.

        What was done to Paulette Cooper was shameful.

        • RJ
          2009-10-22 at 21:38

          The book was written and released several years after Ron’s death probably I suspect to avoid a libel suit.

          The so called “confidential” writings were in many cases LRHEDs (not confidential) that the author or GO Directives (confidential) that were either misinterpreted or actually altered.

          It’s laughable how many different versions of “Operation Freakout” or “Operation Freek Out” (obviously the person never entered a spelling bee) I’ve seen on the net.

          Speaking of “Operation Freak Out” or “Freakout”(no evidence of a paper mill there) which was allegedly found in the raid on the Church, along with various references to CIA’s Remote Viewing Program which to this day the FBI is mum about, is poor “courageous” Cooper who has made a mint exploiting her exploits with the GO and has brought her fifteen minutes of fame!

          ‘Scuse me if I don’t sympathize!

          You can call her a martyr if ya want.

          However if you want the true story I suggest you read the following book:

          http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/Playing_Dirty/index.htm

  23. Briana Volta
    2009-10-21 at 22:29

    Did you have any cognitions while reading the above mentioned books, and materials? Any views or comments?

    Before ending off for now, one last question. Have you seen this video?:

    (link removed due to reference to confidential material)

    • 2009-10-22 at 08:24

      Not much in the realm of cognitions, as Hubbard is not my main interest. I find the obsession with Hubbard somewhat uninspiring. I saw the video as part of my research.

  24. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 08:37

    isene :Not much in the realm of cognitions, as Hubbard is not my main interest. I find the obsession with Hubbard somewhat uninspiring. I saw the video as part of my research.

    For those who have been involved with the Church of Scientology, it’s not an obsession with Hubbard, IMO; however, it *is* a willingness to *not avoid or deny* L. Ron Hubbard’s influence upon Scientology.

    • 2009-10-22 at 09:03

      Did you ever have any gains with Scientology? I am simply curious.

  25. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 09:19

    Of course, and I also produced gains in others. Should that make me unwilling to look at all aspects of the subject?

    IMO, Scientology has a “dark side.” It’s had a “dark side” for a long time, since long before David Miscavige. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to confront that “dark side.” Otherwise, how can Scientologists truly consider themselves to be adults (grown ups, and not children) emotionally and intellectually; otherwise, how can what is *best* in the subject be salvaged?

    • 2009-10-22 at 09:33

      I have confronted many sides – light, twilight, dim and dark. I separate what works and leave the rest. As I have said too many times: I am interested is:

      1. Stopping the abuses
      2. Ensuring people get helped, e.g. by freeing the tech

      And through this blog and otherwise; Help people differentiate between the Scientology and the Church.

      The rest may be of mild or recreational interest for now – and certainly not as interesting as foosball or programming calculators.

  26. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 09:51

    You’re performing a very valuable service.

    And it’s much appreciated.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: