MOQ Corner

Blogger note: I’ve got a nickname for Jim Logan. It is MOQ (Master of Qual). It was inspired by his seemingly effortless ability to rapidly find the LRH tech and policy references that clarify a given situation or resolve a particular problem.  Well, Jim posted a comment today that I hijacked to convert into a post to give it the emphasis and discussion I think it deserves.  I’m thinking maybe we ought to hear from Jim periodically when he does a little research project that clarifies questions currently being pondered and debated on this blog. You think?

JUSTICE by Jim Logan

On a tape from the Briefing Course, 8 June 65, PTS Handling, LRH is giving the ‘music’ for the words he’s published in the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters beginning in March of that year, outlining the Justice Codes, what to do about PTS and SP particles impinging on the newly designed Organization Board. He’s outlining on this tape how to ‘play the piano’ with this data.

Anyway, an interesting point is brought up on how a management can go down the slide to becoming ’suppressive’ as he calls it. That is, that it ends up suppressing those it manages.

This is related to various comments that have come up on how it came to be so bad under DM.

In 1980, the top of the org board was undergoing stress. Lots of things to handle, including the Guardian’s Office scene and the end of that trial, corporate sort out and such. In 81, there was the Mission Holders conference at the Sandcastle in Clearwater. I was there for a lot of it because the band I was in rehearsed at the Sandcastle since nobody was staying there as the Air Conditioning had been shut off to save money and the place went into complete mold-ridden. Anyway, the conference was going on down there.

That conference had ‘assigned’ the new Watch Dog Committee, a lower condition, something like Confusion or the like. It was quite bold. Bill Franks was ED Int, and he had good comm lines to the Mission Holders so they had apparently, support from that quarter.

DM finally showed up and ran one of the meetings. A ‘confrontation’ between ‘INT’ and the ‘field’ it was. From that first conference, the die was cast. What to do about it? What to do about these uppity Mission Holders assigning the top of the org board conditions. What to do about the apparent ‘mutiny’? Indeed.

OK, this tape I’m on 8 June 65 PTS Handling says this: ” You mean you’re going to concentrate on this 20 (%) and you’re going to neglect the 80?”

In other words, get wrapped up in handling PTS/SP cases, and neglect the 80% that are doing just fine.

Further in the tape, he says: “Allright, our next approach to the situation is to bring it about where the individual can reach the 80 effectively without being entangle by the 20″. That is, the materials of the Justice Codes, PTS/SP, Dead File, and so on.

Further on: “The ordinary citizen never really has to be policed. But he is policed continuously because of the goofs of three or four criminals. Do you see?

” So it’s an ‘Everybody bears the burden of a couple of crooks’. Do you follow? And you’ll find that most of your arbitrary laws and savageness on the part of executives and officers and so forth, stems from the fact that they are unable to handle the couple that goofed, and if they have enough losses in handling these guys then they get savage toward everybody.”

“That’s how your governments turn into suppressive organizations and so forth, because they really can’t handle the criminal at all.

“Allright, so you get a broad punishment of everybody in sight!”

The Mission Holders conference and it’s milieu and circumstances, was the excuse DM used to re-implement ‘heavy ethics’ and it was on the reported basis of the initial purposes for the Justice Codes, handling the 20%. Add in the fact the guy had the SP characteristics himself, that is, he’s part of the smaller percent of the 20% (that has the tendency to WRONG TARGET) and with the color of ‘LRH policy’ behind him, and the apparent circumstances of ‘mutiny’ as it was called BY DM, and kabang. The reign of terror is in full swing.

Within a year of that first conference, ‘disconnection’ is back in full, enforced, with the Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 12 Aug 82, and in Sept 83, the SP Acts policy is revised, rewritten, and includes 7 new pages, along with the rewrite of various issues related to the subjects of PTS/SP and voila, the whole thing is ’sanctioned’. Mass declares, mass disconnections enforced.

The above quotes describe it becoming suppressive even for those who aren’t suppressive as executives to begin with. What we’ve seen is a real SP abusing valid LRH materials and punishing the lot of us, due to his inability to see any right target.

221 responses to “MOQ Corner

  1. This is a great point. I see the same blanket punishment being applied to ALL SOLO NOTS auditors having to be sec checked every six months because of DM’s wrong targetting of the public being potential criminals or security risks.

    It is like the SP who fears everyone and then wrong targets and comes up with “solutions” that punish one and all. It has the “apparency” of being somewhat “logical” to the not quite bright, but the smarter ones say”what the f–k??”

  2. War and Peace

    Marty ~~~
    Right on and 100% agreed on the magnificent Jim Logan and his writings.
    #######
    Remember the phrase “You’ve come a long ways baby”?
    Here’s DM’s threat to anyone who turned against the Church on October 17th 1982
    “”That person’s future is black. It is so black I can’t even describe it right now. I can’t even even find the words to describe how black that person’s future is . . . I mean it is really black.”

    A little later he scorned and humiliated the Mission Holders >>>>>

    “your BRIBE days are over. The SQUIRREL days are over…” then he threatened criminal prosecution.
    No Committee of Evidence, no cramming, no ethics gradient all verbal ON THE SPOT.

    Under the monster’s direction, some 2000 Scientologists have been declared. Many without a Comm EV.

    Some declared Mission Holders ~~

    Alan Walters
    Dean Stokes
    Phil Spickler
    Ray Kemp
    Brown McKee
    Martin Samuels
    Bent Corydon
    Gary Smith
    Kingsley Wimbush
    Joey Allesendrini
    Marc Silbur

    (Bloggers please add to list…

    98% of the first 3 decades of Class XIIs were Declared
    David Mayo, Merrill Mayo, Leon Steinberg, Murray Chopping, Jeff Walker, Gwen North, Alex Gerber, Brian Livingston, Alex Sibersky, Alex Gerber, Michael Mauerer (Phoebe Maurer’s son), Lisa Klingwall, (South African) Tommy Klingwall (South African) Russ Meadows, Ron Shaffron, Paulette Ausley.

    Imagine some 90% of Mission Holders all being SP.
    Imagine 98% of Class XIIs reaching that level of training because they were SPs

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Great post! That’s it! It explains the all stuff, even the modus operandi of generalizing the same handling for all. EVERYBODY get the same condition, EVERY org has to do the same program, EVEYBODY to re-do his training under the GAT, NOBODY on earth, even at Flag, can read a f/n nor get an instant read (I heard this personnaly from DM at an ED’s conference before the GAT),NOBODY understood the basics, and so on and on.

  4. Hi Jim,

    I would be interested in knowing where the HCOB “PTSness and disconnection”that is in the current PTS/SP course and OEC Vol 1 came from. The summary of this bulletin says ” The technology of disconnection is essential in the handling of PTSes. It can and has saved lives and untold trouble and upset. It must be preserved and used correctly”.

    Obviously this is not currently being used correctly at all but I remember doing a really good disconnection handling with a PC who had a very suppressive Father and was totally effect of him. My interpretation of its use for this particular case was basically applying the right to give or receive communication. The disconnection we did was a letter to the Father that basically stopped all comm to him but not the rest of the family, so if there was a family function on then the PC would go but no comm between them . The rest of the family were also aware of the situation. The PC said it was uncomfortable at the first family do but then it worked out really well. 3 years later the Father actually changed his ways and they are now in good comm.

    I have kind of used this as a stable datum since but now I am wondering if it really is tech by LRH.

    I can blow false data pretty quickly so would love some answers here because what we did was very workable but I would hate to think I was using squirrel tech

  5. Lecture 18. May 72: Current & Future Ops Actions:
    “I have found out why sea org officers
    can´t put in ethics. The don´t know investigatory tech and possibly in some cases their own ethics is out”

  6. Sorry meant to write Dear MOQ 🙂

  7. Great post.
    The only thing that concerns me is the following: How could it be that the majority of the guys who are in the scene as staff and SO members can’t able to figure out for themselves that something is wrong? Would this be so hard to find out? Or they did not read/study LRH at all?
    I think however brilliant Scientology is, there is something in the materials themselves which make it possible for the system to turn into suppressive and corrupt.
    There is no codification which materials you should regard “Basic” (I do not speak right now of the Basics) and there are references which are true in certain circumstances but it is not clearly stated in which circumstances you should follow those. So you get a good cop and a bad cop situation within the materials. The good guys implement the good cop version, the bad guys implement the bad cop version and you get the situation where power is, that is usually the bad cop situation, suppressive use of ethics. Voila. It is that simple as that.
    What is missing from Scientology is the codification of BASIC data. Stressing the importance that it is above all. Than defining clearly the circumstances in which certain references should be applied. This should be done by a board of long standing, highly trained high case level individuals with goodwill and discussions should be left open for all the above.
    And of course there should be some refinements as well. For example I regard the codes Basic data. However when we get to the point of the Credo of a true group member, we can’t find any individual rights there. You just ripped off right there of your rights. Right at the beginning… So it is just the beginning in Scientology for the preparation of the eradication of your human rights forever. The all credo is just about how to make you into a slave. Where is it codified what you can expect from your group? Where are at least minimum personal standards defined? Nowhere. So sorry, but the truth is as simple as this.

  8. Just one more thought: so the point is that you can regard what is written by Ron from the viewpoint of the good cop or from the viewpoint of the bad cop. What is missing? It is not defined where you should put the “center”.

  9. Jimbo,

    That’s some damn fine research you’ve been doing!

    ‘Splains a lot about this whole mess started to snow ball and about the mountain of “SP” declares that followed!

  10. I remember an LRH comment in some early HCOPL that Third Dynamic Tech was “material to think with” rather than an exact procedure like auditing commands, etc.

    It struck me as quite appropriate at the time because I was already beginning to notice how rote following of policy caused upsets with public and diminished the credibility of church management.

    Unfortunately, the rigidly top down model of Scientology management is susceptible to perversion by those who know how to game the system. The fact that LRH flouted his own policies encouraged others to do the same when it suited them.

    We independents will survive as a group to the extent that we allow all of us to contribute and acknowledge those contributions appropriately.

    Good ideas must be entertained and complaints and attacks must be appropriately responded to so that they do not repeat.

    The bunker mentality of Scn executives is not a winning approach in the 21st Century where every parishioner can potentially reach more people than the COB can.

  11. In my 35 years in Scientology, I have meet a lot of sane people. I have never met Jim Logan,. but he is sooooooo sane. From my perspective he is the sanest scientologist on Planet Earth. Thankyou Marty for appointing this valuable being.

  12. I think yes, definitely.

    These deliberations which incorporate LRH references are very helpful to me, and I suspect many others.

  13. Theo Sismanides

    Jim, you are spot on! This is so real of what happens in Scientology and the real world. We are here as a strong group of people who can reason and who can differentiate at a VERY HIGH degree. We ain’t being fooled anymore. We have the Tech and we have Qual… Jim Logan, let’s splurge on it.

  14. From HCOB 27 September 1965:

    “Unless we can detect the social personality and hold him safe from undue restraint and detect also the antisocial and restrain him, our society will go on suffering from insanity, criminality and war, and man and civilization will not endure.

    ****************************
    Of all our technical skills, such differentiation ranks the highest since, failing, no other skill can continue, as the base on which it operates—civilization—will not be here to continue it.
    *************************************
    Do not smash the social personality—and do not fail to render powerless the antisocial in their efforts to harm the rest of us.

    Just because a man rises above his fellows or takes an important part does not make him an antisocial personality. Just because a man can control or dominate others does not make him an antisocial personality.

    It is his motives in doing so and the consequences of his acts which distinguish the antisocial from the social.

    Unless we realize and apply the true characteristics of the two types of personality, we will continue to live in a quandary of who our enemies are and, in doing so, victimize our friends.”

    Emphasis mine…

  15. I think you uncovered something for me that I had difficulty to put my finger on. Thank you Peter this will help me to study the influence of Sea Org tradition on public WScientology more.

  16. Respectfully OD, I disagree with you.

    You cannot put a policy where a thetan should be. (paraphrased LRH — MOQ could find the exact reference I’m sure) —

    When I was STILL in the SO, way back in the late 70’s I went to the public library – not off limits at that time – and researched every periodical I could find about scn. Much was blown way out of proportion as I was actually THERE to witness this and that, in the press and magazines.

    But nonetheless — some seeds of discriminating doubt began to take root.

    Then when things got unbearable for me personally, I left.

    I continued keeping an open eye but quite honestly once I was out of the SO — I was less willing to rock the boat. Just happy to be allowed back on the base, getting auditing and going up the bridge. I returned as a pc, before the door slammed pretty tight for ex-so coming back on lines.

    I kept pretty quiet about the obvious outrageous and troubling things I would hear about … so, my own integrity slipped quite a notch as my own personal little neck was no longer on the line. (ie. I couldn’t be RPFd etc)

    In any case, you can’t legislate integrity.

    Which is what this all boils down to IMHO —

    But you CAN invite those with eyes who wish to see, to come together. As this blog is doing.

    WH

  17. War & Peace: Wow — you were taking notes AND kept them. Fab. I wondered about what the date was.

    I knew many of those Mission Holders. As well as many of the Class XIIs.

    The interesting thing was when this purge started — initially I would nod my head and say, oh so wisely and judgmentally — ahh yes, so and so was a bad egg, I knew it all along.

    And then (not unlike the rock slam/list one RSer purge of at least 200 execs at the base, sometime in ’78 I think) — soon, those being sent to the RPF OR later declared in the Mission Holder/Class XII purge were dear friends of mine.

    We are timid beings it seems.

    We don’t like to be slighted so when someone is targeted and taken out, it’s — oh goodie. (cause perhaps they had been mean to me etc)

    BUT — then everyone is taken out and it’s OMG — I’m going to DIEEEEEEEEEE —

    And many just go quietly away but most just stay. And hope they are never noticed.

    It’s a real amazing lesson in human nature.

    Courage takes a great deal of grit. It also sadly takes having a few friends standing next to you and saying ENOUGH.

    This board is building grit AND friends.

    WOW!! Thanks War and Peace. Great post.

    WH

  18. Lise, The reissue of Disconnection was apparently written by Vaughn Young at DM’s behest, though, from people I’ve commed with, it is very unlikely that LRH did not see or approve it.

    Irregardless, let’s broaden this beyond the subject of Scientology. Civilization has had disconnection policies since the first criminal was tossed in a tar pit. If someone in the tribe just won’t get with the program even to a slight degree, the others need to do something about it or their own survival is going to be imperiled. I mean, it is a good thing that Charles Manson had the disconnection policy applied to him.

    At some point Scientologists have to realize that they, personally and individually, are ultimately responsible for the concepts that they take from LRH. When people actually and truly own the concepts from LRH’s books and lectures and writings common sense, not to mention common decency, becomes an operating basis. Indies generally demonstrate this. They more or less have to if they still consider themselves Scientologists yet also consider themselves as independent.

    Your application of disconnection with respect to your pc seems to have been successful.

    And don’t forget that disconnection need only be applied until the pc is able to deal with the comm line in question.

    If LRH didn’t know that relationships are dynamic, changing processes he never would have developed the Suppressed Person Rundown, which has an EP that is truly magical. You keep auditing the problems processes on the rundown until the antagonistic terminal originates a friendly communication. I’ve personally seen this happen while auditing pcs on the rundown right out of the blue.

    Anyway, seems like your use of the policy was your own and therefore correct!

  19. When applying policy to organizations you have to ask yourself, “what would Ron do?” And if the answer results in greater expansion, more people cleared, etc. then you are probably thinking along the right line. If it results in mass censorship of comm lines, ARCx’s, micromanagement, excessive control on the individual then be assured it ISN’T what LRH would do. I think a lot of Scientologists who are still in the church are either too PTS to the threat of (squirrel) justice if they don’t follow the orders, are reasonable as a result … or one thing that has begun to creep in over the years is “what would COB do?” And we know he’s hardline because that’s been the modus operandi of so many SO missions into orgs and the stance of many DSA, HCO networks not just SO.

    @Independent Qual Personnel:
    Someone should do some “restoration and finding” of some lost tech on the subject of disconnection. Do we have the earlier versions of the PL’s on the matter handy? I am 100% CERTAIN that LRH would not leave in place a policy letter that would result in extreme out PR, many ARCx’s and as a result suppression and reduction of the influence of Scientology both in reach and as a subject. This false data around disconnection has resulted in denigration of the subject to those on the outside looking in.

  20. As usual, Lise, the suppressive takes a grain of truth and twists it. The advice is handle or disconnect. So, first try to handle, then if the terminal’s a raving mad SP and doesn’t stop enturbulating, you disconnect. It’s logical and sane and the sort of thing I’d recommend to a friend if I’d never known about Scientology.

    DM’s generality, all roads lead to disconnect, is an ARCxer, and maybe that was the intention all along.

    And I’ll tell you how it effected me.

    I had a family member who was antago to Scn and enturbulated my mother. I finally had enough, sat down with my mother and pulled the string and found her false data was, “Scientology breaks up families”. Where’d she get this idea? Another family member got it from a newspaper article about …. Disconnection!

    My mother simply didn’t want her family broken up. I handled them both on this and I never again had a problem.

    Needless to say, I didn’t report it to the MAA or ever mention it on lines.

  21. JLo, excellent work, as usual.

    DM saw enemies all around him and did the only “sane” thing for his survival: got rid of them all!

    This is sort of what I was saying in a post on another thread about having a Department of Thetan Homeland Security viewpoint of suspecting everyone.

    Tom, thanks for that post. I personally long ago made the following line my stable datum on this subject.

    “Just because a man can control or dominate others does not make him an antisocial personality.

    It is his motives in doing so and the consequences of his acts which distinguish the antisocial from the social.”

    In other words, I’d have not the slightest beef with DM if he were a tyrant for GOOD.

    The best form of government, to paraphrase LRH, is a benevolent dictatorship. He goes on to say – and this is verbal as I don’t have the issue, so someone can help me out with this one – that the inherent problem with benevolent dictatorships is succession.

    And don’t we know that truth …

  22. Martin Padfield

    Jim, to follow on from Lise above; there seems to be a little uncertainty about the origin of HCOB 10 Sept 1983.
    It doesn’t seem likely that LRH would implement this practice, find it wasn’t workable and thereby cancel it, only to RE-INSTITUTE IT in 1983, at which time he had been well and truly off the lines for some time. So, did LRH even write it?

    Robert Vaughn Young apparently said in part in a sworn affidavit:

    “I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. … The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of ‘Disconnection’. The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology….”
    Can you or anybody else definitively verify this one way or the other? If true, it changes the WHOLE picture of disconnection and how it is used currently.

  23. Li Po,
    Funny you should mention GAT, and the fact it stuck in the craw, (yes, craw, not craw) of so many. Here’s another example of punishing the 80% from the same tape PTS Handling, ” So you get broad punishment of everybody in sight! All the HGC auditors are suddenly turned over to – every night, all night long, why they’re going to have to do the Comm Course all over again while – you get the idea. Well, it’s allright to give them a Comm Course once in a while when you’re brushing them up and getting them on line. But now, let’s not have, ” Everybody in the HGC must do a Comm Course because one auditor has been goofing on the Comm Course!”

    It is interesting to note that at the same time this explanation of PTS handling was given, June 65, that the Fast Flow system of management and particle flow was established. The description of this is in OEC Vol 5, Qual. Qual handles ‘flat ball bearings’ among other things, (such as the Qual Library, the complete body of materials). One of the first things a Cram Off checks on an auditor who flubs is the Comm Course, TRs, his comm cycle in auditing. It’s routine ‘even for Class XII’s’ so occasionally an auditor, to clean his comm cycle up, would do exactly as LRH says above.

    Another fact, possibly not broadly realized, GAT in effect, cancelled all certs, the release of the ‘basics’ virtually cancelled all prior applications of auditing and training as according to DM we didn’t have Scientology prior to his getting it to us. What does LRH say, in 1965 about ‘cancelled certs’?

    This quote is from a policy, one of the three that established the Justice Codes, issued on 7 March 65. These are the so-called SP Acts policy (I), the one that defines PTS and SP for the first time; the exact Offences and Penalties (III) and Certificate Cancellation (II) which, aligning with these others states:
    “Cancellation of Certificates and Awards is done only for the reasons announced – departure from Scientology to set up some splinter group, or setting up a splinter group, or merely
    announcing a departure from Scientology (but not by reason of leaving an org, a location or situation or death), or for
    committing one or more Suppressive Acts.”

    In Issue I, the one which defines Suppressive Acts, it states, in reference to someone declared a Suppressive Person: “Such persons are in the same category as those whose certificates have been cancelled, and persons whose certificates, classifications and awards have been cancelled are also in this category. The imagination must not be stretched to place this lable on a person.”

  24. Nice write up Jim!

    I see this whole scientology thing, not as some failure or loss, but just an ongoing process of figuring stuff out.

    Scientology is a teenager, lots of drama, a fair bit of education and support, but some big goofs and wrong decisions. The parents are introverted into the situation and not offering solutions.

    But wise uncle Jim and other family and friends work to stabilize the family and get it back on track.

    The generation that did not really know Grandpa Ron is now coming of age, and its his fortune that they are counting on to make their lives easier.

    Luckily Old Ron left his trust funds in good hands.

  25. martyrathbun09

    Jim, Once again, great explanation of GAT from a Source perspective. This comment could have been its own article too. I suggest Steve set up a MOQ corner on Rediscoverscientology.com and catalogue your more lengthy comments where LRH reference are given.

  26. martyrathbun09

    In response to Martin, Anybody out there – didn’t I write something up on this – either in the blog or maybe SP Times ints?

  27. Freedom Fighter

    Yeah, no kidding! They’re absolved of any responsibility to actually LOOK and evaluate data — because, after all, most people are “bad”. Sure explains what’s happened to “handle the person in front of you.” They already “know” so why bother to look. Combine that with squirrel, heavy-handed ethics and good times [sarcasm] abound.

  28. Along the lines of “generalizing one person’s overts to suspect everyone of the same,” you can see why the 6 month sec checks on NOTs have grown to such a lengthy process.

    With the Rex Fowler incident, there will be a new question added: “Do you own a gun?”

  29. Lise,
    That’s a good question. I’ve been studying the materials of the time period when this subject of ‘handle or disconnect’ arose. This is 1965, in policy, bulletins and tapes. I’m also writing a series of articles on it which I’m going to publish on one of our sites. In order to chase this down, and compare the practice as it was first introduced and then the so-called ‘reinstatement’ I’ve had to clarify a an issue that relates to the study of the area.

    The first mention of the tool to handle a PTS person is in HCO PL 1 March 1965, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law. However, this policy is very, very hard to find. How come?

    I have the 1974 edition of the OEC Vols. In Vol One of these, there is a policy dated 23 December 1965, with the above title. The notes at the top say “Replaces HCO PL of 7 March 1965 Issue I, this was originally misdated as 1 March 1965”.

    What happened was, on 7 March of that year the three policies defining PTS, SP, disconnection, fair game, the offences and penalties, cert cancellation and the steps of A-E among other topics, were all issued. Issue I, was the one above, the SP Acts PL. This one was misdated by the mimeo typist as 1 March. Some months later, on 23 December, this policy was revised, mostly to change the meaning of Fair Game. However, with this revision of the 7 March PL (misdated as 1 March) the mimeo officer put the new date of 23 December on the issue instead of the correct date of 7 March (revised on 23 Dec).

    These dates are important to understand the study of the policy of the time as at various points OTHER policy refers to either 7 March 65 Iss I OR at times, 1 March 65. BOTH are the same policy, the ‘SP Acts’ PL. (The last revision of this policy was on 4 Nov 2001, which put it back, after some 35 years, to the 7 March 65 date, and is now 7 March 65 RB. The first installment of my article covers this as well and later ones will trace all the changes).

    So, ‘handle or disconnect’. These is from Issue I of the series of three, and the very first policy on it, 1 March 65 (see above, this SHOULD have been 7 March 65 Iss I), has an extensive section on the exact procedures to follow on the ‘disconnect’ part of ‘handle or disconnect’. This section is retained in the 23 Dec 65 version, in the 74 edition of the OEC that I have. Issued as an HCOB on 24 November 65 is Search and Discovery. It states:
    “Prerequisite: A Knowledge of Ethics
    Definitions and Purposes.
    The process called Search and Discovery requires as well a good knowledge of
    Ethics.
    One must know what a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON is, what a POTENTIAL
    TROUBLE SOURCE is and the mechanism of how and why a case Roller Coasters
    and what that is. All this data exists in Ethics policy letters and should be studied well
    before one attempts a “Search and Discovery” or further study of this HCOB. Ethics is
    not merely a legal action—it handles the whole phenomena of case worsening (Roller
    Coaster) after processing and without this technology an auditor easily becomes baffled
    and tends to plunge and squirrel. The only reason a case Roller Coasters after good
    standard auditing is the PTS phenomena and a Suppressive is present.”

    It also states:
    “The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and
    if the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person
    the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied.
    If however there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts
    naming Org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP the Ethics Officer must realize
    that he is handling a Type Two PTS and, because the Auditing will consume time,
    sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery.”

    Along with the above, on the determination by indicators of the fact of having found the right SP from the 8 June 65 BC tape, PTS Handling it states:
    “…if you name the wrong suppressive person, this technique (handle or disconnect) doesn’t work. So when the PTS doesn’t handle or disconnect and instantly go bang, then you can assume that you’ve named the wrong SP. You’ve named the wrong suppressive person. That’s about the only trouble you have with ethics.”

    As you can see from the Search and Discovery HCOB, a full, working knowledge of the ethics policy, (which includes the above three issued on 7 March, and various others of the same time period, spring to fall 65), is part and parcel and requisite to handling PTSes.

    (This short comment format is not the right place to put up all these materials in full. So, please, do the study as LRH says. I’ll gladly help anyone who needs it in gathering this stuff up so just write me.)

    OK, on 15 November 68, due to abuse, stemming from NOT knowing the above full materials, LRH isssue a policy which states in full:
    “Since we can handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”

    NOTE: as a ‘condition’. Look up that word and find the applicable definition. Consider the above materials and also this fact; in HCOB 10 Aug 73 PTS Handling, ‘handle or disconnect’ is part of the exact tech of handling a PTS.

    ‘Disconnect’ was NEVER cancelled. Disconnection as a condition was. So, in 10 Sept 83, PTSness and Disconnection is issued, over LRH’s signature.

    It has been stated by one Vaughn Young, that DM had him write this issue and LRH never saw it. OK. Thanks Vaughn. Does it make ANY difference on the actual TECH of disconnect? Absolutely none. Compare the original tech and the reissue for yourselves.

    So, Lise, that it worked ‘bang’ and the guy’s PTS condition was resolved and he didn’t rollercoaster and no more unusual ‘processes’ or handlings had to be used, is because what you did is completely ‘by the book’ the original book. No wonder he was VGIs.

  30. Theo Sismanides

    Go Jim! GAT or A=A=A, reminds us of something, e? Everybody is the same type of thing equation.

    My God we are dealing with the core of the Reactive Mind, here!

  31. Marcus Aurelius:

    If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.

  32. Peter,
    PERFECT! It is interesting to note, the Ethics Officer Hat policy was written on 11 May 65, concommittant with the exact policy and technical data on detection and handling of PTSes and SPs (eg, the Ethics Policies AND S&Ds and Power Processes).

    This policy, Ethics Officer Hat, has the data on ‘string pulling’. This data is also mentioned in Data Series 16, Investigatory Procedure, issued on 19 Sept 70. Also, on the BC tape of 8 June 65, PTS Handling, LRH refers to this ‘string pulling’.

    The tech of the ethics officer has a a MAJOR part of it, ‘string pulling’, and for what purpose?

    From HCO PL 11 May 65, 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.” (Note; the ‘Ethics Codes’ are delineated in HCO PLs, 7 March 65, Issues I,II and III. See above response to Lise.)

    80% of the particles will simply flow along the ‘fast flow system’ lines (ALSO issued as a theory of admin, when? 29 March 1965). For the 20% that don’t, there are now established (1965) channels to route them and that’s to Review (Qual) and Ethics (HCO). The function of the Ethics Officer is stated above and aligns to the newly introduced Justice Codes, Fast Flow System of Management and the newly introduced Org Board and the channels for things.

  33. Theo Sismanides

    Dave, nicely written, “Scientology is a teenager, lots of drama…” I like the metaphor, “a fair bit of education…” spot on… In Greece we say “it’s better to not know than half know” meaning those half-educated on a subject can harm more just because they think they know it ALL.

    We are getting more mature and I really liked the way you put it.

    We are also if I may add, like the gypsies, scattered all around the globe and we are creating our own islands of sanity.

    Here in Greece for 10 days now we are getting audited by NOTSAWARE, and this is commendable for him as he is a great auditor. Me and my wife and others are putting our steps on the Bridge and Moving On Up a Little Higher.

    All this happened when Marty opened the blog and after he gave the interview on St. Pete’s Times.

    So, here we are… becoming of age and moving up!

  34. Old Auditor wrote:
    “I remember an LRH comment in some early HCOPL that Third Dynamic Tech was “material to think with” rather than an exact procedure like auditing commands, etc.

    It struck me as quite appropriate at the time because I was already beginning to notice how rote following of policy caused upsets with public and diminished the credibility of church management.”

    Brings to mind the Admin Scale. At the top are Goals, Purposes and then follows Policy. Goals and Purposes are senior to Policy. Somehow the Admin Scale has flipped and Policy has become senior to Goals and Purposes within the Church and sometimes within ones own thinking. A new day dawns when one really gets it that Goals and Purposes are senior and that Policy is the SUGGESTED route to achieve said Goals/Purposes. If the Policy doesn’t work, find out why. If necessary, toss it out and formulate one that does.

  35. OD,
    You need a thorough handling in Dept 14 Review in coordination with Dept 3 Inspections. First false or omitted datum in your study I can see, off hand, the fallacy that the ‘basics’ aren’t ‘codified’. Holy Cats! You haven’t DONE the training. The Class VIII course is about nothing BUT the codified basics.

    Next, read all the policies related to An Essay on Management, including the Credo of a True Group Member. It is very, very, very clearly stated in the Credo of a True Group Member:

    “4. A group member must exert and insist upon his rights and prerogatives as a
    group member and insist upon the rights and prerogatives of the group as a group and
    let not these rights be diminished in any way or degree for any excuse or claimed
    expeditiousness.
    5. The member of a true group must exert and practice his right to contribute to
    the group. And he must insist upon the right of the group to contribute to him. He
    should recognize that a myriad of group failures will result when either of these
    contributions is denied as a right. (A welfare state being that state in which the member
    is not permitted to contribute to the state but must take contribution from the state.)”

    The above is just a cursory look at the facts.

    If you are sincere in clearing any of this up, email me. I’ll route you to the proper channel and we’ll take it from there.

  36. Old Auditor,
    That PL is 11 May 70, Third Dynamic Tech:
    “In its present state of development, like early auditing material, Third Dynamic Tech is used to think with, and only the
    bright mind will achieve its full potential in action. L. Ron Hubbard, FOUNDER”

  37. WH,
    HCO PL 23 Oct 63, Refund Policy, OEC Vol 3:
    “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
    the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
    he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That
    was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff
    as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s
    the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

  38. Old Timer,
    Thank you. I have my moments. The State of Clear is an AMAZING state to gain. Thank you LRH.

  39. FOS,
    I’m working on just such a ‘rediscovery’. I’ll be posting it too. In the meantime, read the original OEC Vol One policies of 23 December 65, 7 March 65 Issue II and III. If you don’t have a copy of Vol One, I can help you find one. Read these issue carefully, include at the end, HCO PL 5 April 65, Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity.

    I fully intend to make ALL of this abundantly clear, including the materials from the very first policy, 1 March 65.

  40. Keep to your US constitution first and US laws.

  41. I missed a point of the cert cancellation with GAT and the basics: in fact, DM declared every single person in Scientology that had been trained to date. That is the significance of ‘cert cancellation’. That is what cert cancellation IS.

    No longer is it 20% of the population that is PTS/SP, it isn’t 50, 60 or more. It is everyone BUT DM. He declared every single auditor and suprevisor, not even covertly really, since he announced it to them.

    DM declared every single tech trained person in Scientology when he cancelled their certs. The two are in the ‘same category’ as per the LRH policy. One only gets their certs cancelled when they are declared an SP. Only a declared SP has his certs cancelled.

    And with this mass SP declare, a standing ovation by every single person he JUST declared SP.

  42. Good God, Jim — that was awesome!

  43. “Addendum: A friend of mine, who was there at the time, informs me that Miscavige’s 1983 reinstatement of Disconnection was to stop people from hooking up with David Mayo, who Miscavige had removed from technical lines and expelled. Mayo was offering OT Levels at about a fifth of the cost.”

    http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/church-of-scientology-cancels-disconnection/

  44. Instead of “Have you tried to shoot anyone?” they need to head the next Rex Fowler off with, “Has regging caused you to go Out-Ethics?”

  45. Martin Padfield

    Absolutely Joe, that a being has the right to communicate with whom he wants is undeniably true. However in the straight-jacket GAT-trained think of your average DM-bot, where conceptual understanding has been thrown onto the bonfire of servitude and blind obedience, unless it can be shown unequivocally that Ron did NOT want Scientologists disconnecting from each other willy-nilly, the disconnection “policy” will be continue to be used as a justification for unlimited human rights abuses.

  46. Why, CD?

    I’d much rather not have to think about it knowing the government’s in the safe hands of a wise and benevolent leader. Look at the history of this planet, it’s obvious.

  47. Sorry to disagree, Huckleberry, but personally I consider the term “benevolent dictatorship” to be oxymoronic. I find any dictatorship to be anathema. One problem with dictatorships is that they control information. Thus they determine what their followers or citizens see and hear, as DM tries to do with Scientologists. In a situation of controlled information, the dictator is always “benevolent.” Stalin and Hitler presented themselves to their citizens as “benevolent” and many believed them. The problem with dictatorships isn’t “succession,” it’s the fact that the citizens are discouraged from independent thought counter to what the central authority dictates. They look to the central authority for direction – to know what to think and what to do. Scientology’s current problems are exacerbated by the fact that Scientologists tend to believe what the Church tells them and do what the Church tells them and not question it. Thus even when presented with evidence of Miscavige’s crimes, they will not look at it. They haven’t been “granted permission” by their authority to look at anything critical or to listen to anyone with differing opinions. This is my own opinion, but I think people are better off thinking for themselves and doing their own investigations and coming to their own conclusions rather than looking to an authority figure or leader to tell them what to think.

  48. Dear MOQ, 🙂

    The right word for your function. When I read all those posts here my head is spinning. So much significances.
    I think the main problem is that Study Tech is out. If one really did the Student Hat, one wouldn’t have any problems in applying Scientology Tech and would by judgement alone find out if the tech presented is LRH or not, as it is all explained there how to study a subject. This basic is definitely out in nowaday C.O.S. I don’t know why and can’t understand it when I’m listening to the funny ideas my fellow Scientologists sometimes have about applications of Scientology …….
    I did my Student Hat back in 1978, sat 3 months on it (was 17 years old), did it in english (not my mother language), nearly a primary rundown. When GAT was released I’d to do an exam on it (without having looked at the materials for 20 years), the only flunk I’d was that I couldn’t rattle off the 10 ways a word can be misunderstood. ?
    I had then to memorize them to get my GAT cert for the Student Hat. 2 weeks later I’ve forgotten it again, but the ability to find a MU on myself or somebody else didn’t vanish.
    What was a surprise for me, was that most of the fellow scientologist got big retreads after having done the exam. What the hell did they do on their Student Hat ?
    Another basic that’s totally out is TR O (The World begins with TR O).
    My first introduction to Scientology was (after having read FOT) the HAS Course, where I sat on OT TRO for seven hours; the Supervisor had cleared every word with me about it, so I really knew what I have to do. When I got the pass on it , I opened my eyes, I was a new person, had a new life and was off drugs forever. It took only 7 hours of OT Tr0 done the right way.
    Those kinds of TRs went out when the STCC was implemented. Since 1980 I never have seen people having life changing wins on TRs, as we used to have, neither on all of those Tr courses that were issued since then. What the hell were they doing ?
    We didn’t have many translated books and materials those days, but with only some basics as Trs., FOT,POW and some translated policies and bulletins we were very succesful and expanding like mad. Today Scientologist are overwhelmed with books, tapes, materials etc… that they are lost in significances, have their TR0 out and forget to apply the ARC and KRC triangles.
    So I hope you will really work on getting the REAL BASICS in. If it is complicated then TRO is out. Simplicity in itself.
    Let’s get TRO in, then wordclearing, then you’ll have the right actions. Magic.
    Finally – I read once an issue from LRH that the L’s are mandatory for OEC/ FEBC graduation and I was always upset that this wasn’t applied.
    I’ve seen the first standard Oec/Febc completion done by LRH, it was Jen Bogvad, he built up an Org in very short time, bigger than St. Hill.
    So really, do we have any problems at all ? We got the whole tech and now you as MOQ.
    Hurray !!!!

  49. Just be a descent human being I say, but for you all:

    Excerpts from the audio book Scientology: A new Slant on Life. CD5, Track 2

  50. Folks,
    Another common misconception, a ‘now we’re supposed to’ that I confess, I had until yesterday. The question is ‘why disconnect’ in the first place? What’s this for? Aside from the actual technical points of PTS and the reasons, the problem aspect, the full materials of the PTS Rundown and Suppressed Person Rundown etc., when this policy of ‘handle or disconnect’ was implemented, on 7 March 1965, why was it put in administratively? It handled a source of TROUBLE. That Potential Trouble Source, which LRH states at the very beginning of the SP Acts PL is ‘the chief stumbling block, huge above all others… the upset we have with Potential Trouble Sources and their relationship to suppressive persons or groups”.

    Here is a quote from the tape 8 June 65, PTS Handling, on the PTS/SP course, referred to in various bulletins on that course as well:
    “Put the person on the meter (ask) just, ‘Who do you know? Who do you live with? Who are you connected with that’s against Scientology?”

    “ Oh, well, Mother doesn‘t like it very much”.

    “Thank you”.

    And the needle falls off the pin. Well that isn’t all it’s been doing. Now, PTS, you say, ‘ Allright, here’s the policy letter; handle or disconnect’.

    “You have actually pointed out what’s wrong with his life.”

    “ He’s given everybody around the place a headache, as far as we can see, and that generality is intentional – there wasn’t a single soul he didn’t give a headache to that was in the place. He – you don’t get fascinated, see? You’re not in a big state of quiver ‘Let’s help this person!’ Well you didn’t make him that way, don’t you see? You’ve given him the out. You’ve shown him what the score is.”

    Handle or disconnect was up to the person who is PTS, it is their decision. They are labelled as PTS per policy if they rollercoaster and are connected to a Suppressive Person. They have a choice, handle or disconnect. If they don’t make a choice and act to resolve THEIR PTS condition, then they can not be either audited or trained, until they do. If THEY want to get audited or trained THEY will have to take responsibility for handling the PTS condition. Until they do, they are OFF training and auditing lines.

    Nobody ‘owes’ them Scientology. This isn’t some vast amends project. From the viewpoint of the person who is helping them, it is a choice to help them, and there is now, no good reason why they can’t be sorted out on the PTS condition. However, organizationally, there is NO ‘now we’re SUPPOSED to’ do something, other than correctly label them PTS and they have a choice, handle or disconnect. The policy of the church has never been to ENFORCE disconnection. The policy of the church has been to correctly label a person PTS and provide a route by which THEY can handle it.

    If the label is incorrect, the policy has clearly defined steps by which to deal with that. Including, but not limited to the right to ‘challenge’ the label and get a Comm Ev to so challenge. NOBODY has, by policy, ever been ‘forced to disconnect’. That is in fact completely contrary to the actual policy.

    If we fail to know and use our own policy then we are ‘clay pigeons’. (HCO PL 24 Feb 72 INJUSTICE)

    It is a well known fact, DM likes to shoot guns.

  51. Huckleberry,

    There is no policy, HCOB, RED, Info Letter or Advice that I’ve read or heard where Ron promotes some kind of “benevolent dictatorship”!

    The org board is not a dictatorship!

    There is no such post on it as “COB” or someone who assumes the functions of Department 21.

    I suggest you study and word clear OEC Volume 7.

  52. @Lise: FORCED Disconnection isn`t in use. But Disconnection is a Human Right. If you don`t want to talk or be in contact to somebody anymore, for whatever reasons, nobody should force you going on with it, that would be terrible.

  53. Martin,

    My take on this was that Hubbard cancelled it because it was causing bad PR for the church. A similar thing happened to the 2-D rules that he created. According to ‘Dart Smohen’ on ESMB, Hubbard tried to dictate how students, PCs and staff should behave, but everyone just ignored him and carried on (well it was the swinging 60s after all!). So, he cancelled the policy. Interestingly though, he later brought in a more severe sets of 2-D rules for the Sea Org staff.

    Anyway, if the policy on disconnection WAS cancelled because it was causing bad PR, I’d say this was right on the money as this practice has generated a huge amount of bad press and criticism for the CoS and resulted in Davis having to publicly lie and deny it happens.

    Disconnection undoubtedly has a place, but only as a last resort. In the CoS today, it is used as a threat, explicitly or implied, to keep members in line. Forcing families to break up just because one person doesn’t agree with the insanity going on in the CoS is just plain evil.

  54. Sno,
    What does a person do if they don’t agree with a disconnection, per LRH policy?

  55. RJ,

    What about KSW1?

    Hubbard makes it very clear what he thinks about ‘democracy’.

    Quote: “And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud”.

    Isn’t one of the main points of this HCOPL that only strong individuals are fit to make the important decisions and lead the rest and that you cannot allow ‘group think’ to dictate where you are going?

    I have never seen an example of democracy in the CoS, while I was involved. You complied, or you got out.

  56. Spot on Fishdaddy!

    This is exactly the conclusion that I came to as well.

  57. OK, I’ll play devil’s advocate.

    Why would one have to either handle or disconnect from anyone in one’s life who “doesn’t like” your religion? In the example given, mom doesn’t like Scientology very much. So what? She’s still mom. My mother didn’t like Scientology very much, but I still loved her and never disconnected.

  58. Why I don’t want to be “ruled” by a ” benevolent
    dictator:

    -Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    -Because of the definition of “dictator.”

    -Because nobody is benevolent all the time! : )

    Benevolent leaders are great. Dictators, not so much.

  59. Very well said, fishdaddy. Thanks for taking the time and thought to articulate some of the sentiment behind my bulleted response, above.

    (someday I hope you’ll tell us where the name
    “fishdaddy” comes from – it cracks me up).

  60. RJ — not true.

    It’s on a tape I believe that LRH speaks of all “isms” being basically the same. Communism, capitalism etc

    And he says a benevolent dictatorship is what works best.

    The rub being — how to pass the baton.

    WH

  61. Fishdaddy — I have to agree 100% with your post. While LRH I’m positive did say something about benevolent dictatorship — it does create a lock-step thinker.

    It’s vital for us each to work with information, and to hold dearly to the words — to thine own self be true.

    The rub here is knowing what IS one’s own self and not covered over egoistic behavior. Many different paths can help us find “our own self.”

    Most of LRH can help immeasurably with this I believe.

    WH

  62. Thought provoking

    Marc Silber is not declared to my knowledge. He had been active and in good standing throught 2006. I don’t have any data after that.

  63. Not all these guys were blameless, or innocent victims.

    Kinglsey Wimbush, who ran the Steven’s Creek mission, was involved in that “de-dinging” stuff.
    A friend of mine who was there at the time said it was pretty rampant.

    That said, I completely agree that the numbers are way to high and it is obviously a purge. That, and no use of lesser gradients whatsoever.

  64. sno white
    Seriously getting tired of your banal idiocies.
    ‘FORCED’ disconnection isn’t in use’ is the standard OSA line and does not stand up under the reality of the situation:
    If you don’t disconnect you will be declared suppressive, denied church services, cut off from your family and friends (who won’t be allowed to communicate with you anymore because you are now and SP too). If you’re lucky and haven’t grown up in the church with your entire community and business deeply intertwined with the church you may survive this.
    As for being ‘forced’ to be in communication with your wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, best friend etc… laughable if your logic were not so twisted.
    Grow up.

  65. I totally agree with you fishdaddy!

    What we have right now is a “benevolent dictatorship” obviously because except for all us disaffected and disenfranchised ones, Miscavige is looked upon as Scientology’s savior and messiah.

    We even have someone going as far to say on an affidavit that “Miscavige is Scientology”!

  66. Snowhite,

    Just because you and Tommy Davis say it is not in use doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Tell me why are some friends “in good standing” on Facebook are being told to Disconnect from Independents? It’s obviously not their choice and that is happening IRL – in real life.

  67. LO, what’s STCC stand for? I agree on the study tech being out. I used to be a study tech terminal at Flag, and I was amazed to find basic MU’s all the time on OT 7’s, CLASSS 9’s, etc. I mean basic MU’s like “remimeo” on KSW I, or “sweep” in the FN Definition or even “Hubbard Communications Office”. I’d find LOTS of these. And very weird ideas about the tech, of course. I’ve always felt that word clearing tech is underrated, sort of glossed over. It takes a lot of work, one has to really push through what I used to call the “Wall of MU’s”; that being grammer, little words, all those Scn. terms like “thought”, “postulate”, derivations and all those symbols in the dictionaries. I found that a lot of people had just glibbed their way up the bridge. If I forced them to confront all this and go through it, it was hard, but on the other side I had someone who was bright and shiny and could now study. Miricles happened. “Bad” students got handled, people looked younger, cases sometimes got cracked.
    It’s an amazing tech.

  68. martyrathbun09

    Sam asked me to post this under MOQ post. To you Jimbo.
    Thank you for your input. It’s great to have a good Qual terminal! On that note…
    I recall the reference for HANDLING an SP was an HCOB that stated that you confront the SP with the words “I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING” It was such a key datum that the entire reference was only one or two lines long and in caps.
    Sorry to give verbal tech here but this reference has vanished from the new PTS/SP course packs leaving me to wonder if I’m losing my mind.
    If that is the handling for an SP (a real one), then the thing to do is HANDLE not run away and hide (or disconnect). This seems to be the simplicity to me.
    The PTS/SP course also states as it’s purpose “How to confront and shatter suppression” – I don’t see much of that going on, parishioners are encouraged to run away screaming (disconnect) in the face of what they are told is suppression which would be an unwise course of action under any circumstances and certainly does not bring one up to slight gentle cause!
    A lot of lip service is given to this ‘handle or disconnect’ point and yet it seems that the actual handling given by LRH has been removed from our technology leaving disconnection as the only solution.
    As the MOQ do you recall this reference and know where it can be found?
    As a footnote I heard tonight that an old friend of mine died of cancer yesterday. This brings a total of eight OTs I know personally to have contracted cancer and six of them have died. Is there any more evidence needed of a major SP at work with OTs as the prime target?
    Joining the dots, if the above reference did in fact exist (I’m not usually one to lose my mind) and has been removed then the ‘tech’ to handle SPs has been ‘lost’ leaving the SP to smash and kill with gay abandon by using disconnection to cut the comm lines of truth.
    Sam

  69. This very thought occurred to me, as well, RJ.

    Ask any kool-aid drinking, red-blooded member of the church whether dm is a “good” leader and you will get an affirmative response. He is being described in those affidavits (which I suspect he wrote himself) as “kind,” “caring,” etc.

    Even if they have doubts, even if they don’t really in their hearts love dm, that is the group think. It is the reality of the group that dm is a benevolent, though all-controlling (read “dictator”), leader.

  70. snowhite,

    re: Forced disconnection isn’t in use.

    On which planet are you currently residing?

  71. War and Peace

    Marty ! Sam ! Jim Loghan ! Sinar !

    Snowhite posts on the major attack on Marty site.

    A DM bot and a TROLL on this blog

  72. Well actually Jimbo, he didn’t get a standing ovation from me. I actually sat there in stunned silence while the crowd gave a round of applause to what looked like a willful act of Q&A perpetrated by the student and her coach!

    As far as I was concerned the event was one of my worst nightmares!

  73. Hello Marty. Did you know Bob Minton just passed away? Can you share your thoughts about what DM ordered you and Mike to do to handle him during the Lisa McPherson trial? I read somewhere that Mike eventually considered him to be a friend. Much appreciate your efforts in this fight.
    M2

  74. Thought provoking

    “The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and if the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied. If however there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts
    naming Org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP the Ethics Officer must realize that he is handling a Type Two PTS and, because the Auditing will consume time, sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery.”

    One also needs to correctly evaluate the situation. At one time it was true that naming org personel was indicative of a Type II situation. I don’t think that is the case in the current church. There are too many people in the valence of DM to rule this out.

    Knowing the above regarding Org terminals, I tried to look for another terminal but no one else came up. The staff member had a history of enturbulating with force and threats so I was allowed to have that be the name. Of course my OWs were pulled prior to doing this and I did the PTS/SP course too.

    I tried to “handle” and was able to successfully do so for short periods only. Because the named org terminal was my senior and constantly enturbulated it was a continuous situation. It was a continuous PTP.

    There were only two times that I was not rollercoastering. The first was when that person was ordered to send all comm to me via another terminal (as part of a recovery cycle after I blew staff) and for several months, I had screaming stats EFFORTLESSLY. Eventually I ended up having that person giving me direct orders again and rollercoastered continuously until I blew for good (disconnected). I have been enturbulation free since then.

    I think the purpose of disconection is to create a way for the person to reach some cause point when they can’t handle it. Both the Suppressed Person Rundown, PTS/SP course and general grade chart case gain can assist a person in becoming more able to deal with supression and that it is possible to eventually completely handle those terminals that once were the source of suppression.

    The disconnection has to be self determined. Blanket disconnection as was the case in the 80’s is not the same thing. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have disconnected with all of my friends in the 80’s upheaval. They weren’t suppressing me!

  75. I’m not down with BAD dictatorships, folks, just like I’m not down with BAD control.

    I’m saying that a good and wise leader doesn’t need vias, doesn’t need approvals, doesn’t have to put up with suppression on the lines, can just be trusted to make the right, sane decisions to fairly rule the kingdom.

    It’s worked a charm many times but the issue always becomes what to do when the idiot son is ready to take over. Hence, it’s not a workable form of government. Doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be.

    I don’t have the LRH reference and I”m on the road and won’t be able to get it but I’ll look for it upon returning home. It’s along the lines of what WH says above. It’s always stayed with me as a brilliant bit of out-of-the-box thinking.

  76. I meant to add that if study tech is out, then people are not going to get the PTS/SP Tech anyway, whether it’s been altered or not. It could be a more fundamental reason on how all this came about.

  77. RJ, you jest, surely. There’s nothing benevolent about the CoS dictator.

    I suppose my point is this: if LRH said he was going to run the planet, would you trust him to do a good job? Personally, I think his ethics level would be good enough for me to not have another thought about how the planet was being run. That’s what I mean. Not David Miscavige.

  78. Red on white from memory.

  79. Sorry, fish, I’m being repetetive. I don’t mean a bad dictator. I don’t mean telling people what to think, because people would be free to do as they wished (within the laws of the land).

    What I mean is GOVERNING; being wise and fair and just. All those good things.

    Good, not Bad.

  80. RJ: The “mountain of declares” as of 1992. Imagine how high the peak must be now!

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html

  81. Wow. I compiled the PTS/SP Course in RTRC at one point which meant I had to read every bit of research data gathered and I don’t recall that reference. Not that it doesn’t make sense or would have an effect, but I don’t recall ever seeing that. Perhaps it was never in an HCOB but in some other issue. Still, it should have been included in the research.

  82. Sue Koon was always proudest of her compilations of the PLs, Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics and The Purpose of Ethics. She said these were her best ever during her years in RTRC. LRH liked them a lot also.

  83. Fish, And my concept of a benevolent dictator would be one who encouraged his subjects to do just that–think for themselves. Imagine the power one would have commanding a country of bright, energetic, self-determined, educated, initiative-showing citizens. Might be a lot of fun. If the leader operated on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number, more power to him because it would result in a more efficient society. Maybe there have been such leaders here and there. (I don’t know of one but I’m no student of history.)

  84. I think “fishdaddy” because he lives where the salmon are king and the fishing is fine!

    What ”fd” wrote applies to any and all fiercely organized religions. I’ve interacted with many of the LDS faith in my day and I can personally state they look to their “profit” or head of the church, basically there for life until he dies, for their main direction and then align their lives around that thinking. Catholic popes and even government leaders often have a worshiping, blind following, too.

    I think it’s built into the nature of the workings of the mind when fear, constant make wrong, guilt and threat of punishment are all part and parcel of the culture of any organized anything. That’s why this Indie movement is so great to see. Such declarations of independence are a natural outgrowth in the process as people singularly become weary of being psychology and physically mis- and ab-used.

  85. Kingsley could have been handled by a simple cramming order and left to the tender mercies of someone like Jimbo, who’d probably of turned the sluggard inside out.

    Ethics and Franchises don’t mix.

  86. WH,

    Exact reference please where Ron says this?

    As I wrote I’ve never found anything in writing or on tape promoting this view.

    So you are promoting a hidden data line.

  87. Lise,

    Certainly LRH specified a place for disconnection, and you clearly applied it in a way that increased, rather than decreased, theta. Therefore it was pro-survival, and therefore it was correct. Particuarly since it’s EP was re-connection.

    It seems to me that if a person has BI’s on diconnection, then it is wrong.

    And disconnection, it would seem, should be a rare necessity, certainly not needed more than 2.5% of the time at most.

    Disconnection has become a control mechanism of the C of M, rather than a mechanism to increase free theta. Most of the disconnection imposed by the C of M is akin to the tactics of Hitler, not the tech of LRH.

    Used rarely and correctly, disconnection can be appropriate and life enhancing.

  88. There is just so much meaty stuff in what Ron said and wrote, its amazing we know and apply what little we do.

    “a datum stand where a being should be.” “…GPM…”

    Had a nifty little cog on that gem a moment ago.

    (WHat?? Its allowed for me to just be in PT with NO Mechanism?? 🙂 )

    Thanks Jim. 🙂

  89. Marty,
    Sorry for the lag in answering your request here. I seem to recall mention was made of this sometime ago. I wouldn’t begin to know where it is on the blog.

  90. RJ
    In a PTS/SP course, but i don’t have the reference at hand Ron makes mention of a benevolet dictatorship.

    What form of governing do you think Scn/Org Board is based on?

    JL,
    Spot on! I like your duplication of the PTS/SP tech.

  91. Old Auditor,

    “Good ideas must be entertained and complaints and attacks must be appropriately responded to so that they do not repeat.”

    Bravo. This is of very senior importance.

  92. Just so it’s clearer from my posting here, my understanding is the Vaughn Young’s claims are not valid, and LRH did see and or approve the issue from 10 Sept 83. My understanding is it was written based on an LRH dispatch on the area, to be put in issue form. That’s hearsay.

    OK, here’s MY point. It doesn’t matter. There is nothing in the reissue that cancels any other LRH data, some of which is presented here, on how and when disconnection comes up. The whole subject goes awry when for instance, you declare people en masse and they aren’t SPs. It goes bonkers when you try and enforce it, against the person’s own decision. It is wack when you say ‘sure you can decide, as long as you decide what you’re being told to decide’.

    Not only that, any person who has been told to disconnect, is told so only when they are labelled PTS. If they are so labelled they have a right to a Comm Ev, which by the way, if it proves the SP isn’t an SP, then the SP order gets cancelled right along with the PTS label.

    So, if you DON’T want to disconnect, request a Comm Ev. Read the stuff, it’s all in there, and very little of it is known or used by terminals in the CofS. THAT is one of the major problems. But, you have rights too, and a Comm Ev on the disconnect is one of them.

    Upshot is, the 10 Sept 83 issue on disconnection hasn’t changed anything major or basic. Disconnection, when handled exactly per ALL of the materials isn’t the problem. Bullsh#! disconnection, off policy, enforced by threat, overt or covert, with no recourse, that’s SUPPRESSIVE.

  93. Tone 41,
    Exactly.

  94. Dave,
    For me, like when you audit another, the wins others have with this stuff are at least as big I think, as the guy you’re getting the tech to. Thanks for your win. I had a HUGE cog on this when I read it just after I’d finished OT III a few months ago. It’s soooo there, it’s IN the materials. Man, this guy Hubbard, some freakin’ smart.

  95. First they came for the Mission Holders, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Mission Holder.

    Then they came for the Class XII’s, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Class XII.

    Then they came for the Veteran Sea Org members, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Veteran Sea Org member.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Modified version of a famous quote form the Nazi Germany days.

    Alex

  96. Joe,
    I was always intrigued with the philosopher king idea of ol’ Greece. Have to be a tough old king too, this planet has some real recalcitrants!!!

  97. I remember that! It must have been around 1978 or ’79. I can’t remember if I heard it on a tape or read it. It seems like it might have been at a lecture I heard at my local mission, so it might even have been verbal. But those were the exact words, I do remember actually using that phrase on someone.

  98. LO,
    For me too, these two basics you mention were life changing. I cleared every word on the old PRD lists and literally destroyed several dictionaries with pieces of demo kit and my hands while I chased down words. It was incredibly rewarding and one of the best things I’ve ever done. I did it early on just like you. I also know exactly what you mean about TRO. I did the Hard TRs, passed when I did at least two hours, perfectly comfortable and confronting on TRO.

    Excellent points.

  99. bcat,
    Success Through Communication Course.

  100. JL,
    Thanks for bringing this subject to light. The subject has such varying degrees of case restimulation for the student that without thourgh word clearing, demos etc. the comprehension will be variable with each student.
    Time taken to understand is most valuable.
    But as many know the stat to finish a course seems to be paramount to knowing this tech nowadays.

  101. Couldn’t agree more, Fishdaddy. The power of a democracy is that bad leaders will be exposed and replaced. It matters less that we sometimes have bad leaders than that we can and will replace them.

    And the right to dissent, to protest, is of critical importance in a democracy. That is the pressure relief valve. Dissent and protest, of course, are thoroughly squashed in the C of M.

    The problem with benevolent dictators is that they’re pie-in-the-sky. They’re unlikely to arise, and, once arisen, they’re likely to become all “dictator” and very little “benevolent.”

  102. Axiom 142,
    I’m afraid this makes no sense to me whatsoever. KSW is Keeping Scientology Working, the technologies of Scientology. To the best of my knowledge, democracy is a form of state management. The body politic’s government. Scientology orgs a delivery operations for SCIENTOLOGY, not political systems. This appears to me to be a ‘thought confusion’ like is described in Data Series 10.

    If you got ‘out’ then why are you still here?

  103. Sonwhite,

    The Church of Scientology has been devastated by the forced disconnection you claim does not exist. If you were a small child you could be excused your inability to observe reality. But you don’t appear to be a child, so you must be either severely PTS or severely idiotic.

  104. I think that many times PTS handlings using “disconnect” may come about because it’s faster, another stat. The org can get the person back in session or on course if he is gotten to disconnect.
    The misuse of statistic to get production as opposed to statistics being a reflection of production is the biggest why for this and most other outpoints in Org. But thats a topic for another day.

  105. beebercat,

    you speak out of my heart. I’d the same experiences. Lots of stories I could tell about it. In fact it’s very simple isn’t it ?

  106. STCC=through Communication Course

  107. From the following PL, it seems that LRH was down on “total” democracy but understood the need for elections and choosing a sane and accomplished leader. From Org Series 12 THE THEORY OF SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS (2-Nov-1970 Issue II):

    “A totally democratic organization has a bad name in Dianetics and Scientology despite all this talk of agreement. It has been found by actual experiment (LA 1950) that groups of people called on to select a leader from among them by nomination and vote routinely select only those who would kill them. They select the talkers of big deeds and ignore the doers. They seem to select unerringly the men of average skill. That is never good enough in a leader and the people suffer from his lack of understanding. If you ever have occasion to elect a leader for your group, don’t be “democratic” about it. Compare records as follows: Take the person who *is* a good auditor, not just says he is. Take the person who has a good, not necessarily the highest, profile and IQ. Take the person who can grant beingness to others. And look at the relative serenity and efficiency of any past command he may have had. And even then you’re taking a chance. So always elect temporarily and reserve the right of recall. If his first action is to fire people, recall him at once and find another leader. If the organization promptly prospers, keep him and confirm the election by a second one. If the abundance of the organization sags in a month or so, recall and find another. Popularity is some criteria – but it can be created for an election only, as in the US. Select in an election or by selection as an executive the person who can get the work done. And once he’s confirmed, obey him or keep him. He’s rare. But beware there parliamentary procedure boys and girls who know all the legal and time wasting processes but who somehow never accomplish anything except chaos. A skilled, successful leader is worth a million impressive hayseeds. Democracies *hate* brains and skill. Don’t get in that rut. In the US War Between the States, militia companies elected their officers with great lack of success in battle. They finally learned after tens of thousands of casualties that it was skill not popularity that counted. Why be a casualty – learn first. Democracy is only possible in a nation of Clears – and even they can make mistakes. When the majority rules, the minority suffers. The best are always a minority.”

  108. STCC=Success Through Communication Course

  109. me too !
    It could be in this old reference of the fifties about the behaviour of psychotics.

  110. Wow!

    Insults and name-calling. This is starting to become an “Anonymous” site.

    Please, keep the personal attacks to zero. I don’t agree with Snowhite, but we should respect his views completely, even if we don’t like it. Or we are becoming what we are fighting.

  111. SnowWhite,

    You’re right. This is terrible. I experienced it. We got about 12 or fourteen disconnection letters from people that were forced under threat by HCO to disconnect from us. We also had friends that weren’t so weak and didn’t comply to it. Some of those that disconnected apologized later and one guy did even a condition on it. We showed the letters to our kids. The only thing they said was “Those people are your friends ? Very weird !
    It became very funny then I’ as I used to tell the IAS that I’ll give them more money as soon as they help me on my human rights to handle the wrong doings of C.O.S. You know what the answer was ? You bet ! Silence is golden, golden….lalala.
    This will also be your answer to it.

  112. fishdaddy,
    It’s not a question of whether you mom doesn’t like Scientology. The question is whether your mom is a Suppressive Person and you are PTS. If your mom isn’t and you aren’t, who gives a rat’s arse. Well, somebody has at some time, but that isn’t what the policy states. It says PTS, Suppressive.

    My mother thought LRH was Lucifer and I was a servant of Beelzebub. I thought that was pretty extreme, so I went to her Catholic priest, showed him Fundamental of Thought, read him some New Slant on Life and he said he’d talk to me Ma.

    I told my father I’d gone to the Father, and he said he’d handle the Mother.

    Mary Sue was aware of the ridiculous situations that were blown up all out of proportion and wrote the PL to move to sort out this nonsense.

    As an aside, BOTH my parents asked me, just before they died, ‘what happens when you die?’

    I told them.

    Both were Catholics. Both did just fine.

  113. Ax 142,

    Where exactly in that PL does he say the option is a “benevolent dictatorship”?

    I suggest reading the above PL again and also the PLs in OEC Vol 7 under the section regarding ‘Advisory and Exec Councils’.

    Sic ’em Jimmy!!!!!

  114. WAR AND PEACE!

    We know. He/she needs to know the materials too though. Maybe especially he/she.

  115. I agree Marty while claiming that the course teaches one on how to “shatter suppression”. All it does is instill fear of suppression!

    This is covered in one of Ron’s Lectures on the BC and also on the Student Hat called ‘Study and Intention’, where he talks about sabotaging a subject by leaving certain information out.

    Really folks SPs aren’t all that scary. They are just some guy or gal who is stuck in a incident.

    I’ve audited several of them as an auditor and they respond to Standard Tech just like anyone else.

  116. Sam,
    Yes, I recall these exact words. This was back in the day, mid 70s for me. I do not recall what issue type they were in or if they were. That phrase was used by some that I witnessed. In fact, I used it one day while doing an OCA on a guy. He was a real pill and nasty, nasty, nasty. I was pretty green too so I say this thing to him. He looked at me with a puzzled face, and went right back at being nasty.

    The materials from 65 in particular PLs 5 April 65, Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity, cover the Power Processes which were issued at that time. These were the tech developments that were extant then to handle the SP case. In fact, for THAT case, the Grades themselves were by-passed and it was Power.

    Later tech includes materials in the Upper Levels. Yet, Power is still there as totally valid tech.

    I invite you to read, along with the policies in Vol One (the original version, and since the CofS has destroyed all theirs, and they aren’t copyrighted to them anymore, write me, I’ll hook you up) of 7 March 65, the policy on the Dead File for the reasoning behind ‘disconnect’ from an entheta source. Here’s a drill in fact, go read ESMB, particlulary a guy named Zinj (Jeff Lynn) and Alanzo (Allan Stanfield). Read a bit and tell me if you don’t feel like you’ve been sprayed with a messed up bunch of disturbed wavelength. It’s like talking to psychotics. You’ll soon enough realize, cutting the line, is the best way to get this goo off of you. It’s so reversed in polarity, so 1.1, and nasty, that automatically you’ll find yourself resisting it. THAT’S how it gets stuck on you. You resist it. Well, why put it on your lines in the first place? Cut the line. Disconnect. It works. You’ll be much happier not having somebody invalidating your every thought, move, action, accomplishment, value and so on. Read the materials on S&D, and learn what these types of case do, the unmock, the ‘make nothing of’ and so on.

    Hope that helps. I don’t know where I saw that little phrase. Sorry. It’s not in the materials I have now as far as I know. Maybe somebody can recall it. If they do, get the whole context as sometimes these things spread around the group and they have nothing to do with actual LRH materials. Like, ‘pulled it in’ or ‘disconnect’ as it’s being played out on Facebook. Does anybody who does this realize, per LRH policy, they have the right to a Comm Ev if they disagree with ‘disconnect’? Or that any disagreement is an indicator of the WRONG SP!. Sheesh, our failure to know and use our Scientology. That’s gotta be handled.

  117. thought provoking,
    On the datum of ‘org personnel’ and PTS items. If the materials as developed over the years are fully studied and understood, by the PTS and person handling them, and the item is the item, it IS the item, then the org needs to know.

    An example. At Int, I’d already done the PTS/SP course several times. The tape Briefing to Review Auditors covers ‘in the org suppression’. So, there I was, at Int, and I KNEW there was suppression.

    I had an ethics interview one time, and I pointed out that there were indicators of suppression, and ratttled them off from the policies. I was told by that Master at Arms, ‘no, the SPs were all handled here in the early 80’s’. That was about 87-88 or so. Hmmmm I thought, that is an ethics blind spot if ever there was one.

    One has to know this stuff. There is NO substitute for understanding and knowledge above that.

    It may just be the problem that you mention, that staff and public aren’t willing to look, add it up, and KNOW what they are looking at, if it is ‘in the org’.

  118. Margaret,
    Hey, another Qual staff! Thanks for the reference.

  119. Agreed. Personally I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is a theoretical idea that hasn’t ever come into reality and is unlikely to. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ” Personally I wouldn’t grant absolute dictatorial power to anyone – not even LRH.

  120. NOT the craw! The craw. ❤

  121. Huck, that’s the problem I wouldn’t trust one single individual to do a good job, even Ron (though I love him dearly as a friend) which is why we have a multiple viewpoint system in a real Scientology organization.

  122. Yes Huck,

    But nowhere in that quote does he say he supports a dictatorship.

    He says it “could be” a good system depending on the Dictator. He also says this about a Monarchy as well in the HCOB Politics and various BC Lectures. Not that it is.

    He also says similar things about democracy in the HCOPL Politics.

    He also says a lot of nice things about Communism in “Essay on Management”too but he doesn’t support it either.

    It’s like acknowledging that under Hitler the trains ran on time and the economy improved doesn’t mean the person supports Nazism.

  123. because,

    Where do you get the idea that the org board is a dictatorship?

    You seem to be neglecting, like the current dictator, like Exec and Advisory councils.

    Like I wrote earlier instead of arguing this point ad infinitum you should read the OEC Vol 7 section HCOPLs on AD & Exec councils and Miscavige if you’re reading this I suggest you do the same as well.

    Because a real Scn Org run on Standard Policy is not a dictatorship!

  124. Exactly Luna!

    Yours is the money quote right there:

    “Even if they have doubts, even if they don’t really in their hearts love dm, that is the group think. It is the reality of the group that dm is a benevolent, though all-controlling (read “dictator”), leader.”

  125. Jim Logan,

    Bless your heart. Thank you for being the most amazing Qual Terminal for us!

    Marty is right. Please ask Steve Hall to start a page on Rediscoverscientology.com for you so you can post all the great LRH references that suits the current situation.

    You are very on-source and extremely valuable to the Independent group as well as those confused ones inside the CoM.

  126. what is the url of the Online Qual Library ?

  127. I found a very interesting BPL recently that is on point: B O A R D P O L I C Y L E T T E R 5 APRIL 1972RC “PTS TYPE A HANDLING”. I’d be very interested in everybody’s comments about how this document fits into the historical development of the CoS’s handling of the PTS issue.

    Some comments from that BPL of particular interest to me are:

    Per HCO Policy Letter of March 7, 1965, it is a CRIME to be or become a PTS without reporting it or taking action, or to receive processing while PTS. Further as per HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964, a PTS may not be trained.

    This means that a person who is PTS may not receive processing or training while PTS and it also means that they had better do something to handle their condition. As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.

    Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time, we have had more PTS trouble than before.

    Therefore, what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.

    After discussion of handling:

    The person who is PTS should be declared as such by Ethics and should not receive Scientology training or processing until the situation has been handled. (The exception to this is a full PTS Rundown done in the HGC.)

    As an outsider this reads to me as a way to have disconnection without having to mention disconnection. ie. We’ll cut you off from scientology services and your future will be bleak as long as you are connected to that suppressive person.

    I found it on a page dedicated to documenting Mary Sue’s contribution to Scientology. It can be seen via a pop-up box, the link for which is about two-thirds of the way down the page. I can’t vouch for the site, but I don’t see any advanced materials on this page: http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mary_sue.html

  128. Why, CD?

    “I’d much rather not have to think about it knowing the government’s in the safe hands of a wise and benevolent leader. Look at the history of this planet, it’s obvious.”

    You don’t like using your brain yourself in matters thaat concern your future or the survival of your group ? Are you that much of a sheep ?

    Scientology: You will never get another LRH , you better adopt some form of checks and balances. Currently you have your Knowlegde Report system wich has done NADA to counter the Intentions of DM. You need end dates for the reign of leaders.

  129. “Everybody in the HGC must do a Comm Course because one auditor has been goofing on the Comm Course!”

    This is the Army /Navy way of punishement. I see the Influence of the SO.

  130. currently the “appropiate”way DM uses is crushing people.

  131. “Just because a man rises above his fellows or takes an important part does not make him an antisocial personality. Just because a man can control or dominate others does not make him an antisocial personality.”

    Even those people need to be held acountable for their actions so that they will not stray. If you put people high up on a Squre cut piece of Stone they can fall hard when they are left without people to give that person healthy constructive critism.

  132. My visual recall on it was red on white. Very curious that so many people remember it and yet – it has vanished. I had a friend who was so certain that she had also seen it that she pulled out a PTS/SP pack to show me the reference and was dumbfounded that it wasn’t there. I’m not the only one with this recall. Weird.

  133. Thank you very much for this post. A good read indeed…

  134. Jim, that “pulled it in” nonsense my still be around. Last time I was at Flag for service, about 10 years ago, I was doing a cycle with the then Snr. C/S Alain Kartuzinski, and basically he was reprimanding me on a cycle, saying I needed to go to Ethics because “I shouldn’t be having these kinds of things happening”; the idea being I was pulling stuff in. Actually I had gone
    PTS to someone, and it was already handled, but he saw it as something in my universe that needed to still be addressed, as to why it had happened in the first place. I’ve seen many liability formulas over the years with this content as well, especially from staff. I think this stems from some perversion of the data that one is “responsible for one’s condition”, so therefore it is not OK to “blame” someone for one’s post or life going badly by lableing them an SP, or even a 1.1, etc, particularly another staff member. It’s a weird way to “take responsibility”. by turning PTS Tech into a kind of first dynamic auditing action and looking inward, instead of a 3-D action of looking outward for the SP.

  135. Hi Jim
    I didn’t get this on a hidden data or verbal tech line. I saw the damned reference myself.
    As regards to reading this datum in context – according to my recall (and that of a couple of others) the ref was almost entirely that one line making it a key datum. I am trying to get my hands on the old vols (tech and admin) and have been scouring ebay.
    I get what you are saying about this line having gone over the head of the person you used it on but this may have been to literal a use (in my humble opinion).
    Based on direct observation the one thing that DM goes bonkers about is being NAMED and having his crimes EXPOSED. Is this not a direct application of the tech to handle SPs as per what this HCOB would instruct? DM’s response is to hide behind the Church and try to misdirect the public into not looking at him but to say that the attacks are on ‘The Church’ – an attempt to divert one from the fact that we are saying “we know who YOU are and we know what YOU are doing. Follow?
    As for disconnection – it has it’s uses when applied correctly. Hell I’ve used it myself where a person is just obviously trying to do me in. No big drama though, just quietly slip the person off my comm lines. Generally there is no protest when this is done correctly though and where it is truly warranted neither side protests but rather breathes a sigh of relief! Very different from the incredible ARCXs resulting from it’s current squirrel use.
    As regards to the line ‘what did you do to pull it in’ – nasty nasty nasty evil little stunt. I had it run on me when I was at Flag going through a very traumatic experience. Not only is it not based on any LRH reference that I know of, it is also a non-standard listing question given out of session. OUCH!!!

  136. I love the term “TROLL”. Was that an anonymous creation? Credit where it’s due – that makes me laugh every time I get a picture of it.

  137. Alex
    That struck me in the most peculiar way. Thank you for that.

  138. The person connected to the SP gets so restimulated he cannot spot the actual SP. That is the malady we all suffered from and our friends are suffering from too. The suppression becomes a big generality and runs into a Type 3 situation where one is surrounded by SPs. I would say that the Church is currently Type 3

  139. Micky,
    I think “profit” fits the description better than “Prophet” which is how they view themselves! ;>
    Gaia

  140. Fishdaddy,
    I’m with you…not interested in a benevolent dictator cuz the benevolence may be solely for the benefit of a single group but not for ALL. This form of governing, IMHO, does not encourage free thinking as “daddy” will do the thinking and make the decisions for all. May ask advice and look for counsel but the decisions all belong to the BD. And the power of civil discourse, discussion, and disagreement cannot be understated! As evidenced by this blog…
    Gaia

  141. “I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING”

    That is a sentence David NMiscavige deffinatly does not want to hear uttered to him personnaly. Marty maybe the Freezoners have the Origional PTS/SP course packs.

  142. Dear Old Auditor,
    If your read HCO PL “Structure of Organization, What is Policy” it clarifies the application of policy. It’s a wonderful reference.
    DM’s op basis is to take a line out of policy and use it to suppress people, not forward expansion.

  143. I do have a problem with “a cure that kills one and saves a 100” being a good thing philosophy.

    Often this way of thinking is used by gone out of control medical scientists.

  144. Having another person think for you, must be in Scientology terms: Loosing control of ones Dynamics or something like that.

  145. Totally agree JLo. It’s whether the comm line is suppressive, whether the other terminal is being suppressive and whether you’re at effect, not whether Scientology is liked/disliked by someone close to you.

    In my case, as I wrote somewhere, my mother had the false datum “Scn breaks up families” (take a bow, DM) fed to her by another family member who’d read of forced disconnections in a news article. My dear ol’ mom just didn’t want her family broken up! She was scared. Once I handled that, it was never again an issue. We went back to our normal relationship, though from time to time she still asks in annoyance why these people my your church keep sending all this mail to her house (given I haven’t lived there in eons). Some things, I tell her, are beyond even my powers….

  146. Good create on that Alex. That concept came to me a while ago, too, when I was looking for my basic on the CoS outness chain and I recalled the first time I saw RPFers in their dirty black tshirts running and being treated like sub-humans. I instinctively knew it was wrong but accepted for social reasons the ludicrous lie that it was for their own good!

    I wasn’t in the RPF, so I turned a blind eye. And I sure as hell wasn’t ever going to be in the RPF because there was no chance in hell I’d join the SO after seeing that, especially knowing how bad I am at following stupid orders.

  147. Thought provoking

    Think of where Scientology would be today if this had been applied instead of allowing DM to usurp his position as the head of the church.

  148. Thought provoking

    Beebercat, I suspect that a lot of the “pulled it in” handlings are simply a misapplication of the full definition of responsibility. This is often used in ethics handlings to show that you are cause of everything that happens. It is often used in a make wrong way when one is doing lowers. My opinion is that it is an incredibly OT viewpoint and is truly theta but is butchered by misapplication.

  149. I knew you’d find it, RJ, despite the fact that you didn’t think it ever existed. I dubbed in benevolent dictatorship for benign monarchy though, really, that’s just semantics.

    Democracy, LRH lists at 2.5 on the tone scale, with Republic at 3.0 the highest in HCOB 17 March 1969, Politics

    “I will not go into what lies above democracy except that Man is trying with his ideologies to solve mainly the problem of succession. History has seen other government forms work far more ideally than those named but in none of these could one guarantee succession of the beneficial rule. Thus adherents to all forms of ideology can be made to agree that “benign monarchy” is an excellent form of government. But they discard it because a truly good benign monarch is not necessarily succeeded by one in the next reign.”

  150. Cat,
    This is before the SO. 1965. If you study the tape, he mentions the Army, as violating this principle just as you have spotted. Sorry, cat, altered sequence, wrong target.

  151. Sam,
    SPOT ON! The person gets dispersed by the generality and can’t spot the correct SP.

    p.s. On the ‘one liner’ from above. I read it too somewhere. I don’t recall where. I can hook you up with the original tech and oec vols.

  152. LO,
    I don’t know what url you are referring to. There are sites where you can get the bulk of all the materials, lower levels.

  153. A win…

    Just had an OT V on phone. He calls us mainly when he is upset about the Org or Flag or handlings etc. Normally it took hours to key him out, like endless natter Sessions.
    This time, I just told him that he is PTS, as I learned here…comlag… PTS ? Yes when you can’t do something about it you are suppressed , you are under the threat of being thrown out if you do something about it and this would have negative consequences in your life and family.. So you are PTS as you can’t do anything about it !
    He meant that is true, went into his valence and was totally keyed out and the rest of the phone call was just create, create. Never had such high Arc to that guy !
    Thats the simplicity of truth !
    Thank you guys.

    Have a nice day

  154. Heather,
    Mary Sue Hubbard is the signatory on that issue. It is extant today, same date, but revised several times and now the signatory is LRH, assisted by LRH Research and Technical Compilations, RTRC.

    The time line on ‘handle or disconnect’ begins in the spring of 65. In 68, just like it says in the reference you are mentioning. the New Zealand inquiry occurred. On 15 Nov 68, LRH issued an HCO policy which cancelled disconnection as a condition. However, the fact of disconnect, as a valid right of any person, the inalienable right to give or receive communication when they themselves desire it, can’t be ‘cancelled’ by fiat and wasn’t by that cancellation policy.

    The issue you have mentioned is ‘RC’ meaning that one has already gone through three separate revisions. You can’t sort out the sequence with that one issue as you are seeing. It’s a longer description and study than this blog permits. Write me and I’ll help sort it out as I can.

    Despite what the issue above says, ‘handle or disconnect’ as a valid tool in the handling of a suppressive influence on one’s life, was never cancelled, ‘disconnection as a condition’ was, in 1968.

  155. martyrathbun09

    LO, right on. It well behooves all of us to learn and apply the tech of handling suppression. 75% of my time for the past years has been doing just that.

  156. Alex, that was great!

  157. LO,
    Well Done!! This stuff works!!!

  158. Huck, Republics tend to ignore and Margenalise Minorities. In an Equal represantation Democracy all will have representitives in Parlement/Congress.

    I think in this case LRH saw himself as the benign Monarch.

  159. Sam as Anonymous says: “Google is your Friend”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

    Troll (Internet)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    “Do not feed the trolls” and its abbreviation DNFTT redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see “What is a troll?”.
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

    Troll
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This article is about the mythical race. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).

    Close Up of Trolls (John Bauer, 1915).A troll is a member of a race of fearsome creatures from Norse mythology.

    Originally more or less the Nordic equivalents of giants, although often smaller in size, the different depictions have come to range from the fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of England (also called Trolls at times, see Troller’s Gill) – to a devious, more human-like folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds. In the Faroe islands, Orkney and Shetland tales, trolls are called trows, adopted from the Norse language when these islands were settled by Vikings.

    Nordic literature, art and music from the romantic era and onwards has adapted trolls in various manners – often in the form of an aboriginal race, endowed with oversized ears and noses. From here, as well as from Scandinavian fairy tales such as Three Billy Goats Gruff, trolls have achieved international recognition, and in modern fantasy literature and role-playing games, trolls are featured to the extent of being stock characters.

  160. W&P, A very well done! Pierre Eithier on his website has a list of all the Disappeared Class XIIs, as well as everyone who was near and dear to LRH. Most declared as SPs!

  161. CD, I’d happily be the Benign Monarch, my friend. I’d be fair, just and ethical and do whatever I could to ensure that my subjects would enjoy their lives to the fullest.

    That’s the simplicity of it.

    Check out the Tibetan system. They’ve come the closest to solving succession by awaiting the Reincarnated One to return, then giving him back his post.

    Also, as noted expertly above by Margaret, democracy tends to be good for the majority (let’s call them the less-aware) while being bad for the minority, who are both able and aware.

    Here’s one to think about: if GWB wanted to bring democracy to Iraq so badly, why did he leave a military dictatorship in place of Saddam?

    When British Iranian Petroleum engineered the coup to put the Shah in power in Iran, do you know what form of government the US and British intelligence cabal deposed? That’s right, a fledgling democracy! Only those silly Iranians elected a leader the oil barons didn’t like.

    And finally, let’s not forget Churchill’s famous proclamation that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

  162. Fishdaddy for President!!

    I love ya Man!!

  163. Hi Sam,
    The term Troll makes me laugh too. I can just see “snowwhite” as this gnarly hag with warts on her nose eating turnips under a Bridge.

    On a seperate note: Jeez…this PTS/SP thing never seems to go away as far as people not getting it. Humans are not known for good duplication and as LRH says” Man cannot be trusted with Justice.”

    ( As I am sure we have all witnessed)

    Why not keep it simple. Let people handle their own communication lines. If you are hooked up with someone fucking with you, handle them or if you can’t…shit can them. pretty simple really.

    Alex

  164. I don’t know if Ron saw himself as a Monarch benign or otherwise, CD.

    After he resigned in ’66 as ED WW he saw himself more as an advisor or consultant. See HCOPL Founder.

    I think Mary Sue was probably more the “benevolent Monarch” holding the post of Controller or C/S 7 which is probably why Miscavige worked so hard at dethroning and discrediting her.

    She however had to deal with the Ad & Exec Councils, so her rule was not absolute. Also Ron reserved the right to bypass these lines with REDs or LRHEDs if the Scientology network was threatened.

    It was a system that worked well until the enfant terrible and his team started seizing control of all these networks that were established and achieved total dominance.

    Contrary to the popular Orwellian fiction that Miscavige is trying to create by rewriting Scientology history.

    Mary Sue was a key contributor to Scientology’s general expansion and it’s very sad that her place is not even relegated to a foot note.

    Huck,

    You are so funny dude 🙂

    Okay benevolent Monarchy, it is.

    However nota bene that a Monarchy is very different from a dictatorship and that most benign or benevolent monarchies are constitutional that have some form of elected Government either republican or democratic and that the Monarch is these cases is basically a figure head.

  165. Jim,

    You said, “I’m afraid this makes no sense to me whatsoever.”

    I suppose that if I were still a member of the CoS, I would probably tell you to find your M/U and refuse to answer your question. 😉 But that would be rather idiotic, wouldn’t it?

    My post was in response to RJ’s one where he/she (sorry RJ, I don’t know your gender) asserted that Hubbard never promoted the idea of a benevolent dictatorship and that the org board was not a dictatorship. I responded with a quote from KSW1, (which could be argued as being considered the most important PL that Hubbard ever wrote, given that it is included as the first PL of every major course) where Hubbard expresses his disdain for democracy. One of the definitions of ‘democracy’ is “control of a group by the majority of its members”, the word itself comes from the Greek word demokratia, from demos ‘the people’ + kratia ‘’power, rule’.

    A true democracy is not limited to a form of ‘state management’, but exists where individuals have the power to determine how their group functions.

    You said, “Scientology orgs a delivery operations for SCIENTOLOGY, not political systems.” I assume that you meant to insert an ‘are’ instead of the ‘a’. I do not disagree with this and I have never thought of them as such. The point I was trying to make was that Scientology orgs (and in fact virtually every part of the CoS) ARE run as a dictatorship, but certainly not a benevolent one.

    Your implying that I have a “thought confusion” is, I’m afraid, typical of the attitude prevalent amongst Scientologists when someone disagrees with them. “I’m right so you must be mentally confused to think anything different, etc.” And ‘validating’ your argument by reference to some part of Scientology policy means nothing to me, I no longer take everything that Hubbard wrote as the gospel truth. I evaluate something on the merits (or otherwise) of the facts.

    It was my understanding that you are no longer a member of the Church of Scientology (please correct me if I am wrong). Therefore, it is implied that you are ‘out’ of the CoS and yet YOU are still here. So I don’t get your point. Or, are you trying to imply that I have no right to air my views here if I don’t call myself a Scientologist?

    Ax

  166. Thanks you guys!!

    I thought of that while seeing all the people previous to me trying to expose the truth and people not seeing it or DOING anything about it. Let’s hope that there are more people willing to step up their game as far as doing something that will matter and expose this scene.

    Alex

  167. “CD, I’d happily be the Benign Monarch, my friend. I’d be fair, just and ethical and do whatever I could to ensure that my subjects would enjoy their lives to the fullest.”

    meglomaniac much ?

    I would do my best to Revolt against any supreme ruler even a benign one

    I am King of my own Castle.

    “Also, as noted expertly above by Margaret, democracy tends to be good for the majority (let’s call them the less-aware) while being bad for the minority, who are both able and aware.”

    American Democracy fails to be a Democracy. It is a big Scam. It started out well but got lost along the way.

    GWB just went in becayuse his father got burned.

    UK/Iranian. Makes me think of the Book Marty wants to write on Haiti and makes me think of Disaster CAPITALISM. Capatalism is the right of the Jungle maskerading in neat suits.

    Huck in my country we have a Democracy and political system resembling the one CANADA has.

    Churchill was at his best in War He was an Ironclad. Peace Time made him ill.

  168. martyrathbun09

    Ax, One problem with taking a single quote or issue and then extropolating its meaning to a disrelated question is apparent with your use of KSW. LRH was not talking about governance, not even governance of the Church. He was talking about development of the technology.

  169. RJ,

    I never said that Hubbard used the term ‘benevolent dictatorship’ in KSW1. My point was that he was clearly not a fan of democracy. So, if he did not believe in democracy, then this tends to imply that he favoured a dictatorship. This was further reinforced by phrases such as “…with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs.”, “I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea.” and, “Our technology has not been discovered by a group.”

    It is clear to me that Hubbard is saying that only HE was able to discover the principles behind Scientology and that only HE was able to run the CoS successfully. This may or may not be true, but this dictatorial attitude is continued today in the way the CoS is run.

    Strange as it may seem RJ, I don’t have a complete library of OEC and HCOB volumes, but in any case I’m not really inclined to go studying them whenever someone suggests that I should. And, I’m sure that you are aware that policy is one thing, but the actual practice is another.

    Ax

  170. Sorry was rather a joke. I’m dreaming about having all the tech at hands on the Internet.

  171. Jim Logan I stand corrected. Thank you for putting me straight. I have red your comment and feel like a little kid blowing of his big mouth to soon.

    I am of my ritalin LOL

  172. Marty,

    I am aware of the inherent problems with taking isolated quotes and then trying to extrapolate meanings that might not be there. But, in my defence I would say that I have only a limited amount of Scientology references materials to hand and that I don’t have an eidetic memory, so cannot always find all the references that I would like to be able to illustrate my point and have to use the ones that I can find.

    However, over a period of 20 years, I think that I have read and listened to enough of Hubbard’s ideas to be able to form an opinion about how he thought the CoS should be run. And subsequent quotes found by Huckleberry and others do tend to support my views.

    Ax

  173. Ax (to grind) #142,
    Hey, if you’ve got ‘good Scn and bad Scn’ held smack up against your face, then, have at it. Literally. It’s not my GPM.

  174. Now that’s living lightning, LO! VWD! I haven’t been in session for quite a while but I’ve felt like I’ve been auditing lately. Very light and airy and smiley (and benevolent!). I think it’s the de-PTS’ing, or you could say, de-lousing of a thetan …

  175. CD, As your Benevolent Leader I would do everything in my power to ensure that you were King of your own Castle. That’s the point: you allow people to live full and free lives without interfering. The only reason to interfere would be to deal with those who would stop you from being the King of your own Castle!

    RJ, Not that I want to be right but …. it’s a fun game. So, let’s look at what a monarchy is.

    MONARCHY: an autocracy governed by a monarch

    AUTOCRACY: a political theory favoring unlimited authority by a single individual.

    Now, there are CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES but I believe LRH mentioned a benign monarch.

    Like the King of Hearts 🙂

  176. Seems to me that if we ever get to a point where DM is no longer in power, we should let all the Clears elect the leadership of the Church.

  177. Hi Joe Howard,

    Did you happen to compile the Ethics Specialist Pack?

    If so, why was the HCOPL Second Dynamic Rules left out? IMHO that is such a key reference and is constantly violated, in terms of using 2d stuff in ethics orders which is off policy etc. At any rate with as much stuff on the 2d that there is, you would expect that reference to be included.

  178. Ax,

    The thing is that no where in the PL KSW does he conclude that a “benevolent dictatorship” is an acceptable form of Government.

    So what you’ve is expressed a leap of logic, which of course you are free to express under the first amendment.

    However, Jim and I under that same amendment have every right to disagree with you and correct you, so you don’t continue to spread false and libelous information saying that the Ol’man supported a suppressive form of Government when indeed he did not.

    I suggest if you are going to say anyone said anything not just Ron you quote their actual words in proper context and the actual source.

    Otherwise you are just taking active measures and spreading disinformation.

  179. Pingback: Tweets that mention MOQ Corner « Moving On Up a Little Higher -- Topsy.com

  180. The sun never stops for me…. The Sun never sets on Scientology…
    And with out us, the sun is nothing.

    So short of time. I wish I could be brighter then that.

    Marty, the Hat fits, Jimmy is wonderful. Priceless is an understatement.

    @Jim, MOQ. Your most precious time, time spent with us, is the tallest Order. Thank you.

    We have you and there are others, spending the most valuable of assets, our time, to make it right.

    LRH spoke of this. MEST and MONEY is not a contribution.

    The wealth of us, is theta.

    Thank you so much for being there and communicating.

    MLV. mlv. mlv.

  181. Hi Jim,

    Did you go to the page I linked to? It has a detailed breakdown of the process of development of the policy and amendment of the BPL and the authorship of each version.

    I can see that, naturally, no policy letter can abolish an intrinsic human right. So, the right to disconnect cannot have been abolished, nor was that required of the CoS by the NZ govt, nor do any of the issues that I’ve seen purport to do that.

    This BPL explicitly is talking, not about the intrinsic human right, and not about the condition of disconnection, but about the policy of “handle or disconnect”, which it says was cancelled. It makes me wonder if LRH had a different understanding of the 1968 cancellation issue to yours.

    “As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing.

    This PL goes on to state essentially the same policy as the cancelled policy to the extant that both stipulate that a person may not access scientology if they are PTS. The only option that’s overtly promoted for addressing a PTS state is “handling”. However, the other option “disconnect” is embedded well within the document and can’t be missed by the pc or staff. As I say, it reads to me as a way of requiring disconnect (where handling doesn’t work) without saying “we have a policy requiring disconnect”.

  182. Jim,

    sharp! Thank you very much! helps al lot to differenciate even more distinctly! Thanks.

  183. martyrathbun09

    Heather and Jim, I apologize for not following all this more closely; so I may be speaking out of school to a degree. However, the problem with dissecting all the semantics and trying to piece togethr a mosaic of the variety of issue types overlapping one another over a substantial period of time we sometimes miss the forest for the trees. As a Scientologist in the mid/late seventies when I arrived, the shared understanding amongst Scientology staff and public was that there was no inclination, nor requirement to ORDER people to disconnect. As applied to me, and understood to me as a public and new staff member one was afforded the freedom of choice as to whether handle or disconnect. I know for a fact that was LRH’s understanding. When the disconnection bulletin was issued in the early eighties, I saw a despatch where LRH clearly stated that (not a quote, but paraphrase) “Mary Sue had cancelled ‘disconnection’.” I am going to have to put a post together on this subject on what went down with the reissue of the policy in the early eighties to give the entire story and how the reissue came about. But, my point here is that LRH’s understanding was that “disconnect” as a policy had long since been cancelled.

  184. Ax, no I didn’t compile the Ethics Specialist Course. I don’t recall who did. I think LRH’s view on the 2d and 2d behavior was that it was a very aberrated aspect of living (I mean, look at what the Wall of Fire is a “solution” to!) so he only wanted it not to be too big a distraction until a person could get himself or herself sorted out in session. You’re right, though, that PL should probably have been included on the course, especially for staff doing it as Ethics Officer training.

  185. “CD, As your Benevolent Leader ” I can see why this is so appeling to many even to the man that married my female cousin.

    You are talking to a recalcitrant, The thought of having someone äbove”me makes me cringe

    The strange thing is although we dutch are liberal and anti-nationalistic when it comes to the monarchy we are all for it. You can burn the dutch flag but don’t mess with our Queen*wink*

    I think I go with Margarets solution. Everybody wins that way. I had the line in my head of people being clear choosing their leaders, Notice the plural.
    but being not a Scientologist I did not want to utter that in line with my thoughts about some form of democracy keeping the leaders in check. You would have many posts to fill because all are filled with Yes men or are in fact not working anymore. Would be an intresting Game.

  186. If you onley elected the top “Brass” and policed up your KR system you would not suffer endless reigning leaders.

    I always looked with a funny eye about the election of Law enforcement officers in the States.

    I am not talking about the example of a democracy you know over there. In fact you can tailor it to your own needs.

    Scientologies own brand of democracy iff you will.

  187. It’s just a post, Margaret.

    We know it can be corrupted because it has been. But in its simplicity it’s just a hat to be worn like any other.

    The mechanism DM has used to corrupt the post (which he invented, by the way) was PTS Tech.

    In other words, he used FEAR, an old, old technique used by despots for (literally) eons.

    Instead of fear of the communist or the terrorist or the Jew, he used fear of the SP.

    He then scrambled the PTS/SP tech so anyone who stood in his way was Declared. If he couldn’t make that fly, then they were PTS DBs who INTENTIONALLY screwed up so as to allow the SP to defeat Scientology.

    It’s so wild, really, if you step back and look.

    Now, in the future, we’d have the Org Board, the real one.

  188. Heather,
    Yes, I’ve read that site and thoroughly. The guy putting it up has done a superb job too.

    The issue you are talking about, was written originally by MSH. The revision you are talking about is revision RC. That’s the fourth revision and it was done by an “LRH Tech Expeditor” as covered on the site you mentioned in the section ‘The Story of Mary Sue Hubbard’. That section of the site coordinates with other sections on the subject of disconnection.

    It is mistaken, that RC version, that ‘handle or disconnect’ was ever cancelled. The actual policy written by LRH is 15 Nov 68 and reads in its entirety: ‘Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is now cancelled’.

    Like I said, this thread on the subject of disconnection and the various issues put out over the years is twisty. I’m still studying it in fact, reading now technical bulletins and listening to tapes from the time. While I love the site and the work done on it by the originator, it is superb as I’ve said, my study is covering the entire subject from all angles.

    Write to me, I’ll help with all the references and you can follow the twists and turns of what is after all is said and done, from the origination of it on 7 March 65, very, very simple. It’s what happened after that is complex. Ahh, lots of beings like ‘complex’, the story of a static.

  189. Marty,
    Perfect. My understanding of the idea of ‘disconnect’ as LRH viewed it from the get-go is the same one you have stated. It was always a choice the person themselves had to make. I’ve found nothing in the materials he wrote or spoke to indicate otherwise.

  190. Jim,

    Again, your response is typical of a Scientologist when someone disagrees with them. You attempt to belittle me by making a ‘humorous’ comment regarding my nick and a spurious connection with having an axe to grind.

    I don’t have an axe to grind with anyone here. I post because I believe in the idea of freedom of speech and expression and I am taking advantage of the generosity shown by Marty to communicate with people who have been involved with a subject that was a big part of my life. If I am not welcome here, I’m sure that Marty will tell me. But, in the meantime, I reserve the right to say things that may not be palatable to some people. If everyone said the same thing and held the same views, wouldn’t that be rather boring and would you learn anything new?

    Also, and more importantly, you make no attempt to deal with or answer any of the points that I made. This makes me think that you don’t like it when someone disagrees with you and think of them as being an enemy and not worth talking to.

    If you still believe in Scientology, that’s fine with me and I wish you luck with your endeavours. Are YOU prepared to grant any beingness to people who do not believe the same things as you?

    Ax

  191. RJ,

    Again, for the second time, I did not say that Hubbard mentioned “benevolent dictatorship” in KSW1.You are attempting to discredit me by misrepresenting my argument. This is called a ‘straw man argument’ and is commonly used by people who want to ‘win’ arguments without addressing the real issue.

    You possibly think that I am attempting to criticise ‘Ron’ or belittle him and therefore leap to defend him by attacking me. I am merely trying to show that there is no real democracy in the way the CoS is run. A large number of contributors to this Blog think that a tyrant is in charge of the CoS. I want people to look at how that became possible. One of the reasons is that there is no mechanism for the majority of members to have their say on how the church is run and who the officials are. It is NOT a democracy.

    Let’s look at it another way. You say that Hubbard did not support a suppressive form of government. Where is YOUR proof of this?

    PS, I don’t need no first amendment, I’m not a rebellious colonial. 😉

    Ax

  192. Heather,
    Just a side comment here. In Watson v. Jones, the case from the 1870’s, the court conceded that the laws and policies of the Presbyterian church were so extensive that the court was hardly in a position, not having the full study and experience of the church officers, to know, let alone interpret, church doctrine. That precedent has existed since that time. As you can see, Scientology is an extensive subject. It has many aspects, philosphical, technical and organizational. It takes a thorough going over in some instances to understand the whole of the materials on a given topic. This one is such a topic. I’m sure you can appreciate the limits of this blog in terms of ‘hashing it all out’ here. I will be taking Marty’s suggestion and set up a section on rediscover scientology, and be better able to present an extensive review of the actual materials of such a topic. Until that is up and running, anyone can write to me and I’ll help with this or any topic and get them to the actual materials so they can learn them for themselves.

  193. Dear Jim,

    thanks for starting a Qual discussion.

    Have you read the traffic of 1982 where LRH stated the comment: “….and if you see John Aczel, spit on him for me….” clearly a figurative comment, in that context by any sane person reading this LRH traffic, which was directed to DM and Mark Yager, and it was about the whole Int scene, and parts of the advice was on the SMI fiasco, mission holders being criminals, that whole scene.

    This “…spit on him for me…” despatch/advice was PRIOR to the mission holders conference.

    What I feel is needed IS FOR THE DAMN LRH traffic to make it INTO the public domain.

    His orders of the 1980s, following his orders of the late 1970s, all fit together.

    LRH’s attitude privately to top management was QUITE harsh and uncompromising, tough, and his being “off the lines” and his traffic so carefully vetted what came back to him, that a DM who would literally execute the “…spit on him for me….” comment, and NOT report that he in fact spit and punched John Aczel and Roger Barnes, (Roger told me the details personally, I verfitied my memory of this despatch from LRH about the spitting with your old RPF twin’s wife), the point is that with the unreasonable atmosphere, the OTHER LRH tough traffic, LRH’s wrath for the rip off mission holders and rip off Scientology business people who employed org staff which LRH saw as harming the orgs’ expansion, there was a TOUGH attitude that got amplified by DM, is all.

    But also Jim, remember in 1982, Knowledge Reports PL stats figuratively and VERY harshly the “black eye” penalty that a in ethics staff would employ on any staff member who is openly “sticking pins” in their fellow staff.

    So, the crux, there IS some LRH policy that was interpreted to amplify this TOUGH uncompromising attitude.

    To me, it’s IMPORTANT that LRH’s late 1970s and 1980s management traffic, and his ASI traffic actually somehow become public.

    Pieced together with the HCOBs and policy and other Int Base issues of the 1980s, and THAT is so vital to understanding DM’s overboard tough guy stuff.

    Also, others, I know your ex twin’s wife also believes it was NOT only DM with this tough guy crap at Int. She thought it was well going on by others also.

    Also Jim, what about LRH’s on the set wrath, there are ample stories about LRH’s explosive bellowing, directly at the time that DM was cameraman on the late 1970s tech films filming.

    I believe DM has THAT for his role model stuff, the explosive bellowing.

    Norman Starkey has likely told DM innumerable LRH stories from the ship days.

    The harsh explosive temper story/history is MUCH longer and there is MUCH that LRH has added to THAT aspect of Scientology history, irregardless of how DM has gone King of the Mountain, Lord of the Flies to the TOP these last almost 3 decades.

    Also, remember the whole tough guy crap that was Kerry Gleason’s style, and who did Kerry look up to? Alex Sibersky, who was the Mission I/C at the Boston Mission where Boston supposedly achieved old Saint Hill size.

    The history of tough guyism and staff abusive violence and threats of violence, preceded DM.

    It’s gone on within Sea Org ranks PRIOR to DM.

    That’s the history of the Sea Org.

    I hope whoever is big enough to sort this out, actually looks at ALL that LRH wrote, I listened to the tape one time, a management tape, with a one liner comment where LRH mentions the over use of force to demand upstats resulting in false stats, and LRH sort of half lamenting about it.

    But you remember, even with Bill Franks, when Bill took over as ITO, you and me know, we saw LRH’s traffic to Bill, complementing Bill on being one of the old “tough” Sea Org officers that LRH trusted to get things done.

    And what does it unfortunately lead to, this LRH acknowledgement of Bill as one of LRH’s trusted tough officers, what does that DO for a DM a few years later on, when it comes time for DM to deal with someone LRH called a trusted reliable Sea Org officer?

    DM was logically forced to put himself ABOVE a Bill Franks.

    And in that crucible life of a Commodore’s Messenger, when ANY Hubbard negative comment was the kiss of death for a messenger’s time on post, DM did NEVER obtain any kind of head patting personally such as so many earlier head patting comments LRH gave to earlier Sea Org officers.

    No, the WHOLE history of LRH’s traffic to Sea Org officers, the people LRH trusted to do the work, the WHOLE context HAS to be spelled out, in my opinion to get the truth.

    We need the LRH traffic, we NEED the former Sea Org officers to speak the details of their LRH orders they received, the validations LRH gave them, there is huge long history of this tough guy Sea Org stuff, and DM’s just the dominat Lord of the Flies King of the Mountain, these last 30 years.

    Had LRH been more on the lines, and survived, things would be different, DM would have been gone so much earlier.

    DM conveniently slipped off to ASI, which was NOT managing the movement, but making money with LRH’s properties. to fund the Archives/CST projects.

    LRH’s wrath for the mission holders and the rip off Scientology businessmen, that was implemented too literally by budding little Napoleon “new broom” sweeping clean, and following the WDC ED 86 Int Strat LRH order about “Pushing production until you ran into blocks. And handled the blocks with ethics.”

    And the 1983 New Year’s Journal was the pat on the head from LRH making all that DM and the tough Sea Org members were doing alright.
    There’s some statement in their about LRH’s approval of all the tough young new top management team, which was DM, MY, Wendell, SM, etc, etc.

    Before all the people who are out, who were there, who lived those years executing that LRH traffic all die, I hope they get together, have a private convention, and remember what LRH said to them, and record it all.

    There’s a lot of LRH material that needs to be added to this history.

    Again, I wish we had ALLSIR and ALL of the traffic in the public domain. That’s one advantage the movement has over the independents. They got all the LRH Sea Org top management LRH traffic on their INCOMM computer system and they used to have it in RTL’s files.

    I think there is a lot more LRH traffic and Sea Org officer personal history to be made public that explains how DM became who he is today.

    Chuck Beatty
    ex Sea Org 1975-2003

  194. Jesus Christ, that’s quite a significant point Marty. I hope you write about that soon. The world didn’t fall apart between 68′ and 83′ (or whenever it was). In fact that was boom time.

  195. When I was languishing (my own fault I admit) during the 15 months I was on the RPF’s RPF, Feb 2001 until I finally routed out, March 2003), in the RPF’s RPF course room at the PAC RPF, with the perfect NO stress atmosphere, I listened to dozens of LRH lectures, re-read the whole OEC, listened to the FEBC and ESTO Tapes, and also I read hundreds of Encyclopedia articles, and ONE LRH tape lecture, and one book, today still hits me at the “solution” to the disconnection controversy more than anything else.

    The lecture is “About Rhodesia”, and it is so important, I wish it was included on the PTS/SP course, to me it is in the “lost tech” category because of what LRH says about “real” SPs.

    In talking with the persons putting LRH and Scientology ideas on Wikipedia, at least this key policy is there for all to contemplate, here’s the quote from that lecture, on Wikipedia:

    “… 19 July 1966, L. Ron Hubbard expressed concern about the possible abuse of the SP label in respect of those who are otherwise good citizens and contribute to civil society:

    ‘ You should upgrade your idea of what an SP is. Man, meet one sometime! A real one! A real monster…. Well, in all the time we’ve been around here we only had one SP that I know of. One real SP that was on staff…. And I don’t know of another single SP that we’ve ever had on staff. Isn’t that interesting. You see all these SP orders and so on… Don’t throw it around carelessly, because this is an–a very exaggerated condition, SP.’ – LRH

    Chuck Beatty
    ex Sea Org, 1975-2003

  196. Chuck,
    Thanks for your write up here. I’ve a couple of things to say on it.

    First, all the telexes, advices, dispatches and such that you are talking about ( and yes I’ve seen the John Axcel one and YES, DM the git took it literally when it was plainly figurative), all this stuff is for the vast majority of cases, NOT policy or tech and was for that time and that circumstance. In other words, it falls under Data Series 1, and the principle that “A BASIC LAW is usually confused by students with an INCIDENTAL FACT. This is conceiving a similarity when one, the law, is so far senior to the fact that one could throw the fact away and be no poorer.”

    In other words ‘orders’ are NOT policy. Comments are not ORDERS and they are certainly NOT policy. I disagree completely with issuing LRH comments and orders, from decades ago as having any value whatsoever in terms of what are Policy and Tech issues. Those that are on the list of specifically stated by LRH to be actually compiled as policy or bulletins are one thing. Randomly taking a comment he made ONE day about so and so, and making that policy!? Nonsense.

    That sort of A=A may very well be something awry with DM and others at the Int level who have these decades old advices that they consider ‘policy’ or ‘tech’. I don’t doubt it judging from the fact these idiots try and actually implement this stuff in areas they have nothing to do with. Like a dispatch to a guy at Gold, from the 80s, shoved down to the LA area. This is beyond mere ‘stupidity’ and has long crossed over to ‘treason’.

    I have through my history worked for, with or under each person you mention. The original Boston ‘Command Team’. Franks, Foster, Gleason et al.

    I’ve worked for, with and under DM at the Int base, the Shrine, the ship.

    DM is NOT ‘dramatizing’ something he picked up from another anything other than the SP valence he is overwhelmed by and has become. Interesting theory on what you’ve written, but not the truth. He has become an SP. MUCH different than the guys you mention.

    Chuck, if you still have Scn materials and if you don’t get them, or if you still read them, then the mechanisms of how an SP becomes one are the mechanisms of how DM became an SP.

    Yes, there were outpoints in the exec style and manner of various of us in the SO. Those are outpoints and the paradigm is NOT LRH, but LRH POLICY. Just because one day he had out-ruds and hurt the feelers of somebody, and he committed an overt on them, doesn’t mean that that day, forever and anon, is POLICY.

    If somebody is taking it as such it is Wrong Source, an outpoint. An illogical source.

    No, the packs of long since expired orders and suggestions and comments of LRH should not be published. They aren’t policy or tech, that’s in PLs and HCOBs, not orders, telexes or ‘advices’ unless expressly stated by LRH, in that advice or another to be compiled as such.

    Orders of the Day, OODs items, programs, evals, and the lot fall under this. UNLESS expresslly state by LRH otherwise. And I know of very few that were. Dan Koon can give a better idea of how many were outstanding if any.

  197. martyrathbun09

    Chuck, thanks for this – great find.

  198. Chuck,
    This is critical data and you are absolutely spot on. It should be REQUIRED study of any person doing any type of PTS/SP handling.

  199. Chuck,
    Here’s a bit from a tape of 18 July, Conference with the Guardian:
    “Now the Scientologist…is perfectly willing and is at this time by Ethics being over disciplined, so we are over disciplining the Scientologists and under disciplining society and we should reverse that – reverse that very definitely. If anything under discipline the Scientologist and over discipline the society. Now in that direction you’d still win but in the direction we are going we won’t. If you under discipline a society and over discipline Scientologists, why you’ve had it, as a Scientologist normally is very, very willing. We’ve got to upgrade the idea of what is a Supressive, as Suppressives really are nuts. They are really damaging, Suppressives. You only need a few heads on a pike. “

  200. “rebellious colonial”

    That indicates 🙂

    Okay Ax,

    I’d say the best PL to read is one called ‘Politics’ which is in OEC Vol 0.

    There are also many references in Vol 7 where Ron talks about the Advisory Councils a feature that Miscavige eliminated for obvious reason.

    Now if you don’t have these policies to hand or available it is very difficult to have any meaningful debate or any meaningful agreement.

    As I wrote earlier the Orgs were never run as dictatorships until Miscavige took over. In fact I can remember bleary eyed evening sitting in various committee or council meetings myself hashing over expenditures, programs or putting together a Sec ED.

    Well at least Davy saved us from all that busy work!

    (Ax if you detect a note of sarcasm in the last paragraph. It’s intentional 🙂 )

  201. The date on the tape Conference with the Guardian is 18 July 1966.

  202. Chuck I just don’t believe DM can’t see the same thing you do for five minutes in his life though. The difference is LRH was capricious sometimes but like you said he lamented. The sum total of his efforts built things up whereas there’s a verified track record of DM only slowly tearing things apart.

  203. Jim and Marty, Thank you for the sanity and for bringing us the real stuff from the Source’s mouth.

    LFBD RIGHT ITEM — > “What we’ve seen is a real SP abusing valid LRH materials and punishing the lot of us, due to his inability to see any right target.”

  204. amazing coincidence those comments on adjacent days.

    My other favorite justice solution LRH quotation which is one of RPF reading days finds, I quote from the newest Ethics Book, page 381, “…This, then, is the primary breakdown of any justice system, that it acts on false reports, disciplines before substantiation and fails to confront an accused with the report and his accuser before any discipline is assigned, or which does not weigh the value of a person in general against the alleged crime even when proven.”

    The solution is in this last phrase “…does not weigh the value of a person in general against the alleged crime even when proven.”

    Institutionally Scientology has muddied up its own field by the misapplication of these two policies.

    Oh, my third favorite why for the dirtied up Scientology field, of non SP SPs, is the Personnel Series PL, where LRH says an injustice can cause a staff member to blow.

    My pet theory is these 3 key LRH policies combined are the key omitted, as Jim says intentionally, that add up to Scientology’s biggest continuing backlash from incorrectly ousted members.

    I’d focus on these PLs/lectures in to solve Scientology’s institutionalized injustice problem.

    Problems of Work’s “Good roads and good weather” in my opinion needs more skilled and repeated application, NOT disconnection.

    If Tommy Davis and the Feshbach lady used “good roads and good weather” and TWTH, that would work! Not threats of disconnection.

    Today I had the thought that you guys are being the church’s “ARC Break” handling team, wearing the church’s “ARC Break Auditor” hat for them!

    The hats have so fallen of their org board, pitiful.

    Last reference, is an advice to ED Int, where LRH in 1982 said to GL that if a particular requirement for staff hiring was acting like an abritrary, LRH said that GL probably didn’t know that it was his hat to decide and deal with such an arbitrary. That actually was the loophole that let a number of people join the Sea Org who had taken LSD, because this advice to GL was interpreted to mean GL had the authority to decide if a staff hiring requirement was an arbitrary or not.

    Point is, LRH gave ED Int/Exec Strata, and in effect top management, a hint of their authority to deal with past policy arbitraries.

    Does anyone else remember this advice to ED Int regarding staff hiring arbitraries? I know of it, because ED Int personally showed it to me when I was on the Routing Forms Project, to make the point of what authority LRH allowed of him.

    Jim, besides your Master of Qual role, I think the movement needed a scribe nerd group that did research for the Exec Ints.

    In one of the Esto Series LRH talks about how an exec sitting in contemplation, tapping his teeth with a pencial is NOT idle. That exec is getting work done, because he’s thinking!

    I don’t think ENOUGH reading, research, and active pencil on teeth tapping thinking had been allowed.

    It’s not a quick process making top management.

    I’m not even a Scientologist, but I bet I could write the best advertisement for what is required to make the future Exec Strat and WDC members. Those people have to be given a LOT of time to become hatted.

    Al Baker is out now, I saw his name on Facebook as friend of Debbie Cook, not to change the subject, but in this niche group of nerd experts, Al’s right up there in policy knowledge like the back of his hand.

  205. Chuck,
    Wow, what an amazing post dude! Al Baker and I are old friends from the same Exec College that you and I took over. Chuck, this whole game is FAR from over. I’m sure the hat you mention will need to be filled.

  206. Speaking of policy, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now if only ONE policy had ever been issued, March 8 or 10, 1950: “Maintain friendly relations with the environment and the public.” The rest probably would have worked itself out, especially is aligned to this FIRST POLICY.

  207. Marty, thanks for your comment.

    I made the comment some time ago – on this blog, I think, or perhaps in an email to one or both of you or Jim – that the field of biblical interpretation is an enormous field of scholarship and debate and that I foresee the field of scientological interpretation also becoming huge in the medium term.

    Although scientology is so recent, in comparison, and Hubbard wrote in the English language and not an archaic and partially lost language, there is already scope for much research and debate as to the meaning of certain policies and other writings/lectures of Hubbard and later DM.

    The approach of eschewing “verbal tech” has no doubt had at least two significant consequences:

    1. It must have minimised the dissemination of works explaining, interpreting and amplifying Hubbard; and

    2. It means that every scientologist may have reached different understandings as to how the Hubbard works “hang together”.

    From a forensic perspective, that makes it fascinating to consider how one could/should present scientology policy about any matter.

    Who is “right” and who is “wrong” about their understanding of what a particular policy means?

    Trying to parse the language of written policies is – of course – a valuable exercise. What one is essentially doing is trying to get past ambiguities to discover the intent of the author at the time of writing.

    How those policies were applied in practice, at the time of, or soon after, their creation and under the supervision of the author is also good evidence of authorial intent (provided there is no reason to suspect that the author has shifted his view).

    But when a factual situation involves policy written decades earlier, the way that policy (and others) have been applied in practice becomes more significant.

    I’m fascinated.

  208. Marty, one more point. Be sure when you do write about it to include that Board Policy Letter by Mary Sue that we’ve been discussion.

  209. Heather,
    You should do the Primary Rundown. That makes it clear how Scientology is studied. There is no exegesis needed. It’s all on that PRD.
    Bluecharm aka Jim Logan

  210. RJ,

    OK, so some colonials are quite well behaved. 😉

    I don’t have a vol 7, but I do have a vol 0. I’ll try and find the references that you mention. Perhaps I should go to my local org and ask to use the library? 🙂

    You raise a valid point. My whole experience of the CoS is post-DM, so I’m not in a position to directly compare how things were run before this, from what I have heard, things were better. I think we can all agree that the way the CoS is ‘run’ now (I use the term very loosely), is not compatible with achieving ‘Total Freedom’.

    And as for saving us from all that work, I’m afraid that some people seem to want this, that is to say, they want someone else to make all the decisions and tell them what to do.

    Not my idea of freedom.

    Ax

  211. I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

    I’ve never seen this in an LRH reference. My suspicion is that this is someone’s alter-is of HCO PL YOUR POST AND LIFE, where it states “AN SP CONFRONTED BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS AND CAN USE ALL THE TECH CONCERNING SPs WOULD SHATTER.”

  212. Chuck made some very valid points about the history of the Sea Org, the LRH orders and advices that formed some of the “tough guy” beingness that pervaded Sea Org mentality, and how it created who DM is today. I think it is an error to opine that DM is simply an SP who sneakily rose up the ranks to do us all in. The evidence does not fully support this assertion.

    From the Data Series PL Sanity:
    “A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement. It is the perfect
    “authority knows best.” It is the “reliable source.” A typical one was the intelligence report accepted
    by the whole US Navy right up to 7 Dec. 1941, the date of destruction of the US fleet by Jap planes.
    The pre-Pearl Harbor report, from unimpeachably reliable sources was “the Japanese cannot fly-they
    have no sense of balance.” The report overlooked that the Japs were the world’s greatest acrobats! It
    became a fixed idea that caused the neglect of all other reports.
    A fixed idea is uninspected. It blocks the existence of any contrary observation.
    Most reactionaries (people resisting all progress or action) are suffering from fixed ideas
    which they received from “authorities,” which no actual experience alters.
    That British red-coated infantry never took cover was another one. It took a score or two of
    wars and fantastic loss of life to finally break it down. If any single fixed idea destroyed the British
    Empire, this one is a candidate.”

    This “authority” for DM that led to his fixed ideas (service facsimiles) on how to lead on the third dynamic are indeed likely from LRH, which is Chuck’s point. And it is worth noting the situation is indeed wider than just DM, for that valence/op basis is not just a DM outpoint.

    DM has never had his withholds pulled in decades, and individuated to the point of total unreality of the real scene. LRH talks about the dangers of top executives not getting auditing in the tape Individuation. He likely never got his service facsimiles fully run with NED, which LRH talks about as a Why for executive failure in the HCOB covering ser fac procedere in ’78. DM is no doubt full of service facs and evil purposes, fixed ideas that have replaced actual observation.

    But there is some causation there of positive effects from time to time otherwise none of us would have ever listened to him for a second.

    Also, around the time of the Sea Org formation, there was rampant out-tech in orgs and ethics was needed to get tech in. Tough Sea Org missionaires were the exact recipe LRH desired to achieve a better tech scene. More could be expanded on this point to fully understand the derivation of the Sea Org.

    To really get an ideal scene I think it is important to recognize just how big the situation actually is and where things truly went astray with Scientology, regardless of who the outpoint may get assigned to. There are also new pluspoints such as ease of swift and full communication to all via the internet.

  213. martyrathbun09

    Free and Clear Now, I think it is a tremendous disservice, and impediment, for folks to be giving DM a defense like this. It plays right into his hands. The “antis” who want to prosecute “Scientology” and LRH play this game. And it is why, frankly, they never accomplish much. They’ve been giving DM air cover for years and continue to do so. I recommend you read post The Great Middle Path of several months ago. It is continuing to play out in real time. How does ‘LRH created DM’ insulate DM? Constitutional law. If he was motivated by his interpretation of scripture, he’s immune. The ONLY chance for civil and criminal justice ever biting is to come off the “Scientology or LRH made him do it.” Every major attack from without was ultimately overcome because of that type of over-reaching. For crying out loud, read the June St Pete Times series again. They threw LRH under the bus in defense to everything. We, who were there and witnessed this tyrant’s rise and who were interviewed, shook our heads in disgust. It JUST DID NOT GO DOWN THAT WAY MY FRIEND. Mr. Annointed One using the very defense you’ve postulated here loves broadsides on LRH and Scientology – because they insulate him so nicely.

  214. Thanks Marty and I read that blog post on the great middle path just now. I agree with its contents and I want to emphasize my own viewpoint that DM is a criminal psychotic that needs to be prosecuted for his crimes and be put in prison. Beyond DM, I often ponder on the state of Scientology and the operating basis therein, my own experiences and so forth. I found the points made by Chuck to be real to me regarding this tough guy op basis portrayed by many, even before DM per reports. That may be a separate “middle path” worthy of inspection: there are those who say it is all because of DM, there are those who say it is all because of LRH, and perhaps there is a middle path there where truth is to be found. That may well be an impediment to a target of getting DM proper justice, and if so I regret that aspect. I mainly am looking at the overall subject and where I feel it goes astray from a religion I would want to be in if it were minus DM. I never cared for the harshness of the mentality of some executives and it was a common outpoint I observed in orgs.

  215. I agree Marty,

    Also what Dave and his minions do that is very much like the “antis” is take some obscure quote taken out of context or something that was merely a suggestion or in some cases even a joke and say it is a “policy” of Scientology.

    A good example is the “Golden Age of Tech” which is supposedly based on a lecture ‘A Talk on a Basic Qual’ where Ron recommends a series of drills for Qual be piloted.

    However, he never canceled HCOPL 24 April 65 ‘Drills Allowed’ which is the key PL Miscavige violated when he introduced a bunch of squirrelly drills!

    The out point here obviously is altered importance and that Miscavige does this continually to justify his overts.

  216. Marty, the Constitutions of the US and California (at least) do not protect a person from breaching any law with criminal or civil consequences PURELY because they were motivated by their religious faith.

    Read carefully the decision of the California Court of Appeal in Wollersheim, which is directly on point. Despite claiming that fair game, forced disconnections, disclosure of confessionals and coerced auditing were all expressions of the scientology religion, the court found that that was no protection from the law.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wollersheim_v._Church_of_Scientology

  217. Jim, the debates on this site alone about the meaning of policies suggest that there are ambiguities that people resolve differently.

  218. martyrathbun09

    Please Heather.

  219. Marty, I think the word you’re looking for is “thanks”. 😉

    Seriously, forget that Wollersheim was a Scientology case and just look at the law that was applied. Religious conviction is not an absolute defence.

  220. good info here glad i came

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s