Monthly Archives: May 2011

The Big Lie

“…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation… more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

“Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

And so it goes with the Independent Scientology movement, or at least those who follow Marty Rathbun.

In his latest blog entry, Obstruction of Justice – which, by the way, has nothing to do with actual obstruction of actual justice – Marty Rathbun once again tries to blame the harassment leveled against him by the Church on David Miscavige. This time, they are apparently aware of his travel plans, and are both tracking him and trying to bug his wife when he is out of town.

Marty’s accusations are most likely true*; as we all know, the Church of Scientology really is that slimy.

(* Except for one little detail that one of you guys pointed out: Marty says they sent his wife a dildo at her “work address,” but last month Marty told us that April 29th was her last day of “outside work.” Hmm…)

The problem I have is when Marty treats all of this as if its something new – and as if he never had any hand in this sort of harassment.

May I present Exhibit A: this video by Mark Bunker of Xenu TV. Mark was in Clearwater, Florida, on a trip for the Lisa McPherson trust. The evening before he was scheduled to leave, he got a call in his hotel room from a man saying he worked at the front desk, asking if Mark was leaving the next day and offering to arrange a cab. But when Mark went down to the front desk a few minutes later, the desk clerks were all female. One of them confirmed that she’d had a phone call about a cab from someone who knew Mark’s hotel room number.

This happened in 1999, when Marty Rathbun was Inspector General and a member of the Board of Directors of the Religious Technology Center – a member of David Miscavige’s senior staff. At the same time, Mike Rinder was Executive Director of Scientology’s dreaded Office of Special Affairs.

In other words, Mike was the head spy and Marty was the assistant head thug. (“Assistant to the head thug” if you’re a fan of The Office.)

Now, maybe it’s me, but I think that’s a rather important detail, don’t you think? No question, given the roles they have admitted having in the Church, both Marty and Mike would have at least been aware of the campaign against Mark Bunker. Marty goes so far as to allege that the Church has people who can access airline records – how would he know that?

And yet, whenever he talks about how the Church harasses him and his wife, he stops short of talking about his own participation in such activities.

I believe that is commonly known as “a lie of omission.”

Frankly, I don’t see why Marty and Mike won’t be open and frank about this. They could say they’ve changed. They could say they were wrong and were only going along with what Miscavige told them to do, and that they now think it was wrong. Why don’t they?

Probably because they don’t think it’s wrong. After all, this sort of behavior wasn’t invented by Miscavige; it was dictated by L. Ron Hubbard.

But Marty and Mike have decided that the outside world doesn’t need to know that. After all, they’re just trying to sell auditing, and revealing the truth about Hubbard – as both Rathbun and Miscavige know – is bad for business. Better to just blame everything on Miscavige, leave out their own role, and hope that Hitler was right, and that people who trust you are willing to swallow immense amounts of bullshit.

Judging from the comments on Marty’s site – at least the ones he allows to be published – that seems to be working.

Heil Marty! Heil Hubbard!

ML,
Caliwog

Advertisements

Um… No: OTVII Edition

Someone made a comment recently that Marty Rathbun is starting to buy into his own bullshit, just like Hubbard did. And I’m starting to think that myself.

Check out Marty’s blog entry Bridge Collapse Catastrophe or Instant Karma?. There’s a scan of a success story from someone who apparently completed OT7 in 18 months. (OT7 is a very long level that requires the sucker customer Scientologist to return to Florida every 6 months to be checked. Real money maker, that one.) Again, it’s pretty clear to me that this is just an anecdotal success story. Marty’s interpretation:

After getting thoroughly exposed on this blog for using OT VII – and its endless six month check line – as a never-ending control and cash cow line, Miscavige has ordered Flag to get OT VII’s off the line in as little as eighteen months. No joke.

Um… no.

First of all, the idea that Marty “exposed” OTVII as one of Scientology’s cash cows is utter bullshit. Marty really is channeling Hubbard by laying claim to other people’s accomplishments! Ex-Scios and Independents have been complaining about the length of OTVII since long before the days when Marty helped Miscavige turn the Church into what it is now. So, Marty, STFU and stop trying to take credit for all the work that REAL protesters have done.

Second, how one derives from a single success story that David Miscavige has ORDERED things done is beyond me. It’s crazy-talk. And it hurts the legitimate protest movement, because it makes it look like the only way to oppose the organized Church is to grasp at straws.

Unless… unless… hey, wait — unless Marty is still working for the Church and is trying to make those who oppose Miscavige sound like delusional idiots! Oh my God… it’s REVERSE SCIENTOLOGY PROTESTING!!!

And to think — Tony Ortega, editor-in-chief of the Village Voice, takes this guy seriously. Really, Ton?

ML,
Caliwog

History of Fair Game, Part 2: A timeline of the Fair Game law

A lot of people have given evidence of how Fair Game was practiced; let’s look at the policy background — a scriptural investigation, if you will.

I want to preface with a reminder of something Aaron Saxton frequently brings up: Along with the publicly-accessible policy I’ve quoted here, L. Ron Hubbard wrote orders and advices that were not available to public Scientologists (a convenient fact for former Scientologists who like to blame all of the Scientology’s evils solely on David Miscavige). Such documentation is very hard to find. Lucky for us, Hubbard was too much of a narcissist to completely hide his self-perceived brilliance. If we combine broadly-available Scientology policy with the actions undertaken by the Church when Hubbard was in charge, we can clearly divine his true intentions, even with several pieces of the puzzle missing.

It’s also worth noting that the policies concerning Fair Game have, as far as I can tell, not changed between 1991 and now – a time period that encompasses Rathbun and Rinder’s ascension to power, period of influence, departure, and vilification from/by the Church of Scientology.

Okay, enough prefacing; let’s start the timeline.

EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FAIR GAME POLICY

In January 1963, the FDA raided the Church’s Washington storefront and seized several E-Meters, claiming the Church was making illegal claims that they could cure diseases. That same year, the Australian state of Victoria opened a Board of Inquiry into Scientology. This resulted in the Anderson Report, published in 1965, which called Scientology “a delusional belief system, based on fiction and fallacies and propagated by falsehood and deception.” Scientology was banned in several Australian states as a result.

MARCH 1965

Fair Game was first defined in HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965 Issue I, ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW, during a period when L. Ron Hubbard was on a serious kick of what I like to call “ethic cleansing.” This policy was replaced by a slightly reworded version (see December 1965, below) and the original is difficult to find, but we know it defined FAIR GAME as follows:

“By Fair Game is meant, without rights for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or group…”

The policy goes on:

“The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty…

“A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.”

This same policy letter also contains the original laundry list of Scientology crimes that I talked about in my blog entry What are your crimes?.

In HCO PL 7 March 1965 Issue III, JUSTICE OFFENSES & PENALTIES, Hubbard codifies punishments and talks more about Fair Game:

“HIGH CRIMES. These are covered in HCO Policy Letters March 7, 1965, Issues I and II, and consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts.

“Cancellation of Certificates, Classifications and Awards and becoming fair game are amongst the penalties which can be leveled for this type of offense as well as those recommended by Committees of Evidence.”

Ten days later, Hubbard issued another PL (17 March 1965 Issue II, HCO (DIVISION 1) JUSTICE – FAIR GAME LAW – ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – THE SOURCE OF THE FAIR GAME LAW) that talks about the necessity of the Fair Game law:

“Democracy always faces this problem and so far never solved it. The constitution of the US permits people to refuse to testify if it would incriminate them (5th Amendment). Yet it sits by in courts letting people who are pledged to overthrow the government yet use their privilege to invoke the 5th Amendment. Idiocy is the right word for it. It does not make sense to extend the protection of the group to the person seeking to destroy the group. That’s like encouraging a disease.”

Did you get that? According to Hubbard, those who want to speak out against the government should not be protected by the fifth amendment! Hubbard was fond of criticizing Russia and the Communists, and yet here he clearly illustrates his disdain for a society that allows freedom of speech. Anyway, Hubbard continues (notes in brackets are mine):

“Hence we have a Fair Game Law. […]

“So, in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology also rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefits of Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists. If the person never was a member of the group or if the person had been a member of it, the result is the same. […]

“In neither case may certificate cancellation or the Fair Game Law be invoked unless the student or pc [“preclear,” a Scientology customer] blow [leave suddenly without proper “routing-out” procedures] or the public resignation also includes a threat to leave Scientology.”

Hubbard is saying that if you are an enemy of Scientology, you don’t deserve protection. And he apparently feels the US should adopt the same policy. (Yet another reason why Scientology isn’t just a kooky-but-harmless religion.)

APRIL 1965

Hubbard released several PLs on April 5th, 1965. One was titled “HCO JUSTICE DATA RE ACADEMY & HGC – HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON – THE BASIS OF INSANITY,” a long diatribe against suppressive persons (SPs). It’s a fantastic read as it reveals Hubbard’s vitriol against those who oppose Scientology, and I plan to talk about it in a future blog entry. Hubbard makes one mention of the Fair Game law, labeling those who quit Scientology courses and ask for refunds as SPs and saying “The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside our Justice Codes.”

AUGUST 1965

Hubbard mentions Fair Game again in HCO PL 16 August 1965 Issue II, COLLECTION FROM SPs AND PTSs:

“Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game.”

SEPTEMBER 1965

In HCO Executive Letter 27 September 1965 (which did not become part of the policy volumes), LRH briefly mentions how Fair Game was to be used against a squirrel group, and in doing so ties the Fair Game policy to the oft-quoted definition of Enemy:

“Treatment — They are each fair game, can be sued or harassed.”

DECEMBER 1965

Hubbard begins to back-track on Fair Game. He issues HCO PL 23 December 1965, which replaces HCO PL 7 March 1965 Issue I but keeps the title SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY – THE FAIR GAME LAW. Much of it is the same, but the definition of Fair Game has changed to the one modern-day Scientologists like to use:

“By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.”

1966

L. Ron Hubbard creates the Guardian’s Office, predecessor of today’s Office of Special Affairs (OSA).

1967

Hubbard issues HCO PL 18 October 1967 Issue IV, PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS, which includes the famous definition of ENEMY. Here are the penalties for all four conditions:

“LIABILITY — Suspension of Pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm and day and night confinement to org premises.

“TREASON — Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on org premises or dismissal from post and debarment from premises.

“DOUBT — Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be trained or processed. Not to be communicated with or argued with.

“ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

Taken in context, these penalties would appear to apply only to staff and/or Sea Org members in trouble with the group, but later activities would prove that non-Scientologists could be treated as Enemies.

JULY 1968

Two significant Fair Game-related policies were issued in ’68. First, LRH issued HCO PL 21 July 1968, a new version of PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS, with a note that this policy applied to both staff and Sea Org members. Punishments were redefined as follows:

“LIABILITY – Dirty grey rag on left arm. May be employed at any additional work. Day and night confinement to premises.

“DOUBT – May be confined in or be barred from premises. Handcuff on left wrist. May be fined up to the amount carelessness or neglect has cost org in actual money.

“ENEMY – Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org.

TREASON – May be turned over to civil authorities. Full background to be explored for purposes of prosecution. May not be protected by the rights and fair practices he sought to destroy for others. May be restrained or debarred. Not to be communicated with. Debarred from training and processing and advanced courses forever. Not covered by amnesties.”

Note that “tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed” is gone from Enemy, but “May be restrained or imprisoned” has been added. Independent Scientologists blame David Miscavige for imprisoning Scientologists, but as you can see, doing so is LRH policy.

OCTOBER 1968

Hubbard issues the second significant policy, HCO PL 21 October 1968, CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME, a three-sentence PL reads as follows:

“The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.

“FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

“This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.”

This is where I think Scientologists get hoisted by their own petard.

First, they like to point out that Fair Game was canceled — but by their own definition, Fair Game only means that one is not “protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.” If that’s the way the policy had been applied, why was it causing bad public relations?

Second, the policy says that only the LABEL of Fair Game will cease, and that SP handling does not change. And it didn’t change, as the world would soon discover.

DECEMBER 1968

Hubbard records Ron’s Journal 68 (RJ68), which you can download here. In it, Hubbard praises the Guardian’s Office, Scientology’s “Dirty Tricks” department run by Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue. (Remember, modern-day Scientology blames the Guardian’s Office for bad behavior that Hubbard supposedly did not know about.) Hubbard also says that an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights; claims the existence of “psychiatric death camps;” and states “I am not from this planet.”

1970

In HCO PL 6 October 1970 Issue III, Ethics Penalties, Hubbard cancels HCO PL 18 Oct. ’67 – that’s the “Tricked, sued, lied to, destroyed” PL which had already been canceled and replaced.

1971

Hubbard issues HCO PL 19 October 1971, ETHICS PENALTIES REINSTATED, which reinstates HCO PL 21 July 1968, the revised ethics penalties (which had never been canceled in the first place – the best explanation is that Hubbard erred in the October 6, 1970 PL). “May be restrained or imprisoned” is, once again, official Scientology policy.

1971 was also the year that Paulette Cooper published The Scandal of Scientology (which you can read online here.

1973-1977

These were the most vicious years of Scientology’s Guardian Office, in which Scientology ran operations against Gabriel Cazares, mayor of Clearwater, Florida, where Scientology was setting up its headquarters; Operation Freakout, the campaign of terror against Paulette Cooper; and Operation Snow White, the theft of US government files with the intention of weeding out negative information about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, and which led to the conviction and jailing of eleven Church executives, including Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue. (Hubbard escaped prosecution and never did come to his wife’s aid. So much for standing by your spouse!) In particular, the operations against Cazares and Cooper illustrated that the concepts of tricking, lying to, suing and destroying enemies of Scientology were alive and well. (For more details on GO operations of the early 1970s, check out this page on Xenu.net.)

1979

HCO PL 17 January 1979, A NEW TYPE OF CRIME, cites the December 1965 PL (ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW) as a reference. This policy talks about “technical perversions” (i.e. intentionally doing Scientology wrong) and makes such actions (including “verbal tech”) a suppressive act.

1980

Hubbard issues HCO PL 22 July 1980, ETHICS – CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME, MORE ABOUT. Twelve years after (supposedly) canceling Fair Game, and seven months after several Scientologist, including Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue, were sentenced to prison, Hubbard gives an explanation and does a bit of history revision:

“This policy clarifies the cancellation of a former Scientology justice procedure called ‘Fair Game’. The purpose of this policy letter is to bring about a clear understanding of what Fair Game was and why it was canceled and to prevent any alter-is of its former purpose and function.

“‘Fair Game’ first appeared in Scientology ethics terminology in 1965. It was a term used only in connection with individuals who had been expelled from the Church.

“Its use was discontinued in 1968.

“When a person was expelled from the Church it was called ‘Fair Game’; it meant that he would not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.

[…]

“REASON FOR CANCELLATION OF ‘FAIR GAME’

“‘Fair Game’ was canceled, and has remained canceled, because it was found that it could be misinterpreted by those anti-pathetic to Scientology to authorize justice actions of a more severe nature than expulsion.

“There was no reason to retain it as part of our justice system if there was any possibility of it being interpreted in that way.”

1986

L. Ron Hubbard dies, and David Miscavige takes over as head of the Church of Scientology.

1991

A new version of the green-bound Admin Tech volumes, which contain management-related HCO PLs, is printed, and all policies mentioning Fair Game are purged. Among the changes:

  • The HIGH CRIMES section of the March 7 1965 Issue III PL, JUSTICE OFFENCES AND PENALTIES (quoted above) is revised to eliminate the reference to March 7 Issues I and II. (Issue I, you will recall, was replaced by the December 1965 PL; Issue II, CERTIFICATE CANCELLATION, remains.)
  • HCO PL 23 December 1965, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW is renamed, with THE FAIR GAME LAW dropped from the title and the Fair Game definition eliminated from the text. The following addendum is tacked on: “Nothing in this policy letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violation of the laws of the land or intentional legal wrongs. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties prescribed by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.”
  • HCO PL 17 March 1965 Issue II, JUSTICE – FAIR GAME LAW – ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – THE SOURCE OF THE FAIR GAME LAW is renamed HCO PL March 7 Issue IV* and the title shortened to ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS. All references to the Fair Game law are deleted, although the bit about the 5th Amendment remains.
  • HCO PL 5 April 1965, that terrific rant against SPs, is edited from “The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside our Justice Codes” to “The ex-student should realize this puts him outside our Justice Codes.” However, the date code on the policy is not amended with “R” (Revised) as per policy.
  • HCO PL 16 August 1965, COLLECTION FROM SPs and PTSes, is changed from “Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game” to “…as they are no longer protected by Church Justice Codes.” Again, there is no indication that the policy has been revised.
  • HCPO PL 21 July 1968, PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS, is deleted.

* Another policy from March 17th, RIGHTS OF A STAFF MEMBER, STUDENTS AND PRECLEARS TO JUSTICE, was also labeled Issue II, so this was either an error in the originals or in the 1970s printing of the OEC volumes.

Later in 1991, Time Magazine published its cover story, Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power.

2001

The Church re-issues the Management Series and OEC Volume 0 (four of the eleven Admin Tech books; the MS volumes are a re-organized collection of the policies in the other volumes). The 1991 revisions to the policies mentioned above remain.

And that’s where we are today, with all mentions of Hubbard’s Fair Game and the Enemy policies deleted from the Admin Tech volumes.

Now, it’s worth noting that while some policies were revised, others (such as JUSTICE PENALTIES) were simply removed from the green volumes. That doesn’t mean these policies don’t exist; according to the rules laid out by Hubbard, PLs that are not expressly canceled or revised remain in effect.

So now you know some of the history of Fair Game and Enemy policies, as written by L. Ron Hubbard and partially whitewashed by Church management in 1991. You have even seen the Hubbard-authored policy that makes it okay to “restrain” and “imprison” Scientologists who aren’t with the program.

Some “religion,” eh?

ML,
Caliwog

Read Part 1:History of Fair Game: What did Hubbard really say?

Another look at Fair Game: History of Fair Game by Wise Old Goat

History of Fair Game, Part 1: What did Hubbard really say?

A recent comment exchange on Marty’s site (starting here) led me to do some research into the Fair Game law. Now, when critics cite the Fair Game law, they often refer to the following passage from a Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter (HCO PL) which has long since been deleted from the Management volumes:

“ENEMY – SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

Source: HCO PL 18 Oct 1967 Issue IV, PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS

Scientologists, both Independent and Church-going, frequently fire back with this definition:

“A Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game’. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.”

Source: HCO PL 23 Dec 1965, ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW

But what they won’t tell you – in fact, what they may not even know – is that this was Hubbard’s second definition of Fair Game. In the first version of this policy, issued on March 7th, 1965 and now very difficult to find, Hubbard wrote:

“By Fair Game is meant, without rights for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is ‘fair game’.”

The old definition of Fair Game does not appear in the Admin Tech volumes (and as of 2001, all references to Fair Game appear to have been eliminated altogether). I’ve read that the original Fair Game definition appeared in the 1968 version of Introduction to Scientology Ethics; the current version has also been scrubbed of all Fair Game references.

And what of the phrase “May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed”? Technically, that phrase refers not to fair game, but to people in the condition of Enemy, and that PL was replaced by a slightly softer version a year later:

“May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org.”

Source: HCO PL 21 JULY 1968, PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS

This definition was canceled in 1970, and then reinstated in 1971 (HCO PL 19 October 1971, ETHICS PENALTIES REINSTATED). So the softer definition – complete with the phrase “May be restrained or imprisoned” – remains valid L. Ron Hubbard policy to this day.

So what did Hubbard really mean? For most of us, this is a fairly black and white issue. Hubbard may have canceled his original Fair Game and Enemy definitions, but that doesn’t change the fact that he came up with them in the first place. Unless, of course, you are a Scientologist. To their way of thinking, the fact that Hubbard replaced the original definitions means the originals no longer exist. Intent may matter to us, but not to a Scientologist – at least, not as far as Hubbard is concerned.

In my next blog entry, we’ll comb through LRH’s policy to trace the history of the Fair Game law. I’ll present the facts, and you can make your own decision about Hubbard’s intentions – and about whether Fair Game ever really was canceled.

ML,
Caliwog

“Push-button McScientology:” Hubbard would have loved it!

A while back, Marty Rathbun published an entry criticizing David Miscavige for what he called push-button McScientology. The “document” he reveals is another alleged transcript from a half-decade-old speech, but let’s give Marty the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s accurate, if outdated. Anyway, it refers to DM wanting to install menu-driven audio-visual (A/V) kiosks at Scientology churches to introduce people to the subject, rather than hear about it from live people. The idea is that people can get instant Scientology answers to whatever issue they face, all at the push of a button.

Marty accuses David Miscavige of trying to eliminate the human factor from Scientology dissemination, and he’s correct. But from what I know about Scientology, I think DM’s video idea plays right into what Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard would have wanted.

Despite its reliance on cheap labor, very little of the manpower that runs Scientology is used to actually teach Scientology. While “auditing” (counseling) is done with another person – and eventually on one’s own – much of Scientology study consists of taking courses, which are delivered in Scientology course rooms.

Course rooms don’t have teachers; they have “supervisors” – and they aren’t allowed to teach. They can only steer “students” to LRH policies or dictionaries, look at their clay demos (Scientologists build models out of clay to show they understand concepts), and test them on what they have studied, but the actual information they are learning is supposed to come exclusively from tapes or writings – never from the Supervisor’s mouth. That way, there is no room for interpretation; students learn exactly what LRH wanted them to learn. And they are further conditioned to credit no one but LRH for delivering that information.

Matter of fact, explaining LRH’s “technology” is a sin — a major one. Christians, Jews and Muslims are free to sit up all night and debate the meaning of Bible or Koran passages, but not Scientologists! They are only allowed to show each other written references. Telling someone about a policy or bulletin is considered “verbal tech” and is a major sin. From the Admin Dictionary:

“VERBAL TECH: about the most ghastly thing to have around is verbal tech which means tech without reference to an HCOB [official Scientology bulletin] and direct handling out of the actual material.”

Here’s some of what the Ol’ Fraud Hisself had to say about verbal tech (sorry to shout, but LRH wrote the first policy all in caps):

“ANY PERSON FOUND TO BE USING VERBAL TECH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A COURT OF ETHICS.

“THE CHARGES ARE: GIVING OUT DATA WHICH IS CONTRARY TO HCO BULLETINS OR POLICY LETTERS, OR OBSTRUCTING THEIR USE OR APPLICATION, CORRUPTING THEIR INTENT, ALTERING THEIR CONTENT IN ANY WAY, INTERPRETING THEM VERBALLY OR OTHERWISE FOR ANOTHER, OR PRETENDING TO QUOTE THEM WITHOUT SHOWING THE ACTUAL ISSUE.

“ANY ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES CONSTITUTES VERBAL TECH AND IS ACTIONABLE PER THE ABOVE.” — HCOB/HCOPL 15 Feb 1979, VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES

“The worst thing would be to pretend to have a course but have missing materials and Supervisors giving verbal advice or tech.” — HCOB 27 June 1971, SUPERVISOR TWO-WAY COMM EXPLAINED

“If it isn’t written it isn’t true.” — HCOB 9 Feb 1979, HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH

Now, in the real world, one way to see if a student understands a concept is to have him explain it in his own words. But in Scientology, that’s a major no-no. Know what the Scientologese word for “learn” is? It’s “duplicate.” Now you know why.

It gets better: Not only can supervisors not actually teach the work, but students may not discuss it with each other. Most course room “study” is done on one’s own, but students must occasionally work together, a process known as “twinning.” Since Scientology is all about isolation, it’s no surprise that Hubbard wrote a long policy dictating the rules of twinning, including a warning that students must not exchange opinions about the material:

“The issues on verbal tech, HCOB 9 Feb 79 HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH and HCOB 15 Feb 79 VERBAL TECH PENALTIES, should be well-known in the course room.

“Even so, students, particularly when they are new, sometimes get into an exchange of verbal data or opinion while they are twinning. A Supervisor must be on the alert for this and step in to handle at once when he observes it happening. He … always refers the students to the above mentioned HCOBs on verbal tech.” — HCOB 21 August 1979, TWINNING

This is why I think Hubbard would have loved the idea of an all-A/V org – it’s the perfect way to wipe out the scourge of “verbal tech.” Even the best trained Scientologist can’t be expected to remember everything about the Tech – hell, not even Hubbard could keep it all straight. So why risk missing out on a chance to provide the right answer and sign up a new Scientologist?

The idea of A/V dissemination is not new. Remember, Hubbard was obsessed with making films – a fact David Miscavige would know, as he was one of Hubbard’s favorite cameramen. But at the time Hubbard was alive, reproducing films was an expensive and time-consuming process. Video was still in its infancy, and quality was not good.

Today, we have the ability to instantly broadcast HD-quality video to any place in the world from a central server, providing perfect quality with total control over the message – exactly what LRH wanted. If LRH was alive today, he might well give David Miscavige a gold star, a written commendation, and a pat on his little head for his A/V kiosk concept.

ML,
Caliwog

Fear of the E-Meter – and of life outside

While searching the “tech” for an upcoming blog post, I came across this quote from L. Ron Hubbard that I just had to share. Notes in brackets are mine:

“If the pc invalidates the instrument [the E-meter], says, ‘Oh, one of them things. I hear as how they ain’t regular,’ the auditor knows he is dealing with a case he will have to use a dredge on to find bottom. For this character sees in the E-Meter something which is going to ‘find him out,’ something he cannot cheat and lie around, something which will locate and bring sunlight into the dark caverns of his loathsome and horrendous guilt. In this E-Meter he sees a tattletale which will expose his extracurricular activities on the second dynamic [cheating on his wife], his masturbation at the age of one and the real reason dogs hate him, why he shoots ducks and committed grand larceny in college and makes improper proposals in the little boys’ room. He doesn’t spell it ‘E-Meter,’ he spells it ‘Enemy.’ And when put on the instrument he will usually register almost ‘off the bottom’; that is to say, the range expander will be over at minus, the tone handle so low the light flickers and the sensitivity knob so shut down that when asked about the time he murdered his mother, the auditor has to have a magnifying glass to see if the needle moved.”

I’d comment, but I’m not exactly sure what to say.

Now, a smarter Scientologist – and in my experience, they run the gamut from blind believers to the truly intelligent – might say that Hubbard was being sarcastic with some of his more extreme examples like infant masturbation and matricide. Others wouldn’t – Hubbard continuously painted a picture of wogs routinely doing randomly senseless things (see my earlier post Data Series 1: You are an idiot).

But smart or stupid, the implication is the same: The world outside Scientology is a crazy place, and anyone who objects to Scientology practices is not just wrong – they are dangerous.

This is the mindset promoted by L. Ron Hubbard. It continues under Miscavige, where protesters are dismissed as crazy bigots, Independents are harangued by ridiculous men with hat-cams, and serious threats are silenced by any means necessary. And it continues in the Independent movement, where those who dare point out the holes in Hubbard’s logic, or try to talk about Rathbun and Rinder’s extensive role in Scientology’s crimes, are dismissed as agents of Miscavige.

By the way, I hope you all caught this line in Marty’s latest blog entry:

“For anyone interpreting this as an invitation for people to witch hunt and willy-nilly call people plants and trolls, please read it again. It is not. You rarely see me engage in that, and it bothers me when I see trigger happy people attempting to shoot someone for treason on the blog with little provocation.”

Marty: Are you fucking SERIOUS?!?! And the worst part is, your potential customers followers will believe this boldface lie and will probably thank you for it.

You are getting better and better at the fine art of lying to the suckers people who look up to you and trust you. Hubbard would be proud, and Miscavige ought to be jealous.

ML,
Caliwog

Church member admits it ain’t all roses

One of the sites I follow regularly is www.martyrathbunblog.com, a blog run by Church of Scientology members specifically targeted at Marty Rathbun. It’s hugely entertaining stuff, and the comments section is filled with “me-too” replies that almost make Marty’s sheep look like free thinkers. For us, it’s an interesting glimpse into what Scientologists surround themselves with and how they convince themselves that all this bullshit is okay.

But over the last week, there have been some snippets in a couple of posts that are surprisingly and disturbingly honest. The first is an admission that things are far from perfect in the Church of Scientology.

These excerpts are from a post called I Want My Real Friends Back – Sig Interviews, a series of interviews with a Scientologist who supposedly left the Church, got auditing from Marty, and came back into the fold. At first I thought they were fictional, but the revelations in this latest post make me think this is a real person who is doing this as part of their “lower conditions”.

Here are some snippets of what “Sig” says:

“[Independent Scientologists] talk as though they have a right to judge. They are so outraged by things that COB or the church is supposed to have done.

“But the truth is they are not qualified to judge or to point a finger at all.

“In reality, actually, it is worse among the indies – much worse. There is far more out ethics, back stabbing, betrayal, natter and so on….

“I suppose you have to decide what the goals and purposes are that you want to see being achieved, and then go with the side that is going to achieve that, even if it is not perfect.”

This may sound like I’m grasping at straws – something I routinely accuse Marty of doing – but anyone who knows about Scientology knows that this is actually a pretty big deal. Saying things are “much worse” on the Indie side implies problems on the Church side, and “even if it’s not perfect” speaks for itself.

This sort of complaining is known in Scientology as “nattering,” and according to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, if you natter, it’s not because you are actually making a legitimate criticism of something that is really wrong. Nope – if you natter, the problem is you.

Hubbard named several contradictory causes of nattering in his writings. Here are a few:

1) Nattering is caused by missed withholds, i.e. something the Scientologist does not want to talk about but his auditor has not managed to harrangue out of him:

“What are these natterings, upsets, ARC breaks…? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds… If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out. The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people failed to find out about them.” HCOB 22 Febuary 1962

“A nattery pc has withholds… That’s real actual basic tech.” HCOB 12 June 1970

“In an area in which someone’s withholds have caused natter about management, there is a decay of confidence in the management.” HCOPL 6 Feb 1982

2) Overts (sins) in general:

“The Pro [auditor] would recognize by the pc’s natter, or lack of previous gain, that the pc had overts.” (HCOB 7 Sept 1964 Issue II)

“It could be that a person is nattering or feels critical, in which case the Ethics Officer or MAA [Master At Arms] could have the person write up his O/Ws [Overts and Withholds].” HCOB 2 March 1984R

3) Overts (sins) against another person:

“…If a pc is nattering about somebody the pc has overts
on that somebody.” HCOB 31 January 1970

(Get that? If you natter about Hubbard, you have sins against Hubbard. If you natter against Miscavige, or Marty Rathbun, or me, same deal. Makes you wonder about those time Hubbard bitched about Nixon*.)

4) Misunderstood or misdefined words:

“Course natter stems entirely from the students’ non-comprehension of words and data.” HCOPL 24 Sept 1964

“Every nattery or non-progressing student or pc is hung up in the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cycle [a downward spiral caused by a misdefined word]. And every such student or pc has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile.” HCOB 21 February 1966

There are more reasons and more quotes, but I think you get my point: If people complain, it’s not because there is something to complain about; the problem is something the complainer did.

So what do you think – is the problem that “Sig” has withholds, overts, and misdefined words?

Or are there really problems with Scientology and the Church, and “Sig” and her interviewer just let their guard down?

ML,
Caliwog

* From HCO PL 22 June 1974, TECH: “When one adopts false tech he will then wind up with confusion as false tech will not deliver a product. It delivers a confusion — like psychiatry or Nixon economics.” Hubbard also wrote an anti-Nixon diatribe in 1960, which he made into a policy (HCOB 24 April 1960, CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY). For the record, good for him.