Scientology's Suppressive Person Doctrine

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:05 pm

Marty Rathbun recently gave us another opportunity to reflect on Scientology's SP doctrine he's applying.
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/independent-scientologists-community/ wrote:I do know that I have been working on an Ethics paradigm – sometimes referred to as Ethics Program Number One. I do know that I have seen many people rise from apathy and below to 4.0 and above on the Tone Scale as they become de-PTSed from Miscavige’s Church. Most of those people never received a formal session nor even had the opportunity (yet) to meet in person. The several I have met in person tend to confirm my estimate that most folks reporting incredible gains by handling the suppression in their lives are not exaggerating.


Marty's Ethics paradigm, and mandate, includes investigating his area for possible suppressive persons. I'll post LRH ED 39 Int 23 November 1969 Ethics Program No. 1. in the public interest.

This directive provides, among other things, a glimpse at some of the intelligence flows and files inside the organization. Staff files include intel on their connections, such as family members, current and former employers, friends and all significant associates.

Note that there's no target to inform the staff members being investigated. Also note that this is a program for org Ethics Officers. The GO, CMO, LRH Comm, and now OSA and RTC, all have the same function, investigating staff members for out ethics and SPs.

I thought it was also revealing that Hubbard advocates Sec Checks as a reform measure.
LRH ED 39 INT 23 Nov 69 ETHICS PROGRAM NO. 1 wrote:L. Ron Hubbard

EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE
LRH ED 39 INT 23 November 1969

Applies to All Orgs, To All Bases, AOs & SHs

ETHICS PROGRAM NO. 1

To LRH Comms to ACTIVATE

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO GET ETHICS PROTECTION FOR ACTUAL UPSTATS AND PREVENT OPPRESSIVE INFLUENCES ON ORG STAFF MEMBERS.

OBSERVATION: The great majority of staff members are trying to do their jobs. They are impeded when ethics is out in an org.

In 1968 we tended to drop out ethics in the US by granting a moratorium on the US.

We dropped out Sec Checks as a reform measure.

It was commented in Sept. 1969 there were only 3 Ethics Officers on post in all the world.

Stats in some areas are in Danger condition. The second action of this condition is ethics, the first being to handle the situation on a bypass.

Undoubtedly WW is seeking to remedy this situation. However, as the orders below are very standard, nothing in them cancels any WW order and are to be undertaken regardless of any other actions in progress.

MAJOR TARGET: TO GET IN ETHICS IN SCIENTOLOGY ORGS FROM WW ON DOWN TO CITY OFFICES.

PRIMARY TARGETS:

1. LRH Comm to see that a full-time ACTING Ethics Officer who can operate an E-Meter, has had good case gain and study record is appointed and on post. IF ONE IS SATISFACTORILY ON POST THE LRH COMM GIVES HIM THESE ORDERS TO EXECUTE AS PRIORITY.

2. LRH Comm to see that the E/O has or does cover the ethics section of the OEC rapidly in addition to handling his post. Until this is done the E/O is to be known as an ACTING E/O. Any E/O who has not covered this OEC ethics section to be known only as "ACTING E/O" until he or she has covered the OEC section on ethics and has proven competent on post.

3. ACTING E/O to be provided with a place to work, ethics folders and a place to file them and lock them up, and materials of the post.

4. ACTING E/O to be posted as such on org board.

5. Sign, ETHICS OFFICER to be placed on desk.

6. LRH Comm to report compliance on above actions 1 to 5.

VITAL TARGETS:

1. To get ethics in in the org.

2. To help the field with ethics matters.

OPERATING TARGETS:

1. Get a full list of staff members.

2. Make up a folder for each one if none exists or any missing.

3. Checklist for:

a. Case gain.

b. Good study record.

c. TA in no unusual range high or low (above 4, below 2) and needle clean.

d. Good post stats.

e. No current drug history or connections.

f. No past psychiatric history.

g. File any results and full notes and data in the ethics folder of that person.

h. Assign the status of ETHICS UPSTAT by putting a blue tape on each folder to each staff member who passes (a) to (f) above with flying colors and no black marks in connection to (a) to (f) and putting a copy of the Ethics Order in the folder of each person who passed.

i. Issue the full typed list of ETHICS UPSTATS as an Ethics Order for your org, send a copy to your EC, to your Continental EC, to EC WW, Info E/O International and a copy to your nearest OTL for Info of CS-1. On this order also state full number of people in your org.

j. Indicate by despatch via your LRH Comm to LRH Comm WW "Full compliance with Operating Order No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 of Ethics Program No. 1 per LRH ED INT 23 Nov. 69" and enclose a copy of the Upstat Ethics Order you issued.

4. Examine the ethics folders of all those not included in the Ethics Upstat Order.

a. Select the one who got lowest (worst) marks on (a) to (f) (passed the fewest of [a] to [f]).

b. Investigate the person's post for outnesses.

c. Investigate the person's connections prior to Scn.

d. Repeat 4(a) to (c) on any remaining non-upstat personnel you consider on the basis of investigation to be depressing stats by reason of your investigations.

e. Report compliance on Op Order 4 via your LRH Comm to LRH Comm WW.

5. a. Order all those who did not make Upstat and who were not considered any menace, to Review each one with a note for the C/S stating what was found to be out in the general investigation so that it can be remedied. Note the fact in the person's folder. I.e., "Poor study record. Has psychosomatics despite earlier auditing. Has long drug history," etc.

b. Report compliance with Op Order 5(a) via your LRH Comm to LRH Comm WW with a list of those so sent.

6. Survey any org applicants taking the HDC or HDG Course as per new hiring policy letter wherein they are trained free of charge.

a. Do a check as in Order No. 3(a) to (f).

b.Recommend termination of those not making satisfactory progress on the course and who have outnesses as in 3(a) to (f).

c. Require ethics clearance of all future applicants before hiring.

d. Report compliance of 6(a) to (c) via your LRH Comm to LRH Comm WW noting this LRH ED Int.

7. Check over field mission areas of enturbulence.

a. Investigate area for a possible suppressive person.

b. Apply examination as per 3(a) to (f) to the personnel.

c. Inform your org's Mission Officer and Mission Office WW.

d. Report compliance with Op Order No. 7 of this ED.

8. a. Having done all of the above, now OPEN YOUR LINES TO ROUTINE E/O TRAFFIC AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE ORG AS COVERED IN E/O POLICY LETTERS. You have cleaned up any backlog. Your business now is to see that it doesn't occur again.

b. Complete your study of ethics policy letters.

c. Have "Acting" removed from your name on org board.

d. Inform via your LRH Comm, LRH Comm WW with Info HCOES WW that you are fully on post with all backlogs handled.

9. Continue as E/O of your org, handling the routine duties.

ORDERS COMM LINES:

Where "via LRH Comm to LRH Comm WW" occurs include any or all intermediate LRH Comms.

You can only err on comm lines by not informing enough seniors.

PROTECTION:

If threatened with removal for turning in any adverse report or refusing to make any false report, inform the LRH Comm WW urgently on direct lines.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


Hubbard, L. R. (1991). The organization executive course. Vol. 1, HCO division. Los Angeles: Bridge Publications.
Here's a CMO (Commodore's Messenger Org) program that references Hubbard's Ethics Program No. 1:

Image
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by peter » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:20 am

Caroline have you seen the Loyalist Think-Tanker’s defence of Fair Game?
http://www.scientology-cult.com/knowled ... -game.html
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:17 pm

peter wrote:Caroline have you seen the Loyalist Think-Tanker’s defence of Fair Game?
http://www.scientology-cult.com/knowled ... -game.html
Yes. Gerry covered the fair game issues very well in his May 31 2009 letter to Marty Rathbun. For example,
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
In a declaration dated 08-13-1991, Marty Rathbun wrote:6. As used for this brief time within the Church, “fair game” had not even the slightest resemblance to the wild accusations made by Armstrong. It meant simply that an individual so labelled was not entitled to the protection of the Scientology system of justice. In this regard it is similar to the Old English concept of “outlaw” which was “one who is put out of the protection or aid of the law.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Rev. Fourth Edition, pg. 1255).
As you know, this is a shore story, a false cover for the unsavory, indeed criminal, reality. Certainly Scientology wouldn’t give any protection to its Fair Game targets. That takes no time or personnel, and uses no resources. What takes time, personnel and other resources is Scientology’s and Scientologists’ pursuing and attacking their Fair Game targets. Not one penny in Scientology’s budget has ever been allocated for denying SPs Scientology’s ethics protection. Everything in the budget for handling SPs is for their pursuit and attack, that is, Fair Game. That is every penny ever paid to in any way make any SP’s environment dangerous to him or her.

You’re not the only Scientology representative or witness to justify the organization’s acknowledgement and use of Fair Game, for, of course, that short while in the 1960’s, by equating the policy’s targets or victims with “outlaws.” Outlaws, however, were not merely put out of the protection or aid of the law, which, again, took no time or resources. Far more importantly, as every North American certainly knows, outlaws were legitimately open to pursuit and attack from law enforcement, or deputized citizens, or even undeputized citizens. And attack and pursuit take time and resources.

Although, as you know, Scientology also uses wog law and wog law enforcement to have its targets pursued and attacked, the organization teaches and acts as if it is itself a law enforcement agency “putting in ethics on the planet.” Scientologists and their agents treat SPs as outlaws and treat themselves as the posse, thereby “legitimizing” the Scientologists’ pursuit and attack of their targets. In truth, as you’re finding out, Scientology’s stand in the outlaw-posse paradigm is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own claims and positioning. Scientologists and their agents are not what are considered by thinking people as the law-enforcing posse, but the outlaws — the crooks, the fraudsters, the extortionists, the Fair Gamers. The “protection” of the Scientology system of justice that the organization’s declaration of Fair Game disentitled a person to is a slick “religious” version of the “protection” given to victims of the mob’s protection rackets. The racket operators don’t merely put their Fair Game victims into the dangerous wog environment and out of Scientology’s protection or aid, but make their victims’ environments as dangerous for them as the cultists can get away with.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by peter » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:34 am

Rather, it is a half-truth!
As far as I have seen from it, Jim Logan has described consistently what L. Ron Hubbard had in mind for his parishioners.
But the essay cannot be used to disprove what has been going on behind the scene!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:55 pm

peter wrote:Rather, it is a half-truth!
As far as I have seen from it, Jim Logan has described consistently what L. Ron Hubbard had in mind for his parishioners.
But the essay cannot be used to disprove what has been going on behind the scene!
If Jim Logan is to be believed, he broke with DM but not with Hubbard. Clearly he was victimized, but he is a victim of Source and Source's Apprentice both. Because Jim is applying Hubbard's Code of Honor, and his integrity is "in," he must deny the mountain of evidence of Hubbard's sociopathy and overt products in order to maintain his allegiance and loyalty.
From Modern Management Technology Defined by L. Ron Hubbard who wrote:OVERT PRODUCT, 1. a bad one that will not be accepted or cannot be traded or exchanged and has more waste and liability connected with it than it has value. (HCOPL 7 Aug 76 II) 2. these are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves-such as inedible biscuits or a "repair" that is just further breakage. (HCOB 10 May 72)
Even the Freezoners admit that DM is Hubbard's OP.

Jim's search for truth and reason is admirable, unless he's being less than truthful. But such a search will lead to the truth that the very loyalty and allegiance Hubbard inculcated, really implanted, in Jim, was an act of fair game.

Hubbard's big question and quest was "How do you kill a thetan?" What do you expect, from a malignant narcissist brainwasher with a God complex? Scientology was his experiment. And he started it right from pre-Dianetics with the premise or postulate that the people he was experimenting on were his inferiors, his elementals.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

curiosity
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:56 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by curiosity » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:23 am

Marty wrote: "I do know that I have seen many people rise from apathy and below to 4.0 and above on the Tone Scale as they become de-PTSed from Miscavige’s Church." (emphasis mine).

Wait just a minute here. Marty is saying that he has personally seen many people become a great deal happier by leaving Scientology.

Marty, how do you know that this is because of the Miscavige influence? COS is still mostly "Hubbard's Church," and most people in COS never have contact with Miscavige. They are doing Hubbard stuff. Scientology has had a very high drop-out rate since it began--maybe it has become worse under Miscavige, but it has always been high (exceeding 90%).

Marty, I think your observation is accurate. But the same thing was happening before Miscavige. You just weren't seeing it then because you were still in COS.

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Wieber » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:40 am

There some stuff on this topic that is getting past me. Let me see if I can put this is a way that makes some sense. I am going to make some statements that right now I do not agree with but as a "scientologist" they would make sense.

1. Hubbard wrote the book on everything in scientology. In this case that's not just an idiom.

2. As a "scientologist" I just assumed that L. Ron Hubbard had an understanding of everything on dianetics and scientology far beyond anything he had written or said. I have a feeling many "scientologists" make that assumption.

3. In other words L. Ron Hubbard was the practical practicing expert on everything to do with dianetics and scientology.

4. L. Ron Hubbard's super high level of practical expertise would of course extend to the subject within scientology of the "suppressive person technology."

I think any practicing "scientologist" or any person considering themselves to be a "scientologist" would have to agree with those four points. If those statements are not considered true by anyone considering themselves to be a "scientologist" then they are "out KSW" and therefore a "suppressive person" as being in violation of any of the ten points of "keeping scientology working" is by definition a "suppressive act."

All that being true, then how the hell did all those people in scientology spend so much time in L. Ron Hubbard's presence without him immediately detecting that they were "suppressive persons?"

I read a success story that was published in one of the scientology magazines wherein a person who had just completed the "suppressive person/potential trouble source course" said that he could spot a "suppressive person" a hundred yards away. Although he didn't put the word "immediately" into that success story it was implied. In addition to that I'm sure that we have to take into account a little hyperbole on the part of that writer.

Nevertheless if a person completing that course has such confidence with their ability to spot "suppressive persons" isn't it strange that L. Ron Hubbard, who literally wrote the book on the subject, could not do that? Isn't it strange that all of those "suppressive persons" walked almost literally right under L. Ron Hubbard's nose on a continuous daily basis with him never once having detected them as such.

A person who considers themselves a "scientologist" cannot answer, explain, excuse or otherwise dodge those questions without implying, at the very least, that L. Ron Hubbard was far less than advertised and if that's true then scientology is also, at the very least, far less than advertised.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:04 pm

Wieber wrote:There some stuff on this topic that is getting past me. Let me see if I can put this is a way that makes some sense. I am going to make some statements that right now I do not agree with but as a "scientologist" they would make sense.

1. Hubbard wrote the book on everything in scientology. In this case that's not just an idiom.

2. As a "scientologist" I just assumed that L. Ron Hubbard had an understanding of everything on dianetics and scientology far beyond anything he had written or said. I have a feeling many "scientologists" make that assumption.

3. In other words L. Ron Hubbard was the practical practicing expert on everything to do with dianetics and scientology.

4. L. Ron Hubbard's super high level of practical expertise would of course extend to the subject within scientology of the "suppressive person technology."

I think any practicing "scientologist" or any person considering themselves to be a "scientologist" would have to agree with those four points. If those statements are not considered true by anyone considering themselves to be a "scientologist" then they are "out KSW" and therefore a "suppressive person" as being in violation of any of the ten points of "keeping scientology working" is by definition a "suppressive act."

All that being true, then how the hell did all those people in scientology spend so much time in L. Ron Hubbard's presence without him immediately detecting that they were "suppressive persons?"

I read a success story that was published in one of the scientology magazines wherein a person who had just completed the "suppressive person/potential trouble source course" said that he could spot a "suppressive person" a hundred yards away. Although he didn't put the word "immediately" into that success story it was implied. In addition to that I'm sure that we have to take into account a little hyperbole on the part of that writer.

Nevertheless if a person completing that course has such confidence with their ability to spot "suppressive persons" isn't it strange that L. Ron Hubbard, who literally wrote the book on the subject, could not do that? Isn't it strange that all of those "suppressive persons" walked almost literally right under L. Ron Hubbard's nose on a continuous daily basis with him never once having detected them as such.

A person who considers themselves a "scientologist" cannot answer, explain, excuse or otherwise dodge those questions without implying, at the very least, that L. Ron Hubbard was far less than advertised and if that's true then scientology is also, at the very least, far less than advertised.
You're pointing in the direction of a very thin part of Hubbard's scam, Wieber. Scientology students accepting (1) and (2) above would logically question whether there's a "hidden data line," something beyond their access, that both clarifies their confusions and keeps (1) and (2) in place.

And what was Hubbard's solution to this idea of a "hidden data line?" THERE IS NO HIDDEN DATA LINE. (Ref. HCOPL 16 April 1965 KSW Series 22 The "Hidden Data Line") Pfft! "Get thee to a Word-clearer!"

My solution: Start speculating about how Ron came to rise above the bank. While you're at it, think about what circumstances might cause a malignant narcissist to focus on and develop technology to prevent his own detection, routing and handling.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

rising above the bank

Post by RedPill » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:08 pm

caroline wrote:My solution: Start speculating about how Ron came to rise above the bank. While you're at it, think about what circumstances might cause a malignant narcissist to focus on and develop technology to prevent his own detection, routing and handling.
Rising above the bank? That's an easy speculation, depending, of course, on which bank you are talking about. Ron rose above the assets of many smaller banks by setting up a brainwashing factory and turning loose an army of redges to help free the public of "MEST". Just like Michael Douglas said as his character Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wallstreet" ... "It's all about the money. The rest is just conversation." Or, better yet, right from Ron himself: "Make money. Make more money. Make other's produce to make even more money."

Pete

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Wieber » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:19 pm

L. Ron Hubbard's dodges:

No hidden data line.
Everything based on axioms, i.e., self evident truths.
Proof not required.
Hidden standards.
Out gradient.
Only what's true for you is what's true BUT you must adhere to "keeping scientology working," or else.

Consider this. According to Hubbard scientology is based on axioms, which are self evident truths. L. Ron Hubbard said that was the case somewhere on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

If that is the case then shouldn't the first course a person takes in scientology be a study of those axioms?

A person coming into scientology does not get anywhere near the "axioms" of scientology until after they are well indoctrinated with the "training routines" (TRs).

Why aren't the first two steps into scientology, 1. "Study Tech;" 2. "Axioms of scientology?" Where's "The scientology Axioms Course?"

By the way, what L. Ron Hubbard said in that TV show ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI ) should be considered as a part of the sacred scripture.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:46 am

Wieber wrote:L. Ron Hubbard's dodges:

No hidden data line.
Everything based on axioms, i.e., self evident truths.
Proof not required.
Hidden standards.
Out gradient.
Only what's true for you is what's true BUT you must adhere to "keeping scientology working," or else.

Consider this. According to Hubbard scientology is based on axioms, which are self evident truths. L. Ron Hubbard said that was the case somewhere on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

If that is the case then shouldn't the first course a person takes in scientology be a study of those axioms?

A person coming into scientology does not get anywhere near the "axioms" of scientology until after they are well indoctrinated with the "training routines" (TRs).

Why aren't the first two steps into scientology, 1. "Study Tech;" 2. "Axioms of scientology?" Where's "The scientology Axioms Course?"

By the way, what L. Ron Hubbard said in that TV show ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI ) should be considered as a part of the sacred scripture.
Excellent vid. Hopefully I'll be able to make it calmly past Hubbard's snaky smile some day.

I studied the basic books on the academy levels and on the St. Hill Special Briefing Course. The Logics, Pre-logics, Dianetics Axioms and Scientology Axioms are published in Scientology 0-8, so Scientologists must be studying them now on their GAT (Golden Age of Tech) "Basics" courses.

It wouldn't surprise me if students have to recite all the axioms verbatim for a course pass. (58 Scientology axioms, 194 Dianetics axioms.) GAT training is brutal that way, but just think, once you've got them all down as hypnotic suggestions for eternity, you're well, hypnotized for at least as long as your Scientology eternity lasts.

You make the good point of TRs before axiom training, Wieber, which sequence puts students in the trance state and allows them to lay in Hubbard's thought system template. I'm not sure how this works out exactly with the Basics checksheets, perhaps there's someone here who can elucidate. But for brainwashing purposes, DM obviously knows that getting Scientologists through their Basics is critical. The axioms, logics, etc., form the claimed epistemology of Scientology.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by Wieber » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:49 am

One of scientology's major failings is that it tends to attract to it a very large percentage of altruists.

This is a failing because once a person who has been in scientology discovers what a scam it is their altruistic nature makes them want to help other people to stop being victimized or to prevent them from being victimized by the confidence game that scientology plays.

Of course, the "suppressive person" stuff is necessary to bring enough threat to bear on those people who have seen scientology for what it is so that they will not inform others so that the organization is then free to victimize others with that confidence game.

The problem scientology now has is that the organization cannot bring enough threat to bear on the overwhelming numbers of people who now have scientology's number. It still plays its "fair game" games but the circumstances that exist now make those actions counter productive to scientology.

Hubbard has told people in scientology specific actions to do with regard to those critical of scientology and those who would inform others of their criticism. The main intent behind that aspect of "putting in ethics" is to shut people up so that scientology may continue to victimize people without disruption or interruption. Those actions are malicious and malignant.

Under the present societal circumstances continuing to use such actions puts scientology increasingly in a bad light and increasingly moves general public opinion of scientology in a negative direction.

Thanks to the directive of "keeping scientology working" those people involved in scientology cannot change what they do to adapt to changing circumstances. While Hubbard was living they could adapt somewhat. Now they can't.

To put it metaphorically scientology is this big fast car that is being driven toward a large stone wall and all the driver is able to do is steer the vehicle at that wall and increase the car's speed.

That's the way I see it.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

the jellied mind technique

Post by RedPill » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:07 am

Wieber wrote:One of scientology's major failings is that it tends to attract to it a very large percentage of altruists.

This is a failing because once a person who has been in scientology discovers what a scam it is their altruistic nature makes them want to help other people to stop being victimized or to prevent them from being victimized by the confidence game that scientology plays.

Of course, the "suppressive person" stuff is necessary to bring enough threat to bear on those people who have seen scientology for what it is so that they will not inform others so that the organization is then free to victimize others with that confidence game.

The problem scientology now has is that the organization cannot bring enough threat to bear on the overwhelming numbers of people who now have scientology's number. It still plays its "fair game" games but the circumstances that exist now make those actions counter productive to scientology.

Hubbard has told people in scientology specific actions to do with regard to those critical of scientology and those who would inform others of their criticism. The main intent behind that aspect of "putting in ethics" is to shut people up so that scientology may continue to victimize people without disruption or interruption. Those actions are malicious and malignant.

Under the present societal circumstances continuing to use such actions puts scientology increasingly in a bad light and increasingly moves general public opinion of scientology in a negative direction.

Thanks to the directive of "keeping scientology working" those people involved in scientology cannot change what they do to adapt to changing circumstances. While Hubbard was living they could adapt somewhat. Now they can't.

To put it metaphorically scientology is this big fast car that is being driven toward a large stone wall and all the driver is able to do is steer the vehicle at that wall and increase the car's speed.

That's the way I see it.
The game plan regarding staff, in particular sea ogres, was to extract every bit of labor out of them possible, and then offload them, with the staffer totally introverted thinking that there was something wrong with him or her ... and then spend however many years attempting to get right with the "church" which, of course, would mean paying off a freeloader's debt and perhaps doing an A thru E to undue an espee declare.

There is an uncanny parallel here to a truely classic piece of American literature ... not the kind of classic lit you have rammed down your throat in high school, either ... no, I am talking about another sort of classic by a certain Robert Beck, aka Iceberg Slim. The book is "Pimp ... The Story Of My Life". A better text on the underbelly or dark side of psychology you simply will not find. While Slim would smack women around from time to time, that was just a small portion of the control he would exert over his women.

Part of the deal with his girls was that they would turn over ALL of the money to him. He would feed them, clothe them, bail them out if need be, dole out affection or punishment depending on how well they performed, etc. He would first interview them and find out as much as he could about them, and use the info they gave him for mind control purposes.

The usual period of exploitation was about 90 days. That is how long it would take these women to figure out that their best bet was to hustle enough cash for train or bus fair and split. But he also had a few that would hang around for years, his "bottom ladies" that would take care of business for him, sort of like the top int base staff. But after a while, they would become burnt out, useless, and demanding. At this time, Beck went on to state how thrashing a lady at that time to get rid of her was a HUGE mistake ... the name of the game was to get her to start doubting her own sanity before putting her on a bus. IS THIS BEGINNING TO SOUND FAMILIAR???????????????????????

Pete

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:59 pm

The following HCOB on disconnection is studied on the How To Confront and Shatter Suppression Course. I'm posting it in the public interest in response to recent statements made by Scientologists concerning disconnection, such as in this CNN interview.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:PDF format

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 SEPTEMBER 1983

Remimeo
HCOs
E/0 Hats
MAA Hats
Tech
Qual
All Staff
PTS/SP Course

PTSness AND DISCONNECTION

Refs:
Tape: 6505C18 "Organization and Ethics"
Tape: 6506C08 "Handling the PTS"
HCO PL 7 Mar. 65RA Rev. 10.9.83 I SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
Tape: 6608C02 "Suppressives and GAEs"
Tape: 6608C25 "The Antisocial Personality"
HCOB 27 Sept. 66 THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST
HCOB 24 Apr. 72 C/S Series 79 ExDn Series 5 PTS INTERVIEWS
HCO PL 3 May 72R Rev. 18.12.77 Exec Series 12 ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES
HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING
HCOB 29 Dec. 78 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN, A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 I OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING
HCOB 31 Dec. 78II EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING: PTS C/S-l
HCO PL 5 Apr. 72RD Rev. 10.9.83 PTS TYPE A HANDLING
HCOB 8 Mar. 83 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS

THEORY

Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the right to communicate. Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate.

Communication, however, is a two-way flow. If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the right to not receive communication from another. It is this latter corollary of the right to communicate that gives us our right to privacy.

These rights are so basic that governments have written them into laws—witness the American Bill of Rights.

However, groups have always regulated these rights to one degree or another. For with the freedom to communicate come certain agreements and responsibilities.

An example of this is a marriage: In a monogamous society, the agreement is that one will be married to only one person at one time. That agreement extends to having second dynamic relations with one's spouse and no one else. Thus, should wife Shirley establish a 2D type of communication line with someone other than her husband Pete, it is a violation of the agreement and postulates of the marriage. Pete has the right to insist that either this communication cease or that the marriage will cease.

HANDLE OR DISCONNECT

In the HCOBs on PTS tech you'll see the phrase "handle or disconnect." It means simply that.

The term "handle" most commonly means, when used in relation to PTS tech, to smooth out a situation with another person by applying the tech of communication.

The term "disconnection" is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line.

The basic principle of handle or disconnect exists in any group and ours is no different.

It is much like trying to deal with a criminal. If he will not handle, the society resorts to the only other solution: It "disconnects" the criminal from the society. In other words, they remove the guy from society and put him in a prison because he won't HANDLE his problem or otherwise cease to commit criminal acts against others.

It's the same sort of situation that husband Pete is faced with in the example mentioned above. The optimum solution is to handle the situation with wife Shirley and her violations of their group (marriage) agreements. But if Pete cannot handle the situation, he is left with no other choice but to disconnect (sever the marriage communication lines if only by separation). To do otherwise would be disastrous, for he is connected to someone antagonistic to the original agreements, postulates and responsibilities of the group (the marriage).

A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets. In order to resolve the PTS condition he either HANDLES the other person's antagonism (as covered in the materials on PTS handling) or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.

With our tech of handle or disconnect, we are, in actual fact, doing nothing different than any society or group or marriage down through thousands of years.

LOST TECH

Earlier, disconnection as a condition was cancelled. It had been abused by a few individuals who'd failed to handle situations which could have been handled and who lazily or criminally disconnected, thereby creating situations even worse than the original because it was the wrong action.

Secondly, there were those who could survive only by living on our lines—they wanted to continue to be connected to Scientologists (see the HCOBs on the characteristics of an SP). Thus, they screamed to high heaven if anyone dared to apply the tech of "handle or disconnect."

This put Scientologists at a disadvantage.

We cannot afford to deny Scientologists that basic freedom that is granted to everyone else: the right to choose whom one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with. It's bad enough that there are governments trying, through the use of force, to prevent people from disconnecting from them (witness those who want to leave Russia but can't!).

The bare fact is that disconnection is a vital tool in handling PTSness and can be very effective when used correctly.

Therefore, the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.

HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES

In the great majority of cases, where a person has some family member or close associate who appears antagonistic to his getting better through Scientology, it is not really a matter of the antagonistic source wanting the PTS to not get better. It is most commonly a lack of correct information about Scientology that causes the problem or upset. In such a case, simply having the PTS disconnect would not help matters and would actually be a nonconfront of the situation. It is quite common that the PTS has a low confront on the terminal and situation. This isn't hard to understand when one looks at these facts:

a. To be PTS in the first place, the PTS must have committed overts against the antagonistic source; and

b. When one has committed overts, his confront and responsibility drop.

When an Ethics Officer finds that a Scientologist is PTS to a family member, he does not recommend that the person disconnect from the antagonistic source. The E/O's advice to the Scientologist is to handle.

The handling for such a situation is to educate him in the tech of PTSness and suppression, and then skillfully and firmly guide the PTS through the steps needed to restore good communication with the antagonistic source. This eventually dissolves the situation by bringing about an understanding on the part of the antagonistic source as to what Scientology is and why the PTS person is interested and involved in it. Of course, when this is accomplished you no longer have a PTS at all—and you may very well find a new Scientologist on your hands!

The actual steps and procedure of this sort of handling are well covered in the materials listed at the beginning of this HCOB.

WHEN DISCONNECTION IS USED

An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a suppressive person, in present time. This is a person whose normal operating basis is one of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get better, at all.

In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful.

In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to "handle" the person. The answer is to sever the connection.

HOW TO DISCONNECT

How a disconnection is done depends on the circumstances.

Example: The pc lives next door to, say, a psychiatric clinic and feels PTS due to this environment. The remedy is simple—the pc can move to another apartment in another location. He need not write any sort of "disconnection letter" to the psychiatric clinic. He simply changes his environment—which is, in effect, a disconnection from the suppressive environment.

Example: A pc is connected to a person or group that has been declared suppressive by HCO in a published Ethics Order. He should disconnect and, if he wants to inform the SP of the fact, he may write a letter of disconnection. Such a letter would be very straightforward. It would state the fact of the disconnection and the reason for it. It would not be misemotional or accusative, since this would only serve to stir up further antagonism. The letter would be inspected by the Ethics Officer before it was sent and copies kept for the PTS person's own ethics file and pc folder. No attempt would be made to establish communication with the declared SP "to clear matters up" or to seek to reform the SP. The SP's reform is strictly in the hands of HCO. The PTS simply disconnects.

Example: One discovers that an employee at his place of business is an SP—he steals money, drives away customers, wipes out other employees and will not correct no matter what you do. The handling is very simple—the PTS fires him and that's the end of it right there!

To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of the suppressive—in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labeled. (Ref: HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS)

SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN

There is of course another technical way to handle PTSes and that is to get them through all problems they have had with the terminal involved and the PTSness will disappear (Ref: HCOB 29 Dec. 78, THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN, A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN). But it still requires that during the handling the person disconnects.

SUMMARY

The technology of disconnection is essential in the handling of PTSes. It can and has saved lives and untold trouble and upset. It must be preserved and used correctly.

Nothing in this HCOB shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violations of the laws of the land. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties described by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

jax
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:31 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Post by jax » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:41 am

LRH wrote:Communication, however, is a two-way flow. If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the right to not receive communication from another. It is this latter corollary of the right to communicate that gives us our right to privacy.

Caroline,
First of all, thank you for posting that.
While I believe there are several issues to be addressed in LRH’s “theory” section of this HCOB (along with the rest of it) where he attempts to justify his “disconnection policy”, the particular statement I emphasized in bold really jumped out at me.
I am hoping that you can help me out here.
If my memory serves me, I recall a different policy LRH wrote which stated something to the effect (paraphrasing) that people need to get over the idea that they have some sort of right to privacy.
I don’t know if it had to do with “sec check tech” or something like that, but I remember reading something about that.
I am interested in comparing & contrasting the two different policies. I would like to see how LRH played around with the right to privacy idea to work in favor of his latest & greatest “technological breakthroughs”.
I tried to Google it but I was not successful.
Do you have any idea what I am referring to?
Thank you in advance for any help you can give me.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests