Scientology Conspiracies (part 1)

One of those weeks was mine oft the other one was pure pique against IRS and so forth over in Washington trying to seize Scientology in the United States, and I had to tell them no. And I told them no. And they’re told for the moment. Now I will draw a deep breath and wind up some more steam and say no a little bit louder next time, and then maybe they won’t try again.

THE WELL—ROUNDED AUDITOR

A lecture given on 29 June 1965

It is pretty much a documented fact that there has been a conspiracy against Dianetics and Scientology which goes beyond mere theory or speculation.

Yet many Scientologist like to or maybe want to believe in what I derisively call “the lone Miscavige theory”. Maybe because it doesn’t tax the intellect and because Miscavige is such an obvious bette noir or made in Hollywood villain.

A clue should be that what is called the mainstream media. An organization not known for its veracity supports this contention as well. Probably because it fits nicely with the “cult of personality” concept and the idea that their “followers” are nothing but “brain washed”, “cool-aid” drinking minions.

In other words archetype of the typical “cult” where adherents are viewed as either victims or mindless drones who need a “competent” “mental health professional”.

Unfortunately it is not just the media that promotes this twisted mythology but those who call themselves “independent ‘Scientologists'” who now say they were powerless in stopping Miscavige despite the contrary evidence that at one time they were willing accessories to his rise to power and now claim the “Nuremberg Defense”.

But the fact is that Miscavige’s “leadership” is unsupported by any documented evidence or Church canon making him as he and some call him the “Pope of Scientology”.

To quote the self proclaimed “leader” of Scientology:

“People keep saying, ‘How’d you get power?’ ” Miscavige said. “Nobody gives you power. I’ll tell you what power is. Power in my estimation is if people will listen to you. That’s it.”

The Man Behind Scientology

St. Petersburg Times, published October 25, 1998

Thus instead of applying the applied philosophy of Scientology. Many Scientologists have embraced Miscavige’s verbal tech and his crazy interpretations:

Verbal tech and crazy interpretations of tech because of somebody’s Mis-Us make the tech of admin, auditing tech and ethics tech unworkable.

BTBs, BPLs, Bs of I, FDDs, which are patently destructive are accepted and followed even when they contradict HCO PLs or LRH EDs which have, when followed, improved things for decades.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 JANUARY 1979

INCOME CUTATIVES AND SALARY SUM

Even worse much of this “(v)erbal tech” and many of these “crazy interpretations”  are promoted by former staff and executives at the highest levels of the Organization giving such undue “authority”.

An example that I’ll go into greater detail later is the assertion that L Ron Hubbard personally ordered the “abolishment” of the Guardian’s Office and when asked to produce a written policy letter confirming this I was told I didn’t have “the background” and was not aware of any “evals” conducted by Hubbard etc.

Even so not even L Ron Hubbard himself can cancel anything established by policy without writing a policy to cancel that specific policy:

 

No Aides Order or Flag Bureaux Data Letter or Executive Directive, Direc- tive or Base Order of any type or kind, written or verbal, may alter or cancel any policy letter or HCOB. These remain senior.

HCO Policy Letters are senior in admin. HCO Bulletins are senior to all other orders in tech.

Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters. Only HCOBs may revise or cancel HCOBs.

No Aides Order or other directive or order may abolish a network or org or change the form of an org.

HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.

Telexes which inform orgs or executives of modifications or cancellations of HCO PLs or HCOBs must quote the revision HCO PL or HCOB, and the revision must in fact exist and itself be issued and follow.

Any practice by which junior issues such as directives abolish networks or make off-policy changes can only result in the destruction of networks, orgs and tech.

This is therefore a HIGH CRIME policy letter and it is an offense both to follow or obey or issue any verbal or written order or directive which is contrary to or changes or “abolishes” anything set up in HCO Policy Letters or HCOBs, including the downgrade of “that’s out-of-date” or “that’s been cancelled” with out showing the HCO PL or HCOB which revises or cancels.

HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.

 

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 AUGUST 1972

SENIORITY OF ORDERS

 

Yet the fact is that HCOPL 1 March 1966 The Guardian  was never canceled and still exists as valid policy according to the above policy and the following:

 

If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy.

HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy Letters.

No officer or Scientology personnel may set aside policy even when requesting revision.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 MARCH 1965  Issue II

POLICY: SOURCE OF

So it really doesn’t matter what Hubbard said or more accurately what someone says he said or that he was working on some  “eval” or wrote various dispatches, etc. The fact remains that HCOPL 1 March 1966 The Guardian was never canceled. Making any effort to “abolish” the Guardian’s Office that was established by policy a “High Crime” which in Scientology is tantamount to a “Suppressive Act”.

Yet there seems to be this conspiracy of so called “whistle blowers” of former executives and staff at the highest echelon on either side of the issue regarding the validity of Scientology saying basically the same thing and that is that Hubbard would have the audacity to commit a High Crime or Suppressive act against the religion or applied philosophy that he personally established.

By the way when I think of a whistle blower as someone who can back their assertions with actual verifiable documents like for instance Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. Not someone who expects us all to believe them because they “were there”.

So far few of these ex- Sea Org members have come forward with a shred of evidence other then the fact that they “were there”.

Yet much like the Omerta of the Mafia or the so called Blue Code of the police there seems to be instead of a conspiracy of silence. One of noise and distraction based on nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay or rumor that anyone who has the temerity to question or asks to substantiate these claims is accused of impugning their integrity or working for the Office of Special Affairs.

The latter being a touch of irony especially in my case since I don’t acknowledge the “Office of Special Affairs” as an actual Scientology network since there is no policy actually establishing it or clearly stating what its functions are.

In my view it is nothing but a Frankenstein’s Monster created by the mad scientists over in RTRC who have done more to pervert and alter the Technology then any other sector of Scientology and were the ones’ who were directly responsible for what is called the “Golden Age of Tech” and other perversions of the subject.

Again another subject I will take in further detail later while only saying this and that is that is RTRC at one time was only known as Technical Compilations and it was during the restructuring of management it acquired “Research” as one of its hats. A job formerly restricted to L Ron Hubbard for reasons covered in the famous HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING:

In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.

On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular”, “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.

The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture.

 

So again we have another conspiracy of sorts operating within the Church of Scientology that has been altering the technology under the guise of “research” for years even before Miscavige is said to have taken total control of the Organization which began with a change in the structure of the Grade Chart which omitted certain levels. What is considered in Scientology a Technical Degrade. Magically transmuting Board Technical Bulletins to the same status as HCOBs and creating a whole series of courses known as “Life Improvement Courses” based on derivative materials.

These are just the most obvious conspiracies that can be easily verified by the documented evidence or in many cases the lack of it but asserting otherwise based solely on “being there” and thus claiming knowledge beyond us mere benighted mortals who remained outside of the “Magic Kingdom” a derogatory term some of us used to describe Scientology’s International  Base.

As promised I promise to delve into deeper and darker conspiracies in the next chapter.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s