“Crush regging” – why it’s inevitable no matter who runs the Church of Scientology

Debbie Cook is the latest in a line of high-profile Scientologists to say that David Miscavige is the problem with Scientology.

As outsiders, we know that isn’t the case – that the true harm in Scientology comes from the policies written by L. Ron Hubbard. But there is one aspect in which Ms. Cook has a point – the “crush regging,” Scientologese for the mad rush for money.

And now I’m going to tell you why that probably won’t change, even if David Miscavige is deposed.

The problem stems from Hubbard’s system of management by statistics, in which every job is assigned a statistic, which is the exclusive measure of job performance. But Hubbard’s idiotically over-simplified version does not use mathematically valid statistical analysis – instead, Scientologists are instructed to graph their stats and then judge their condition by eyeballing the angle of the lines on the graph. (Never mind that you can change your condition simply by printing your graph on a different size piece of paper.)

According to L. Ron Hubbard, if the line goes up from last week, your stat is in “normal” or “affluence” (“screaming affluence” if it’s really good) and all is OK. If the line goes down, it’s in “danger” and you’re in trouble. A sharp crash is “non-existance,” Scientologese for “deep shit.”

But the real problem comes if your stat line is slightly down or level, in which case it’s a condition of “emergency” – and long-term emergency is treated as danger.

That’s a key point: a long-term level stat is danger. So if Scientologist A sells $100 worth of services one week and $125 the next, she’s in affluence, but if Scilon B sitting in the next office sells $100,000 per week for 6 weeks running, he’s in trouble.

Now, we all know that there is a pinnacle of productivity in most jobs. In the real world, someone who sells $100,000 per week for a straight year will probably get a bonus and an award plaque. In Scientology, that same star sales person would get the Ethics Officer crawling up her ass with a flashlight and a baseball bat. In Scientology, there’s a constant demand for more, more, more. Never mind how demanding or demented David Miscavige is; that is what is written in LRH policy.

Now, for most Scientology jobs, there is a way around this: You have a “stat analysis” done, and find a reason that the stat is invalid. There is almost always a reason. Then you simply change your stat and start over. When you reach your pinnacle, you have the stat declared invalid again. Alternatively, one can meter one’s own job performance, improving just enough to keep the stat in Affluence but never working to one’s potential. I saw both things all the time during my tenure in a Scientology company. (This is one reason that companies that use Hubbard’s management “tech” only ever enjoy limited success.)

But when it comes to “registrars” – Scientology sales people – they can’t do that, because Hubbard put the registar’s stat in policy:

“The statistic of the Registrar is changed to the GROSS INCOME OF THE ORG. […] It is NOT how many people the Registrar sees, nor how many items sold but the gross income from all items sold.” — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 14 July 1970, REGISTRAR STATISTIC

(This, by the way, is one of those things that makes me want to knock some Scientology heads together. Gross income? Hubbard is talking about a supposed religion here, you idiots! YOUR religion!)

So, you see, registrars can’t change their stat. And they can only meter their own performance for so long.

This is something Marty Rathbun and Debbie Cook can’t get around. Even if they took over the Chrch themselves, they would invariably assign the registrars the GI stat, and the registrars would inevitably hit a pinnacle of productivity, putting the stat in Danger and forcing them to keep making changes (per LRH’s “formula” for what to do when a stat is in Danger) until the stats start to go up. How do you do that? Well, sooner or later you get the idea to hit up your richest customers parishoners for donations, because that’s the only way to keep the stats rising. And when they dry up, you hit up everyone. And when they run out of money, you start advising them to mortgage their houses and max out credit cards. After all, LRH said that gross income must keep increasing. And as every Scientologist knows, LRH had all the answers to everything.

Marty, Mike, and Debbie can complain all they want about Miscavige’s focus on money, but that’s Hubbard policy. It’s not a new problem, nor is it exclusive to Miscavige’s management; David Mayo complained about it in the 1980s (MP3 link) and Paulette Cooper wrote about it in the 70s. The sad fact is that Miscavige, evil runt though he may be, is hog-tied by the policies of the Ol’ Fraud Hisself, L. Ron Hubbard.

And a long as Rathbun, Rinder, Cook, and other self-proclaimed Scientologists believe in Hubbard, they are going to run into the same problems.

ML,
Caliwog

Read more about Hubbard’s fucked-up system of management by statistics

Positioning, Misunderstanding Of

Back in college I read a fantastic book called Positioning, which is now considered a marketing classic. The basic idea behind Positioning is that brands occupy a sort of ladder in the mind, and the goal is to be on the top step. If I ask you what the number-one fast food chain is, chances are you will say McDonalds. If I ask you about cola, you’ll probably think of Coke. Those brands occupy the lead position in your mind.

So when I went to work for a company that uses Scientology’s “Administrative Technology,” I was pleased to see that Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was also a fan of Positioning; in fact, The Positioning Era, an article which preceded the book, is reprinted in the current Admin Tech volumes as HCO PL 13 September 1988R. (For those who have this PDF, it’s in MS3 under Marketing Series.)

The realization that Scientology embraced Positioning was like running into an old friend in a foreign country. I was hugely relieved. Finally, I thought, some proven marketing methodolody that actually makes sense!

But my joy was short-lived when I turned the page and came to a Hubbard policy called HCO PL 30 January 1979, POSITIONING, PHILOSOPHIC THEORY. The beginning is classic Hubbard:

“Although Madison Avenue has used ‘POSITIONING’ for some years, it has not fully understood the actual philosophical background that makes ‘POSITIONING’ work.

“There is an excellent booklet called The Positioning Era put out by Ries Capiello Colwell… It is an excellent booklet. It does not, however, give the philosophical background which, probably, is not generally known. Probably it was never discovered. I had to work it out myself.” — LRH

Did you get that? Jack Trout and Al Ries, the marketing geniuses (and I don’t say that lightly) who came up with Positioning, did not understand the philosophic theory behind it. It took L. Ron Hubbard to straighten them out.

Here’s the true tragicomedy: Once you read the entire policy letter, it becomes clear that Hubbard has no idea what Trout and Ries’ Positioning is all about. The subject appears to have gone entirely over his head.

Hubbard’s idea of positioning is that one can influence someone’s opinion by comparing the unfamiliar to the familiar. Which, by the way, is true. You may have no idea what frog legs taste like, but if I tell you they taste like chicken, you’ll understand.

Hubbard writes:

Positioning takes advantage of a fact that one can compare the thing he is trying to get the other person to understand with desirable or undesirable objects… one can position above a familiar object, with a familiar object, below a familiar object, at, to, against and away from a familiar object. This opens the door to an opportunity to establish an opinion of the thing one is seeking to communicate. You might call it an ‘instant’ opinion.

“For example, we know that an astronaut is a familiar, highly regarded being. Thus, we position a product above, with, below, at, to, against or away from an astronaut.” — LRH

Of course, Hubbard can’t resist taking a swipe at his old friends, the “psychs” and the IRS:

“We know people loathe psychiatry, so we communicate something as being loathsome as saying it is below (worse than) psychiatry. We could also make people think something was good by saying it was against psychiatry, bad because it would bring them to psychiatry, or awful because it used psychiatrists (like the tax people).” — LRH

(This, by the way, is one reason Scientologists come up with such ridiculous opinions. Society at large does not loathe psychiatry, but Scns believe this because Hubbard said so.)

Again, this is sound marketing. But original to Hubbard? Not by a long shot. Advertisers have been using it for years — beer ads showing people having a good time, watch ads showing people getting off private jets, etc. Nothing new. And yet in a different policy (HCO PL 27 Septemper 1979, ADS AND COPYWRITING), Hubbard says this that doing it this way is wrong:

“Here’s an example of an ad that doesn’t communicate… It’s actually supposed to be a cigarette ad but it shows somebody getting dragged on a sled through the snow. It’s obvious what they’re selling – they’re selling snow!” — LRH

As someone with a fair bit of experience in advertising, stuff like this makes me wonder if there isn’t a higher-than-normal suicide rate among “wog” marketing professionals forced to use the Admin Tech.

Anyway, let’s get back to POSITIONING, PHILOSOPHIC THEORY. Hubbard goes on to say how the pros on Madison Avenue are doing it all wrong:

“A common use of positioning in advertising is to take a product which… is regarded by [the public] as the leader in the field and then positioning a new, untried, unfamiliar product above it, with it, or just below it…

“Apparently, from talking to ad guys, they thought that by putting their products in the pecking order against the top product they made their product higher or just with or just below the top hen. That’s what the advertising people get for associating with such ‘experts’ as psychologists.” — LRH

This last bit proves that Hubbard doesn’t understand what Positioning is all about. In fact, Trout and Reis came right out and differentiated their concept of brand positioning from the sort of product positioning LRH is talking about:

“Yesterday, positioning was used in a narrow sense to mean what the advertiser did to his product. Today, positioning is used in a broader sense to mean what the advertising does for the product in the prospects mind.” — Trout/Reis

How did Hubbard miss this?

Trout and Ries are very clear: If a brand owns the top rung on a ladder, like McDonalds does on the fast food ladder, it is very difficult to unseat them. That’s the whole concept of Positioning – it’s better, they say, to try to create a new ladder – for example, fresh-made fast food or “The Un-Cola”.

Now, if Hubbard really understood Positioning, he’d be talking about trying creating a new ladder in the mind by making Scientology synonymous with some concept – say, freedom or charity. The idea would be that when people think of freedom, they think of Scientology.

Instead, he goes off on a tangent about finding a concept that people can relate to, and then writing copy and generating illustrations that will give people an instant favorable opinion. To be fair, this does have some validity. And one could argue that “positioning” is the correct word to use, in the sense that one is positioning a product with something people find favorable. But to say that this is the previously-undiscovered philosophic theory behind Trout and Reis’ thesis just shows that Hubbard had no idea what these guys were talking about. The two concepts simply don’t connect.

Fortunately, at the companies I worked for, my fellow marketers (mostly Scientologists) did have a good understanding of Positioning and we were able to put it to use with excellent success. From what I see of Church ads, the Co$ doesn’t — and I suppose that’s a good thing.

This is why it irks me when people defend Hubbard by saying that, for all his lousy personality traits, his “tech” was basically good. Here we see Hubbard claiming to have discovered the philosophy behind Positioning, and yet it’s clear to anyone with a two-year degree in marketing that he doesn’t understand the basic concept.

Much of Hubbard’s marketing “tech” is good and usable, but very little of it is original – it’s a collection of good ideas that were already in widespread use in the real world. Where Hubbard does claim to have some original insight, he comes across as naïve and oblivious. As we discussed recently in The Art Series, the same is true of his artistic “tech” – and we have the awful music and movies to prove it. I’ve read anecdotes about ship captains who were appalled by his seamanship. It seems that any time an expert in any field weighs in, they find Hubbard’s “philosophies” to be baseless and ineffectual.

And yet Hubbard’s followers are convinced that he has uncovered the true secrets of life, the universe and everything.

Perhaps there’s one thing at which Hubbard did have some true expertise: He was one hell of a con man.

ML,
Caliwog

Can Scientology be reformed?

Ray Randolph’s post on Marty’s blog has sparked a renewed debate on whether Scientology can be reformed in such a way as to leave out the harmful bits.

Several protesters cite the Bible as an example. There are millions of Christians who don’t stone adulterers to death or kill their daughters for having premarital sex, even though the Bible tells them to. Can’t Scientology undergo a similar transformation?

Here’s the problem with the Bible argument: The Bible was written thousands of years ago by unknown authors in a handful of ancient languages. It has been subject to numerous translations and interpretations, to the point that the entire legitimacy of Christianity, according to some, rests on whether a single word should be translated as “virgin” or “maiden.”

That’s not the case with Scientology, whose tenets were written by a single man, one whose existence is not in question, in more-or-less plain English – and where the English is less plain, there are extensive definitions given for made-up or redefined words. And where the Bible is often terse and vague, Scientology author L. Ron Hubbard’s writings are laboriously long and incredibly specific.

So are Hubbard’s followers free to pick and choose which bits of the tech they believe in? Not according to Hubbard, they aren’t.

Most people are familiar with the Keeping Scientology Working (KSW) policy, in which Hubbard stated that his “technology” must be applied exactly as written in order to deliver the promised results. But KSW isn’t the only example of this – it is a recurring theme throughout Scientology. (I’ve cited a few examples at the bottom of this post, but I recommend you read a few random policies and see for yourself how often this comes up.)

Hubbard clearly saw that people interpret religion as they see fit, so he admonished his followers not to do the same. He even came up with a term for this: Squirreling. Squirreling is defined by LRH as “Altering Scientology and offbeat practices. It is a bad thing.” To be a squirrel in Scientology to be one of the devil’s minions. Hubbard reminds his followers over and over and over again that the tech must be used in its entirety and exactly as written in order to work.

If you don’t understand this, then you aren’t as familiar with Scientology “tech” as you ought to be.

Scientology is not just a set of kooky beliefs. If all Scientology did was take people’s money and convince them that they are space aliens trapped in human bodies, this blog wouldn’t exist.

But Scientology does much more than that. It attracts people through unscrupulous means and tells them whatever they need to hear to get them signed up. It encourages people to forgo standard, proven medical treatment for quackery invented by a known charlatan. It actively seeks to isolate members, encourages them to dismiss criticism of the subject without reading it, and teaches that devotion to the group is the highest possible calling. And it does all this with one hand pointing to the sky and the other reaching into its victim’s wallets.

People say Free Zone or independent Scientology is harmless – but is it? If a Free Zoner uses auditing and touch assists to treat his cancer instead of going to the doctor, is that harmless? If a parent takes their schizophrenic child off of their psychiatric medication because Hubbard says “Psychs are evil,” is that harmless? If people accept that the proper treatment for a person having a psychotic break is to lock her in a room with untrained laymen who refuse to talk to her, is that harmless?

Just because a group can’t yet afford to hire private investigators or build their own private prison camp doesn’t mean they are practicing a “kinder, gentler” Scientology.

Protesting Scientology is not a game. It’s not a fun reason to wear a mask on Saturday or something to write about during your coffee break. Scientology hurts people. Scientology kills people. And I am not just being dramatic – the practice of Scientology has caused injury and death. That’s not an idle accusation, THAT IS A PROVEN FACT.

Can Scientology be reformed? No fucking way. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t know enough about Scientology.

I urge you to learn.

ML,
Caliwog

“When you want results you had better use standard techniques and procedures. I have sweated through their testing for years… ‘failures’ are caused by use of non-standard techniques and procedures.” — LRH
“‘Offbeat’ Processing,” Ability Magazine Issue 78, June 1958

“Standard tech works. Use it and it only.” — LRH
HCOB 20 July 1972 Issue II, DISTRACTIVE AND ADDITIVE QUESTIONS AND ORDERS

“No student may be advised to do anything except standard technology.” — LRH
HCO PL 20 February 1964, REGULATIONS

Caliwog to the Church: Leave Marty alone! Caliwog to Marty: Look up “Black op”!

In today’s blog entry, entitled Miscavige Black Ops* Squad Hits Corpus Christi, Marty talks about the harassment he’s getting from private investigators apparently hired by the Church of Scientology. According to Marty, he and his wife Mosey can’t even go out to dinner without being followed.

Some might accuse Marty of exaggerating, but knowing what I know about the Co$, I’m sure Marty’s accusations are true. And for the record, I think it’s reprehensible.

The Church may see Marty as an enemy, but following him and harassing him is morally wrong. It also makes the Church of Scientology look ridiculous. And as much as I love it when the Church looks ridiculous, I think the Co$ should call off their attack dogs and let Marty live in peace.

Who is really to blame?

Marty blames David Miscavige for the PIs, but as I’ve pointed out before, DM is simply following the policy laid out by L. Ron Hubbard.

I’ve discussed LRH’s directives about private investigators as described in the Manual of Justice, a secret document distributed only to Scientology management. (See The Truth about Scientology and Private Investigators.) Hubbard was careful to keep any mention of these shady tactics away from “public” Scientologists (which might explain skepticism of Marty’s accusations by Church members).

I’ve only found one reference to detectives or private investigators in open policy, and that was this brief mention in HCO PL (Policy Letter) 15 August 1960, DEPT OF GOVT AFFAIRS:

“All contracts, filings with the government, all tax reports and their preparation, corporation minutes, annual meetings, legal papers, suits against and by the corporation, whether HASI Ltd or HCO Ltd., all legal investigatory work and detectives, all contacts with government agents, bureaus and departments, all assistance to governments, messages to governments, handling answers from governments or courts shall be cared for by the Department, whether to advance or protect Scientology or its corporations by government or legal channels.” — LRH [emphasis added]

Scant though it may be, this mention does provide evidence that hiring private investigators is Scientology policy as directed by L. Ron Hubbard. David Miscavige was not even four months old when this policy was written.

One might wonder why a religion would have any need for detectives or private investigators. One might also wonder why Marty is so intent on defending L. Ron Hubbard, the man who is responsible for the harassment about which he is complaining… but that’s Scientology for you.

* A quick side note to Marty: While you’re word-clearing “Ponzi scheme,” you might want to look up “black ops”. Black operations are, by definition, covert. As per LRH’s policy on “noisy investigation,” DM’s goons are not covert; they are very, very overt (hence your ease in spotting them). Therefore, this is not really a black op, just as the Super Power building is not really a Ponzi scheme. Better watch those MUs**, Marty; the True Believers are going to nail you on that.

** MU: Misunderstood word. A big no-no according to LRH: “Never go past a word you do not fully understand,” he wrote. “The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood.” (And here you were, thinking you gave up second-semester chemistry because the professor assigned too much work.)

ML,
Caliwog

The truth about Scientology and private investigators

One of the most frequent accusations leveled against David Miscavige by Marty Rathbun and other Independents is the hiring of private investigators. The whole concept of a church employing private investigators is pretty darn ridiculous, and Marty is right to condemn it – but he’s not right to blame this practice on David Miscavige. Good ol’ Slappy is simply following orders from the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. Proof can be found in Hubbard’s Manual of Justice, published in 1959, about a year before DM was born:

Overt investigation of someone or something attacking us by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense. It’s very effective. — LRH

Okay, so LRH hired private investigators – but surely he was just using them to gather intelligence, and not to intimidate, as DM seems to do, right?

Wrong.

Often investigation by a private detective has alone closed up an entheta* source or a squirrel** organisation. In fact at this writing I can’t remember a time when it hasn’t! The reason for this is simple…The smell of police or private detectives caused them to fly, to close down, to confess. — LRH

* Entheta: "Enturbulated theta." Scientologese for bad news or anti-Scientology sentiment.

** Squirrel: Altered Scientology practices, or one who uses such altered practices.

Okay… but surely LRH wouldn’t condone such massive spending on PIs, as David Miscavige is doing? After all, their invoices are being paid by parishioners’ fees… sorry, donations.

Hire them and damn the cost when you need to. –LRH

Hmmmm.

In my opinion, Marty is right to condemn David Miscavige for using private investigators to harass ex-Scientologists, members of the media, and other perceived enemies of the Church. But he’s wrong to give the impression that these crimes originated with David Miscavige. That’s a lie, and as a former member of Scientology management, no one should know that better than Marty Rathbun.

ML,
Caliwog

P.S.: If you haven’t read the Manual of Justice, you should – it’s a quick read and it shows a side of LRH that the Independents don’t want you to see. Cof$ acknowledged the MoJ as a legitimate Scientology document in a 1995 court case, Religious Technology Center vs. Netcom. You can read it online at Xenu.net or download scans of the original from Wikileaks.

Abortions and Children in the Sea Org

The following article was written by Aaron Saxton, a former member of Scientology management. Abortion is obviously an emotionally-charged subject, and I happen to disagree with Aaron’s viewpoint; I am pro-choice. But the thing I respect and admire most about Aaron – and the reason I am willing to post his writing here – is that he has always been brutally honest about the things he did in Scientology. I believe he does this is because it is important to him (as it is to me) that outsiders understand the true nature of Scientology, and that making people understand is more important than making himself look good. He sees the bigger picture.

I have chosen to post Aaron’s opinions just as he wrote them. If you are strongly pro-choice, you may find some of what he says objectionable. Please understand that Aaron’s purpose in writing this – and my purpose in posting it – is to explain the issue of abortion in the Sea Org. The issue here is not whether abortion is right or wrong; it is that someone could not only completely compromise his personal morals and ethics, but convince others to do the same, and both with alarming ease. It is an illustration of just how strong a grip Scientology has on the minds of its followers, and it presents clear evidence that, despite what the Independents may say, abortions in the Sea Org are not merely the will of David Miscavige, but in fact a belief that is inherent in Scientology.

Thank you in advance for reading with an open mind. — Caliwog

The topic of abortions in the Sea Org is a touchy subject.

It is more about the viewpoint held on children vs. the needs of the world, more so than the topic of abortions itself. In this society and others, the subject raises emotions that cause riots, fighting and even murder. The subject of abortion will be up for debate for many years. Is it murder? Does the fetus have a right to live? We are all entitled to our own opinions on such.

However, in the Sea Organization (SO) a much more insidious approach is not used, but installed by L. Ron Hubbard even before the person has become pregnant. LRH ran the SO in the early years for over 15 years, and for a man who “loved children” he sure saw to it that raising them in the SO was so terrible, no one would want one. Or is there even more evil to it than first can be seen?

If you, the reader, for example were to learn that your unborn child would be born with a severe disability, and probably have a poor life ahead of them, not to mention your inability to raise them to their full potential, would you consider abortion? It certainly is a different thought process you run through, isn’t it, than if you knew your child was going to be born and become the President. So mindset is everything when making a decision. Sometimes theft is survival, other times it is petty. Sometimes killing is defense, and other times it is plain murder. Circumstances. So let us look at SO circumstance.

In the Sea Org I ordered abortions from women as young as 14 years of age.

The rationale behind it was based on a set of logic principles that the reader will have to adjust to in order to understand it. To this day, I am somewhat quiet on the subject of abortions. I have always, my whole life, been against abortion, yet I was prepared to order it and enforce it, without orders from others. In a relationship outside of the SO I was asked by a woman I got pregnant to attend an abortion. The hoses, the dead fetus thrown in the bin was a horrible experience for me – for her it was life changing. It opened my eyes, but I never allowed the emotion of that incident to cloud my judgment about what I had done, and why I did it.

LRH management terminals* since the early days of the SO (60’s) have done the same, women and men.

(* Terminal: L. Ron Hubbard’s word for a person who does a job. Note the dehumanization inherent in the term. — Caliwog)

It is going to be important to instill in the reader another viewpoint, one which is hard to adjust to because you are probably a sane, rational person. Sea Org members who ask for abortions, and those that carry out abortions (i.e. the staff and the pregnant women and their inevitable spouses) often abort, or direct another to have an abortion (as LRH did and others since) for another reason.

One has to imagine the following set of circumstances and BELIEVE with all your heart and mind, that the following is 100% true:

1. The world is going to run itself into the ground in a few years because of evil people.
2. People have been around for 74 quadrillion years and we are nearing the end of the swindling spiral, meaning redemption and salvation is near impossible.
3. There is no other technology that can free the mind of man other than LRH technology.
4. That the only group capable of performing the impossible task of clearing Earth and the other millions of planets is the Sea Org.
5. At this precise moment Scientology is in danger of being shut down, and if that happens, man will lose his last chance ever at salvation.
6. Death and forgoing this life is no big deal. If you’re going to come back again and again, you can “do other things in other lifetimes” and THIS lifetime is the FIRST lifetime you have ever had a chance to HELP mankind.

These are laughable, however these are the very factors one must envelop themselves in, if they are to understand what it means to be in the Sea Org. Imagine for a moment that Hitler had won and that the majority of Earth was under the third Reich. And imagine for a moment there was a group that could possibly stop it, and they required your immediate support. Would you abandon them to have a child if “just another 10 years” would make the difference?

Cults often use “Time emergency” as a factor. There is always a judgment day, always an end date. LRH set it for 2000, although that Flag Order is not quoted much anymore. It is a common technique in all cults to install a time restriction where in the individual feels that there is a limited amount of time. This means the person has no time to think, or act, or live a normal life – all activities must be directed towards the goals of the Cult in order to see its success. The individual does this to ensure their own success and also the success of future generations.

Through this mindset we will now add more factors:

1. You are in the Sea Org.
2. You work from 9am until at least 11pm every single day. There are no holidays. There is no difference between Sunday and Thursday, or this year and next year.
3. You live with the people you work with. Life is work, there is no free time. “Home” means a bed, plain and simple.
4. When you join the Sea Org, you know, agree and accept that you are doing it because dedication above and beyond other humans is required. As part of this, you accept to forgo all freedoms. You agree that your hobbies, your family, music, TV, parks, holidays, trips, indeed all things in life are forgone in order to accomplish the goals of the Sea Org.
5. You find it easy to not be very human, and a child is something you will have to attend to when for years you have attended to nothing but your group. You haven’t cooked in 20 years, you haven’t driven a car in 20 years, had an ATM card, a cheque book, shopped for food, you haven’t been around children, studied nothing about them, haven’t gone t school in 20 years – what the hell do you know about children?

Now add children to the equation.

They do not work. It is natural, as it is genetic, that a woman yearns to be a mother. And it is natural that a man wishes to see their partner or any number of partners have children. It is not a conscious decision, although in current society we are asked to make it a conscious decision. Our genetic makeup means we have no say in the matter.

We do however have a say in our conscious choices to avoid situations that threaten our survival.

If you are of the belief as stated above, then anything that detracts from this, is of course, contra-survival. And evil. The same reason you do not go off and spend time with your family is the same reason why you do not want to have children – they are distractions. And expensive.

Abortions in the Sea Org are often the choices those individuals make. More hurtful however, is that often it is just one of the partners who desires the abortion, while the other partner desires the child. The problem is that having a child means leaving the Sea Org, at least for a few years, and with that comes feelings of guilt that one is letting down the team. Remember the mindset here – review the above points and you will see how this can happen. There is no difference in routing out* of the SO and having a child if it means your abandoning your team. Remember, it is a time emergency, there is no time left for Earth and you going off to have family is off-purpose.

(* Routing out: Following the correct procedure to leave, as opposed to “blowing,” which means leaving suddenly without following procedure. — Caliwog)

Because of this, we can see how easy it is to get an abortion.

But sometimes, the abortion is not desired, and both parties will desire the child’s birth. They know that it can’t be good for the group if they go, but they want the child – this is where survival (as correctly established by evolution) takes over and provides a driving force in the person. These people are hurt the most.

However, from a SO point of view with the task at hand for civilization, it is better for mankind to have the child killed. They do not need a policy on abortion – just on what is best for mankind.

This was my rational when asking such persons to do exactly this. “Consider the greatest good for the greatest number” and within that statement one must consider what LRH stated about the condition of Earth and man’s chance without Scientology.

As far as children go, one can see how Scientologists treat their children. See Marty Rathbun’s blog on Karen, Heber Jentzsch’s ex-wife. She discusses her Child being in the SO at the age of 10 – yet what was she doing allowing this to happen?

Simply put, she considered it the greatest good for her child, herself and mankind. Now she has found an out – although it makes no sense to blame the SO, when she put her kid there in the first place! Blame and finger pointing is a favorite pastime of independent Scientologists as it gives them someone and something to blame for their stupidity.

If we disassemble the lies in Scientology and we see that Scientology is no solution for mankind, nor is its technology of any real benefit, we would not have people considering abortions. For the public Scientologist it is hard to understand why SO members would have abortions – although they can clearly see members for 25 years not having children – but say nothing. They too are under the spell that Scientology must be preserved at all costs and they are totally aware that without the SO, Scientology would have already been banned and thrown away many years ago.

To understand abortions, you must understand cults. Remember, a lot of Scientologists blow $200,000 on Scientology and will not even pay for their own children to go to worthless universities. Their logic has been warped by using an equation that can sometimes get the right answer, but for the purposes of Scientology, always gets the right answer to screw them up a little more.

Without understanding the commitments that SO members face, you could never really understand this issue. While others will say it is from management, I must disagree. I never receive orders to ask anyone to have an abortion, ever. I instigated the action on my own cognition as do many SO members – it is based on the LRH formula “Greatest good for the greatest number” which does not have to include human qualities, human emotions, morality or the well being of any individual above and beyond a mere mathematical calculation.

Such a formula then compared with LRH data on where we are – take for example RJ67* – and we see the choice is clear: Give all to Scientology, and if you don’t, you are a namby pamby… as in Keeping Scientology Working Series One**. Even Scientology’s biggest follower Tim Cruise said as much in his video – you are either in all the way, or you are out.

(* RJ67: Ron’s Journal 67, a taped lecture in which LRH talks about the discovery of OT III (the Xenu story). You can download RJ67 from this Wikileaks page. — Caliwog)

(** Keeping Scientology Working (KSW): LRH policy basically saying that Scientology is the only truth. Perhaps the most important policy in Scientology. You can read it here. — Caliwog)

In the SO this is even more cut and dried.

While I feel for those who have had abortions, I can assure you none were tied down or given drugs to force them. They were brainwashed BEFORE they were pregnant, and all they had to do was be shown the LRH policies in order to make their decision final.

I never forced anyone to abort – I showed them the LRH references**. And there has never been a Knowledge Report* on me or anyone else for asking for an abortion (and if there are, they are far and few) because at the end of the day all you have to do is show someone specific LRH references and you can make them consider murder is acceptable.

(* Knowledge Report: A report submitted to Ethics about off-policy acts. Scientologists are encouraged to tattle on each other with KRs. — Caliwog)

(** I wanted to ad my $0.02 on this, because it’s an important point. Scientology teaches that “What’s true for you is true.” However, notice that all that Aaron had to do was show the LRH policies and people would make the desired decision. “What’s true for you” implies that if you don’t believe in abortion, you shouldn’t have one – yet look at the results Aaron got. That’s what Scientology does – what’s true for LRH is true for you. — Caliwog)

If you can convince people to give up their lives, give up their families, money, give up being part of a civilized society, what would make you think it would be hard to make them kill a child?

Nothing. As plenty of affidavits have shown.

And the biggest thing that upsets these people is not that they were asked to abort, but that they agreed and on some level saw it as the right thing to do. They killed their own children. And to that I say, they must learn to forgive themselves and move on.

Not everything can be healed by finger pointing or an auditing session.

Humans make bad choices and live to not make them again. That is pain, it is real and it is human. I am glad that at least they can cry about those lost children, because some in the SO who had an abortion never shed a tear.

And that is the truly terrifying thing.

Aaron Saxton, July 2010