Home > Church of Scientology, Scientology philosophy, Thoughts > More on SPs and declares

More on SPs and declares

(Updated 2009-10-25. Update at the end of this blog post)

The discussions have been plenty on my recent posts regarding SPs.

I have come to the conclusion that LRH must have had two different definitions of “an SP”:

  1. The SP case – the real suppressive person with continual intentions to do others harm
  2. The person administratively declared as an SP by the church

The first is covered mainly in Scientology philosophical technology (bulletins, books, lectures, etc.). The other is covered mainly in Scientology administrative technology (policy, executive directives, etc.).

The first is handled by Power Processing if not Clear or by NOTS if above Clear (as far as I have been able to deduct having talked to one of the most senior tech people on the planet). The second is covered by a set of administrative steps (the A-E steps) to get the person back into the good graces.

A person declared an SP is not necessarily a Suppressive Person case. If he is indeed a suppressive case, then the needed case handlings (Power or NOTS) would have to be done as part of step A where he would have to show case gain.

It is important to differentiate between the two definitions of “SP”, as a person declared a Suppressive Person could take the declare to mean that he is an SP case and thereby take on a wrong item (a technical term used in auditing [Scientology counseling]). Obviously Hubbard should have used two different terms.

I think it’s any organizations right to throw out and shut the door on anyone breaking basic organizational rules. If someone was acting destructive inside a shop, I think it’s perfectly alright for the shopkeeper to keep the door shut for that person. But to label him suppressive is another matter…

As only Power Processing or NOTS would really handle an SP case, it seems technically impossible for anyone being Clear and having completed OT VII to be an SP – as by then he is way passed Power and the NOTS case is gone. If it is indeed possible to be a real suppressive having completed OT VII, there seems no remedy in sight for that person, and that would violate the notion that the Bridge is complete for all.

If the church comes out saying that just one OT VII or VIII is a real suppressive, they would have to admit that either the tech is wrong or the tech is misapplied in the church. With the thorough Security Checks all through OT VII, the extremely detailed OT VII EP check and the mother of all Security Checks before OT VIII, it is quite an admission to say they got all that wrong when they let a real SP through OT VIII.

Even if they would say that an OT VII or VIII was only administratively declared suppressive, they would have to answer a few pesky questions of how come they could let such a person through with all the filters in place.

The church is liberally declaring people they don’t like as SPs. These days they need external enemies much as the former Soviet Union needed to invade Afghanistan to forge a unifying purpose for its population. The church is cracking and external enemies are serving nicely as glue.

There is talk about an SP declare coming down the lines on me. Although I haven’t seen one, I would welcome a declare and would post it here if or when it comes.

2009-10-25: Conclusion so far

After much debate about this blog post, I have reformed my viewpoints. I hereby present my conclusions thus far.

Given that policy allows a person to be declared an SP without verifying the person to be a real SP case, I cannot see other possibilities than these three:

  1. LRH used two definitions of SP: A) The SP case and B) The administratively labeled SP
  2. LRH used two different concepts: A) An SP and B) A declared SP. And a different definition of “declare” was used than what is found at Mirriam Webster’s
  3. LRH allowed people to be declared SPs without ensuring they ware actual SP cases and letting justice policies handle the mis-declares afterwards. This is a violation of Presumption of innocence and thus parallels Napoleonic law

In any case, the system makes it very likely that a person in need of help is given the most serious wrong item imaginable, the worst of all possible misjustices.

My current viewpoints:

  1. None should be declared an SP who is not a factual real and raving SP by a thorough investigation before the declare
  2. An organization has the full right of kicking rule-breakers out. This is called expulsion in Scientology and should be used on those who are not factually an SP but is non the less unwanted in the organization. There is no need for excessive name calling or giving people wrong items

In any case; there should be no forced disconnections. A person should be free to associate with whomever they want. A declared SP (a real one) serves as a warning to others and not an order that people disconnects from him/her.

Advertisements
  1. sherrymk
    2009-10-21 at 21:59

    This is right on Geir. I’m also waiting for my declare so I can post it. But what I find interesting is a comment that an OTVlll recently made to me. This is a person who is under the radar for now(along with 6 other OTVllls). She observed that the “enemy” the church is fighting is not the “psychs”, the governments nor any “external forces”. The “enemy” the church is “fighting” are the Scientologists!It is quite an astute observation. What a view, huh?

    • 2009-10-22 at 06:38

      Yes, that is quite interesting. They are putting a lot of force and effort behind fighting their own.

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 21:43

      To me it is funny how THEY CREATED the enemy that they are now going the effect of!!

      Kinda of sounds like the PTS tech on don’t create antagonism doesn’t it?

  2. Tom
    2009-10-21 at 23:15

    Hi Geir,

    I am not so sure it is that cut and dry. I certainly understand the administrative ethics gradient you refer to, and the need for it to maintain group discipline. On the “case” side of it, there may be other factors at play to consider. First, the number of SP declares issued by the “church” are way out of proportion to the 2.5% datum. It is extremely odd that approx 95% of the “Old St. Hill” staff (from when LRH was the ED) have been declared SP! From these observations one might get the impression that the product of Scn is SPs!

    My opinion on this is that different cases go through different manifestations as they rise up scale to self-determinism and pan-determinism. As one begins to confront some of the mass and forces contained in the reactive mind, one starts bumping up against dramatizations etc that have been dormant for quite a while. I personally believe that this band (that LRH dubbed the “No interference Zone” is extremely important to deal with thoroughly and fully. Otherwise you get “OT’s” dramatizing, and with in some cases fixed (stuck) tone levels. My experience is that there are no short-cuts to honest case gain, the way out IS the way through, and responsibility is the key to all cases. If people go chasing “status” rather than ability, you get, well…..take a look around.

    Keep up the good work.

    • 2009-10-22 at 07:09

      Much of the SP declares on the Old Saint Hill staff has been done by the new management from 1981 and onward.

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 15:31

      Hi Tom,

      I really liked what you posted here. It makes a lot of sense.

      It is like if DM is sabotaging the upper levels with unnecessary sec checks and other arbitraries, some of the people trying to go free can have problems. When those people start trying to put order into the scene or handle the out-points THEY are attacked as counter-intention or enemies.

      It really does look like an SP at work from the top and throwing out a lot of misdirectors.

      And he is doing a good job at creating chaos too. That is the product of a merchant of chaos.

  3. Ackerland
    2009-10-22 at 00:18

    > Although I haven’t seen one, I would welcome a declare and
    > would post it here if or when it comes.

    As far as we have heard, Scientology does not publicly declare people SPs nowadays, due to the bad PR. Only internally.

  4. Alex
    2009-10-22 at 00:30

    This reminds me of Captain Blye from Mutiny on The Bounty.

    Of course you are not a true SP, you are a great guy and you are doing a lot to reform the COS.

    I saw an LRH reference where LRH says something about dilettante-ism and how some people only want to be on course 2 nights a week and that on the other nights they are bowling. Then he talks about routing out the SP’s there. It is from the HCOPL Indicators of Orgs. I hate to say it but it is that kind of fanaticism that turns me off about Scientology.

    If LRH also says what is true for you is what is true, then how do you make these two idea align??

    Maybe I am a dilettante. If you are not allowed to be one, then they should say that upfront and see how far that gets them.

    Captain Blye had a mutiny and lost his ship and I think was exonerated later by the courts. We will see what happens to DM.

    • 2009-10-22 at 07:11

      For me it is true that LRH should have used two different terms.

  5. Ted
    2009-10-22 at 00:42

    Geir:

    Thank you for your write-ups and confront of the situation with Scientology and the church.

    You write:

    “I have come to the conclusion that LRH must have had two different definitions of “an SP”:

    The SP case – the real suppressive person with continual intentions to do others harm
    The person administratively declared as an SP by the church”

    While I have agreed with most all of what you have written in the past, on the matter above I believe you are being reasonable.

    There is but one type of SP clearly defined by LRH in his talks and written words.

    Declaring Clears and OT’s of any level to be suppressive is certainly far removed from any Ideal Scene LRH ever mentioned. And, technically impossible without getting into additional rationalizations and reasonableness.

    • 2009-10-22 at 07:13

      My conclusion is based on the fact that there are two different handlings for the two types of SPs. To me it is logic rather than reasonableness 😉

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 15:42

      Hi Geir and Ted,

      It makes no sense to me to have an administrative “SP”.

      Either a person is a true SP or they are not. Lots of things can be done with someone who is momentarily entheta or low producing without calling them an “SP” if they are not a true SP.

      If in fact it is true that LRH meant to do this, I believe it to be a mistake. IMHU if he meant to do this, it really creates a way for the COS to manipulate and create havoc.

      Witness what is happening now with it in the hands of DM.

      • 2009-10-22 at 15:49

        Obviously LRH intended to declare people based on the offenses and penalties covered in a few policies. The policies are written to make that possible. There is however no direct correlation between doing a suppressive act and being an SP case, or blowing staff and being a real SP or routing out from Int and being a 2,5%’er. The set of 12 characteristics do not necessarily apply to those that are (correctly per policy) declared an “SP”. It is quite obvious that there is not a 1-to-1 mapping here. The fact that DM brings the declaring of SPs to a whole new level does not change this.

        • Alex
          2009-10-22 at 21:46

          Are you saying that if a person does a whole bunch of good things and then is found guilty of an SP act that you think it is ok to declare him an “administrative SP?”

          I do not think that is a good idea.

          • 2009-10-23 at 19:20

            A person does a whole bunch of good thing, then refuses to disconnect from his girlfriend who recently was declared an SP and is himself then declared. Sure.

            • Alex
              2009-10-23 at 22:54

              Ha Ha!!
              Happy Birthday Geir!
              ARC,
              Alex

        • Margaret
          2009-10-23 at 03:54

          There is another way of looking at this. LRH might have wanted to create an environment where individuals who joined staff or the S.O., would only do so if they were EXTREMELY sure (and self-determined) about what they were doing. And by making the penalty of LEAVING staff or S.O. so severe (i.e. expulsion and freeloader debt), this would weed out those who were half-hearted about joining staff and S.O.

          Not horrible in theory.

          However, the REALITY is, there are no real measures taken to ensure that potential staff and S.O. recruits know exactly what they’re getting into (i.e. no one sits down and explains that there is basically no pay, that being on staff/S.O. is highly regimented, there is an RPF, potential freeloader debt, etc. etc.)

          In fact, it’s just the opposite — new recruits are heavily pressured to join RIGHT NOW, and the whole truth of what they are actually getting into is actively kept from them.

          That’s why, in my view, any reform in the “SP declare” policies would also need to be accompanied by a reform in policies which bring about “stat pushing” (including stat pushing in getting new recruits).

          If that happened, I don’t even know that having a severe penalty for “blowing” from staff or S.O. is such a bad thing, but it would need to be accompanied by sanity and full honesty brought to the recruiting measures.

  6. emldubu
    2009-10-22 at 02:31

    Oh, no, please Brere Bear, please don’t throw me yonder briar patch!

  7. All the young dudes
    2009-10-22 at 05:41

    Great post. I always thought that too,about OTs getting declared, how could that be?
    Then again I made it through OT3 not being clear and had to do an “advance program” before doing OT4 and OT5.

  8. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-22 at 06:25

    It seems to me that you are talking about two different cases!
    The first is anti-social, because he is a careless rule-breaker, which cannot be trusted to be in the church until he has done his A-E steps. The other one is also anti-social, but is something more than mere rule-breaker, he doesn’t appreciate decent work, he like to steal, and rape, and invalidate, etc. The step A-E doesn’t have any meaning to him, because he is a suppressive person. It is obviously in my personal interest to disconnect from a suppressive person. But it cannot be mandatory, or forced upon me, because if that is the case I have no possibility to verify if the person is a real suppressive, or if the declare is a trick to cover up something!

  9. ExKane
    2009-10-22 at 07:03

    Why do you think Hubbard would place two categories of people under the same title, especially one as vindictive as Suppressive? It seems like a very big deal to call both those definitions SPs when only one fits the original definition of Suppressive. Why would he say that when a Scientologist “does not return within a reasonable length of time an automatic Declare is to be issued” (his words) unless he actually meant that the person is therefore Suppressive?
    Knowingly labeling someone a criminal, evil-doer when he is actually not is an act that abhors justice and individual rights, as well as being extremely destructive.

    • 2009-10-22 at 07:17

      I don’t know why he used the same term for the two definitions (and neither do you). There are many words in most languages that have parallel and sometimes conflicting definitions. But as I’ve said, I think LRH should have used two different terms.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-22 at 07:59

        There are tons of words in languages that have conflicting meanings. But how does that help one make sense of a deliberate over-generalization of an extremely vindictive term upon Scientologists? It seems extremely malicious on his part, IMHO.

        • 2009-10-22 at 08:01

          I understand your opinion.

  10. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 07:29

    If you have the OEC, there’s a policy letter making this differentiation in Vol 1. Unless it’s an HCOB… and how you handle a student on course for example if he has less than X TA divisions per X time (which I’ve never seen or heard of it being done, it should be done). That’s not a justice action. Then there’s administrative declares which deal with overts and that’s justice.

    Then there’s the 12 characteristics but this last kind isn’t applied rigidly in an org setting, but I could be mistaken on that. I know it’s not applied in practice in an org.

  11. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 07:50

    Alex :This reminds me of Captain Blye from Mutiny on The Bounty.
    Of course you are not a true SP, you are a great guy and you are doing a lot to reform the COS.
    I saw an LRH reference where LRH says something about dilettante-ism and how some people only want to be on course 2 nights a week and that on the other nights they are bowling. Then he talks about routing out the SP’s there. It is from the HCOPL Indicators of Orgs. I hate to say it but it is that kind of fanaticism that turns me off about Scientology.
    If LRH also says what is true for you is what is true, then how do you make these two idea align??
    Maybe I am a dilettante. If you are not allowed to be one, then they should say that upfront and see how far that gets them.
    Captain Blye had a mutiny and lost his ship and I think was exonerated later by the courts. We will see what happens to DM.

    These seemingly conflicting ideas align, as one – “What is true for you,” etc. – is for public consumption, and the other – ‘KSW’-fanaticism – is for consumption once a person is firmly inside Scientology. As the person goes even more deeply into Scientology, he will discover even more, and I don’t mean things that are on the Grade Chart. Reading here, it’s startling to see how many good people really are not aware of big chunks of the subject to which they’ve given so much dedication and hard work.

    As for Captain Bligh, it was LRH who wrote in the 15 August 1969 PL, ‘Discipline, SPs and Admin’, that:

    “I’m not interested in wog morality…

    “…if anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate or stop Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday School teacher.”

    The fanaticism began with LRH.

    Read Larry Brennan’s legal declaration. He was in a position to know, and he states that LRH ran things – from behind the scenes – at least until 1984.

    • 2009-10-22 at 08:00

      There were parallel powers from around 1981.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-22 at 08:36

      “I’m not interested in wog morality.” I find this alarming. I’d be very suspicious of LRH supplanting “wog”/common morality with his own, given for example his aforementioned indiscretion regarding labeling people as SPs and declaring of one such group that “No amnesty may ever cover them.”

      • Margaret
        2009-10-23 at 04:05

        “‘I’m not interested in wog morality.’ I find this alarming.”

        Why ExKane? We ARE dealing with a religion. I’m sure the Dalai Lama is not “interested in wog morality” either, when it comes to the internal ethics/morality/justice of his monks.

        Scientologists and LRH have the right to come up with a higher level of personal ethics and morality, if we deem it necessary.

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 22:01

      Dear Briana,
      I have to agree with you. It would be hard NOT to come to your conclusion. This is something I have never liked about Scientology and feel the planet as a whole would rail against.

      MAYBE if Scientology was ran TOTALLY standard it could be fun and a winning game. But when it is ran in such an irrational way and you are ENFORCED to be “all aboard” it really sucks. I never wanted that from Scientology and I have done a lot in Scientology. Why do they want us to be so gung ho about it?? I mean there are things to be gung ho about. Just don’t enforce me to be gung ho when I don’t feel it!! Why can’t we just do it to the degree we want??

      Thanks for the communication,
      Alex

  12. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 07:59

    Another way in Vol 1 is the E/O looks at thickness of a type of folder and takes a certain type of action. Another way is when no tech, ethics, and admin change is noted, and what to do about it. These fall under SP actions and they’re indicators for an E/O to use. Don’t want to be too specific because I don’t have the refs here. But from what I saw of HCO PL’s, Ron had his head on straight regarding ethics and he set up a sane system. The problem is ethics has been so misused and it goes back to COB creating robotism and PTSness through arbitraries.

    • John Peeler
      2009-10-30 at 18:02

      From HCOPL, May 11, 1965
      ETHICS OFFICER HAT

      The purpose of the Ethics Officer is “To help Ron clear orgs and the public if
      need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done.”

      The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are
      stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing Ethics Codes.

      […]

      FILING

      Filing is the real trick of Ethics work. The files do all the work, really.

      Executive Ethics reports patiently filed in folders, one for each staff member,
      eventually makes one file fat. There’s your boy.

      Call up a Court of Ethics on him and his area gets smooth.

      Whatever report you get, file it with a name. Don’t file by departments or
      Divisions. File by names.

      The files do 90% of the work. When one file gets fat, call the person up for Ethics
      action.

      […]

      POLICY

      […]

      Be as sudden and swift and unreasonable as you like. You aren’t there to win a
      popularity contest.

      Make Executives report all those Ethics items they should. Make them write their
      orders and send you a copy. Make your Comm Centre give you the responses for
      pairing with the copies. File carefully and call the lightning down on the person who gets a fat Ethics file.

      It’s an easy job. Mostly admin. But so is all Intelligence work. The files do the
      job if you make people report and if you file well yourself. And when you feel exasperated and balked and feel like taking it out on somebody, do so by all means.

      Whoever heard of a tame Ethics Officer?

      The sanity of the planet is all that is at stake.

      L. RON HUBBARD

  13. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 08:02

    Actually the E/O looks at several folders possibly, can’t remember, anyone got the quote and reference?

  14. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-22 at 08:04

    As far as a real supressive goes, from my understanding it has to do with doing too many overts over time. I don’t know exactly what’s handled on NOTS etc but it would, from my understanding, take lots of O/W-auditing to get someone like Hitler to become somewhat normal.

    I guess the CoS has turned into some kind of dictatorship like North Korea where nobody dares to say the truth. There are lots of good people in N. Korea but they are controlled by the government, same in CoS.

    I also think that nobody will react until they are treated wrong. As long as everything is fine for them (e.g. celebrities) they will not care as much as when something negative happens to them personally.

    I looks like DM will go on until somebody stops him. How to do it? It’s been going on for decades now.

    • 2009-10-22 at 08:26

      And for decades there has been people trying to handle it from the inside. Time to gather for a real revolt.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-22 at 08:45

        Luckily this is one thing that I think 99% of the people on this site can agree with. DM must be stopped. But how? What does this “real revolt” look like? We need to stop sitting on our hands and make a plan.
        Right now, the only conceivable way to do so as far as I can see is to alert the FBI (or other agency) of the SP Hall. However, I talked with Tory Christman (ToryMagoo44 on Youtube, ex-OT7) about this and she said that at one point the FBI in fact did go there, but DM of course intimidated everyone into telling them that they were there of their own accord.
        What to do..what to do..

        • 2009-10-22 at 09:07

          Forget about FBI raids. DM has control over Int Base and can window dress. There are a few ways to go about the termination of his power:

          1. Find financial crimes and expose them (misappropriation of funds etc.)
          2. Get the OT VIIs and VIIIs to stand up (like Mary Jo and Sherry) – I guess around 200 would turn the tide.
          3. Get more Int base staff to go public.

          Only the first is a fast route.

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 22:06

      Good post Hubbarddiane,

      It is real to me that some people will not do anything about it until it affects them.

      I think it has to do with a person moving up the dynamics enough to want to fix their own religion or if they personally have been bashed about, then that motivates them too.
      ARC,
      Alex

  15. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 08:06

    ExKane :Why do you think Hubbard would place two categories of people under the same title, especially one as vindictive as Suppressive? It seems like a very big deal to call both those definitions SPs when only one fits the original definition of Suppressive. Why would he say that when a Scientologist “does not return within a reasonable length of time an automatic Declare is to be issued” (his words) unless he actually meant that the person is therefore Suppressive?Knowingly labeling someone a criminal, evil-doer when he is actually not is an act that abhors justice and individual rights, as well as being extremely destructive.

    By combining “SP” as sociopath/criminal/insane with “SP” as someone who has administrative/technical/political disagreements, anyone who does not “cooperate” with “LRH [or “Command”] Intention” is depicted as criminally insane, and their views are to be discounted, and the – so categorized person – “should have no rights.”

    This is similar to the combination of the meaning of “entheta” as being a traumatic experience or upset, which is then combined with the idea that “entheta” is anything that puts LRH or Scientology in “a bad light,” even if its true.

    Thus good people – who simply have disagreements – can become “SPs,” and truth can become “entheta.”

    These combined definitions go back to the mid 1960s, or earlier, and IMO it was not an accident. It’s deliberate manipulation with language, IMO.

    • 2009-10-22 at 08:29

      You have good points here. If you would temper the emotion and drop your own opinions in it, your points could even come across to current Scientologists.

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-22 at 09:48

      But if “Scientology” is put into bad light and it’s true, then it isn’t Scientology.

      But I agree that those definitions must be differentiated very clearly. SP should not be used for somebody who have a different opinion, it should be used for someone evil and sinister. And be used quite sparingly.

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 22:13

      Hi Briana,
      I am a Scientologist and your points make sense to me even with the emotion. Your logic is hard to argue with.

      As to what LRH’s intentions were for these writings I am not sure. I have had enough wins to know that Scientology IS an important and very helpful subject. It is possible that LRH was solving a problem with these issues for THAT point in time. LRH was willing to cancel some of his policies that later proved unworkable. I find it hard to believe that at this point in time he would not consider toning down some of these earlier policies.

      For me at least, these hard core “administrative SP’ policies are not true for me, so I chose to reject them.

      🙂
      Alex

  16. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 08:11

    Briana, that is the correct type of fanatic to be. The thing is you think we don’t know the whole story and you think if you just tell us enough information than we’ll see the light. I’ve seen it all. But it’s you that don’t have the information. You’ve never experienced case gain or you wouldn’t be saying these things. Some day, thanks to us, you’ll get actual case gain and know what I’m talking about.

    You can go on and on in mystery, or feigned mystery, about why we listen to LRH the lunatic. It doesn’t matter, it’s you who are in the dark here.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-22 at 08:59

      StarsAwait, I must say it’s statements like these that make me agree with Jason Beghe when he said the most dangerous thing about Scientology is the certainty gives the Scientologist that they are right.
      “Some day, thanks to us, you’ll get the actual case gain and know what I’m talking about.” Do you know how many religions claim that one day everyone will belong to that religion and “see the light”? And that if they don’t then they be eternally damned? It’s probably safe to say every single one.

      • John Peeler
        2009-10-30 at 18:09

        Right about this. I currently live with several southern Baptists, and they are trying to get me to go to their Church and get baptised, otherwise, I won’t be “saved.” They also believe that every other religion has it wrong and in the end, these people will not go to heaven because they weren’t saved. It’s not even a point of argument.

    • Tomas
      2009-10-22 at 09:25

      ´”You’ve never experienced case gain or you wouldn’t be saying these things.” – how do you know that? I find myself Briana Voltas comments very intresting and I have had lots of case gains during my time in scientology. I think it is good to know all this and I dont think that LRH did a mistake or didn`t know about the difference between the two definitions on SP that Geir wrote about. I think LRH was a man, very gifted, but still a man.
      My strategy in life at the moment is to concentrate on positive things, positive postulating and doing fun stuff in life, but at the same time have a basic knowingness about the “dark side” of LRH and CoS history.

      • Alex
        2009-10-22 at 22:20

        Hi Tomas,

        I like the fact that you are willing to look and evaluate data on your own. That is personal integrity.

        I had a cognition today that in order to make the tech and policy your own, you really have to confront it and think it through and see if it makes sense to you. You cannot blindly follow things and really be self determined. Faith isn’t part of Scientology is it??
        ARC,
        Alex

    • Nomnom
      2009-10-22 at 18:15

      Ad hominem?

  17. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 08:55

    StarsAwait :Briana, that is the correct type of fanatic to be. The thing is you think we don’t know the whole story and you think if you just tell us enough information than we’ll see the light. I’ve seen it all. But it’s you that don’t have the information. You’ve never experienced case gain or you wouldn’t be saying these things. Some day, thanks to us, you’ll get actual case gain and know what I’m talking about.
    You can go on and on in mystery, or feigned mystery, about why we listen to LRH the lunatic. It doesn’t matter, it’s you who are in the dark here.

    *You* wrote that LRH was a “lunatic”; I never stated any such thing.

    I think LRH was a very unusual and complex individual.

    I’m not going to derail this thread by arguing with you about whether or not I experienced case gain. That’s an old gimmick and I’m not falling for it. Nice try though.

  18. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 09:16

    Ok Briana, sorry I derailed the thread, thanks for putting it back on the rails. ExKane, I guess no one can have certainty on any datum at any time then. Continue.

    • Alex
      2009-10-22 at 22:27

      Hi Starsawait,

      I like very much a lot of things that you write.

      I may have missed something but it doesn’t sound like you are granting much beingness to Briana and Tomas. I think that everyone should be entitled to have an opinion and they can be accepted or rejected a we choose. But, we have to let people communicate their reality without invalidation as long as they are civil. I found Briana’s comments (the last few here on this thread) to be very logical.

      ARC,
      Alex

  19. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 10:11

    Tomas just do your strategy, I’m sick of arguing.

    • Soderqvist1
      2009-10-22 at 12:50

      Soderqvist1: Your case gain is not dependent upon being cognizant about what has been going on behind the scene. Ron has said so at least between the lines!

      Messiah or Madman?
      Page 55 –56: There was a great old fellow in China named Wang the Innovator.
      And Wang the Innovator practically turned China upside down and right side up again, and upside down, and left it that way. But he organized a lot of systems…he laid down the laws that are going to be this way and that way. He laid them all down very nicely and he had them all patterned out very beautifully. But he himself didn’t kind of follow this. He was a wild man. Nobody could ride up along side of him. He had more women than he could count.

      Just because I did something like Scientology, people think I’m supposed to he perfectly controlled, and a perfect gentleman. That’s a non-sequitur.

  20. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-22 at 13:06

    I have come to the conclusion that LRH must have had two different definitions of “an SP”:

    1. The SP case – the real suppressive person with continual intentions to do others harm
    2. The person administratively declared as an SP by the church
    – Geir Isene

    Sorry, Geir. I totally disagree. And I am alarmed and disappointed to wake up and find this here today. Are you going down the Q&A road with the rest of the squirrels who feel that “Ron made a mistake”, or “Ron left out part of the Bridge which I just discovered”?

    Forgive that I cannot quote exactly – I lost all my materials when I left. But I do know that one of the stated purposes of ethics – INCLUDING SP declares if necessary – was to exert more pressure upon the person NOT to dramatize his bank than his bank could exert upon him to dramatize. This in line with the blanket purpose of ethics which is to hold the line until tech can be gotten in.

    LRH knew exactly what he was doing when he gave us “a WORKABLE technology”.

    You carry a lot of altitude and impact, Geir.

    I hope you will re-think this.

    ARC,
    Nom

    • 2009-10-22 at 13:15

      How else could you think with the two different resolutions for an SP (Power/NOTS and the A-E steps)?

      I am not saying it is wrong (except that he should have clarified that a person declared an SP may not necessarily be an SP case).

      Are you saying a declared SP (correctly per LRH policy, that is) absolutely must be an SP case?

      • Ted
        2009-10-22 at 14:24

        Declaring a person an SP, administratively as you put it, is a political move. It is not a case move. Nowhere does LRH say that there are political motives in Scientology, but there are. And there are great efforts to dominate and control.

        By originating two categories of SP, you are trying to make sense of something that does not make sense if the technical materials and stated intentions of LRH and are correct.

        Scientology is a workable system; it is not a perfect system. This is one of those imperfections.

        If you drop the SP label and think in terms of sociopath and psychopath that might give an expanded view.

        Many good people have been declared because they would not robotically toe the line. That does not mean they get no case gain, that their TAs do not move, or that they are stuck in an incident of some long gone yesteryear.

      • Alex
        2009-10-22 at 22:34

        I think ideally a person declared an SP should be an SP case.
        If he is not and does wrong then just get him off the lines as you suggest earlier.
        Why totally villify a peson with that title if he IS NOT an SP case?? Including all the penalties that surround it!
        Unless LRH was trying to solve some other problem for that time period.

        Now we have a new problem, where THAT SOLUTION has become the NEW PROBLEM.

        Do you think that LRH would have the sense to modify his own policies?? I do.

        • John Peeler
          2009-10-30 at 18:25

          There are good people and there are bad people. This is not something new. Insane people who murder and do destructive, illegal things should be sued, and the established justice system will deal with that. Scientology really has no business in the justice system. Every other mainstream religion in the world uses the justice systems already in place, and guilty people either go to jail or get fined. In the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. If Scientology wishes to ex-communicate mambers, so be it, but there should be no enforced disconnections from anyone. A lot of real crimes have happened within the CoS and never got dealt with in a real court of law because Hubbard wanted all ethics and justice matters to be contained and dealt with within the Church. There is even policy that Scientologists cannot sue other Scientologists in outside courts, thus the Chaplain and E/O posts in orgs. IMO, Scientology should stay out of the justice arena.

          • Margaret
            2009-10-31 at 22:54

            Actually, John, most religions have their own internal justice system.

    • Nomnom
      2009-10-22 at 18:26

      In the history of Scientology, it is clear that Ron made mistakes – and he stated as much. Most he corrected, but what about the ones that he didn’t? I agree with Geir that there are two uses of the term “SP” and the lack of distinction is problematic.

    • RJ
      2009-10-23 at 08:06

      I agree with you Nom. I’ve seen a lot of efforts to “improve” the tech or “clarify”(read alter) certain points such as the “Golden Age of Tech” for example.

      The reason why many of us are not currently on lines is that we can’t get straight unaltered Scientology within the Organization itself because it has been perverted and twisted by…well…by an SP!

      Yes Virginia SPs unfortunately do exist and when they do exist within an organization they wreak havoc. Exepli grata the Church of “Scientology”. The fact is Geir if the correct ethics policies were applied we wouldn’t be having this discussion and we both be happily moving on to the next level on the Bridge and someone like David Miscavige would have been turned over to the proper authorities, after being duly comm eved for his myriad of crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors.

      As far as I’m concerned this whole discussion about SPs is verging on PC and I don’t mean preclear!

      Yes there are currently lots of people who have wrongly been labeled SP. True! There are also lots of preclears who have had withholds pulled when what they really needed was an Int Rd or needed a list repaired!

      But the way you repair it is by *correctly* applying Scientology. Not by being inventive and saying something like SPs don’t really exist and they are just a figment of the Ol’man’s imagination!

      No you make sure that when your declare someone suppressive that he or she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing suppressive acts and that these acts did actually suppress or stop the forward progress of Scientology!

      Even in doing the above you are going to make errors because “to err is human”. So you make damn sure that the person has recourse if he or she feel they have wrongfully been declared!

      This is the thing among others that is missing from Miscavige’s injustice machine.

      Why, because the lil’ ^&$#% can never admit he’s ever been wrong!

      • 2009-10-23 at 19:38

        You would still run into people being correctly declared per policy – because they did in fact commit suppressive acts that did stop Scientology – but they are still not necessarily SP cases. I can easily see this as a possibility. Can you not?

        • RJ
          2009-10-23 at 20:45

          Yes but they are “suppressive” according to policy demonstrably by their actions but may not necessarily be technically suppressive.

          However, to me this is splitting hairs.

          Also it is being somewhat theaty wheatie, like the guy isn’t really an evil psychotic serial killer. It’s just because he had such a rotten childhood!

          Sure the guy may be acting suppressively because he has a wrong list item or he may really be PTS but it isn’t ethics job to sort out the guy’s case. Its job is the protect the group by getting ethics in, in the organization so the Tech can be standardly applied. Not Q&A about terms.

          Also the person under standard Scientology justice procedures has many opportunities to appeal this decision.

          He can petition, ask for a Board of Review, request a comm ev or if he or she has had one ask for a review com ev.

          Also before Miscavige altered Ethics policies A-E was relatively a simple action. Now like everything else Miscavige has done it has become a long endless road to nowhere even if the person were allowed to do A-E which in most cases is arbitrarily denied.

          Not only that but most people “declared” suppressive these days don’t even know they’ve been declared. No Goldenrod, no comm ev, no nothing, they just tell their friends or relatives to disconnect from this person contrary to what that lying sack of excrement Tommy Davis says. So the guy is basically left in Scientology’s or more accurately Miscavigology’s version of purgatory.

          • 2009-10-23 at 21:28

            You confirm my point of it being a big difference in being declared a suppressive and actually being a suppressive case.

            That settled, the problem is that most Scientologists I know does not recognize that difference. They would actually conclude that the person disturbing sessions on two occasions are in fact a raving psycho. To the declared suppressive, I believe that is more important than splitting hairs.

            I am a great believer in differentiation. This is a subject in need of differentiation.

            The fact that DM has taken this into a whole new realm of political declaring people is a matter we could possibly all agree is disgraceful.

            • Alex
              2009-10-24 at 04:14

              LRH says in HCOPL 24 FEB 1969:
              “This then is the primary breakdown of any justice system- that it acts on false reports, disciplines before substantiating and fails to confront the accused with the report and his accuser before discipline is assigned, or which does not weigh the value of a person in general against the alleged crime even when proven.”

              • John Peeler
                2009-10-30 at 19:40

                In the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. Scientology should use the justice system like everyone else and let proper authorities deal with the maniacs.

      • Nom de Plume
        2009-10-24 at 03:46

        Hey, RJ –

        Nice post. Yes. Well put, as always.

        I do see Geir’s point, he’s a very smart guy. But like you say a bit further down, I agree that it is “splitting hairs”.

        And, if the old man told me, IN WRITING, to knock off disturbing sessions, and I “forgot” and “accidentally” did it again – not once, but twice more…

        I mean…give me a break. 😀

        DM has corrupted and disgraced the whole of LRH’s legacy, not just the ethics and justice aspect of it.

        There is a very precise way to run out 3D engrams. And maybe some day, it will get done. But IMHO, questioning LRH right now sure ain’t it.

        • RJ
          2009-10-26 at 01:41

          Thanks Nom.

          Yeah sorta like three strikes and you’re outta here.

          No b…bu….but Ump I promise I’ll hit a home run this time!

          Sure sure whatever 🙂

          I totally understand, Nom to me the topic is like a non-issue but sometimes ya gotta parallel what the mind or in this case minds is doin’

  21. Maria
    2009-10-22 at 13:47

    It’s really three-fold. The purpose of ethics is to create a safe environment in which auditing can occur. Suppressive actions destroy that safety and imperil the organization’s existence. A second purpose is to weed out or correct staffs that are incompetent or destructive. It deals with counter-intention. The third is a set of case phenomena that prevents the person from getting any gains from auditing. All three can complete specific steps to restore their status to good standing and the third type is only fully handled on the OT levels. The problem comes in when policy is misapplied, i.e. Sea Org purposes/policies applied to public, orders not based on policy, etc. LRH’s assumption is always that staff are very well trained, apprenticed and in good case shape and that policies are being applied correctly and constructively. The offenses and penalties in Intro to Scn Ethics were changed starting around 1982, with dozens of infractions added from policy letters and issues that are intended to be effective on staff, not public. Eg. KSW infractions are high crimes for admins and execs (per the policy letter), not public, yet they are on the list as effective on everyone. As well, the distribution of policy is ignored with little or no distinction between those that apply to staff, public or Sea Org. Eg. 2D policies for Sea Org applied to public, where clear policy expressly forbids interference with 2D.

    • 2009-10-22 at 13:50

      Very valuable. Thanks.

      • Maria
        2009-10-22 at 14:13

        You’re welcome. Just a quick additional comment: In my opinion, the real problem is A=A=A when it comes to the written/recorded materials. Verbal tech policy applied to LRH opinions, speculation, ideas, research information, philosophical statements, instead of to the VERY specific training and use of ACTUAL TECHNOLOGY AND THE EXACT PROCESSES. It goes way off the rails and then you have no free speech. Policy = Technology = Opinions = Books = Orders = Advices = Targets = Codes = God = Truth = A = A = A. Hmmm… Could it be that there really is a reactive mind?

    • Alex
      2009-10-25 at 05:04

      Great point Maria.

    • John Peeler
      2009-10-30 at 19:47

      Scientology IMO, should allow people to go to proper authorities and take civil actions without restraint or penalties, such as SP declare. DM might have been reported to proper authorities long ago had Scientology stayed out of the justice game. He might even be sued and in jail by now. But no, per the Suppressive Acts PL, this is a huge no no and matters like this need to be kept internally unless “approved” of course, and who would approve that? How many things have been kept internally within Scientology justice which really should have been taken up by the proper authorities or the courts? I couldn’t even imagine.

  22. 2009-10-22 at 14:20

    There is no such thing as an “SP” as defined by L Ron Hubbard. It has always served as a political label in Scientology, used to discredit a dissident so that no other Scientologists will listen to their ideas and thus, infect the group.

    Real human beings don’t act that way.

    • 2009-10-22 at 14:25
    • Maria
      2009-10-22 at 14:39

      I want to come and join your world where real human beings don’t do anything vicious or destructive! A few real human beings that actually got into positions of power: Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao — they ordered the deaths of millions of people. There are real human beings that are in institutions for the criminally insane or have been executed: Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway (the Green River killer), Son of Sam, etc. They cannot help themselves. They are compelled to commit atrocities. Unchecked, they commit wholesale atrocities. In the United States there are real human beings that commit all kinds of vicious acts. They are declared so by the courts and they are jailed or executed.

      • 2009-10-22 at 14:59

        I never said that people never did anything vicious or destructive.

        I said that “SPs” don’t exist as LRH defined them. The 12 social and anti-social traits, the “Two Types of People” essay, and others where L Ron Hubbard defines the “SP” do not reflect any real human being that has ever walked planet earth.

        Think of this: Is it possible that there are other reasons Josef Mingele acted the way he did – besides the ones that L Ron Hubbard wrote about?

        I know, it complicates things immensely to think that way. It is much easier to “know” that Josef Mingele was “stuck in some mad, howling yesterday” and that explains why he did everything he did.

        The feeling that you “know” the cause of what you see as evil gives you comfort.

        But the truth is not always comfortable.

        And L Ron Hubbard’s technology on “SPs” is not true. Although it does give comfort for those who believe it.

        The question is: Do you want to feel comfortable, or do you want the truth?

        The two are rarely the same.

        • Maria
          2009-10-22 at 16:26

          That’s a shame I misunderstood you — it would have been a great world to live in.

          For the record, I don’t really care WHY an SP acts the way they do and really the Scn WHY is not useful unless I have to audit that person. Society has its labels too and our criminal system doesn’t much care why either — they still are jailed and executed.

          p.s. How do you know that I am comfortable? That’s quite an assumption.

          • Maria
            2009-10-22 at 16:42

            p.p.s. Alanzo — you would love Korzybski and Nietzsche and their many discussions on abstraction versus truth versus reality. Wikipedia has great summaries of both of them. Lots of food for thought.

            • Alex
              2009-10-22 at 22:37

              You are funny Maria!
              Alex

        • graceful
          2009-10-22 at 17:05

          very true. it has always been easier to catalog someone than to understand the person. in fact, our world is pretty much the mirror of that, everywhere.
          like someone around here already said don’t know where, Hitler truly believed he was doing the best for mankind. LRH found some people so puzzling, including himself, that he couldn’t help his obsessive need of clearing them. he just couldn’t deal with mistery and with ‘not knowing’ and so he constructed a system of know-it-all to defend himself from misteries (different people). thus the obsession with wor(l)d clearing, so obsessive that going through an MU became a crime which is the deeply rooted crime of an SP. MU’s cause overts. the SP doesn’t want to clear them (in Scientology one is not free to choose NOT TO KNOW something) and his aberrated non-curable diseased character is in fact the result of too many MU’s. it’s so dark his unknowingness it is impossible to clear, to shed light on it. LRH went so far on this that he had to drag as many people as he could, like other individuals self-proclaimed god-sent special messengers. hitler was like that. and god has always been the greatest motivator for people doing the most hideous things to others. it seems like god is the greatest criminal. poor god. it must be hard to be a projection of all we deny in themselves.
          there is a reactive mind. there is an associative mind that is pretty right, ironically. there are useful hurtful memories. there are analogies and lines of thought and one person’s opinion is no less valid by being full of emotion. scientologists do not confront emotion and the confront they talk about is an obsessive rationalization of it. because there is a reason for each emotion, they just don’t admit it. reason and emotions are not separated. spirit and body likewise. the rest is the separative culture that led us to the severe inability to sit on anothers chair for being too unconfortable.
          confusing? yeah, mindlike. the mind is only clear(ed) to a certain point. funny that most probably the word less used in scientology and by LRH was LOVE. dangerous programming, this one.

          • 2009-10-22 at 18:29

            You seem to believe that you know what people think and intend. LRH in particular. It’s a slippery slope.

            Your comment also has some sweeping generalities that does not stand opposition.

            • graceful
              2009-10-22 at 19:39

              whether you want it or not, a lot of generalities do apply because humans have so many common traits, probably more than one would like to admit. i only know what i observe, experience and feel since i know myself quite well (still a long walk to go in a neverending path though), it’s not difficult to know others in many things.
              it is just my opinion.
              the world lacks ADMIRATION. that by itself would simply handle a lot of things. but i am an idealistic romantic dreamer, totally aberrated. i know my logic is different and reason will not grasp it all.

              • 2009-10-22 at 20:29

                With generalities like “scientologists do not confront emotion”, you are over the line. Reign yourself in.

          • Overdriver
            2009-10-22 at 20:36

            “Hitler truly believed he was doing the best for mankind”
            Do not be ridiculous.

          • Overdriver
            2009-10-22 at 20:46

            graceful, the application of only the those things which are laid out in the Scientology handbook even without the 3rd dynamic part of it would greatly help mankind. I would not even want people to associate themselves with Scientology just to apply these things. This could be a free gift to them.

  23. Briana Volta
    • 2009-10-22 at 14:44

      = Non sequitur

      • ExKane
        2009-10-22 at 17:28

        I believe Briana is making the point that LRH used the term SP as a political tool. In the case of Paulette Cooper, my guess is she was declared because of the threat she posed to the organization. It’s very difficult to listen to Paulette Cooper speak or hear her story and believe that she is truly “suppressive.”

        • 2009-10-22 at 18:34

          I know all that – but it was still a non sequitur.

          The breakdown:
          Alonzo: No SPs exist by LRH definition.
          Me: Mengele?
          Briana: What about Paulette Cooper?
          A first year student of logic: What?

  24. graceful
    2009-10-22 at 15:07

    LRH seems to have been an SP as well because just like Hitler he thought of homosexuality as an aberration and made a whole lot of techniques to ‘handle’ it.

    • 2009-10-22 at 15:40

      A rather serious breach in logic. Let’s see:

      Hitler is an SP and thought homosexuality an aberration. LRH thought homosexuality was an aberration. Therefore LRH was an SP.
      Therefore most people in the 1800’s was SPs?

      • graceful
        2009-10-22 at 16:02

        well, if i think a little bit and if you think a little beyond that logic (that was clearly not mine), i don’t remember most people doing what Hitler did nor building the belief system LRH built. in practical terms he aimed for the exclusion of these aberrations. isn’t he supressing a person’s sexuality by doing that?

        • 2009-10-22 at 18:23

          Eh? Most main stream religions have gone down a homophobic path.

          • graceful
            2009-10-22 at 19:25

            yeah, including Scientology.

          • ExKane
            2009-10-22 at 19:49

            Does this matter? Just because, for example, Buddhism had a misogynistic period in its early formation does not excuse modern misogyny.

            • 2009-10-22 at 20:31

              Excusing is not the point. The point is covered in my other answer here.

  25. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 15:10

    Maria :You’re welcome. Just a quick additional comment: In my opinion, the real problem is A=A=A when it comes to the written/recorded materials. Verbal tech policy applied to LRH opinions, speculation, ideas, research information, philosophical statements, instead of to the VERY specific training and use of ACTUAL TECHNOLOGY AND THE EXACT PROCESSES. It goes way off the rails and then you have no free speech. Policy = Technology = Opinions = Books = Orders = Advices = Targets = Codes = God = Truth = A = A = A. Hmmm… Could it be that there really is a reactive mind?

    Scientology, as a subject, is secretive.

    I think even you would be surprised if all of the secretive and shadowy nooks and crannies of the subject of Scientology were brought to light.

    For example, only non confidential HCOPLs are in the Green Volumes, confidential HCOPLs are not in the Green Volumes. Scientologists are routinely told that all Policy can be found in the Green Volumes, when this is not so.

    One problem with Scientology is that its founder created a secretive subject, and a secretive subject with more loose ends than a badly knitted sweater.

    Scientologists struggle to make sense out of Scientology anyway.

    Scientology can be understood but, I think, if you were to hold the entirety of the *subject of Scientology* up to the light and take a good look, it would not be what you want dearly want it to be.

    You can reform it if you wish, but then it’s not Scientology any more, it’s *Reformed* (“altered from Source” [gasp!]) Scientology.

    • 2009-10-22 at 15:43

      By stating the “Scientology is a secretive subject”, you could conclude that similar levels of secrecy would make other subjects secretive; Such as politics, governments, Catholicism, Buddhism, police work, the court system, etc. Do you know what percentage of Scientology is treated as secrets (percentage wise)?

      • Anon
        2009-10-22 at 18:02

        Quantitatively only a small percentage of Scientology is secret, maybe less than 1%, because LRH wrote a huge amount of books on the subject, which are non-confidential.
        Qualitatively however i am not so sure, considering that more than half of the bridge consists of the OT levels, which are secret.

        • 2009-10-22 at 18:36

          Nah, there are two parts of the bridge. And for the amount of pages on the grades vs. the OT levels, nope – the lower bridge wins easily.

          There are far more secretive subjects than Scientology.

          • ExKane
            2009-10-22 at 19:47

            To say that there are far more secretive subjects is not relevant.

            • 2009-10-22 at 20:30

              It goes to show that calling Scientology a secretive subject may dilute the concept of “secretive subjects” beyond what most people would understand with the concept.

        • Another Surfer
          2009-10-22 at 22:15

          I think to the non-scientologist, that which scientology holds secret (rates as confidential) is perceived to be scientology’s Genesis story.

          While the Genesis story of scientology might comprise less than 1% of what Hubbard wrote, that 1% is quite significant.

          • 2009-10-23 at 19:24

            The genesis story is The Factors. The conception that something else is a Genesis story is BS.

      • Alex
        2009-10-22 at 22:40

        good point Geir!!

      • John Peeler
        2009-10-30 at 20:07

        I can only add what I’ve observed. At Gold, in the PDO library, there are binders and binders of the LRH advices that are all confidential to anyone who didn’t have Int clearance. These are the dispatches from Hubbard to people on the base such as Big P (Pat Broeker), DM, etc… All signed with either an “R” or “*”, when he was “clearly” off Management lines. As well, there are a ton of past GO and current OSA policies that will never see the light of day unless leaked or court ordered. And now, we have the binders and binders of COB traffic orders on the base that are to be M9ed and *-rated by all concerned crew. These are all confidential, even to those people on the base that the order wasn’t meant for. There is a “hidden data line” in Scientology. This is true.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-23 at 04:37

      While I do agree with Geir that the *subject* is not really secretive, the organization today, is, by most standards, secretive e.g. lack of financial transparency, lack of openness/honesty about LRH’s final advices/notes/etc., dishonesty about stats, all Sea Org policies are confidential, CST is by-and-large a hidden organization from the church membership, etc. etc.

      While I do like the fact that almost the entire body of the subject (tech and policy) is open to anyone interested, there’s plenty of room for improvement/reform in the secrecy aspect of the CoS — particularly the Sea Org.

  26. Smeso
    2009-10-22 at 19:11

    Briana,
    What confidential HCOPL have you heard about?
    As far as I know, there are no confidential HCOPLs.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-22 at 20:45

      Smeso, there are. Search on http://www.Scribd.com and elsewhere. Also, this: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/targets-defence.txt
      Here, Hubbard advocates “taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media” as well as of “key political figures,” as well as “depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.”
      For a very deep look into the “dark” side of Scientology regarding these issues of multi-layered meanings and confidentiality, I suggest this; it is replete with data: search “Brainwashing Manual Parallels” in Google and click the first link (.pdf). “Subtract the Brainwashing Manual and you have a different subject. Missing would be the pervasive practice of deception. There would be no front groups, no manipulation, no propaganda. Missing would be the cynical exploitation of “reason,” commonsense, and good intentions of the unsuspecting. There would be tolerance for others’ right to disagree. The charade of conformity beneath a banner of “think for yourself” would cease.”

    • Margaret
      2009-10-23 at 04:39

      All Sea Org policies are confidential. The group that RUNS the church — the Sea Org — while operating on HCOPLs, is also operating on confidential SO policies.

      • 2009-10-23 at 19:33

        Which is a bad idea…

        • Margaret
          2009-10-24 at 02:23

          Exactly.

  27. StarsAwait
    2009-10-22 at 20:34

    The HCO PL’s state there is no hidden data line, so even if there were confidential HCOPL’s, the OEC cancels them, don’t worry about it.

    • 2009-10-23 at 10:44

      This does not make sense. “Hidden data line” cancels nothing. A lot of policies have limited distribution: OSA is notoriously a reserved department, run by HCOPLs for OSA personnel only not included in the OEC vols. Many policies that deal with Marketing and PR have also a limited distribution, LRH “advices” and orders also have a very limited distribution. I would say: there is not a “hidden data line” on the things you should know, but there are lot of hidden and secretive data and activities that you should not know about. Per policy.

      BTW, that doesn’t surprise me and I consider it to be the norm for business to be run that way, The Coca Cola Company doesn’t “Remimeo” all its policies, orders and strategies with all its employees and consumers, or it won’t last long.

    • Paolo
      2009-10-23 at 18:14

      I can confirm there are several Confidential HCOPL’s in Scientology. You can find some of them on the net. LRH explains how to deal with attacks, how to smear attackers, etc. Besides Confidential HCOPL’s there are Confidential Osa Orders that again talk about attacks, defense, etc. On top of all these, there are Confidential LRH advices that in practical are despatches LRH sent to management during the early 80’s. They are kept confidential at Int and in those despatches LRH criticizes mission holders, businessmen, people who disagreed with the church,etc. Although I am not against the tech of scientology and I somehow still like the subject I have to admit that when I read the LRH advices I got a grim picture: the general tone of the advices is 1.5-2.0. The advices are still considered like policy in Upper Middle Management. If you want to reform the church, you’ll have to cancel most of such documents.

      • Alex
        2009-10-24 at 04:17

        What ever happened to the hidden data line??

  28. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-22 at 22:16

    isene :
    How else could you think with the two different resolutions for an SP (Power/NOTS and the A-E steps)?

    Do I need to “think with it” right now? Have I created an Org the size of old St. Hill, and trained and audited a gazillion people to VGI’s, so that instead of being the bozo who flubs his Non-E, I am deciding from a position of power?

    In other words, until there is EVER another Org which actually ran with – oh, hell, I’d settle for just 80% – standard pure LRH ethics, tech and admin IN for more than one shaky week at a time before everything fell out again, how do we KNOW what “needs changing”?

    What’s the point of this? I don’t understand.

    But I will say that you sure seem to have a lot of enthusiastic support so far.

  29. Briana Volta
    2009-10-22 at 23:01

    Smeso :Briana,What confidential HCOPL have you heard about?As far as I know, there are no confidential HCOPLs.

    I’ve searched for links that have some confidential HCOPLs, but which exclude any description or content of upper Grade Chart materials – which is prohibited on this forum.

    There are descriptions of how Scientology was crafted by its founder, with front groups, then a well advertised – and identified *as* Scientology – very visible part, then materials usually made known only to Scientologists who have been “hatted” as Scientologists, then materials known to staff mainly, then materials (not necessary confidential, but for selected persons only) for certain staff and org execs, then confidential issues, including confidential HCOPLs, then more highly confidential issues that have only “LRH” at the end, or “R” or, in some instances, when very sensitive, no name.

    Scientologists are told that all Policy is in the OEC (Green) Volumes, and this has never been the case. There is policy, and other information, know-how, etc., in HCOPLs that are confidential, and these have always been very much in use, as have other more highly confidential issues, of which – if anyone is curious – I’ll try to hunt down some links.

    There has always been a “Hidden Data Line” in Scientology, at least since 1959.

    For starters, while I search for other acceptable (no OT materials described, etc.) links, have a look at these two. Go into each document, press ‘Control’ and then ‘F’ and do a find on the word, confidential. That should take you, one by one, to every place where that word appears. Some will be HCOPLs.

    The first is the 1974 ‘Information Full Hat’:
    (link removed due to URL reference to confidential upper level material)

    The other is the 1988 ‘President of the Church of Scientology Checksheet’:
    (link removed due to URL reference to confidential upper level material)

    (Note: Although links were removed, I can verify they support the posters point. Geir)

    • RJ
      2009-10-23 at 23:05

      None of these “support the posters point” because these secret oh so hidden PLs and Directives can be seen if the *Scientologist* has the fortitude to ask for the applicable reference, thus there is no hidden data line. The only thing is if want to see them you sign a bond, just like you do when you sign up for the OT levels.

      The fact is there are so many soi-disant “Scientologists” who never ask for the applicable reference, either because they are lazy ass dilettantes or they are so used to following orders!

      The fact is just like any organization on Earth from MacDonalds to CIA there is and will always be information that is restricted and on a “need to know” basis.

      To say otherwise and make of issue of it is either being naive or hypocritical!

      • 2009-10-23 at 23:08

        I referred to the point that there are indeed confidential HCO PLs, which was the original question.

        Whether there is a good reason for confidential HCO PLs is another matter.

        • RJ
          2009-10-23 at 23:57

          That’s my point Geir Volt Vis or whatever his screen name is, is as far as I’m concerned turning a non-issue into some kind of issue.

          I believe I already posted the fact that there were Confidential HCOPLs earlier. Just like there are Confidential HCOBs and other Directives and Orders.

          Christ I used to work for the GO for gawd sakes and seen tons of them! It’s like so what?

          Which was my point! So what!

          Just because there is a small percentage of HCOPLs, Directives and Orders are restricted that anyone can see by the way if they have the jam to demand to see them and sign a non disclosure bond, does not mean that Scientology is this some secretive clandestine cult.

          Unless of course you are writing about Miscavige’s altered version of it.

          It means that there are certain issues, just like there is as I wrote, in any organization on Earth, that are not BPI!

          • 2009-10-24 at 11:09

            And we agree fully.

  30. Jim Logan
    2009-10-22 at 23:38

    Geir,
    There is one case condition of ‘Suppressive Person’. The handling steps are, if needed, A-E as per PL 23 Dec 65 the first step of which is to cease committing present time continuous overt acts so one can make a case gain. The case condition is handled at several points, Power is on, OT III is another and finally NOTs has handling steps.

    The fact is people have been mis-declared. Even a person guilty of an SP act, per the above policy, if found to have contributions which outweigh the act, must be absolved.

    There aren`t `two types of SP`. There are myriad mis-declares. There is capricious and false use of the label. There is egregious misapplication of the body of material on PTS and SP.

    This flagrant misuse of these labels is done expressly to invalidate the true data. It is being done by a real SP, who dramatizes the traits and case condition, and who has PTS beings connected to him who make mistakes and act in a crippled debilitated manner.

    There are people wrongly declared, that`s it.

    • 2009-10-23 at 19:31

      A person refusing to disconnect from another declared SP will per policy himself be declared. Never mind he is not an SP case.

      • Jim Logan
        2009-10-23 at 20:39

        That may very well be. It doesn’t mean either one is an SP. It means they are ‘declared’ an SP. BIG difference.

        • 2009-10-23 at 21:23

          My point exactly. Big difference.

          • Jim Logan
            2009-10-23 at 21:44

            OK. But there is one actual SP case. Plenty of mis-declares.

            • 2009-10-23 at 21:48

              Yes, there is only one definition of an SP case. There are two definitions of SP (the case & the declared – not necessarily the same – a non SP case can be rightfully [per policy] declared, while an SP case may not [yet] be declared). Differentiation between the two is important. Nuff said as I feel I am reiterating madly here.

              • Jim Logan
                2009-10-23 at 22:14

                I got what you said the first time. There is ONE def of SP. Those declared who aren’t SP, are mis-declared.

              • 2009-10-23 at 22:18

                (comment belongs elsewhere – WP is confused)

                Sorry for beating a dead horse – but are you saying:

                1. The policy is correct and that a person disturbing sessions on two occasion is definitely an SP case, or
                2. The policy is wrong and should not include such a reason for declaring an person SP?

                1 or 2?

              • Soderqvist1
                2009-10-24 at 07:08

                It seems to me that there are different kinds of SP!
                What they all have in common is that they enturbulate more than they contribute.
                Persons making too much noise in the Canteen area is not on the same level of suppression as Doctor Josef Mengele, and thus declares should respect individual differences!

                David Miscavige has changed a lot in Scientology after the founder has passed away, and is thus an easy target for criticism, but I have found a declaration by Larry Brennan on Scientology-cult.com/ home site which has shown that L. Ron Hubbard has pulled the strings behind the scene both before David Miscavige, and with puppet David Miscavige on the Scene!
                http://www.scientology-cult.com/component/content/article/16-larry-brennan/36-declaration.html

              • ExKane
                2009-10-24 at 12:25

                Wow, thanks for sharing this Soderqvist. Eye opening. I suggest that anyone considering reading it should read the entire thing.

              • Maria
                2009-10-24 at 14:20

                A suppressive person is one who suppresses. That’s the simplicity. The rest is sorting out what to do about it.

                They may be a 2.5% SP, they may be under the influence of suppression, it may be momentary, they may be upset, they could be angry, they may be restimulated, they may have misunderstandings, or they may be a criminal type who just can’t restrain themselves from doing wrong.

                Whatever the reason, they all need be restrained enough that others can get on with what they are trying to do in peace and relative safety. Step one is restrain, step two is sort out what and why (also making sure there is no injustice,) step three is rehabilitate.

                Every organization has some method of dealing with suppression and their own wording of it. And lots of people who have never studied any Scientology do disconnect from “assholes” in their lives, because they are tired of being invalidated and suppressed.

              • 2009-10-24 at 19:41

                I believe giving a disturbing person a seriously wrong item will not help him sort himself out.

              • Maria
                2009-10-24 at 19:51

                Well I certainly agree with you on that! I’m just relating what I know about how the subject seems to work. In my opinion the whole area is SERIOUSLY mishandled. i.e. there is no reason to get into overkill on people! The restrain step doesn’t have to be an SP declare and it sure isn’t supposed to be the first step in 90% of the situations.

              • 2009-10-24 at 21:36

                I believe that LRH wanted to accomplish the following by binding the “antisocial personality” and the “antiscientologist” in the same title and threatening people with SP declares.
                1) Scare people by threaten them of being declared, to have them more submissive.
                2) Shock declared people into being more submissive, and in case they don’t bend, 3) push a wrong indication on them to bring them down-tone (Black Dianetics).
                4) Clean the wrong indication for those who submit to the Scientology Justice System (friends), keep it and enforce it on those who don’t (enemies) by having others to disconnect and fair-game the declared.
                5) Black-PR the declared people and antiscientologists by associating them to the stated negative characteristics of SPs (sociopaths).

                “It is totally fine to push them down into apathy [Black Dianetics] because only we can pull them up” LRH talking about psychiatrists.

                “If you use any Black Dianetics use it on those who push the subject out of sight” LRH in PDC20

                Otto Ross, Class XII and Ron’s Auditor, reported about Ron sending him on a mission to cave-in a squirrel group by staging the OT III incident to them. [Black Dianetics in use directly by Ron].

                Therefore LRH did use Black Dianetics on perceived enemies, and my conclusion is that LRH intentionally used the same “SP” word for rule breakers, antiscientologists and true SPs as a form of control (by fear and disconnection) and wrong indications (Black Dianetics) on them.

              • RJ
                2009-10-25 at 09:22

                Right and if Otto said the moon was made of Green Cheese and the Moon Landing was a hoax you’d believe him?

                Also, you do the same fine job many critics do and that is take an obscure line out of a recorded lecture, book, PL, HCOB, whatever and quote it out of context which is why many critics are the other side the coin to Miscavige because this is exactly what he does!

                No surprise!

                Keep this up and you could be the next COB 🙂

                So Christianity has its antichrist, Moslems have infidels and we have the “antiscientologist” or SP which happens to be used to describe people who seek to stop or suppress Scientology or Scientologists. So your point is?

              • 2009-10-25 at 10:34

                RJ; I admire your fervor. You bring an important dimension to the debate.

              • Maria
                2009-10-25 at 16:26

                I think that this debate process is excellent. It forces people to really REASON and THINK about what they are / have been studying/believing, etc. instead of superficial acceptance. Here’s a quote from a 1951 Dianetic Auditor Bulletin: “Any process which helps an individual to reason and work and live better is a valid process.” This is a good and valuable process on this blog.

                I welcome the critical analysis, the questioning, examination and many viewpoints. It’s so helpful and so eye opening. When I first got into Scn oh so many years ago, me and my friends did exactly this and we got so much more out of our understanding of the philosophical materials and applications.

                I also like the debrief aspect of it, especially finding that I am not alone.

                Since this is a discussion about the practice of declaring SPs, here is a list of original Saint Hill staff members and their current status. 97.5% have been declared. http://www.upperbridge.org//shill.htm

              • Alex
                2009-10-26 at 23:25

                Hi Maria,
                I feel the same as you on this. I wish the COS had done something like this in it’s courses. I feel LRH wanted free thinkers not robots. As long as the COS continues being so dictatorial in it’s application of the tech I don’t see it ever making it as the kind of organization that will really clear the planet.
                ARC,
                Alex

              • RJ
                2009-10-28 at 03:25

                A belated thanks Geir, since it took me quite a while to get down to your ack!

                You got close to 300 comments to this one Topic, which is amazing!

                Hotter than a ACP on full auto 🙂

              • Overdriver
                2009-10-24 at 22:15

                Maria, what you write is correct if there is real and good justice. It is OK to disconnect in person on your own determinism. But I personally knew people who were declared and I had to disconnect from them even without me seeing any reason for this outside that they were declared by a paper full of generalities…
                And it is really interesting that the Church wants you to hand in precise reports (about others – I bet this is a violation of human rights as well in many cases) but when it comes to Ethics Orders you can read only wild generalities.
                On the other hand I’ve heard that SP declares does not come so “easily”.
                And although I repeat myself, I find it sorrowful that although disconnection policy is in affect in the Church, which is clearly a violation of human rights (either the person is a real SP, either not), they are pushing their Human Rights campaign fully on the internet. Human Rights (being this good or bad) are even for SPs at present although if they did something wrong legally they should go on trial. If the Church does not like the laws then propose better laws… That is, take real responsibility.
                What I see right now that in my local org ethics wants to control even my thoughts. And that is dangerous. And that is the point where I see things are really going into the wrong direction. The Church unfortunatelly need sheeps… And if I do not change my thoughts than sooner or later I myself will be declared I guess… I do not want to live in a world like this where you must be afraid of suppressive Soviet type of “ethics handlings”…

              • Alex
                2009-10-25 at 05:15

                To me the question remains as WHY declare someone (who is guilty of some high crime and obviously NOT a true SP) an SP?
                They could be handled some other way to get them off the lines without associating them with such a wrong indication. Especially when you look at all the subsequent out PR and creation of enemies caused by such actions. It is an obvious destructive policy to me regardless of who created the policy.

  31. 2009-10-23 at 04:30

    Good discussion, Isene.

    You’re pretty good at this.

    So when are you going to bust open your own discussion board????

    • 2009-10-23 at 19:33

      Patience, Alonzo. Patience.

      It’s a matter of getting a bit of spare time to do it 😉

  32. Margaret
    2009-10-23 at 04:43

    Geir, Here’s a suggestion for a topic at some point: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a Sea Org?

  33. StarsAwait
    2009-10-23 at 10:53

    Geir where you at? Time for a second moderator.

    • 2009-10-23 at 19:39

      It’s my birthday 😉

      It’s party-time today!

  34. 2009-10-23 at 20:23

    To Nom and others who seems outraged that I could possibly imply that maybe LRH had two different definitions in mind when he talks about an SP:

    If there is indeed a 1-to-1 mapping between a person rightfully declared by LRH policy and that person being a real SP case, then a person that has made loud noise in the vicinity of a session two times (with a one week suspension of training after the first instance) is a real 2,5% suppressive. Are you sure about that?

    A person that blows staff and goes off to Borneo and is totally out of reach for two years is also then a real SP – i.e. he has then the majority of the 12 suppressive characteristics. Are you sure?

    BTW: There are plenty of words in Scienology that have more than one definition. This is nothing new.

    • RJ
      2009-10-24 at 08:03

      Geir I hope you paaaaartiiiied down dude for your Birthday 🙂

      Anyway, I was not outraged with your premise that there are administrative and technical SPs. In fact I agree with your astute observation in the matter. A piece of Goldenrod saying the person is SP doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a 2 1/2 percenter. It means his or her actions have suppressed Scientology in some way ,i.e. committed Suppressive Acts or what are considered High Crimes in Scientology.

      Then again there is what I call reverse ethics where the person is declared “SP” because he or she sought to prevent RTC from squirreling the tech or demanded that they apply correct policy other than justify their actions by claiming it is “command intention” which really means what Slappy wants Slappy gets ya mug.

      Anyway the fact is the SIC as like to call him or Squirrel In Charge has perverted ethics to a point where good people are being declared and the incompetent and evil rise to the top, like scum. Sorta like most Governments.

      • 2009-10-24 at 11:35

        As stated in my comments elsewhere, I believe expulsion should be used instead of SP declares in 99+% of the cases.

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-24 at 11:59

          You mean, without disconnection? I agree. Disconnection is a violation of human rights. Discrimination on religious opinion. Maybe that was the reason the Church spokesman denied in connection with the Truth Rundown that disconnection exists…

          • 2009-10-24 at 19:32

            Forced disconnections are disgraceful.

        • Alex
          2009-10-25 at 05:24

          How about a great Case Supervisor who has helped tons of thetans and then makes some gross auditing error that flaps and costs the COS $100,000? This persons value is great and even if guilty of a High Crime or “3 session interruptions” to even expel him would be an injustice in my opinion. The point to me is what is your purpose for doing a justice action? To follow some policy or to accomplish the greatest good and get your goals accomplished?

        • John Peeler
          2009-10-30 at 21:01

          I agree.

  35. Briana Volta
    2009-10-23 at 21:08

    Briana Volta :

    Smeso :Briana,What confidential HCOPL have you heard about?As far as I know, there are no confidential HCOPLs.

    (quote snipped for brevity)
    For starters, while I search for other acceptable (no OT materials described, etc.) links, have a look at these two. Go into each document, press ‘Control’ and then ‘F’ and do a find on the word, confidential. That should take you, one by one, to every place where that word appears. Some will be HCOPLs.
    The first is the 1974 ‘Information Full Hat’:(link removed due to URL reference to confidential upper level material)
    The other is the 1988 ‘President of the Church of Scientology Checksheet’:(link removed due to URL reference to confidential upper level material)
    (Note: Although links were removed, I can verify they support the posters point. Geir)

    I was hoping that the four letter word in the URL would not be a problem.

    To let anyone with trepidation about having confidential material suddenly appear on their screen, the two links which I had provided, when clicked, brought up only the two checksheets noted above, and nothing else. No confidential Grade Chart material would have appeared on the screen if these two links had been allowed. Unfortunately, a particular four letter word in the URL (not immediately apparent) seems to have been enough to make both links unacceptable.

    • 2009-10-23 at 21:31

      Sorry. I’m very stringent on that rule. I am adamant in making certain Scientologists can feel totally safe reading this blog.

  36. Briana Volta
    2009-10-23 at 22:23

    MostlyLurker :This does not make sense. “Hidden data line” cancels nothing. A lot of policies have limited distribution: OSA is notoriously a reserved department, run by HCOPLs for OSA personnel only not included in the OEC vols. Many policies that deal with Marketing and PR have also a limited distribution, LRH “advices” and orders also have a very limited distribution. I would say: **there is not a “hidden data line” on the things you should know, but there are lot of hidden and secretive data and activities that you should not know about**. Per policy.
    BTW, that doesn’t surprise me and I consider it to be the norm for business to be run that way, The Coca Cola Company doesn’t “Remimeo” all its policies, orders and strategies with all its employees and consumers, or it won’t last long.

    “There is not a ‘Hidden Data Line’ on things you should know, but there are a lot of hidden and secretive data and activities that you should not know about.”

    And how has this worked out for Scientology? Is it a sane organization?

    There most definitely is a Hidden Data Line, and you admit as much, but justify it.

    Part of the reason for abuses inflicted upon the membership over these many decades – going back to the 1960s – had been this secretive data. The average member is unaware of this data, yet it influences him.

    Ideas and methods supposedly only to be directed at outside “enemies” have too often been turned inward and used on Scientologists in good standing. This can become a touchy subject as it occurred under LRH’s watch, and seemingly with his approval.

    It’s time to shine the light of day on the subject of Scientology. The secret cult model has produced a paranoid and toxic mind-set, and a paranoid and toxic organization.

  37. ExKane
    2009-10-23 at 23:05

    Geir, do you think that reform of the Church should involve cessation of this practice of purposeful mis-declares and a cancellation of the LRH writings that encourage it?

    • 2009-10-24 at 11:27

      I think declaring anyone suppressive must be made a serious matter – with a full investigation before the declare and not a matter of possibly mis-declaring and then applying administrative measures to clean up the mess afterwards. I think SP declares should only be used on real SPs. Otherwise you get a “presumed guilty” before guilt is established.

      The church should in the vast majority of cases use expulsion and not SP declare.

  38. Jim Logan
    2009-10-23 at 23:07

    The policy is:HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
    Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 MAY 1965

    St Hill Staff St Hill Students

    NOISE

    SESSION INTERRUPTION

    There are many auditing sessions going on at Saint Hill,
    particularly in the area of the huts and the Canteen.

    Persons walking in the vicinity of this area should do so
    quietly.

    Students on breaks should not congregate in this area, and if
    they have to frequent this area, should maintain the utmost quiet.

    Students on breaks congregating elsewhere should keep their noise
    to a minimum, and be particularly careful not to make loud sudden
    noises – loud bursts of laughter, shouting, whistling and noisy
    conversation are definitely OUT.

    As such noises are very interruptive of processing, persons
    making such are to be reported to Ethics. The following penalties
    will automatically accrue; without recourse:

    One report will be a suspension of training for one week.

    Two reports will be declaration of the offender as a Suppressive
    Person.

    L. RON HUBBARD

    The person may very well be DECLARED a Suppressive Person. The policy doesn’t say the person IS an SP case. This is not just ‘splitting hairs’. The policy on SP Acts, 23 Dec 65 R (something) states that a person who feels they are falsely declared can get a Comm Ev. If they can show contributions that outweigh the SP act, they are absolved. SPs, real ones, meet the majority of the criteria for such, laid out in the materials. Misdeclared persons, don’t.

    • 2009-10-23 at 23:10

      So, you agree that a person can be rightfully declared SP per policy without being an SP case?

      1 or 2. Answer, please.

      • Jim Logan
        2009-10-24 at 00:00

        A person can be declared an SP and not be an SP case. In which case, it’s a ‘mis-declare’. In which case ‘rightfully’ declared is moot. I think we are quibbling. People have been mis-declared. They may have committed a violation of the various points where an SP declare is a penalty. In that case, the remainder of the justice actions/procedures should come into play to handle the situation, justly. That is where this goes off the rails. That is when beings who aren’t real SP cases suffer and those forced to disconnect and all the subsequent arbitraries come into play. Introduce on arbitrary, that someone ‘declared’ or someone who commits a high crime violation, is necessarily an actual SP case, and then more arbitraries come in compounding the first one.

        • Jim Logan
          2009-10-24 at 00:24

          This is by no means all of the data on this but a short quote from PL Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity:”Thus there are several possibilities where somebody refuses
          auditing. One has to sort them out in an HGC and handle the right
          one. But HCO by policy simply treats the person with the same admin
          policy procedure as that used on a Suppressive Person and lets HGC
          sort it out. Get that difference – it’s “with the same admin
          policy procedure as” not “the same as”.

          For treating a person “the same as” a Suppressive Person when he
          or she is not only adds to the confusion. One treats a real
          Suppressive Person pretty rough. One has to handle the bank.

          As to (2) here is the real test and the only valid test: Does
          their history of routine auditing reveal any gains?

          If the answer is NO then there is your Suppressive Person, loud
          and very unclear!

          That is the test.”

          Again, the point we’re talking about is that there are factual SPs. There are others, declared SP, that aren’t. Vol One OEC has the original materials on handling these situations, including gradients of handling such as if a person doesn’t threaten or leave ‘Scientology’ despite publicly resigning a position in a church (17 Mar 65 Issue II).

        • 2009-10-24 at 11:13

          Although you didn’t answer my question (“1 or 2”), I will add another question: A person will be a declared SP after disturbing sessions twice – until justice actions come into play etc. LRH made a policy that will most probably result in a mis-declare, then?

          • Jim Logan
            2009-10-24 at 13:12

            LRH wrote a policy to make it an extremely severe offense, a high crime, a suppressive act, to interrupt an auditing session twice. The penalty is a Suppressive Person declare. Look at the PL The Ethics Officer, His Character for the two stages of the EO’s action: 1. safeguard the group 2. rehab the individual.

            If a person commits the above offense on session interruption twice, then it’s a ‘head on a pike’, a severe action, a Suppressive Person declare. What’s next? A Comm Ev. That should, theoretically establish whether or not the act was calculated and knowingly done to suppress. The Comm Ev, and the person (lest he wants to be a ‘clay pigeon), should look at evidences of the guy having helped Scientology or Scientologists. If that evidence exists, he’s absolved. When a person, ‘by some circumstance, has been incorrectly declared’ then he may get a Board of Review to return lost status, etc.

            The offense is stated, the penalty exists, the consequences are spelled out, the remedy is in place. The ‘channels’ are quite firm and it would be hoped, very, very few sessions will be interrupted.

            I’ve answered all three questions. This isn’t sophistry.

            • Alex
              2009-10-25 at 05:36

              This seems like a lot of DEV-T to me. Declaring someone an SP and then going through a comm ev to clear his name.
              Why not just suspend the guy for a year?? That would be a good head on a pike. LRH says if it isn’t true for you then it isn’t true. (at least for you)

              I love LRH and his tech. But I tell you all this heavy ethics and justice shit is weird to me. I believe in orderly progress. I just don’t get all this apparent drama over calling people SP’s who are not! It is Dev-T in my opinion. Maybe I’m an SP??!
              :-0
              Alex

  39. Sam
    2009-10-23 at 23:21

    I know of three definitions: 1. The administrative label of SP. 2. The truly dangerous psychotic (2 ½ percenter). 3. The hidden terminal you locate that provides insight and relief. Perhaps they could be better stated.
    Keep in mind that all of these concepts evolved from the encompassing postulate “survival”. Then the also basic Scientology tools of scales and viewpoints. In general I consider it a being destructive to you or your cause. The 1st definition is a 3rd dynamic concept and application. From the viewpoint of current management and their survival I guess I am an SP as are most of the people on this message board whether declared or not. The current “moral code” of the C of S does not align with ethics (survival). Ideally if tech were in you would get a good alignment of definition 1 and 2. That not being the case is a serious outpoint.

  40. Briana Volta
    2009-10-23 at 23:37

    ExKane :Smeso, there are. Search on http://www.Scribd.com and elsewhere. Also, this: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/targets-defence.txtHere, Hubbard advocates “taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media” as well as of “key political figures,” as well as “depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.”For a very deep look into the “dark” side of Scientology regarding these issues of multi-layered meanings and confidentiality, I suggest this; it is replete with data: search “Brainwashing Manual Parallels” in Google and click the first link (.pdf). “Subtract the Brainwashing Manual and you have a different subject. Missing would be the pervasive practice of deception. There would be no front groups, no manipulation, no propaganda. Missing would be the cynical exploitation of “reason,” commonsense, and good intentions of the unsuspecting. There would be tolerance for others’ right to disagree. The charade of conformity beneath a banner of “think for yourself” would cease.”

    It’s interesting that no where in the above mentioned PDF document (‘Brainwashing Manual Parallels’) is Scientology equated with ‘brainwashing’, which might be assumed by the title; rather, it draws parallels between specific ideas in LRH’s secretly authored ‘Russian Brainwashing Manual’ and “modern Scientology,” with “modern Scientology” being the Scientology of mid 1960s/early 1970s onward.

    The idea would seem to be that somewhere in the mid 1960s, LRH, for whatever reason, decided to begin to use many (not all) of this manual’s ideas on Scientologists, and even incorporate them into the subject itself.

    The remedy suggested toward the end is the deletion of these ‘parallels’ from the subject.

    Its last section, titled ‘Freeing the Positives’, ends optimistically:

    “Examining and ‘sorting out’ the subject of Scientology would be a worthwhile task. Doing so would not only educate as to the details of its dominant ‘dark side’, but also make possible the freeing of what good may be found within it.

    “Amazingly, the true positives of the subject can stand alone, and need not be sullied by any of this. Empirical truth and good ideas are funny that way.”

  41. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-24 at 03:30

    ExKane :

    Here, Hubbard advocates “taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media” as well as of “key political figures,” as well as “depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.”

    That’s bad? Well then, here’s something you can REALLY get huffy about:
    http://www.archive.org/details/the.century.of.the.self
    Watch all 4 segments – then tell me about “depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.”

    ExKane :

    For a very deep look into the “dark” side of Scientology …search “Brainwashing Manual Parallels” in Google…

    And for a look at the REALLY dark side of the world LRH was trying to help us repair, take a look at this:
    http://axiomsun.com/home/video/mind_control_americas_secret_war.html

    and especially, this:
    http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml

    and lastly:
    http://educate-yourself.org/mc/IlluminatiFormulaindex.shtml

    Meanwhile, I’ll stick with LRH, thankyouverymuch.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-24 at 11:48

      To Nom: I simply don’t buy these arguments that diminish one man’s misdeeds by pointing to those of others.

  42. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-24 at 04:10

    isene :
    To Nom and others who seems outraged that I could possibly imply that maybe LRH had two different definitions in mind when he talks about an SP:

    Geir – does some dog keep biting the neighborhood kids because he’s a poorly-trained, non-socialized idiot, or because he truly wants to kill them?

    Doesn’t matter. He gets chained up (and HOPEFULLY, gets Cesar Milan,”The Dog Whisperer”, in to “audit” and correct him so he can once again roam and play free without being a danger to others).

    And if he simply can’t be helped to be a social being, why then…he stays chained up away from others.

    DM has disgraced this whole subject. He has chained up the dogs who correctly barked/snapped at criminals. I think we flow power to that by “itsa” upon it here as to whether or not “LRH made a mistake” (or an omission).

    • 2009-10-24 at 11:29

      I think expulsion and SP declares should be used instead of only SP declares. Mis-declaring people is a serious matter and should not happen – even if policy allows it.

      • Jim Logan
        2009-10-24 at 13:22

        Geir,
        Believe me, I agree that mis-declaring people is a serious matter and should not happen. It will inevitabley occur. Are their remedies in policy? Yes. The difficulty today is those remedies are not available. There is no recourse to real justice.

        The personal security that justice exists, that it is not undermined by false accusations, false ‘findings’ in committees, in KRs, false reports accepted and acted on, the actual machinery establised ignored or a travesty, resulting in people becoming less willing, less efficient, prone to mistakes, fearful and PTS, can only be remedied by a renewed faith in justice.

        That’s what I protest: injustice. Suppressive injustice. No recourse.

        It’s not that mis-declares won’t happen even in a better scene, but we want a scene where there is recourse and justice.

        • Jim Logan
          2009-10-24 at 13:24

          Forgive my typos, circuits spelled things wrong in the above post. Correct `inevitably` and `there`. Cheers.

        • 2009-10-24 at 21:45

          The fact that there is recourse does not justify the push of a so “systematic” wrong indication in the first place.

          In auditing that is never supposed to happen, even thought there are correction lists to fix it.

        • Alex
          2009-10-25 at 05:43

          Nice comments!

  43. because
    2009-10-24 at 04:39

    The Way to Happiness provides the stable data for the game and the 12 plus and negative charateristics would help sort things out in the more complex cases.

    If for instance you have an agreed apon activity/game/operation which has specific rules and behaviors (i.e. a rescue operation or football game, etc.) a mistake or minor infraction dosen’t suppress the activity. It’s when the infraction causes a disruption that if not restricted would cause the attention of the group to go off purpose could be considered suppressive.

    If you are playing a ball game and someone is disruptive you would have a referee remove the person from the field and not allowed back until he will conform to the agreed rules.

    I beleve most people would know who is an SP if the facts of their actions were truly brought to light.

    When the individual entheta begins to influence the groups theta the suppression begins to develop and the “Levels of Ethics and Justice Actions” (chapter 14 of the current INTRO TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS book)come into play.

  44. Briana Volta
    2009-10-24 at 13:21

    RJ :That’s my point Geir Volt Vis or whatever his screen name is, is as far as I’m concerned turning a non-issue into some kind of issue.
    I believe I already posted the fact that there were Confidential HCOPLs earlier. Just like there are Confidential HCOBs and other Directives and Orders.
    Christ I used to work for the GO for gawd sakes and seen tons of them! It’s like so what?
    Which was my point! So what!
    Just because there is a small percentage of HCOPLs, Directives and Orders are restricted that anyone can see by the way if they have the jam to demand to see them and sign a non disclosure bond, does not mean that Scientology is this some secretive clandestine cult.
    Unless of course you are writing about Miscavige’s altered version of it.
    It means that there are certain issues, just like there is as I wrote, in any organization on Earth, that are not BPI!

    Your non disclose bond notion re. confidential LRH issues is a flight of fancy.

    How does someone ask to see something that he doesn’t know exists?

    There are (not on the Grade Chart) LRH materials in Scientology of which most Scientologists are kept uninformed. *It is simply denied*. It’s been that way since the 1960s.

    • RJ
      2009-10-25 at 04:57

      Your first sentence is presumptuous, arrogant belittling and demonstrates a complete ignorance of the subject of security. The fact is that all authorized access to confidential materials require a non-disclosure bond and no, it is not a “flight of fancy” that they do!

      To answer your question. You ask for the policy relating to a specific order or request just like it says in the Policy “The Hidden Data Line”. The policy you claim to know so much about but obviously very little about its application.

      Your flat out assertion in your final paragraph is just flat out wrong. No materials are denied if they are related to a person’s job within the organization!

      As I wrote earlier *all* organizations have materials that are of limited distribution that are not made available to the public in general and even to their staff.

      If this wasn’t so then what would be the point of having security?

      In my opinion you seem to have a double standard in place here, because the fact is that most Scientologists are aware of the fact that certain materials in Scientology are restricted and are only assessable when certain conditions are met!

      As far as “flights of fancy” are concerned you seem to think we live in some kind of Utopia where abuse of information couldn’t possibly occur!

  45. Briana Volta
    2009-10-24 at 13:38

    Margaret :“‘I’m not interested in wog morality.’ I find this alarming.”
    Why ExKane? We ARE dealing with a religion. I’m sure the Dalai Lama is not “interested in wog morality” either, when it comes to the internal ethics/morality/justice of his monks.
    Scientologists and LRH have the right to come up with a higher level of personal ethics and morality, if we deem it necessary.

    The “I am not interested in wog morality,” etc. philosophy of ruthlessness, that “makes Captain Bligh look like a Sunday School teacher,” did not lead to “higher levels of personal ethics and morality.” Quite the contrary. It led to the low road. Consult Scientology’s actual (non PR version) history to see what a mess following the low road brought about.

  46. Maria
    2009-10-24 at 13:48

    You can see the admin application at work on this blog’s comment section. Geir has very specific rules for posting here and seeks to keep comments on-topic. People try to break those rules anyway, and to take the comments off-topic. Some criticize and accuse Geir of being unpleasantly censorious when he refuses their comments or gives them a warning. Some have been given a red card — they have been “expelled” from making comments. Their effort is to derail the intent of the blog/comments. These efforts are probably well meaning, possibly some are not. There’s no way to really know. The point is, if you want to play in Geir’s sandbox, he has rules intended to keep the blog on the track he established. Break the rules = bye bye. And the rest of group heaves a sigh of relief because they want it to be on track.

    • 2009-10-24 at 19:38

      Correct. I do not however label anyone that breaks the rules such as “SP”, “assh01e”, “psychotic” etc.

      • Maria
        2009-10-24 at 20:30

        Quite true and I’d guess its probably because you respect other people, really don’t like ad hom, etc. and have a goal of raising understanding, not lowering it. Makes for a good blog. 🙂

      • Alex
        2009-10-25 at 05:47

        Funny. I was going to suggest that you start labeling problem posters SP’s!!

        That would be a graphic demo of how not to conduct things!
        🙂
        Alex

  47. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-24 at 18:36

    isene :
    I think expulsion and SP declares should be used instead of only SP declares. Mis-declaring people is a serious matter and should not happen – even if policy allows it.

    Yes, of course it is. And so is mis-auditing them, or maliciously sec-checking them, or telling them they are a failed case because their needle is not “playing dixie” as DM has proclaimed it must.

    Again, why would we be proposing changes to the ethics/tech/admin until we’ve tried pure LRH for a while, and observed the results?

    Geir, I fully duplicate what you are saying. I guess what I don’t understand is why you are saying it.

    Unless, as has occurred to me, the next item on this “walk of logic” will be to posit that with the proposed new category called “expulsion” applied, disconnection then would not be mandatory?

    ARC,
    Nom

    • 2009-10-24 at 19:59

      Expulsion does exist as a valid step in Scientology ethics (by a “writ of expulsion”, and it does not carry with it the disgraceful forced disconnection.

      Yes, it is a goal to ensure people are free to make their own choices as to whom they can be in communication with.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-31 at 23:40

      Nom, per Marty and others there at the time, DM had re-instituted “mandatory disconnection” under LRH’s name in the early 80s to keep people from staying or getting in comm with David Mayo. LRH had, as I’m sure you know, earlier cancelled mandatory disconnection.

  48. StarsAwait
    2009-10-24 at 18:49

    Regarding HCO PL’s outside of the OEC, that’s true that there’s some confidential ones and that they don’t conflict with the hidden data line PL. I wrote it in haste. I’m bonded on an HCO PL on surveys and that is necessary for that survey. Anyways I think my point was made though, about staff not having to worry about hidden data lines. SO issues don’t conflict with anything an org staff reads so org staff don’t have to worry about it. Take the events. Where does LRH talk about Int events changing whole org boards for months in a year? So staff could put their foot down if they want.

    If you think transparency is the answer, then why hasn’t it worked? Orgs allow calls in from CLO’s, they’re aware of this policy. It’s because of DM.

    Regarding SP declares, a better question to ask is:
    1. Was LRH right for the 2 noises outside a session declare? If you factor in the strict R factor and how many people have been declared because of this, I think it adds up to much less noise, and it’s worth it if a couple people getting declared. On my EPF, they’ll go near a session and be noisy, but everyone knows this policy and everyone instantly shuts up. So LRH is vindicated on this because it works.

    LRH did make the differentiation, mentioned on this, regarding SP’s. What should be done instead? Audit all the SP’s and allow high crimes to take place? I see no changes needed in the way of policy here. You guys are looking at it’s misapplication. Keep in mind DM has been at or near the top for more than 30 years now. PTS/SP tech underlies all other tech so there’s the problem and solution.

    • 2009-10-24 at 19:46

      On your point #1: If the state would simply introduce the death penalty for burglary, you will get very little burglary. The fact that it works does however not vindicate the proposer of that law. Declaring a person SP may to him seem much more severe than the death sentence, and disturbing a session twice may seem less severe than burglary – so the example is not far fetched, it is in fact a lot less extreme.

  49. Ted
    2009-10-24 at 20:09

    Okay. I think I get it now.

    Geir, you wrote: There is talk about an SP declare coming down the lines on me. Although I haven’t seen one, I would welcome a declare and would post it here if or when it comes.

    Is this discussion of two types of SP a preemptive defense?

    Should there be an SP Declare on you, you don’t want anyone to mistake it as a case evaluation, but would gladly accept it as a badge of honor as to your disagreement with DM and company.

    Not to worry. Though we have never met, you seem like a pretty upstanding fellow, someone who has definitely achieved the gains offered by the Scientology Bridge.

    Some of my best friends and most respected persons have been declared SP. It has become a badge of honor. 🙂 The real question is how to move forward and continue the work of improving conditions in the face of massive BPC and a dirty field.

    • 2009-10-24 at 20:29

      Nope. No preemptive defense – as I myself do not care. I would indeed welcome it for two reasons: 1) I get to post it here for interesting discussions, and 2) it would force some fence-sitters to get out of doubt.

      The talk about SP declaring OT VIIIs has however made me think more about the system itself and how it can be abused. Thus the blog posts.

      They do seem to cover some need for discussion.

  50. 2009-10-24 at 20:23

    Conclusion so far

    I cannot see other possibilities than these three:

    1. LRH used two definitions of SP: A) The SP case and B) The administratively labeled SP
    2. LRH used two different concepts: A) An SP and B) A declared SP. And a different definition of “declare” was used than what is found at Mirriam Webster’s
    3. LRH allowed people to be declared SPs without ensuring they ware actual SP cases and letting justice policies handle the mis-declares afterwards. This is a violation of Presumption of innocence and thus parallels Napoleonic law.

    In any case, the system makes it very likely that a person in need of help is given the most serious wrong item imaginable, the worst of all possible misjustices.

    My viewpoints:

    1. None should be declared an SP who is not a factual real and raving SP by a thorough investigation before the declare.
    2. An organization has the full right of kicking rule-breakers out. This is called expulsion in Scientology and should be used on those who are not factually an SP but is non the less unwanted in the organization. There is no need for excessive name calling or giving people wrong items.

    In any case; there should be no forced disconnections. A person should be free to associate with whomever they want. A declared SP (a real one) serves as a warning to others and should not demand that people disconnects from him/her.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-25 at 04:18

      I would add that it goes further than just violating presumption of innocence since it really comes down to purposefully false accusations. In other words libel/defamation is more than just not presuming one’s innocence.

    • Alex
      2009-10-25 at 05:53

      I like this Geir!!
      You are a very sane fellow.
      🙂
      Alex

  51. Ted
    2009-10-24 at 20:42

    isene :
    Nope. No preemptive defense – as I myself do not care. I would indeed welcome it for two reasons: 1) I get to post it here for interesting discussions, and 2) it would force some fence-sitters to get out of doubt.
    The talk about SP declaring OT VIIIs has however made me think more about the system itself and how it can be abused. Thus the blog posts.
    They do seem to cover some need for discussion.

    Fantastic!

    I keep saying that to be OT one has to get over the eval/inval buttons.

    I can certainly support your points 1 and 2, particularly number 2.

  52. Briana Volta
    2009-10-24 at 23:11

    23 December 1965, ‘Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists’: “Suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations; public statements against Scientology… Dependency on mental or philosophic procedures other than Scientology.”

    ‘Manual of Dissemination of Material’, May 1955: “Another frame of mind we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologists have something wrong with them.”

    Confidential HCOPL ‘PR Series 24′: “Any opposition [is to] be not only dulled but permanently eradicated.”

    The “Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brainwashing2.JPG , also called, by LRH, ‘The Brainwashing Manual’, of 1955 (LRH’s only non copyrighted work): “Entirely by bringing about a public conviction that the sanity of the person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all the goals and activities of that person… An immediate attack on the sanity of the attacker is the best defense.”

    • 2009-10-25 at 05:40

      That “public disavowal of Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations” is a suppressive act presupposes that all Scientology organizations are forever in line with the tech, something we know not to be true only 0 years (or even -4 years) after LRH’s death.

  53. Alex
    2009-10-25 at 06:40

    Hi Geir,

    I have to tell you that this whole discussion is fascinating. I recall listening to a Congress lecture (sorry don’t recall the title) where LRH said that people should take a policy letter or a piece of tech and discuss it until they all agreed on what it meant. It may have been a PE course step or something like that.

    Anyways, my point is this; I have always loved the ethics tech and have been a student of it. I am learning more and getting more wins and certainty on these policies by engaging in your blog. With the exception to reading the LRH itself, your blog has been the best tool for learning I have experienced.

    Without the step of really confronting these issues and deciding for yourself what makes sense or not, you are to that degree robotically applying them.

    My suggestion is to keep this type of thing going on other controversial topics so all of us can increase our KRC on the tech and policy. It is very enjoyable!

    Thanks,
    Alex

    • 2009-10-25 at 07:45

      I agree. The debates are enlightening. I really appreciate all the input, they help form my viewpoints.

      Please propose similar controversial subjects for discussion.

      PS: Thank you for the compliment 🙂

  54. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 07:45

    isene :That “public disavowal of Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations” is a suppressive act presupposes that all Scientology organizations are forever in line with the tech, something we know not to be true only 0 years (or even -4 years) after LRH’s death.

    Was it ever really possible to be completely in alignment with the tech? Was there ever *really* a “The Tech”?

    From its beginnings, the tech was in flux. Just off the top of my head, let’s see… “Real” Clears were announced as being made finally in 1958, then, whoops, came actual GPMs, then that ended with not much of an explanation, and Clear was announced as *finally* being possible with what was soon to become only Grade 6, replaced by Grade 7, the Clearing Course; John McMaster for a while was the “world’s first real Clear,” and generated a large amount of positive publicity – he was popular and liked – (a bit removed as it references confidential material)

    Anyway, the same sort of changes – and flux, and contradictions, and loose ends – existed at lower levels: In something as simple as the TRs course throughout its history, to how to end a process, to the definition of an FN (or interpretations of other meter reactions), to Dianetic Clear which, produced frantically butchered old Dianetic HCOBs to accommodate the sudden changes in tech (changes, according to David Mayo (re. 1991 article), which were motivated primarily by LRH’s concerns with PR and marketing), and on and on… It didn’t start with Miscavige.

    • 2009-10-25 at 08:02

      Are you faulting LRH for not having it all correct at the outset?

    • RJ
      2009-10-25 at 08:56

      Well maybe if you actually studied the tech, instead of merely attempting to critique it. You might find out why these changes were made. Also even Hubbard himself said the tech wasn’t perfect in the HCOPL Safeguarding Technology.

      Now I suggest you go back and listen to the 475 recorded lectures given on the Briefing Course, read over six thousand pages of HCOBs and study all the basic texts on the subject, then come back and give an intelligent critique.

  55. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 08:15

    isene :Are you faulting LRH for not having it all correct at the outset?

    Not at all. Simply noting that the state of ‘The Tech’ never did exist, even though, especially after reading ‘KSW’, one might think it did.

    It was not realistically possible to be perfectly in line with “the tech,” EVER, and when dysfunctional Sea Org child Miscavige took over, he inherited a mish mosh of tech and policy, which may have – to some extent – been intended by LRH to be a mish-mosh dotted with certainties – for reasons which are off topic for this thread – and the merry parade when on from there.

    • 2009-10-25 at 10:27

      Good, cause otherwise it would be the same as “there is no science of physics” – as physics is an ever changing science.

  56. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 09:53

    RJ :Well maybe if you actually studied the tech, instead of merely attempting to critique it. You might find out why these changes were made. Also even Hubbard himself said the tech wasn’t perfect in the HCOPL Safeguarding Technology.
    Now I suggest you go back and listen to the 475 recorded lectures given on the Briefing Course, read over six thousand pages of HCOBs and study all the basic texts on the subject, then come back and give an intelligent critique.

    I have studied “the tech,” and applied “the tech,” and audited “the tech” from ARC S/W through NOTs, plus audited processes from the 1950s no longer used since the 1960s.

    I’ve listened to most of the lectures that you cite, so please don’t try to overwhelm me with the vastness of “the tech.” It’s not the least bit overwhelming to me.

    I was *expecting* a reference to “the tech” not being “perfect,” but that was not my point. My point was that there really was no “the tech,” ever, in other words, the (“not perfect but workable”) “tech” – as per ‘KSW’ and related issues – never really existed, except in the minds of starry-eyed tech persons.

    The “In-tech” (and “On-Policy”) Orgs that are supposed to have existed (pre-Miscavige), from which someone would then “publicly disavow” himself, thus justifying an “SP Declare,” never existed.

    • RJ
      2009-10-25 at 20:09

      Personally I don’t believe that you’ve studied the subject or audited anyone because if you did you would have known that each process has a specific technique or way of doing it thus there is a Standard Technology.

      The changes you claim have occurred in the entire schema have been very minor and all have been intended to clarify certain points as covered in C/S Series 2. A bulletin you should be familiar with, thus your argument has no actual basis and thus is either predicated on your own, in my opinion false misrepresentation that you’ve actually studied and applied the technology of Dianetics and Scientology or your own preconceived ideas and general misunderstanding of the subject and its techniques.

  57. Tomas
    2009-10-25 at 13:06

    When I read all these comments on Sps and declares two things comes to mind. There is a historical debate and a do-the-right-thing-now debate going on simultaniosly.

    The historical debate focus on what LRH did, What the CoS did. What of all the written materials is forgery, authentic and who wrote it. How much did LRH know?. Here is the endless debate on what did really happend, is Otto lying or not, Did LRH personally issue commands to run revers auditing or not, etc. It seems to me that what you think about this historical aspect is very much dependent on what you belived happend – not what actually happend. What source of information do you belive? Knowingness in this whole field is hard to find – perhaps impossible.

    The other tread is what to do now. What have experience of 60 years of scientology teach us to use today? What can we do without? What is absolutly essential to keep if it should be called Scientology?

    I think we can do this differentiation SP-case and adminSP and call it two different things and not lose anything vital to Scientology, only making it better.

  58. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 14:23

    RJ :Your first sentence is presumptuous, arrogant belittling and demonstrates a complete ignorance of the subject of security. The fact is that all authorized access to confidential materials require a non-disclosure bond and no, it is not a “flight of fancy” that they do!
    To answer your question. You ask for the policy relating to a specific order or request just like it says in the Policy “The Hidden Data Line”. The policy you claim to know so much about but obviously very little about its application.
    Your flat out assertion in your final paragraph is just flat out wrong. No materials are denied if they are related to a person’s job within the organization!
    As I wrote earlier *all* organizations have materials that are of limited distribution that are not made available to the public in general and even to their staff.
    If this wasn’t so then what would be the point of having security?
    In my opinion you seem to have a double standard in place here, because the fact is that most Scientologists are aware of the fact that certain materials in Scientology are restricted and are only assessable when certain conditions are met!
    As far as “flights of fancy” are concerned you seem to think we live in some kind of Utopia where abuse of information could’t possibly occur!

    Your “explanations” change from paragraph to paragraph. You contradict yourself. Which goes to show that being an apologist for the secretive&paranoid cult-model of organization, an organization with a membership that is lied to by their seniors and leaders – for “security” – is not easy.

    You have my sympathies.

    I’ve addressed your constantly shifting comments before, in earlier posts.

    I’m not going over it again.

    • RJ
      2009-10-25 at 20:42

      The fact is, is that you claimed that there were no such things as non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality bonds buy claiming they were “a flight of fancy”, which is much like saying that gravity doesn’t exist.

      Yet when I pointed this fact out, you attack me as being “an apologist for the secretive&paranoid cult-model of organization” which as far as I’m concerned is an egregious leap of “logic” since I was merely stating the fact that in other organizations such things do exist.

      If anyone is “constantly shifting comments” or more accurately evading it is you, exemplified by your disingenuous effort to offer “sympathies”, which I do not require. However, you have my condolences.

      Personally, it is obvious to me that you can’t admit that the Church of Scientology is entitled to a zone of security concerning certain information, just like any other group or organization on this planet because that would ruin your preconceived premise that it is a “secretive&paranoid cult”.

  59. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 20:44

    Tomas :When I read all these comments on Sps and declares two things comes to mind. There is a historical debate and a do-the-right-thing-now debate going on simultaniosly.
    The historical debate focus on what LRH did, What the CoS did. What of all the written materials is forgery, authentic and who wrote it. How much did LRH know?. Here is the endless debate on what did really happend, is Otto lying or not, Did LRH personally issue commands to run revers auditing or not, etc. It seems to me that what you think about this historical aspect is very much dependent on what you belived happend – not what actually happend. What source of information do you belive? Knowingness in this whole field is hard to find – perhaps impossible.
    The other tread is what to do now. What have experience of 60 years of scientology teach us to use today? What can we do without? What is absolutly essential to keep if it should be called Scientology?
    I think we can do this differentiation SP-case and adminSP and call it two different things and not lose anything vital to Scientology, only making it better.

    There’s plenty of credible documentation regarding Scientology’s history. We’re not talking about 3000 years ago, but several decades ago. What concerns me about some Scientologists is that they really seem to not want to know, believing that, if they can just keep the “blinders” on, and focus on that “taped path,” all will be well.

    http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/hco-ethics-order-30.html

    • 2009-10-25 at 20:46

      It would be good if you could snip the quoting down to only the most relevant part(s) so as to shorten the posts. Thanks.

  60. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 20:57

    RJ :Personally I don’t believe that you’ve studied the subject or audited anyone because if you did you would have known that each process has a specific technique or way of doing it thus there is a Standard Technology.
    The changes you claim have occurred in the entire schema have been very minor and all have been intended to clarify certain points as covered in C/S Series 2. A bulletin you should be familiar with, thus your argument has no actual basis and thus is either predicated on your own, in my opinion false misrepresentation that you’ve actually studied and applied the technology of Dianetics and Scientology or your own preconceived ideas and general misunderstanding of the subject and its techniques.

    Unfortunately, my opening post on this area was clipped, as it mentioned the OT levels – although gave no confidential data – so I’ll assume that you’d understand me better if my original message had been complete.

    I hope you won’t be offended if I don’t try to convince you that I’ve studied Scientology or audited others.

    Although it doesn’t happen much on this forum because of restrictions on discussing confidential Grade Chart material and procedures, it quite something when Scientologists are able – and willing – to communicate freely about ALL of Scientology, including its “Standard Tech,” and two or more devotees of (what they think is) “Standard Tech” start exchanging notes. Watch the sparks fly!

    • RJ
      2009-10-25 at 22:18

      Dear Briana

      You could have simply given your CV without any mention of Confidential data.

      Yes I agree it is a good thing to be able to discuss the subject Scientology openly with other Scientologists. However I disagree with discussing what is considered confidential data openly, though we probably have differing opinions of why these levels should remain restricted as covered in the Pl ‘Security of Data’.

      The sparks always fly when you have two or more different viewpoints on how a case should be handled just as in any other field of psychotherapy. Scientology is no different especially when repairing a case but usually there is no argument on what is the next grade or level when the case is running fine. Unless you of course you have someone who ascribes to Miscavige’s perversion of the tech where everyone needs a sec check or “ethics handling” of some kind before moving on to the next level or grade.

  61. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 22:13

    RJ :The fact is, is that you claimed that there were no such things as non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality bonds buy claiming they were “a flight of fancy”, which is much like saying that gravity doesn’t exist.
    Yet when I pointed this fact out, you attack me as being “an apologist for the secretive&paranoid cult-model of organization” which as far as I’m concerned is an egregious leap of “logic” since I was merely stating the fact that in other organizations such things do exist.
    If anyone is “constantly shifting comments” or more accurately evading it is you, exemplified by your disingenuous effort to offer “sympathies”, which I do not require. However, you have my condolences.
    Personally, it is obvious to me that you can’t admit that the Church of Scientology is entitled to a zone of security concerning certain information, just like any other group or organization on this planet because that would ruin your preconceived premise that it is a “secretive&paranoid cult”.

    The Church of Scientology is a secretive&paranoid cult.

    In Scientology, confidentiality agreements and confidentiality bonds abound; not only that, most Scientologists, including yourself, would be surprised at how many hush-money-enhanced “settlement agreements” there are. Scientology has a lot to hide.

    My point was that the Church of Scientology is a secretive cult, and that it has a body of secret material which is not acknowledged, and of which the average member is unaware.

    It’s hard to argue with you since you argue with yourself, contradicting yourself – but here goes: The average member of Scientology can’t walk into an Org and say, “I’ll sign such and such, and agree to such and such, and THEN expect to be shown anything he’s curious about. Firstly, because he won’t know about it in the first place; secondly, because it doesn’t happen that way.

    Which you know, or you don’t know, depending on which sentence or paragraph you’re writing at a given moment.

    • RJ
      2009-10-25 at 22:48

      Talk about contradicting oneself, now you say “confidentiality agreements and confidentiality bonds abound” whereas before you said they were merely “flight(s) of fancy”!

      Also I’m well aware of the “many hush-money-enhanced ‘settlement agreements'”. So I find your didacticism very annoying. Do I agree with this fact. No, but to write that such things are exclusive to Scientology or that this type of activity “proves” that it is “a secretive&paranoid cult” is in my opinion a double standard at best and somewhat hypocritical. Not that it makes such a practice right but it just happens to be the way things are.

      Also I never wrote that “(t)he average member of Scientology can’t walk into an Org and say, “I’ll sign such and such, and agree to such and such, and THEN expect to be shown anything he’s curious about”, so there again you are being disingenuous.

      I wrote if the information applied to the person’s post or duties or certain conditions were met. Do you have a literacy problem?

  62. 2009-10-25 at 22:19

    Briana Volta :

    In Scientology, confidentiality agreements and confidentiality bonds abound; not only that, most Scientologists, including yourself, would be surprised at how many hush-money-enhanced “settlement agreements” there are. Scientology has a lot to hide.

    My point was that the Church of Scientology is a secretive cult, and that it has a body of secret material which is not acknowledged, and of which the average member is unaware.

    Which is true for many religions and most businesses I know. RJ has a very valid point here. But so have you, in that it should be a lot less secrecy – especially in Scientology where we know what power open communication has.

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-25 at 22:41

      Datum: I’ve read somewhere Ron writing about witholds in connection with Christmas presents…
      So this can be an explanation for what is happening in the Church… For example, OSA can’t operate without witholds… Agree or not with the caliber of the datum… or the difference in caliber between the datum regarding Christmas presents and OSA informations…

      • 2009-10-25 at 22:44

        How does my wish for an HP-27 for X-mas enter this picture?

        • Overdriver
          2009-10-25 at 23:05

          It’s not a withold anymore… 😀

  63. Briana Volta
    2009-10-25 at 22:26

    isene : snip the quoting down to only the most relevant part(s) so as to shorten the posts. Thanks.

    OK

  64. Ted
    2009-10-25 at 22:37

    Briana gives good discourse. 🙂

    The glaring outpoint, at least the one I see, is that there are as many versions of Scientology as there are or have been participants. All this BPC and potential BPC lurking under the surface. It’s no wonder the church is a mess.

    Those who demand a reference will have to excuse my failure to provide, but way back when we had instructors, not supervisors, there was a word-clearing method that involved discussion and agreement as to definitions. I believe the method should never have been dropped out–nor should discussion have been dropped.

    As LRH noted in Study Tech, students have their own evaluation of importances. What is perceived as important to one is not necessarily important to another, or even LRH. Just toss out, “What is Standard Tech?” for discussion.

    I agree with Maria in post #212: Discussion and debrief is a good process.

    Had there been discussion allowed the chance of Scientology turning into a paranoid cult would have been far less–my opinion, of course.

  65. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-25 at 23:40

    ExKane :
    To Nom: I simply don’t buy these arguments that diminish one man’s misdeeds by pointing to those of others.

    Hello, ExKane. I see you’ve missed my point entirely. “Misdeeds”? Did you even look at the links?

    We are talking moving forward into a type of hell for future generations you cannot even imagine. Ever heard of the upcoming microchipping of the world’s population? Do you think it hasn’t happened yet because a few keyboard warriors on a few blogs are shouting “Down with the NWO! They’ll never chip me!”?

    No. It hasn’t happened yet, because they haven’t quite perfected the 2-way chip yet. Almost…but not quite yet.

    LRH was a big dog barking at the approach of something truly awful. How annoying to have the other, clueless neighborhood pooches barking at HIM. :/

  66. Alex
    2009-10-25 at 23:55

    Topics for debate:
    1. whether or not there is a hidden data line and to what degree LRH advices cause a conflict when being applied over published policy.
    2. Is DM a true SP? What is the evidence of this as opposed to heresay?
    3. Is it ok to change LRH policy now? Why or why not?
    4. Is Geir a true God? Can he levitate and change others minds from a distance?
    🙂
    Alex

    • 2009-10-26 at 08:34

      On #4: Yes. I made you write that point.

      • Alex
        2009-10-26 at 23:19

        Can you teach me Norwegian while your at it?

        • 2009-10-27 at 07:13

          No, I am mitigating the risk of you becoming to powerful and thus able to read my Norwegian thoughts.

  67. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-26 at 00:13

    Briana Volta :
    …and when dysfunctional Sea Org child Miscavige took over…

    Heh, heh. Do you REALLY believe that? I bet you believed Bush was “The Decider”, too. 😀

    LRH’s COS was taken over in a coup d’état, not by the gubmint, but by the REAL power behind the apparent powers in the world. And Davey’s handler is (or was) the IRS guy, Meade Emory, who answered to even more shadowy handlers.

    And one of the favorite games of the enslavers is to infiltrate and dominate both sides of every “movement” on planet Earth.

    The COS always was targeted to be taken down, starting from the time when it was realized that Dianetics would rehab Manchurian Candidates. Yes, THAT was always the target.

    It is almost complete. Meanwhile, the tech will be kept by the real players, for their own use against us. As has already happened when the OT Levels were infiltrated by the NSA for the genesis of their “Remote Viewing Program”.

    The fact that it is being done in such a way as to trick the eye of the onlookers – and fleece their pockets during the show to boot, speaks volumes about the caliber of enemy which LRH realized we were up against.

    Briana Volta :
    …and the merry parade when on from there.

    Gerry…oops, I mean, Gee! (Sorry -fingers slipped there) You are right in a certain sense. Scientology HAS had “a merry parade” of enemies flinging themselves frantically at it since its inception.

    • Briana Volta
      2009-10-26 at 10:11

      I’m familiar with the hypothesis that “the REAL power behind the apparent powers of the world” took over Scientology in the 1980s. (If you’re a ‘Ron’s Org’/’Galactic Patrol’ person that would be the “Marcabians” – it should be alright to mention the evil extraterrestrial “Marcabians,” since ‘Marcab’ is in the Scientology ‘Tech Dictionary.)

      I share Larry Brennan’s view that there is no outside agency that runs Scientology, and that Miscavige runs it, although I don’t think it’s impossible that some outside agency could take over and run the Church of Scientology for its own purposes.

      I’m also familiar with LRH’s many tales, starting with his one about the Russian KGB stealing his ‘Excalibur’ manuscript, through his tale of how the Russians (in the 1950s) offered him Pavlov’s laboratory and lots of money if he’d travel to Russia and work for the them, to his tale of his 2nd wife being a Russian Spy. In 1969, he even concocted a six syllable Russian name for her. Quite colorful.

      I don’t buy into the idea that Scientology was taken over because its OT levels were creating powerful beings that threatened the New World Order. That’s a pipe dream, but if it makes you feel better than go ahead an dream it.

      However, I do think that an intelligence-gathering secretive cult, which Scientology has been since the 1960s – with front groups and a religious/self-help veneer – might be regarded as useful by some outside agency. It’s possible, but I don’t believe that it has occurred.

      In any event, Scientology has been operating per the ‘Totalist’ cult-model since the 1960s, and what’s *wrong* with Scientology began back then. What’s *right* with Scientology can mostly be found in the 1950s, IMO.

      The awful truth is that the primary destructive force in Scientology was also its primary creative force, LRH.

      IMO, of course.

  68. Briana Volta
    2009-10-26 at 00:14

    RJ :Talk about contradicting oneself, now you say “confidentiality agreements and confidentiality bonds abound” whereas before you said they were merely “flight(s) of fancy”!

    It’s a flight of fancy *that non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality bonds make it possible for the average member to examine the (non Grade Chart) secret materials of Scientology*.

    It’s irrelevant if some other organizations also practice secrecy.

    Scientology’s (LRH’s) secret writings (not on the Grade Chart) are too often, to put it mildly, not sane.

    I wish I could post some of these writings – it would be very revealing – but that forbidden four letter word keep showing up, if only in the URL. I found one scan of a highly confidential LRH issue, from 1969, titled, ‘Intelligence Actions, Covert Intelligence Data Collection’, but it also has that forbidden name in the URL. In this issue [incidentally, all parenthetical comments are in the original, nothing has been added] LRH states that:

    “The objective of the enemy is to discredit… Their first blast was in the San Francisco papers, Sept. 1950, quoting the publisher (of Book One) Ceppos being critical of me (he was a communist) followed by the LA papers, pushed then by Sara Komkovadamanov (alias Northrup) ‘divorce’ actions, followed by attempted kidnapping of myself. Other details were pushed into it including the murder of four and so on. This was a full complete covert operation. At the back of it was Miles Hollister (psychology student), Sara Komkovadamanov (housekeeper at the place where nuclear physicists stayed near Cal Tech), George Benton and his wife – secretary of the young communists league… this was a full war against Dianetics.”

    Ceppos was not a communist. Sara – later, his 2nd wife – was not a Russian spy. She was not the “housekeeper’, and the “place” was a large rooming house where an assortment of artists and writers and poets and free thinkers stayed, but no “nuclear physicists.”

    This mix of fantasy and paranoia, wrapped in an “applied (behind-the-scenes)philosophy” of covertness and ruthlessness, has poisoned Scientology.

    • RJ
      2009-10-26 at 20:22

      How can you definitively come out and say for sure that Northrup, Hollister or Creppos were not Communist agents?

      Do you have personal access to the Venona transcripts?

      Are you trained in counterintelligence?

      The facts are that Soviet espionage had pretty much infiltrated every aspect of American life. I suggest you read The Sword And The Shield:

      http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Shield-Mitrokhin-Archive-History/dp/0465003109

      and bring up the subject again when you can actually debate intelligently on the subject.

      Also FYI because Nuclear Physicists had such a high security clearance none of them could admit to working in that field therefore it is entirely possible that this “assortment of artists and writers and poets and free thinkers” who stayed there may have also worked in the Government’s nuclear program as well.

      • Briana Volta
        2009-10-26 at 22:02

        In the 1950s, LRH routinely wrote to the FBI, presenting himself as a patriot, and accusing others – that he didn’t like – of being communists or communist sympathizers.

        LRH summed it up pretty well, years later, in the confidential 1969 HCOPL ‘Battle Tactics’:

        “The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing… Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That’s the enemy. What they love. That’s you.

        You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.”

        Or, as put rather bluntly in another confidential HCOPL, ‘Targets, Defense’, the objective is: “De-popularizing the enemy to the point of total obliteration.”

        If you ever get a chance to see the confidential Scientology ‘Covert Ops Check sheet’ of the early 1970s, you might find it interesting. Here are a few of its drills, words to be defined, and clay demos:

        Item number 8 on the 8th page of the Covert Ops Check sheet consists of a series of Ops drills. Here’s one:

        “Spreading rumors. Flunk for anyone spotting the source of falsity or trouble making, etc.

        “a) Spread a rumor to another.
        “b) Write up results.
        “c) Spread a rumor to another and get him/her to spread it to someone else.
        “d) Write up results.
        “e) Get a rumor spread around a small group to a point where at least 2 others repeat it to others.
        “f) Write up results.
        “g) Get a rumor spread around a large group (more than 50 people) to the point where at least 5 others repeat it to others.
        “h) Write up results.”

        And,

        “22) Look up in a BIG [sic] dictionary, use in sentences, demo kit, and get conceptually the folllowing words:

        “Covert, discredit, propaganda, operation, overthrow, exposure, embarass, remove, opponent.

        “23) Clay demo a covert operation on an opponent which embarrasses him and is beneficial to us.”

        And then the same clay demo instructions 24),25), and 26) with “discredit,” “overthrow,” and “remove.”

        “41) Clay demo: Why it is important to know your public’s hate and love buttons when running an operation on an enemy.”

        And it goes on.

        I’ll finish off with this one:

        “Clay demo: It is advantageous to use deception when attacking.”

        Do you still believe that LRH was on the level when he wrote that his 2nd wife, Sara Northrup, whom he had married when she was 19, was a Russian spy whose name was Komkovadamamov?

        • RJ
          2009-10-26 at 23:42

          I’m shocked! Not really.

          Obviously you missed the fact I posted earlier that I worked with the GO, as a Technical Terminal or Consultant.

          As I wrote you are annoyingly didactic. Next you’ll be teaching the Pope scripture!

          You forgot to post the fact that Chrisorpher Felix’s real name James McCargar ‘A Short Course in a Secret War’ was also required reading for those working in the GO’s B1.

          However, it seems your most egregious omission (for obvious reasons that your previous posts demonstrate) is that the above Check Sheet never had IA, so therefore was never a valid Scientology Check Sheet!

          Also you have the wrong title for the alleged “PL” you quoted (may I suggest fixing your paper mill over there)since the he actual title is ‘Targets Defense’.

          Regarding Sara Northrup, she must of lost a few years because she was in her early twenties when she was Jack Parson’s girl friend!

          The KGB’s First Directorate “Active Measures” section would have loved you guys 🙂

          • Briana Volta
            2009-10-27 at 08:50

            ‘Targets, Defense’ is not an “alleged PL.” It’s – as you well know – an actual Policy Letter, but being confidential, it is to be *denied*, since it’s not in the Green Volumes, and the standard line to unsuspecting Scientologists is that, “if it’s not in the Green Volumes, it’s not policy.”

            Oh, and it’s “Targets*,* Defense’, with a comma.

            I’ll give you this much through, Sara Northrup was not 19 when she married LRH, she was 22.

            Now, take a look at the 1974 ‘Information Full Hat’, and notice something called ‘TR-L’. You remember ‘TR-L’ don’t you?

            Here’s some inside information for you: LRH used it on Scientologists, not just on “enemies” and “wogs.”

            Coming to grips with LRH’s use of dark tactics on loyal Scientologists, themselves, is one of the most difficult things for a Scientologist to do.

            Now repeat after me:

            Kom kov a dam an ov.

            Got it?

            Watch out for those commies!

            • RJ
              2009-10-27 at 10:48

              One comma out of place!

              If you bothered to read my post I wrote that “Battle Plans” was the “alleged” “PL” the one you allegedly “quoted” which is in fact ‘Targets Defense” or ‘Targets, Defense’ for the anally retentive among us.

              For instance the one who can’t get her “facts” straight!

              Such as the fact as anyone knows it was not the “Information Full Hat” it was called the B1 Full Hat and it was approved by GOWW by the Guardian Jane Kember who also approved TR-L, so right there not only do you have your facts wrong but you assign the wrong source.

              Also I’d say your “insider information” is as reliable as curve ball’s:

              http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-01.htm

              So whoever it is should have a burn notice issued on them.

              Maybe I was a bit hasty when I accused you of having out TRs. It seems that you’ve got your TR-L really in 🙂

              Your talent is wasted as I wrote you could have gotten a job in active measures in KGB:

              http://fas.org/irp/world/russia/kgb/su0523.htm

              However, since KGB has gone out of business. Maybe you could find a job at CIA:

              http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html

              You’d be good at it.

              • Briana Volta
                2009-10-27 at 14:39

                The first item that I quoted was ‘Battle Tactics’ (not’Plans’), the second item quoted was ‘Targets, Defense’. Perhaps you became confused as both LRH confidential issues instruct that “hate” be created towards Scientology’s “enemies.”
                They are both on the ‘Information Full Hat of 1974, along with the Situation-TR drill, the *TR-L* drill, and TR3-(for) Intelligence Officers, and much more.

                The word “Information” is used on the front cover of the pack as a euphemism (cover name) for ‘Intelligence’. This pack is Exhibit 236, Federal Criminal Court case 78-401.

                This is too skinny!

  69. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-26 at 00:29

    isene :
    I believe giving a disturbing person a seriously wrong item will not help him sort himself out.

    Geir, I see where you are coming from. I really do.

    I don’t agree that anything needs changing at this point, until all the real ethics, auditing and admin tech are recovered, and put into use, and their effectiveness sincerely evaluated first.

    Meanwhile, I remember something that I hope one of the techies will maybe recognize and put a citation here for me on…about how an emergency, or a threat will key the guy in to some degree, but it also throws his necessity level into overdrive to deal with the emergency.

    At any rate, so what? Didn’t LRH also say there was nothing this (currently quiet time on the track) lifetime that was harmful or severe enough to be aberrative? Resimulative, maybe. But not aberrative.

    Just don’t see this topic as a high priority, when we know it was obviously weaponized(perverted, misused) by DM. Very useful to him. Cut comm lines AND brought maximum enemies and disgrace to the COS, into which he was installed by his handlers to be their inside guy.

    “All war is deception”
    -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    • 2009-10-26 at 08:40

      It seems that in your fourth paragraph, you would consider pardoning any crime since it does not really aberrate the person?

      I repeat: Giving a person a wrong item does not help. At all. Why do something that is counter-productive?

  70. Briana Volta
    2009-10-26 at 01:27

    RJ :

    Also I never wrote that “(t)he average member of Scientology can’t walk into an Org and say, “I’ll sign such and such, and agree to such and such, and THEN expect to be shown anything he’s curious about”, so there again you are being disingenuous.
    I wrote if the information applied to the person’s post or duties or certain conditions were met. Do you have a literacy problem?

    See your post #115 – the first paragraph.

    Of course, you reverse your position by the third paragraph.

    Sigh.

    • RJ
      2009-10-27 at 07:56

      Briana Volta :

      RJ :
      Also I never wrote that “(t)he average member of Scientology can’t walk into an Org and say, “I’ll sign such and such, and agree to such and such, and THEN expect to be shown anything he’s curious about”, so there again you are being disingenuous.
      I wrote if the information applied to the person’s post or duties or certain conditions were met. Do you have a literacy problem?

      See your post #115 – the first paragraph.
      Of course, you reverse your position by the third paragraph.
      Sigh.

      I never posted #115, you did!

      The first paragraph is as follows:

      “I’ve searched for links that have some confidential HCOPLs, but which exclude any description or content of upper Grade Chart materials – which is prohibited on this forum.”

      Do you an Integer Factorization Problem or IFP as well as literacy difficulties?

      • Briana Volta
        2009-10-27 at 10:19

        Apparently, as new posts are made, the post numbering can change. It is *now* (currently) post #16.

        Read it right away, before the numbering changes again, and you’ll have to get excited all over again.

        • Briana Volta
          2009-10-27 at 10:22

          That’s post number *116*.

          • RJ
            2009-10-28 at 03:05

            Dearest Briana.

            May I ask respectfully if you are on some kind of controlled substance. I have been watching the board for several days and trust me the numbering hasn’t changed, nor have I noticed any patterns on the screen, though it would be nice or anything like that!

            You could have quoted me to save all this difficulty, but I guess that wouldn’t have worked if you had an agenda of some kind other than validly debating a point.

            What I wrote a real Scientologist would when say confronted with an order that seems out tech or off policy should or could “ask for the applicable reference”.

            I did not write that they should be shown it just because they were as you say “curious”. You did.

            So either you are attempting to twist and alter what I’ve written or you are hallucinating.

            • Anonymous
              2009-10-28 at 08:57

              I don’t need to twist what’s already twisted.

              I don’t wish to go over this ground again. Re-read my old posts if you’re confused.

  71. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-26 at 13:56

    isene :
    It seems that in your fourth paragraph, you would consider pardoning any crime since it does not really aberrate the person?

    Now Geir, that’s kinda humorous in a way. Because here I am being the one agreeing to, and endorsing, strict ethics, justice, AND PENALTIES. And you have taken my comment, which attempted to display which order of magnitude of “harm” I considered an SP declare to cause, and turned it upside down. 😉

    isene :
    I repeat: Giving a person a wrong item does not help. At all. Why do something that is counter-productive?

    Well, I don’t know that it was necessarily a wrong item, or does not help – whenever it got/gets applied strictly per LRH.

    But anyway, ANY hit inflicted upon someone who committed no “sin” is a wrong item. Shall we then also throw out every other piece of LRH ethics tech that DM has tainted by his malicious use of it against us?

    • 2009-10-26 at 18:05

      On point #1, you did not limit your justification for potentially harming a person. That’s all.

      On your point #2, do you seriously believe a person that has disturbed a session after a warning must in fact be a real SP case?
      If not, then following the policy will in fact end up giving people the most serious of all wrong items.

  72. Briana Volta
    2009-10-26 at 17:05

    Maria :

    Since this is a discussion about the practice of declaring SPs, here is a list of original Saint Hill staff members and their current status. 97.5% have been declared. http://www.upperbridge.org//shill.htm

    Is there a list of dates for these Declares?

    What is the date for the beginning of the current leadership? 1980? 1982? 1986?

    The information I have indicates that LRH started around 1976 (‘What your fees buy’) to emphasize money even more, and around 1978 started his attacks on the Missions, first with Ray Kemp and Bent Corydon, who were geographically close by to his location in Southern California. When Ray Kemp, who had had his Mission taken away from him, and was suing the Church of Scientology, was invited to the first Mission Holder’s conference in 1981, LRH simultaneously panicked/exploded in anger. Soon to follow was the second Mission Holder’s conference where the mass purge and $$$-harvesting from the Missions (who LRH felt he could no longer trust) began in earnest.

    According to Larry Brennan, and others, LRH was still running things behind the scenes up until at least late 1983, possibly 1984.

    That’s why the “current leadership” designation is a bit fuzzy if any of these Declares occurred before 1984ish.

    Some dates for each Declare would be helpful.

  73. Ted
    2009-10-26 at 18:34

    I know from speaking with Helen Kitchen some years ago that LRH himself disturbed her sessions at St. Hill. He would lurk outside the door listening in. Apparently, his presence was enough to cause a distraction. Once LRH stuck his head into the session prompting Helen to break off with her pc to usher him out. Her words relayed to me, “You get the hell out of here,” then she pushed him out.

    Should LRH have been declared SP per his own policy?

  74. Briana Volta
    2009-10-26 at 23:19

    Nom de Plume :Hey, RJ –

    DM has corrupted and disgraced the whole of LRH’s legacy, not just the ethics and justice aspect of it.

    .

    Long before Miscavige came along, LRH had corrupted and disgraced his own legacy.

    • 2009-10-27 at 07:12

      Briana; I think you have gotten that point well enough across. You run the risk of sounding like a broken record.

    • RJ
      2009-10-27 at 08:19

      Besides that communication was directed to me, since as far as I know I’m the only RJ on this board!

      Obviously you haven’t completed a TRs course Briana despite all the training in the subject you claim you’ve had.

      Also I don’t appreciate you dissing the Ol’man who happened to be a personal friend of mine and I especially don’t appreciate you doing it on my dime by interjecting yourself into one of my personal comm cycles. Not only is it poor manners but it is very bad netiquet!

      I suggest if you want to do this sort of thing that you go back to ARS that use(less)net free-for-all or OCMB or ESMB where in my opinion you belong along with all the other Scientology and Hubbard haters that will stand for this constant natter. Frankly, I’ve had enough of it.

  75. Briana Volta
    2009-10-27 at 15:02

    Briana Volta :The first item that I quoted was ‘Battle Tactics’ (not’Plans’), the second item quoted was ‘Targets, Defense’. Perhaps you became confused as both LRH confidential issues instruct that “hate” be created towards Scientology’s “enemies.”They are both on the ‘Information Full Hat of 1974, along with the Situation-TR drill, the *TR-L* drill, and TR3-(for) Intelligence Officers, and much more.
    The word “Information” is used on the front cover of the pack as a euphemism (cover name) for ‘Intelligence’. This pack is Exhibit 236, Federal Criminal Court case 78-401.

    Continued here due to extreme skinniness in thread.

    P.S. Jane Kember was not the originator of the idea that deception be used on Scientology’s enemies. Attempting to pass the buck to Jane Kember for following tactics outlined in LRH’s extensive Scientology Intelligence Tech writings – and related writings – is almost as bad as blaming it on Mary Sue Hubbard, who followed her husband’s instructions and “Intelligence Tech,” and went to prison for it, while he husband hid like a coward from the Feds.

    Do the LRH words, “Trick, sue, lie to or destroy” ring any bells?

    The *name* Fair Game was cancelled (for PR reasons), the *practice* of Fair Gaming was never cancelled.

    • RJ
      2009-10-27 at 22:28

      We already had a long discussion of “Fair Game”, obviously you didn’t get the memo.

      The point here is that it was Jane Kember who approved the Checksheet in question and the drill by the fact that her post title i.e. Guardian WW appears on them and no other to write otherwise is nothing but conjecture on your part or claiming divine knowledge on the matter which the blame Ron crowd tends to do quite often with out any actual proof, as if their word was good enough.

      Also saying that because Ron wrote “Fair Game” he ergo must have directed all the GO’s activities is a leap beyond anything approaching logic. Ron I know for a fact didn’t even knows the actual names of many of the assets, who were known as Guardian Assisting Scientologists or GAS members because the GO considered that information to sensitive for even the LC who handled the SO #1 line. So they all wrote their letters to him using their code names. An unusual situation for someone who you assert was continually in the loop and directed all activities.

      In other words the GO considered their activities so sensitive they weren’t about to let even the O’man in on their sources and methods. I know because I was there whereas all you done is surfed the net and found a bunch a doctored docs which only tell half the story. The story being that the Government is a paragon of virtue and only its citizens commit crimes. I fairy tale that the brain washed minions of the cult of the state like to believe but isn’t necessarily true.

      Anyway, Mary Sue Hubbard’s post was Controller and also C/S 7 and when the excrement had hit the fan with Meisner and Wolfe being blown, she was called in to assist with walking back the cat on the op, meaning assisting with a cover up which she did against her better judgement and is *why* she was indicted as a “Coconspirator” even the federal records you continually flaunt say this which I guess doesn’t suit the chapters of the Hate Ron League, so they have to invent this conspiracy theory that the Ol’man threw her under the bus, to fit in with their fixed ideology. Again with no evidence at all except that he wrote some dubious PLs that mention the word “hate” or whatever.

      The fact was that Ron wasn’t anywhere near the scene of the crime and instead of directing the operation he was actually directing movies at “Over the Rainbow” near La Quinta California. Of course this didn’t stop the Government from naming him as an “Unindicted Coconspirator” meaning we gots no evidence but we’s knows ya done it, which is pretty typical of J Edgar Hoover’s spawns. If can’t indict at least taint ’em with guilt by association which used to be McCarthy’s old trick, since we were on the subject of Communism earlier.

      Anyway that’s pretty much the actual story condensed for brevity as opposed to the fictional account that you seem to be promoting.

      • 2009-10-27 at 22:42

        Interesting info. If you guys are finished with the wrestling match, I’d like to see more meat as in this post – also from BV. Thanks.

        • Anonymous
          2009-10-28 at 01:37

          For RJ: My info does not come from the Internet, but from documents obtained from federal court, long before the Internet existed.

          I also had – years ago – the opportunity to study Paulette Cooper’s 3 binder collection of all the documents related to her case. These included Telexes from the Apollo.

          RJ, the views you express on this topic are almost identical to those of the cult, and resemble a page from an old cult ‘Dead Agent’ pack.

          This is unfortunate, as it will likely confuse some attempting to sort out the mess that Scientology became after its founder started calling himself “Source,” established a spying and dirty tricks network, and made himself the “Commodore” of his own ultra-authoritarian private navy.

        • Anonymous
          2009-10-28 at 07:12

          Your blog has been rejecting my messages, making it impossible for me to respond to RJ’s posts. If, by some miracle, this get through, I’ll try again later.

          • 2009-10-28 at 08:36

            I don’t know what the issue is, but you are marked as “Anonymous” on this latest batch of comments…

  76. RJ
    2009-10-27 at 21:26

    Briana Volta :
    The first item that I quoted was ‘Battle Tactics’ (not’Plans’), the second item quoted was ‘Targets, Defense’. Perhaps you became confused as both LRH confidential issues instruct that “hate” be created towards Scientology’s “enemies.”
    They are both on the ‘Information Full Hat of 1974, along with the Situation-TR drill, the *TR-L* drill, and TR3-(for) Intelligence Officers, and much more.
    The word “Information” is used on the front cover of the pack as a euphemism (cover name) for ‘Intelligence’. This pack is Exhibit 236, Federal Criminal Court case 78-401.
    This is too skinny!

    Actually the full name of the course pack is the B1, as in Bureau 1 AKA Information Bureau Information Officers Full Hat, like I said you guys should work on that paper mill of yours, at least if you’re going to forge docs you should at least get them to approximate the real thing 🙂

    Like I said I’ve seen about 3 or 4 different versions of “Operation Freek Out” out there in cyberspace. I think the one quoted was the most egregious.

    Also as far as I remember ‘Battle Tactics’ or Plans or whatever it was called was not a PL but a GO Info Letter based on ‘Targets, (note the comma) Defense’ which is why they both are very similar.

    Trusting the FBI to present the case against the GO with any degree of accuracy, is like trusting a 300 pound elf who had just been pulled by 12 flying reindeer to come down a narrow chimney every Christmas!

    As I wrote they totally ignored any sensitive information relating to at least several Scientologists involvement in CIA’s Remote Viewing project or any data relating to the FBI’s own black bag jobs , illegal surveillance of the Church and the possibility that they planted an agent provocateur by the name of Michael Meisner who was the one who wrote the directive that sent Gerald Wolfe code name Silver on the famous paper chase that led to the destruction of the GO!

    The irony was that not only were the original nine charged with “harboring a fugitive” i.e. Mssr Meisner but also with “kidnapping a federal witness” as if the court never read the Constitution, particularly the point about “double jeopardy”!

  77. Anonymous
    2009-10-27 at 23:47

    RJ :

    all you done is surfed the net and *found a bunch a doctored docs* which only tell half the story.

    he wrote some *dubious PLs* that mention the word “hate” or whatever.

    .

    The documents I studied were not “doctored.” That you would wish to convey that false impression reveals much about you.

    These documents were *not* accessed by way of the Internet, but from Federal Criminal Court, long before the Internet existed. The materials contained thousands of pages of photocopies revealing LRH’s secret Spying and Covert “dirty tricks” Tech, orders, programs and subsequent operations. Revealed were Telexes from the Apollo, overseeing spying, harassment, and covert attacks on “enemies.”

    The Policy Letters I cite are not “dubious.” ‘Battle Tactics’ is a confidential HCOPL from 1969. Please do your homework.

    As for ‘Operation Freak Out’, I had the opportunity to read Paulette Cooper’s personally assembled three binder collection of all the documents related to her case years ago. Again, I did NOT rely on the Internet. I have seen the real – paper – documents and spoken with many of the persons involved.

    It appears that you are presenting the standard cult PR line on this subject. That’s unfortunate, as I have no doubt it will confuse at least some who are attempting to sort out the mess that Scientology became after its founder began calling himself “Source,” established a spying and “dirty tricks” network, and then made himself the “Commodore” of his own ultra-authoritarian private navy.

    • RJ
      2009-10-28 at 10:21

      So!

      No smoking gun there because the op originated in New York.

      See for yourself:

      Also for an alternative view of Ms. Cooper other than the Saintly image portrayed by the haters, read the following.

      http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/cooper_lawyer.htm

      If there is any one who is trying to confuse others. I believe it is you.

      • Anonymous
        2009-10-28 at 23:04

        The docs were seized by the FBI (in 1977) from the Wash DC org. There was tight coordination between NYC and Wash DC. LRH was in Wash DC in 1976 for a few months. He was not in NYC.

        “Bernie” appears to be a fake “critic,” working a perimeter defense operation for the cult. His info is not reliable.

        Paulette Cooper was and is a hero.

        • RJ
          2009-10-29 at 11:38

          He was at the Flag Land Base in 1976. Your assertion that he was in Washington is based on nothing but a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back you up.

          The fact that docs were seized by the FBI at both DC and LA does not “prove” that he was in Washington.

          Also regarding Bernie. I see that you are making an effort to “dead agent” him by saying “he is working a perimeter defense operation for the cult” again with no proof.

          And the assertion that “(h)is info is not reliable” is merely an opinion.

          • Anonymous
            2009-10-29 at 17:38

            This is becoming redundant. Kima Douglas, LRH’s medical officer, and her husband Mike, were with LRH when they went, by car, from Florida to Wash. DC in mid 1976. Jim Dincalci lived with LRH at his hide out in Wash. DC in 1976. Then LRH went, by plane, to California.

            Here’s a question for you: Why was L. Ron Hubbard, the Clear and Operating Thetan, unable to confront the possibility of being served with a subpoena, or even going to prison? Other cult leaders around at that time, including Lyndon LaRouche and Sun Yung Moon, served time in federal prison, like men; yet LRH ran away and let his wife take the rap. Why did LRH, the OT, run away and hide?

            • RJ
              2009-10-29 at 21:30

              Kima and Mike Douglas didn’t accompany Ron until he moved to San Luis Obisbo until sometime in the early ’80’s.

              Jim Dincalci and Paul Preston were with him when he went to New York in 73.

              What you are writing here Briana is nothing but pure revisionism.

              Let me ask you this. Why were the Feds so incompetent?

              I mean I knew he lived in San Luis Obisbo back in the early ’80’s .In fact I met him on one of his occasional excursions to LA .

              Also I knew about La Quinta in the the late ’70’s and the FLB before that.

              If I knew that I’m pretty sure the Feds would have known it!

              They could have handed him a subpoena when he was walking the streets of San Luis Obisbo with the Douglases or the Broekers in tow or nailed him at a corner store when he picked up a carton of Kools.

              So what’s up with that?

              Also why should he take “the wrap” for Mary Sue when he himself was not involved in the covert op or cover up. No matter how many times you claim otherwise.

              Also maybe the reason that he managed to stay out of prison was because he had OT abilities. Obviously Moon and LaRouche didn’t.

              • Anonymous
                2009-10-29 at 22:17

                There are many links, but this will do. 1986 interview with Kima Douglas.

                http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/kima.htm

                Kima and Jim Dincalci were both with LRH in Wash DC in ’76.

                Moon and LaRouche took it like men; LRH ran and hid. He was even too afraid to make a video message for Scientologists. Not impressive.

  78. Anonymous
    2009-10-28 at 00:40

    RJ :

    all you done is surfed the net and found a bunch a doctored docs

    some dubious PLs that mention the word “hate” or whatever.

    .

    I first had the opportunity to examine thousands of pages of documents many years ago. These documents did not come from the Internet, but from Federal Court. They were in paper form and consisted of LRH’s spying and dirty tricks tech, orders, plans, and subsequent operations, and the paperwork accumulated during those operations. They also included Telexes from the Flagship Apollo.

    The PLs that I referenced are quite real, which you must know.

    As for the Ops done on Paulette Cooper, I also had the opportunity, years ago, of reading her three binder collection of all the documents related to her case, which also included Telexes from the Apollo.

    The views that you present are almost identical to the standard cult PR line on this topic. This is unfortunate, as it will likely confuse at least some attempting to sort out the mess that Scientology became, after its founder started calling himself “Source,” established a spying and dirty tricks network, and then made himself “Commodore” of his own ultra-authoritarian private navy.

  79. Anonymous
    2009-10-28 at 01:18

    isene :Interesting info. If you guys are finished with the wrestling match, I’d like to see more meat as in this post – also from BV. Thanks.

    Not quite finished. To clarify for RJ:

    My information does not come from the Internet. The documents which I examined were from Federal Court and were in paper form. There was no Internet then. These consisted of LRH’s spying and covert dirty tricks tech, orders, programs, subsequent operations, and the paperwork accumulated during these Operations. These documents included Telexes from the Flagship Apollo.

    The PL ‘Battle Tactics’ is quite real, which you must know.

    As for Paulette Cooper, I had the opportunity to examine her three binder collection of all the documents related to her case years ago. These also included Telexes fron the Apollo.

    The view that you present, RJ, *is almost identical to the standard cult PR line on this subject*. It looks like a page from an old cult ‘Dead Agent’ pack.

    This is unfortunate, as it will likely confuse some who are attempting to sort out the mess that Scientology became after its founder started calling himself “Source,” established a spying and covert dirty tricks network, and made himself “Commodore” of his own ultra-authoritarian private navy.

  80. Anonymous
    2009-10-28 at 07:05

    RJ :

    The fact was that Ron wasn’t anywhere near the scene of the crime and instead of directing the operation he was actually directing movies at “Over the Rainbow” near La Quinta California. Of course this didn’t stop the Government from naming him as an “Unindicted Coconspirator” meaning we gots no evidence but we’s knows ya done it, which is pretty typical of J Edgar Hoover’s spawns. If can’t indict at least taint ‘em with guilt by association which used to be McCarthy’s old trick, since we were on the subject of Communism earlier.
    Anyway that’s pretty much the actual story condensed for brevity as opposed to the fictional account that you seem to be promoting.

    Firstly, I’ve attempted twice to post a response, and each time – for some reason – it disappeared into hyper space. I’ll try one more time, but I’ll keep it short, as I’ve no idea if this message too will also disappear.

    Here goes:

    RJ, your responses re. LRH and the Guardians Office/’Snow White’ matter resemble the standard Scientology cult response. In fact, it’s almost as though, in your last couple of lengthier posts, you’ve been cut and pasting from old cult ‘Dead Agent’ pack material.

    This is unfortunate, as no doubt it will likely confuse some who are attempting to sort out the mess that Scientology became after its founder began calling himself “Source,” established his own spying and covert dirty tricks network, and then became the “Commodore” with his own ultra-authoritarian private navy.

    You mention – above – that LRH wasn’t anywhere near the scene of the crime as he was making movies. That makes very little sense. To begin with, the movie making period to which you refer was around 1978. The period to which I have referred was from the late 1960s through to early 1977.

    Now a few points: The Internet is not my primary source of information. Many years ago, I had the opportunity to examine the secret Scientology documents in question, and they didn’t come form the Internet. They came from a federal Court house. These documents revealed extensive LRH spying and dirty tricks tech, orders, plans, programs, and subsequent operations and their accumulated paperwork.

    Around the same time, I also had the opportunity to read Paulette Cooper’s three binders of material, containing all the material related to the many years long attacks from Scientology. These included telexes from the Flagship Apollo.

    Now, before I write any more, let’s see if this message makes it through.

    • RJ
      2009-10-28 at 11:04

      If you are referring to the period immediately before the raid Ron had moved from Dunedin to La Quinta which was around early 1977, so he wasn’t anywhere near Washington at the time.

      Before that he was at the FH after being at the Neptune Lodge in Daytona preceded by the Apollo which was at sea, so as I wrote he was no where near the scene of the crime.

      Also you write about the Snow White Program, well actually there is a very good book written about it that you probably should read its called ‘PLAYING DIRTY,
      The Secret War Against Beliefs’ by Omar V. Garrison on how the cult you seem to belong to which you seem to be one of the biggest apologists for, harassed the Church for quite a number of years as the author says: (begin fair use)

      After more than 20 years of persecution and bad faith by the government, the Scientologists found themselves between a rock and a hard place. They opted for what they considered the necessary evil: contravention.

      At law, such a pleading is known as justification, or the choice of evils, and in the right circumstances it is a legal defense for illegal acts, rendering the defendant guiltless, even if he is mistaken in fact. All that is necessary to prove is that he held an honest and reasonable belief in the necessity of his action.

      There is no doubt that most judges sitting today would interpret such a defense in the narrowest legal construction possible. This would be especially true in cases involving illegal action against the state, even though the government had itself been guilty of numerous breaches of the law. In past decisions, the courts have dealt harshly with defendants who, in desperation, have defied crushing governmental encroachments they felt threatened their constitutional liberties.

      The judicial system has been heavily weighted in favor of centralized power and sovereign immunity.

      That concept has to be challenged. If it is not, our founders’ idea of freedom and self-rule, based squarely upon the dispersion of power, will perish. In its place, we will have an autocratic, total government, exercising full control over our lives. Our system of justice will pass from its historic form of accusatorial law into governmental absolutism, supported by inquisitorial procedures.

      We will deserve no better.

      (end fair use)

      http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/Playing_Dirty/index.htm#Author's%20Statement

      No doubt you seem to be the type that seems to be opposed to the First Amendment and this is obvious by your actions to “deprogram” us by attacking the subject and its founder.

      Also anyone who disagrees with you is accused of being a “cult apologist” or is “dead agenting” you!

      Get real!

  81. Anonymous
    2009-10-28 at 09:15

    isene :I don’t know what the issue is, but you are marked as “Anonymous” on this latest batch of comments…

    I’ve no idea either, except that there seems to be some sort of glitch occurring. I most definitely am not posting as “Anonymous.”

    Earlier my posts appeared to have been not received (bounced), and I re-sent several of them in an attempt to get through. Each progressively shorter, so – now – they seem to be finally getting through. Sorry for the redundancy.

    I just noticed that the “reply” function is not working at this current time, so something is off.

    Anyway, aside from the multiple – partially redundant – posts, my messages do appear to be making it through – eventually – although I am now being identified as “Anonymous” (?)

    So, I’ll wait until things settle down glitch-wise before posting anymore.

    • 2009-10-28 at 12:43

      Good idea. It’s unfortunately out of my control 😦

  82. Anonymous
    2009-10-28 at 14:22

    RJ :If you are referring to the period immediately before the raid Ron had moved from Dunedin to La Quinta which was around early 1977, so he wasn’t anywhere near Washington at the time.
    Before that he was at the FH after being at the Neptune Lodge in Daytona preceded by the Apollo which was at sea, so as I wrote he was no where near the scene of the crime.
    Also you write about the Snow White Program, well actually there is a very good book written about it that you probably should read its called ‘PLAYING DIRTY,The Secret War Against Beliefs’ by Omar V. Garrison on how the cult you seem to belong to which you seem to be one of the biggest apologists for, harassed the Church for quite a number of years as the author says: (begin fair use)
    After more than 20 years of persecution and bad faith by the government, the Scientologists found themselves between a rock and a hard place. They opted for what they considered the necessary evil: contravention.

    !

    Reply function still not working…

    I was referring to the “making movies” period of late 1977 to mid/late 1978ish.

    Briefly, did I mention Washington? LRH was in Wash. DC for a short time in the spring of 1976, not far from the Wash. DC Church of Scientology. He had fled from Clearwater by car destined for NYC, but only made it to Wash. DC. It was in Wash. DC., at that same time, that the second phase of the frame-up attempt on Paulette Cooper was begun, and re-titled ‘OP Freak Out’. Some of the documents are available on the Net. (And, yes, I have also seen these documents in paper form, when they were in Paulette Cooper’s 3 binder collection.)

    Omar Garrison’s a good man, but he (like many good people) was duped by the Church. He was a paid apologist for them, but he also was mislead by the Church, and sincerely belived much of what he wrote – that is until he stepped back and took a good look. THEN, he changed his mind. It began with his – and his assistant Gerry Armstrong’s – examination of boxes of LRH biographical documents. That opened Omar’s eyes.

    I suggest that you open YOUR eyes.

    • RJ
      2009-10-28 at 20:56

      I recommend that you “open YOUR eyes” Briana because as far as I’m concerned you are blinded by hate.

      The fact is that Ron wasn’t anywhere near New York in the mid to late 70’s he was there in ’73 for several months, so your little conspiracy theory doesn’t work, even the documented proof contradicts what you write, since Feakout was originated by the AG there. The telexes and CSWs went to non other than the USGO’s B1 run by our favorite mole Meisner.

      Speaking of doctored docs as far as I’m concerned Jerry “We don’t have to prove a goddam thing. We don’t have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.” Armstrong is the biggest paper mill of all the “critical” websites!

      He’d do CIA’s OTS proud as far as I’m concerned. Too bad Omar Garrison fell under his evil spell!

      Yes, yes, of course anyone who sees the Church’s side instead of the Government’s must immediately be an “apologist”. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the FBI, CIA, NSA and various other members of the Alphabet Soup club were conducting illegal espionage activities against various US citizens and groups as covered in the following Church Committee Report:

      http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm

      Also you keep writing about this three volume collection that purportedly contains “thousands” of pages of documents. The fact is that thousands of pages of docs would require more than three binders. They would fill at least several banker’s boxes if in fact they did exist! Maybe more!

      For instance John Marks started with 38 boxes to write his book ‘The Search for the Manchurian Candidate’ and ended up with over a hundred after all his FOIA requests were fulfilled!

      A very good book if you want to know about Government mind control:

      http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/marks.htm

      Something Herr Dockter Cooper seems to support due to her dubious connections to the late and unlamented Jolly West, shinning star of the Mk Ultra project which makes Snow White…well seem like Snow White in comparison!

      Having worked on FOIA lines myself I happen to know these things. So don’t try to pull the the wool over my eyes on this one. Three binders containing thousands of docs! That’s like saying ten thousands angels danced on the head of a pin.

      And speaking of pin heads! Where is old Jerry these days?

      Is he still like Cooper making big bucks blathering on about how he was so wronged by the Church?

      What do you expect when you offer your services as an informant to the LAPD’s CID offering to plant incriminating docs in the Complex so that they can raid the place, to be embraced with open arms!?

      The guy is a thief, forger and informer yet he’s considered almost a Saint by the haters!

      Briana if you want to pump up this guy as a paragon of virtue I suggest you do it somewhere else. Somewhere where people don’t know the back story behind his undeserved sainthood!

      As far as I’m concerned pointing out all the Ol’mans alleged crimes is the zenith of hypocrisy!

      Funny though while you protest against the tactics of “dead agenting” or what you and your band of haters consider to be “dead agenting” you seem to do a lot of it yourself!

      Not effectively but you still try.

      At least I’d give you an E for effort.

      If anyone needs to “open their eyes” it is you Brianna.

      • Anonymous
        2009-10-28 at 22:01

        I never stated that there were thousands of pages in Paulette Cooper’s three binders. Guessing, the number was probaly about 400-500 pages.

        There were thousands of pages *of G.O. docs* released by federal court order.

        I did not state that LRH was in NYC in the late 1970s, only that he was in Wash. DC in the spring of 1976. The Op for Cooper was *done* out of NYC, since that was where she lived.

        When I first saw these docs, I had a difficult time with the idea that the FBI actually did something good in July 1977 re. Scientology’s Fair Game Law applying Intelligence network.

        I haven’t lost sight of the fact that it was not abuses of private citizens, or even abuses of low local public officials such as the Mayor of Clearwater Florida, that upset the FBI. What bugged the Feds was that their offices were being burglarized and their files stolen. The revelations re. Paulette Cooper and others were incidental, but very important. These docs revealed much about the inner workings of Scientology, and the inner workings of LRH’s mind. Further analysis led to the observation that some of the same methods used by Scientology’s G.O./LRH-Intel-tech on enemies, was also used by Scientology on its own membership. It was another window into the secret workings of the Scientology cult.

        By the way, are you currently a member of the Church of Scientology?

        • Briana Volta
          2009-10-28 at 22:45

          Note: My posts are now appearing as “Anonymous” for some reason. Hopefully, this glitch will correct itself soon.

          • 2009-10-29 at 10:39

            I manually changed your name… I have no clue why you end up as Anonymous 😦

        • RJ
          2009-10-28 at 22:57

          Funny I was going to ask you a similar question, more specifically do you work for OSA, because you seem to do a lot of Hubbard bashing and inveighing against the criminal actions of the GO while mostly ignoring the detrimental effect that Miscavige has had upon the organization and if you mention it at all you say it’s because he’s supposedly following in Hubbard’s footsteps which is *exactly* the message that OSA currently is trying to convey even though it is a bald faced lie!

          Also Hubbard was never in Washington in 76. He was at the FH after moving there from Daytona. You must have this confused with the brief time he spent in Washington while he was ashore in ’73.

          Also the GO never infiltrated the FBI offices since their target under GO 1361 written by FBI’s mole Meisner was the IRS.

          You should know this fact having read the docs since released by the FBI!

          Finally to answer your question.

          No I am not a member of the squirrel group that calls itself the Church of Scientology.

          Please don’t insult me!

          • Anonymous
            2009-10-29 at 23:32

            Agencies infiltrated included the IRS, the U.S Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the USA District Attorney’s Offices in LA and DC. This is only the tip of the iceberg and it is still going on.

            All the above are “FEDs.” Federal agencies don’t like being infiltrated by cults.

            LRH’s plan to infiltate them backfired, and revealed many violations of the rights of private citizens and local govt officials.

            Anyone interested can do his own research and make up his own mind.

            • Anonymous
              2009-10-30 at 00:23

              Correction: That’s just *US Attorney’s Office* – no “Distinct,” but federal.

              To any readers. Do your own research. Make up your own mind.

              One must know the past soas not to repeat it.

            • RJ
              2009-10-30 at 05:22

              These agencies were not “infiltrated”. The people who reported to the GO from them were legal employees there!

              Including the ones who worked for the CIA, NSA and INSCOM! Several that you seemed to have overlooked.

              Are you saying that the Government should repeal the First Amendment of the Constitution?

              Also while accusing others of using emotional words you use the word “cult”. Of course I could say this seems hypocritical but I won’t!

              What about “cults” such as the Skull and Bones, the one our former President belonged to or Opus Dei? Remember Robert Hanssen?

              It seems to me as far as your concerned it’s alright to spy for the Russians, but “spy” for Scientology!

              Also it seems fine to you that various agencies of the Government, First Amendment notwithstanding, should be able to infiltrate,spy on and harass its citizens completely unchecked and not expect any blow back.

  83. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-28 at 16:54

    Briana Volta :
    I’m familiar with the hypothesis that “the REAL power behind the apparent powers of the world” took over Scientology in the 1980s. (If you’re a ‘Ron’s Org’/’Galactic Patrol’ person that would be the “Marcabians” – it should be alright to mention the evil extraterrestrial “Marcabians,” since ‘Marcab’ is in the Scientology ‘Tech Dictionary.)

    Ha ha, Briana. What is this? You’ve invented a new sub-category of “reductio ad absurdum”, called “reductio ad Marcabium”?

    No, my dear. We can find a typical example of it right here:

    “We need a program of psychosurgery and political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.”

    “The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.”

    “Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electrical stimulation of the brain.”
    Dr. Jose Delgado (MKULTRA experimenter who demonstrated a radio-controlled bull on CNN in 1985)
    Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School
    Congressional Record February 24, 1972

    Briana Volta :
    The awful truth is that the primary destructive force in Scientology was also its primary creative force, LRH.
    IMO, of course.

    And I think if you said that to a Jew about his religion, it then would be obvious exactly what you are.

    IMO, of course. 😉

    • Anonymous
      2009-10-28 at 22:48

      You like to hit emotional “buttons.” Who do you think you’re manipulating?

      • RJ
        2009-10-29 at 11:11

        Wow Briana this is exactly the type of accusation, someone from OSA would make and the sort of Black Dianetic question they would ask, in an effort to cave someone in.

        As if I was trying to manipulate you by disagreeing with your conspiracy theories.

        Get serious Briana, either that or get lost.

  84. Anonymous
    2009-10-29 at 13:54

    I said *FEDS*, not FBI, “FEDs” as in *Federal agencies*, which includes the IRS. The point being that the *Federal* government was upset about its offices and files being violated, but not much concerned about violations of the offices, homes, and persons of private citizens or local (non federal) government officials.

    LRH was in Washington DC in 1976. If you don’t think so, you can argue with Mike and Kima Douglas who drove him there, or with Jim Dincalci who lived with him in Washington.

    http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/cooper/frkc1.html

    • RJ
      2009-10-29 at 20:54

      Your link does not support your argument at all, take a look at it yourself.

      • Anonymous
        2009-10-29 at 22:53

        My argument is that LRH was in DC in the spring of ’76 and – more importantly – that he KNEW about the activities of his private spying and dirty tricks network. It was one of his passions. Anyone can research the Internet and make up his own mind. The credible testimony and documented evidence is plentiful.

        • RJ
          2009-10-30 at 04:41

          Actually the conjectures, prevarications, obfuscations, confabulations, fabrications, disinformation and conspiracy theories are the only things that are plentiful on the internet with only a smattering of actual documented evidence.

          Also “credible testimony” can only be obtained from a credible witness.

          That said I agree one should do their own research and come to *their* own conclusions not *yours*!

    • ExKane
      2009-10-29 at 21:03

      I may be mistaken but I believe this argument is centered on LRH’s involvement in Operations Freakout and Snow White. RJ, are you suggesting that Hubbard didn’t even know that these huge operations were going to happen/were happening and in which his wife was directly involved? I find this unlikely. If he did know about them, then via his own philosophy of KRC, he is partially responsible, is he not?

      • RJ
        2009-10-30 at 00:51

        In my opinion many critics have a double standard first they claim that OT abilities don’t exist, yet say that Ron should have been omnipotent, prescient and all knowing!

        If you’ve worked on staff (before micromanagement by Miscavige became the order of the day) you were assigned or in many cases assumed a post and expected to do your job with out any meddling or outside interference.

        The applicable PL (one Miscavige obviously never read) is known as ‘Fast Flow Management’ which is based on the PL ‘Organization the Flaw’ which warns against “inspection before the fact” which is pretty much how all sectors of Scientology operated back then.

        Worse (depending on your POV), as I alluded to earlier the GO was virtually an impregnable fortress. A virtual, in spook parlance,SCIF or Secure Compartmented Information Facility and all programs, such as the infamous Snow White,projects, directives, orders, for example the less infamous but actually more damaging GO 1361, were all issued on a “need to know” basis only.

        Only those who were directly involved in clandestine and covert operations knew anything about them

        In the case of GO 1361 only B1,the AG US and the Guardian and the Assistant Guardian knew anything about the operation and its operatives, until the operation was blown and they asked for C/S 7 the Controller Mary Sue for her help in walking back the cat.

        All the docs that were seized by the FBI which BV constantly brings up will prove out this fact. Also the “Stipulation of Evidence” will reveal this as well:

        http://weyr.argentcross.org/scieno/stip/stip01.htm

        http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/docs/

        More can be requested here:

        http://foia.fbi.gov/

        However, some are not satisfied with the documented evidence and have formed a conspiracy theory that Ron must have at least known or somehow been involved despite the evidence.

        In fact the lack of evidence only confirms this belief even more for some which is the mark of a true conspiracy theorist 🙂

        Now is Ron was responsible? If someone shoots someone else with a 44 is Smith & Wesson responsible?

        • Anonymous
          2009-10-30 at 11:21

          Does anyone have a scan of LRH’s original (non-remimeo) 7 March 1965 ‘Fair Game Law’, also the 1973 confidential ‘Intelligence, Its Role’, and an (OK to post) scan of LRH’s 1969 ‘Intelligence Actions, Covert Intelligence Data Collection’, and also ‘Targets, Defense’?[“Targets” = covert Targets, and “Defense” = PR protective buffer] ‘Targets, Defense’ instructs to *use enemy tactics*, and – in various LRH writings “enemy tactics” are described, and in confidential and highly confidential LRH writings, it is obvious these are meant for use by Scientology on “enemies.”

          And Scientology and LRH had lots of “enemies,” including LRH’s 2nd wife, whom he wanted others to believe was a Russian spy named Sara Komkovadananov.

          The evidence is conclusive that LRH DID KNOW about the activities of HIS spying and dirty tricks network. He was the Boss – remember? – and his Intel Network was based on his confidential Intel Tech. It’s a bit late to try to convince others that LRH “did not know,” etc. It’s ridiculous to try. Most people are not that gullible.

          There is much that is right with Scientology, but what is wrong with Scientology goes back to the 1960s, and even the 1950s in some cases, and it wasn’t put there by “SPs” or “SP infiltrators,” etc., but by its founder, LRH.

          Confront that, and you might have a chance of reforming Scientology. Don’t confront that and the same childish cult nonsense will continue.

    • ExKane
      2009-10-29 at 22:08

      Here’s what Hubbard wrote regarding protecting him from the fallout of Operation Snow White. Clearly, he was prepared to go into hiding.
      “Maintain an Alerting EARLY WARNING SYSTEM throughout the GO
      Network so that any situation concerning governments or courts
      by reason of suits is known in adequate time to take defensive actions
      to suddenly raise the level on LRH Personal Security very
      high. (Target #l GO 261175 LRH).”

      • RJ
        2009-10-30 at 03:31

        Well as you know Ron was never a big fan of Government and he expected the fall out from the raids in LA and DC would reach him, so he made himself inaccessible or scarce 🙂

        Also legally unassailable this was actually what MAC or Mission All Clear run by non other than our friend and current “COB” , David Miscavige was all about. It was basically fired to clear not only his name but Scientology’s name in general after the Snow White debacle.

        As you can see he’s done an excellent job! No sarcasm intended, really 😉

        First instead of doing a postmortem on what happened with the GO, he ostensibly disbanded it and formed OSA, sorta like how Stalin “disbanded” the NKVD and called it the OPG which later became the KGB and still exists as the FSB!

        Secondly he kept the Ol’man a virtual prisoner by taking over all his comm lines. On one hand feeding him a diet of false stats on what a great job he was doing and on the other dire warnings about his precarious legal position and his need to handle the “situation” for him, which a lot of the time he was creating!

        Like for instance Flyn and Associates and the lawsuit filed by Ron De Wolf. They could have settled out of court but Miscavige wanted to fight it out and like Flyn milk the case for publicity.

        Christopherson, the Portland Mission could paid the girl the refund requested but oh no another opportunity for grandstanding with the “Portland Freedom Cavalcade” could not be missed!

        Lest we forget Wollershiem, where Miscavige and his legal beagles ordered the whole restructuring of the Scientology Organization to avoid paying Wollershiem any possible settlement!

        Remember the slogan “Not one thin dime for Wollershiem!”

        The only problem was that by doing so they eliminated the two organizations that were legally appealing the IRS’ revocation of Scientology’s 501 (c) iii status. HASI and CSC!

        Even worse! It laid the ground work for the IAS. The beast that to a large degree has devoured Scientology!

        So much so that one of our slogans in the Independent Field is “We are NOT the IAS, not NOW, not ever!”

        Anyway, the above is only my observations on the scene and you can take ’em or leave ’em.

        I neither go with the critics or present the Panglossian vision that OSA’s PR machine would like to portray about the past legal “victories” because in many cases from perceptive they were disasters!

        Including the IRS “Victory” posthumous that turned the senior execs into deputies for the IRS through the CTCC.

        However, the only major success was that he kept the Ol’man out of prison and safe from harm so he could write up the rest of the Bridge and that was the only thing in my opinion Miscavige did right despite the fact that it may have been his unintended consequence.

        • Anonymous
          2009-10-30 at 12:17

          Is that what you LRH-cult version #2 guys are waiting for? The “rest of the Bridge”?

          Is that why you keep the “LRH LRH LRH” chant going? Because you want to remain good LRH children, so you can some day do “the rest of the LRH Bridge”?

          So let me get this straight. The same LRH who DIDN’T KNOW what was going on in his own organization, and who was held a “virtual prisoner” by the 22 year old punk Miscavige, is the same LRH who “wrote up the rest of the Bridge,” the upper *upper* OT levels in the 1980s.

          There *are* pages of notes, according to David Mayo, but he described them as virtually incomprehensible. But what did he know? He was only LRH’s auditor and the senior C/S International.

          Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. LRH can’t be a super aware and super able OT *and* also a clue-less person held captive in his own hide-out surrounded by his own servants.

          LRH built a cult, but didn’t build a Bridge any longer than was needed to solidify someone into the LRH cult, and/or the LRH cult mind-set.

          Thank goodness so much information has – over the years – become available, and thank goodness for the Internet which at least makes much of it easily accessible.

          No more LRH-cult please, one was enough.

          It’s time to grow up.

          In my extremely humble opinion, of course.

          • 2009-10-30 at 12:49

            I have given you plenty of slack so far. You are waring it out. Watch it.

            Your obsession with LRH is tiring.

        • ExKane
          2009-10-30 at 19:47

          Did you read Larry Brennan’s affidavit?
          “Throughout his declarations, Miscavige positions Hubbard as some how a wonderful person betrayed by the GO. Hubbard, according to Miscavige, was not involved in GO activities and was off the lines during major corporate sort outs. The facts are very different. Hubbard was deeply involved in all major GO legal actions involving corporate throughout the history of the GO. Not only that, but many horrible abuses some in the GO carried out were under Hubbard’s orders. Not only that, but the “damages cases” and other such cases that the GO was mired into defending where not just from things of their own doing. They were trying to defend against real damages in fact caused, not just by the GO, but rather by the standard application of abusive Hubbard policies found throughout organized scientology. The GO did many bad things and some in there committed crimes and deserved to go to jail. But the insane policies of Hubbard relating to such things as “fair game”, “disconnection”, the RPF, penalties, hard selling, etc., etc. were in fact behind many legitimate governmental and private civil actions against the “church”. Hubbard was creating many of the main legal problems, not the GO.”
          And later: “also contrary to Miscavige’s sworn declarations, Hubbard continued to order top organized scientology executives, including myself, well into 1983 about legal matters, hiding his controls and more.”
          And: “Much has been done under Miscavige to hide the truth including the vetting or destruction of files that showed Hubbard and he was in control. This was similar to the mass vetting and removal of files throughout the GO after the FBI raids in the late 1970s to hide the fact that Hubbard was really running the GO.”

          • RJ
            2009-10-30 at 21:42

            I rarely pay attention to affidavits, unless they have been corroborated by others. Larry Brennan knows a lot about the COS but very little about how the GO operated which was like Scientology’s version of “a rogue elephant”!

            I was there and even after the raid the GO operated on Directives issued by the Guardian
            what we facetiously called “GODs”.

            None of these were personally issued by Hubbard though they may have contained relevant quotes from a PL, RED, OOD, sec or RED to give them a facade of legitimacy.

            Also none of them had IA because they were confidential directives, eyes only for GO personnel.

            As I wrote earlier.

            What happened with the GO happens all the time in covert operations conducted by CIA!

            Tell me do you think Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy were aware that Mk Ultra was being conducted under their watch?

            Christ, Eisenhower couldn’t get a straight answer about the Soviet’s OOB or the fact that the so called “missile gap” was a fraud promoted by the defense industry and the military!

            What he later called the military industrial complex!because of this fact.

            CIA could have told him this because they had all the facts from their U-2 overflights but they didn’t bother, because arming America meant big bucks!

            Okay, so much for an analogy and historical perspective which I notice most critics of Scientology seem to lack!

            The fact is that Hubbard had his own zones of operation, such as the Sea Org, putting a proper management structure in place, further research of the upper and lower bridge.

            Do you think he really had time to write poison pen letters to Paulette Grouper or run a covert op on the side that involved infiltrating the USG?

            Yeah, and Porky’s got wings ma!

            As far as I’m concerned the “critics” paint this false revisionist history assisted by former plants and others whose objective is money.

            Read HCOPL Counterespionage, one that isn’t confidential but I’ll doubt you’ll be seeing the critics posting anytime soon on their little critical websites or ARS or OCMB or ESMB!

            Also I find it interesting that this character assassination of Hubbard was launched posthumously i.e. after his death so the various authors didn’t have to worry about being confronted with a libel suit!

            Assisted by Miscavige who really doesn’t give a damn about Ron’s reputation and is only interested in his own self aggrandizement and keeping what followers he has left in line.

            In that regard the “critics” more accurately Hubbard haters are his best friend.

            You see the more you discredit Hubbard the more you are helping the little poison dwarf’s cause, because he can point to all this incessant natter or entheta, about the Ol’man which most Scientologists find distasteful to begin with and claim anything else they say is nothing but a pack of lies when in fact some of the things the critics say contain some truth!

            So anyway going after Ron is actually preventing any real Reform contrary to what BV and other so called “critics” say.

            It’s like bringing out the awful “truth” about Jesus Christ to a bunch of Christians or telling Buddhists that Siddhartha Gautama was nothing but a sleaze ball!

            Sure that’s going to go over big!

            That’s really going to get your message across!

            Right!

            Sorry I’ve got to break this off but Porky’s doing a test flight with his new wings.

            • Anonymous
              2009-10-30 at 23:44

              “[The power asks] ‘What are those dead bodies doing by the door? And if you [the subordinate] are clever, you never let it be known that HE [the power] killed them – that weakens you and also hurts the power source. ‘Well, boss about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pinks legs sticking out, didn’t like me.’ ‘Well,’ he’ll say if he really is a power, ‘Why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you [wink wink]did it. Where’s my blue ink?’…

              “…always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power, or more ease, or a snarling defense of the power to a critic, or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark…

              “Real powers are developed by tight conspiracies of this kind… And if they are right and also manage their man [the power] and keep him from collapsing from overwork, bad temper or bad data, a kind of juggernaut builds up.”

              From ‘Admin Know-How, The Responsibility of Leaders’ (‘Bolivar PL’), 12 February 1967.

            • ExKane
              2009-10-30 at 23:56

              Larry Brennan knew very little of how the GO operated? Please, read the affidavit.
              His positions were: “Legal Handling United States Guardian’s Office (LHUSGO)”
              Then: “Legal Branch I Director United States Guardian’s Office (L Br I Dir USGO)”
              Then: “Legal Branch I Director World Wide Guardian’s Office (L Br I Dir GOWW)”
              The descriptions of those positions, as well as the other duties he took on, are in the affidavit.

              • RJ
                2009-10-31 at 10:40

                Wow and I thought I was naive at times!

                Do you think that B1 Info would consult legal to conduct illegal covert ops!

                Uh huh.

                He handled legal mainly CSO,Corporate Sort Out which included SOCO these various front groups he discusses in his affidavit.

                Read his affidavit:

                You want to get a picture of the GO. You talk to the ones who did the “dirty deeds done cheap”.

                Like for instance if you want to know how CIA operated a good book is probably Marchetti’s ‘Cult of Intelligence’ but an even better book to read would be Agee’s ‘Inside the Company’.

                Yeah Larry’s a cool guy and all, also he knows a lot about the corporate structure and has a stratospheric overview but he wasn’t in the trenches.

                Where in his affidavit does he talk about the day to day operations of the GO?

                Like I wrote read his affidavit this time before you make others wrong!

            • ExKane
              2009-10-31 at 10:41

              By the way, there is audio evidence of LRH orchestrating planned government infiltration, related to “Project Normandy.” Click “free download” on this page http://uploading.com/files/f916462f/hubbard%2Bplotting%2Btakeover%2B%2528both%2Bsides%2Bof%2Btape%2529.mp3/

              It’s an hour long recording of Hubbard planning with Pat Broeker. It’s clear that, in this case, Hubbard had say in every move that was made, including those by Mary Sue. You also get to hear him repeatedly yell at a female aide for her inability to produce the correct map.
              Anyways, perhaps the Brennan affidavit is more pertinent to the discussion at hand.

              • RJ
                2009-11-01 at 09:50

                Tried the DL and got nada except it screwed up my itunes.

                Yeah that’s sure sign that its authentic.

                Solid just like that photoshopped picture of Volney giving an auditing demo in Phoenix that all the critics were passing around till someone noticed it was an obvious fake.

                Operation Normandy, huh now that’s original.

                Let’s see how long did it take this “smoking gun” to surface?

                Yeah only two decades.

                That must mean that Broeker is even better than Ehrlichman!

              • 2009-11-01 at 09:52

                I got the file to work.

              • RJ
                2009-11-01 at 10:28

                Hmmm, must be a glitch with OS X.

                Well ya know what to do Geir Voice Print it and then check for splices.

              • 2009-11-01 at 10:40

                I’ll let one of you audio guys do the job 🙂

              • RJ
                2009-11-01 at 12:02

                Forget about audio I managed to DL.

                Problem solved, I was running iTunes when I attempted first DL and its a very big file.

                Sorry EK that I doubted you about the authenticity of the recording but I don’t hear a vast intergalactic conspiracy of world domination here in fact it sounds rather mundane, almost anticlimactic.

                I suggest someone who has the time and inclination do an actual transcript of the recording because what you say he’s saying I don’t hear.

                I hear him being concerned about his and Mary Sue’s security, about avoiding the IRS if possible, about setting up accommodations that he and Mary Sue can arrive at incognito.

              • ExKane
                2009-11-01 at 10:33

                RJ, it IS authentic. I don’t know why it would mess up your iTunes. It worked fine for me (iTunes version 9.0.1). Actually there is another link floating around there if you search “hubbard plotting takeover” on google, but this is the one that worked for me.
                In any case, listen and you’ll know its unmistakably LRH.

  85. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-29 at 23:43

    Anonymous :
    You like to hit emotional “buttons.” Who do you think you’re manipulating?

    Ha ha, HUH? Are you the pot calling the kettle black? 😀

    “Fanaticism”, “criminally insane”, “deliberate manipulation”, “secretive”, “abuses”, “inflicted”, “unaware”, “influences”, “secret cult model”, “paranoid and toxic mind-set”, “frantically butchered”, “apologist”, “cult”, “secretive&paranoid”, “secret writings”, “not sane”, “mix of fantasy and paranoia”, “covertness and ruthlessness”, “poisoned”, “hid like a coward”, “ultra-authoritarian private navy”, “a fake”, “LRH ran away”, “fled”.

    These are the buzz words and phrases harvested from the postings, on just this thread alone, of Briana Volta, aka: “anonymous”.

  86. Anonymous
    2009-10-30 at 00:47

    Nom de Plume :

    Anonymous :You like to hit emotional “buttons.” Who do you think you’re manipulating?

    Ha ha, HUH? Are you the pot calling the kettle black?
    “Fanaticism”, “criminally insane”, “deliberate manipulation”, “secretive”, “abuses”, “inflicted”, “unaware”, “influences”, “secret cult model”, “paranoid and toxic mind-set”, “frantically butchered”, “apologist”, “cult”, “secretive&paranoid”, “secret writings”, “not sane”, “mix of fantasy and paranoia”, “covertness and ruthlessness”, “poisoned”, “hid like a coward”, “ultra-authoritarian private navy”, “a fake”, “LRH ran away”, “fled”.
    These are the buzz words and phrases harvested from the postings, on just this thread alone, of Briana Volta, aka: “anonymous”.

    “Frantically butchered” – just to cite one example – I was referring to the pre-NED (New Era Dianetics) HCOBs, which *were* frantically butchered – hurriedly edited and re-written under LRH orders by beleaguered tech people.

    Just compare the original (pre 78/79) Standard Dianetics HCOBs with the NED HCOB re-writes. It’s ghastly.

    When I audited Dianetics on my PCs after leaving Scientology, usually when also giving them their Grades, etc. (many years ago), I didn’t use the NED re-writes. David Mayo (in 1991) later revealed that LRH’s motivation for re-making Dianetics, and suddenly “discovering” oodles of Dianetic Clears, was PR and marketing motivated. Read his ‘IVy’ magazine article from 1991 on “Clear.”

    It’s good to see that you’re keeping busy, re-reading my posts, although I’m not sure I wrote all the things you say I wrote. But that’s OK. It keeps you busy and, hey, you might learn something.

  87. RJ
    2009-10-30 at 06:45

    Anonymous :
    There are many links, but this will do. 1986 interview with Kima Douglas.
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/kima.htm
    Kima and Jim Dincalci were both with LRH in Wash DC in ‘76.
    Moon and LaRouche took it like men; LRH ran and hid. He was even too afraid to make a video message for Scientologists. Not impressive.

    I suppose you believed every word of her interview?

    No evidence to back her up, just “a Brownstone on Q Street” (yeah that’s specific), well at least we really know they arrived in La Quinta and later set up Creston, you know ’cause the buildings are there. So is Bluebird but this DC story is about as flaky as Wheaties.

    Does Kima nee Dunleavy Douglas have any proof of this diversion to Washington for some say 10 others say 4-5 months when he was supposedly in Washington instead Dundien ?

    Seems Dincalci is MIA to corroborate her though he wasn’t supposedly when Atack wrote ‘A Piece of B.S.’ which it certainly was.

    Anyway you see this kinda stuff in the Tabloids all the time though I’ve never run into anyone who actually believed it!

    Oh well I guess my expectations are just too high 🙂

  88. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-30 at 21:01

    Anonymous :

    … I’m not sure I wrote all the things you say I wrote..

    Ha ha, Briana. I must admit, that was rather slippery of you. 😉

    You want us to believe you are a skilled, experienced, dedicated “researcher”, who can’t use Control+F. 😀

    Anonymous :
    …hey, you might learn something.

    I did! I learned what kind of a “researcher” you are, [adHom removed]

    • 2009-10-30 at 22:25

      Watch the adHom.

    • Anonymous
      2009-10-31 at 10:50

      Let’s take a look at one of these terrible words or word combinations that you’ve presented, as it originally appeared – in this case, from post #42:

      “By combining ‘SP’ as sociopath/criminal/insane with ‘SP’ as someone who has administrative/technical/political disagreements, anyone who does not ‘cooperate’ with ‘LRH (or Command) Intention’ is depicted as ***criminally insane***, and their views can be discounted, and the – so categorized – person ‘should have no rights’…thus good people – who simply have disagreements – can become ‘SPs’.”

      • Nom de Plume
        2009-11-01 at 16:21

        Anonymous :
        Let’s take a look at one of these terrible words or word combinations that you’ve presented, as it originally appeared – in this case, from post #42:

        Briana – Of course seeing only one of all your anti-LRH buzz-words which I listed in post #298 is not the same as seeing all of them gathered together.

        Even people who know nothing about Scientology still are aware of the powerful restimulative and/or controlling effects of certain words.

        In non-Scientology terms it’s called NLP” (Neuro Linguistic Programming), and when detected, is deeply resented by those against whom it was/is deployed.

      • Anonymous
        2009-11-01 at 19:14

        Anyone can easily read all my posts on this thread.

        What I wrote was truthful.

        Instead of being upset that Scientology’s Dark Side is being accurately described, you should be pleased.

        Confronting Scientology’s Dark Side is necessary if *all* of Scientology, the Light Side&Dark Side is to be known and understood, and Scientology *reformed*.

        • 2009-11-01 at 19:43

          Goodie. But now you and RJ are done, right. You have both stated and restated and rerestated your points 😉

  89. Anonymous
    2009-10-31 at 11:18

    ExKane :Larry Brennan knew very little of how the GO operated? Please, read the affidavit.His positions were: “Legal Handling United States Guardian’s Office (LHUSGO)”Then: “Legal Branch I Director United States Guardian’s Office (L Br I Dir USGO)”Then: “Legal Branch I Director World Wide Guardian’s Office (L Br I Dir GOWW)”The descriptions of those positions, as well as the other duties he took on, are in the affidavit.

    You’re presenting information in good faith, but it’s going down a rabbit hole in this particular case, and when this rabbit pokes his head out the hole to answer, chances are the response will not be very satisfying.

    Kind of a far less entertaining version of:

    Youtube link

    • RJ
      2009-10-31 at 21:52

      Obviously you didn’t *read* my last post to EK.

      As I wrote I spent some time as a Technical consultant to the GO word cleared and audited their staff.

      What have you done?

      Claimed to read thousands of pages of docs of questionable provenance and watched trashy videos!

  90. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-01 at 17:11

    Margaret :
    Nom, per Marty and others there at the time, DM had re-instituted “mandatory disconnection”…LRH had, as I’m sure you know, earlier cancelled mandatory disconnection.

    Hi, Margaret 🙂

    Yes, and thanks for mentioning that again! I think we tend to lose sight of that simplicity in all the commotion. 😀

    It sorta reminds me of the original restriction placed upon 2D activities amongst students in “Students Guide to Acceptable Behavior”, which was later amended in another HCOPL (sorry – no materials from which to glean specifics) where the old man canceled that, and replaced it with the simple admonishment to ensure that one caused no flaps, slows or Dev-T (or something like that).

  91. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-02 at 05:30

    Anonymous :
    What I wrote was truthful.

    Not so. Everything you have claimed here on this board so far has been cast into serious doubt, if not outright decimated.

    And if this was aimed at me, I was talking about the emotion-laden buzz words you were using anyway.

    Anonymous :
    Instead of being upset that Scientology’s Dark Side is being accurately described…

    Gosh, if I ever do see Scientology’s “Dark Side” “accurately described”, perhaps I will be upset.

    But, ain’t happened yet. 😉

    • Anonymous
      2009-11-02 at 09:12

      Look around you. The revelations re. this subject have been occurring for several decades. It takes a while – sometimes many years – to sink in. The existence of the Internet has helped tremendously. Your inability – or unwillingness – to see is unfortunate for you, but it doesn’t change anything for others, who *do* see.

      • 2009-11-02 at 14:20

        You imply that the reason someone is not agreeing with you here is either a) inability or b) unwillingness. This is arrogance.

        Please read this before you post again: Oh, the arrogance!

  92. graceful
    2010-01-27 at 14:25

    isene :With generalities like “scientologists do not confront emotion”, you are over the line. Reign yourself in.

    How come that upseted you? Do you feel offended by it?

    • 2010-01-28 at 19:34

      Not at all. It’s a generality, and so it’s blasted.

  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: