Daily Archives: April 24, 2011

The true purpose of the SP Declare

First of all, congrats to Marty Rathbun for posting *real* dox – I’m talking about Michael Fairman’s SP declare, presented as a scanned JPG. Granted, anything can be re-typed and scanned, but this looks like SP declares we’ve seen before. And it’s far more believable than briefing sessions typed out from supposed recordings or re-typed “programs” the source of which cannot be verified. You’re learning a thing or two about credibility, Marty!

Anyway… in the accompanying blog entry, Marty writes:

“There should be no mistaking that the intent of the Suppressive Person declare in modern corporate Scientology is the the public killing of the recipient. Sort of like the crucifixion of old Roman times, don’t just kill them, hang em’ up so others will get the message.”

For once, I am almost in agreement with Marty. Like Marty, I understand that the purpose of an SP declare is not so much to kick people out as it is to keep people in. Unlike Marty, I won’t pretend it hasn’t always been that way in Scientology.

Founder L. Ron Hubbard knew that if someone had doubts about Scientology, they weren’t going to add to the bottom line, and worse yet they might even poison the well by spreading doubt among the faithful. As Emma of ESMB put it, once you know Scientology does not work, you can’t unknow it. LRH knew it was best to get these people out before they reach that point, and before they do any damage.

But why not use those forced departures as an opportunity? Put their head on a pike, and use them to enforce a standard of behavior that will keep the faithful in line.

Let’s look at some of the “suppressive acts” for which someone could be declared as outlined by L. Ron Hubbard in HCO PL 23 December 1965, ETHICS – SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW:

  • Public disavowal of Scientology
  • Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists
  • Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology
  • Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology
  • Demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing
  • Giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press
  • Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts

The lists goes on and on and on – you can read the full policy here – but I think you get the idea: Step out of line and you too will be declared the worst of the worst, and give up your only chance for eternal freedom to boot. No soup for you! Now all Hubbard had to was start declaring people to prove that he meant it.

I’m glad that Marty sees it this way, but to blame the head-on-a-pike mentality on “modern corporate Scientology” is ludicrous. The above policy didn’t come from David Miscavige; it came from L. Ron Hubbard.

In 1965.

When David Miscavige was five years old.

“Never be afraid to issue orders that label somebody an SP if you have the real evidence.” — LRH, HCO PL 2 June 1965, HCO DIV 1 ETHICS SECTION WRITING OF AN ETHICS ORDER

Problem is, Marty believes 100% in LRH technology. We can see that the practice of declaring people suppressive and sticking their head on a pike comes from LRH, not from DM as Marty alleges.

Marty already tries to keep his followers from reading dissenting opinion, just like the Church. He’s defended disconnection, just like the Church. He’s tried to vilify his competition, just like the Church.

How long before the Church of Rathbunology declares its first suppressive person, just like the Church?

And when Marty does write his first SP declare, can I be the subject?