Home > Church of Scientology > Hubbard’s view on the chances of meeting an SP in Scientology

Hubbard’s view on the chances of meeting an SP in Scientology

On July 18, 1966, L. Ron Hubbard gave a lecture called “About Rhodesia”. He had just come back from his trip to the country now called Zimbabwe and discovered that there had been a bunch of SP (Suppressive Person) declares back in the Scientology headquarters at Saint Hill Manor in England. He gave the audience a wholesale correction on this point:

But you don’t have somebody that’s been around three years and […] turn up suddenly to be an SP.

And then:

In all the time we’ve been around here we’ve only had one SP that I know of…. Now whether he was an SP or PTS I’ve not made up my mind to this date because I haven’t investigated the case enough.

So, in 16 years of operation, Hubbard had only found one SP candidate.

In contrast, one may wonder how many David Miscavige thinks he sees in one year.

Categories: Church of Scientology
  1. TRUTH
    2009-10-19 at 21:31

    Miscavige is not a Scientologist,he is the actual SP that Ron should have spotted and declared at the time. When Miscavige (SP) declares a decent person as an SP, his declaration shows how SAINT that person really is.

  2. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-19 at 21:45

    LOL. DM really *is* a bit (or a lot) Type-3ish, isn’t he?

    But, OTOH, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone ISN’T out to get him. 😉

  3. Margaret
    2009-10-19 at 22:24

    Your observation is correct, Geir. However, for whatever reason, we now have far too many things listed as “suppressive acts” in the policy “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS” of 23-Dec-1965RB, including:

    – Blowing staff and not returning in a reasonable length of time, in which case “an automatic declare is to be issued”. In other words, if you are fairly new to Scientology and someone convinces you to join staff or S.O. (which happens quite often in many recruitment cycles), and you later decide that being on staff or joining the S.O. is not for you, and you aren’t willing/able to wait the weeks or months or years for a replacement (or go through the weeks/months of sec checking), you will be declared an SP if you blow and refuse to return in some unstated “reasonable amount of time”.

    – And if you are a family or friend of that person, you will have to disconnect because the following is also a SUPPRESSIVE ACT: “Continuted adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person by HCO”.

    IMHO, the above PL on SUPPRESSIVE ACTS is responsible for creating most of the forced disconnections between families and friends in Scientology.

    Further, the policies which bring about stat pushing (i.e. “hardsell”, weekly stat management of Orgs with enforced condition assignments, etc.) create the other bulk of the “bad blood” that people have with Scientology.

    Those two things — forced disconnections and policies which create stat pushing — need to be weeded out in the Church, in my opinion, for any real reform to take place. And clearly, any new leadership has to be experienced and sane (which doesn’t appear to be the case right now).

    • 2009-10-20 at 05:58

      Good post. Relevant data.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-20 at 12:41

      DM has added to this list to make it virtually impossible not to run afoul, even by such simple things as reading a newspaper. Ouch. Simple handling is to get it back to what LRH wrote, take Davey’s additions and give them back to him, he can start a new religion of fascistic thought police and…wait a minute, he’s already done it! Only he took OURS! We’re taking it back from one of the few real SPs there are: David Miscavige.

    • Alex
      2009-10-20 at 13:31

      I agree Margaret. I have looked through those SP acts in the ethics book and some seem pretty harsh and in some cases very general and open to interpretation. That to me really opens the door for abuses especially since LRH says that Man cannot be trusted with justice.

      I sometimes wonder If LRH really wrote those, but it seems he must have, they have been there for a long time. Well…LRH also said if anything in Dianetics or Scientology isn’t true for you then it isn’t true.

      Oh!! I just had a cognition. those things may be suppressive but that doesn’t mean that if you are guilty of doing one of them that YOU ARE SUPPRESSIVE or should be declared an SP!!

      An SP has certain traits and has to have a majority of those traits to be a true SP. If a person over and over didn’t clear words and was found guilty of it 80 times but got good products on post should he be declared an SP?? Per the High crimes he could be charged with an SP act. And he may be guilty of an SP act, but he is not an SP!! ( If he has a majority of social characteristics )

      To me it is an out-point when the COS is so eager to declare someone an SP who really isn’t a true SP. What is the product? An isolated person, a caved in being with a wrong indication? How does that help the group??

      • Overdriver
        2009-10-20 at 15:52

        I doubt it will go on for much longer because this is clearly a violation of your human rights. The other interesting thing is that during the time in Scientology I’ve never seen any specifics in Ethics Orders only generalities…
        I do not say it is not vital to make ethics declare in certain cases but by using force as the Chucrh does it is no wonder people disagree on a more wider scale. Why I am here for example? Because the local org does not deliver but plays control with ethics where there is actually no ethics situation.

  4. Jim Logan
    2009-10-19 at 22:40

    In literally thousands of cramming interviews while in the Sea Org, I saw ONE Rockslam. It was verified in a standard auditing session. The person was put through the indicated handlings and went on to be and continues to this day, a productive contributing member of society.

  5. 2009-10-19 at 23:59

    What happened with Otto Roos and David Mayo, then?

    David Mayo was L Ron Hubbard’s personal auditor for *8 years*.

    • 2009-10-20 at 06:00

      Who lead the declare of those?

      • 2009-10-20 at 14:51


        Foiled again!!!

  6. Chris
    2009-10-20 at 03:32

    If tomorrow,David Miscavige set out an SP declare on himself there’d probably be peace on this fine Earth 😉

    • 2009-10-20 at 06:02

      I’ll use that quote 😀

  7. DeathereX
    2009-10-20 at 05:03

    The church seems to use the term “SP” as a definition of someone who does unethical actions towards the church. But in my opinion, they don’t declare people SP necessarily because they are 1,1 on the tone scale and has most of the supressive person characteristics. I’ve met a few people who I spotted to be 1,1 and for me it is not a hard thing to do. Though if its a PTS or an true SP is rather hard to tell, still it’s not hard to notice when someone is covertly hostile and does not want you to succeed.
    I also know that the church has reinstates people who has been declared SP’s, but it doesnt mean that they were a part of the 2,5 % of the population.
    I’ve seen many youtube videos made by people who has been declared SP but many times I couldn’t see how these people could be SP’s. It’s important to differenciate between a person who DOES SUPPRESSIVE ACTS towards the church, and people who are SP (SP after Hubbards definition). What I think is that I can be declared SP by the church for doing suppressive acts towards them, but not because I’m a suppressive person to people around me, if that makes sense!

    • 2009-10-20 at 06:08

      Sure, but using the same term is giving the person a wrong item.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-20 at 12:46

      One of the best ways to invalidate the materials on an actual suppressive person is to declare so many falsely. The term loses its meaning when its applied to the wrong persons and in such ridiculous proportions. What happens? The technology is invalidated and nobody wants to hear about SPs. The body of materials is precise and accurate on the subject. It’s been egregiously violated by DM’s reich, so now it’s a subject of restimulation of injustice.

    • Alex
      2009-10-20 at 13:11

      Hi DathrereX,
      I see your point. I wondered about this too. Why declare someone an SP if you can just fire them or offload them if they are not doing good on staff? Or if they are a public then just suspend them from training? Why declare someone an SP who really isn’t? Let’s say that a staff member was producing good (like David Mayo former Senior C/S Int.) and then made some mistake that ended up suppressing Scientology. (not hard to do from that post) Shouldn’t you compare the persons good against their bad? (it says to in policy) If that happened there would be no reason to declare as SP someone who slipped up after showing they were mostly good. I always thought that it was black PR on LRH by others who have told me that LRH made a mistake putting David Mayo onto the Senior C/S post if he was an SP. LRH wrote the book on PTS/SP tech, do you really think he would put an SP onto the highest tech post on the planet??

  8. Nomnom
    2009-10-20 at 07:01

    I hate to disagree on this one, but that’s one LRH quote I would take with a grain of salt. Administratively, LRH would often say things that were not necessarily true to serve a purpose. By 1966, there were already many, many people whom LRH had treated as suppressive (though I don’t think the label existed in the 50’s). Either they were true SP’s (unlikely), or his “dark side” was at play. This doesn’t take away from the fact that current management, by orders of magnitude, has unjustly labeled people.

    • 2009-10-20 at 09:10

      I think LRH and any others are free to expel someone from an organization they run if that someone is breaking the rules (this happens i work places all over the world). But from that to labeling someone a “Suppressive Person” is the issue at hand. I for one is not sure how many people LRH himself declared an SP. Anyone (without the usual forum speculations, please)?

      • Nomnom
        2009-10-20 at 16:44

        There’s at least one LRH declare issue on line at

        • 2009-10-20 at 17:30

          Thank you. Any more?

      • Margaret
        2009-10-21 at 00:26

        That’s exactly right, Geir (and to your points too Jim). Declaring someone a “suppressive person” just because they break the rules seems like the wrong action. And it makes the meaning of “suppressive person” meaningless when it’s just used because someone “broke the rules”.

  9. Briana Volta
    2009-10-20 at 07:31

    Only one “SP” (or its equivalent, before the invention of the term “SP”) candidate?

    *Please* consult LRH’s and Scientology’s *actual* history.

    Making a safe space for Scientologists to go after leaving the Church of Scientology is one thing, but why deepen their indoctrination with “true believer”-type untruths about LRH?

    The term “SP” had just been invented in 1966 (1965), and even then that statement by LRH wasn’t true – and he knew it.

    LRH had a habit of lying to his own followers and – while it’s not necessary to emphasize that in a forum such as this – why, repeatedly, forward those lies?

    • 2009-10-20 at 09:11

      Yellow card for adHom.

      • Tor Magnus
        2009-10-20 at 11:54

        isene :
        Yellow card for adHom.

        I’m sorry, but how is that an ad hominem? It goes directly to what LRH was saying and expands upon the story behind the words.

        Would you say that if someone is shown to be a repeat liar that pointing this out is an ad hominem attack, and that it shouldn’t detract from the veracity of his words? (This is not a straw man, just an interrogative…)

        • 2009-10-20 at 13:43

          When one is attacking the person to discredit an argument, it is adHom. Attack the argument instead of the person to avoid yellow cards. The same goes for anyone attacking you or the church trying to discredit a persons views by declaring that person a Suppressive Person etc. There are plenty of places on the net where adHom can thrive and is the popular sport. This blog is not one of them.

      • Jim Logan
        2009-10-20 at 12:51

        Is there one for vacuous posts? (Not the man, the post).

        • 2009-10-20 at 13:47


          • Jim Logan
            2009-10-23 at 00:14

            It’s a joke, and my comment on this fella’s post. It’s (the post) brutally misinformed.

  10. Elgin
    2009-10-20 at 08:04

    Interesting that at least at that time Ron seemed to think that there should be some connection between the technical definition of an SP and who was declared such administratively.
    Its very unfortunate that there is the same term. I talked with a friend about it who thought that it would be better to have different condition/state administratively which was less severe, say that you could not do service in the org until some situation was resolved, but that there was no requirement that you could not be in contact with other Scientologists (your family or friends).
    Possibly then whether someone was an SP or not could be left or the individual to decide with the freedom to choose to disconnector handle handle (e.g. by getting an SP rundown) as part of your own progress up the bridge. I think that some of the time SP – PTS connection is often between two people only with history of overts between then, i.e. the “SP” might no be that way towards other people.

    • 2009-10-20 at 09:13

      The two terms would be “A suppressive person” and “someone expelled from the church”. The latter does exist and administered via “a writ of expulsion”.

      • Elgin
        2009-10-20 at 11:27

        Okay, but I think that if you get expelled you are then also automatically declared an SP. This is where the problem lies. I think that an org could have to the right to discontinue the relation with a person, as long as they don’t demand that other people privately also not communicate with that person. They could then state that so and so person is not welcome in the org because of such and such matter (no trumped up charges).
        The individual Scientologist could then decide their personal relation independently. In many cases family and friend relations may not be affected. In some they would, but that would then be an individual choice that the org had no business meddling with. If they were to trust the individual, I think that all would be fine.
        Outside of Scientology disconnection also happens if say a friend or family member is severely out-ethics like dealing in drugs or doing other reprehensible activities. The whole point being that each can be trusted to evaluate and choose for himself.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-20 at 16:06

          The problem of letting the “SP” to communicate with others including family members is his possibility to make a kind of “verbal guerilla warfare” against the Church. This can be the case with “tough people”, real enemies of the Church and I would say that in this case declaration is fine. The problem starts when I disagree on some points and I am on ethics lines. And I see that the ethics officer plays thought police… Sorry to say but RTC should be responsible for its franchise system. And when I see even nazi/vampire style uniforms coming to Ideal Orgs than I say I can no more trust in the system.

    • Alex
      2009-10-20 at 13:41

      Hi Elgin,
      There could be lots of other ethics gradients rather than declaring someone an SP who isn’t one.

      How about suspension from training and processing for 5 months? Or if on staff you could fire them or demote them to a lower post. I see no valid reason to declare someone an SP who truly isn’t one. What purpose does it serve??

      • Elgin
        2009-10-20 at 15:36

        Hi Alex,
        That goes without saying — I mean all the lower gradients. They should be utilized to the full extent. In my experience almost anything can be solved with insistence on good communication and a willingness to compromise where it makes sense. As a final resort, however, an organisation can choose not to have any dealings with a person any more. In many such cases the person often also do not want any more contact with the organization :-).
        The termination should not be an SP declare as such, but only an offical termination of contact with that person from the ORG. What other people individually would do should be entirely up to them, and the org should not meddle with individual comm lines. Each Scientologist could be free to have communication as they please. If it becomes an actual problem in their training or auditing it can be addressed as a technical matter — again, with the choice of the individual. In this day and age, I do not think it is the business of any organisation (commercial, religious or otherwise) to exert pressure on people to have or not have communication with certain other people. Nothing good will come of it.

        • 2009-10-20 at 17:20


        • Alex
          2009-10-20 at 17:59

          Hi Elgin,
          That is sane and logical. It is “reason” ethics is reason and should be used as such IMHO.

  11. Overdriver
    2009-10-20 at 09:03

    So, if anyone wants to change the policies which leads to the above “controversions”, than he or she must change LRH policies as these policies are seemingly the ones causing the problem. Or maybe the basics must be applied more throughly like “Ethics is reason”… But who tells what is reason? An SO member who is physically and mentally seperated from the rest of the world (including fine arts, literature, etc…) maybe in his or her whole life and who knows what education he gets in a cadet org (kind of a communist idea) will surely not be able to tell what is reason. This is not totally dissimilar for staff members.

    • 2009-10-20 at 09:15

      I think we need to get Ethics back to being a personal matter, because only you know what is reason for you. Justice and ethics need more separation.

      • Alex
        2009-10-20 at 13:45

        I agree with you Geir. I think with this proven track record of wrongly declaring so many people SP it makes a good case of really putting some limitations on this kind of thing. Funny though, it seems that the COS still doesn’t get it.

  12. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-20 at 12:39

    Briana Volta :Only one “SP” (or its equivalent, before the invention of the term “SP”) candidate?
    *Please* consult LRH’s and Scientology’s *actual* history.
    Making a safe space for Scientologists to go after leaving the Church of Scientology is one thing, but why deepen their indoctrination with “true believer”-type untruths about LRH?
    The term “SP” had just been invented in 1966 (1965), and even then that statement by LRH wasn’t true – and he knew it.
    LRH had a habit of lying to his own followers and – while it’s not necessary to emphasize that in a forum such as this – why, repeatedly, forward those lies?

    Soderqvist1: Briana Volta your accusation is too general!
    It doesn’t make sense for a reader without particulars. John Mcmaster was the World’s First Real Clear on NED, he was the “archbishop” of Scientology, there is an article written by him in an old edition of Advance 1968 online, yet SP Declare!
    (link removed due to reference to confidential material)

    • RJ
      2009-10-22 at 07:41

      Wait a minute McMasters didn’t go clear on NED!

      He went clear on the Clearing Course. NED wasn’t developed until 1978!

      Also he was declared because he committed suppressive acts, whether he was actually an SP or not *technically* is a different thing entirely!

      There is plenty of technical information on how someone who is clear can end up in ethics trouble. Obviously you haven’t studied it.

  13. Jim Logan
    2009-10-20 at 13:04

    It is a characteristic of a real Suppressive Person that he will use ‘generalities’ to avoid detection. The generalized use of the ‘SP Declare’, falsely, has led to an invalidation of the body of materials. It has made people so restimulated by the topic, with enforced disconnection from people who aren’t really suppressive, and such, that it has been intentionally made difficult to detect the real SP: David Miscavige.

    A real SP will use lies (false declares e.g.) and mechanisms to excite a thirst for discipline (more false declares) in those in power (RTC reps, IJC et al).

    There is nothing wrong with the data on PTS/SP. There is a lot wrong in the way its been butchered in use by a very few. Like, 2.5% of the whole, with 17.5% very effect of that 2.5%.

  14. Maria
    2009-10-20 at 13:15

    IMHO LRH assumed that the FULL body of ethics/tech/policy would be in use, including ensuring staffs being adequately trained and audited. He wrote Hat, Don’t Hit and many other policies intended to teach people to back off using heavy ethics. I don’t think he ever imagined that someone would spend staff time raising billions of dollars on real estate and IAS memberships, bypassing the standard income lines of all of the Churches and thus denying staffs their rightful funds to run their areas. When new Sea Org members are not trained in the key basics of auditing, training and PR tech, and have no time to learn them then they learn by example and mimicry and the example isn’t necessarily what you or I would call Scientology. I know several new SO members, they are not yet 18 years old, they were raised to “believe in” Scientology (but have no real training in it) and now they are in the SO. They’re told they are thetans and to just get on with it, but really, they are just inexperienced and very well intended kids. They’re probably scared, definitely untrained and above all they are trying to save the world. They MUST get their jobs done, MUST demonstrate toughness and have been taught that they are the elite of Scientology. Disagreement is backflash, failure is counter-intention and suppressive. Too much disagreement = bye bye to all my friends and family. How many SO members came on board like the youngsters I know? How many grew up in the SO this way?

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-20 at 16:24

      The fact is that Ron says that the SO member is capable of anything and everything. This is in Flag Order. And this can lead to many arbitraries. And as I said elsewhere especially these youngsters possibly have no real education. They are raised in a communist way in the group without parents. So they have a different reality than society. So they are in fact in ARC break with the society and with their own public. This implies that they can only survive by conquer. By force. And that explains the way of the justice system of Scientology. Only highly trained and processed staff members behave differently but as far as I saw this is not the purpose to train and process staff members especially not in the SO. I know about high producing man who did not progress in the last decade a bit.

  15. Tor Magnus
    2009-10-20 at 14:12

    isene :
    When one is attacking the person to discredit an argument, it is adHom. Attack the argument instead of the person to avoid yellow cards.

    I would say that he’s doing the reverse. By showing an argument to be a lie he’s discrediting the person.

    If he was saying “you should not listen to anything LRH said because he was a dickwad” then clearly it is an adhom. If, however he says that “this statement is a lie, and LRH has a documented history of lying” then I would say it’s informative and a very relevant piece of information. It has a bearing on credibility, which it is my impression that you don’t consider important, but which helps many of us others steer clear of potentially useless or wasteful data.

    (Above was not an adhom on you, just my impression of you from what you have been writing. Feel free to correct me or adjust my perception.) 🙂

    • 2009-10-20 at 14:35

      The original post by BV did not contain any logical argument against LRH’s views of an SP, just a brush-off dismissal, then the adHom. = Bad form.

      To all posters here: Please state your opinions as opinions or base your arguments on logic.

  16. 2009-10-20 at 14:48

    I salute Geir Isene for hosting this discussion, and allowing all people to be heard. If the new Scientology, the one we all hope emerges, can maintain free speech discussions like this, then our hope is well-founded.

    Well done, Geir. Only a True Viking could ever forge the way forward through a battle this thick!


    • RJ
      2009-10-22 at 07:47

      Alanzo, ma brudder!

      ‘Member the ol’ Beliefnet daze?

      Scan by Coordinates 🙂

      Good to see ya posting here!

      I totally agree I think Geir is doing one fine job!

  17. Maria
    2009-10-20 at 15:33

    It seems to me that no one commenting here is complaining about detecting and isolating truly destructive individuals, just as none would support the idea of releasing a serial killer like Ted Bundy from jail. It looks to me that the real problem is injustice in all its many forms. Perhaps what is needed is a review of what justice is and is not, and hatting materials for people so they do not become clay pigeons:

    Excerpt from HCO PL 24 Feb 1972 Injustice

    “Any staff member who does not know ethics policy is a clay pigeon. ‘Clay pigeons’ are used to throw up in the air and shoot at.

    The cycle is, goofs are made. The real Why is not located or handled, and when this happens angry executives, who have to pick up the ball, start shooting.”


    “But it sometimes happens that injustices occur. Goofs happen, then conditions are assigned, persons are removed from post or otherwise bashed about.

    Usually this occurs because the staff member is pitifully ignorant of his rights.”


    “Most people do not even know that ‘justice’ means fair and equitable treatment for both the group and individual.’


    “Between the points of harsh injustice and required discipline there is a happy center ground where discipline, no matter how severe, is just and where goofs are not tolerated.

    The achievement of this middle ground depends less upon educating and restraining executives than upon the staff member knowing his rights and himself using them.”

    • Alex
      2009-10-20 at 18:02

      Unless an SP is running the show and the others don’t have the guts to remove him or her.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-21 at 00:53

      Maria, There are a tremendous number of very sane LRH policies on justice/injustice, ethics, etc. such as the one you mentioned. The problem is, if certain policies are not changed, then in the future when the rubber hits the road … and that future Scientology leadership has to determine what IS and IS NOT a suppressive act (and thereby requiring an SP declare per that unchanged policy), the main reference/policy that WILL be used is the one that defines those suppressive acts: “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS”.

      And so if that policy is NOT changed in several respects, we will wind up, once again, in the same situation that we are currently in, i.e. “SP Declares” for simply breaking the rules, and “forced disconnection” from those who simply broke the rules. We will also have once again lost any real meaning to the term “suppressive person”.

      IMHO, if we are going to emerge from this whole thing with a truly reformed Church, there HAS to be a change in a good 5-10% of the Church’s policies, particularly those on justice, ethics and those which have caused staff to focus on the stat instead of the product.

  18. Rip Kirby
    2009-10-20 at 16:22

    One thing is the PTS/SP tech, another one is all the crimes, high crimes and suppressive acts a person may commit. In today’s society it’s allowed to criticize ones group, organization or the place you work. At least in the free world it is. For Scientology to reform it has to adopt the laws and regulations of the society surrounding it and thereby making it a safer place to be. If it’s okay to say you disagree and that is the normal – well then you don’t get in trouble and one could still be friends. That’s how it is elsewhere. Have anyone ever seen or hear an online scientologist speak unfavourably about mgmt in public?

    This has everything to do with culture and Scn culture is way beyond revision time. The culture of a society is changing very fast. Some time ago it was all right to kill a man if he killed someone in your family. This has changed, now the person should get a fair trial.

    I don’t believe Scientology will ever be accepted in society before they change this, and I’m afraid this change will have to come from the outside. Specialist in human rights, employment contracts etc. will have to reeducate staff and public after all these years of indoctrination. This rotten and fascistic culture must go away.

  19. Briana Volta
    2009-10-20 at 16:35

    Specifically addressing the assertion that, “So, in 16 years of operation [1966], Hubbard had found only one SP candidate.”

    Just addressing the time between the invention of the term “SP” and the July 1966 talk – For starters, here’s an ‘HCO Executive Letter’ (to Org staff) titled ‘Amprinistics’ and dated 27 September 1965:


    I have seen this document in paper form before the Internet existed. Besides being given to staff at St. Hill in 1965, it was in the 1974 Scientology ‘Information Full Hat’, and later was a document in various court cases.

    I could also quote from the original ‘Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law’ of 7 March 1965, but this is enough for now.

    • 2009-10-20 at 17:27

      This is better. But it still does not hold – because there is no contradiction in LRH seeing an SP in society/government and him only having seen one candidate inside of Scientology in 16 years. So, you still need to prove that he was lying – which was your original supposition.

  20. Briana Volta
    2009-10-20 at 18:03

    isene :This is better. But it still does not hold – because there is no contradiction in LRH seeing an SP in society/government and him only having seen one candidate inside of Scientology in 16 years. So, you still need to prove that he was lying – which was your original supposition.

    Please take another look at the LRH quote.

    How could these individuals be INSIDE Scientology? They, including Jack Horner, who was awarded the first “Doctor of Scientology” certificate, were “Declared SPs”?

    Anyone Declared an SP became Fair Game and would not be IN Scientology.

    Unless, you’re looking for examples of people held on Scientology properties, in “Lower Conditions,” or people doing the “A-E” steps.

    The first “SP” was probably LRH’s 2nd wife, Sara Northrup, who assisted in the writing of ‘Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health’, in Bayhead, New Jersey in 1949. As early as 1951, LRH was writing to the FBI, attempting to have her investigated for being a “Communist.” According to John Sanborn, who was the editor of LRH’s early books (from [1951] ‘Science of Survival’ to ‘Dainetics 55’), the “1.1” described in ‘S.O.S’ that “should not have any rights of any kind,” etc. was Sara Northup.

    And it goes on from there, to Dr. J. Winter who wrote the Introduction to the first edition of ‘Dianetics’, to Don Purcell of Wichita, Kansas, etc. None of them were “Declared SPs” as the term didn’t exist until 1965, however, they were regarded as the equivalent.

    And there are many more, and were IN Dianetics or/and Scientology before July 1966.

    Were they INSIDE Scientology after being Declared “SP,” no. However, SP Declares date from 1965, as do Lower Condition punishments, so if the requirement – *now* – is that individuals be IN Scientology while also Declared SP, that will require some additional searching for old (1965/66) “SP Declares.”

    If you look at the original LRH quite from 1966, it really isn’t necessary.

    • 2009-10-20 at 19:14

      Yes, I did re-read. You do have a point. The quote from “About Rhodesia” talks about one real candidate for an SP. In addition I would think LRH had many more he would like to kick out from the organization. This is where a differentiation between SP and an expelled individual comes into play – maybe LRH use the same term for both? Also, did you listen to the tape?

      • Nomnom
        2009-10-20 at 19:51

        I’ve listened to the tape, though not recently.

        If there were two intended definitions of SP, one, the person who has all the anti-social characteristics and another, a person who has committed high crimes, then I think LRH would have made that distinction (reference?).

        In practice there are two distinct uses of the term “SP”. Briana makes some good points.

        By the way, the period around December 1959 – January 1960, when Nibs blew, makes for interesting reading regarding o/w’s, responsibility and pre-“SP” sp’s. See HCOB 19 Jan 60 “Casualties” (page 11) in the original red vols.

  21. Briana Volta
    2009-10-20 at 19:36

    The tape, yes, years ago.

    You’re certainly free to rationalize that LRH quote in such a way that it becomes a truthful statement.

    Look at the above (1965) link again. These people were in Scientology for years. One held the first ‘Doctor of Scientology’ certificate. Notice that they were referred to as “SPs” and, as a result, were also “Fair Game.”

    You’ve only recently left the C of S and still – and don’t take this the wrong way – have a lot of looking to do. It takes TIME, and nothing I can write here will substitute for that TIME.


    • 2009-10-20 at 19:39

      Well, your last comment came across as arrogant, was that intended? …Given enough TIME, I would obviously agree with you?

  22. Briana Volta
    2009-10-20 at 19:53

    No, that was not intended.

    When a person who has been involved in the Church of Scientology leaves, it takes a while to sort out things. That’s just the way it is.

    • 2009-10-20 at 20:38

      That’s just the way you think it is. 😉

      • a simple observant
        2009-10-20 at 21:01

        why the ‘just’? to simply say ‘that’s the way you think it is’ would be enough and not invalidative. ‘just’ seems to be an unconscious attempt to disminish the value of her opinion and thus descredit her. are you gonna delete this comment too?

        • a simple observant
          2009-10-20 at 21:08

          i confess: i’m trying to discredit this last statement of yours.

        • 2009-10-20 at 21:11

          I am not deleting comments that are not against the rules. Your’s isn’t.

          The “just” was part of the original sentence of the poster.

          • a simple observant
            2009-10-20 at 21:15

            you are righ, i didn’t notice that. she started discrediting your opinion with that ‘just’ and you followed her reason(ing): you did the same.

            • a simple observant
              2009-10-20 at 21:17

              sorry, i missed a ‘t’. you are righT.

            • 2009-10-20 at 21:47

              It seems to me you might be taking this a bit too seriously. Now, let’s get this back on topic.

              • a simple observant
                2009-10-20 at 21:53

                ‘too seriously’ is your measure for what you can take from me and is also a great REASON not to think about it a little bit deeper. i understand. but wait, if this was off topic why did you allow the comments and answered them? god, i have problems with logic, definitely.

              • 2009-10-21 at 04:09

                Thank you for the cognition. However, you get a yellow card for off-topic. Please stop rambling.

              • a simple observant
                2009-10-21 at 08:36

                i had already stopped, before you asked.
                have a nice day.

              • 2009-10-21 at 18:20

                You just couldn’t stop. = Red card; Good bye.

              • a simple observant
                2009-10-21 at 13:30

                i had already stopped it, by my own self-determinism. you needn’t ask me for what was already done. please don’t clean a clean.

  23. a simple observant
    2009-10-20 at 20:58

    can anyone tell me how can someone be free and attached to a method at the same time?

    • Margaret
      2009-10-21 at 01:05

      Hi Simple Observant, There are several examples. Perhaps the most well-known group in which people are “free” but are attached to a method is: science. Scientists are free to believe whatever they want, but they must apply the “scientific method” in a strict, rigorous and “very standard” fashion, in order to truly consider themselves scientists.

      • a simple observant
        2009-10-21 at 08:46

        hi Margaret,

        scientists developed psychiatric drugs, scientology condemns these. how can you call them or anyone else free when ‘only scientology can free a spiritual being’? again, i don’t get this logic.

      • a simple observant
        2009-10-21 at 13:34

        hi Margaret,

        mine was a retorical question. but thank’s anyway.

  24. a simple observant
    2009-10-20 at 21:13

    the real name behind the ‘fair game policy’ is ‘now i have a reason to be a criminal’. amazing logic! it is logic, indeed. for my little me, this is one more evidence that reason is not the supreme ability of a free being or any godlike state.

  25. a simple observant
    2009-10-20 at 21:20

    i have a question regarding supression, not SP’s:

    if you find a comment not so relevant for a post but the words in it are valuable, would you eliminate it for not fitting in the rules, or would you keep it because it’s valuable for others to read it, despite not conforming to your guidelines? (i know the answer, i just want to make you think about this).

    • 2009-10-20 at 21:51

      Any off-topic stuff goes in the “general comments and quedtions”-section.

    • 2009-10-21 at 04:08

      Off-topic comments and questions goes… here.

      • a simple observant
        2009-10-21 at 08:50

        i don’t see my erased comments in there.

        • 2009-10-21 at 18:33

          This is the last comment by you for a while. Take at least a weeks break (with the red card you just got, I will delete any comment you leave for one week).

          • Alex
            2009-10-22 at 16:27

            Thanks for red carding him. That was getting monotonous.

  26. Maria
    2009-10-20 at 21:26

    “can anyone tell me how can someone be free and attached to a method at the same time?’

    Sure. Do you ever follow a recipe to bake a cake? Does using the recipe make you any less free?

    • a simple observant
      2009-10-20 at 21:58

      yeah, i know one can be enlightened and find the first and utmost truth even while baking a cake. even by totaly ruining it. why the religions then? (your logic really amazed me, this time).

    • a simple observant
      2009-10-20 at 22:08

      sure. when i am a baby, i copy others. when i know how to do it, i do it my way. what first teaches us what we need, later stop was from reaching higher.
      i’m done on this cooking topic.
      thank you for your attention, for your answers and for being [(t)here]!

  27. ListenToLRH
    2009-10-21 at 05:36

    Listen to this clip about what a SP really is, which is part of the “About Rhodesia” lecture at this link:


  28. Thalkirst
    2009-10-21 at 10:45

    Geir, it is true thar LRH wrote a lot of insightful policies on justice (like HCO PL INJUSTICE as quoted above and A NEW HOPE FOR JUSTICE), but the same man ordered to automatically declare all those who “blow” from org or SO staff in HCO PL LEAVING AND LEAVES.

    Any Int Base staff members who is offloaded is automatically declared as an SP, and this is an LRH order. So it is a little bit more than one SP that we are talking about.

    And if you look into HCO PL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES you will find several things that mandate an instant SP declare.

    And there is the power he gave to ALL CMO Messengers – they can send anyone to the RPF with a single order and without a fair trial.

    • 2009-10-21 at 18:31

      As much as I disagree with the wholesale declares – whether it was by LRH’s order or not, we need to differentiate an SP case and a person administratively declared SP (see my other answer elsewhere here).

  29. StarsAwait
    2009-10-21 at 20:29

    Good call, his goal is enturbulation. Here’s a nice LRH quote I’ve found to help us all see through the confusion when briefing Scientologists:

    “I’ll tell you the clue to all this. Every time you try to enter order or enter order (better stated) into a confusion you blow off some confusion.

    “Now, you think it’s—people object because you’re trying to make them more orderly.

    That’s not true; you’re just seeing the confusion come off. So if you just remember this as a rule, a lot of things get explained very rapidly.

    “You try to make things more orderly and everybody objects to what you’re doing. They don’t object to what you’re doing at all. That’s just some of the confusion coming off.

    “You try to enter order and some confusion will blow off. All you have to do is ignore the confusion and enter more order. And that’s the secret back of control, the reason you have to control a pc.”

    — L. Ron Hubbard
    Excerpted from the lecture Preliminary to Engram Running delivered on 3 January 1959.

  30. Ted
    2009-10-24 at 13:13

    These conversations did not come up simply because you opened a blog spot. They have been part of the undercurrent of Scientology all along. And you see that people have differing opinions. The subjects of SP and Ethics/Justice are hot topics.

    Per the PL that listed Ethics gradients, expulsion is below SP Declare. So while your suggestion to skip Declares and go right to expulsion makes sense, it does not follow Policy.

    What I find that doesn’t make sense is why hang onto people whom one finds criminal or incompetent? In business we just let them go. Then we fill the position with someone else qualified to handle the job.

    Lastly, if it is true that there are administrative SPs, irrespective of actual case condition, then about everyone here is an administrative SP for participating in this blog. Yet, I can tell by the quality of responses that just isn’t true.

    I stand by my original statement: There is but one type of SP. Not only do you know them by their products, but you know them by folder analysis: thick ethics file, no TA, no observable case gain. I have audited a few. They are auditor killers.

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: