Articles by Heidrun Beer  --  Poetry by Heidrun Beer

Analysis and Background of a Recent CoS SP-Declare

(c) 1998 by Heidrun Beer

CONTENT:

1. Why there are no more Scientology lines to respond to

a. Comments on "Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology" (with Hubbard quotes)

2. Logical method for this analysis

a. Comments on the "How to Defeat Verbal Checklist" (with Hubbard quotes)

b. Comments on pricing of services (with Hubbard quotes)

c. Comments on the mis-application of the "Free Speech" precept in the creed (with Hubbard quotes)

d. Sweeping Past Errors Under the Carpet

e. Comments on the non-application of the "Repair of Past Ethics Conditions" technology

f. Frequent contradictions

g. The alleged impossibility to revise and adjust Hubbard policy (with Hubbard quotes)

h. The outdated war against psychiatry (with fascinating! Hubbard quotes about war!)

3. Analysis of a recent SP-Declare (my own, issued in 1998)

a.) Flag assigns "Danger" to CC Vienna  (header and start of my SP-Declare)

b.) Suppressive Acts

c.) Stealing the name "Scientology", copyrights and trademarks

d.) Squirreling

e.) Destruction of spiritual lives and futures

f.) Enemies of the Church

g.) Publicly Attacking Scientology and Church Officials

h.) Ruining the PR for the Whole Spiritual Enhancement Field

i.) Outright Lies

j.) Spiritual Progress in the Freezone

k.) Lining the own pockets

l.) Personal Responsibility of Members and Staff for their Church

m.) The Overt Speaks Loudly out of the Accusation

n.) The "Right to Squirrel"

o.) Real Targets of Attacks

p.) Handle or Diasvow and Disconnect

q.) Malicious Rumormongering

r.) Social Suicide

s.) Recommendation of Rehabilitation Steps for the Church

t.) The Term "Scientologist" Secretly Re-defined!!

u.) Hubbard: "The Work was Free - Keep it so!"

1. Why there are no more Scientology lines to respond to

Hubbard has written a rather sharp text, titled "Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology". Per this reference, today's CoS is guilty of misrepresenting to such an extent that it can be said that there are no more Scientology lines or terminals.

Of course this is not completely true, as many well-trained and able Scientologists are still active. But they can be said to work in "Diaspora", as they have no more central management or public representatives who would participate in the discussion about Scientology, or otherwise bring the views of genuine Scientologists to the attention of the world.

I found it very interesting that the policy-letter I am quoting here has NOT been on the checksheet of the "Keeping ScientologyWorking" Course which I had to do 1986 in Copenhagen - although it is from the "Keeping Scientology Working" (=KSW) series of policy letters and - in my opinion - one of the most important texts in this series.

Hubbard writes in KSW Series 30, "Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology":

"When people complain and are 'dissatisfied with results', it will be found that Dianetics and Scientology were NOT being used on them.

Someone was doing something else and calling it Dianetics and Scientology."

We see here that Hubbard was very aware of the possible perversion of his creation. The policy letter has been written on 29th Sept 1982. Pure coincidence?

Hubbard continues:

"This is, of course, misrepresentation and a violation of trademark and copyright law.

A similar circumstance would occur if somebody put transmission oil in a package marked 'Green Meadow Butter' and sold it and advised its use as 'Green Meadow Butter' when it isn't."

Here we would have the potential entry point for a copyright and trademark lawsuit. It has been stated by Hubbard himself that misrepresentation constitutes a violation of trademark and copyright law. The CoS has often been accused of being in contempt of "Wog"(Non-Scientology) laws. It can be argued whether anybody has to abide by laws he has not agreed upon; but we certainly would expect a church to abide by the laws (policy) that were given by their own founder. And here we have it in Hubbard's own words. Misrepresentation = Copyright and Trademark violation.

In the same policy letter, Hubbard writes (referring to complaints):

"A review of any such cases will bear this out. It is not a matter of making minor errors with the tech. It is not a matter of a poor C/S judgment in applying it. The situation will found to be flagrant."

 

THE SITUATION WILL FOUND TO BE FLAGRANT.

This definitely sounds like a prophecy to me!

More:

"Someone was only pretending it was Dianetics and Scientology and doing something else and for some other reason.

Here we have a problem in labels. The labels 'Dianetics' and 'Scientology' could illegally be placed on anything and that anything might be quite bad.

Thus it is the person misrepresenting who is actionable, not the originator or the properly licensed and supervised entities.

The operation question is 'What did he or they do that they were calling Dianetics and Scientology Standard Tech?' And 'Let me have their names so the misrepresentation can be stopped.'"

 

The following analysis will show that it is this which has happened in the Church of Scientology: they are doing SOMETHING ELSE.

The obvious consequences are that we are no longer talking about the REAL Scientology when we are discussing today's so-called church.

Living in a neighbour country of Germany, I very much doubt that the disastrous PR of Scientology can ever be restored. The hatred is much too much anchored in people's minds already. So it will not make much of a difference for anybody who seeks spiritual help, whether the CoS sells the true philosophy of Hubbard, or some perverted and distorted version of it.

Whether good or bad, it cannot be used anymore, as society has already voted against it, and it is nearly impossible to reverse such a verdict. But for reasons of historical honesty, it would be good to disclose and state the real truth.

2. Logical method for this analysis

Every Scientologist is being taught early in his trainingto really stick to the original Hubbard brand of Scientology. One of the most despised offenses is "Verbal Tech" - teaching personal interpretations rather than the "real thing" written by Hubbard.

There exists an own checklist which is to be used in order to verify whether an information is authentic or not. Like the "Misrepresentation" policy letter, this checklist is also part of the "Keeping Scientology Working" Series (No. 23). It is titled "How to Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist" and consists of the following points (quote):

"1. If it isn't written it isn't true.

2. If it's written, read it.

3. Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?"

Here we have the crucial issue. Today's CoS might (seem to) have the authority, although it is very questionable how the current leadership team arrived at this authority. I personally doubt that people who are guilty of so flagrant notorious policy breaks should get or keep ANY authority.

I want to give only one example here. The correction of this one policy break alone (which gets repeated over and over by any SCN organization worldwide) would COMPLETELY change today's PR situation of the Church of Scientology - as the one main critique point is financial exploitation of members.

Hubbard writes in his policy letter "The Promotional Actions of an Organization" from 20th Nov. 1965, referring to an organizational board who is responsible for financial planning:

"As Financial Planning, sees that pricing of everything sold is not too high to discourage the public and not too low to make the org insolvent."

NOT TOO HIGH TO DISCOURAGE THE PUBLIC. Can there be a greater perversion of such a sound principle than what we see in today's church? The above is from a still valid, un-cancelled and un-revised Hubbard policy.

Is there ANY Scientology org on the planet who even tries to implement this principle? Not that I think it would matter - they would be wiped out by central management in no time. But at least it would be a signal that SOME people still are capable of reading Hubbard's original writings and"think for themselves" with his data.

So we see that the authority of the church's current management is a rather weak point because of their flagrant breaks of policy. But the question of KNOW-HOW it is even more fragile.

For any person who has studied the subject, it is plainly obvious that they do NOT have the KNOW-HOW. Too frequent are their misapplications of their own principles.

For instance: Paying prominent ex-members like David Mayo or Gerald Armstrong huge sums for their silence about the things they have seen and experienced during their time in the church. This is a painful violation of the church's creed, which says:

"We of the Church believe:

[...]

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others; "

How can an "unalienable right" ever be sold for any sum of money? No matter how embarassing the things these ex-members ever could tell, much MORE embarassing is it to watch the church compromise their integrity to the point of publicly acting against such an important point of their creed.

It is not really the (also embarassing) fact that they spent millions of dollars of their members' donations in order to pay off these and other ex-members. The real tragedy is that the church's very leaders are moved by their guilt feelings to such a faulty behaviour.

Not only do they set a sad example for the world (including their own members), they also prove that their spiritual technology of resolving guilt feelings - the "Auditing" - cannot be that good.

This technology has obviously not worked for the managers themselves - or they would be able to calmly face the stories that some of their ex-members have to tell, and would do their best to make amends to them and see that all these old problems get properly cleaned up and repaired, instead of frantically trying to sweep them under the carpet.

Maybe even more harmful than the mis-applications are their NON-APPLICATIONS of Hubbard principles. There exists for instance a whole technical area that deals solely with the correction of old harmful acts or other life failures.

It is called "Repair of Past Ethics Conditions". Properly applied, it would have the potential of completely smoothing out EVERY SINGLE of the difficult situations the church has to face today.

A management who does not apply this essential piece of knowhow, really cannot be called a Scientology management! It would be easy to apply this knowhow - although it would mean a lot of work, but even if you don't believe me now, it COULD finally restore the goodwill of the planet towards the CoS.

There are only two reasons that a Scientology-trained management would not apply "Repair of Past Ethics Conditions" to the situation they have today.

1.) They don't really want to get back the goodwill of society. For a management team this would be a criminal goal-setting, as this goodwill is the very basis of their whole public recognition, expansion and income.

2.) They do not realize that these tools would resolve the situation (or maybe even didn't study them during their training). In this case they would be so incompetent that it were criminal in itself to keep them as managers.

Let's look at the third paragraph of the Verbal Tech Checklist again:

"3. Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?"

It seems to me that the current church management has neither the authority nor the know-how to represent or manage anything that bears the name "Scientology".

They have ursurpated another person's creation because it could be used as a money machine. They are nothing better than parasites.

And like many other parasites, they are going to exploit their host's ressources until it will die from exhaustion. If this church is history in a year or two, it will be only partially Hubbard's fault. Most of the destructive work will have been done by parasites who are not intelligent enough to keep the organism alive that is feeding them.

Although I would not work through the Verbal Tech Checklist any further than that, it might be interesting to see the rest of its points - just to demonstrate how very aware Hubbard was of possible application mistakes, and how much he tried to keep his subject clean and sane:

"4.) If you can't understand it, clarify it.

5.) If you can't clarify it, clear the Mis-Us. [Misunderstood words]

6.) If the Mis-Us won't clear, query it. [This refers to the policy "Orders, query of", which gives the method of properly querying an order, the point being that a queried order is NOT to be fulfilled until completely clarified.]

7.) Has it been altered from the original?

8.) Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.

9.) IF IT CAN'T BE RUN THROUGH AS ABOVE IT'S FALSE! CANCEL IT! And use HCOB 7 Aug. 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING, as needed.

10.) Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it."

We see here that Scientology - in its original version - was far from being a totalitarian system where a herd of robots is run by some authoritarian leader. Quite the opposite - Hubbard put a lot of responsibility onto the shoulders of the plain member and/or staff member. Each of them was supposed to personally make sure that the subject stayed clean and ethical.

This "ideal scene" is pretty much the opposite of what we observe today. The mechanics of what happened here can be studied in Hubbard's materials about suppressive persons and their handling of others.

But Hubbard himself is not completely free of guilt too - aside from his personal history with all its bad optics. We have seen many ingenious artists whose biographies were full of outrageous things. They are still part of our culture, because we admire them for their works.

In Hubbard's case, the work itself is faulty too; but in my opinion not faulty enough to be completely discarded.

We have the old question of "scientific proof" here. This is really an open question, as in the area of spiritual gain it will always be difficult to "prove" the workability of any method beyond the fact of subjective relief, well-being and maybe an expansion of perceptions and abilities. So it might or might not be significant that Hubbard didn't really bother to conduct controlled experiments and carefully document his research.

The two other points which make Hubbard's work faulty are:

A.) Frequent contradictions

B.) The apparent impossibility to change any of Hubbard's rules and adjust them to present time requirements.

A.) Frequent contradictions (see also the analysis of my declare below):

Most Scientology students have encountered the problem of Hubbard's frequent contradictions. There are countless issues where he states one opinion in one work and a totally different one in another. It is difficult to find one's way through the jungle of these thoughts, which can explained only with history - each of them were true in a certain context, but don't necessarily apply in other cases.

He writes for instance extensive policy letters about how to fight enemies; yet we have also the technical rule that unwanted things are getting more solid by opposing them.

This is an important issue, as today's church uses the first principle, very much to the displeasure of the public and press. Would they apply the second principle instead, the scene would be totally different, and we would have a church with such a peaceful appearance that its buddhistic roots would immediately come to mind whenever somebody just mentions "Scientology".

Another example: Hubbard says in the book "Dianetics" that this science is not dealing with demons. Yet in the secret NOTs technology he deals exactly with this subject (the handling of the cases of disembodies spirits).

History explains this: At the time where he wrote "Dianetics", he could not know that he would discover the subject of disembodied spirits later. But it would have been necessary to revise earlier works upon the basis of such later findings, like every thorough scientist would do it - at least with some footnotes.

Other, not less substantial contradictions between early and later works are listed in the analysis below. After all it must be noted that the SP-declare the church issued on me, DOES follow Hubbard policy. It is spiritually painful to perceive the sharp contradictions between such discriminating policy and Hubbard's earlier writings, which represent true wisdom and insight, and are still in use in the training on the church's courses.

It could be speculated whether this is a spiritual trap created with the intention to render well-motivated people inactive. How many times did Scientologists fail to arrange for a needed session or speak out for their religion, just because they were caught in the logical conflict of data and could not make up their mind or find to any decision?

Maybe it is this pain of illogic that prompts today's church members to "look away" and "think around" the contradictions in Hubbard's work. But he also wrote a series of policy letters which are very prominent in the church's training, the so-called "Data Series", where he offers the solution for the logical problems he is posing.

If the church managers were capable of duplicating and applying this material, they would have no difficulties with the logical contradictions in Hubbard's work. Using the principles mentioned below (which deal with the apparent impossibility to change or adjust Hubbard's policy), it would be possible to revise the church's internal "constitution" in a way that would be constructive, democratic and open for evolution. I am only afraid that they have very little time left for such a change.

Hubbard writes in his policy letter "Anatomy of Thought" (the mentioned "Data Series 1" text), talking about typical troubles that an administrator encounters:

"The administrator feels he is dealing with malice, sharp practice, laziness, etc., etc. He can lose all faith in honesty and truthfulness.

The ACTUAL REASON he is getting such breakdowns is:

SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND IDENTITIES.

The people with whom he is dealing can't think to such a degree that they give him insane situations.

[...]

A BASIC LAW is usually confused by students with an INCIDENTAL FACT. This is conceiving a similarity when one, the law, is so far senior to the fact that one could throw the fact away and be no poorer.

[...]

The law, "Objects fall when dropped", is just the same to him as the casual example "a cat jumped off a chair and landed on the floor". Out of this he fixedly keeps in mind two "things he read" - objects fall when dropped, a cat jumped off a chair and landed on the floor. He may see these as having identical value whereas they are similar in subject but widely different in VALUE."

 

The infamous "Disconnection Policy" comes immediately to mind upon reading this paragraph. Substantial Hubbard quotes like "Communication is the universal solvent" or "In doubt communicate" only SEEM to contradict this policy at an equal level of importance. (It says that people have to disconnect from relatives or other persons in their lives who are opposing their working with Scientology - which can become very hard and inhuman if there are children or spouses involved.)

In fact the value or MAGNITUDE of the laws expressed in the two quotes alone is "so far senior" to the disconnection policy, that there is no question what a person should do if presented with the conflict of these two contradicting informations from the same source.

Of course it is sometimes useful to really disconnect from a person in one's life who has a destructive influence. But it is not possible to enforce such a step onto a Scientologist, as there are other, much more fundamental data about the question of communication vs. disconnection. Hubbard himself says "In DOUBT communicate".

Today's Church of Scientology has repeatedly shown that they are completely uncapable of using this logical tool of weighing a "BASIC LAW" against an "INCIDENTAL FACT".

More - in case of a data conflict between (early but fundamental) Hubbard laws and (later) contradicting policy, they nearly invariably seem to choose the policy letters which are less fundamental, but more clear and detailed. An alarming indicator for their need of somebody who does their thinking for them! Who would trust a management who needs their thinking done for them by somebody else?

B.) The alleged impossibility to revise and adjust Hubbard policy:

It has been claimed again and again that Hubbard himself has set his policy in concrete, and that it cannot be changed by any of his successors without breaking his "I am the only source" rule.

This is not true, and anybody who believes this hasn't really studied the essential issues - whether in-, or outside the church.

The following quotes are especially interesting in context with the CoS' stubborn and outdated war against psychiatry, that produces such a lot of bad PR for them.

Hubbard writes in his policy-letter "EXPANSION - THEORY OF POLICY":

"It is not very hard to grasp the basic principle underlying all policy letters and organization.

It is an empirical (observed and proven by observation) fact that nothing remains exactly the same forever.

[...]

This leaves expansion as the only positive action which tends to guarantee survival.

The point of assumption in all policy letters is that we intend to survive and intend so on all dynamics.

To survive, then, one must expand as the only safe condition of operation.

If one remains level, one tends to contract. If one contracts, one's chances of survival diminish."

It can be seen that what Hubbard basically wants his church to do is to ACT IN PRESENT TIME. This is the outcome of his observation that "nothing remains exactly the same forever".

(Note that per Hubbard, the main factor which pulls people out of present time and introverts them into the past is CASE - the accumulation of past pain and failures! It is obvious that the church management can not really act in present time because they never really handled their CASE, although they claim to represent THE technology which is designed to do exactly that!)

Two pages later in the same policy - which belongs to the "Admin Know-How Series" and as such is part of executive training - Hubbard says:

" INTERPRETATION OF POLICY

The organization then has all its policy rigged to expand.

It takes many things to ensure expansion.

Thus when you are interpreting policy, it should be interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it."

It seems to me that today's church is in no way aware of this paragraph in Hubbard's writing (done 1966), which is certainly a BASIC LAW in the definition given in his "Anatomy of Thought"article.

Many of his later policy letters have not proven successful in the aim of expanding the reach and influence of the CoS. See what Hubbard has to say about such policy:

 

"For example, policy bars the entrance of the healing field. This is solely because there is too much trouble with the occupiers of that field and only outright war (with no demand) could solve them. This seems to be a brake on expansion. It is only a brake on expanding by war in the absence of demand.

Therefore the right way to expand is to gradually build up general public demand, let experience by the public see that we heal and when the demand is there and howling for us, reinterpret the policy or abolish it as a brake to expansion.

As one can only expand by external demand for the product, if one seeks to expand in the absence of a specific demand for the product, one has war; and war doesn't lead to expansion any more than burning heretics and other brutalities expanded the Catholic movement.

So one interprets policy against proper expansion that is proper."

This is a highly sensitive paragraph for several reasons:

1.) It gives the instructions about when, how and why to "reinterpret" or "abolish" Hubbard policy.

2.) It proves that Hubbard was very aware of the uselessness of any war. This is again, judged by the "Anatomy of Thought" principles, a "BASIC LAW" which does NOT get implemented by today's church.

Their ongoing crusade against psychiatry might be a result of several other Hubbard writings (his secret orders are documented on the internet); but it is not a result of proper data evaluation per the "Anatomy of Thought" model.

The "BASIC LAW" (that war is of no use) does not get the proper weight in comparison with later writings of less fundamental value. Even if such writings do orchestrate a war with psychiatry or critics, it would be necessary to re-evaluate them against EXPANSION. Once it is obvious that this war creates bad PR and thus IMPEDES expansion, the applied policies would have to be "abolished", as cited above.

3.) Hubbard mentions in this 1966 policy "that we heal". I don't know the legal scene in the US in 1966, but at least now this has become an illegal claim. Of course any Scientology management would have to comply with the local laws in any given area in order to maintain their good standing with the legal authorities - this has been covered extensively in several Hubbard writings.

This would be another point where existing policy would have to be "reinterpreted" or "abolished". Psychosomatic illness is a scientifically proven fact today, so it would be a logical consequence that spiritual work would have a potential effect on people's physical health.

But if it is illegal to claim that "we heal", the staff in any country where this law applies would have to be instructed to FIRST apply the law and then ADJUST any Hubbard policy to this.

There might be other such legal conflicts in other countries. If we use the "Anatomy of Thought" principle again, we have to determine that any policy which would act against the law, is automatically acting against expansion, as it is BREAKING THE COUNTRY'S BASIC AGREEMENTS and therefore would destroy the very fundamental of human interactions, the A-R-C triangle (Affinity-Reality-Communication) in the "Reality" point. I doubt that any Scientology principle can be found which is more fundamental than A-R-C.

This means that interpretation of policy against expansion would force the church to "reinterpret" and "abolish" any Hubbard policy that instructs them to act against local law (the illegal "healing" claim is just one random example).

 

All the quotes and examples so far were just picked in order to show that the current management of the Church of Scientology is not a team that I would consider in any way competent to represent Hubbard or his work (during my discussion time on a.r.s. in 1996 I documented many more such examples).

I therefore will NOT query their SP-declare, as I don't perceive any communication terminal who would be capable of understanding my points.

Here now follows the analysis of my recent SP-declare. It fits seamlessly together with the other demonstrations of incompetence I have shown above.

3. Analysis of a recent SP-Declare

Quotes are indented.

a.) Flag assigns "Danger" to CC Vienna

I received the letter on Nov. 11th. Sender: CC Vienna. It is on the plain yellow colour flash paper - not the famous goldenrod -, and obviously a copy made from some piece of mail they received by fax or in a mail pack (the paper shows the typical grey "noise"of a badly maintained copy machine).

This together with Flag's header shows that the local staff (who would be responsible for my SP-declare) have been bypassed by theSea Org and just used as a mail relay station.

If any senior has to bypass a person on a junior post, this means automatically that this junior post is assigned a condition of "Danger", as he has not properly handled the matter himself.

The fact that Flag has to bypass Vienna in issuing my SP-declare throws an interesting light onto the training level and competence of the staff in Vienna.

The speed of this admin cycle is somewhat tolerable (I have seen much worse things) - this might have something to do with the fact that they still try to get my interview out of an Austrian TV documentary on SCN that will be aired soon, and thought they would make points by telling the TV-crew that I am a declared SP.

But note that my name is misspelled in the header! So much about thoroughly proofreading a text.

b.) Suppressive Acts

Oh wow, that's a great quote - I love it! These few lines would be sufficient to declare the whole current church leadership one by one!

Well, I am sad to say that this is a very narrow definition of the term "Suppressive acts". It would be true only if Hubbard were the only source of spiritual wisdom, and applying his methods would be the only way of reaching spiritual mastery. Hubbard himself knew exactly that he is just one of many who attempt to formulate a safe and efficient "way out" of the spiritual traps that many people on this planet are sitting in.

c.) Stealing the name "Scientology", copyrights and trademarks

This is not true. Any trained Scientologist knows that a very solid situation will only be resolved by viewing it exactly as-is, not by making it bigger, smaller, or changing it in any other way.

I never attempted to reduce the image of the CoS. I tried to show it exactly as-is, in the full tragedy of its criminal incompetence and confusion.

Hubbard's work opened an incredible potential, which the current church management wasted with the most miserable series of stubborn misapplications that I have seen.

They are misrepresenting Hubbard and Scientology to an extent that it could be said they have stolen the name, copyright and trademarks. If there is any chance to ever rehabilitate the reputation of Hubbard and Scientology, then only if this excuse for a management is being fully exposed as what they are - a greedy gang of uneducated wannabe's, who are FAR from understanding what they assigned themselves to take care of.

Although I don't really perceive a chance anymore that the current disastrous PR of the CoS can recover again, I wanted to at least TRY to point out the sad facts to the public. It is a satisfaction in itself to arrive at the truth of a matter and tell it to others.

d.) Squirreling

This is not true. As long as I used Hubbard procedures, I used them without alteration under the guidance of a person who was responsible for staff training at Flag (Ralph Hilton).

This was the first of the mentioned two years. After this time, I proceeded into further study of subjects that have been created by other authors. It is true that I used other methods of spiritual work since then, butthey were no "off-beat" versions of Hubbard technology.

e.) Destruction of spiritual lives and futures

This again is not true. I had seen so many absolutely heartbreaking cases of "destroy peoples' spiritual lives and futures" INSIDE the church that I couldn't support such a system any longer.

Each and every person I have audited outside of the church, had substantial and sometimes spectacular wins. Some of these wins were -sad to say - the plain fact that they finally got any sessions at all.

I would like to add that mentioning any "off-beat" practices, whether I used them or not, is contradicting a "BASIC LAW" given by Hubbard, which says that "Any auditing is better than no auditing".

Any even superficial survey of today's CoS members will reveal thatthey are far from getting enough sessions, whether it's paid auditingor free co-processing between friends.

Paid sessions are scarce because of the church's insane donation structure, and free co-processing between friends is greatly impeded by the strict rules that

a.) nobody can go in session without having a proper C/S instruction

b.) nobody GETS a C/S instruction if he doesn't have completed the expensive "Golden Age of Tech" certainty courses.

Many well-trained and successful auditors have been brutally stopped in their auditing because - after they produced beautiful results over years - they suddenly "needed" the new certainty courses (which are not authored by Hubbard, of course - Hubbard is dead since 12 years).

This is not true. The one person with whom I originally connected (Ralph Hilton) is not a squirrel - he is a person who had been entrusted with staff training at Flag and did case repairs on their paying publics.

Note that Hubbard's definition of "Squirrel" is not equal with "splinter group", "system critic" or "dissident". It is solely used to label a person or group who RENDERS SCIENTOLOGY UNWORKABLE. The only people I know who are notoriously doing that are those who represent today's Church of Scientology.

f.) Enemies of the Church

This is not true. I had loose e-mail contact with several church critics, mainly in order to explain to them the difference between the original Scientology and today's so-called church. But none of the people I really connected with are true enemies of the church.

Neither am I. It seems that that the church management has a hard time conceiving the possibility that somebody who disagrees with them is NOT an enemy at the same time (BTW what does it tell a trained Scientologist if somebody sees himself surrounded by enemies wherever he looks?)

I feel sad about the big chances they have wasted, and sometimes I am furious about an especially ugly betrayal I am reading about. But this doesn't mean that I or my family or friends are enemies of the church.

We wish them that they might clean up their act and reform soon enough to not run completley into the ground. I am not sure how much time they have left. Maybe it's too late already.

g.) Publicly Attacking Scientology and Church Officials

Church officials maybe, but not Scientology officials. As I pointed out in the above paragraphs, there exist no Scientology officials today. The REAL Scientologists live in the underground, in fear of the church's mad-dog attacks (they have eradicated many of the new movements that had been founded by ex-members).

h.) Ruining the PR for the Whole Spiritual Enhancement Field

This is not true. I didn't join any group, I FOUNDED one. And from its very start it was not designed as a freezone group, but as an independent workgroup which has the purpose of studying spiritual enhancement and mental training techniques of various origins, as well as doing further research.

Of course we had and still have special attention on the Scientology scene, as there is so much abuse happening in it that this spoils the scene for every decent movement who engages in spiritual work. Already now we are greeted with a dirty smile by some people, who upon our mentioning of the type of work we are doing, ask in an instant reaction "So you are a sect?"

The current Church of Scientology pollutes the whole field of spiritual enhancement with their greed, abuses, aggressions and paranoia. Any decent person or group who wants to work in this field will have to invest some energy into the cleaning of the Scientology mess.

i.) Outright Lies

Poetic words, but without any substance behind them. Needless to say that nothing of this is in any way true. This would be another interesting topic for a lawsuit, if I had any interest in fighting (see Hubbard's quote about wars in section 2).

The ONLY really substantial wins from spiritual work were those I have seen OUTSIDE of this so-called church. This is one more proof for Hubbard's principle that spiritual gain can happen (and be stable) only in a safe environment.

The permanent stress in and the suppressive tactics of the CoS are an antidote to any spiritual gain, even if they still teach and apply some useful procedures.

j.) Spiritual Progress in the Freezone

These are plain lies. Of course they cannot know it better, as they keep themselves from communicating with anybody in the freezone.

This, by the way, is a flagrant violation of Hubbards "Condition of Doubt", which in its full version would contain a thorough investigation of BOTH sides - a thing which a church ethics officer would never allow. I have commented this on my web-site on http://www.sgmt.at/doubt.htm.

k.) Lining the own pockets

What crap. Line their own pockets? Selling? None of these concepts are of any importance for me or the people who work with me.

Our workgroup is funded by the contributions of "movers" who have seen too much pain and abuse in financial matters to even think of asking for money.

The CoS has really invested a lot of energy into the activityof turning "money" into a painful subject which will trigger violent reactions in people. It is sheer irony that they should write such a sentence!

l.) Personal Responsibility of Members and Staff for their Church

This is not true. I never attacked such staff members. I always made a careful difference between the well motivated staff who "are honestly helping beings to go free", and the ruthless gang of so-called "leaders" who is exploiting the naivety and positive motives of these staff-members.

What I did, and will continue to do, is to ask such staff-members to take responsibility for the activities of their church, as Hubbard asked them to do. He had observed the liabilities of robotically following orders and giving in to outright or implicit threats.

Hubbard had good reasons to write his famous policy letter "Knowledge Reports", where he says:

"The single most notable difference between an upstat, easy-to-live-and work-with group and a downstat, hard-to-live- and-work-with group is that the individual group members themselves enforce the action and mores of the group. That is the difference - no other. In an upstat group, at the first pinprick Joe would probably have a black eye!"

 

It is truly breathtaking to visualize Scientology members and staff who individually "enforce the action and mores" of their church. This - only this and nothing else - could still turn this frightening monster into a constructive movement.

The potential is there. Where are the people who make it a reality?

m.) The Overt Speaks Loudly out of the Accusation

"The overt speaks loudly out of the accusation..." (LRH)

I am impressed once again of how accurately he observed this fact!

Huh? Which efforts? I am in a mystery here.

n.) The "Right to Squirrel"

Oh, sigh. How about this then (original quote from SCN's creed, written 1954, the year of my birth):

"We of the Church believe:

[...]

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments;"

 

Are these fools really trying to claim that it is a suppressive act to perform one of the rights they define in their own creed?

How confused can one get? And this at the same time where they are running a million dollar campaign for religious tolerance, where they use that same creed planet-wide to fight for the tolerance of others towards THEM???

Shouldn't they have applied at least a LITTLE of the "Think for Yourself" medicine they try to sell to the public?

Good - let's have a look at the list and see which Hubbard FUNDAMENTALS I followed by doing these things:

o.) Real Targets of Attacks

This is a plain lie. My "public disavowal" was directed against individuals who caused immeasurable damage to the image of Scientology. It was aimed at ASSISTING the true Scientologists against the abuses of their mis-managers. And in each and every case I proved "green on white" (the colours of Hubbard policy) how exactly the transgressions had happened.

Now THAT's funny. What I did was the opposite!

This is not true. I never rendered Scientology unworkable - my sessions, whether solo or dual, were always successful.

Hubbard himself encouraged his auditors to be creative and further evolve the auditing methodology on many tapes and even in his popular book "Dianetics", where he asks them to start with this book, but use it to "build a better bridge" sooner or later.

The question of "squirreling" is solely depending on whether a method is workable or not. Hubbard himself has tried a lot of things during his research, which he abandoned later because they were not workable. It belongs to the nature of research that experimental or "pilot" processes are used.

Evolution as such is based on this method of "trial and error". To forbid it, would mean to forbid growth and evolution as a whole. Hubbard was well aware of this - that's why his philosophy passes the test whether it's a cult charter or a research of value. The so-called church failes that same test gloriously! See also my chapter on Cults/Sects on http://www.sgmt.at/mte3.htm.

This point (probably referring to Ralph Hilton) does not apply, as I don't consider their HCO of this time to be in any way representative of Scientology.

p.) Handle or Diasvow and Disconnect

This is not true. I definitely did disavow and disconnect from the persons I have found demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts - the current church managers.

This is not true. I did not alter any LRH technology, policy, issues and checksheets. What I used, I used without alteration. When I later proceeded to other people's work, I left LRH's work behind unaltered.

Remarkable! They even copyright their internal admin texts!

q.) Malicious Rumormongering

This is not true. None of the persons I attacked were in any way competently representing Scientology. I simply exposed (and proved with LRH-policy) that and how they were attempting to steal the name, copyright and trademarks of Scientology and fill their own pockets with the money of trustful church-members.

r.) Social Suicide

That's fine with me. The church has managed to damage the reputation of Scientology so thoroughly that using any of their "marks" would be social suicide anyway.

s.) Recommendation of Rehabilitation Steps for the Church of Scientology

No, that's what the CHURCH will have to do if they ever want to get back into any good standing with society. It's a nearly perfect list of steps which would guarantee them successful re-integration.

You of the OSA-staff who were waiting for my publishing my reaction to the declare, don't brush this off like you did with my earlier recommendations! If you in the church

A. Stop committing present time overts and cease all attacks and suppressions,

B. Publish an announcement to the effect that you realize your actions were ignorant and unfounded,

B1. Pay off every dept you owe to your ex-members and ex-staff, plus repair payments to the victims of your abuses,

B2. Make any other possible amends in the cases where your abuse has harmed anybody,

C. Re-train yourself and your staff from the very start of the training route, and

D. Publish planet-wide that you have accomplished all this

E. (This step is an internal one and would not apply)

- you MIGHT still have a chance to restore the public goodwill and positive opinion about the Church of Scientology.

You see again - like in so many other cases - that Hubbard has described the exact steps for you to get out of the mess.

For god's sake, read this interpretation of the A-E steps which I just designed for the use of you as a group/church, and consider implementing them! If you fail in that, you will be history in a very short time.

So many people going through this text, and still nobody spots that my name has been misspelled :-))

t.) The Term "Scientologist" Secretly Re-defined!!

Hear! Hear! The term "Scientologist" is no longer denoting a person who applies Scientology to improve their lives (Hubbard's original defintion)! It has been twisted into an official membership thing!!!

u.) Hubbard: "The Work was Free - Keep it so!"

Oh! They are digging their own graves with these last sentences.

This is what Hubbard had to say about it:

"I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a galaxy away.

You won’t always be here, but before you go, whisper this to your sons, and their sons, "The work was free. Keep it so."

 

- oder lesen Sie mehr auf unserer

- or return for more information to our

This page last changed on: 30. Mär 13