Daily Archives: February 5, 2012

“My Name is Ulf and I’ve Had Enough”

Many people have asked me since 1 January what they can do to help get Debbie’s New Year’s Eve email message disseminated.  I have answered a) do all you can to further the original email on “in-good-standing-folks’ lines”, then later b) contribute to her defense.  Step “a” as a front has dried up considerably after a month of “dead agenting” by Scientology Inc.  To “dead agent” someone means in Scientology parlance “discredit” her.  Scientology Inc has scrambled for more than a month now to accomplish that by telling their public that Debbie is declared suppressive and is in league with the forces of evil, and by providing them with a “dead agent” pack to counter the substance of Debbie’s email.  

One very bright recipient of that ‘dead agent’ pack did not shudder into fear, silence and  feigned agreement.  Instead, he turned it right back around and communicated directly to Flag Service Org’s chief sheeple herder, External Security Chief OSA Flag, Kathy True.  Ulf Olaffsen addressed each and every section of the “Debbie Cook Dead Agent Pack”  and wound up producing the definitive “dead agenting of the attempted dead agenting”.   

Ulf Olofsson got into Scientology in 1989 in Sweden but moved to the US
where he shortly thereafter joined the Sea Org. He went to Gold and
held various positions in the Audio division at Golden Era for 16
years. In 1993 he joined the Event Crew and participated in the
production of International Events both in the production phase at
Gold, as well as the live events themselves.

From the mid 90’s to 2006 Ulf served as a section head and then
department head over the audio productions for all films and
videos, while remaining on the event crew as the head of audio
production for the events.

Between 2007 – to 2010 Ulf did the RPF at Flag where he thoroughly
absorbed the tech of Scientology and held positions within the tech
delivery unit throughout the RPF program. In early 2010 Ulf routed
out of the Sea Org.

What follows is Ulf’s account. Please feel free to link it, or copy-text portions of it to carry on the debate and dissemination of the message of Debbie Cook’s New Years Eve email – on Scientology Inc turf. 
Hello,

 

My name is Ulf and I’ve had enough.

 

Back in the beginning of January I received Debbie Cook’s email. I left a comment on her Facebook page as I agreed to her view on KSW. I didn’t know Debbie well personally, but had dealt with her, mainly at Int. My impression of her was that of a genuine person, strong executive and well trained in LRH Tech.

 

Having been in the SO for 20 years – 16 at Int/Gold – including when Debbie was at Int, I can very much relate to her experiences and observations.

 

Later I was contacted by External Security and Kathy True (OSA Flag) about having commented favorably on Debbie’s Facebook page. I was sent a DA Pack (Dead Agent – LRH term taken from chapter 13 THE USE OF SPIES by Sun Tzu where 5 types of agents are described and one is a “Dead Agent” – term meaning to correct false information spread in a propaganda campaign.)  This pack was supposedly consisting of references by LRH which DAed or countered what Debbie had written in her email.

 

I went through this pack with an objective view, but by the time I finished I couldn’t but sit down and write a communication to Kathy as I found so many things either out-of-context or simply non sequitur.

 

I think Debbie wrote her email because from her perspective and knowledge she was applying KSW. Despite anything else that might have been “inappropriate” in the fashion she did it, I felt the same way and hence I spent quite some time putting together a DA pack of the DA pack. This was for the benefit of Kathy, but I had little hope anything would come of it. But at least I was going to give it a shot to write what I felt was true to me, AND, put it on the proper lines.

 

That was over a week ago. Then suddenly I get an email from Kathy True. Any acknowledgement(s)? No! Instead I get the following: It is NOT a communication (from an organization that is supposedly based on a philosophy centered on communication) and is creepy at best.

 

Kathy: Ulf – sent [send] me your address for snail mail.  ml, KT

 

Ulf: Kathy, as you didn’t acknowledge or comment on anything I wrote to you I am highly curious why you’re inquiring about my mailing address. What should I expect in the mail? My declare for expressing my views? Or should I expect a visit? Spencer [Flag External Security] at least had my address unless he has lost it.

 

Kathy: I’m taking this off email lines.  This is not the correct line for this.  KT

 

Ulf: Each new communication from you is non sequitur to what I wrote or asked. If you need something from me, why don’t you call me? Spencer has my number.

 

Well, I wonder what the “correct line” for this is. So far I haven’t found it, as there isn’t any correct line for “critical” thought against the Church’s actions – such activities are simply not acceptable seemingly, at least, whatever the reasons, they are justified strong enough to utterly abolish basic LRH data on communication, integrity, evaluation of data, free thought and just about any other subject that deals with decency, ARC and human compassion.

 

After I read what happened to Annie Tidman – one of my favorite staff members at Int – and after mainly reading and getting communications from people – who are all “Scientologists” – about all the “enemies” of the Church; disconnect from so and so; that person and this person is disaffected, ad infinitum, I just couldn’t take it anymore.

 

What happened to the Church I joined? Why all these internally assigned “enemies” instead of fighting the real enemy out there, and the 4th dynamic reactive mind? This is not the Church I chose to join.

 

As I believe other people have received the same or similar DA packs from OSA terminals such as Kathy, I can’t think of a better place than to provide my own DA pack at this blog, so at least the data can be made known and hopefully useful.

 

If someone like me, who so far has only communicated on “proper Church lines” gets such odd and creepy communications and responses, it may also provide a tell tale sign of the measures drummed up by the Church to attack Debbie and Wayne.

 

If you wish to communicate to me personally, you can email me at warewhulf@hushmail.com just ensure you clearly state who you are and your intentions and I will answer you.

 

Here’s the original communication to Kathy:

 

 

Kathy True                                                                                                    27 January, 2012

OSA Flag

 

Ulf Olofsson

 

Re: Debbie Cook DA references

 

Hello Kathy,

 

Thank you for providing the references I asked for in regards to the email Debbie sent out.

 

I have had some time to digest these and what you wrote raised many more questions.

 

Right off the bat I want to emphasize that my answers are not intended to snap terminals with you, nor minimize anything you lay out. Being an ex-SO from Int I quite often get communications asking about facts and figures as a means (for them) to verify if the information the inquiring person received is indeed accurate, especially after Debbie’s email. This is in addition to general Scientology inquiries from my wife and friends who know I am a Scientologist. The DA reference pack you provided me does shed some light on some aspects, but unfortunately raises more questions for me, AND not just because I don’t understand or have an MU, but because I apply key pieces of tech in my life such as “look, don’t listen” and simple evaluation of information.

 

Hence I am presenting some questions which arose while going through your DA references and which put me in a position where I feel I am not able to fully handle the originations of those inquiring, nor my own reality of the actual state of things.

 

I have highlighted in italics what you wrote and I have highlighted in bold any questions I still have which I felt were not adequately answered with the data you provided me with. If your busy schedule permits, it would be very much helpful if you could provide answers or further data on this.

 

Thanks in advance, Ulf

 

 

The result of these efforts is unprecedented expansion in the actual delivery of Scientology religious services—an increase of 40 times over previous levels—and the religion now measured in terms of more than 10,000 Churches, Missions and affiliated groups, with millions of members in 167 countries.

 

This is the first and most commonly used statement in DA material, both from your press spokesmen as well as OSA affiliated terminals. It is, in my view also the least credible and hardest one for me to honestly defend. Let me elaborate:

 

40X Expansion. Expansion is measured by comparing one unit or units at some earlier time period with the same unit or units at a later time period. Without stating the units you are measuring and the time period, it becomes very vague to argue what that expansion actually is.

 

Are you comparing total org delivery in 2012 to that of Phoenix, AZ 1952? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. NOTS auditing hours went up in the mid-90’s after the 20 NOTS auditors fired back to each AO but has dropped ever since – a verifiable fact. Maybe Solo NOTS solo hours are up, and maybe Div 6 services such as the Basics course completions and the new TR’s & Objectives courses are up over previous times, but then this should be specified. I know for a fact that the training of classed auditors (one of the major VFP’s of an org) is not 40X, nor is the WDAH’s for general Bridge delivery.

 

  • What exactly is the 40X – what training and/or services and what time periods are you comparing?

 

10,000 Churches, missions and affiliated groups is a datum very hard to explain. No new orgs, and if I missed one or two, it still doesn’t explain the numbers, have been announced in almost a decade. Athens was one of the last, and maybe a Celebrity Center. The total number of orgs never exceeded somewhere around 160 from the time I was at Int, and from your events no new orgs have been announced since that time.

 

When I worked at Gold I routinely did A/V products tailor-made for the active missions and groups and I would get updated lists of ALL the missions in the world. The total never exceeded 600, and I got my lists directly from SMI Int, and the lists contained ALL registered missions with contact information. The numbers were roughly about 60 in Russia, less than 40 in Hungary, less than 100 in the rest of Eu, less than 10 in all of Asia, less than 40 in Africa, less than 10 in ANZO, less than 70 in all of South America and less than 200 in North America. In total the numbers were 500 – 600.

 

Yes, my information is not current, but these figures are not from the Ice Age either (2006.)

 

I know from my time at the Flag RPF that $50,000 mission starter packages were sold a lot, but a package sold doesn’t equate to a mission delivering services and it would seem to me that a Scientology org, mission or affiliated group should in some way be delivering Scientology training and auditing, even if just on an introductory level.

 

If you combine the existing orgs and missions from my 2006 verified statistics the number doesn’t exceed 750, and I used all of your websites to look for additional centers and groups and I couldn’t even locate 400 contacts in all of your websites combined.

 

Even the number of 750 is probably too high. For example, here in Hong Kong there is a Dianetics Group run by a local OT VIII. The place is open 3 evenings a week. There are never more than 1-2 people there when it is open. I’ve been there 3 times and each time it was empty. There is no sign on the street so you can’t possibly run into it, but it is located in a regular, cheap apartment on the 4th floor of a building. This is in addition to a serious amounts of outpoints observed when I went there which I initially reported in proper form to SMI Taiwan, but got no answer after 3 emails, and then to SMI Int and still got no answer, but this is a separate subject to this communication. 

 

I’m sure this is counted, but it is hardly delivering at all, and I’m sure this is the case in many places around the world. I have a close friend in Malmö in Sweden. She went to the local org in November last year. She said the place was almost empty other than some staff. I also have friends in Stockholm and Gothenburg who are on lines and they also tell me those orgs are almost empty.

 

So, with the 750 number being in question, I can only suppose that the remaining 9,250 must fall into the category of “affiliated groups”. But what is an “affiliated group”? Do you count a school teaching TWTH, or a school using study tech, or a WISE member using LRH tech in his business? Though these are using LRH tech, they are not delivering Scientology and should not be included in counting a group delivering Scientology.

 

Less than a year ago, the Scientology PR statement was 8,000 Orgs, missions and groups, and in less than a year that total has increased by 2,000.

 

I know Mr. Miscavige himself stated these figures at International events and with all due respect I don’t want to doubt the figures, but in applying logic based on the actual statistics which I was privy to I can’t get the math to add up.

 

LRH states in PR policy which you, Kathy, are very familiar with, to NEVER use lies in PR. I know how these figures were put together when I was involved with events. Marc Yager used to be the appointed “Stat Man”, i.e. he was responsible for summarizing various statistics to be announced at the events. All the information was collected by the IMPR office staff. I read through all of this information many times throughout the years. NEVER did the actual figures even approach 10,000.

 

  • What exactly is the “10,000 orgs, missions and affiliated groups” comprised of? Is there a list available, or a basic breakdown? Anyone who tries to look it up on the internet can’t even get a number 1/20th of that, so this is one of the hardest pieces of information to defend.

 

Another hard to defend datum is the “millions of members”. In all the years at Int, the total international event attendance statistic never exceeded 50,000. Most of the time it was around 30,000 – 35,000.

 

To be a member, one has to officially apply to be a member, such as becoming an IAS member, going on staff, or such a thing. When I was on the Flag RPF there were several IASA staff members on the RPF who had recently been in IASA. As I was a tech terminal within the RPF I dealt with them both as a C/S and auditor and supervisor. From this I learned that the total IAS membership number was in the hundreds of thousands – this was from 1984 to 2010. There are less than 10,000 staff around the world.

 

Again, I don’t want to just negate and I know this datum was announced by Mr. Miscavige, but with all the information I have and with all the information that can be verified on-line I can only come up with at most 25,000 active members in the US and maybe twice that amount in the rest of the world, and maybe a couple of hundred thousand others who are currently inactive but have a valid IAS membership.

 

  • What comprises “millions of members”? Anyone who ever bought a book?

 

…LRH covered this phenomena in HCO PL 7 August 1965, Issue I, SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF:

 

“Soft sell” is another recommendation of the SP.

 

 And “build it quietly” and “get only decent people” are all part of this.

 

When somebody is demanding less reach, that person is an SP.

 

Therefore, we have another characteristic:

 

2. SPs RECOMMEND INEFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION AND FIND FAULT WITH ANY BEING DONE.

 

LRH

HCO PL 7 August 1965, Issue I

SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS,

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF

 

You included this reference in regards to Debbie’s email, but I couldn’t relate it to the content of her email. There is nothing in Debbie’s email that suggests soft-sell, or hard-sell for that matter in regards to the subject of SERVICES, which is what this policy is talking about. Debbie objected to the crush regging for the IAS, which regardless of validity has nothing to do with disseminating services of Scientology.

 

  • How is Debbie’s email or the content therein advocating soft-sell of Scientology?

 

3. International Association of Scientologists

 

Misinformation and wrong information has been spread on what the IAS is supposed to be.

The IAS did not replace the HASI. They are entirely different entities existing at different times with different purposes.

 

On March 12, 1966, L. Ron Hubbard announced in HCO Executive Letter that the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Inc. had been replaced by the Church of Scientology of California as the senior corporate entity in Scientology. This announcement included that effective 5 April 1966, all of Saint Hill, including the International Executive Division of Scientology, would be under the corporate control of the Church of Scientology of California. This ended the role of the HASI as the senior corporate entity in Scientology.

 

The International Association of Scientologists is a membership organization founded by individual Scientologists in October of 1984. It is not a management organization, but a membership organization, the purpose of which is to unite, advance, support and protect Scientology and Scientologists in all parts of the world so as to achieve the aims of Scientology as originated by LRH.

 

As with the HASI, the IAS has annual and lifetime memberships. Beyond that, there are levels of honor statuses to acknowledge the contributions of Scientologists.

 

This is a bit confusing. First you state that the IAS did not replace the HASI and that it is completely different, and, you state that it was not implemented by LRH, but founded by individual Scientologists.

 

Then you state, ”As with the HASI, the IAS has annual and lifetime memberships.” So first you lay out how they are different, and then you lay out how they are similar. Not only is this confusing and doesn’t really answer anything, but it also doesn’t explain why the IAS should exist at all as Debbie laid out as there is no LRH to back it up, neither of which is included in the material from you.

 

To DA this to someone questioning it one would have to understand how a membership organization could be created, not based on LRH, and which collects huge sums of money, compared to the relatively affordable HASI annual fees (even with inflation considered.) One can argue that the IAS funds dissemination campaigns and org buildings, but when reviewing the accounting of Ideal Org buildings, they were mainly sponsored by individual fundraisers from their local area. Also, I haven’t seen a single Scientology ad on TV since I left the SO in 2010. Apparently there was one playing on American Idol recently, but to quote from International events, “…we will flood the airways with advertising campaigns” seems to imply a large presence of Scientology media across radio, TV and the internet and I have searched and looked for it and other than what is playing on your internal websites, I have seen no sign of it.

 

These contrary facts, in my personal experience, have raised some doubt and questioning with those who read Debbie’s email and then asked me about it. Again, lots of fancy words are being proclaimed that sounds good and all, but in the physical universe the evidence is not there. How can one not question the massive IAS donations when it isn’t exchanged with tangible services or means to disseminate with verifiable, non-PR evidence?

 

Yes, I know this is what you say they do, but can any specifics be provided? Obviously an accounting would be out-security, but if new places were opening up and delivering, if ads were playing all over the place, if print ads were placed in papers all over the world, if people were sponsored to open up and run new groups instead of being charged $50,000 for a starter package, then I believe the arguments about the validity of the IAS and the questioning about the money aspect would be insignificant.

 

  • Regardless of the validity of the IAS, how is the money donated to the IAS used exactly, without generalities?

 

SCIENTOLOGY FIVE:

 

Scientology applied at a high echelon to social, political and scientific problems. This requires the earlier levels and a high state of training on theoretical and wide- application levels and the personal state of OT.

 

LRH

HCO PL of 2 August 1963, Issue I

URGENT, PUBLIC PROJECT ONE:

 

In fact, the existence of the IAS makes possible these specific Fourth Dynamic activities envisioned by LRH:

 

When considering all the policies written about the subject of what the parishioner’s money is used for, this excerpt and earlier mentions of the 4th dynamic campaigns not only fail to explain why HCO PL “WHAT YOUR FEES BUY” states that money paid for services is what provides these things, but seem non sequitur in context.

 

Here a policy about the importance of relative marketing for various categories of public is being used to justify the donations for the IAS, when there are numerous finance policy which states exactly how these campaigns are supposed to be funded, etc.

 

The hardest argument for me personally has been to explain the extreme fundraising activities which have gone on in escalating order for the last 15 years, despite very clear and non-interpretable, step-by-step direction from LRH of how to manage and deal with finances within the Church. The only “DA” I have seen so far is out-of-context excerpts which don’t “handle” the full LRH policies which Debbie quotes from.

 

  • How can this be justified despite cleat-cut LRH policies which state otherwise?

 

4. Ideal Orgs are Fulfilling LRH’s Intention for Churches of Scientology

 

The Ideal Org program is about delivering quality of service.

 

One can’t argue this, but one can argue how very posh and expensive, new buildings equal to quality of service. They are not synonymous. I wasn’t there, but I dare argue that LRH ran top quality service at Saint Hill and on the Apollo and none of these required posh buildings.

 

  • How does quality of service equate to expensive, new buildings?

 

The sole purpose of our Ideal Org strategy is to be able to deliver ALL the services LRH intended to make available to mankind and to do it in an environment conducive to people rapidly stepping onto and moving on the Bridge. And to expand all orgs to a level they can deliver that quantity and quality of service at once.

 

In lectures and policies, LRH described his vision of an Ideal Org. It is this vision that is now being put into reality, as the following excerpts show:

 

These are awfully good people in Central Organizations. These are terrific people. At a sacrifice of considerable income and a lot of other sacrifices, these fellows and girls stay on the job and get the job done. One could not render a high enough tribute to them, because it has not been easy and they have done it extremely well. And they’re still there and they’ve still got the show on the road.

 

And now we’re thinking in terms of new buildings and designing new buildings all over the world. In other words, we’ve kept it there for a long time; now we’re going to keep it there with exclamation points. We’ve even got the designs for these buildings.

 

Actually, it requires two types of building in one of these Central Organizations. It requires a city building, one that is downtown and rises straight up from the ground to some height. And it requires one out in the country which sprawls all over the place.

 – LRH

Lecture 3 Sep 1962 YOUR SCIENTOLOGY ORGS & WHAT THEY DO FOR YOU

Here again we have a problem of magnitude in regards to explaining the current actions of building expensive buildings as this one excerpt from 1962 ignores almost everything LRH later states in actual HCO PL’s covering the subject of building acquisition and the steps to take to expand, not to mention all the traffic from LRH to the Building Investment Committee, which you may not be personally familiar with, but I am.

 

Outside of the factors of the buildings of Ideal Orgs, this also doesn’t explain how the Ideal Org Program has come to replace LRH 339R and the making of Saint Hill Size orgs. The latter was THE strategy for orgs and management from 1982, whereby the Ideal Org program was mentioned in a lecture from 1962. I’m not saying the 1962 lecture is invalid, but it doesn’t appear to me to take precedence over an LRH ED from 20 years later which lays out the steps for expansion in full and exact detail.

 

I know Debbie didn’t mention the now almost infamous and cliché-used quote (among those who are questioning the Ideal Org strategy) about blowing up the headquarters.

“We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material, and so forth. And it keeps growing. But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters? If someone had put some HE under the Vatican long ago, Catholicism might still be going. Don’t get interested in real estate. Don’t get interested in the masses of buildings, because that’s not important.

“What is important is how much service you can give the world and how much you can get done and how much better you can make things. These are important things. These are all that are important. A bank account never measured the worth of a man. His ability to help measured his worth and that’s all. A bank account can assist one to help but where it ceases to do that it becomes useless.”

One could argue that this was 1960 – before the Ideal Org lecture, but:

  • How is a lecture from 1962 the overriding principle to concentrate on posh buildings despite a multitude of other actual policies on finances and buildings which stresses delivery of service and puts the quality of the building itself as one of the last priorities? (Not including cleanliness.) No matter how one views this in light of all the policies and advices, it just doesn’t add up, and it doesn’t DA what Debbie wrote and quoted from LRH, unless one just takes the excerpt you gave and ignores everything else, but this wouldn’t be a proper evaluation of all the data, would it?
  • How and why has LRH 339R and Saint Hill Size orgs been replaced by an Ideal Org strategy, only outlined in a 1962 taped lecture?

EXPANSION. It is upon expansion that victory depends. But how much expansion is EXPANSION? Well, to give you a hint, you all know how big and busy Saint Hill was in the mid-60’s. Well, I ran it up from six staff to that in very short order indeed. It was the last org I ran directly as its ED.

 

LRH

LRH ED 339R Int

13 March 1982

 

I find it interesting that you would include an excerpt from LRH ED 339R which talks about expansion mainly in terms of delivery and numbers of staff – not the building. I don’t see how this explains anything in Debbie’s email, nor does it DA what she stated. If anything is appears non sequitur and draws your attention to, “What happened to 339R?”

 

 

LRH personally built Saint Hill and Flag. Those are big, posh, impressive orgs!

 

This is one line I can’t use unfortunately in any sort of DA action because most Scientologists know that these buildings were NOT big, posh, impressive orgs when LRH set them up and ran them. They have been made so after LRH dropped his body.

 

In 1976 Flag was a rundown hotel and the total action ordered by LRH at that time was to thoroughly clean it. No renovations were done and it certainly wasn’t posh. Quality of delivery was the only thing stressed.

 

As far as Saint Hill goes, there was nothing posh or even big about it (building-wise) when LRH ran it. It was clean and set up to function and they coped with spaces as the place expanded. A large part of the BC delivery was done in the basement of the Manor and in the Solarium and the main Castle was not even available to them like it is to AOSH UK today.

 

So, using Flag and Saint Hill to show what LRH did, just acts to contradict the whole thing; as a matter of fact, while LRH was around, not a single organization had a posh and “perfect” building, but what was emphasized was cleanliness, putting in proper org form and delivering standard auditing and training.

5. Donations For New Buildings

 

And as for obtaining donations directly for the purchase of new buildings,in HCO Policy Letter of 2 December 1968, GUNG-HO GROUPS, LRH writes specifically about it in this fashion:

 

CONTRIBUTIONS

The most heavily worked-over income point of most civic-minded groups is the obtaining of contributions.

 

These can be quite sizable.

 

They do not however, come easily unless the group has a nonprofit status and the patron can thereby deduct it from his income tax.

 

A group, however, that registers as a charity and is a member of existing nonprofit organizations can obtain contributions.

 

Governments have been known to contribute large sums to groups.

 

Contributions should be worked at but should be regarded as an irregular source of income and not counted on for the general running expenses of a group. Rather, they are like an affluence, and major projects are the best use for contributions and the best reason to get them — such as a new building for the group or a new hall, things like that.

As anyone who has done OEC Vol 0 knows, Orgs are about selling and delivering services to the public and get in public to sell and deliver to. No doubt this PL about Gung-Ho groups has its own application, but Gung-Ho groups don’t even sell and deliver services.

 

Debbie quoted LRH policies which state the opposite about fundraising as it applies to orgs.

 

  • How does a policy about Gung-Ho group explain numerous HCO PL’s about Scientology organizations NOT getting involved in fundraising, but in delivering services and getting paid for it?

 

That ends this section.

I can see that there is much potential that by now I must be viewed as extremely disaffected and full of enemy lines.

It is my hope however, that what I have written and questioned above can be at least partially answered.

I consider myself a Scientologist because I use and apply Scientology to improve conditions of my dynamics to the best of my ability.

As you well know, I don’t have a very clean ethics record in my SO career. I am not and I never was a moralist, but in the here and now I try to do what I see as right and constructive and I judge others mainly by those same attributes. I want to add that my period on ethics lines and the RPF exposed me to all the Basics, the large majority of the tech vols coupled with having M9’ed the majority of Management volumes just prior to coming to Flag. With this under my belt, I believe I have a good reason to express my thoughts and points of view regardless of my actions in the past.

I have a tendency to want to tell my family and friends about Scientology and I actually find it easy to get people interested in the religious applied philosophy of Scientology. A good example is my own wife who has studied some basic material, including Science of Survival, the Tone Scale and is suing it successfully at her work place and she agrees and sees the workability of it. She agrees to basic concepts like the Code of Honor, Personal Integrity and TWTH.

However, when it comes to the Church of Scientology, here’s where the difficulty begins. Due to the vast exposure in media, even here in Hong Kong, it is very hard to explain the actions of the Church. To someone like my wife it does little good to state, “Well, honey, Mr. Miscavige said so at an event!” and hope that it will just explain everything.

Especially for the Chinese (which my wife is) family and friends are of utmost importance and I happened to show her the Code of Honor and the Code of Behavior tape transcript early on.

LRH states:

“7. NEVER PERMIT YOUR AFFINITY TO BE ALLOYED.

In other words, never permit a feeling of affection you have to be tampered with by somebody else. You can tamper with it if you want but don’t let someone else come along and tell you that ‘the reason why you should not like Jones is because…’ and tell you a lot of things about Jones.”

This made sense to her, but when I am told to disconnect from someone (as has been demanded of me on Facebook) who has been a personal friend for maybe 20 years because he or she now has different views of the Church, i.e. “disaffected” in your terms but not gone to the media or press or tried to sue you, it becomes an impossibility to try to explain the rationale, and factually it does violates some of the very basic principles of human decency.

It is stated as early as 1951 that Dianetics and Scientology is about raising an individual on the Tone Scale and increasing his self-determinism. There is even a slogan for the VM campaign which states, “Think for yourself!” Now, if one is routinely coaxed to think along a certain pattern and be told what is and what isn’t, it goes against the very core of the basics of Scientology and THAT I am not even willing to defend myself as I would be violating my own personal integrity.

LRH states:

“Those things I tell you are true are not true because I tell you they are true. And if anything I tell you, or have ever told you, is discovered to differ from the individual observation (be it a good observation), then it isn’t true! It doesn’t matter whether I said it was true or not. Do you understand?”

 –L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Effective Knowledge, 15 July 1957 lecture

“Personal Integrity:

 “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself, and when you lose that you have lost   everything…

 “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it.

  “And it is true according to your observation.

  “That is all.”

–L. Ron Hubbard, book Scientology, A New Slant On Life

I’m including these quotes here to simply try to state where I’m coming from in writing this communication.

As a note worthy of mention towards the end, I wanted to relay another personal experience. During the process of routing out Mike Sutter was stressing to me not to contact specifically Marty [Rathbun] and Mike [Rinder]. At the time I didn’t think much about it.

Then later in phone conversations with Spencer, he again brought up Marty and Mike at several occasions and how I should not listen to what they had to say. I guess, just like a child who does exactly what he is told not to do, I had to find out what all the fuss was about.

I looked up Marty and Mike on the net, and also located your own websites with the Church’s attempt to DA them. I was recently directed by a Swedish Scientologist who had seen my Facebook posting on Debbie’s site to watch a video about Marty. I did so.

Now, it is peculiar how one reacts when one is on the outside, versus being on the inside, but what struck me personally in watching this video was how it stressed how Marty was the violent person AND he ADMITS to it, followed by a graphic representation of what I gather is his O/W’s or confession or something.

Not only did it strike a disharmonious cord inside me to see the Church publicly publish something which per policy was intended for HCO and Qual personnel only, but I was also struck by the fact that in the end I had the image that Marty was indeed guilty of violent acts, but he admits to it – fully – and publicly. This was made into a big deal through the narrative of the video, but for me it actually increased the respect for Marty.

I knew Marty at Int, and I knew Mike even better. I know what they did do and how they acted. But I also know that a lot of faults were committed all the way up and down the org board which cannot be justified through any policy, out-of-context interpretation. I have however NEVER seen the Church admit to a single piece of wrong-doing.

This fact alone is the hardest to DA in speaking with my non-Scientology friends and family. How come there is so much bad exposure in the media about this Church but they deny 100% of it. Marty doesn’t deny what he did and that automatically makes him more credible, especially as I share some of the experiences and facts which Marty is stating.

I’m only bringing this up as, so far, Scientologists attempting to “get my ethics in” or providing me with “DA” material, only amounts to, in the end, a blind faith in what the current Church and Mr. David Miscavige are doing and that goes against the verbal tech checklist, the quotes above and about 100 hundred other references about evaluation of data, and self-determined thought.

That is why I publicly agreed with Debbie on her Facebook profile.

So, of course you can chose to answer this, or simply file it away as “disaffected entheta.” I for one would be very happy if you would engage in dialog, as this current situation is distressing as I believe in Scientology and I’m not interested in a war, but I will not waiver away from what I know is true, and I won’t accept explanations which are taken out of context and which are clearly stated otherwise in policy.

I believe in Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard and as I know you do too, maybe with this one thing in common we can somehow figure out how to increase our ARC and KRC. I will consider any full policy by LRH or statistic or other information as requested above.

One final thing – this communication is from ME and not written or dictated by anyone else.

Thanks for listening, Ulf