Scientology's Suppressive Person Doctrine

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10215
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:02 pm

Caroline, if I understand your position it is as follows:

1. A person declared an SP and being Fair Gamed by OSA falls into one of two categories:

A. If they have disavowed Scientology, and specifically the SP Doctrine, then they are a true victim deserving of help, compassion, and understanding.

B. If they consider themselves to be Independent Scientologists and have not disavowed a belief in Scientology, then they are getting exactly what they have coming to them and are not worthy of help, compassion, and understanding. Their work in exposing DM and CoS does not count toward any actual merit so far as the SPDL is concerned: Being an SP and being Fair Gamed as a function of engaging in internecine warfare makes one a combatant and not a victim.

Caroline, if this in fact the SPDL view, then I respectfully do not share its view on who and who is not a victim. I take the broader view that anyone who is Fair Gamed as an SP is a victim of the outrageous and unacceptable abuse, aggression, and criminality of David Miscavige and OSA.

I take an even larger view that David Miscavige creates and encourages wars between CoS members and everyone else as a way to keep himself in power. War is good for DM's business. He wants and needs and "Us versus the World" mentality to justify his brutality and crimes. DM's unchecked power is dangerous.

*****
Caroline, I can certainly understand where you and Gerry stand on the matter. This is an interesting discussion for several reasons.

Gerry Armstrong is an incomparable international Scientology critic and prime target for OSA for a reason. Gerry was in that rare circle of LRH intimates. LRH thought so highly of Gerry that he appointed him to assist Omar Garrison in writing LRH's biography. This gave Omar and Gerry unparalleled and unrestricted access to LRH's archives. Gerry was SO and was inside as inside gets in CoS.

Something for the Indies to consider is that Omar Garrison wrote a truthful biography of LRH with Gerry's considerable research help. The Church promptly paid off Omar Garrison and the LRH bio never saw the light of day. Gerry realized that LRH told substantial lies about himself on matters of substance and he exposed those lies.

The SP Doctrine is universal in CoS and yet it is applied quite differently to different people. There are only a few people in the world who can possibly compare their experience of Fair Game against what Gerry has had to endure. Arnie Lerma and Paulette Cooper are in that league.

*****
An Indie asked me if I thought The Admissions were really written by LRH. I replied, "Oh hell yes! They were introduced in trial by Gerry Armstrong and the Church never disputed their authenticity." This Indie did not know much about Gerry or his famous legal case. Inside of CoS, Gerry has been purged and he is not allowed to be discussed. This is hardly surprising, for people who have been in the Cult for decades do not know a fraction of what a good critic knows. These people never read much of anything except what LRH wrote, what is needed for work, or perhaps movie scripts.

What I am learning is how amazingly insular life in CoS became in the 00's. It has always been insular, but it really got insular after Tom Cruise jumped the couch. DM circled the wagons and then hyperventilated on the Psych-Craziness like he was huffing paint. DM clamped down especially hard on SO and OT's from 2005 forward. He kept them incredibly busy and censored. Jeff Hawkins said on his blog that he had to learn how to cook for himself after he blew. Jeff had eaten in SO cafeterias for 30 years. He did not own cookware or even a fork, knife, and spoon when he blew. That is one example of just how insular and dependent CoS keeps its SO.

*****
Tory is a formally declared SP and Independents have no problem associating with her. I am a critic and yet Independents have no problem associating with me or virtually any of my fellow critics. My experience is that once a Scientologist has left the protection of CoS and OSA, they are not much into the SP doctrine. In fact, they are usually eager to talk at length. They are eager to make up for lost time in CoS. I know Independent Scientologists and FZ'ers who simply ignore the SP doctrine as a practical matter. I know offlines CoS members who ignore the SP doctrine.

I see it all going to Hell for CoS on the ground out here in L.A. I can call people and do things that were impossible a year ago. Conversely, other things seem worse than ever before inside of CoS. DM and his goon squads are brutalizing people and enforcing disconnection like crazy. There is no apparent rhyme or reason to it.

What I see happening is that the Church of Scientology is now actively being dismantled in its present form -- and its SP's are doing much of the work on a day to day basis.

In this scene, I do not care what a person's label is or what they did in the past; capital crimes and child abuse excepted. The past cannot be undone, but it can be atoned for. What can be changed is what a person does today and tomorrow. A person should atone for harm done wherever possible; that is the good and right action. If a person's actions help to dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form, and if they are highly effective at it because they were SO, then that is even better.

Gerry Armstrong helped to set the pattern for what former high ranking SO are doing today when he entered LRH's Admissions and other CoS documents into the court record. Caroline, you also helped to establish and keep the pattern going when you asked for your refund in a staggering way that no other Scientologist has ever done.

/////
Last edited by J. Swift on Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

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

Post by caroline » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:33 am

J. Swift wrote:Caroline, if I understand your position it is as follows:

1. A person declared an SP and being Fair Gamed by OSA falls into one of two categories:

A. If they have disavowed Scientology, and specifically the SP Doctrine, then they are a true victim deserving of help, compassion, and understanding.

B. If they consider themselves to be Independent Scientologists and have not disavowed a belief in Scientology, then they are getting exactly what they have coming to them and not worthy of help, compassion, and understanding. Their work in exposing DM and CoS does not count toward any actual merit so far as the SPDL is concerned: Being an SP and being Fair Gamed as a function of engaging in internecine warfare makes one a combatant and not a victim.

Caroline, if this in fact the SPDL view, then I respectfully do not share its view on who and who is not a victim. I take the broader view that anyone is Fair Gamed as an SP is a victim of the outrageous and unacceptable abuse, aggression, and criminality of David Miscavige and OSA.
J. Swift,
Thanks for trying, but the above is not my position.

1. Fair game in Scientology is of course not limited to what OSA does, nor is a declare order a prerequisite.

A. Disavowing Scientology does not change whether or not the person is or was a "true victim."

It's sort of pathetic that Scientologists seek outsiders to help them fight their internecine spat, if it's in fact a real spat. And it's sick that they try to recruit or re-recruit their victims to support them and to join with them as combatants.

B. I am not qualified to judge whether people generally have or don't have something coming to them. The SPDL doesn't operate on a merit system. Being an SP and being Fair Gamed as a function of engaging in internecine warfare can make one both a combatant and a victim, as I've discussed earlier.

Scientologists on all fronts of Scientology's wars, including their internecine fronts, use the SP doctrine to justify their hate crimes and antisocial activities. Gaining a critical understanding of the SP doctrine is a good start, and a necessary one as far as I'm concerned.

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

Post by caroline » Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:44 am

Simonymous wrote:Something I don't understand...

I don't know the actual percentage, but I would guess that about 50% of Scientologists in its history have been declared SP (whether they received a declare or not.) Or maybe the number is 25%. Somewhere in there is probably the exact figure. If you look at management only, it's probably around 90%.

Hubbard said about 2% of the population is SP. They just are... they are evil, they are born that way, nothing you can do.

This means, that statistically, most of the world's SP's join Scientology!

Why are so many SP's attracted to Scientology?

They get really far, too... OT7's, the Inspector General, Head of OSA, all declared a Suppressive Person. Why is it they get so far, why are they allowed in the door?
Marisol Nichols took a shot at doing the math too. :wink:
In a 2004 Celebrity magazine interview, Marisol Nichols wrote: Image
From Celebrity Interview: Marisol Nichols.

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

Post by caroline » Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:07 am

J. Swift wrote:Caroline, the Indies have violated KSW and are therefore SP's by definition.

Gerry wrote:They’re not wogs.

And they truly are not “SPs by definition.” They don’t oppose or even criticize Scientology -- the religion, the subject or the movement, or its source. They don’t threaten Scientology, but are fighting against threats to Scientology.

Uncowed opposition, or the willingness to criticize all of what may not be criticized, by definition, makes wogs SPs, and SPs more SP.

The characteristics that Scientology scripture states SPs possess, and which Scientologists might say define SPs, the Scientologists merely project onto persons who criticize Scientology. The people doing the declaring of SPs, moreover, shown with their own testimony about each other, are observably more antisocial than the SPs they’re declaring, and possess and dramatize more of Hubbard’s characteristics. Therefore these characteristics are irrelevant to what are SPs by definition.

Any definition that Scientologists will provide for “SP” will not, and cannot, be an accurate or true definition, because the SP doctrine -- in fact just being Scientologists -- requires that they not tell the truth about SPs.

Criticism is a neutral God-given ability or activity. Accuracy and truth make it good criticism.

If Scientologists told the truth about SPs, they would be criticizing what may not be criticized and would be, by definition and in truth, Suppressive Persons.

As can be seen, neither the people in organized Scientology nor in disorganized Scientology are SPs.

The people in disorganized Scientology like Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder are declared SPs, not because they’re SPs by definition, nor because of policy in Scientology scripture, but because the application of the SP doctrine, specifically labeling people SPs, is virtually universally arbitrary.

Arbitraries and orders always trump published policy in organized Scientology, because it’s a dictatorship, and everyone in the dictatorship falls in line and agrees with the dictator’s arbitraries and orders. In disorganized Scientology, apparently, the theory is that each person is the dictator in the practice of Scientology, and his or her arbitraries, orders, will or whims trump everything else. In reality, a significant number of seemingly disorganized Scientologists in the past year or so have assembled around Rathbun as their advertisedly so much more benevolent dictator.
J. Swift wrote:The "Prominent Indies" are now the most ferociously attacked of DM's enemies. No other SP's have the sheer amount of Fair Game, PI surveillance, or even a 95 page edition of Freedom Magazine devoted to attacking them.
Gerry wrote:Largely, what Scientologists do to wogs in application of the SP doctrine is fair game. What Scientologists do to Scientologists in application of the SP doctrine is “putting in ethics.” Ask Marty. I’m certain he will say he’s putting in ethics on DM. I’m certain Miscavige will say he’s putting in ethics on Rathbun (unless it’s all Loyalist Redux). Neither would say he’s fair gaming the other.

It’s true that both Rathbun and Miscavige state that the other is not doing Scientology and is not a Scientologist, and even that the other is a threat to Scientology, putting it at risk. But both of them continue to call themselves Scientologists and to insist that they are duplicating Hubbard and applying his philosophy and tech standardly. Therefore, what is being applied to them in execution of the SP doctrine is putting in their ethics. If either said he’s not a Scientologist but a wog, and criticized Scientology, not just a Scientologist or two, execution of the SP doctrine against him would be fair game.

That doesn’t mean that Scientologists putting in Scientologists’ ethics is less dangerous, sick or evil than Scientologists fair gaming wogs, or that the victims of Scientology ethics deserve less compassion than victims of fair game.

Scientology’s published “ethics gradients” include talking about a person “derogatorily,” “investigating a person thoroughly in his own area,” and “publishing findings.” That’s what DM was doing to Rathbun with his PIs, Freedom mag, etc.
J. Swift wrote:My question to you is: Could an Indie join the SPDL? They are, after all, being Fair Gamed by DM and OSA. All of their family and friends in CoS have disconnected from them.


/////
Gerry wrote:Really, we urge every Scientologist, whether organized or disorganized, to join with us, to stand up to Hubbard, his philosophy, his technology, all the people who apply it, and criticize them accurately and truthfully.

SPDL’s intention and function is “to expose, elucidate and eliminate the SP Doctrine.” We would therefore welcome everyone, Scientologists and wogs, joining in that effort. SPDL states that it “calls on Scientology to forsake the Suppressive Person Doctrine, and we call on Scientologists, if their cult will not forsake this pernicious doctrine, to immediately forsake Scientology.” http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/about

So, Scientologists certainly could join SPDL, and logically should join, in the effort to expose, elucidate and eliminate the SP Doctrine, which is the basis and justification for fair game and disconnection. But clearly no Scientologists do join in that effort.

What we want is for Scientologists to stop lying. Miscavige, Marty, Mike and every Scientologist signal by staying Scientologists that they are not going to stop. They are going to keep lying and getting others to lie. What they lie about is Scientology.

Because to Scientologists, Scientology is a way of life, lying becomes pervasive in their lives. If they stopped all that lying, they would have a lot of time on their hands to do something else, specifically, to tell the truth. Mike and Marty haven’t stopped lying about Scientology, so it’s understandable they haven’t taken any time to tell the truth.

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

Post by caroline » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:09 pm

Sponge wrote:Somewhat related:

Saw this on WWP. Interesting.....
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/7-chit-c ... days-69956

(This is real, NOT a shoop)
Image

Plaintext copy...
I,
_________________________
NAME

do hereby promise that I will be of good behavior.
for ______________________ days.

Signed: __________________

Date: ____________________

Witness: _________________

"The routine act.ion of Ethics is to request a
reappraisal of behavior and a signed promise of good
behavior for a specified time. If the student or pc refuses
to so promise, then the next action of Ethics is an
investigation of the student's course or pc's processing
behavior."

L. RON HUBBARD
HCO PL 29 April 65 Iss III
ETHICS REVIEW

MAA notes reason(s) person was sent to Ethics:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________


© 1995 CSl. All Rights Reserved. Gratefull acknowledgment is
made to L. Ron Hubbard Library for permission to reproduce
selections from the copyrighted works of L. Ron Hubbard.
For more exciting leaked docs, see the awesome "puddle of leaks" thread on wwp....
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leak ... ost1262341
Thanks, Sponge. Here's Hublov's ethics policy that requires Scientologists to sign promises of good behavior. Hubbard not only admits that "students are quite caved in by it when it is applied" but says that "ethics action is a far worse threat than mere wog law." What a malignant narcissist.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 APRIL 1965
Issue III

Remimeo

ETHICS
REVIEW


(Correction to HCO PL 24 Apr. 65, REVIEW, and additional ethics data)

As per HCO PL 28 Apr. 65 III, POWER PROCESSES, and others of later date, orders to auditing or training may not be made as a sentence or used in an ethics court or by a Comm Ev or any other reason. Auditing and training are awards.

A student who is disruptive of discipline and acts contrary to the Ethics Codes may not be ordered to Review by the D of P, D of T or Ethics personnel or other persons in an org.

ORDERING STUDENTS AND PCs

Tech and Qualifications personnel, particularly the Tech Sec and Qual Sec and D of Estimations, the D of P and D of T, D of Exams and D of Review and
D of Certs may order students or pcs to Review or to course or to HGC or anywhere in and around these two divisions without any ethics action being implied.

It is just normal, done to get students and pcs on the road to higher levels.

Ethics actions may only suspend training or deny auditing.

Therefore, a student ordered to Ethics for discipline who does not then give adequate promise and example of good behavior and compliance must be thoroughly investigated even to his or her own area and in the meanwhile may not be trained or processed.

The student, however, may not be dismissed or expelled unless full ethics actions and procedures have been undertaken.

All sentences carrying a denial of training or processing must carry a means of the right to be trained or processed being restored in a specified time or under specified conditions.

STUDENTS AND PCs AND ETHICS

The routine action of Ethics is to request a reappraisal of behavior and a signed promise of good behavior for a specified time. If the student or pc refuses to so promise, then the next action of Ethics is an investigation of the student's course or pc's processing behavior. When then confronted with the data, if the student still refuses to promise, Ethics undertakes a full investigation in the student's or pc's own area. If the student or pc still refuses to cooperate, the student goes before a Court of Ethics which may pass sentence.

RECOURSE

Only after sentence has been passed by a legal body such as a Court of Ethics or Committee of Evidence or after an illegal disciplinary action may a student or pc ask for recourse.

Normally before asking for recourse a student or pc petitions the Office of L. Ron Hubbard if unwilling to accept the discipline but this must be done at once.

If the petition is unfavorably acted upon, the student or pc may ask for recourse. Recourse must be requested of the convening authority that had local jurisdiction over the student or pc and may not be requested of higher authority. A request to higher authority than the Ethics activity that passed sentence is a petition, not recourse.

COMM EV

A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action.

One must not be idly threatened or requested.

Only a Comm Ev can recommend suspension or remove certificates or awards or memberships or recommend dismissal.

The Office of LRH passes on all Comm Ev findings before they can go into effect.

A staff member may not be suspended or demoted or transferred illegally out of his division or dismissed without a Committee of Evidence.

Only after that action (or wrongful demotion, transfer or dismissal) as above, may recourse be requested.

Students or pcs, however, may be transferred, demoted in level or grade by a Court of Ethics. And the action of sending the student or pc to a Court of Ethics is of course a type of suspension which may be prolonged in the face of noncooperation.

A student or a pc is not a staff member in the ethics sense of the word by simple enrollment on a course or in an HGC or Review.

A staff member who is temporarily a student or pc in the Academy or Review or the HGC is not covered as a student or pc by his staff member status. He may be transferred about or demoted as a student or pc by Tech and Qual personnel or suspended as a student or pc by Ethics. This, however, may not affect his staff member status as a staff member. Because he or she is transferred or demoted or suspended by Tech personnel or Ethics when a student or pc does not mean he or she may be transferred, demoted or dismissed from his or her regular staff post unless the person's staff status permits it.

POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES

Staff members found to be potential trouble sources are handled like any other potential trouble source-but, unless Provisional or Temporary, may not be affected by this in their staff post. They are of course denied auditing or training until they handle or disconnect but this may not also suspend, transfer or dismiss them (unless of Provisional or Temporary status).

This ethics action (the potential trouble source) is in lieu of any discipline, and disciplinary actions that go beyond temporary suspension of training or processing, until the matter is settled, must be undertaken by a Court of Ethics or a Comm Ev.

ARC BROKEN STUDENTS OR PCs

An ARC break is not an extenuating circumstance in ethics or disciplinary matters and is only taken into account on the person of the auditor who made the ARC break and didn't repair it.

The plea of "ARC broken" is inadmissible in any ethics matter as a defense or justification of misdemeanors, crimes or high crimes.

LIGHT TOUCH

Scientology ethics are so powerful in effect, as determined by observation of it in use, that a little goes a very long ways.

Try to use the lightest form first.

Students are quite caved in by it when it is applied, by actual observation.

Our lines are too powerful and direct and what we mean to a person's future, even while he or she is nattering, is so well understood down deep that ethics action is a far worse threat than mere wog law.

The being who is guilty knows with certainty that he is offending against the future of all, no matter what his surface manifestations or conduct. Further, while wog law at the worst can only cause him or her some pain and a body by execution or one lifetime's loss of liberty, we threaten his eternity. Even while he screams at us, he knows this down deep.

My first instance of this was a very dangerous psychotic who was largely responsible for a great deal of the public commotion in 1950. This person desisted and caved in the moment the thought was suggested to her by a non-Dianetic friend that she was threatening all mankind. She suddenly saw it as truth and instantly gave up all attacks and utterances.

Even the fellow who could push the button on atomic war knows, really, it's only one lifetime per person he is blowing up, only one phase in Earth's existence he or she is destroying. That we exist here could actually restrain him. The mere destruction of a planet might not, as it's temporary.

Our discipline is quite capable of driving a person around the bend because of what he or she is attacking.

Therefore, we can all too easily make a person feel guilty by just a whisper.

I've now seen a student, simply asked a question by Ethics, promptly give up and ask for his Comm Ev and expulsion. He hadn't done more than a poor auditing job. Nobody was talking about a Comm Ev or expulsion and he had not a bit of defiance in it. He just caved right in.

You are threatening somebody with oblivion for eternity by expulsion from Scientology. Therefore realize that an ethics action need not be very heavy to produce the most startling results.

Down deep they know this even when they are screaming at us.

One suppressive person who had committed a high crime of some magnitude went quite insane after departing Scientology and then realizing what he had done.

Therefore, use ethics lightly. It is chain lightning.

LEVELS OF ETHICS ACTIONS

Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:

1. Noticing something nonoptimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

2. Noticing something nonoptimum and commenting on it to the person.

3. Requesting information by Ethics personnel.

4. Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.

5. Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

6. Talking to the person derogatorily.

7. Investigating in person by Ethics.

8. Reporting on a post condition to Ethics.

9. Reporting on a person to Ethics.

10. Investigating a person by interrogating others about him.

11. Asking others for evidence about a person.

12. Publishing an interrogatory about a person that points out omissions, or commissions of ethics offenses.

13. Assigning a lowered condition by limited publication.

14. Assigning a lowered condition by broad publication.

15. Investigating a person thoroughly in his or her own area.

16. Interrogation stated to be leading to a Court of Ethics.

17. Interrogation in a Court of Ethics.

18. Sentencing in a Court of Ethics.

19. Suspending a Court of Ethics sentence.

20. Carrying out a Court of Ethics discipline.

21. Suspension or loss of time.

22. A Committee of Evidence ordered.

23. A Committee of Evidence publicly ordered.

24. Holding a Committee of Evidence.

25. Findings by a Committee of Evidence.

26. Submitting findings of a Committee of Evidence for approval.

27. Waiting for the findings to be passed on or carried into effect.

28. Suspending findings for a period for review.

29. Modifying findings.

30. Carrying findings into effect.

31. Publishing findings.

32. Demotion.

33. Loss of certificates or awards.

34. Denial of auditing or training by a Comm Ev for a considerable period of time.

35. Dismissal.

36. Expulsion from Scientology.

The above is a rough guide to the severity of discipline.

Note that none of it carries any physical punishment or detention.

Short suspension of training or processing up to ninety days is considered under (18 ) above and is not to be compared with (34) where the time is measured in years.

Just issuing the Ethics Codes is itself a sort of discipline but it is more broadly welcomed than protested as it means greater peace and faster accomplishment.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1965, 29 April Issue III). Ethics Review The Organization Executive Course Basic Staff Hat(Vol. 0, pp. 491-495). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

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 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:41 am

The suppressive person doctrine has been applied to at least one United States president and possibly more.

There is a taped lecture on the SP/PTS course on which L. Ron Hubbard said he wanted to declare one of the US presidents. I think it was Spiro Agnew. He said that he was talked out of doing that because it would have been out PR or bad public relations.

When I was on staff there was circulated a copy of a letter that L. Ron purportedly sent to John F. Kennedy offering him help and that John F. Kennedy's response was to have L. Ron investigated. The verbal rumor doing the rounds was that John F. Kennedy was a suppressive person or at least regarded as such. That was the rumor in circulation within the organization. I doubt very much that there is any actual evidence of that in existence.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

Judith Anderson
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:15 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 Judith Anderson » Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:04 pm

The suppressive person doctrine is what is killing Scientology more than anything. It can be compared to the Big Spill before BP finally choked off the well. And there the analogy ends as Scientology will not come to terms with its utterly dismal PR. This I can say: wherever I go and the topic of Scientology comes up, sometimes initiated by me, more than often not, the consensus is negative. I audit university classes (one of the perks of being a senior citizen) and in one of my classes the topic came up and it was clear that every one of the kids was opposed to the cult. Heck, some of them could have been anons. One of my health providers who grew up in Clearwater tells me how Scientology ruined her town.
I visit an old friend and she comments on the cult's bad press and I move things along by telling her its true. And yes, she believes me. The pretty young girl at the Publix checkout tells me Tom Cruise is weird. And I nod my head in agreement. I never hear anything GOOD about Scientology, no matter where I go.
The truth is, Scientology is overwhelmed by SPs. There is no way they can keep up with them. That's because when you create one SP, you automatically create a number of other SPs who become outraged at the audacity of such an action and they in turn create even more. And soon you have a whole community painted by the same broad brush. And that's how wars begin.

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

being an espee

Post by RedPill » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:00 pm

Judith Anderson wrote:The suppressive person doctrine is what is killing Scientology more than anything. It can be compared to the Big Spill before BP finally choked off the well. And there the analogy ends as Scientology will not come to terms with its utterly dismal PR. This I can say: wherever I go and the topic of Scientology comes up, sometimes initiated by me, more than often not, the consensus is negative. I audit university classes (one of the perks of being a senior citizen) and in one of my classes the topic came up and it was clear that every one of the kids was opposed to the cult. Heck, some of them could have been anons. One of my health providers who grew up in Clearwater tells me how Scientology ruined her town.
I visit an old friend and she comments on the cult's bad press and I move things along by telling her its true. And yes, she believes me. The pretty young girl at the Publix checkout tells me Tom Cruise is weird. And I nod my head in agreement. I never hear anything GOOD about Scientology, no matter where I go.
The truth is, Scientology is overwhelmed by SPs. There is no way they can keep up with them. That's because when you create one SP, you automatically create a number of other SPs who become outraged at the audacity of such an action and they in turn create even more. And soon you have a whole community painted by the same broad brush. And that's how wars begin.
Bottom line, being an espee is a lot more fun than being a clam. Of course, most espees are self delared, I personally never got far enough as a clam to get my goldenrod.

Pete

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

Post by caroline » Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:59 am

Wieber wrote:The suppressive person doctrine has been applied to at least one United States president and possibly more.

There is a taped lecture on the SP/PTS course on which L. Ron Hubbard said he wanted to declare one of the US presidents. I think it was Spiro Agnew. He said that he was talked out of doing that because it would have been out PR or bad public relations.

When I was on staff there was circulated a copy of a letter that L. Ron purportedly sent to John F. Kennedy offering him help and that John F. Kennedy's response was to have L. Ron investigated. The verbal rumor doing the rounds was that John F. Kennedy was a suppressive person or at least regarded as such. That was the rumor in circulation within the organization. I doubt very much that there is any actual evidence of that in existence.
Was this the PTS/SP course lecture you had in mind, Wieber?
In SHSBC-424, Organization and Ethics, L. Ron Hubbard wrote:And, of course, I was just joking. I did suggest, you see, however, that the president of the United States should at least be given an amnesty. And that we do this thing in an orderly fashion. And I really didn’t see any reason why you couldn’t consider him suppressive if he was trying to wipe out our organization by not calling off his dogs. I thought that was some of his responsibility.

But, our attorney says that this would make the president mad. Now, it’s interesting that this is not contested by our attorneys because it is silly.

And, our attorneys down in Victoria—we’re being less successful in this argument. We’re arguing back and forth, but now a rather soft approach is being used on this and we’re trying to get it done.

Let me ask you this burning question—let me ask you this burning question: Are you for just shooting somebody down without warning or do you want ethics? See? That’s the question. Now, what are you in favor of? The kind of law that just freakishly and like the thunder and lightning all of a sudden strikes down anybody in sight? Or is it the kind of law that you say, "Here is the path. Narrow as it may seem, you try to take Scientology out of the running and that’s off the edge of the path. And if you have done that, things are now going to happen. And we do them in a very legal fashion." In other words, we have no illegal hangings. Every one of our hangings is legally done. You get the idea? There’s always thirteen turns in that hangman’s noose. See, there’s always thirteen steps to that gallows. In other words, even a blind man would find out after a while that he was being warned. You get the idea?

Now, this doesn’t happen to be for me. I can handle you guys. I can handle a lot more. But what am I supposed to do, stand around here as the only cop?

Now, right now what you’ve got in essence is a little system of ethics which is being adjusted, in actual use—being adjusted and its procedures are being looked over And it’s working very, very nicely. And of course, it isn’t too different than what we’ve been doing, but it’s being done on a scheduled action, and it is effective. And the only reason it’s there is to hold things quiet until technology can be gotten in. All right. Very good.


Hubbard. (1965, 18 May). Organization and Ethics. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, (SHSBC-424). Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex. .mp3 | transcript
I found this Hubbardian behavior particularly repugnant:
Hubbard wrote:Let me ask you this burning question—let me ask you this burning question: Are you for just shooting somebody down without warning or do you want ethics? See? That’s the question.
No, Ron that is not the question. You are intentionally disorganizing minds by giving them straw choices to a straw question.

The cult does this standardly. Regarding the RPF, e.g., they present two insane scenarios as their only sane choices: fire the flubbing staff member or RPF him.

Shooting somebody down without warning is not a sane option, and neither is Hubbard's or Miscavige's or any Scientologists' ethics tech or paradigm. There are other options that are sane.

Neither firing SO members nor RPFing them is a sane choice. Their are other choices that are sane. Of course Scientology doesn't present or even acknowledge these sane options or choices.

What Hubbard was doing with this bit of comm tech was dishonest and sick. It was in fact sociopathic "logic." Hubbard used it, Miscavige uses it, and Scientologists following either or both of them use the same "tech" to con and bully people.

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 Jul 31, 2010 4:55 am

caroline wrote:
Wieber wrote:The suppressive person doctrine has been applied to at least one United States president and possibly more.

There is a taped lecture on the SP/PTS course on which L. Ron Hubbard said he wanted to declare one of the US presidents. I think it was Spiro Agnew. He said that he was talked out of doing that because it would have been out PR or bad public relations.

When I was on staff there was circulated a copy of a letter that L. Ron purportedly sent to John F. Kennedy offering him help and that John F. Kennedy's response was to have L. Ron investigated. The verbal rumor doing the rounds was that John F. Kennedy was a suppressive person or at least regarded as such. That was the rumor in circulation within the organization. I doubt very much that there is any actual evidence of that in existence.
Was this the PTS/SP course lecture you had in mind, Wieber?
In SHSBC-424, Organization and Ethics, L. Ron Hubbard wrote:And, of course, I was just joking. I did suggest, you see, however, that the president of the United States should at least be given an amnesty. And that we do this thing in an orderly fashion. And I really didn’t see any reason why you couldn’t consider him suppressive if he was trying to wipe out our organization by not calling off his dogs. I thought that was some of his responsibility.

But, our attorney says that this would make the president mad. Now, it’s interesting that this is not contested by our attorneys because it is silly.

And, our attorneys down in Victoria—we’re being less successful in this argument. We’re arguing back and forth, but now a rather soft approach is being used on this and we’re trying to get it done.

Let me ask you this burning question—let me ask you this burning question: Are you for just shooting somebody down without warning or do you want ethics? See? That’s the question. Now, what are you in favor of? The kind of law that just freakishly and like the thunder and lightning all of a sudden strikes down anybody in sight? Or is it the kind of law that you say, "Here is the path. Narrow as it may seem, you try to take Scientology out of the running and that’s off the edge of the path. And if you have done that, things are now going to happen. And we do them in a very legal fashion." In other words, we have no illegal hangings. Every one of our hangings is legally done. You get the idea? There’s always thirteen turns in that hangman’s noose. See, there’s always thirteen steps to that gallows. In other words, even a blind man would find out after a while that he was being warned. You get the idea?

Now, this doesn’t happen to be for me. I can handle you guys. I can handle a lot more. But what am I supposed to do, stand around here as the only cop?

Now, right now what you’ve got in essence is a little system of ethics which is being adjusted, in actual use—being adjusted and its procedures are being looked over And it’s working very, very nicely. And of course, it isn’t too different than what we’ve been doing, but it’s being done on a scheduled action, and it is effective. And the only reason it’s there is to hold things quiet until technology can be gotten in. All right. Very good.


Hubbard. (1965, 18 May). Organization and Ethics. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, (SHSBC-424). Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex. .mp3 | transcript
I found this Hubbardian behavior particularly repugnant:
Hubbard wrote:Let me ask you this burning question—let me ask you this burning question: Are you for just shooting somebody down without warning or do you want ethics? See? That’s the question.
No, Ron that is not the question. You are intentionally disorganizing minds by giving them straw choices to a straw question.

The cult does this standardly. Regarding the RPF, e.g., they present two insane scenarios as their only sane choices: fire the flubbing staff member or RPF him.

Shooting somebody down without warning is not a sane option, and neither is Hubbard's or Miscavige's or any Scientologists' ethics tech or paradigm. There are other options that are sane.

Neither firing SO members nor RPFing them is a sane choice. Their are other choices that are sane. Of course Scientology doesn't present or even acknowledge these sane options or choices.

What Hubbard was doing with this bit of comm tech was dishonest and sick. It was in fact sociopathic "logic." Hubbard used it, Miscavige uses it, and Scientologists following either or both of them use the same "tech" to con and bully people.
That's the lecture but it was Lyndon Johnson, not Spiro Agnew, who, apparently, was declared. Two paragraphs up from what you quoted there's this.
For instance, I’m in an argument right now with Washington, DC, on one simple fact: Our attorney there is absolutely aghast at the declaration of Lyndon Johnson as a suppressive person. He says this won’t do at all. Well, I don’t know, the guy is all over our backs. I think he’s suppressive. He hadn’t called off the FDA; we’re having to do it ourselves. We’re having to go over and undo practically half the government to get the FDA undone. You’re not kidding, we are. You’re doing a beautiful job over in Washington, do beautiful job. Not only do they have a Senate investigation of Health, Education and Welfare and the FDA going—which probably will cost the FDA the bulk of its appropriations and may kick the head out—but as soon as that’s over the House is going to investigate the FDA.
“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 Jul 31, 2010 5:47 am

Judith Anderson wrote:The suppressive person doctrine is what is killing Scientology more than anything.
We agree and really appreciate your post. It’s killing off Scientology both from inside, because it requires that its practitioners hate and make themselves willfully ignorant, and from the outside, because people who don’t have the SP doctrine implant – wogs – can see the hate and ignorance and most will reject the organization, religion or cult that thinks, acts and proselytizes that way.

Scientology’s present power and its wealth and property have been amassed in essential part by application of the SP doctrine. The end product of this application that Scientologists have to look forward to is Scientology’s utter ruin. The more standard the application of Hubbard’s SP doctrine, the more ruinous to Scientology.

The SP doctrine’s complete indefensibility moves it from plain bad to a shameful belief and way of life. I imagine it was similarly shameful for a lot of Nazis when they were brought to confront their organization or cult’s Jewish doctrine and its application. The terrible shame Scientologists with consciences know they’d experience if they confronted their SP doctrine, which governs their relationships, actions and lives, cannot but be a key part of their adamantine refusal to do the necessary and very simple confronting. Their incessant intrascientology claims of being great confronters involved in great confrontery are to avoid actually confronting what actually needs to be confronted.
Judith Anderson wrote:It can be compared to the Big Spill before BP finally choked off the well. And there the analogy ends as Scientology will not come to terms with its utterly dismal PR. This I can say: wherever I go and the topic of Scientology comes up, sometimes initiated by me, more than often not, the consensus is negative. I audit university classes (one of the perks of being a senior citizen) and in one of my classes the topic came up and it was clear that every one of the kids was opposed to the cult. Heck, some of them could have been anons. One of my health providers who grew up in Clearwater tells me how Scientology ruined her town.

I visit an old friend and she comments on the cult's bad press and I move things along by telling her its true. And yes, she believes me. The pretty young girl at the Publix checkout tells me Tom Cruise is weird. And I nod my head in agreement. I never hear anything GOOD about Scientology, no matter where I go.
What you’re reporting is spreading and mounting rejection among wogs. The SP doctrine makes Scientology rejectable. And the meme has only started to enter wogs’ minds. I don’t think that Scientology and Scientologists can now stop understanding from occurring, despite a massive campaign to stop it, so they have global understanding and rejection of the doctrine to look forward to.

I say Scientologists refuse to confront this evil doctrine, rather than that they’re brainwashed or under a sociopath like Miscavige’s total control, so they get the clear message that it is within every Scientologist’s power and ability to confront the doctrine and reject it, and walk away. Yes, the remaining Scientologists who will still live by the doctrine, may fair game the rejecters, may destroy the rejecters’ families, or may even murder some. I still believe that confronting and rejecting the SP doctrine is the safest, wisest choice, and ultimately will resolve the evils the cult employs to prevent that rejection -- fair game, disconnection, death.
Judith Anderson wrote:The truth is, Scientology is overwhelmed by SPs. There is no way they can keep up with them. That's because when you create one SP, you automatically create a number of other SPs who become outraged at the audacity of such an action and they in turn create even more. And soon you have a whole community painted by the same broad brush. And that's how wars begin.
Actually, and thankfully, that’s how the war can be ended. Universal rejection of the SP doctrine and its practitioners would bring them to make peace. I’d say Hubbard formally declared Scientology’s War Against Suppressive Persons in 1965. And now, as you observe, the SPs outnumber the people warring on them. Wow, what a time to call oneself a Scientologist!

And at the same time, what a time to be a wog!

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

Post by caroline » Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:09 am

Wieber wrote:That's the lecture but it was Lyndon Johnson, not Spiro Agnew, who, apparently, was declared. Two paragraphs up from what you quoted there's this.
For instance, I’m in an argument right now with Washington, DC, on one simple fact: Our attorney there is absolutely aghast at the declaration of Lyndon Johnson as a suppressive person. He says this won’t do at all. Well, I don’t know, the guy is all over our backs. I think he’s suppressive. He hadn’t called off the FDA; we’re having to do it ourselves. We’re having to go over and undo practically half the government to get the FDA undone. You’re not kidding, we are. You’re doing a beautiful job over in Washington, do beautiful job. Not only do they have a Senate investigation of Health, Education and Welfare and the FDA going—which probably will cost the FDA the bulk of its appropriations and may kick the head out—but as soon as that’s over the House is going to investigate the FDA.
A*&^*&@#mazing.

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

Post by caroline » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:04 pm

In this 1996 OSA newsletter, Mike Rinder explains the role of OSA Public Relations in "putting in ethics on the 4th dynamic," i.e., mankind. "Putting in ethics" requires that Scientologists shatter the SPs that command says threaten Scientology's acceptance. (Ref. HCOPL 18 June 1968 Ethics.) "Command intention" that Rinder mentions is David Miscavige's intention.
Mike Rinder wrote:Image

Office of Special Affairs International
ISSUE 2


CHANGING THE COURSE OF SOCIETY:
OSA PUBLIC RELATIONS


Welcome to the second edition of the OSA Newsletter. Its purpose is to brief you on command intention, current priorities and news in the network.

We received many responses to our first OSA Newsletter, and I invite you to continue writing to let us know how you are doing and to provide information for us to pass on to the OSA network in future editions.

This issue focuses on Public Relations and its vital importance in achieving our Valuable Final Product: ACCEPTANCES OF SCIENTOLOGY.

The speed of Scientology's expansion internationally is directly proportional to the degree that we - and that includes every OSA network staff member - create PR area control and achieve overwhelming public popularity for LRH and Scientology.

We create acceptances and demand for LRH's tech through the correct and full use of the tools of PR, as laid out in LRH's PR Series. Just as an auditor must know his tech cold to achieve results on his pcs, any OSA Network staff active on PR lines must be fully trained in the tech of PR and apply it flublessly to gain acceptances for Scientology and LRH.

All PRs and OSA Network staff who deal in PR must be fully trained in the tech so they can flublessly apply it. Thus, it is vital that staff become fully trained and proficient as PRs.

PR plays a major role, either by itself, or in conjunction with legal activities, to maximize the effect of our actions to put ethics in on the 4th dynamic.

International management is moving forward with its strategy of building orgs to Saint Hill size and providing them with ideal spaces for delivery. PR plays a vital role, not only in supporting this expansion, but in utilizing it to accelerate the attainment of PR's own objectives. The recently re-opened AOSH EU is a recent example. AOSH EU hasn't just reached the size of old Saint Hill, it has become an invaluable PR tool for all PRs in Denmark and the rest of Europe. It is being continuously toured by opinion leaders and VIPs with great success.

In the United States, the Founding Church of Washington, D.C. moving into a fully restored historic mansion has been utilized by PR to bring in local opinion leaders and VIPs and to strengthen our PR area control and visibility in the country's capital. Recently, one of the Church PRs in Washington was invited to a special presentation by President Bill Clinton on the issue of religious liberty in public schools, where she was personally introduced to the President.

PR flanks international expansion in countless ways. President CSI routinely carries the Church's message to religious leaders, government officials and media in many countries around the world. He also briefs public, Scientologists and staff members wherever he goes, hatting them on LRH PR tech and encouraging them to get active in their respective areas. Other OSA PROs carry out similar functions in numerous areas where the Church has vital objectives to attain.

We are looked upon as leaders. And rightfully so. We assume and maintain this position through the coordinated effort of the different bureaux and the full and correct use of all LRH technology - including the technology of PR.

It behooves every network staff member to see that the needed PR personnel for each area are there, that they know their tech and that they apply it as professionals, to LRH's standards.

"The real pro has a right to insist that anyone on his lines 'helping' or 'assisting' or holding PR posts GET TRAINED. That they put their seat on a student chair and do the course thoroughly... "GET TRAINED." — LRH, PR Series 20 THE UNTRAINED PR.

Lt. Cmdr Mike Rinder
COMMANDING OFFICER OSA INTERNATIONAL

[Image caption: From left to right: Mr. Michael Rinder and a CSI PR representative brief a U.S. governor about Scientology's solutions to society's problems; President CSI meets with a renowned civil rights leader in New York; Rev. Susan Taylor of the Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C, meets with President Bill Clinton about religious freedom issues.]


Rinder, M. (1996). Changing the Course of Society: OSA Public Relations. Office of Special Affairs Newsletter 2, 1.
What an amazing admission that the speed of Scientology's expansion internationally is directly proportional to OSA's PR area control and public popularity for LRH and Scientology. Workability of the tech is not a factor. It's all PR. Well, plus legal and espionage.

What's new?
Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vgorwz_s2k

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas
[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 Dorothy » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:31 pm

Caroline wrote:
What an amazing admission that the speed of Scientology's expansion internationally is directly proportional to OSA's PR area control and public popularity for LRH and Scientology. Workability of the tech is not a factor. It's all PR. Well, plus legal and espionage.
LOL! If you grant them "rightness" on this point, it is also an admission that their "PR Area Control" really sucks for the last (however many) years, because Scientology has been steadily contracting and is now more under attack than ever.

But we all know the SPs are stopping Scientology from expanding and if you handle their black PR (with PR Area Control),
then Scientology naturally expands because it is just so wonderful and most people will want it. :roll:

And, from Scino-Corp's point of view, was Rinder really doing such a terrible job all those years and that really is why Dave had to administer so many punishments and beatings and eventually remove him from post? Has their "PR Area Control" improved any with Rinder gone?

(An aside: Rinder, if you really did sabotage OSA's programs, then bless your heart, you were actually doing the "right" thing. :lol: )
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

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

Post by caroline » Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:59 am

Curiosity's question in Do the Independents Have a Plan? reminded me of this article about OSA's strategic objectives and programs.
OSA Newsletter 2 (1996) p. 2 wrote: Image

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES FOR THE OSA NETWORK

LRH wrote:SO, WHEN ALL SEEMS TOO GRIM; AND YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS; AND YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GET YOUR PRODUCT; AND IT JUST WON'T ORGANIZE THAT WAY; THEN YOU DO HAVE A TOOL. AND THAT TOOL IS CALLED PR! — LRH

PR BECOMES A SUBJECT FEBC TAPE NUMBER 2 A LECTURE GIVEN ON 18 JANUARY 1971
One of the most important duties you have as a PR is to create a favorable operating climate for your org. By standardly applying PR tech, you can help increase your org's sphere of influence and rapidly expand Scientology in your area. How?

Getting your PR Area Control (PRAC) programs rolling is the first step. If you already have a PRAC program, get to work getting your targets done. Recruit volunteers, organize up your lines and get production rolling.

If you do not have a PRAC program, then you need to get one written. The first step - as with any PR action - is to survey. HCO PL 11 September 1988, ETHNIC SURVEYS is your stable datum. Apply this policy to the letter. Find out exactly what the ethnics of your area are, work out the PR actions you want to do and send your proposal to the A/Public Relations Aide at your Continental OSA.

Your proposal will be reviewed, coordinated and made into a program. But do not wait to get PRO actions going! You want to build up ARC with the environment and create acceptance for Scientology and that requires a lot of hard work - meeting local officials, holding events, getting out publications and creating good publicity for Scientology in the local media.

One of the key tools of your job is publications. There are more PR properties available now to help you do your job than ever before: The Corporate Brochure, the Media Booklet and Media Kit, the What is Scientology? book and The Scientology Handbook are all part of your arsenal as a PR. Get these books and publications out to fill the vacuum on Scientology during visits with key OL [Opinion Leader] publics.

Another important publication is Freedom Magazine, which not only communicates the truth about Scientology, but exposes the hidden sources of suppression which daily destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. You contribute to this motion by providing data for your country's or cont's Freedom and by doing your part in getting the magazine broadly distributed to the correct publics in your area. If you need more direction on what to do, contact the A/PR Aide of your continental area.

Removing barriers to Scientology's expansion includes locating and standardly handling areas of black PR in the media, amongst local officials, anti-religious groups and other such sources. HCO PL 21 November 72, HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPAGANDA tells you exactly how to do this.

Enemy lines on Scientology can appear within the org. Get with your HCO, find out what lines the org staff are running into in handling the public. Provide them with DA material and drill them on its use until they feel confident in their ability to deal with black PR. This action alone will go a long way in handling any PTSness in the org and opening the lines to further expansion.

PR is not a passive activity. It requires doingness. Get onto it NOW and you will directly contribute to the achievement of the OSA purpose: TO ESTABLISH THE INDISPENSABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY!

[Image caption: An open house at the new Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe, in Copenhagen, was attended by many guests from all over Europe.]

ACCEPTANCES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

UK: A disc jockey at BBC Southern Countries radio contacted the Church in UK and explained that he had recently learned at a course he took that the Church of Scientology was the third largest religion in the UK and wanted to give the Church more air time. He asked that a Scientologist appear on a regular Sunday morning show where a religious person and the presenter discuss some of the headlines in that Sunday's papers. He also asked the Church representative to appear New Year's Eve along with representatives of the other "big religions" to discuss our year past and plans for the new year.

CANADA: For more than a decade the Church of Scientology of Toronto has sought exemption from property taxes as a church whose property is used for religions purposes. Tax exemption has now been granted with full religious recognition. The City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario, which jointly decide on property tax exemption, have now reversed their earlier rulings and have given property tax exemption to the Toronto Church. This followed submissions and presentations to the city and provincial officials by OSA staff and attorneys that demonstrated to them that the IRS had fully examined the Church of Scientology and found that all of its organizations are religious and qualify for exemption; and by presentation of the opinions of several of the top scholars around the world finding that Scientology is a religion. Based on this they reached the inescapable conclusion that our services of auditing and training constitute for Scientology a use of the property for "religious worship," which is the requirement under the law.

EUROPE: In Spain a PR volunteer by the name of Rojelio Lopez, has become a permanent columnist in the El Faro weekly supplement which is distributed inside the national newspaper Diario 16. Recently he got a positive article printed which was entitled: "Politics and Degradation of the Planet" This describes the current political scene in Spain and talks about LRH's writings on the subject, describing him as the "philosopher and educator who, in 1979, found that the most destructive element in society are drugs." More positive articles are planned!

SOUTH AFRICA: CCHR has exposed abuses including sexual molestation of a minor, drug experimentation and blatant racism in several psych hospitals in South Africa. This was done virtually "under the nose" of an investigatory committee appointed by parliament to investigate psychiatric practice in South Africa. At least one such hospital is under the supervision of a psychiatrist who is on the investigating committee. When that psych omitted to include his own hospital in the investigation, the Director General for Health of the respective provincial area asked CCHR to nominate their own person for an Ethics Committee to investigate the abuses.

ANZO: in Sydney the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission announced that they received complaints against 36 psychologists working in New South Wales for the past 12 months (that's almost one a week). This just about doubles the number of complaints of the previous year. All complaints against the psychologists have been accepted for investigation by the commission. The New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission was set up as a direct result of CCHR's investigation and exposure of deep sleep treatment and the resulting deaths of 48 psychiatric patients.[/color][/size]

Strategic Objectives for the OSA Network. (1996). Office of Special Affairs Newsletter 2, 2.
Seems to me Marty, Mike, et al. are so dedicated to establishing Scientology's indispensability, or keeping Scientology indispensable, that they're willing to call out and taunt the sociopathic leader of a violent, totalitarian cult. Interesting that OSA and the Independs share that identical purpose.

Because I say Scientology is not indispensable, OSA and the Independs oppose me. Lies are not indispensable. Wogs and the wog world; that's what's indispensable.

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