The ‘affirmations’: The domain of the imaginary vs The position of the Church of Scientology
It may be perceived that in regards to these affirmations that we find ourselves in the land of fairy tales. Some person utters: “They're authentic!”, then some other fellow screams: “Yeah, they're authentic!”. Soon after we'll all end up singing in choir: “Yes, they're authentic!”. When in actual fact, all that it does is confirming the preconceptions people already had previously about a person or a subject matter. The calculation is then made that they thus must be authentic as their nature and message conveniently matches the already firmly established preconception. Now you're hooked! Well, look around a bit more, and may you don't get hooked this easily!
“Did you know you can let an entheta* despatch drop right there and create less entheta by doing so? Try it sometime.” LRH (from HCO PL 31 Jan 65 “Dev-T”)
The authenticity of these affirmations has, to my knowledge, never been questioned by any of the Church of Scientology representatives. Then, does this confirm their authenticity? Not likely, although it may be found odd that if they would not be authentic, then why did the rumour not get killed in its core by these Church of Scientology representatives? That they did not do so, in effect, confirms the preconception already residing in the minds of people.
It may be so that they had chosen here to be silent about matters (the rumour being true or not true, authentic or not authentic), for the very simple reason to either not attract any attention to these matters or they just didn't know if they were authentic or not, and therefore could not properly support, or were unsure about, how to make a case for questioned authenticity. After all, it was only Gerry Armstrong that had been occupying himself with these documents.
It may be found that this no information approach of these representatives was not particularly the most effective or smart thing to do. It surely had not eased the attention of the media. In essence the silence of these representatives can be perceived as highly suspect, as they did not nothing to enervate any of these rumours which could have been achieved rather easily.
A common argument supplied by the anti-Scientologist is that the representatives of the Church of Scientology in particular demanded the return of these papers known as the affirmations. In the ‘Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement’ from Dec 1986 made between Gerry Armstrong and the Church of Scientology it says “Plaintiff agrees to return”: “(b) All originals and copies of documents commonly known as the ‘Affirmations’ written by L. Ron Hubbard”. It is then argued by the anti-Scientologist that this would authenticate them as having been authored by L. Ron Hubbard.
It is overlooked here
(1)
that all these 21 boxes with materials were sealed by the court;
(2)
that excepting Gerry Armstrong himself no one really knew what
papers were contained in these 21 boxes;
(3)
that the demand involved the return of any and all papers that Gerry Armstrong claimed to have taken,
including those that in court were referred to as “‘Affirmations’ written by L. Ron Hubbard”. It does not confirm he wrote them, but in
court they were referred to as such. This however doesn't give them any
author authenticity.
Only the work ‘Excalibur’ and the ‘Affirmations’ were actually entered into the court proceedings themselves, for this reason we see that these have been particular stipulated in the Settlement Agreement.
“Plaintiff agrees to return the following:
(a)All originals and copies of the manuscript for the work ‘Excalibur’ written by L. Ron Hubbard;
(b)All originals and copies of documents commonly known as the ‘Affirmations’ written by L. Ron Hubbard; and
(c)All documents and other items surrendered to the Court by Plaintiff and his attorneys pursuant to Judge Cole's orders of August 24, 1982 and September 4, 1982 and all documents and other items taken by the Plaintiff from either the Church of Scientology or Omar Garrison. ...”
Reference to the “work ‘Excalibur’” in fact is also interesting, and a mystery too, as this was reported stolen some decennia ago already.
“We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.” Gerald Armstrong
(captured on video in Nov 1984, using a telephoto lens and a long range microphone)
In this world certainly things don't have to be true, it often suffices to simply only allege something. The more randomity is found around issues and topics, the more people generally would suspect, or rather accept, that some truth must be found behind it all. Attention is all that is required to get a ball rolling.
The Church of Scientology may have thought that it all would go away if they only be silent about things and burke it. It didn't. Another way was buying off persons such as Gerry Armstrong. It was not only him the Church of Scientology had to fight off during these rather turbulent early/mid ’80s.
Gerry Armstrong has persistently claimed that he was in ‘fear’ of persecution by the Church of Scientology and feared for his life. He does appear however to have taken every possible step to ensure it would turn him into a target of the Church of Scientology. He took properties that were not his. He violated his agreement 131 times and by his own words he does so proudly. He frequently appears as a witness in various courts around the world (but not in the USA). He continues to challenge and infuriate these representatives and its organization at every possible opportunity. Why does he behave like he does if he is so much in fear as he claims that he is?
We have the situation here that one Gerry Armstrong took 21 boxes of materials of which 5 boxes were claimed containing personal files of L. Ron Hubbard and family. Said person was able to relocate these materials and then basically steal them. This at a time that the organization already already had put out an alert on him. The security procedures of the Church of Scientology have a particular repute, how did Gerry Armstrong manage to escape these? The matter is that if the organization did not even guard such materials properly, then why would they have bothered at all about some Gerry Armstrong? The characteristics of the situation are contradictory to the claims and tales of Gerry Armstrong.
Having access to archives after already having a declare issued on your person?
Gerry Armstrong even goes as far claiming that even after he had left the Sea Organization (Dec 1981) that he “maintained friendly relations with Hubbard's representatives by returning to the Archives offices and discussing the various categories of materials”.
Then we get: “In fact on February 24, 1982, Defendant Armstrong wrote to Vaughn Young, regarding certain materials Mr. Young was unable to locate for Omar Garrison.”. Watch the date given. This is 6 days after the release of this ‘FCO 6664’, 18 Feb 82 “Suppressive Person Declare Gerry Armstrong” was issued.
But nonetheless Gerry Armstrong claims that “After this letter was written [February 24, 1982], Defendant Armstrong went to the Archives office and located certain materials Mr. Garrison had wanted which Hubbard representatives claimed they could not locate.”.
So, how does this actually fit together? How could he possibly still have access to that if he had left the organization? When you are in the process of leaving or already having left the organization it means you immediately get labelled as a security risk! Not enough with that, a declare had already been issued on him! Nonetheless Gerry Armstrong claims he could walk in and out the church's archives?
And even more bizarre it gets when we consult this declare more closely: (pop-up window)
It states basically that it was issued because: “Where a person is secretly planning to leave and making private preparations to do so without informing the proper terminals in an org and does leave (blow) and does not return within a reasonable amount of time an automatic Declare is to be issued.” LRH (from HCO PL 7 Dec 76 “Leaving and Leaves”).
What? But didn't “Defendant Armstrong went to the Archives office and located certain materials”? Had he not left secretly then? Anyone cares to explain?
The Church of Scientology has very strict rules about leaving. People that leave, want to leave or have left are simply not considered part of the group and are frowned upon and found very suspect. Any person that has been staff in the organization, and most particularly in the Sea Org, will know this very well indeed! For example “Personnel Policy No. 3” says that “Any person whose product or relations is consistently destructive or a continuing overt act and/or who wishes to leave.” (from ‘Flag Order 2627RC’, 17 Jul 72). Then “Before a person may leave staff and receive a final pay cheque, a security check must be made and any overts and withholds on the organization or personnel discovered must be audited at organization expense.” LRH(from HCO PL 3 Aug 60 “Security of Persons Leaving Staff”).
Gerry Armstrong had already surpassed all this because a Suppressive Person declare was issued on him. Therewith he was considered an enemy of the organization.
This sequence of events as told by Gerry Armstrong are about impossible to have taken place as he tells them. Then try to figure how Gerry Armstrong can justify his fear for his life. He had already been declared, nonetheless he “maintained friendly relations with Hubbard's representatives”, “located certain materials Mr. Garrison had wanted” and is still walking in and out of “the Archives office”? According to histelling there does not appear to exist any threatening situation at all!
In case if Gerry Armstrong was telling the truth about these sequence of events, it would appear that the Scientology organization would have acted very nonstandard indeed! Then why would Gerry Armstrong fear an organization that behaves gargantuan amateurish? He would have been rather safe out there in Canada!
This just does not go well together with: “Defendant Armstrong became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits. ... Thus, Defendant Armstrong made copies of certain documents for Mr. Garrison and maintained them in a separate location.”.
It appears there are 2 such Suppressive Person declares published on Gerry Armstrong. A second revised one was issued just two months later: (pop-up window)
And it is here that we find “ILLEGALLY TAKING OR POSSESSING CHURCH PROPERTY.”. We don't find this in the declare published two months earlier. So, did Gerry Armstrong actually had access to materials after he was declared the first time? Or had the Scientology organization not found out about that he had indeed taken materials, and thus published a revised declare issue? It is either that or Gerry Armstrong has all the dates and the sequences of events seriously mixed up in his tale telling.
Was a real danger feared or was this just a plot devised to extort funds?
Gerry Armstrong claims that he was “terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger”. Now were these a product of his own imagination or was it a plot to pocket money from these materials that he took? We should not look past that in the final end it made him rather wealthy. He received a handsome US$ 500,000 for taking materials, and behold, that were not his to start with.
It does sound a bit strange that a judge would buy the story of Gerry Armstrong's fear and at the same did not challenge the circumstance that, apparently, Gerry Armstrong managed to simply walk in and out church's premises and taking a huge amount of materials with him. All this, at a time, that he already was dismissed by that organization. Did this ruling judge not consider the reputation this organization already had in regards to matters of security? It is interesting that the claimed fear of Gerry Armstrong appears to have been a decisive factor in the judgment of the ruling judge. It was justified by this judge that it was all right to take materials, that were not yours, if you tell you are in fear. Isn't this also dismissing the right to original ownership?
This we find in the revised declare issue ‘FCO 6664R’, 18 Feb 82 (Revised 22 Apr 82) “Suppressive Person Declare Gerry Armstrong” something about financial irregularities:
“Gerry has taken and sought to sell Church property. He has also failed to return Church property he obtained. He also falsified his Church financial records by failing to state the nature of the intended purchases and failing to spend the money for the approved items. Records by him show purchases for personal items as well as covering the expenses of non-Church companies.”.
Does this give an indication that he was all in for the money? I guess this is pending how reliable the information would turn out to be that we find written in these declare issues. I happen to notice that both of these declare issues were compiled by Paul Laquerre, the then International Justice Chief (IJC). He was the person that in 1986 had drawn up this “Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist”. He figured that declare issues should be based on real data and actual evidence. Something that he found was not always the case till date, forcing him to send the application for declares back to that org, hence a checklist was written by him. (see here, separate window).
Gerry Armstrong had insisted with: “While defendant has asserted various theories of defense, the basic thrust of his testimony is that he did what he did, because he believed that his life, physical and mental well being, as well as that of his wife were threatened because the organization was aware of what he knew about the life of LRH, the secret machinations and financial activities of the Church, and his dedication to the truth.”.
Gerry Armstrong was “a dedicated and devoted member who revered the founder, L. Ron Hubbard” and this for a period of 12 years (1969-81). During most of which time he did feel safe, and then rather suddenly he “feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger”? Where does he base this on? Does he have any evidence for people having been assassinated by that organization. Sending out hit men and such things?
If we assume for a moment that this ‘fear’ of Gerry Armstrong for his life and his wife's life was actually justified, then may one ask why he is still alive today?! Considering that at the time of the judge's ruling he had not done particularly much yet! Compare this with that he has gotten himself into since then! So, was this a plot devised for financial profits playing on supposed fear? If so, the ruling judge fell for it.
Gerry Armstrong and his SP doctrine
The expression SP doctrine has been the brainchild of Gerry Armstrong. He has been using this expression all around and about all of the time, this in messages on forums, the newsgroup A.R.S., in court testimonies, his website, speeches, and so on. He identifies an SP (short for suppressive person) as someone that tells the truth. He figures that he himself is telling the truth and that the Church of Scientology wants to shut him up for that very reason. He figures that Scientology is evil because it has embraced the SP doctrine. This is pretty much his philosophy or take of it in present time.
A suppressive person may be a real thing though. Call it an influence, activity or presence that puts other people, that dwell in its vicinity, effectively down. The term came into being during the ’60s when it was found that practitioners of Dianetics and Scientology were hindered in practicing, studying and getting wins from it. I would not describe it as a doctrine though. It is more a description of a situation. It is based on that as long as one was in contact with a suppressive influence that it was interfering with the success achieved by the practitioner, whatever the practitioner was doing. To handle such situations it was found that such persons or influences first needed to be identified. After that you either see to it that the practitioner is not in contact with the suppressive person or influence, or you make the practitioner cause over the situation, understand its mechanism, that even if he was in contact with such a person that he would not be effected or hindered it. Simplified this is basicallythat it is about.
But there where you have people you will have exaggerations, fixations, misinterpretations and then misapplications and prestige. It can not be denied that misuses have occurred in the history of the Church of Scientology. People have received such designations of suppressive person from the organization often far too easily and too quickly, lacking evidence and for no particular or clearly explained reason. The declare order issues have to be written accordingly to particular rules which so often were violated. To consult the rules of the game, click here, separate window.
Now, there are some basic references about this suppressive person phenomena. Prominent is HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. These list the various characteristics of either of these personalities, and gives us thus some tools how we can identify. (for more info see here, separate window)
I pulled out below phrases from the HCOB:
“The basic reason the anti-social personality behaves as he or she does lies in a hidden terror of others. ...
When such a personality goes insane the world is full of Martians or the FBI and each person met is really a Martian or FBI agent.”LRH
The release of my page on Gerry Armstrong motivated him to dedicate a YouTube video to David Miscavige. He doesn't address it to my person, he address it to David Miscavige. He says: “Recently as you know there has been an incredible attack by people who are, I believe without any doubt whatsoever, your agents or people certainly who are serving your interests, who are trying to cast some doubt on the authenticity of L. Ron Hubbard's admissions.”. Also saying: “And David, you must, you know that this attack that is going on, on me, a pointless but very threatening, very insane attack.” (Feb 2009).
Gerry Armstrong thus figures “without any doubt whatsoever” that I would be an “agent” or sorts. Ah well, he then considers my page on him being an “incredible attack”, “very threatening, very insane”! I would guess it would be threatening to him as I blow the whistle on the ridiculousness of so many of his claims. Instead of countering them, disproving them, providing exact information, as I asked him repeatedly and persistently on that newsgroup A.R.S., he offers this YouTube video. Now, what did L. Ron Hubbard say in these phrases that I picked from that HCOB? Does Gerry Armstrong answer to these descriptions?
The HCOB also says: “But the bulk of such people exhibit no outward signs of insanity. They appear quite rational. They can be very convincing.” LRH. Gerry Armstrong may appear rational, but is he that in reality? The reader will have to be the judge of that.
Are the ‘affirmations’ at odds with the published writings of L. Ron Hubbard? Who authored them?
“Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves. ...” & Jack Parsons
If we compare these affirmations/admissions as recorded and read aloud in court in 1984 and with Gerry Armstrong's release of these in 2000, with the writings that make up Scientology then are they confirmative or are they contradictorily? It would be quite a task to have these all written by the same person and not slip up some place exposing oneself, because these appear outright contradictory writings.
These admissions (as Gerry calls them) make here and there reference to this person named Jack Parsons. Generally he is regarded as a peculiar or a weird individual that occupied himself with all sorts of black magic and related things. Here below I assembled some quotations from these admissions, from Jack Parsons and confirmed writings from L. Ron Hubbard. You may consult these and make your own evaluation if it all adds up or not.
From ‘THE ADMISSIONS’ by ...:
“Any distaste I may have for Jack Parsons originated in a psychic experiment. Such distaste is foolish. He is my friend and comrade-in-arms.”
“That I have only friendship for Jack Parsons.”
“That I feel no wish for vengeance toward anyone. That I love
people and believe in honor and glory.”
“You have no doubts about God. You never speculate about him. You are assured that whatever you do is right in his eyes. Your faith is so strong you could move mountains. You have deep trust and faith in God and have no fear of what he may do to you and your friends. He will never punish you.”
From ‘PAB 110’, 15 Apr 57 “Education” by L. Ron Hubbard:
“One chap by the way, who gave us solid fuel, rockets and assist take-offs for airplanes too heavily loaded on aircraft carriers, and all the rest of this rocketry panorama, and who formed Aerojet in California and so on. The late Jack Parsons, by the way, was not a chemist the way we think of chemists. He was not taught in the field of chemistry beyond this fact: There was a little professor who opened up a school. Nobody could do anything with Jack so they sent him over to this school and the professor found out he was interested in chemical experiments and turned him loose in the laboratory and gave him a lot of encouragement. He eventually became quite a man.”
From ‘Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword’ by Jack Parsons.
Chapter 1
“For numberless centuries society accepted the proposition that certain men were created to be slaves. Their natural function was to serve priests, kings and nobles, men of substance and property who were appointed slave-masters by almighty God.
Against this doctrine, some two hundred years ago, rose the most astonishing heresy the world has yet seen; the principle of liberalism. In essence this principle stated that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, which belong to every man as his birthright.
It seems necessary to redefine Freedom in the terms understood by Voltaire, Paine, Washington, Jefferson and Emerson.
Freedom is a two-edged sword of which one edge is liberty and the other, responsibility. Both edges are exceedingly sharp and the weapon is not suited to casual, cowardly or treacherous hands.
No man, no group and no nation has the right to any man's individual freedom. No matter how pure the motive, how great the emergency, how high the principle, such action is tyranny and is never justified.
These rights must be counterbalanced by certain responsibilities. The liberal accepting them must guarantee these rights to all others at all times, regardless of his personal feelings or interests.”
From ‘The Creed of the Church of Scientology’ by or endorsed by L. Ron Hubbard:
“We of the Church believe:
That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.”
“That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.”
“That the souls of men have the rights of men.”
“And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man:”
“To destroy or enslave another's soul.”
In Feb 2009 Gerry Armstrong asserts in a home made video that he released on his YouTube channel:
“As you know, the admissions contain the very significant admission by Hubbard, that man are his slaves. By which he meant, all man are his slaves. And you yourself are applying that same admission. You make people your slaves. And you don't want L. Ron Hubbard exposed as a slaver any more then you want yourself exposed as a slaver. And the admissions do expose L. Ron Hubbard as a slaver.” (from video ‘Gerry talks to David Miscavige February 5, 2009’)
In this little speech he pounds on that a couple more times, but let Gerry Armstrong also explain why there is nothing found in the published writings of L. Ron Hubbard concerning the use of affirmations or anything of the sort. It is not promoted anywhere within the subject matter of Dianetics and Scientology to implant phrases like that into the mind. It is rather quite the contrary as the3se subject matters instead are about to get rid of implants and reactive mind and all that. It would seemingly appear that the actual subject matter of Dianetics and Scientology is rather at odds with affirmations or admissions.
Here the question may arise who then may have written these papers?
Who wrote the ‘affirmations’? - A note about Gerry Armstrong
“I am also posting the Admissions openly to confirm their authenticity.
The copy I received was not clear in places, and it is now gone.”
– Gerald Armstrong
(from his introduction to his release of the ‘affirmations’ from 11 March 2000)
It may be found rather unlikely that these admissions (as they surfaced in 2000) would have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, for the simple reason that they do not appear in alignment with the approach and style of these writings that are confirmed written by him. Claims, unsupported at that, are being made that they would, but when asked to back this up there is this ever returning silence. Associations may be forwarded by some person about science fiction and similar things, but mind also that one first has to determine the actual writing style and secondly the information and suggestions that are being forwarded through these writings.
In both occurrences from 1984 and 2000 it is the person Gerry Armstrong that is directly involved in bringing them into the public awareness. In particular the release in 2000 are interesting as we have virtually nothing that can verify their authenticity who wrote them or who did not write them. The sole source we have is the person Gerry Armstrong making claims and telling a tale. I personally have had a variety of clashes with said Gerry Armstrong on a famed anti-Scientology newsgroup on the Internet. He has the nagging habit to instantly call you a liar if you don't agree with him on something. If you scroll through his postings it is interesting to observe how many times he uses exactly these words and phrases such as “you are a liar”, “you lie”, and any variation to this. He also likes to utter repeatedly the phrase: “L. Ron Hubbard was a pathological liar” (a phrase he probably copied from the ruling judge at the 1984 trials). Either way I don't find that Gerry Armstrong's responses are very constructive and they could be judged being of a rather delusional nature. Often he resorts to long postings of endless babbles and claims (as an attempt to overwhelm?), and generally not addressing, let alone directly answering to the questions that have been asked.
I would be justified to ask the questions: “Did Gerry Armstrong himself prepare these writings a.k.a. ‘Affirmations’ that saw the light in 2000?”. It is after all his person that brought them into existence. Remember what he said while he was secretly videotaped and recorded in Nov 1984 while saying: “I'm saying that I can do it. I can type those goddam things and duplicate them and make
them look exactly the same. You can't, you would not be able to tell the difference.”.
Taking this in consideration then how many of the documents that were found in these boxes that he took were actually authentic and not fabricated or planted by Gerry Armstrong? As he, secretly filmed and caught on tape, planned a similar thing to be done 6 months after his own trials ended; to plant in the Church's files, documents that he fabricated, to then arrange a subsequent raid to be conducted by the IRS in Los Angeles against the Church, who then would find incriminating documents. It is one of the oldest tricks in the world if you intend to incriminate or frame someone. Strangely enough he has these video materials even documented on his own website, where they are then accompanied with his own comments and interpretation. But as Gerry has said, all you have to
do is allege and he has been alleging things for quite a while now.
These admissions may or may not resemble his own state of mind judging from his style of communicating and writing as we see it posted on newsgroups and various other places on the Internet.
He writes in a message posted 11 March 2000 on that newsgroup: “I'm but a simple
messenger, with staggering inabilities, and at times admittedly silly.”.
A statement from Robert Vaughn Young concerning Gerry Armstrong (2 May ’85)
This is from a Declaration from Robert Vaughn Young, who at the time was employed in and following the defence line of the Church of Scientology. He had been a member of the Church of Scientology during 1969-89, and he had been working in many areas within the organization including the highest management echelons. Obviously this Declaration was issued to defend the position of said Church of Scientology and make the claims of Gerry Armstrong look ridiculous. He even makes a critical comment about Omar V. Garrison, saying that he and Gerry Armstrong were following the same line of bias.
Consult the full text of this Declaration from 1985 at link here below: (pop-up window)
It has been argued by members of the anti-Scientology community that: “No. You see, RVY was at that time still a devoted member of the CULT. He was even a spokesman for the CULT. He left in 1989. He changed his views of 1985 and wrote the open letter in 2000, 15 years later and much more honest. You are free to stick to a 15 years older and biased declaration of course.”.
Taking in consideration of course
(1)
that you still will have to actually address the arguments forwarded by this Robert Vaughn Young in this Declaration from 1985 and if possible effectively prove them incorrect;
(2)
that if you make the claim that this person would have been a puppet of sorts carrying out the orders given by the Church of Scientology representatives, and thus may have been telling untruths during his 20 years while inside the organization, then what reason is there to assume he would suddenly be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth today;
Here you can not take anyone's word for anything, you have to verify all of it.
This mentioned open letter (“Hello & Goodbye from Robert Vaughn Young (RVY)”), from Saturday, February 19, 2000 does not even address Gerry Armstrong.
But we do find some information in another Declaration from Robert Vaughn Young from 1993, see extracts at link here below: (pop-up window)
From this we can not really infer that Robert Vaughn Young would have retracted everything he had said in previous Declarations concerning Gerry Armstrong. He also doesn't specify very much. It may speak for itself.
The position of Omar V. Garrison (with notices from Larry Brennan)
Omar V. Garrison from back cover of his book: ‘Playing Dirty: The Secret War Against Beliefs’ (1980)
It was Omar V. Garrison that had been approached to write this biography about L. Ron Hubbard. And it was Gerry Armstrong that would supply him with various archival materials.
We do find various statements from Gerry Armstrong about Omar V. Garrison in these court proceedings. What we are missing here are clarifying statements from Omar V. Garrison himself about these specific matters. We have this from his hand: (pop-up window) “Declaration of Omar V. Garrison, dated 18 Apr 83” But this still only addressed the general circumstance of the situation, the biography to be written and contractual negotiations. He fails to give specifics regarding the affirmations, if he considered them authentic, about the person L. Ron Hubbard, and such. The same goes for his testimony in court on Wednesday, May 30, 1984. All that Omar V. Garrison had said is that he had found some incongruities with the published biographical information that the Church of Scientology previously had presented in various publications. But we do not learn about any specifics presented in court of what he had found.
A year later however in a ‘60 Minutes’ broadcast of 22 Dec 1985 we find this clip:
Question of Mike Wallace:
Answer of Omar V. Garrison:
“He fought in five theaters in World War II?”
“Not true.”
“He commanded a squadron of corvettes?”
“Not true.”
“He was crippled and blinded in war?”
“Not true.”
“He was the first casualty of the war?”
“Not true.”
“Flown home in the Secretary of the Navy's private plane?”
“Not true.”
“Is he an atomic or nuclear physicist?”
“Of course not.”
“Did he travel with Tibetan bandits?”
“I have no documentation and have never seen any in the extensive research that he did.”
Fair enough, but most of these claims did not spread until the later ’70s in church published biographical notices added in books and promo. The nuclear physicist thing is a bit odd, it was used in ‘All About Radiation’ (1957). See my notices in publication chronology here (separate window).
In this same ‘60 Minutes’ broadcast we also see a clip in where Omar V. Garrison says about L. Ron Hubbard: “He has inspired hatred; some men have inspired love. And this is sad, because his most ardent ambition—he has, and he has told his followers to use this phrase; it's his phrase—he wants to be known, and tears come to their eyes when they say it, he wants to be known as the friend of man.”.
But here applies the same as this “friend of man” thing dates to church announcements and tape recordings from around 1980. In this time period it is bit hard to establish what is L. Ron Hubbard and what not. Various tapes have been voice analyzed and inconsistencies arose.
It has been rumoured that an agreement was made between the Church of Scientology and Omar Garrison, the details of which have been revealed informally by one Lawrence H. Brennan in October 2008. A person that as it appears worked (although in the background) alongside Mr. David Miscavige during the early ’80s. He posted this statement on this newsgroup A.R.S. on the Internet: (pop-up window)
One would say this statement is a bit opinionated. It also appears that he buys the line of Gerry Armstrong. We even have Gerry Armstrong responding to his posting on this newsgroup in where he amongst other says:
“It's very different, isn't it, reading Hubbard and listening to him now that you know he's a liar? And to know that a smart jurist, Breckenridge, had in his judgment found Hubbard to be a pathological liar, and that the Court of Appeal had affirmed that judgment.
...
Those things will get you spotting lies like they were spots in space.”
To which Larry Brennan in turn answered:
“Hey Gerry. Thanks for clarifying a few things and also pointing out the above.
The bottom line is that despite all the crap that went on in connection to this biography, including the litigation that followed as you pointed out, you DID get the truth out. That's all you ever wanted to do in connection with the bio from the earliest days when you were on staff working on it. So even though the rights to the biography got bought up and then the bio was killed, much of the truth connected with it still got out. Oh how just is that! Once again MIscavige's lies and brutality and attempts to cover up the truth backfires into his face. You did it my friend! And a lot of us owe you a debt of gratitute for what you went through to do it.
Thanks Gerry! Larry”
Which makes one wonder what to actually think of this said Larry Brennan and his true involvement in this whole affair!
We finally have Robert Vaughn Young that made this little statement in his Declaration dated 2 May 1985: (underlining is mine)
“There are other examples of Armstrong ‘research’ that show that much of his supposed ineptitude was simply malice, but I cite this one because Armstrong specifically raised it with me and I specifically told him how to handle it and he refused. I now see why. He was afraid that he would prove Mr. Hubbard right. I also cite it because this was the ‘research’ Armstrong provided Garrison and the two of them shared the same attitude -- anything that did not substantiate their bias was refused.”
This actually surprised me because in previous years Omar V. Garrison had published in 1974: ‘The Hidden Story of Scientology’, and as late as 1980: ‘Playing Dirty: The Secret War Against Beliefs’ (I address these books briefly in chronological listing here, separate window). The interesting thing here is that these two books actually defended the position of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. It would appear that just a few years later matters thus appear to have made a turn to the contrary. The claim of Robert Vaughn Young in his Declaration, when we regard these two previously published books, is a bit well strange and contradictive to say the least. After all, that very organization had hired Omar V. Garrison to write that biography!
Is this an indication that possibly Omar V. Garrison also had sort of joined the line of Gerry Armstrong? It may seem so. I also recall televised interviews from the ’80s in where he did not spoke favourably at all about the Church of Scientology. In the ‘60 Minutes’ broadcast of 22 Dec 1985 we find this interesting clip:
Omar Garrison: “Everyone who has taken these courses has come out with a super ego and with a truculent, if you will, a truculent view of anyone who dares disagree because the person who disagrees is perceived as what they call a suppressive person--” Mike Wallace: “An enemy.” Omar Garrison: “--and must be dealt with as such.” Mike Wallace: “And that's the gospel according to L. Ron Hubbard.” Omar Garrison: “That's the dark side of Scientology.” Mind here that Mike Wallace was very quick to interrupt Omar V. Garrison with his comments in this clip. Omar V. Garrison didn't really seem to agree what Mike Wallace said about “the gospel according to”, and he let it follow with what he figured.
One should keep in mind though that the organization had undergone a rather radical change in management during these early ’80s. And it may very well be that this urged him to change his mind about the line the organization was following from there on out. (more info here, separate window)
Anyhow, if Omar V. Garrison indeed did finish this biography (as Larry Brennan claims) it would be interesting to have a look at it!
About the ruling of judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr.
Now, what is actually the role played by this ruling judge in this first court case in regards to Gerry Armstrong? (pop-up window)
Per the data and court records at hand it would appear that he has put a lot of (blind) faith and weight in the tale telling, claims and above all the fear of Gerry Armstrong. Now, why is that? For what reason has he not been more investigative? As many of the things Gerry Armstrong has been saying and claiming have been contradictive or he failed to properly substantiate them. Why did this judge not consider and follow upon the actual facts in the case? Why were all the inconsistencies in Gerry's tale telling not reacted upon? Isn't that what the judicial system is supposed to do? That they should look passed all the bias?
The strangest thing may even be that this judge basically rules that if you take materials that do enjoy your ownership that they can be taken away from you, and a person that took your property can pocket money for them, a lot of money, say US$ 500,000! Strictly taken is this not rewarding a simple thief? So, why is no one placing question marks with this judge?
Well, consider:
(1)
Let's assume for a moment that the fear of Gerry Armstrong would have been justified. And so he pocketed all this money to have funds to ‘protect’ himself. Next he disappears to his home country Canada. Now, how or why would the Church of Scientology (located in USA) be any threat to him there?
(2)
It is rather that this Church of Scientology would have had no interest whatsoever to pursue him had he not taken properties not belonging to him. They came after him, because he took stuff with him. Of course they sued him, what entity in its right mind wouldn't?
(3)
Gerry Armstrong feared for his life he says, as if a hitman would be send after him, and where is there a recorded case where it is shown that the Church of Scientology resorts to doing that? So, why did the ruling judge not react on that? Did this judge at any time consider the mental state of tale telling Gerry?
(4)
Next we have this ruling judge feeling pity for poor Gerald Armstrong, that poor lad, pats him on the shoulder and awards him US$ 500,000.
(5)
Then we have these Nov 1984 recordings. For what sensible reason did this ruling judge reject these? A written permission for these recordings was presented. It would seem though that the tape that was presented to that judge was an edited version, not the original tapes. This may or may not have been a mistake. The judge, that viewed the edited tape in his private chambers, would have said: “I have heard about these dirty tactics that you use against your perceived enemies, but now that I have seen it for myself I think you are much, much worse than I had ever imagined!”. If he literally said that it may be so that his mind would already have been formed by what he had heard earlier.
This judge could have investigated this case involving Gerry Armstrong a bit more thoroughly than he had done.
Responses, aftermath and further annotations
An evaluation of the admissions by a Swedish psychiatrist (2005)
There is this Swedish psychiatrist that posted an evaluation on the newsgroup A.R.S. on the Internet 13 Aug 2005 entitled: ‘A psychiatric view with comments
on the
Admissions by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’. This evaluation was performed on these writings as they had been presented by Gerry Armstrong in the year 2000. In this evaluation this Swedish psychiatrist starts with expressing “a Big
thanks to Gerry Armstrong who brought this confessional writings to
the public.”. Then explaining how he went about it and arrived at his evaluation. He writes: “Lets go through the text one step at the time and I will make comments
on the way from a psychiatrists perspective.”. And thus he went through some phrases and let them directly follow with his comments and adjudications, and so on.
Do we understand this correctly? An evaluation done on the persona of L. Ron Hubbard ENTIRELY based on these admissions posted by Gerry Armstrong? Papers that do not enjoy the littlest of verification and authentication? Considering
(1)
that said Gerry Armstrong is the sole source of these affirmations he thus forwarded in 2000;
(2)
that Gerry Armstrong then also refuses to disclose his ‘sources’;
(3)
that, so Gerry Armstrong he tells himself, he destroyed the original copies he claims that he had received.
Taking in regards also the behaviour and attitude of said Gerry Armstrong during the various happenings, then subsequently it would have been entirely proper and justified to take on the task of actual verification of these materials as a first requirement and action! But this Swedish psychiatrist made no such effort. He took matters on face value.
When I confronted this psychiatrist directly on that newsgroup on the Internet where he had posted this he responded with: “What do you think of the objection from the Scientology lawyer to have
the Affirmations read in court in the case ‘Church of Scientology vs Armstrong’, arguing that
the Affirmations were too personal!”. And therefore this psychiatrist thus concluded: “So the Church of Scientology itself
defends and argues that the Affirmations were written by L. Ron Hubbard.”.
This psychiatrist gave no source for this claim, and it appears that it is not part of any of the court transcripts. I checked. So, where did he get this from? Interesting here is that even Gerry Armstrong himself actually confirms that nor the Church, its representatives, and not their lawyer actually knew what these materials were and exactly what was contained within them. In effect, how could they know anything about any of that? Gerry Armstrong is very clear about in his testimonies that he worked with the files, he put them in binders, and he supplied Omar V. Garrison with materials.
It is safe to assume that the Church of Scientology (via instructions given to its lawyer) simply demanded all the materials that Gerry Armstrong had taken to have them returned. Of course the Church of Scientology representatives didn't want anything to be read in court, as they didn't know what was going to be read. The psychiatrist supplies for a smart justification, but it is infantile at that. As if this criteria of the Church of Scientology would automatically turn the bulk of these materials authentic. As an argument it is a bit well thin.
This Swedish psychiatrist ends of his evaluation with a “SUMMARY”. I printed this here below in full. Now, I hid the ‘name’ and ‘organization’ and printed there instead ‘...’. What if in fact it was Gerry Armstrong that would have written these affirmations that he made appear in the year 2000? Then, would this evaluation fit on him? I find it an interesting proposal, as after all the evaluation was based directly and entirely on the writing itself, and not on a presumed person!
“There is little question about ... [name]suffering from paranoiac
schizophrenia at the time he wrote the above. Predominant symptoms are
auditive and likely visual hallucinations together with numbed emotions, suicidal thoughts, extremely low selfworth, impotence, thought
disturbances and problems with articulation and memory. His fatigue and
indolence together with the anhedonia is the typical low energy, low
vigilance and numbed emotions found in the domaine of so-called
negative symptoms in this disease. He is fighting a hard battle with
inner psychological conflicts, balancing between the depressed state
with suicidal thoughts and the Godlike, almighty powerful
“chosen” one with special gifts and blessed with an inner
“Guardian”. The ... [organization]and its methods is merely the
reflection of this seriously sick mans inner world. Constantly on guard
against perceived critique and attacks from the hostile surrounding
environments. Obsessed with money, not only as a mean of survival but
as an instrument of power and evidence of success.
Ulf Brettstam Senior psychiatrist”
Responses received to my write-up and Gerry Armstrong further evaluated
So, I finally did present this write-up on an infamous anti-Scientology oriented Internet newsgroup (A.R.S.) on 26 Jan 2009. Reason for presenting it on this newsgroup was basically to get a response from Gerry Armstrong on it as hew was a regular there, but also to learn what arguments were used by those persons that supported him, and to thus find out if my write-up withstood that test. I was thus also faced with a variety of his supporters and followers doing their share in defending him and in particular, as it appeared, attacking my person. I might say that these very responses that I received were rather astonishing. Here it appears we are having a situation in where various persons were in utter denial concerning what was forwarded in my write-up. One rather interesting exception though came from Monica Pignotti. Although having been one of the voices against Scientology, she now urged Gerry Armstrong to explain himself.
My initiative also motivated a person listening to the name Bernie to dedicate a page on his blog about this matter. A particular emphasis is put on the odd fact that Gerry Armstrong physically destroyed the copy of the affirmations that he claimed he had received. See link here below:
Responses from Gerry Armstrong prior to release of my write-up (30 Nov ’08) (includes the Swedish psychiatrist returning)
It was thus my intent to give Gerry Armstrong the opportunity to respond to this write-up. While compiling it I had an exchange with this earlier mentioned Swedish psychiatrist on a discussion forum from Swedish television (SVT). The occasion was a recent broadcast early Oct 2008 relating to Scientology. On this forum I happen to mention to this psychiatrist that an article on the matter of the affirmations was in progress and would be published on the Internet in the near future. This urged our psychiatrist to forewarn Gerry Armstrong on this Internet newsgroup (A.R.S.) where Gerry Armstrong was a regular. This psychiatrist wrote amongst other in his message that “one can not rule out the possibility that [he] is compiling an attac[k] on Gerry Armstrong on behalf of the Cult of $cientology”. Ending his message with: “So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly coming your way! Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you, admiring your bravery, endurance and integrity!” (posted 23 Nov 2008). We learn here where the adoration of our psychiatry lies. I responded on the newsgroup with:: “Sorry, I do not operate for some organization or on behalf of someone else.” and “Factual information
and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may look ugly for friend Gerry.”.
We find that Gerry Armstrong placed 2 responses on that newsgroup. Thus, oddly enough, I got some initial responses from Gerry Armstrong prior to releasing my write-up. (pop-up windows)
These kind of responses are very typical for Gerry Armstrong. Words such as “sociopath”, and phrases such as, “you are lying” are rather excessively used in his messages. Also one can easily perceive that he is very apt with making assertions and accusations, but he, as a rule, fails to provide for clearly verified evidence. To me his texts generally just don't make very much sense. Judge for yourself though.
First responses after release of my write-up (‘burden of proof’ shift) (26 Jan-3 Feb '09)
All right, a first response I received said the following: (dated 26 Jan 2009)
“Over 12,000 words, and only assumptions, theories, opinions and no factual evidence. At best circumstantial evidence that wouldn't stand in court”
In another thread the same poster rephrased this as follows: (dated 27 Jan 2009)
“Propaganda is your page on Gerry Armstrong: No evidence, just speculations, assumptions and opinions.”
A common response that I received frequently. Nonetheless I made use and present solely authentic records in the write-up. Presented is a careful documentation of all the information that is actually available. Now, factually there is not much hard evidence available that authenticates these affirmations. It appears seriously overlooked however that it was Gerry Armstrong that started it all and was making the claims. For that simple reason the burden of proof falls onto his person, but he instead destroys evidence. His defence really is as thin as it can get and his behaviour erratic and irrational. So, if Gerry Armstrong himself can not provide for proper evidence for his claims, then why does someone else have to provide the evidence for him? Wouldn't that be a bit silly?
Another response received read: (dated 1 Feb 2009)
“Until your supposed analysis of those affirmations is made up of
something besides pure conjecture, why exactly should anyone buy into
your horseshit? Those affirmations were written by L. Ron Hubbard.
Case closed, end of discussion, until you have some actual evidence to
the contrary -- enough to counter all the newspapers and journalists
who have reached exactly that conclusion.”
To which I responded:
“Ah, you are an authority worshipper, and you believe newspapers, and
that journalists always do their groundwork properly.
Now, obviously then an attempt to overthrow with
conviction, YOUR conviction and guru admiration (i.e. St. Gerry)!
Unfortunately I have to disappoint you, as there is not a shred of
proper evidence that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these papers.
Now will an intelligent individual please come along!”
The response that I received from the Swedish psychiatrist to my write-up can also be classed in this very same category: (dated 4 Feb 2009)
“Lots, lots and lots of words with little or no substance. Those
interested in loose speculations and a character murder of an already
persecuted and battered innocent human, read on..”
And some person responding to him then writes: (dated 5 Feb 2009)
“You're discussing with an OSAer having received the [Miscavige]'s order to
try to do something against the Affirmations. If the documents were not
unavailable from the US justice, [he] would'nt do sucha fuss ... .”
The far majority of the responses were of such a nature. There is an obvious denial here to factually do look at matters. Inventively various explain-away's are thought up and fired at me as in an attempt to make it appear as if there is no validity in my argumentation. They could also be seen as distraction tactics, because the issues that I propose are never being addressed.
It appears thus that one is very quick to turn a blind eye to a response that is counter to the tale telling of Gerry Armstrong, at the same time as one is unable to place question marks at the tale told by this Gerry Armstrong and place a request for verification and support for the things he claims. We can see that Gerry Armstrong goes around tirelessly alleging a lot of things and repeating these in his messages, but as soon as he asked to clarify further and back up his claims he will never supply an answer. You will be faced with more alleging. If he does respond to something he usually resorts to a weird sort of ramblings that are not particularly in touch with reality, and that seldom seem to carry a clear relation to the topic that is being discussed or the question that is being asked.
Gerry Armstrong and Monica Pignotti respond to my write-up (27 Jan-14 Feb ’09)
“Many indeed have
read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.”
Gerry Armstrong posted various responses, but in his first response he posts another hitherto not shared but interesting claim. Let's have a look at that. (pop-up window)
Gerry thus writes: “Many indeed have
read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.”. I did ask Gerry various times afterwards to explain who those persons would be. He failed to reply and answer to my request every single time.
But behold, when I had posted my response: “Who?? There is NO record for that claim!!!!!!!!!!!”. Unexpectedly another anti-Scientologist with repute, Monica Pignotti, posted a reasonably long response also urging Gerry Armstrong to give further explanation. But alas, also here Gerry Armstrong failed to return a reply! In this same thread Monica Pignotti replied some minutes later to some other person with the same rigor: “The real question is what is the actual
evidence?”. Consult in full at below link (pop-up window).
This response from Monica Pignotti was a surprise. She had been an advocate against Scientology for a number of years and would have considered Gerry Armstrong being an ally and standing on the same side of the fence. And now here she is asking Gerry to clarify himself.
Apparently Gerry did respond to Monica's inquiry and he responded to that and posted that on that newsgroup 3 days later (31 Jan 2009), after which (for some undisclosed reason) he deleted that very message, only to then republish it on his own website soon after (another person directed me to it 9 Feb 2009). Why did he remove it from that newsgroup? We don't know. It would be plausible though that Gerry simply did not want me responding to it, as he does not want to explain himself about these matters, particularly not to me. This occurrence also makes it evident that he very carefully documents these matters and places these messages on his own huge websites. I reprinted the message from his website and made it available here below, and added some comments to it. (pop-up window)
Now, Gerry does list various names in this message. But each named person needs to confirm about what they actually have seen or read. Till date this is still shrouded in darkness. In any event his claim of “Many indeed have
read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.” however falls short. Here in the final end we may even find that it went here like in the tale of the ‘Ten Little Niggers’: “... and then there were none.”. The main issue is still that any confirmed physical evidence of authenticity of authorship of these handwritten affirmations would still blissfully be missing. I may have to remind here about the supposed handwritten diaries of Adolf Hitler that surfaced at exactly the same time, and that were exposed as a fraud. These were considered authentic for some time, and the original manuscripts were available. Here in the case of the affirmations we don't even have the littlest copy of anything. Monica Pignotti is asking the right questions.
The accompanying text to Gerry Armstrong's release on 11 March 2000 of his affirmations tell:
“Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy
Brooks at least have read the Admissions and will be able to confirm
that what follows here is, within reasonable parameters, authentic.”
To this we find another response of Monica Pignotti that she posted on a blog on 31 Jan 2009 (source, external link) (last checked: 7 Sept 2019). Because of its obvious significance I reproduce her response here below in full:
“Unfortunately, Robert Vaughn Young died several years ago. Stacy has been incommunicado since the fiasco several years ago, so it is highly unlikely she would confirm anything. Gerry claimed in a recent ARS posting that people saw the affirmations who could vouch for them. Bob and Stacy wouldn't fit that description any longer and we'll never know if they ever did. It is also unclear what Gerry meant that they could have confirmed what was in ‘within reasonable parameters, authentic’. It sounds like he was citing their expert opinion more than claiming they were actual witnesses to the LRH handwritten documents. There's a big difference between their opining they were written by LRH and actually having seen the documents in his own handwriting. What I am asking is whether anyone else actually saw the physical LRH-handwritten documents that are claimed to exist and if so, who.”
Does Gerry Armstrong have a gaslighter personality? Or is he just projecting?
Now, Gerry Armstrong in his message dated 27 Jan 2009 made 2 more interesting claims. He wrote: “... , there is an abundance of evidence that you are
faking your ignorance, that you are willfully lying to serve the
Scientology cult's purposes, ...”
I asked him what this evidence then would be, but as expected no reply was given. His claim would be rather absurd as my website presents information that is questioning various behaviours and ways to go about things as presently exercised and promoted by the Church of Scientology. But Gerry Armstrong will not explain. He accused me of the same things some years back, and I replied in the same way, he did not care to explain back then and he doesn't today. He also was claiming I was some sort of ‘op’ (=operator) for the Church of Scientology, in particular an ‘OSA op’.
In a message posted on the newsgroup dated 31 Jan 2009 he writes: “The matter is an op[erator], and [his] pursuit does not depend
on facts or documents or truth, or any answer from me.”. He makes 2 rather bold statements here. Is Gerry Armstrong here not accusing me of the things he fails to provide for himself? This gets sort of interesting!
Where has the sanity of Gerry Armstrong and his cohorts gone?
In the same 27 Jan 2009 message he wrote: “Because Hubbard's admissions are a part of Scientology scripture, they
have helped many people to get free of Hubbard's and Miscavige's
psychic hold on them. And this success is despite the efforts of
Miscavige and the cult's Roadrump's to lessen the freeing effect of
Hubbard's admissions by, e.g., making the willfully false claim that I
faked them.”
Firstly, how can they possibly be “Scientology scripture” if they are not taught, found, or even known anywhere in the Church of Scientology among its practitioners or its writings? Are they not rather at odds with that what the writings of Scientology teach? Secondly, how can these “admissions” help anybody to get free of anything? Who exactly did they free? How does that work? What rate of success for evidence has Gerry to offer for these indeed strange claims?
The burden of proof for authorship and authenticity is upon Gerry Armstrong, and he had the proof so he said, and then he says he destroyed that proof. Not destroying that proof would have been a better move then stating as if I was “making the willfully false claim that [Gerry]
faked them”.
As already mentioned Gerry Armstrong does not in particular wish to explain himself. He however did respond to some other persons on the newsgroup, and was making various referrals to me, and accordingly was finding wrong with my person. These messages are very typical for Gerry Armstrong, and they are a bit out of touch with reality and rather nonsensical. (pop-up windows)
In the below response from Gerry Armstrong it appears that he found some person that seems to be on his own level of delusion. It is just that I fail to find much logic in any of these sorts of ramblings. And there are rather many of these found on this newsgroup. Do note that there is a persistent –lack of evaluation– maintained within them. I simply find it sort of impossible to reason at a normal and understandable level with these persons which is including Gerry Armstrong. I do find though that the assumptions forwarded concerning me in this conversation are rather astonishing... (pop-up window)
Gerry Armstrong asking Mr. David Miscavige to come to his rescue (5 Feb ’09) (includes a third appearance of the Swedish psychiatrist)
Gerry talks to David Miscavige February 5, 2009
Instead of actually explaining himself in regards to the inquiries that I forwarded to him about his claims Gerry Armstrong chose to leave this discussion on the newsgroup. He instead went to his YouTube account on the Internet and released a 7-minute video in where he oddly enough is asking Mr. David Miscavige to come to his rescue! On this video he is not explaining anything, he is only alleging things and repeating basically the same things in a slowly speaking monotone voice. It is obvious, and he also says so in this speech, that this is meant as a reaction to my challenge to him on that newsgroup A.R.S. The video could easily be perceived as a marvelous act of distraction.
I did transcribe this little speech, see link here below: (pop-up window)
Gerry Armstrong is very repetitive indeed. He uses the word admissions as many as 24 times, references to slavery/enslavement are made 11 times. It is almost hypnotic...
He talks a lot about slavery. Now, if Scientology would be about to enslave people, then why is so much effort done to provide for information and technology that would enable man to actually unslave people? This is so very typical for Gerry Armstrong, he implies, asserts, alleges, points a finger to other persons that have to explain matters for him, and repeats this again and again and again. It is all he does in this very video! His definition of the word ‘authenticity’ is also a very interesting and in particular a convenient one. He stated in the year 2000 already that he was: “posting the Admissions openly to confirm their authenticity.”. He uses the word various times also in his little speech. He in effect does make an incorrect use of the word, it is not what he thinks it means. If Gerry Armstrong forwards these things then the burden of proof is wholly unto him! He is literally asking “Hey guys, I got some stuff here, can you please prove for me they are real?” or “Hey there, I posted some stuff here, that makes them authentic and real!”. Does this make any sense at all?
Then he says on that video: “Recently as you know there has been an incredible attack by people who are, I believe without any doubt whatsoever, your agents or people certainly who are serving your interests, who are trying to cast some doubt on the authenticity of L. Ron Hubbard's admissions.”
Gerry, oh Gerry, your admissions have never properly been authenticated in any form! There is none in existence! Anyone could have written them, you could have written them (you probably did). You can not even present the littlest fragment in handwriting. And when you claim you received these handwritten originals in the year 2000, you claim in the next that you yourself physically destroyed them! And with that you also effectively flushed your credibility down the drain in the matter.
Then directing himself to my person through addressing David Miscavige: “And David, you must, you know that this attack that is going on, on me, a pointless but very threatening, very insane attack.”
I have no doubt that this was for me. What was done? I assembled the information that is around concerning these supposed writings referred to as the affirmations and the person that brought them into public awareness. I asked questions and accordingly enforced an evaluation unto them. I also approached Gerry himself concerning the matter, urging him to explain himself, answer some questions and so on. He then just tells I am a liar, that I am an agent for the Church of Scientology, and turns his back unto me. When I insisted a bit more, he then honours me with this little speech on his YouTube channel, and starts begging Mr. David Miscavige to help him out. I surely understand that my write-up must be “very threatening”, but calling my request for answers a “very insane attack” and “pointless”?
And no, I am quite positively not an“agent” of sorts or “serving” the “interests” of some other entity. Nonetheless Gerry is “without any doubt whatsoever” about that, so he states. Well, excuse me!!! Gerry has been urged repeatedly and even by Monica Pignotti to explain himself, but he simply does not ever comply to that, and he does not do that because he has nothing to offer.
The earlier mentioned Swedish psychiatrist Ulf Brettstam also made comments about this video on that infamous newsgroup: (dated 6 & 7 Feb 2009)
“WOW!!
That really was something! Thank's Peter for posting this, and THANK YOU Gerry!!”
“I find it a privilege to take part of GA's considerations and thoughts
concerning Admissions and his part in making them known to the public.
A moralizing lesson, as well as an outstanding example to us all of
high standard, personal bravery, setting aside your own security and
peace of mind for the greater good!
My only hope is, if I ever find myself in a similar position in life as Gerry was at the time, to be equally strong and upright as Gerry!”
Now, ain't that all gullible. Please observe the mind-set and utter uncriticalness of the Swedish psychiatrist. These messages and Gerry's dedication to my person in his video may all speak for themselves.
The Swedish psychiatrist once more (Includes: The documentary of SVT (Swedish television) and its forum (1-25 Oct ’08))
One can for sure say that this Swedish psychiatrist Ulf Brettstam has been going places. He went on a personal crusade to save people from Scientology, or so he says. It is interesting that he became very fascinated indeed about this Gerry Armstrong. Very much so regarding him as his (ultimate) hero! Why would that be?
Ulf Brettstam has been a rather aggressive advocate for the use of ECT on patients. Because of this he attracted attention of KMR, the Swedish section of Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). This is listed as a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to “eradicate abuses committed under the guise of mental health and enact patient and consumer protections.”. Founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz.
This chapter here has a bit to do with a disciplinary action taken against our Swedish psychiatrist. In Sweden you have this Socialstyrelsen (National Welfare Board in Sweden) that regulates and controls welfare, those that practice it, and such things. It was found by this board that Ulf Brettstam had not lived up to his responsibilities in regards to some of his patients. He was too quick to have patients undergo ECT when an evaluation of the patient had not been completed. This was spoken about in the news media in Sweden.
The documentary of SVT (Swedish television) and its forum (1-25 Oct ’08)
I first came to learn about this Swedish psychiatrist on this forum from SVT (Swedish television). They had broadcasted this documentary relating to Scientology and I joined the discussion where one could respond to and discuss that program after its broadcast. This was all in Oct 2008. And there he was. It was found that he in his postings was more opinionated and accusative (aggressive at that) than he was factual about matters.
He for example spoke out against this Narconon (a rehabilitation program for drug and alcohol addicts, without any use of drugs). Here he was making all sorts of accusative claims. However, not at one single interval could he properly support his sayings or refer to actual studies performed concerning its claimed uselessness. He instead persisted in referring to ‘studies’ performed by this Professor Folke Sjöqvist (who was also named in the documentary). Ulf Brettstam even presented documents from this person on his website. After examining these papers it was then found that they only showed that this Folke Sjöqvist had evaluated interpretations from other individuals and gave his ‘expert’ opinion about these. It appeared that he had not tested or investigated anything directly or in person. Basically all these papers did was presenting these opinions. Folke Sjöqvist further failed to provide for any details in his commentaries and findings that one could check up on.
When I confronted Ulf Brettstam with this 4-5 times he chose each time not to elaborate. Instead he was changing the topic and came with some other non-Narconon, but Scientology related topic. For example did he suddenly post portions of this Decision of Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. who ruled in this court case with Gerry Armstrong. To this I presented to him some other details such as:
(1)
that Gerry Armstrong had pocketed US$ 500,000 for materials that were not his;
(2)
that basically the whole Decision of this Judge Breckenridge was based on that he had accepted to believe the sequence of events and claims told by Gerry Armstrong; and
(3)
that Gerry Armstrong at present is unable to travel to USA as he will be arrested upon arrival and detained until facing trial.
Ulf Brettstam conveniently refrained from responding to any of this, instead he resorted to posting something else unflattering about Narconon. He went forth and back like this. It was found that he not at any time was willing to really discuss or explain anything at any depth.
Please mind here that it is not intended here to either defend or question the workability of said Narconon! This is all about if Ulf Brettstam was able or willing to present proper studies performed and that could be verified, and that would show either the usefulness or uselessness of that Narconon program.
My experience with this individual is the same as what I experienced with Gerry Armstrong. You can bang your head against the wall as many times as you wish, but you still will be getting no where...
Gerry Armstrong's merry-go-round... or The mental state of one Gerry Armstrong
Now, I have tried at various occasions through the years to have some sort of sensible conversation with this Gerry Armstrong, but I was unable to get anywhere. He is just going round and round and round, persistently saying things that either don't make very much sense at all, are not in touch with reality, are not supported with proper evidence, or that are clearly contradicted by actual facts or data at hand.
As a last notice I wish to mention here that the more I found out about this person, collected and verified information about him and his sayings, the more surprised I got concerning that people are actually listening to him and taking him serious. He does appear intelligent, but also not particularly sane. He just does not appear to be quite right in his mind. We have so many indicators and behavioural patterns all around, which amongst other this Swedish psychiatrist appears to be utterly unable to perceive.
He is considered very much so a hero by the anti-Scientology movement and their followers, but it appears only so because he is standing on their side of the fence. Gerry Armstrong appears being an expert in alleging and then get people to also actually believe in what he says, no questions asked. I wonder when they will wake up!?
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.” (from ‘A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler’, chapter “Hitler as His Associates Know Him”; Walter C. Langer, Office of Strategic Services; ; The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012).
Gerry Armstrong called in as an ‘expert’ witness at other trials (fair game)
A result of the court procedures and all the media attention it had received was that Gerry Armstrong started to get invitations or was called as a witness (or to submit affidavits) at other Scientology related trials. He has claimed amongst other to have been subjected to various harassments from the Church of Scientology and particularly names fair game. He tells about that the Church of Scientology has this policy letter published in the sixties in where it was authorized to harass people that oppose to Scientology in some manner. Gerry Armstrong was very eager to volunteer giving these appearances in courts and supplying affidavits where ever he was invited to do so. Although he could not appear in person at courts in the United States as there he was a fugitive of the law for violating his agreement with the Church of Scientology.
The whole court affair from 1984-86 thus had turned him rather famous overall, most particularly among those people that opposed to Scientology and/or its organization, and as it appeared he enjoyed the attention that he received. He also started to appear as a speaker at various events organized by people that were opposed to Scientology or wanted to expose matters about it. Joined demonstrations, so-called picketing. Later he started to create huge websites loading it with court transcripts and other Scientology related materials of all sorts (since 2002).
On 30 Nov 2008 he himself states on this Internet newsgroup (A.R.S.): “I do happen to be an authority on the Scientology cult and cultists,
and particularly Scientology's ‘Suppressive Person’ doctrine and its
execution as ‘fair game’ in the cult's war on wogs.”.
There is however one stumble block in regards to referring to him as if being that expert on the church policy on fair game. It may very well be so that he was subjected to various unpleasant attention from the Church of Scientology (self-inflicted or not, let there be no doubt about that), but he simply does not appear very well informed about the functioning of policy letters. This to the point that when he finally is educated about the things he had missed and is made aware of matters that he then chooses to ignore that and continues to make the same previous claims which now had turned into deliberately forwarding a lie!
He states on his website:
“Note: Hubbard's fair game doctrine, when he
laid it out in his Policy Letter
of 18 October 1967, was quickly recognized by thinking government
officials, journalists and citizens as calling for violent, illegal actions against the
cult's "enemies." As a result, he issued another Policy Letter dated 21
October 1968 entitled "Cancellation of Fair Game," that the Miscavige regime
insists cancelled this criminal doctrine. But Hubbard was just fair gaming his
"enemies" with his "cancellation," just playing a trick on
them. He "cancelled" the use of the term "fair game" when
declaring people "enemies" or "SPs," with the cynical
excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the same "treatment" of
those "enemies" continue as before. The Scientologists in the Hubbard
regime knew that the same violent, antisocial and criminal actions were to be taken
against these "enemies," the "SPs." Fair game would continue, but
it would not be called by that name. GA”
He has had this same text there since at least November 2003 (according to Internet archives), and he still has it there this day! (last checked: 9 Sept 2019) You may consult that page here. (pop-up window)
You'll ask: “What is wrong with it?” Well, he claims a trick has been played, but overlooks that the fair game practice had already been cancelled earlier by HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. More info at link here below: (separate window)
A number of times I have informed him about this (I did that in 2005, and again during 2008-11), but he has always chosen to ignore me or that which he was being informed about. He has never addressed, countered or explained his denial, he basically has just ignored it. At that, what else could he have done?
Gerry Armstrong about outside-of-church Scientology practitioners (2012)
Dublin Offlines 2012 was an initiative from Ex-Scientologists Ireland (located in Dublin). It was held 30 June 2012 and a variety of guest speakers were being invited, among them was our Gerry Armstrong. He rambled off his old claims, then at the end questions were being asked, and because of one particular question forwarded and the answer that Gerry Armstrong provided for this little chapter has been written.
The question being asked was: (at 35:14)
“I am asking you about the corporate Scientology, I am asking you about the other group, the splinter group that slipped away from Scientology in an attempt to use the tech of L. Ron Hubbard on their own outside of the Church of Scientology corporate structure. Do you see any validity in those groups?”
And the answer that our Gerry gave:
“No, and the reason is because they all embrace the SP doctrine. That's the key, when they say "No, we do not...", the SP doctrine is what makes Scientology a hate group. It makes them a totalitarian group. And it creates that tremendous irrationality in the mind of every Scientologist as soon as you embrace that someone who is telling the truth about..., you know, my subject and the founder of this thing, that they are evil and are to be destroyed... Remember Tom Cruise, saying, "Right, a world without SPs", this was a great thing for him. He wanted to... wouldn't that be wonderful, when nobody in the world any longer tells any truth about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.
Yeah, so, I've never met a Scientologist yet who did not embrace the SP doctrine, and it must be remembered that, in the various factions and the one that stands out right now, of course is the Marty Rathbun/Mike Rinder faction, and then there is the David Miscavige faction, they all embrace the SP doctrine. And also a member that, if your cook in corporate Scientology, you are not declaring people SP, you are not disconnecting, you are not... you are not caring, you are not executing fair game against them. That is for other people to do, but you support it. Same thing on the outside. So, in a sense, corporate Scientology has outsourced some of the attacks on wogs, SPs such as myself to the... the splinter group, the independent Scientologists, so you don't see corporate Scientologists right now black PRing Gerry Armstrong, that's not visible, that's been taking over by Marty in his gang, see-yeah...”
My spontaneous response to that would then be... What ís he talking about? In essence, the SP doctrine as he calls it, came originally into being because the organization was under rather heavy attack during the ’60s. It's purpose was to ban out those persons that were hindering Scientology parishioners to receive processing and study. It was essentially an organizational thing. Then what does this got to do with the independent Scientologist that has cut all ties with the organization? All that these groups do is using this technology, as they see fit, to benefit themselves and their friends. There is no SP doctrine in use there! Here people are not declared or have to disconnect. They do not embrace some SP doctrine, they have effectively cut ties with all of that! Most of the time this is the véry reason why they left the church!
Marty Rathbun is not a very good example for an independent Scientologist. The last decade he has been behaving very erratic. At present it would seem he is (as some people imply) back on the payroll of the church because he has been attacking that show Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath that ran 2016-19, particularly targeting Mike Rinder. Not sure why Mike Rinder is named by Gerry Armstrong as today he is not a Scientologist which becomes very clear if you watch this show.
People in the Freezone and the Independent Scientology commonly don't even know about Gerry Armstrong, who he is or what he has done. So Marty and “his gang” is “right now black PRing Gerry Armstrong”? Why is Gerry Armstrong so obsessed with himself? He seems to think he must be in the midst of everything?
I can't relate this to anything. It would say that he really does not have a clue what the outside-of-church Scientologists occupy themselves with!
And here, finally, my write-up about this has come to an end...
Vocabulary:
Dev-T (dev-t):
‘developed traffic’. 1. any executive getting dev-t knows at once what posts are not held because dev-t is the confusion that should have been handled in that area by someone on post. 2.Developed traffic does not mean usual and necessary traffic. It means unusual and unnecessary traffic. 3. Non-compliance, alter-is, no report, false reports, off-origin statements and despatches, stale dated orders, wrong targets, cross orders, cross targets are all dev-t. entheta:
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) FCO:
‘Flag Condition Order’. Sea Org* issue-type reserved for ethics matters. Equivalent to Ethics Order (Condition Order) as used in lower classed Scientology organizations. HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’. OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649) overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional. PAB:
‘Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other. Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations. Withholds (W/Hs):
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (Marriage Hats booklet) wog:
‘worthy oriental gentleman’. 1. This means a common ordinary run-of-the-mill garden-variety humanoid. (SH Spec 82, 6611C29) 2. A wog is somebody who isn't even trying. (SH Spec 73, 6608C02)
The ‘affirmations’: The domain of the imaginary vs The position of the Church of Scientology
. 
This is from a Declaration from Robert Vaughn Young, who at the time was employed in and following the defence line of the Church of Scientology. He had been a member of the Church of Scientology during 1969-89, and he had been working in many areas within the organization including the highest management echelons. Obviously this Declaration was issued to defend the position of said Church of Scientology and make the claims of Gerry Armstrong look ridiculous. He even makes a critical comment about Omar V. Garrison, saying that he and Gerry Armstrong were following the same line of bias. 