Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (2016-19) (4) or
Are we being properly (mis)informed or not? (Review of TV show that ran 3 seasons. Hosts: Leah Remini and Mike Rinder)
At 3:49 question: “For someone who left, is there anything a loved one can do to help a member see the truth without ruining the relationship completely?”
At 3:55 Leah Remini: “No. Really, honestly, no. You need to understand that they're brainwashed. You need to understand they think out in the real world, that Scientology is doing amazing things. They don't know what's going on in the real world.”
I wouldn't disagree, they are just not in reach. All you can is try to plant some seeds in them that may grow over time.
At 5:15 question: “Was there a secret group of people or friends you had in the Church that doubted it, or did you feel alone?”
At 5:21 Leah Remini: “Oh, for me, I doubted it, and I would go to my closest, most intimate friends in Scientology. And I would say, you know, ‘Did you see that thing on the Internet?’”
Interesting to hear, that even she had doubts...
At 5:35: “And I would get reported for that. That friend or family member would then be required to write an internal report on me -- basically, alerting the church that I was having disaffected feelings towards my church and that I would be considered an enemy.”
I actually have very seldom encountered anyone reporting me, because I expressed my opinion, a wondering or a doubt about something. Sometimes I received an angry comment something, but that was about it. There were a few silly reports that I recall, but this were easily refuted because of misinterpretation or misinformation contained within them. Might I say I am located in Europe and not US, this may make a difference.
At 8:13 question: “Thank you for what you're doing. Thank you for being an example. What has helped you get through the leaving process and the intimidation from the church?”
At 8:22 Mike Rinder: “I think the most important thing for me was finding other people who understood what it was that I had experienced.”
Paulette Cooper's story
At 10:46 Paulette Cooper: “I spoke to someone who had left, and he started telling me that he had gotten some death threats.
Little did I realize that soon, Í was the one that was going to be getting death threats. And my book came out. It was called ‘The Scandal of Scientology.’ And it was the strongest thing that anybody had written or said about them. Right. So it became all barrels against me. They sued me 19 times.”
The book was published summer 1971. She was first sued by the Church in Dec 71.
At 12:30: “They stole my stationery. They wrote themselves two bomb threats. They called the FBI and said that they thought I had done it. And there it is, my stationery. They got my fingerprint.”
The Church claimed to have received these threats in Dec 72. She was indicted May 73
At 13:49: “The idea was to either get me in a mental institution or jail so no one would believe me. Right. It didn't work. In 1977, the FBI raided Scientology.”
At 14:11: “And they found all these documents pertaining to a woman named ‘Miss Lovely.’ And that was my code name. And they would say things like, you know, ‘We sued her successfully this week. We got her arrested this week.’ And, finally, people believed me.”
This was called Operation Freakout and the papers are dating to 1976.
I went over the original documents that had surfaced and published my findings here (separate window). Consult at your own leisure.
At 14:38 Leah Remini: “So, when it was found that the Church wás engaging in what they call Fair Game, was anybody indicted on their side?”
Conveniently we see a screen dump shown on the TV show which shows HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, a long since cancelled policy letter.
Now, did they find anything that would clearly indicate and prove indicate someone operated off an cancelled policy letter? Anything at all?
At 14:45 Paulette Cooper: “Well, there was a grand jury, but they wouldn't testify. And they didn't plead the Fifth. They pleaded the First Amendment. And somebody even went to jail for eight months rather than reveal what they had done to me. And the judge realized that they would stay in jail for the rest of their lives, so they let them go. And nobody ever paid any real penalty -- except for me -- for what had been done.
We did sue. We counterclaimed.”
At 15:12 Leah Remini: “Did you win?”
At 15:10 Paulette Cooper: “Oh, I'm not allowed to discuss settlements.”
At 15:22 Leah Remini: “You settled with the Church, but you did not agree to a gag order, which a lot of people do.”
At 15:27 Paulette Cooper: “I would never agree to a gag order, anyplace, anytime. I am a reporter. I believe in the First Amendment. I will never, ever sign anything that says that I cannot say the truth.”
A gag order (according to ‘Cambridge Dictionary’) is “an official order not to discuss something, especially a legal case”. Now, if a judge issues such a court order you may choose to not“agree” to that, where the First Amendment will protect to some degree, although it is not unlimited. Paulette Cooper says that she would breach it.
To some extend she does agree to not gagging this in regards to that she says she was“not allowed to discuss settlements”. In effect there are some things she agreed she can not reveal. Anyway we learn nothing about the details of some settlement, but we do know she did not get right in court. Ironically we see that for example in the case with Gerry Armstrong that the court granted the motion that as many as 131 breaches of his settlement with the Church had occurred. But he was able to safely withdraw to Canada his country of origin.
At 15:40 Mike Rinder: “Scientology todáy claims that there is no such thing as Fair Game, that Fair Game is not practiced in Scientology, because in October of 1968, the practice of Fair Game was canceled.”
Conveniently here we get a dump screen on the TV show with HCO PL 21 Oct 68 Cancellation of Fair Game”. Problem is that the reference that did cancel the practice was HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, three months earlier. I addressed this already in season 1/episode 2, see here (separate window).
At 15:52: “But that's exactly what they said about Paulette until the documents were all found in the raid.”
It would appear they were unable to use the papers found in the raid to nail the Church on this account or the Paulette Cooper affair. Mike Rinder is missing something here, as improper behaviour of some Church staff does not prove a policy letter (a cancelled one) was consulted. It just needs more!
Paulette Cooper appears about eight minutes on the TV show, but nothing is said about what was so harmful in the book she wrote in 1971, her support for that she says, and so on. Her appearance on the show is just not very enlightening not does it add very much.
At 17:36 from dump screen: “Following the FBI raid in 1977, 11 Scientologists were indicted.”
It says nothing about any conviction or the outcome for any of these persons. I would take it that if that were the case it would have listed that...
Sure you can make a case with stating that the Church buys off persons out key positions in the justicial system or other, this you can imply, where at the same time it can also be a case that has lack of actual evidence that will hold in court. So which is it here?
Questions (2)
At 17:58 question: “Do you worry about something happening to you in any way or another for doing this? Scientology is not exactly known to be ‘friendly’ to people who speak out against them.”
At 18:07 Leah Remini: “No, I'm not worried that anything will happen to me. What I'm afraid of is nothing happening, that this won't be enough for the government to step in and do something about it. That's what I'm most afraid of.”
At 19:09 Leah Remini: “When I was in Scientology, I used to hear information about Sea Org members saying that they were abused. And I remember thinking, ‘If that were true, then the police would be raiding this place and the FBI would be doing something. If this were true, how come no one's done anything about it?’”
At 19:33 Mike Rinder: “The primary reason, Leah, is because people within Scientology are indoctrinated heavily. The law enforcement, the FBI, the police or whatever, they're all horrible, Suppressive People. So the concept of even going to them is something that just never enters the mind of a Scientologist.”
Those that have been abused will, would they not? It is not adequately explained why the “FBI” or whomever would not raid... The issue may be an other.
At 20:02 Leah Remini: “If you prosecute a Scientologist, you will be expelled and shunned.”
At the same time she states that this is shown at the TV show (at 20:02):
It really doesn't say that Leah Remini claims it says, does it now...! One thing she makes up, and another thing she ignores. There are criteria that have to be answered to. And she shows the whole quotation on the TV show for all to see, what is she thinking?! That people would not notice? No, they probably would not...
Of course the Church may do things, just ensure they follow their own criteria that it says in the policy letter! Who is suppressing Scientology if a bad deed has been committed by a ‘Scientologist’? Then who should be expelled? You get it now?
At 20:27 Leah Remini: “I don't want to be just like Scientology and say ‘Believe me.’ I don't need you to believe me. I need you to Google it yourself. Go look at their -- Go look at their policies. Go Google ‘Scientology and disconnection,’ ‘Scientology and coerced abortions,’ ‘Scientology and physical and mental’ --”
Please do, and get what the policy letters and the Scientology books say! Then one should be aware that there exist references falsely signed with L. Ron Hubbard and written by someone else. It all needs proper looking into if you want to find out where things are at. The by Leah Remini named “disconnection” and “coerced abortions” are lacking a foundation per these Scientology materials. I addressed this already in season 1/episodes 1 & 5.
At 22:34 question: “What do you think makes this cult so attractive to people willing to join?”
At 22:39 Leah Remini: “We get criticized a lot, like, ‘What are you two as*ho***? You didn't know what was going on in the real world?’ No! No! And, by the way, who is gonna actively go after bad information of an organization that they believe in completely?”
This by itself is just rubbish. You need to “completely” “believe” in “an organization”? I never ever did that.
At 22:53 Leah Remini: “Sea Org members are absolútely cut off from the real world. They have an excuse.”
Not true, there were staff at Hacienda Gardens at Flag having televisions in their room, the Chaplain FSO had. Various staff were walking around with pocket-sized televisions which they looked at, my Mission Second had one. In downtown Clearwater (Flag) there was a very close-by library, there was no forbiddance to visit there. I did at a variety of occasions.
At 23:28 question: “Do people actually believe the story that book tells, frozen aliens under a volcano, or is it just a set of rules and philosophies?”
At 23:54 Leah Remini: “And, no, we don't necessarily believe it, but we don't háve to believe it, is what we're told.”
At 23:59 Mike Rinder: “Well, I think, Leah, that there are people that believe it. Seriously.”
Funny, how are “frozen aliens” “rules”? how does that work?
Quite frankly, you are not supposed to believe any of it, you are supposed to run the information in an auditing session...
At 24:26 question: “Is there anything good about Scientology?”
At 24:27 Leah Remini: “Yes. The beginning courses of Scientology, they treat -- they talk about communication, responsibility, being an ethical person. But it's -- it's, overall, very damaging.”
And that is all? I am sorry, but it goes a lot further than that. But then it is all pending how you deal with information! If you go with all the fuss, people telling stories, losing your sense for critique and analysis, of course it can damage you. If that's it, then why did Leah Remini spent millions of dollars? Was it all spent on promises?
Chris Shelton's carrot (promises of going OT)
At 24:54 Mike Rinder: “I've asked Chris Shelton to come join us for a few questions because Chris was in the Sea Org for 17 years.”
At 25:35 Chris Shelton: “At the events and everything, especially, right? Because you're shown all these things. And it was only when I saw with my own two eyes that these things were not actually real in the real world, that it started dawning on me that I was involved in something that was saying one thing but was doing something else.”
At 26:03: “No, the problem was that I saw that the organization of Scientology and David Miscavige were not what I wanted it to be or not what I thought it would be or not what it said it would be. But I still thought that L. Ron Hubbard was speaking the truth. I still thought that the technology of Scientology was worthwhile. And I wanted those OT levels. I wanted to move up that bridge. And it was supposed to be the ultimate answers to all of life. Right. Everything was supposed to be explained on these OT levels.”
At 26:41: “And I went through a lot of hell for the promise of that carrot.”
If the events were giving out false data, what makes you think that the organization putting up those events would give you true OT levels?
At 26:47 Leah Remini: “Even when you get to these confidential, extremely expensive levels, they're still saying -- ’cause I said, ‘That's some crazy shit. I don't want to go any further.’ They go, ‘Da-da-da! Wait.’ ‘Wait till you get to OT VIII, because that's where it's at.’”
Neither of them appear to have any knowledge of the early history of Scientology where the original OT levels were very affordable and short actions. Later these original levels were interfered with, various levels were simply replaced with completely other things. The original OT VIII was never even released. It should not be very surprising that Leah Remini says:
At 27:02: “My mother did OT VIII, and my stepfather did OT VIII, and they were like, ‘Uh...this is not great.’”
They did New OT VIII, and it does not resemble at all what we do know from various notes that we have about the original OT VIII. We were privy at Flag with that it was re-released two times with corrections, for which the public had to pay again and once again.
If someone says to you about the answers of life:
At 28:26 Leah Remini: “It's gonna cost you a quarter of a million dollars minimum -- and your whole life -- but we have those answers.”
Then you know something is already wrong, because... if you make this so much out of reach with absolutely ridiculous costs, you are limiting the actual spreading of Scientology and people getting ‘free’. Now, what were the aims of Scientology again? “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the world can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.” LRH(Sept 65). How are you going to achieve that if you make it all so absurd expensive? Why is so much effort is placed on that you donate for no service in exchange instead of moving on that Bridge? These are indications that pricings are there for another reason! Thínk! Leah, Mike and Chris are just nót thinking!
At 28:32 Mike Rinder: “The issue isn't whether they believe crazy stuff or not. The issue is whether they dó crazy stuff or not. And what's hard to separate in the picture of Scientology is that the crazy stuff that Scientology does is just as much a part of the ‘scripture’ of Scientology as the crazy beliefs.
And it's a bit unique in that fashion. You don't find it so clearly delineated in other groups, that ‘Our religious belief requires us to do these religious acts.’ And those religious acts are abusive. We're not just sitting in a corner, praying. We're not just lighting candles. We're going out breaking up families, and it's because of our beliefs.”
Wow-wow-wow! Really?! Scientology is a means of application, and that is all there is, and ever was in Scientology. There is no belief!!! Would never come up in my mind “breaking up families” for said reason. This is the original disconnection, see here (separate window).
If people really want to stop abuses of this sort then start educate yourself and then others.
At 29:25 Chris Shelton: “That's where something crosses the line to becoming not just a religion, not just a cult, and that is what Scientology is.”
Scientology is information. People make cults!
At 29:32: “And you go, ‘I need to actually stop this. I need to actually do something about this,’ because it almost becomes a moral obligation. You know?”
At 29:41 Leah Remini: “Because I think people say, ‘Why now? Why are you guys speaking out? Why are you doing this?’ Because you got into Scientology because you thought you were helping. And it speaks to that person in you that wants to be part of something big and part of something that's helping people. And you're stíll that same person.”
At 30:00 Chris Shelton: “Exactly. We still want to help.”
He does talk about a guilt he is carrying. How was “breaking up families” in any world ever an act of help?
Karen De La Carriere and husband Jeffrey Augustine
At 31:38 Mike Rinder: “She's pretty unique. She was -- has been in the Sea Org for a long, long time. I've known her since, like, 1973. She was a highly trained Scientologist, trained personally by L. Ron Hubbard.”
Trained in what and exactly what time?
At 32:22 Karen de la Carriere: “I was in for 40 years. Believing in it all. I went to the Apollo. Hubbard recruited me personally. I joined the Sea Org.”
Another ‘believer’.
At 32:34 from dump screen: “During Karen's time in the Sea Organization, she reached the highest level of training”
At 34:46 Jeffrey Augustine: “Karen had publicly left the Church in 2010 and began speaking out on the Internet.”
If she left in 2010, and she was in for 40 years then she must have gotten into Scientology in 1970.
On the Scientolipedia website she says: “In the early 70s I traveled to the Flag Ship Apollo as a public. I took just one suitcase, for a planned 10 day stay. I had trained up through Class VIII at Saint Hill in the UK.” Then she tells that “Janis Gillham, found me in the bowels of the ship. She had a message from the Commodore. I looked up at her startled that she knew my name. Her message was: ‘The Commodore asked if you have finished your auditing, and if so, would you like to join the Sea Organization?’”
Here she says early 70s, but not an exact year or time. It bears sort of a significance if it was prior to 1973 or not. As L. Ron Hubbard was out of reach during 4 Dec 72 till mid-Sept 73, and there is a dispute if it was L. Ron Hubbard that came back. Also did she meet L. Ron Hubbard before or after that time interim?
She can't have been trained by L. Ron Hubbard in person for Class VIII, as she did that in UK by her own account. So, Mike Rinder says “trained personally by L. Ron Hubbard”, how/what exactly?
No doubt this question Leha and Mike received about money is taken up here because Jeffrey Augustine runs this website/blog that “is primarily focused on the crimes, lies, and legal matters perpetrated by the Church of Scientology and its members.” This is how he described it to me in a private message. Indeed, the focus is on the present organziation and the things they do which is rather condemning for the Church. Rightly so, but no attention is given to separate the organization from the topic of Scientology.
At 36:42 question: “How much money did you pay to the Church throughout your time there?”
At 36:45 Leah Remini: “They like to say that there's free courses and it doesn't cost a lot to be a Scientologist.”
At 36:50 Jeffrey Augustine: “Well, that's the PR answer. You're supposed to give as much money as they can get from you. There's no end to the amount of money they will take. If you're a public member paying to get auditing to go from the beginning all the way up to OT, the generally accepted number is about $360,000.”
With the present pricings in the present Church, that is probably about right.
At 37:07 Leha Remini: “So how do people do it who are not rich?”
At 37:10 Jeffrey Augustine: “They take out second and third mortgages on their homes or they live in apartments, they drive really crappy cars. If you ever go to a Scientology event, you'll see a few wealthy cars. Everything else are old cars. You sacrifice, you work extra jobs, and you go without.”
At 37:29 Leah Remini: “People are giving up living to finance their actual religion.”
At 37:34 Jeffrey Augustine: “L. Ron Hubbard said there's nothing more valuable than Scientology. You're asked to give up your retirement funds. College funds for your children. If you even believed in that. I mean this is insane.”
Yes, unfortunately people do these things. It is also a pity people do not toughen up and start checking up the original Bridge that you could run back then, the whole Bridge, for the sum of something like $6,000/7,000 if taken the co-auditing road. This is essentially something that Karen De La Carriere would be familiar with or at least know about as she was on Scientology lines at least since the early 70s.
Jeffrey Augustine about Church contracts
To be eligible to receive services in the Church you will be obliged to sign various legal forms.
At 38:12-38:35:
The consequence of these will be as follows:
At “38:07 Jeffrey Augustine: You sign a legal form that says this is irrevocable money -- gone forever. But you're asked to sign document after document.
How do you become a Scientologist? You sign four contracts. [1] You agree that Scientology is a religion. [2] You abandon your rights to sue them. [3] You give up your rights to ever see your confessional folders. [4] The last one is, if you go what's called Type III, if you have a psychotic break in the Church of Scientology, you agree to let Scientologists come and take you out of the emergency room or psychiatric confinement, lock you up in a hotel room --”
At 38:44 Leah Remini: “Wait, wait. Áll Scientologists sign that? Í signed that?”
At 38:46 Jeffrey Augustine: “You signed it without knowing it.”
Well, I only recall signing one document, I guess the other ones came later. Indeed one should read and understand anything one signs from beginning to end. If you are asked for such amounts of money for services, then don't be shy about it.
The only thing I do remember from later years is that the IAS let you sign a slip where you understood this was a donation for charity purposes and unrefundable. They did that only because more and more people started to asking their money back from donations to the IAS. This occurred somewhere around 2006-08 or so. No wonder people asked their money back as the push was really enormous and unfair, they were chasing people, next step about would have been at gunpoint I guess. I have seen IAS collectors standing in the door opening stopping people from leaving if they had not ‘donated’ yet. It was funny to watch how people were aiming at and sneaked out when the collector was distracted for a moment...
Questions (3)
At 39:50 question: “What influence does the Church of Scientology have on U.S. politics?”
At 39:57 Mike Rinder: “Zero.”
Would it be impossible that the same persons that run US are responsible for the take over (hijack) of Scientology?
At 40:05 question: “What do you think Scientology will look like in 50 to 100 years? Do you think it has longevity, or do you think it will come to an end?”
At 40:12 Mike Rinder: “Oh, I'm sure it will come to an end. I don't think that the books of L. Ron Hubbard are ever gonna disappear or that there won't be people that believe that they have a reactive mind or have read "Dianetics" and -- But organizational Scientology will be a distant memory.”
You don't have to believe you have a reactive mind, it is easily established that there is something that answers to the criteria of a reactive ming being in existence.
‘Ask Me Anything, Part 2’ (s1e08 - 17 Jan 2017)
[Wiki: Remini answers more questions from viewers and interviews cult expert Steven Hassan; Lawrence Wright, the author of Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief; and attorney Ray Jeffrey.]
At 5:23 question: “What is the racial makeup of the organization?”
At 5:27 Mike Rinder: “Uh, 99.9% Caucasian.”
At 5:31 Leah Remini: “Why do you think that?”
At 5:32 Mike Rinder: “Because I think that traditionally and from the very earliest days of Scientology, or Dianetics even, Hubbard appealed to the middle class of America. That was who he was reaching. If you go back even at the very earliest photographs of Hubbard's lectures that he delivered on Dianetics and you look at the audience, I bet there isn't a single non-Caucasian person in the entire audience of any of those lectures.”
It started in the very early 50s. It is not so much to whom L. Ron Hubbard was reaching, it is rather who was reaching to what L. Ron Hubbard had to say. It appealed to a certain class of people, many of them had received advanced educations, such as doctors, engineers and such. Dianetics and Scientology had a scientific approach, it was mathematical and rational. Read more about the “Science versus Religion” aspect here (separate window).
Other religious denominations and Scientology. Mike Rinder on the TV show touches on the reach of the ‘Nation of Islam’ for Scientology.
At 7:04 Mike Rinder: “Now, where this is going and how this is gonna end up, I don't really understand because you cannot be ... anything and a Scientologist. [7:12 Leah Remini: “Right”] You are a Scientologist, and that's it. [7:18 Leah Remini: “Right”]”
I am sorry, but that Mike Rinder says, and Leah Remini is agreeing to, is just nonsense. Scientology is no more than a technology (a series of steps) to an application. It doesn't require a particular faith. There is this “Creed” from 1970, see here (pop-up window).
This is though interesting, see at 7:34:
I guess the present Church or at least in 1993 changed its mind and went against the “Creed”! It reveals a lot about how the organization had changed since the person L. Ron Hubbard had left the scene...
The matter of homosexuality
At 7:43 question: “What is the Church's stance on homosexuality?”
At 7:57 Leah Remini: In “a book called ‘Science of Survival,’ ... there is a Chart of Human Evaluation [the Tone Scale], and basically what it does is it teaches you who to look out for in your life, and there's numbers connected to this chart. And below a certain number on this Chart is the most degraded, aberrated person that you could ever know. And that classification is called 1.1. And that is where L. Ron Hubbard wrote homosexuality lives, in that band. That is the sexual pervert.”
No, it does not teach “you who to look out for in your life”, that is not at all what the book or the scale was for! Did Leah Remini understood anything at all from this 328 pages counting book? What a thing to say! The purpose of the book and the scale was to determine where a person was on the scale to determine what action were needed to get the person to a higher “tone” on the scale (it goes from “-3” to “4.0”, there is “40” however the book focuses on Dianetics which goes up to “4.0”).
There are 42 categories/columns on the folding chart (“B” to “Z”, then “AB” to “AR”). “A” on the chart just gives us the “tone” designation (number). All the bands, and thus also band “1.1” has 42 different denominations pending where you look at the scale.
At 8:30 & 8:42:
quotation from ‘Science of Survival’
quotation from ‘Dianetics’
In ‘Science of Survival’ (1951, 1st edition, page 115-116) we find: “At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices.”. This book makes no mention at all about homosexuality anywhere.
Then we go to ‘Dianetics’ (1950, 1st edition, page 103) there we find: “The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically.”. May be a good thing to check out this “catalogue” of Havelock Ellis and Richard von Krafft-Ebing, no? Just if you like to establish where L. Ron Hubbard got his information from. This we don't learn about from the dump screens shown at the TV show, which nicely have been edited...
This is the year 1950. That is 70 years ago if people did not notice? Homosexuality was regarded entirely different back then. Is it so surprising we find this in a book (any book) published in 1950? The answer is no.
It is actually awfully clever to mix up the two books like is done here. It just links up “perversion” with “sexual pervert”, or shall we focus on “sadism” and “sexual sadism”. See, it lets you in effect forget that homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in ‘Science of Survival’, nonetheless and rather ironically it is this book that is persistently forwarded first! This is also exactly that Leah Remini does! I don't think she even notices it... I mean, that she is being played.
At 8:50 Mike Rinder: “I mean, truthfully -- truthfully Scientology has two positions on homosexuality. One, the public position, which is, "Well, we don't take a position." Internally and for Scientologists, the position is, ‘There is something very wrong with it, deviant behavior that needs to be dealt with with Scientology.’”
True is that it is not accepted as such by Scientology or its parishioners. From an evolutionary perspective (as in theory of evolution) it does not promote survival. Two of the same sex simply can not procreate. So the evolutionary strategy strictly per this is not welcoming it. The other perspective is the Christian one, their Scripture condemns it, we have these verses about Sodom and Gomorrah. Islam does not approve of it either. So what is it that we actually talk about here?
There are technical aspects and an explanation about homosexuality as a condition in Scientology (not a condemning one), but this goes beyond the scope and the extend of this analysis of the TV show.
Lawrence Wright about war record
At 9:56 Leah Remini: “Our next guest is Lawrence Wright, who is the writer of ‘Going Clear,’ Pulitzer Prize winner.” [‘Going Clear’ is a critical book about Scientology.]
At 10:19 Leah Remini: “What did you find immediately that separated the Church of Scientology? What was the thing that you went, ‘Huh, something's different here, something is not right here’?”
At 10:31 Lawrence Wright: “Well, most religions don't have secrets. You know, they're open. They want you to know what they believe, and they want you, you know -- And you're free to come and go.”
I did not perceive it like that, because I regarded it as an application and not a religion as such. Prior to 1965 nothing was kept secret. You see, when you develop a process to be run, it would not always be a good thing to know the end phenomena of that process. the reason should be obvious here. I can live with that.
At 11:51 Lawrence Wright takes up the war record of L. Ron Hubbard. Various things are being questioned. Ribbons that were not right and so on. The interesting part is when Leah Remini gets to hear about the term sheep-dipped. Where correct information about a person that is found in files is replaced with information that would protect a person that performs covert actions in times of war or other. Just for the information of Leah Remini, such things were being done and they are real. I was not unfamiliar with the term, but then I was always interested in recorded history, be it wars, witch hunts, or other.
At 14:53-15:16:
The thing is that you can't disprove any sheep-dip having occurred, therefore it does not make much of an argument to state that L. Ron Hubbard lied about his war record. As if he did, what was the actual lie, his real record or the sheep-dipped version? One should really not be surprised if the Church faked various things, like medals, papers, but it does not disprove sheep-dip. I am just not very interested in that what the Church tells or claims. To be clear, I did not get sheep-dip from them. In fact I didn't even know they did say that before I, just now, went through this episode of the TV show. I also have not read Lawrence's book ‘Going Clear’.
I wrote about this more than a decade ago already, see here (separate window). You also find there a link to the article by Margaret Lake which may be found of interest.
Preparing the return of L. Ron Hubbard?
At 16:08 question: “Is it true that there is a mansion in California that's kept stocked with food, staffed, and maintained in anticipation of the return of LRH?”
At 16:16 Lawrence Wright: “Yes, indeed, Mike, yes indeed, as you know, there is a --”
At 16:19 Mike Rinder: “Actually, there's more than one.”
At 16:20 Lawrence Wright: “Yes. Right. There's at least two in California, right.”
At 16:24 Mike Rinder: “Right. There's one in Creston, and there's one at Hemet (not Hemet ... in unincorporated Riverside County).”
At 16:40 Lawrence Wright: “You know, in the houses that he has there, you know, his favorite cigarettes, the Kool cigarettes, are there for him, the Thom McAn sandals by the shower door, Louis L'Amour novels on the bedside table, and a table setting for one.
Also, I've heard -- and you can probably tell me -- that, you know, those signals, those two crossed O's that are in the Kool cigarettes are an emblem and that if his spirit is soaring over the earth, he'll be able to look down and spot those O's, those interlocked O's, and he'll know that's the place.”
At 17:06:
Didn't know anything of it. Mike Rinder did but admit though that this is the first time he heard about the “interlocking O's”.
I caught the various rumours that were going around about if L. Ron Hubbard would be returning, in an article here (separate window). The last section “On guard forever?” does not conclude this to be a likely thing. I am rather surprised the Church also was caught up in it.
Working schedules and liberty days in Sea Org
At 38:21 Mike Rinder: “... the 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year Church employees called Sea Organization members...”
Not true, every two-weeks you could get a liberty day if the trending of your post statistics were up. There was ‘US Base ED 52’ 16 Nov 75 “Liberty Policy”, signed LRH. It mentions an earlier rule: “The promise of a day off every week is cancelled”. “We are presently on an every other week 24-hour Saturday liberty”. The concept was that you spread the time people are not on post: “It would be fatal to shut down the whole USB one day every week.” It also said that if a particular persistent high production was achieved that the “crew would be granted a 48-hour liberty every two weeks”. This however I have never seen happening. I have a letter from ED International, Guillaume Lesêvre that even originates the US Base ED to me, although I already did know about it.
“24-hour-a-day” is not true. You had a working schedule, at Flag this was 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., with dinner and lunch breaks. Then one had 2½ hour enhancement time a day to be used for study or auditing. You could see however that various people stayed longer, did not take breaks or very short ones, many skipped enhancement time, and they may even stayed the night. The Church ran two busses to drive people from the Flag base to Hacienda Gardens and back. Staff could leave with the 10 o'clock bus in time. The last bus left 11 o'clock. Observed was that the 10 o'clock bus carried little people, whereas the 11 o'clock one was overfilled. Go figure! Elderly staff could take an earlier bus home, I think it was 8 o'clock. I had an approved notice from the then CO FSO, Ron Norton that allowed me to leave in time with the 10 o'clock bus, even if he and Judy Saldarriaga (Personal Representative for L. Ron Hubbard at Flag) did not make it in time to do a cleanliness inspection (White Glove inspection) of our workspace. This occurred once a week and they were assigned to check the Mimeograph area. Judy was a funny lady, she reacted surprised when I told her that Ron Norton approved my request (called a CSW* in Scientology). It was your right as a staff to have that schedule, but then if you insist not having it, then blame yourself.
Now, you also had a yearly three week LOA. This according to ‘FO 1352RA-1826RA’, 7 Jul 81 “Leaves”: “Sea Organization members are entitled to take a 3 week (paid) Annual Leave.” You were only expected that you arranged with your org that your post was not entirely unmanned during the time you were away, which ultimately was the responsibilty of the HCO department in your org. I even got this extended to a five week LOA which I got approved by the same ED International.
Why doesn't Mike Rinder know about all these things? We had a big stack of FO “Leaves” in the Mimeo files at Flag. Staff frequently asked for it, and I simply answered with FO 1-3-5-2. Mike Rinder talks rubbish with his numbers. I guess that were his working schedules and he never questioned anything.
Questions (2)
At 38:06 question: “Why can some people leave Scientology and some people have to escape?”
At 38:11 Mike Rinder: “Well, the people that have to escape are the people that are in the Sea Org.”
Wow, really, wouldn't think so. I (and my wife) didn't escape in the night or something. We left with noise. It was intended by a person in HCO FSO that we blow, through not giving out the papers we needed. Every day she looked very displeased when she saw us still being there, we went around at the Flag Land Base for a further two weeks or so. Basically they really wanted us out of there, but we would not, and so we did get a written permission.
Also Mat Pesch and Amy Scobe did not escape and they were at international management. He said it was all in your mind. It would appear it was and may be still resides in Mike Rinder's mind?
At 38:47 question: “Do you need money to join? Can I be a regular guy or homeless, for that matter? Can I join with no contribution?”
Both Leah and Mike talk about various minor services that are free form charge, then Mike Rinder comments:
At 39:19: “However, if you wish to make any progress up the bridge to spiritual freedom you've got to have money. Or your life, you can join the Sea Org and get it for free.”
I haven't seen that happening. you have to find your own auditors, and all the auditors I found willing were denied by the C/S with no explanation given. Two of them were original Class IX staff auditors who were prepared to deliver me the whole Bridge. At one time I got so angry that I threatened with banging myself through the door to the C/S and demand an explanation. I got nowhere which was for me the first step to consider leaving. If I don't get that exchange while being very productive (upstat), then why would I stay.
‘Merchants of Fear’ (s1e09 - 29 May 2017)
[IMDB: In this double episode Remini and Rinder explore the historical relationship between the Church of Scientology and its often vocal critics. A series of special guests candidly describe their personal experiences investigating controversial stories about the Church and how the Church has responded to their work.]
At 1:31 Leah Remini: “We thought it would helpful to give you some inside on how Scientology ... policies work, ... Oftentimes we're asked, ‘What is this policy you're talking about and mentioning?’
Policy are the words written down by L. Ron Hubbard, but more importantly, all of L. Ron Hubbard's policies are to be followed, exactly.”
Yes, not however because they would be law. But because you want to handle a particular situation you find yourself in. Not following some steps may not result in having your problem solved.
At 2:14 Mike Rinder: “You will find monsterbooks like this that contain policy letters written by L. Ron Hubbard that all Scientologists are expected to learn, understand and apply the writings and the words of L. Ron Hubbard.”
Let's focus here on the series of books containing the policy letters that were published in L. Ron Hubbard his lifetime. And these are ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, released 1970-74. They are divided up by a book volume for each of the seven Divisions (‘HCO’, ‘Dissemination’, ‘Treasury’, ‘Technical’, ‘Qualifications’, ‘Distribution’, ‘Executive’). In addition to that you had a ‘Basic Staff Volume’, ‘Management Series’ and an ‘Index’. Ten volumes in total for policy letters. Regular sized 12'x7.7' (31x19.5 cm). All standing in a row 15.7' (40 cm).
(1) Now, how “monster” like sized books are that I wonder?
(2) This series of books had an index volume did it not? Does that indicate you need to know them by heart? No, just that you can find an answer to a question you may have about handling some situation. You need to find the policy letter that talks about that.
(3) The “words of L. Ron Hubbard”? In fact in these original volumes we find many policy letters that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard. True is that most of them and the more significant ones had been written by L. Ron Hubbard, but that does not mean the ones that were written by others would be insignificant.
A later reworked version of these volumes was issued in 1991. True enough, pretty much every single one of them is signed with L. Ron Hubbard in these new volumes. But you see, many policy letters had been L. Ron Hubbardized by then. Something like that original writers were demoted to assistants or disappeared from mention altogether. Other references just got cancelled. Officially L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, so we see that these volumes had been printed five years after that passing. Is that supposed to tell us something, well go figure for a moment...
At 2:33 Leah Remini: “There is no gray area. There's no thinking for yourself. It is, ‘What does LRH say.’”
Any sort organization or company will have a routine as to how matters are dealt with. “no thinking for yourself”? How is that going to work? How can apply anything correctly if you may not think for yourself?! Now, I already pointed out that it was not only L. Ron Hubbard that wrote policy letters.
At 2:40 Mike Rinder: “If L. Ron Hubbard wrote a policy letter that said, which he did ‘How to wash windows using newspaper,’ Scientologists still wash windows using newspaper because L. Ron Hubbard said, ‘That's the way that you wash windows.’”
I doubt that it was L. Ron Hubbard who was the first to think that up, but true enough there is a reference about that. You don't use it because L. Ron Hubbard “said” this or that, you use it if it works. Newspapers are the kind of paper that does not leave residues or is falling apart. It works very well to remove stripes from the glass after washing the windows.
A general overview of Scientology references can be consulted at link here below: (separate window)
Enemies (1), medical profession, psychology, psychiatry
At 3:36 Mike Rinder: “When L. Ron Hubbard wrote ‘Dianetics,’ he wanted the endorsement of medical doctors and psychiatrists and he wrote to the the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and said, ‘You should take on Dianetics as the new big thing.’ They responded saying, ‘You're a quack.’”
I don't think it transpired like that. He did offer it to these associations, and... they were not interested. No so very surprising either as they did not welcome (as they perceived it) a concurrent that threatened their daily bread income and authority, how and in what world would their response be surprising?
At 4:18 Mike Rinder: “He took offense at that and decided that anybody who was not in agreement with what he had written in ‘Dianetics’ was an enemy, and subsequently, through the years, that list of people in the ‘enemy’ category of Scientology has continued to grow.”
Well, that sounds like persecution mania, that is if you tell it like that. Mike Rinder is telling a story basically. You only then become an “enemy” if someone works against your efforts, that wants to close you down and things. See, it needs more before someone becomes your “enemy”.
At 4:39-6:28 it would appear that Mike Rinder in his further presentation on the TV show (Leah Remini joins with that later on), that he does not follow the chronology and the time line very well. He is shy of telling that there was not much going on during the 50s with this. The critique that was received at that time weren't a big issue. He basically jumps directly to the mid-60s where we see that policy letters got written that aimed to hinder attacks on the organization. It is these references that are being shown on the TV show.
So, it was not till the early 60s that matters became serious. The issue is really if you are going to be a sitting duck, and perish, or will take a stand and take measures? So you take that stand, you defend yourself or you'll perish. We get some inkling of things that we going in those early 60s here (separate window).
In the midst of this presentation we see this clip on the TV show at 14:53-15:16:
Now, what does that mean exactly? Think about it!
At 6:06 Leah Remini: “‘These are the enemies of Scientology.’ The list starts with the AMA, with psychologists, with psychiatrists, with the FBI, with journalists.”
This I can get, there were issues with these entities named in the above. But as she continues her “list” it gets kinda unrealistic:
At 6:27: “It is with parents who don't want their children in Scientology. It is with children who don't want their parents in Scient...- whatever combination you want to use. Enemy. Enemy. And the lists continues on and on and on.”
She is describing the condition of suffering from persecution mania or obsession. She should have a solid foundation before she goes like that.
Guardian Office
At 6:43 Leah Remini: “Starting in the early 60's Hubbard decided that there needed to be a department that was designated as responsible for dealing with these enemies. And that evolved into what became known as the Guardian's Office. The Guardian's Office was under the control of his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard which gives some of the ideas of the importance that was placed on investigating people who were attacking in Scientology, particularly the government.”
Here Leah finally gets to the “early 60's”, the time when various worrying happenings started to unfold that were directed against the organization. The Guardian Office however was established not until 1966. It is often though that Mary Sue Hubbard was running that office, but she only functioned as the Controller (or Overseer). It was actually run by Jane Kember, The Guardian. The intentions were well as can be seen from this very rare brochure. See here (pop-up window).
All was well until matters turned sour in the second half of the 70s. There are indications that the office was infiltrated from the inside and thus interfered with. It did not end well. It was disbanded and various persons went to jail, and more such things. The real tale however may be rather different from that what usually is told about it. We are in the midst of a new ruling entity coming taking its chances. More background information of the occurrences with the Guardian Office see here (separate window).
Enemies (2), IRS
Mike Rinder and Leah Remini continue on their crusade pointing fingers what they figure are the “enemy” of Scientology. At 8:47 it is now the turn of the IRS. According to Mike Rinder:
9:23: The IRS was denominated by L. Ron Hubbard as one of the main enemies of Scientology. They would not grant tax-exempt status for various churches of Scientology, because the IRS said that those churches of Scientology were benefitting L. Ron Hubbard personal.
If that is the case they could have granted tax-exemption when he was announced dead in 1986! Apparently they did not. Instead we have David Miscavige announcing 8 Oct 93 on video clip on the TV show that:
At 9:13: “Nine years and one day ago we found ourselves under vicious external attacks from the media, in civil courts and by the government.”
That gets us to 7 Oct 84 since these attacks were ongoing.
We hear a story told on the TV show that policies of L. Ron Hubbard were being used to get the IRS on their knees.
At 9:55 Leah Remini: “They had a full attack launched at the IRS, but more importantly the actual IRS employée. L. Ron Hubbard says, ‘This is what you do: You go after them, you discredit them, you go after their jobs.’”
At 10:12 Mike Rinder: “Scientology starting putting out ‘Freedom’ magazines targeting the individual IRS agents, filing 2,500 lawsuits.”
All that till the deed was done an it is announced that “THE WAR IS OVER!!!” at this Church event held on 8 Oct 93.
That what is interesting here is how it is intended to look like per the TV show, they turn it all into a L. Ron Hubbard and his policies thing:
At 10:32 Mike Rinder: “This was met with cheers, these were things that everybody thought were wonderful, because they were just doing what L. Ron Hubbard said.”
My first notion at the time was, how the Church could have pulled off something like beating the IRS? The Scientology community wasn't huge. Local organizations were understaffed. There just wasn't a lot going around in the organization, at least by far not enough to be able to nail the IRS and force them to give you tax-exemption. Then the “filing 2,500 lawsuits”, how are you going to do that?
Later on rumours starting to spread, all unbeknownst to Mike Rinder and Leah Remini. Like that David Miscavige had instead sold out Scientology to the IRS. What is interesting about the presentations that we find on the TV show is the stigma to put ALL the blame on L. Ron Hubbard, and ultimately through that imply that Scientology essentially is just rubbish and bad. The TV show does not research other angles, it's just one line they follow.
I think they drive this a bit too far here:
At 11:10 Leah Remini: “What does that say to Scientology when they got the IRS exemption? It says, ‘Policy worked.’”
At 11:19 Mike Rinder: “The IRS exemption made it acceptable in the minds of the run-of-the-mill Scientologists to take it upon themselves to start applying those policies written by L. Ron Hubbard to go harass the enemies of Scientology.”
I find it is misleading and incorrect. I have spoken to many Scientologists and this concept is not particularly met with approval. It is the only simple minded follower that goes with such flows, the people you can get for anything. It makes me wonder though for what reason Leah Remini and Mike are really running this TV show? The TV shows are following a pattern.
Enemies (3), press
A video clip is run at 11:36-11:54 on this episode of the TV show. It is taken from an interview made for Rhodesia Television and conducted in May 66. I extracted the clip directly from the original video, in much better quality, and made it run a bit longer.
At 11:53 Mike Rinder: “L. Ron Hubbard said that the media are the merchants of chaos. They never get anything right about Scientology. And this is policy that is based on his experience.”
At 12:03 Leah Remini: “You cannot read ‘Time’ magazine. You cannot read the ‘L.A. Times.’ You cannot go to Mike Rinder's blog. You're not allowed to watch the news because it's all bad news.”
Wow-wow-wow! Leah gives this all her energy apparently! Sorry, you can read whatever the heck you want! Who is going to stop you? Who? Leah just does not get that L. Ron Hubbard only means and implies that one should be careful and keep a critical eye when reading things. It ends there.
Now, the Church (not policy, not L. Ron Hubbard), they did come up with something. They developed this little computer software filter, called Net Nanny, read about it here (separate window). I guess Leah and Mike forgot to mention that or didn't even know about that.
It is simple reality that journalists need stories that will sell. The thing that sells best is bad news. Of course not all journalists operate on that, but very many do. There are those that do diligent and honest work that expose matters that some entities don't want to see the light of day. And if they do that they get (jurisdictionally) framed for something or smeared in the mainstream media. We can name for example Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and even David Icke. It is duly noted that Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward did not receive that fate, one may wonder why?
Policy (2)
A revelation from Leah Remini on policy:
At 16:40: “It's not David Miscavige that's bad; it's the actual Scientology is bad, and it demands you to destroy people who are telling the truth about it.”
So, David Miscavige is just a poor mislead innocent choirboy? I am sorry, Scientology does not instruct you to do any such thing.
(1) Scientology is asking that you use your senses for what is right. It does not ask you to blindly do something without any proper evaluation.
(2) Policy letters should be applied in the area that is referred to in that policy letter. Policy letters may talk about matters from the past and how they were dealt with at a distant time and for what reason. They have an educative purpose. Not all references that the TV show forwards are listed as actual policy letters.
(3) Quite a few of the policy letters or manuals that Leah Remini and Mike Rinder present in the TV show are never even seen by common Scientology parishioners. For example they show HCO manuals which are only for HCO Ethics personnel. Other policy letters are not included in these book volumes and are only distributed to particular personnel in the organization as per the routing indicated in the top left corner of the policy letter. If it says Gen Non-Remimeo it is limited distribution. Common parishioners will never get to see them.
Or at least..., these references indicated like that are not supposed to appear in the book volumes available to the public. I have seen al least seen one reference that the Church has missed that appears in the 1991 release of the HCO PL volumes. At 3:14 we find:
Talking about a miss...
At 45:44 Bryan Seymour (Australian journalist): “I did a story on the opening of the Advanced Ideal Org in Australia. Miscavige was there. Outside, the black-uniformed goons were getting a bit physical with my camera crew and I. After about three or four hours, one of them leaned in, when he knew we weren't filming. Leaned and whispered into my ear, ‘We know you grew up in an orphanage. We know they gave you drugs. What's wrong with you? Why don't you kill yourself?’ This is what he whispered into my ear. Now, they've prepped someone, had the discussion, ‘This is how we can try and unsettle Seymour.’ And I've gotta say, and I hate to admit it did get to me a little bit, just the awfulness of thinking that you can plan to try and throw someone off by throwing up childhood trauma at them and suggesting they commit suicide.
That's what Scientology is. It's not some crazy sci-fi cult with a few celebrities; these are people who plan the destruction of critics and plan the total subjugation of its followers to take their money and take their industry and take their lives. It doesn't stop for them. It never stops.”
See, that's the problem. That is Church, it is not Scientology. One would expect a proper journalist not to be this superficial and dig a little deeper, but no...
At 46:50 Leah Remini: “Well, it never stops because it's policy. It's what Scientologists know. It's what we are all taught. I was a parishioner. Mike was doing these tactics, but following policy.”
Leah Remini should drop the “it's policy” act and “It's what we are all taught.”. People were not all obedient following non thinking parrots. According to Leah Remini, it is policy here, policy there, policy everywhere, and we are all puppets and follow blindly just about ánything otherwise we are not being a good Scientologist!
At 47:04: “Anyone attacking Scientology is evil, and so this is how the church keeps or attempts to keep information from its parishioners and the true data.”
Wow-wow-wow! Then get your head out of the sand and start looking what is around you! It was not hidden to me, and if I did not know something, I would make very sure I quickly found out and I always did.
At 47:19: “What I struggle with... and what I struggle with, Mike--we are daily, is the fact that, as Scientologists, we believed that we were doing these amazing things for the world so it wasn't put on ...we really were told this, you know, in big events-- five mandatory events a year and these amazing statistics.”
Some people are just so very easily taken by the nose. Indeed they “were told”! Scientology requires you to do an evaluation. It even has something called the Data Evaluation series of policy letters. Almost every parishioner I spoke with were sceptical about these “statistics”, but were essentially silent about it, and just hoped that some of it at least were true! May be Europeans are not so easily mislead...
At 56:06 Leah Remini: “Well, we are told that we have tens of millions of Scientologists across the world.”
At 56:12-56:20:
At 56:21 Bryan Seymour: “You'd be lucky to have 40,000, across the world, most of them here in America.”
At 50:19 Leah Remini: “We have received so many calls about child abuse, sexual abuse, since our first season wrapped.”
Many people will contact the police about a something if it hits the media, lots of people may admit being the perpetrator or a victim. A usual problem for the police as they have to filter out all the fakes. Each call received requires verification and evaluation. This is just how it is in this world...
The secluded world of one Professor Stephen Kent...
At 59:43:
58:19 Mike Rinder: “... Professor Stephen Kent, who is a professor of the University of Alberta and perhaps has the largest collection of Scientology materials on planet Earth.”
At 58:29-59:33: He was not a Scientologist, but was interested in “sectarian groups” for which he previously had done a “dissertation”. In response to that “Scientology had been in the news, in 1983, there was a huge raid in Toronto against a Scientology org,” he had requested for “a research grant,” which got approved. He reached out to people whose names “got mentioned in the articles,” and “information started pouring in -- documents, people telling me stories”.
At 59:43 Professor Stephen Kent: “People started giving me documents. In fact, this is one, a manual called ‘Brainwashing, Published As a Public Service in the Hubbard College of Scientology.’ In 1955, Hubbard was thinking about these issues, so Hubbard was considering issues about manipulation and control for decades, that became the whole foundation for the major aggressive Scientology organizations that Hubbard developed.”
Wow! Does this professor not think for even one moment that if you wish to brainwash someone yourself that you do not disclose how you go about it or what techniques you would use? Then why was this little booklet “PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE”? Does that make sense to anyone?
Interesting is also how this professor came to think what “Hubbard was thinking about these issues” when his name is found nowhere in the publication? Why does this professor assume L. Ron Hubbard would even know about it being published? I wrote an article about this publication years ago, consult here (separate window).
At 1:00:08: “One of the issues for me as a social scientist is to try to figure out how smart, intelligent people have gotten drawn into this program, and I think the answer is in part through auditing.”
He then reasons:
At 1:00:29: “So a person may be revealing a deep secret, and if they're on the E-meter, they get told, ‘Oh, this device says that the negative effects, of that event no longer hold sway over you.’ Hence, people have these good positive visual affects. They feel a release. They've told their secrets.”
He then states a remarkable thing:
At 1:00:50: “And that's the hook, but as people are one by one identifying the issues that affected them in their past, they're losing the foundations for personal morality. We need the bad events in our lives, to know what's right.”
Sorry, doesn't our professor understand that these experiences are still stored in us? The only difference is that they now reside in the analytical part of the mind. He is basically claiming that we need to maintain the “negative effects” feeling to have “foundations for personal morality”! Excuse me? Who is this guy? He goes on about ethics as per Scientology:
At 1:01:24: “The ethics system is designed to first eliminate opponents to Scientology, and having done so, it is then to eliminate all interests that are not involved with Scientology.”
It is a pity he does not explain that in detail and how exactly that would work like that and how! Scientology ethics however is simply reason applied, that's all.
At 1:01:36: “And so auditing eliminates their moral foundations, and then the new moral foundation is to push Scientology ahead, which is based upon the worldview of Hubbard.”
Does that make sense to anyone at all? He doesn't support or explains anything that he claims. It is entirely theoretical and hypothetical, the guy is a theorist. He calls himself a “social scientist”. He is rather a social theorist.
He is sitting there with seven persons, and none of them open up their mouth, they just swallow all of that? He doesn't stop there:
At 1:01:46: “The big question was, what drove Hubbard? What was behind his motivation? The best explanation from my perspective was that he was a malignant narcissist.”
He is basing that all on this:
At 1:01:58: “In the case of this it means a person, who aggressively attacks people who criticized him. Each time somebody came after him --an organization, a newspaper, someone--he reacted often by policies. And so he established the Fair Game policy. Fair Game policy is essentially to destroy your opponents.”
Wow! Well, if anyone needs a social evaluation of his or her person now you know to whom you have to go!
It is probably a pity that this individual is sitting on so much Scientology material that was all given to him. He is obviously not in favour of the topic per the above, and has thus far only used it to come to his rather awkward findings. There are better ways to make use of these materials. Just considering here that what Professor Kent has concluded since his involvement that started as early as 1983.
Roundtable (Incl. “Will Fair Game continue?”)
At 1:04:10 Mike Rinder: “Now we welcome Len Zinberg, who did work for the Guardian's Office, subsequently for the Office of Special Affairs.”
This Len Zinberg is talking about immoral things being done relating to the Guardian Office and figured:
At 1:10:32: “I should leave Scientology, but in Scientology, you're indoctrinated to believe that if you want to leave Scientology it's because you've done bad things.”
You can leave a staff position, you don't have to leave Scientology. Why is that a problem?
Instead you stay on for another 35 years? How is that better?
“Will Fair Game continue?” (text from screen dump at 1:21:21)
At 1:21:23 Stephen Kent: “I think that the policy of Fair Game was cancelled. The practice of Fair Game has continued without missing a beat.”
I would seem he says here that the actual policy letter(s) promoting Fair Game had in effect been cancelled. However, the bad behaviour continuous without it being operated off or ordained by a valid in use policy letter. You see the “policy” makes out the “practice”.
Then we get ironic responses:
At 1:21:33 Bryan Seymour: “It definitely does continue. The greatest proof of the existence of Fair Game is the fact that they Fair Game the world everyday when saying, ‘We cancelled it in 1968. It doesn't happen anymore.’”
Obviously that is said in a joking vein. A bit earlier it was also made a joking matter initiated by Leah Remini when she said at 1:02:17: “But you know that that's been cancelled right?”. We see Bryan Seymour, Mark Abner and Mike Rinder ironically agreeing it was cancelled. Leah Remini ironically posed to Mike Rinder if he was not “engaged in any fair gaming,” to which he replied: “Not me.”. Mark Abner joked: “Why don't we ask the private investigator
that followed me here. Yeah, it's cancelled.”.
Why is this roundtable not establishing the source of the present behaviour that resembles Fair Game practice? Joking like that does not help or solve anything... It is obvious that no staff is operating off an actual policy letter, particularly not a cancelled one. There is no Fair Game policy found in the present book volumes that are in use, it is also not included in hat packs or anywhere. If it is not then we know it is not ‘policy’ that is being followed when it occurs! What ever it is that these particularly bad behavioured staff members are doing it is not dictated by a policy letter. Nonetheless I have never seen anyone saying to misbehaving staff that they should quit the behaviour as it is not present policy! Ask them why they behave as they do! Ask them to follow their own policy!
Vocabulary:
audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code. C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) CSW: Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval. E-meter:
‘Electro-meter’ or ‘Electropsycho-meter’. 1. It is an aid to the auditor (minister, student, pastoral counselor) in two-way communication locating areas of spiritual travail and indicating spiritual well-being in an area. (HCO PL 24 Sept 73 VII) 2. An electronic instrument for measuring mental state and change of state in individuals, as an aid to precision and speed in auditing. The E-meter is not intended or effective
for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 3. Used to verify the preclear's gain and register when each separate auditing action is ended. (HCOB 5 Apr 69R) 4.Electropsychometer. (HCOB 23 Aug 65) 5. The meter tells you what the preclear's mind is doing when the preclear is made to
think of something. The meter registers before the preclear becomes conscious of the datum. It is therefore a pre-conscious meter. It passes a tiny current through the preclear's body. This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pc thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter. (E Meter Essentials, p. 8) HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window). 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). IAS:
‘International Association of Scientologists’. A Scientology membership granting amongst other 20% discounts and other financial advantages. IMDB:
‘International Movie Database’. Internet address: https://www.imdb.com. Used as a source reference. LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Mimeo: Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the ’80s however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section. org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’. OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. Denotes a person having advanced to the higher levels in Scientology. reactive mind: 1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11) 3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58) 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. Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing). Wiki:
On this page this is short for Wikipedia. Used as a source reference.
