Operating Wog ~~

These are not easy questions and I am unable to give you a black and white answer (given the variables) but perhaps this will be helpful ~~

I believe the PTS/SP policies as enforced are the ACHILLES HEEL, the MOST self-destructive, the most metabolizing cancer within the Church, the most TOXIC pollutant
in Radical Taliban Scientology.

When I exited the cult on Marty's blog, I received, I kid you not, 500 Emails from around the world within 24 hours.
(I've been around a long while )

The amount of destruction that I read in these Emails (that has occurred on implementation of SP declare DISCONNECTION policy alone is why I stated the above.) It is over the TOP.

Now many religions have Excommunication. The Catholics do it, the Mormons do it ~~ there is some sense to excommunication ~~ let's say a Vatican Cardinal was doing embezzlement, child molestation and attempting to poison the Pope at the same time. I would see why they would excommunicate him. When a SP declare is done to remove someone truly evil from the group, then it is no different than excommunication. All churches have experienced excommunication used in ABUSIVE ways by leaders. The bigger picture is that all religious doctrines can be abused by corrupt leaders.

But the SP policies from Radical Scientology are used to harm and destroy relationships. What worked in the 1960s will not work in this digital age where an agonized Mother will Twitter or FACEBOOK her experience which will be read by the masses within seconds.

In the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, the declared SP was cut off from everyone, family, business. all Scientologists ~~ he was thrown into a no man's land.
Now, the newly Declared SP makes 100s of friends overnight. He posts on Boards, he joins the Indies, he has 1000s of overnight friends, a whole culture of freedom and new friendships.

NEVER INTERRUPT YOUR ENEMY WHEN HE IS MAKING A MISTAKE

~~ NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

Karen #1- Oh how interesting that the lurkers now join your free wheeling koolaid drinking cult of $cientology , so now I get it, thats why your here.

I don't see plagiarism in the evidence you presented, Dorothy, and I think by making the comparison in the way you do, you wrongly give Hubbard's SP doctrine some level of legitimacy or value, when it deserves none, and is destructive. Hubbard did not develop the SP doctrine in the way you say here:


Gerry wrote some years ago about Hubbard’s use of wog psychology materials within his Suppressive Person doctrine. I think it warrants repeating here:


Hubbard started writing about the SP doctrine as early as 1953, with PAB 13 On Human Behavior. His early terms for "Suppressive Persons" were "aberrative personalities," "merchants of chaos" and "merchants of fear." (Ref. PAB 13; Definition: Merchants of Fear.)


Hubbard revealed his shocking bottom-line criterion for "spotting" SPs later in the same technical Professional Auditor's Bulletin.


PAB 13 is one of the issues studied on Scientology's How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course.

Good post Magoo.
Thanks for making me laugh as well.
You high BAD BAD SP you !!!
You deserve the GOLD MERITORIOUS DIAMOND LAUREATE plaque given
for high high rollers.
High Roller SP !

One key question: How is the PTS/SP Doctrine actually working in real life for The Church of Scientology? With all of the vaunted PTS/SP Technology that the Cult has at its disposal, the Cult failed to detect high level SP's within such as Rinder, Rathbun, Hawkins, Scobee, etc. Why were these people declared SP's only after they blew? How come Technology was blind and allowed them to hold posts for decades?

* PTS/SP Tech failed to handle the uber-SP's Anonymous

* PTS/SP Tech failed to handle SP Anderson Cooper

* PTS/SP Tech has long failed to handle Scientologists who blow and publicly denounce the Church as a Cult.

* PTS/SP Tech failed to handle the BBC and John Sweeney.

* PTS/SP Tech failed to handle South Park.

The list is endless. The SP Doctrine, especially Disconnection, has become a PR nightmare. Tommy Davis was forced to lie on camera and claim that the Cult does not practice Disconnection. Davis' lie was so egregious that Paul Haggis specifically cited it as one of the main reasons he publicly left CoS after 35 years - another case where the PTS/SP Tech failed.

The SP Doctrine usually works only retroactively -- only after the damage has been done -- only after the Cult has brutalized a person and they have blown and spoken out. And then the SP Doctrine only works because the Cult has $1.5 billion to Fair Game them. Take away the Cult's $1.5 billion and the SP Doctrine becomes David Miscavige shoving quarters into a payphone and screaming at people from the K-Mart in Hemet. Money is the real secret of this particular part of the Tech.

*****
I personally have never seen Indies practicing the SP Doctrine.

I am somewhat surprised by the insistence of those who think that Indies who have been battered, spied on, attacked, and had their families ripped apart by the SP Doctrine would ever use it against other people.

By analogy, the Bible calls for disobedient children to be stoned to death. Yet, Christians do not practice stoning children. Why? Could it be that some beliefs are better left unenforced?

/////

Thank you for your answer, Karen.

If I understand you correctly you believe the correct application of LRH's suppressive person doctrine is very simple and very restricted. The doctrine simply -- and only -- permits the exclusion of 'truly evil' people from membership of the church and from Scientology's version of spiritual salvation. This, in your view, is compatible with respect for human rights, respect for freedom of thought, and concern to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

There are key PTS/SP policies on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. Assuming the policies you are talking about are on this course, can you point them out for us please? Then we can talk about issues with enforcement. If the policies you're talking about aren't on the course, let me know, and I will try to dig them up.

I don't know anyone to have "personally seen" anyone run on R2-45 processing.
Doesn't mean it wasn't issued though





Nor does it mean that others are/were not aware of what others had not "personally seen"...

http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/r2-45.html


nor does your premise nor mine mean that LRH didn't himself write the rotten core that indies/fee$oners cling to.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
Voltaire


"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people
from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with
as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the
handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale , neither one of
which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to
their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the
tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the
three valid processes . The other is to dispose of them quietly and
without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the
lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness
nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious
damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt
deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone
scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in
the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which
any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world
of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order;
it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0
down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above
the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the
amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours,
although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or
simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once
decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were
also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all
the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country."

LRH-Science of Survival


What year was it that ron wrote the call for genocide again, J?

Hi Caroline.
I reckon people are not getting enough of your sig-line. Mebe up the font size a tad?

After all, its "standard tech" that to have "family" is not a thetan urge

Lack of clarification on the SP doctrine by the indies is the problem which has been stated before.

You say you've never seen any indies practice it and I'm sure that's true but with not only their claim of being standard scientology sans miscavige squirreling but the fact that they will not disavow the SP doctrine it leaves many to question whether it will be used again by them at some point.

Case in point:



This is not saying they shouldn't be practiced but that they were enforced wrong.


The problem with your analogy about Christians no longer practicing stoning to death disobedient children is that there are no Christians today who were practicing it and stopped, not even just a generation ago but many generations have passed since Christians have used that. Yet the Indies who have left the "church" have practiced the SP doctrine and will not fault hubbard for writing it.

If they want to relieve people's fears the indies need to totally disavow the SP doctrine altogether publicly. But can they since they claim to be practicing pure hubbard scientology as intended?

Wait ... no. First off there's the question of what constitutes "truly evil", but I'm sure others will touch on that and/or it's a matter of "truly evil" when using the values of the group as a metric. Save the bigger discussion for later.

However, forgive me for being blunt, but it sounds like the same almost-true-it-sounds-good line which has been repeated by Scientology for decades. How did you arrive at your conclusion that an SP Declare is the same as excommunication? This is just plain FALSE due to the way the concept of an SP is constructed in Scientology. Simply put, excommunication means you can no longer take part in church services or activities and as a result, may suffer some sort of eternal damnation or whatever.

However, excommunication does not mean that others are risking their own spiritual well-being by associating with whoever has been excommunicated. The SP declare marks a person as an SP, and by default, anyone who would interact with that person after the declare is putting his or her spiritual gain at risk by becoming PTS.

The "disconnection/SP declare is the same as excommunication" bit is old, tired, and just plain incorrect. It is NOT the same as simply refusing services to a declared individual or denying them admittance into the group. An SP declare is far more insidious and is built to isolate and automatically incorporates shunning by doctrine.




What "worked" in the 60s? The policy has not changed at all; the only change has been communication technology and the ever-growing number of declared individuals. And going back to my comment above, it sounds like you're saying that in the 60s, when "it worked", an SP declare was intended to utterly isolate an individual. Once again, this is not excommunication, this is a sick policy of punishment.

However, all an SP declare did was remove an individual from contact with active Scientologists, just as it does today. It sounds like you mean the declared individual nowadays can connect with other declared individuals easier than those declared in the past, which is true. But there are plenty of people who were declared SP before the internet was around who STILL made new friends and experienced freedom. They didn't need to find other declared individuals to enjoy these things, and they still don't need to today. They just do what most normal humans do: find those who like their company and associate with them.

I don't see how the use of the doctrine today differs at all from the way it did over the past few decades. The options available to a declared SP are far greater and more effective now, but the underlying policy remains the same. And seeing as how the result of it having "worked" in the past resulted in a far greater degree of isolation and probably unhappiness, it's safe to say that the SP Declare policy, which is the same today as it has always been, was intended to make the individual's life as solitary and miserable as possible.

THAT is and was the intention of LRH's SP policy. Excommunicate, shun, and punish all at once.

Alert, please! Do you need a paper bag to breathe into so you don't hyperventilate further?

Look, I understand that the Indies enrage many critics. I understand that some people want Scientology nuked from off the face of the Earth. This is why I suggested that Indies be declared as only 3/5th SP's. They are, after all, not true SP's. True SP's join the SPDL. 3/5th's SP's are Indies. Am I tracking with you here Alert? I ask because I am afraid to aggravate you further.

******
Just because it was issued... well, look at these verses from the Bible:



******
Just because something is written in a book does not mean that people have to obey it. If Scientologists were that servile none of them would have ever left the Cult in the first place. It takes a lot of courage to tell CoS to go to hell and leave publicly. I think more of the Indies than others.

/////

J, you know me well enough to know better than this^
Your implication/inference I am hyperventilating is rather childish...and a transparent attempt to invalidate (yup, had to use scientologese here) me whilst steering directly away from the point I made.
I have made more than one post directed at you and your somewhat ass-kissing to Martyr and his fan club (looks like he done gone and did a Tommy Davias footbullet with his attempted DAing of David Mayo), yet, it has taken you to now for you to respond directly or even indirectly.

You've pretty much eroded the insurmountable (what I thought I had for you) respect I once held for you and your posts



You may "understand", but you again make misrepresentations for my part.
Poor form buddy




You cannot help yaself man. Cut the misrepresentations/outright BULLSHIT

Once scientology as a subject is completely exposed for what it is, it will all but vanish.
Thus is the way for former psychopolitical belief systems that have hurt so many over the Eons


Not you nor I can assign whom is an SP.
Only LRH's own words can do this.




Obviously not




You know better than this^, J.
But that of course isn't going to stop you from making misrepresentations


No thanks.
After all, LRH commads all other "organised religions" are either 'implants' or mechanisms of control.



Do you tell that to your new cabal about KSW?



Patently not true. Not a bad misrepresentation on your part, again.




Oh I see, so it's different to leave publicly as opposed to just leaving?



Yeah, quite obviously by your modus operandi since you've ostensibly become some sort of spokeshole/troubleshooter for them.

Just remember J, you've unequivocally chosen to side with Martyr (who has FUCK ALL tech ability)and all your/our words will live on the Internet whilst ever the internet is powered.

Have a nice day

Perhaps, J. Swift, what you say is true. Personally, I regard the independent scientologists with caution. Right now, from what little I perceive of them, their numbers are relatively small and their organization is either non-existent or poorly staffed if it does exist. This means that at the moment the independent scientologists do not have what it takes to put certain scientology policies into effect with any kind of impunity. As they grow in numbers and become organized I think they will bear watching.

The policy Keeping Scientology Working underpins all of Hubbard's writings and lectures dealing with scientology and dianetics and very unreasonably demands that all of those policies, bulletins, flag orders, etc. be put in place and used exactly as written. Can an independent scientologist be reasonable with the application of Keeping Scientology Working to the point where they do not implement the suppressive person, potential trouble source materials in the aggressive and destructive manner Hubbard requires?

I'm hopeful that the people involved with "independent scientology" can proceed with Hubbard's materials in such a way as not to be aggressive and destructive toward those who are critical of scientology but at the same time I'm cautious about them and my level of trust toward them is low.

J. Swift wrote:
Alert wrote:

Is there some part of the scientology subject that has not been "exposed for what it is"? If so, what part? AFAIK all of it has been exposed, but it has far from vanished. Maybe you mean something in addition to being simply exposed. I dunno.


Uh, you mean like Nazi-ism? Ever heard of Neo-Nazis? Do you need some linkage?