Tag Archives: Ulf Olofsson

A Thanksgiving Story

Thanksgiving apparently means a lot of different things to different people.  What it represents to me is a day of peace where one may reflect on the positives one considers blessed to have experienced.   It seems to me that how much one has to be thankful for is influenced largely by one’s viewpoint and outlook on life.  L. Ron Hubbard noted in the Ability Congress lectures that when one focuses on the negative (disability) one gets more negatives and conversely when one focuses on the positive (ability) one gets more positives.  Viktor Frankl bestowed a little gift along the same line of reasoning in Man’s Search for Meaning:

…Can life retain its potential meaning in spite of its tragic aspects?  After all, ‘saying yes to life in spite of everything’, to use the phrase in which the title of a German book of mine is couched, presupposes that life is potentially meaningful under any conditions, even those which are most miserable.  And this in turn presupposes the human capacity to creatively turn life’s negative aspects into something positive or constructive.  In other words, what matters is to make the best of any given situation. “The best”, however, is that which in Latin is called optimum – hence the reason I speak of a tragic optimism, that is, an optimism in the face of tragedy and in view of the human potential which at is best always allows for: (1) turning suffering into a human achievement and accomplishment, (2) deriving from guilt the opportunity to change oneself for the better; and (3) deriving from life’s transitoriness an incentive to take responsible action.

I am very fortunate to be spending this Thanksgiving, as I have the past seven of them, with someone who demonstates these virtues like no one else I know:

I also consider myself fortunate to have received an inspirational  story from Ulf Olofsson.  It communicates some things I have wanted to but hadn’t found the words for. It illustrates the truths of Hubbard and Frankl in action.  Doing time in Scientology Inc.’s Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) sometimes carries a stigma with it.  I, however, have known several people who have turned the potentially negative experience into a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for enhancement of character.  Ulf is a prime example.  His story might shed some light on why I don’t always give a lot of weight to pedigrees and certificates.  I hope it gives rise to contemplation of things all of us can find to be thankful for.

Ulf Turns Tragedy to Triumph

Hi Marty,

The below are some not so coherent and chronological comments but nonetheless some notes of my RPF experience at Flag after leaving the Int base after 17 years of service there.

I left Gold at the height of insanity in late November 2006 and no RPF outside of the Int Base could even start to match up to the conditions at Int – the RPF at Flag was a holiday in comparison, but that doesn’t make the RPF right, it was just from my own perspective.

The original idea of the RPF as covered in the LRH advices and FOs about the RPF make some sense to me. Instead of off-loading an R/Sing staff member who was dramatizing his R/Ses on the organization, or being a chronic overt-product-maker, had a voluntary free choice of doing the program or getting off-loaded. It was for extreme cases where regular Qual, ethics and justice, hatting etc, had not created a change in destructive behavior.

For those people they were supposed to get a PTS Check, a check for evil purposes on all dynamics and anyone with a List 1 R/S [List #1 Rock Slam – meaning having exhibited a rock slam while checking a list of items related to LRH and Scientology] would get EX DN [Expanded Dianetics] or OT III or NOTS pending on case level.

This was 1974. A PTS Check in 1974 was a metered interview where you established if the person was PTS on the meter and if so to whom. Later the PTS Check materials got cancelled and the new “definition” for PTS Check was a 10 August interview as well as the PTS/SP course and the PTS Rundown – now all C/Sed for on the RPF, adding months to the program.

The original time frame of an RPF program was a few months. A month or two for training (if you were not trained already) and another month or two for the C/S’ed program. You did it 5 hours a day in a co-audit with technical supervision and worked 8 hours a day on deck work for exchange.

Today a typical RPF C/Sed program goes like this:

1. PTS Interview
2. PTS/SP Course
3. (conditional) PTS Rundown
4. Tailor made FPRD Sec Check (usually over a 100 questions)
5. (conditional) FPRD Basic Form
6. 1-8 Dynamics FPRD (about 800 questions)
7. (conditional) Ex DN program for L1 R/S
8. Final Assessment passed by RTC

I am not aware of anybody graduating the RPF in less than 18 months and most people are on the RPF for 3-12 years unless they blow or route out.

If FPRD would be done as originally issued in FPRD Series 5 (now they are up to revision 5RB) where evil purposes were checked for using suppress and invalidate only then the FPRD wouldn’t be so bad and wouldn’t take years to complete. But the DM revision of checking all the confessional left-hand buttons on every evil purpose to FN adds 20X the time. The original text says to check for an evil purpose with suppress and invalidate and if no read, move on. This is changed to having to FN each evil purpose with all buttons just like a confessional – which is in itself an alteration from the original.

The subject of buttons are so severely altered even the GAT drills can’t provide the references but the drills themselves are the “references” for how to check buttons in sec checking and FPRD because ALL the references of buttons state otherwise, but DM somehow had it figured out that the laws of listing and nulling applies to sec checking and not just suppress and invalidate but ALL left-hand buttons ever stated by LRH, i.e. the read on the button transfers to the question and hence it equals a read on the question itself, and the button is not put “in” and then re-check the question which is how every HCOB on the subject states to do. My own understanding of the laws of listing and nulling doesn’t even equate to this as other laws go directly against this practice, which may account for the amount of charge I discovered as a review auditor on “wrong items”. But others, more technically qualified than I, could ascertain what the truth is on this subject.

I could go on and on.

Add to the agony of the endless buttons that have to be FNed having to sit in a co-audit space with 50 people and you have some asinine tailor-made sec check FPRD style with a HEAVY concentration of the 2D [sex] as this subject seem to be the biggest crime in the universe by Flag MAAs (outside of being critical of DM.)

So there you are in the co-audit room with 50 people around you and an un-trained, awful-TRs foreigner with a heavy accent is asking you:

“Have you ever ass-fucked a cow?

On the question, have you ever ass-fucked a cow has anything been suppressed?
… invalidated?
…. been careful of?
… failed to reveal?
… etc, etc, etc”

All the way down the list of buttons and somehow you’re supposed to FN that. People around you are giggling and wonder what kind of overts you must have. Because you so divorced from the concept of feeling free you are not exactly FNing and the buttons are checked over and over and finally one button reads. Then you have to find an overt. You finally find a time when you stared at a horse’s dick and felt embarrassed about it. Then you run staring at the horse’s dick whole track and then check for evil purposes with all buttons to FN…

I am not even being cynical here – this is a real example that occurred on my RPF.

So, originally RPFers were L1 R/Sers or chronic overt-product-makers who were given a chance to get rehabilitated or off-loaded – hence its name: Rehabilitation Project Force.

Not today. On the Flag RPF over 50% were on the RPF for out-2D – an instant RPF offense at the FSO. Some very few had been involved in extramarital sex with another married person which is actually a crime by law, but that amounted to 3 people. The rest were there for seducing, petting, masturbation, etc. These “crimes” were an instant RPF-assignment at Flag because their Dept. 3 was obsessed with the 2D, just like DM and RTC.

4 young people (two not even 20 years old when assigned) were on the RPF for having had critical thoughts about DM coming up in session. This was the reason they got assigned to the RPF.

There were two valid L1 R/Sers and there were 3 valid chronic overt-product-makers, i.e. 5 out of about 60 were valid RPF assignments.

Some people on the RPF had been there for more than 10 years. One girl has been on the RPF since 1999 – 13 years in total. She was one of the most loved Class IX auditors but she didn’t pull major crimes when a public got nattery about DM so she went to the RPF. She was by far the best auditor on the entire RPF. She was REAL.

There is supposed to be an RPF I/C and a D/RPF I/C for Tech per the RPF FO’s to ensure the RPF is run standardly. The Flag RPF had none of these posts and we were mainly left alone. The RPF I/C HFA (Senior Qual Sec FLB) was mainly doing Basics sales and every now and then showed up at the RPF spaces to collect reports and most often to urge richer RPFers to donate to the IAS to help the FLB make its IAS reg quota.

During my 3 1/2 years on the RPF we had some 10 major “evolutions” whereby the RPF was off full-time around the clock to finish some construction project such as the new Oak Cove, the new Fort Harrison Hotel, new Crew Berthing or the Flag hosted international events at the Ruth Eckard Hall which the RPFers built all the staging for. So we would be working day and night for sometimes up to 2 months with no enhancement.

The RPF at Flag was however not cruel. Though work was sometimes around-the-clock, the psychological conditions, invalidations, etc which were present at Int, were not present at Flag. Hard work? Yes. Mental stress? No – at least not for me.

However I was in the tech unit from the very beginning and I got to audit, C/S and supervise and be hands-on, one-on-one applying Scientology to others, and despite altered FPRD and Sec checking tech, I could still get results. When I had done all the training I continued to just read HCOBs at night or any time I had and then I went right on to apply them to others. I became one of the most trusted tech terminals and I had no prior tech training. I took on review cases which had failed over and over again by Cl IX auditors at Flag and who were botched up and later RPFed. This gave me personal reality of the tech in application.

There were some great people on that RPF and we had a very strong third dynamic. These are the aspects I really liked, but all the rest is complete balderdash.

In retrospect though I think I had a very unique experience on the RPF because I took this opportunity to wholeheartedly try to absorb Scientology technology. Having months and months of delays throughout my 3 years and 5 months on the program I had ample time to study pretty much whatever I wanted and this included literally everything that was available – in pretty much chronological order, minus the exact references in my course packs when I was studying my RDD [Read it, Drill it, Do it] training line-up.

Another aspect which made my RPF experience unique was that I had spent 17 years at Gold prior to the RPF with pretty much no Scientology training or application. I did however get exposed to much of the background data on how the tech came to be, including reading all the Basics just before going to the RPF as well as naturally having listened to a fair amount of lectures by the simple expedient of working in audio. I also worked on the tech films – over and over again in the process of doing the soundtracks, as well as all the LRH films minus the ones on the OT levels.

These repetitive actions, including doing all of Dan Koon’s instant meter reads drills videos back in the 90’s inadvertently had instilled the certainty of instant reads and many basic laws of auditing, TRs and metering.

Of course before being shipped off to the RPF I received 250 hours of sec checking (audited confessional) at Gold by Lara Dolan – one of those teenage girls who had been trained to become one of the new breed of RTC interrogators. 250 hours of sec checking by a person who openly despised you [an ingrained attitude, not necessarily a reflections of the real person] and was the embodiment of ruthless, cold chrome. It was a lovely experience which of course gave me a very good idea of how “it is really done” – not!

I arrived to the Flag RPF with my twin Power Coleman in late Nov 2006 and we started our RDD training line-up which is the way of training on the RPF. My folders didn’t arrive on the RPF until about 6 months later and we couldn’t get going on auditing so Power and I continued our training line-up beyond what we needed for our program in preparation for other actions which may be needed. I trained up to become an Examiner which was my first post in the Tech Unit. There were two units on the RPF – the Deck Unit which did 5 hours of “redemption” (training and auditing towards redeeming yourself as a Sea Org member) every day and the rest deck work. The Tech Unit served the rest of the RPF as their technical staff during their redemption time and then we had our own redemption period in the afternoon.

When we finally got the folders we started auditing on FPRD both ways and we both tried to emulate what Lara Dolan had done on both of us before arriving on the RPF. Of course it was a disaster as neither one of us was “in session”, meaning willing to talk to the auditor and interested in own case – the prerequisite for a PC to be able to achieve ANY case gain.

One would think that this would be corrected, but instead we were “corrected” in the direction of being MORE ruthless, prying and “investigatory”. Here were two green guys (as far as auditor training was concerned) and we find ourselves being crammed (corrected) on advanced sec checking drills, interrogator beingness and other matters usually done at Grad V Auditor level – a much higher auditor training level.

This was of course the absolute wrong thing for us to do – what should have happened is we should have been crammed on the basics of auditing, which ironically was not even on any training line-up for the RPFers. We literally learned advanced sec checking tools before we learned a single basic auditing principle.

Both of us needed a review auditor to get us going again. In the meanwhile I had trained to become a co-audit supervisor. I had also gone through the basic auditing references contained in the very beginning training line-ups for Academy auditors and soon realized that the subject of FPRD is approached, taught and crammed in the direction of an HCO interrogation instead of auditing which it is.

Being a supervisor I constantly found that sessions failed because the RPFers didn’t know the basics of auditing. I couldn’t cram them as they hadn’t even studied these references, though they had studied pretty much everything pertaining to overts and withholds.

So I revised the training line-up and made people read the very basics of auditing before they even did TRs and metering so they would understand from the beginning why they were even doing TRs and metering. Bit by bit I got it instilled in the RPF that no auditing will work unless the basics of auditing, TRs and metering are applied, no matter how much investigatory procedure they knew.

This was backed up by some veterans who weren’t involved in the non-OT co-audit on a usual basis.

With this change actual auditing started to occur, including in my own twinship. The next hurdle however became our own C/S, an old GO operative who saw government agents in every corner – Dick Story. He was convinced that for two people to have been shipped off to the RPF from Int we must have been involved in seriously illegal stuff. He considered that our auditing, which was now running somewhat smoothly, was literally just pussyfooting around. So despite of our auditing finally running fine, we were constantly being crammed and corrected on advanced sec checking drills and we were asked to re-check questions he was convinced should have “more on it”. It wasn’t that he found wrong reads or non-existent FN’s while checking a question – he was convinced we were both theetie weetie and out of his own “knowingness” as a C/S he would have us constantly go backwards to re-check things; he added questions, etc, and as a result we were stuck.

I finally declared war on Dick Story and documented everything that had happened for the last several months, studied up on the C/S series and wrote a long report detailing his C/S “instructions” against the LRH policies and the exact areas of my twin’s worksheets. This got the attention of the D/Snr C/S Crew at Flag and he took Dick off as the C/S for us and we both got a new C/S who programmed a review auditor to clean up our extensive overrun. Then we started moving again.

By this time, as I had already studied the C/S series to be able to debug our own progress, I trained up to become a C/S and review auditor. I also had to do an Int (Interiorization) rundown on Power as well as running some NED on him based on a read on a correction list – so I eventually found myself having done the entire auditor and C/S training line-up up to Grad V – RDD style of course.

Moving forward a year and I had gotten Power through 50% of the program but I was only ¼ through. One problem I had was that I had received such a thorough sec check prior to the RPF that my 80 or so questions on the tailor-made sec check (FPRD style) wouldn’t read anymore on checking questions but I knew there were evil/false purposes there but we couldn’t get to them as almost all this-life time overt chains had already been flattened.

This caused an increasing frustration with my auditor Power who became convinced I wasn’t cooperating nor trying to get through the program. This attitude of him became very obvious in session so of course I wasn’t “in session” and of course, no results. This created an apathetic feeling of ever being able to get through and I asked to route out.

Power got re-twinned and I spent many months waiting for my folders to get FESed from Int. In this time I just studied and studied the HCOBs from beginning to the end in chronological sequence. After the FES finally arrived I was taken in for review auditing by a person who was a trained auditor and audited the PC for the PC – not the organization.

My now very expanded knowledge of the tech itself plus getting the right indications in session while blowing actual charge made me once again see that I could be audited and I decided to pursue the program with a new twin. The tech people seemed so dumbfounded by what to do with me I literally had to tell them that this was simply a matter of not receiving standard auditing and C/Sing and there were no mysteries if they just audited me for me and only cared about actual charge discovered on the meter – not what Gold thinks I should run, or the C/S is convinced I must be involved with, etc, etc.

So again my auditing progressed with a new twin. By this time I was the Review Auditor for the RPF and I really started to take an interest in debugging other stalled RPFers. This was my most rewarding activity while on the RPF.

I want to add that the majority of people on the Flag RPF were great people. They were not the scum at the bottom of the totem pole. Neither was the RPF program and deck work punitive or horrible. The RPF is often depicted and reported on in the media as a prison camp, and though some freedom aspects of the program can be likened to a prison, it honestly wasn’t that bad – factually it was a holiday compared to my previous experience at Gold.

The most common false data on the RPF (and seemingly at Flag) was to attribute ALL issues to overts and withholds. People who had trouble on post were only “handled” with ruthless interrogation techniques. Though overts and withholds of course could or were playing a part in it, getting to the bottom of those was not the panacea cure which would make the person a redeemed, contributing staff member.

So many factors were involved that made auditing practically impossible. Evaluation and invalidation were so rampant as to become the norm. Injustices were the order of the day and all this was compounded by the GAT trained “good” tech people who believed that a robotic, cold, out-of-ARC approach to the PC was the ONLY way of auditing.

There were 3 people on the RPF who demonstrably audited for the PC with ARC – all trained before GAT.  Alain Kartuzinski was one of them but I didn’t get to experience too much of him due to him being off all tech lines unless we internally organized him to “secretly” audit me –meaning without the knowledge of people outside the RPF. The other was Heather Crook, our Lead RPF C/S (OT V, Cl IX) and Josette Chiquet (OT VII, Cl IX). Josette was the best auditor I ever had. She was auditing me for me and I never even noticed her or the meter. She was also the most ridiculed and punished RPFer of all of them because she was “reasonable” and “CI” and had “serious MUs on PTS/SP technology”. Her “crime” was that she was “pattycake”, reasonable and didn’t get to the bottom of the “obvious” vicious crimes a PC must have had after expressing “disaffection with DM”.

On the contrary there was a hot-shot auditor with all the attributes of an RTC-supervised GAT line-up who came from CC Int for having screwed someone’s wife. He was hailed as the “best” auditor. He was revered for his TRs and metering but he didn’t have any ARC in session. He was stone cold, expressionless and made you feel very uncomfortable. He would wait for the needle to play Dixie while you just sat there looking at him hoping the needle did float.

From everything I had learned and now personally experienced on all flows here was Josette who demonstrably blew charge in my case and on everyone she took in session. She even had a terrible Swiss-German accent, not to mention her grammar, but none of that mattered – I was IN SESSION with her. But she was considered the most out-tech person on the RPF. However the guy from CC Int who had been trained under direct RTC supervision was cold, impersonal and very uncomfortable to be in session with, but that was of course attributed to “you have more overts and withholds…” What was wrong with this picture?

I continued the RPF program and finished my tailor-made sec check, the 1st and 2nd Dynamic FPRD forms and TRD (Truth Rundown). At this point something occurred. I knew I had examined most everything that had occurred while at Int and I could see my own exact causation in all I was involved with and I knew exactly what I had done and what others had done and I had an exact view of the state of Int and all other people involved. I had seen Truth for what it was.

This was however not an acceptable End Phenomena for the people at Int looking into my folders. Again months went by for them to review my TRD and instead of attesting to my TRD I got more black PR lines culled from my ethics files at Gold. They were culled by the very technically qualified Michelle Lundin – the Ethics Administrator. This included finding a session KR from a professional mixer who ran a withhold that he felt bad about being so acknowledged and rewarded by COB when Ulf had done the actual work. This was considered “black PR” by the Gold ethics people – my black PR??? Go and figure that one out. Another example was an ethics interview I had had where I mentioned “Peter”. I was talking about Peter Schless (a Gold staff member) but the Ethics Admin didn’t read it carefully enough to notice and reported that I spread black PR about another “Peter” – a hired professional mixer. When I was shown were my “black PR” came from I correctly clarified that this had nothing to do with the professional mixer – it was a mix-up of names – I was made to run the question anyway as the instruction “came from Int”.

While waiting to get word back from Gold I audited pretty much everything up to Grad V Auditor level, including much Grade 4 stuff. Handling computations was my favorite auditing. It was freewheeling, wild and I felt I understood what was going on with the PC and charge blew left, right and center though it got very loud and almost violent at times J

One poor girl came to the RPF as an out-2D case and she was a wreck. She was 17 years old and she hadn’t even really gone out-2D – her boyfriend had touched her tits… But that had become an RPF-able offense in the increasingly 2D-obssessive Flag Land Base.

She was told she had a chronic high TA, was an overwhelmed case and cried all the time. The FSO tech people had FESed her folders and evaluated that she was full of withholds. No auditing seemed possible as her needle wouldn’t clean up – it was the nastiest needle I had ever seen.

I asked to FES (Folder Error Summary) her folders (there were only 3) and C/S her from scratch. After the FES I suspected false TA (meter registering incorrectly because of physical factors) resulting in TA despair so I C/Sed a false TA checklist and C/S 53 (correction action to find what’s wrong with the PC.) I got my C/S approved by the Snr Crew C/S and then took her in session as the review auditor.

First I found that she always drenched her hands with hand cream before every session. When I asked why she told me her previous auditors always told her she had high TA. With hand cream her TA was between 1.9 – 2.1 and the needle was pretty much stuck with just small erratic movements, if any at all.

I asked her to go and wash her hands with soap and she did. She came back and her TA was at 3.9 but the needle was all over the place – now very reactive but anything but smooth.

She was however so unconfident that auditing would work on her I had to handle this factor first or I wouldn’t get any reads on the C/S 53. So to get her to feel some confidence in me and the subject of auditing itself I just spoke to her like a real person who cared for her and had her describe her past experience while observing the meter. The GAT trained co-audit supervisor was scolding me on the worksheets for adding additional communications into the C/S, but the girl literally thought that auditing didn’t work on her and all previous auditors had given up on her – top Flag auditors and she was anything but “in session”. I didn’t care what I had to do – if I didn’t get this girl “in session” nothing else would work.

I disregarded my co-audit supervisor and simply used ARC and communication and after I indicated some bypassed charge and acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with her or her TA and that it was simply the fact that she was made to put too much cream on, she blew down to 3.1 TA with tears in her eyes and the entire needle pattern chilled out.

At this point they wanted to replace me mid-session because I wasn’t “following the C/S” but Heather Crook came down as the Lead C/S, reviewed my worksheets and just told the co-audit sup to let me continue.

I assessed the C/S 53 and got some reads on rudiments – all pertaining to her coming to the RPF and they ran totally fine. We ran a withhold but just as a rudiment – no interrogation. Again the supervisor tried to correct me mid session to “pull more strings”, but I ignored him – per LRH this was a rudiment, not a sec check. The GAT trained supervisor wrote in my worksheet, “You’re on the RPF and she’s here for out-2D – pull further strings!!!” My PC was starting to go out-of session so I simply ignored him, and pulled the withhold to FN and continued.

(This was a common justifier by execs over the RPF by the way – “You’re an RPFer so you don’t have the right to have a case or pussyfoot around!” This may be justifiable as an attitude between an exec and an RPFer but certainly not when dealing with the tech – LRH made no exceptions for RPFers in his HCOBs but David Miscavige somehow had inside knowledge that this was acceptable and so it was pushed at all levels.)

Next I took up an LFBD read on “engram in restimulation” from the C/S 53. I assessed the NED Correction List and got a read on something like “Chain unflat”. There was no open chain per her FES but by just talking to her and observing the meter I found out that an incident had been restimulated due to a post situation with her senior and it had been keyed in ever since. She even gave me an item and it read with a duplicate LFBD to the original read.

I ran the item with a standard Dianetics Correction List and simply returned her to the incident. Bang, this girl goes into a whole chain of electroshock therapy and other brutal torture – shaking uncontrollably, screaming – all dramatizations being fully relived. Knowing my Dianetics this was what I expected so I just continued putting her through the incident. The rest of the course room was freaking out and the supervisor again wanted to step in and take over as this was “out gradient” for me. I refused to let someone take over and the PC didn’t notice this was going on as she had her eyes closed.

After the chain was taken to Basic and the postulate blown the TA was at 2.5 and the needle was a dial-wide FN and fully clean in its pattern.

The following day she FNed at session start and I ran two more chains when checking the other flows. No more reads on the C/S 53. The PC was repaired and ready for her RPF program!

Afterwards that girl became a toughie (in a good sense) getting on with the program and having no problems with FPRD or auditing in general. She was a different person from this meek, victim-type cry-baby that arrived to the RPF. Even the Crew C/S from Flag made a comment that an RDD trained RPFer cracked a case that no auditor or C/S from Flag could figure out…

Going through that experience convinced me utterly of the workability of the tech and how important it was to understand what auditing really was and that you only care about helping the PC in front of you and NOTHING else or it won’t work.

Observing this and many other similar auditing sessions as a review auditor while constantly getting my own auditing invalidated by executives, either from RTC or from Int or locally, I eventually came to the realization that the RPF program as currently run will never rehabilitate me. It certainly has the potential as a technical program to do so, but as the tech is not being applied for the PC, but for the organization and for the obtaining of “approvals” by RTC Representatives I knew I would never be able to finish the program without lying or conforming to someone or something that I was not.

Adding to this was the constant observations from early 2007 till the end of the nuttiness of the “Basics evolution” that was going on at Flag. Since the Basics got released the RPF was practically unsupervised. Any RPF-related staff including the RPF I/C and the Senior Qual Sec were assigned by their seniors to make the daily “Basics Sales Quota” or their entire office was not allowed to secure – policed by the D/IG MAA RTC Rep at Flag. Many others like Hy Levy have reported details about this evolution so I won’t get into much detail here. It is worth mentioning though that all the staff around us were walking around like zombies with red eyes and looking very tired as almost none of them slept more than 3-4 hours a night. The RPF I/C got re-posted as a full-time call-in person for the Basics. The Senior Qual Sec, now the RPF I/C held-from-above only came by when there was either a “flap” or when her office demanded that she goes to the RPF to reg the richer members, such as Alain Kartuzinski. In 2009 IAS regging became the focus as compared to the Basics. RPFers were literally woken up in the middle of the night to get regged. IAS regges as well as Super Power and Basics regges were granted “special permission” to talk to some RPF “prospects” to get donations.

By 2009 50% of the RPFers were assigned to the RPF because of “crimes” involving the Basics evolution – mostly prompted by financial irregularities conducted after inhumane threats and sleep deprivations if they didn’t make their daily quota. This included teenagers.

To then make the irony more ironic DM came up with a “bright” solution in 2009 to use RPFers to man up the newly renovated Forth Harrison hotel. Because DM ordered it, the FSO execs complied and 40% of the RPFers suddenly got “reprieved”. Their golden-rod issues said all kinds of honorary things about their progress, but the bullshit was that DM had ordered it and despite the policies on the RPF saying otherwise, 40% of the RPFers were reprieved and posted in the FH. The FSO execs were “tricky” however and managed to sneak out Dick Story (past crush registrar extraordinaire) because they needed to replace Hy Levy as a reg. So, Dick Story didn’t go to the FH, he went to the AO reg office, leaving his twin Alain Kartuzinksi in the middle of open questions on his FPRD form and in bad physical health. Less than a year later Alain dropped his body. I could make an entirely separate write-up on the craziness that surrounded this one single event, as well as the impact of the “Basics evolution”, but this write-up is already becoming too lengthy…

So, to conclude this, doing the RPF both gave me an unshakable certainty of the tech as well as an unshakable certainty that the powers that be at Int and RTC are not interested in creating self-determined individuals and staff members, but rather the opposite of conformed robots who align to an exact pattern of thought or behavior. I wrote this up in a petition as well as other forms of communications to various people I hoped would be able to possibly share some of my observations. The only response I got in the end amounted to being “FAR from completing the RPF”.

Having actually fully handled the ruins that resulted in me going to the RPF and having seen Truth fully there was no hope in site and I decided to route out again. So I spent another 7 months routing out. Luckily I got Josette assigned to be my auditor for the leaving sec check. This was great while it lasted but someone found out from high above and it was adjudicated that the RPF MAA had to do my sec check. Here we go again. Another person who openly despises me and believes I’m no good and shows it in session is now auditing me. After some months of just answering questions to the satisfaction of those reading the reports, including making up stories and overts just to satisfy those reading the worksheets while thinking happy thoughts to get the needle to FN, I finally “finished” and was allowed to route out.

The ultimate irony is that my RPF experience made me a Scientologist, and, it made me divorce myself forever from the corporate Scientology organization which practices reverse Scientology and creating people who become the opposite of what L. Ron Hubbard intended with auditing.

I just wanted to share this with you Marty and again thank you for your books and all you do! I am honored to consider you my friend and I hope we can meet in person again in the future!

Cheers, Ulf

“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