On Human Rights And Fundamentalism – An Analysis Of The Conflict In The Field
by Theta Clear
Human Rights is a subject unknown to many and alter-ised by many more. They were fully sketched and explained in 1948 in the famous but yet unfamiliar to the general populace , “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” (UDHR) . It was adopted by the newly formed (1945) ONU, and ratified by 48 countries.
During World War II , the “Four Freedoms” were created by the Allies in an attempt to establish some basis with which conflicts could be handled by the use of Reason. They were : freedom of speech , freedom of religion , freedom from fear, and freedom from want ( this one is understood to establish a minimum entitlement to food, clothing and housing at an adequate level). A new era for the encouragement of the Human Rights and respect for the dignity and worth of the Human Being had been born ; and all w/out distinction to race , sex, language or religious belief.
After the atrocities of The Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany, the world community found it necessary to define and list more accurately the inherent rights of the human being and state them as a broadly agreed upon policy to detect and prevent the same atrocities from happening again. And thus, “The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” was created by an international committee of 18 delegates of different countries including the USA represented by the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee , the heroin Eleanor Roosevelt.
The UDHR consist of 30 articles covering all points that need to be fully in, in order to have any society at all. Now ,the current definitions of the word “society” in “modern” dictionaries fail to make justice to the etymology of the word. Here are some definitions :
“Definition of society : NOUN (plural societies)
“The community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs,laws, and organizations: the ethnic diversity of British society’. ” (Oxford Dictionary)
[MASS NOUN] The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community: drugs, crime, and other dangers to society.” (Oxford Dictionary).
An another one :
“so·ci·e·ty (s -s -t ) n. pl. so·ci·e·ties 1. a. The totality of social relationships among humans. b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characte- ristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture. c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.” (From the “Free Online Dictionary by Farlex).
Now, you can see how the word “society” is a case of a somewhat “incomplete definition”. Now let’s look at its origin :
Origin : “mid 16th century (in the sense ‘companionship, friendly association with others’): from French société,from Latin societas,from socius ‘companion’.”
1525-35; < Middle French societe < Latin societās, equivalent to soci(us) partner, comrade + -etās, variant of -itās- -ity.”
So you can see that the word “society” infers a “friendly cooperative association” with others. Things like intolerance , prejudgement ,prejudice, exclusion, injustice, failure to grant beingness, forced disconnection ; does not come under the etymology of “society”.
The UDHR is one of the most incredible documents ever written by a group of human beings. It is a testimony of the grandiosity and fellowship that Humanity is capable of.
I rather have our readers search for its complete text online and read it in full ; it is very revelatory indeed. But I’ll quote some of its articles so that a very important point and the central message of this article can be properly communicated : That living in harmony and getting along with others IS possible in spite of divergence of viewpoints.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Of particular interest to the subject matter are points 18,19 and 20 , as in their violation lies the seemingly un-as-is(able) conflict among groups that has a lot more in common than differences : The Free Zone individuals , The Ron’s Org individuals , The “Independent Scientologists”, the “Non-Scientologists” , and the “Ex-Scientologists”.
Let’s make an analysis of point #18 :
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
Let’s discuss this item in detail as it applies to our dilemma regarding the subjects of SCN, LRH, and their validity and “goodness” or lack thereof. We’ll start with, “The right to freedom of thought”. For this analysis we’ll describe the different viewpoints seemingly in conflict (“seemingly” , as once I finish this article there should be none ; in theory at least) :
The viewpoint that Scientology is a perfect workable system , free from any faults , and totally self-corrective. This viewpoint is usually coupled with the one concerning LRH being a God-like individual right about everything he ever wrote about , and a true humanitarian. This group totally supports KSW #1 PL as their fundamental scripture that “holds” all of the SCN Tech together. That HCOPL is their stable datum.
This group strongly dislikes any criticism about Scn, specially about the Founder LRH , regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the utterance. They usually perceive absolutely nothing wrong as regards to the Scn scriptures and with the life that LRH lived. They usually don’t read anything spiritual or mental except LRH’s. This group I call “KSW Adherents”.
The viewpoint described in #1 above , but coupled with the one about LRH being just a human capable of error ; and even though an humanitarian , being responsible of some errors in judgement in some of his policies. His errors are not attributed any evil intents by this group. This group also support KSW #1 , but with some suspicion , as they make general provisions for possible errors in Admin and Tech. This group I call “Independent Scientologists” as they manifest a mind of their own , an “independent mind” , to a lesser or greater degree regarding the subject.
The viewpoint that Scn is a workable system as regards to Tech is concerned (HCOBs on “auditing procedures” , “Study Tech” , “Case Supervision Tech” , and on “Course Supervisor Tech”) ; but somewhat outpointy as regards to some Ethics And Admin Policies like “Disconnection”, “Fair Game” , and some items from the “Suppresive Act list”. This group still support KSW #1 even though, they disagree with it being absolute.
This group admire LRH but feel that he made several judgement mistakes as to Policies is concerned , like “Disconnection” , “Fair Game” , “Suppressice Act list” , “KSW #1” , etc. They very much believe in the Tech and in the Scn basic principles. This group allows for corrections in the Tech to some degree but not too much.
They have tolerance for divergent viewpoints and for critics of Scn and LRH when presented with good arguments and in a friendly manner. This group I call , “Liberal Scientologists” or just “Liberals”.
The viewpoint that Scn is a workable system as Tech is concerned (just as in #3 above) , but not a perfect system and one capable of being improved w/out invalidating its workability. They support KSW #1 , but just to a certain degree. To this group belong many from Ron’s Org that believe in CBR’s corrections and additions to the upper levels materials, specially his NOTs version, “Excalibur”.
To this group also belong supporters of L. Kin texts , mainly based on CBR’s research, but expanded by Kin’s own research. “DEEP” from “Clearbird” , also belong to this group , as well as several others.
They are not not afraid to “change” the Tech to adapt it towards more workability, but they do firmly believe in the Scn axioms and basic principles as their guidance. They are very comfortable with using and testing whatever works for them.
Even though they admire and respect LRH for having created Scn, they can also confront and accept his many flaws and recognize the destructive parts of his personality , and are not afraid nor uncomfortable with publicly admitting it. This group are not Scientologists per se , even though they use it in their life. This group I call , “Applied Philosophers”.
The viewpoint that Scientology has its workabikity, specially in its basic principles (ARC triangle, TRs, basic auditing principles, basic books, etc) , and that it does help to some degree, but that it doesn’t accomplish its promoted products like real Clears and OTs. This group is also aware of the many destructive parts of the subject , and generally thinks that Scn has more harmful parts than beneficial ones.
They don’t believe that LRH was a true humanitarian, but only a man who strived for power and control, and used others to accomplish his purpose. This group I call, “The Anti-Scientology(ists)”. Notice that I didn’t call them “Anti-Scientologists” as they are not necessarily opposed to Scientologists as such , but only to Scientology as a way of life. Alanzo’s blog would fall under this caregory ; and so Rinder’s and possibly Marty’s.
The viewpoint that SCN is just a destructive cult and its founder a con man. They heavily criticize SCN and Scientologists. They have a lot of anger towards the subject. They have been called “Haters” but I won’t use that description here. I’ll rather call them , “Extremists”. Many of them has never experienced actual SCN processing and training and thus, their views are always limited by their incomplete knowledge of the subject.
As they usually don’t have first-hand experience with the subject , and thus, their views many times lack objectivity, hence the name “Extremists”. They usually look at only one side of the equation.
Among these 6 groups you have many variants and gradients ; they are not at all absolutes. And people can move in and out of each group depending on their experiences and exposures to other -ologies or -isms.
To summarize , we have :
- The KSW Adherents
- The Independent Scientologists
- The Liberal Scientologists
- The applied Philosophers
- The Anti-Scientology(ists)
- The Extremists
I am an Applied Philosopher, by the way , and not a Scientologist, independent, liberal, or otherwise; even though I mostly apply SCN principles to my life and research. But if I am to guide others towards higher levels of understanding and tolerance, and still call myself a Scientologist when the subject is reactively and truthfully related with Human Rights violations, then what kind of humanitarian would I be? Not a very workable scene, I am afraid.
I hold a lot of respect for each group , though I am not always successful in keeping a pan-determined view; but I am trying very hard indeed. It is not an easy task though , because we humans are always reactive to a greater or lesser degree to views that are against our own convictions. But it is very worth trying to achieve higher understanding levels, and I take a lot of pleasure in attempting it.
Now, these groups all have had various offensive epithets, that many of us have wrongly used before, including very much myself. Our own BPC (By-Passed Charge) on the subject sometimes blinds us and we end up criticizing what we don’t understand. But that we have used them is not the important thing here, but rather what we do to try to understand divergent views and increase our tolerance to any viewpoint without the need to attack it.
Some of these epithets are :
For group #1 , “Fundamentalists” , or “KSW fanatics”.
For group #2 and #3 , “Indies” , though that word has no charged content for most.
For group #4 , “Squirrels”.
For group #5 , “Anti-Scientologists” or “BPCed natterers”.
For group #6 is , “Haters”.
I include myself in the group that has wrongly used those epithets to describe those groups. That’s one of the reasons that I decided to write this article; to change that attitude in myself, and attempt to change it in others as well.
Now, I don’t think that any particular group is better than the other ; they are just different.
What I do firmly believe is, that understanding among us IS indeed possible ; that to diverge in viewpoints and yet to get along at the same time is something that CAN be done if we just follow carefully the tenets and points of the “Universal Decalaration Of Human Rights” , and fully understand the principles in which it was based upon.
Now , let’s go back to article 18 of the UDHR as regards to its point “The right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion”.
What exactly does that mean?
Well, let’s start by defining what is “freedom”, shall we ?
- a. The condition of not being in prison or captivity: gave the prisoners their freedom. b. The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance: In retirement they finally got the freedom to travel. 2. a. The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence. b. The condition of not being subject to a despotic or oppressive power; civil liberty. c. The condition of not being constrained or restricted in a specific aspect of life by a government or other power: freedom of assembly. d. The condition of not being a slave. 3. a. The condition of not being affected or restricted by a given circumstance or condition: freedom from want. b. The condition of not being bound by established conventions or rules: The new style of painting gave artists new freedoms. 4. The capacity to act by choice rather than by determination, as from fate or a deity; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. 5. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities. 6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
(Free Online Dictionary By Farlex)
Of particular interest are definitions 2c , 3 , 4 and 5. Applying those definitions it means that we have a right to hold any opinion about any subject or individual without an attempt by others to try to silence our views. It means we have a right to “feel” as dictated by our own conscience, and not based on anyone else’s. It means that we have a right to hold the religious beliefs that are true for us without undue interference from others.
Now , if we have a “Right to” something , it is logical to assume that we also have a “Duty to” something as well ; otherwise things tends to unbalance as we humans stress “Rights” too much, and “Duties” very little. So if we have a “Right to freedom of thought” , then we also have a “Duty” to respect and even support “Freedom of thought” for others as well. I mean, it is only logical to think so.
Most of us have no problem with the Flow 0 of this : allowing us that right , and protecting it as our own opinions and views are concerned, or with the Flow 1 aspect of it: demanding others to respect our rights. Our problem is with the “Flow 2” aspect of it: willingly allowing others that right without reacting to it; that is, the “Duty to” aspect of it.
It is rather odd to notice that those that really believe and support that right in actuality and not as a “PR show” are very kind and friendly people, very easy to get along and work with. That who can truly communicate and grant beingness to others can built better Bridges to understanding and higher spiritual awareness.
Part of the “Duty to” aspect of this is to differ without insulting and degrading the views of others in any way. There are always ways to express our dissent with good manners and respect; a general “granting of beingness”.
I am afraid that that those who heavily criticize other blogs because of divergences in their view of SCN and LRH (and their moderation policies) , are only failing in their “Duty to” as regard to this Right. By attempting to “protect” the name of SCN and LRH , they are only making it worse, and are actually giving those 2 subjects (LRH and Scn) , a worse repute than it already has worldwide.
These individuals (and they know who they are), are failing to realize that LRH was not a saintly figure in many ways. LRH implemented “Disconnection Policy” which has caused so many family ruptures for so many years, that to ignore this fact is to fail to honor its victims and understand their pain. Some KSW adherents (Group #1) thoroughly justify this by alleging LRH cancelled it on RJ68. Really? Do you really believe that? It is obvious that he just did it for PR purposes. SCN was being heavily scrutinized by various governmental inquiries at the time including the “Victorian Inquiry” from just a few years earlier (1965). A “change” in Policy was of the essence for any survival at all.
It was all a PR show, I am afraid. Any old-timer who was in, knows this for a fact. “Fair Game” practices continued , “Overboardings” and “Chain lockers” continued. “Attacking the critics and dissenters by exposing their alleged crimes” continued , as well as the “Smashing the ‘squirrels’ practice”. Read the “Otto J. Roos story” and see it for yourself.
Right now, in present time, the Church is on an on-going all-out rampage of declaring people as “Suppressive Persons” (when per LRH they are anything but), and then then demanding their families, friends and loved ones disconnect from them or suffer the same fate. Many people are still being fair-gamed today – the internet is littered with these stories.
By just this policy on how to deal with alleged “SPs” , (the “Fair Game” policy), many Human Rights violations are committed. Just that policy is enough to heavily attack SCN as a cult(ish) movement. But when so attacked, and rightly so, then the “attakers” are only “SPs” to be squashed and not “Human Rights protectors” as many actually are.
Talking about “Propaganda by redefinition of words” from SCN “policies”.
According to LRH, “SPs” have no rights whatsoever. They can be :
“Deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
L. Ron Hubbard, “PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS”, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967.”
These “SPs” don’t have the “normal rights a Scientologists has” according to LRH. This is highly selective and exclusive. No wonder the bad repute SCN and LRH have worldwide.
And who is anyone to tell me that I need to refrain myself from talking derogatorily about the individual who WROTE those policies ?
The individual who wrote the policy that anyone “publicly departing Scn” would be declared an “SP”? The individual who wrote as well the policy about any PTS individual being guilty of a “Suppressive act” by failing to disconnect from the terminal making him PTS ?
No; I am afraid that the “Ethics Gradients” applied to LRH as much as they apply to any of us. He just can’t escape justice that easy. Not while I am still around in this planet. I fear no truth, never did; and I never seek or desire approval either.
It was LRH himself and not DM who planted the seed of discord. DM is just being a very incompetent robot to LRH , that’s all. And a lousy copy of him at that.
Let’s continue with point #18 of the UDHR :
“This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
I have an inherent right to change my religion or beliefs without undue interference from others. Without being called a “squirrel” just because I differ from LRH as to procedures or technique is concerned. He was not an almighty God, right about everything he ever wrote about. This undeserved emphasis of “KSW #1” is very misguided. It robs us of free will and power of choice over data. But nonetheless, I grant the KSW supporters their right to believe in that, if that’s what gives meaning to their existence. If it is their conviction that KSW #1 is the only way to go, then I have no business invalidating that view. But I have the right to expect the same courtesy from them. Is that so much to ask ? Is that so hard to do?
It is rather funny that if this were any other religion promoting those suppressive policies like “Disconnection” or the “Suppressive Acts” list, the KSW adherents would probably be all over it heavily attacking those views. But because they came from LRH, then somehow there must be “some truth in them”.
How can anyone support and even admire an individual who created such policies totally escapes my understanding . True, LRH did create as well a VERY workable system for achieving higher spiritual awareness and abilities. But this in no way justifys his suppressive policies either. Those who confront truth make it, those who don’t live an incomplete life. I prefer to confront truth no matter how unpalatable.
The workability of SCN as regard its auditing procedures, Tech and Case Supervision training is not necessarily related to its destructive parts. One part need not have any relation with the other.
Now, let’s take up article 19 of the UDHR :
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
I was reading an article on another known blog a few days ago. It was heavily criticizing HBO’s coming documentary , “Going Clear : Scientology And The Prision Of Belief”. It was the opinion of the writer (an excellent one, by the way, and one of the best minds in the Field) that is was wrong somehow to air such a documentary as it would hurt the SCN image too much. As if this isn’t something that’s been happening for decades now. It was this writer’s opinion that the people involved in the creation of this documentary didn’t understand about “the life static” and thus couldn’t possibly understand what SCN was all about.
Really ? What does understanding about the spirit have to do with suppressive policies and plain fanaticism? What does it has to do with shattered lives and destroyed families? Instead of supporting any movement in the direction of the protection of Human Rights while at the same time explaining how it is that SCN has also been perverted by Church officials and made it more harmful , this writer chose to diminish the journalist’s work and research, letting down those hundreds souls who have been wronged, whose memories he should honour.
His views are clearly in opposition with point #19 above of the UDHR. Instead of “protesting” the showing of that documentary (which is only LRH’s style of not confronting attacks), he should have first seen the whole documentary, isolated the parts which were not factual, and then wrote about those exact parts , but offering the exact data with the proper evidence. That would have been more intellectually honest.
Let’s analyse some of the items of LRH’s list of “suppressive” acts which are clearly against article 19 of the UDHR. They also violate point #20 of the UDHR below :
UDHR:” (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”
SCN: “Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices still calling it Scientology or calling it something else”.
So according to LRH if anyone organizes any “splinter group” because he/she objects to some part of SCN, then he/she is an SP. No opinion against any part of SCN is allowed by LRH. It is a “black and white” proposition. You are either “with us” or “against us”. Formidable.
“Organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology”.
This sounds to me like a monopolistic approach to the subject. Just imagine Newton attempting to control the dissemination and use of his theories just because he discovered them. Nobody has a monopoly on TRUTH, nobody. Truth is for anyone who cares to observe it ; for anyone wanting to use it for the ethical expansion of his dynamics.
Scientology is a summation of the general agreements we committed to as beings a VERY long time ago. It is a discovery not an invention, and thus its use and application is a free choice and a right rather than a privilege.
I dont see Christianity, for example, trying to control the use and dissemination of their basic text, “The Bible”. Even though the Bible might have undergone some alterations throughout the years due to translation errors the basic fundamentals have remained quite intact for many centuries. There were always those that made sure of that. So it would have been with SCN as well ; there will always be those with the hat to preserve the Tech.
Even though I can understand LRH’s intentions in trying to protect the trademarks, and that he probably only wanted to protect what he believed to be the only “route out” , his strategy to accomplish this was quite faulty and contaminated with many contradictions.
On the one hand you have the “Code of a Scientologist” that has, as point #10 , #11 #12 of it the following :
10. “To work for freedom of speech in the world”.
11. “To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help Mankind”.
12. “To support the freedom of religion”.
But on the other hand you have the list of “Suppressive Acts” denying you those same rights; an obvious contradiction. You cannot “publicly depart Scientology” without being declared. You cannot disagree with any part of Scientology and create a “splinter group” (they respectfully call it) based on your own discernment of what parts of the subject you find unworkable or against Human Rights. You can’t do this without being declared an SP.
You can’t practice Yoga, Spiritualism or any other -ism(s) that you may find useful as that would be “mixing practices”. Yet LRH compiled a big portion of what is Scientology based on the wisdom of many great individuals and religions. But try reading or quoting from any philosophy other than Scientology and see for yourself the reactions of KSW supporters. For them, it is only Scientology that has any value.
How about being a highly trained auditor and trying to improve any part of the Tech based on your own experiences and successful actions? You’ll be considered a “squirrel” as you are not supposed to have any mind of your own, and apparently you are not clever enough to establish any part where Scientology might be wrong or fell short.
If LRH didn’t write it then it is not true. We are indoctinated in this think.
All of those above points are in clear contradiction with the quoted points of the “Code Of A Scientologist” without even mentioning the famous “Creed Of The Church Of Scientology” that got so many of us to join in the “Battle For Freedom” as class V Org staff or as SO members. Let’s quote some of its points :
“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 religious practices and their performance.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others”.
Almost every point in this “Creed” is a violation of the list of “Suppressive Acts” – especially the last one.
Let’s examine others items from this list, shall we ?
“Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations”.
“Good standing according to who? Who gets to decide that? That “rule” is one of the reasons we have Mr. “Charlatan Of The Board” (COB) in “Power”. The adherence to that part of the SCN Codes implies giving up one or more of your inherent Human Rights : the right to have a divergent opinion and express it free from attacks upon your reputation or person.
“Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.”
So if anyone tries to defend his/her Human Rights being violated by any terminal from the Church , after he has tried to handle it by the internal channels without any success, then seeking recourse from an external source like the Media or the “wog courts” as they call it , will be a sure way to get expelled. Now, where is the self-determinism in that ? How many points of the UDHR does this violate?
“Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology”.
So if LRH himself with his own hands wrote the “Fair Game” HCOPL stating that :
[Suppressive Person] Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
It means that no legislation may be created or applied to protect these “SP’s” from obvious Human Rights violations? Gee, let’s torture the inmates then, let’s lie as witnesses to put behind bars some strong critic of Scientology. After all, they are only SPs. They have no rights whatsoever; they can be destroyed, lied about, tricked, deprived of property, beaten, etc, etc. I wonder where DM got his twisted idea that “beating others into obedience” was ok? It is well-known that he declared his own management team as a bunch of SP’s, and then he had Carte Blanche to fair-game, beat them and destroy them – just as laid out by LRH!
And for those of you who thinks I am going too far and that LRH cancelled the “Fair Game” PL, let me quote then from the modified PL :
(HCOPL 21 OCT ’68 , “Cancellation Of Fair Game”).
” The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.
FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.“
So LRH cancelled the practice of “declaring someone Fair Game” as it was “bad public relations” according to him. Note that he found nothing wrong with the practice itself and its use. Just with “having it written”.
Does anyone remember the practice of “overboarding”? When the student failed to achieve a target, made an auditing error or apply something from the original class VIII course on The Apollo ? Does that sounds sensible to you ? Does it sounds like encouraging Human Rights ? Just imagine being carried by 2 big men and thrown over the side of the ship at a height of 25-35 feet as a means for others to “get the point of Standard Tech”. Just marvelous!
The fact is that the practice of “Fair Gaming” and “disconnection” never really ceased no matter the “PR speech” LRH gave in his famous and controversial RJ68. That’s a FACT any old-timer would be able to confirm for anybody. The list of “Suppressive Acts” was NEVER cancelled by LRH, period. Google search and read the “Otto J Roos Story”. Also the letter from one of the first whistle-blowers, Dane Tops in 1982.
This point alone, of LRH’s attitude towards “SPs”, functions as a 3P activity which prompts us, specially the fundamentalist ones , to detest anyone labeled an SP and to feel no responsibility whatsoever towards him. A total neglect for any Human Rights.
Notice how we Scientologists react towards “the squirrel”, towards those who decide to “depart from Scientology” – a right inherent to us and specified in so many documents and constitutions including Hubbard’s own writings. (Which he apparently seemed to have no problem violating depending on the case).
Let’s define “Squirrel” in the Tech dictionary , shall we ?
“SUIRRELING” : “It means altering SCN and offbeat practices. It is a bad thing.” (HCOPL 14 Feb ’65).
off·beat (ôf b t , f -) n. Music An unaccented beat in a measure. adj. Slang (ôf b t , f-) Not conforming to an ordinary type or pattern; unconventional: offbeat humor. (Free Online Dictionary by Farlex)
“Not conforming to an ordinary type or pattern” according to who ? Who gets to decide that – LRH ?
Is it healthy to let one man decide for you what works and what doesn’t ?. What is an acceptable practice and what isn’t ? What about your right to your own mind ? To your own opinions and observations? To decide, based on your own analysis and looking , at what is true for you or not? LRH stresses that point of self-determined knowledge in many of his writings only to contradict himself in others, like his list of “Suppressive Acts”.
I can understand keeping a tight control of exact application organizationally, to keep the Tech pure. Nothing wrong with that.
If I were teaching a new technical procedure to a group of engineers I would probably stress exact application and would not allow deviations. I would emphasize that they needed to learn the exact procedure, apply it exactly as taught, observe and evaluate the results for themselves. And then, if anyone smart enough wanted to research possible improvement to it WHILE continuing to apply the exact procedure he was trained at , then I wouldn’t have any problem with that. As long as he demonstrated that his new method was indeed a better way to do it.
But trying to control application outside of Organizations, and more so when it is done by force and threats, is not a very smart way to go about it. Labeling people as “squirrels” just because they might seek additional knowledge from other sources, is not to foster free thinking and self-determinism but an authoritarian viewpoint. It is to deny that us “little stupid Homo Novis” have any discernment at all to properly evaluate what piece of knowledge is workable or not based on our own observations. It is to treat us like children beginning to learn the basics of life. It is an invalidation that I cannot take. It is to mess with our Human Rights; a very unworkable approach to teach any subject.
“Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist,including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund, without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply”.
Really? Do a Google search for “A Diary Of A Dying Scientologist” , read it in full, then state that point again. I actually want our readers to Google-search it , read it, and be the judge yourself.
“Demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this policy applies)”.
This practice is only heard in SCN. No other organization that I know of, has this kind of “policy”. A friend of mine got audited by 2 squirrel auditors. Squirrels as in altering the Tech in a very destructive way , not that I oppose that anyone practice whatever the hell they find workable as long as they don’t put others at risk by damaging , unworkable, and untested procedures.
But my friend got audited by 2 individuals whose alterations violated the most basic principles of the Auditors Code which is an excellent code of professional and responsible behavior. He wasn’t trained enough to differentiate the good from the bad. 50 auditing hrs totally wasted, no gains. Later on he found out after he got some training, that he had been audited under flagrant code violations and altered workable procedures. Now, had he asked for a refund of the money miserably wasted, he would have been declared a Suppressive Person in an instant. But he paid his hard earned money to receive a product he didn’t get and the Org is responsible for the errors of his staff!
Any Scientologist knows that you can’t ask for a refund no matter how badly the service was delivered – you can’t even ask for a “credit” on your account to right the wrong. If the org makes a mistake, YOU have to pay to correct it. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?
According to LRH it doesn’t matter if you received bad and alter-ised service , still you can’t ask for a refund or even for a credit. You are expected to “take responsibility for it having gone wrong” in the first place. In SCN think, only through your own actions (usually Missed Withholds) are results not obtained. You are expected to “be Cause” over any situation and so if auditing didn’t work for you, then somehow you are “fully cause” and thus, asking for refund or credit is “denying your own responsibility in the matter” according to LRH.
“Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or antiScientologist data to the press”.
Again , a violation of your Human Rights. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merit. Not everybody who resorts to the press is an “SP trying to “destroy Scientology”. He might have a very legitimate case. He might have been subjected to an incredible injustice; It all depends on the circumstances.
“Continued membership in a divergent group”.
“Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group by HCO”.
“Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts”.
Again , another violation of Human Rights. I reserve my right to keep a comm line with whoever the hell I want to. Nobody should interfere with whom I might talk to or not , or to whom I am connected to or not. If my connection is harmful to me, then it is my business and nobody else’s. I am nobody’s robot .
True, according to LRH a person under suppression loses gains and the full benefit of training. True as well, that a person under suppression can and many times does create lots of trouble for the organization. But it is one thing to refuse auditing and/or training to the PTS individual while his situation remains unhandled, and it is quite another different thing to FORCE him to disconnect from anyone – no matter the reason.
I don’t care what are the reasons really; I reserve my right to keep any comm line as I see fit. If the comm line brings me trouble and PTSness, it is my business and not anyone else’s. I have a right to my life and mind. If the Org denies me auditing and/or training because of it, so be it. It is their right to do so. But declaring me an “SP” just because I decided to keep any kind of connection with whomever I wanted to, is to interfere with my fundamental Human Rights.
“Violation or neglect of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working, as listed”.
Let me see here, if anyone is not certain that “it works” (point #3 – “knowing it is correct”), then he/she is committing a suppressive act ? If he finds something unworkable and decides not to apply that (i.e what is true for you), for example “disconnection” or “Fair Game” practices, then he or she is committing a suppressive act for chosing not to applky that particular piece of tech? Is that even sensible? I guess not.
“Spreading false tales to invalidate Clears or spreading libelous and slanderous statements about the alleged behavior of Clears”.
So, if I observe (as I have on many occasions) a bunch of “Clears” and “OTs” behaving erratically, out-ethics or even a bit suppressive, I am supposed to shut my mouth and suppress my opinion, because if I don’t , I am liable to be declared? As if a these badly behaving Clears and OT’s are some kind of “Gods”. Isn’t this just a clever way of hiding lack of results? To avoid having to explain why so many Clears and OTs are very far from being “textbook Clears and OTs” – utterly lacking the promoted “special abilities”? Isn’t this an obvious way to feel unanswerable for failing to deliver what was promised?
“It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology”.
So I am stuck with SCN forever you mean ? Let’s define “publicly” :
Adv. 1. publicly – in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly; “she admitted publicly to being a communist”
So if I tell my friends (even my Scientologists friends) that I no longer support SCN and decided it wasn’t for me, then I am committing a Suppressive Act ?
Gee, let’s shoot any Christian apostate too. Let’s burn them all in eternal fire for stopping believing in Jesus Christ. I mean, it doesn’t get any more Fundamentalist than that. A gross violation of Human Rights. What a marvelous way to keep parishioners in line indeed! And to prevent the loss of members as well which keeps pouring money in.
“Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a suppressive act.”
This is my favorite one!
A wife is being beaten by this psycho. She has 3 kids and no means to support them in PT. She has no home of her own as she has been living in a home that belongs to this husband as a pre-nuptial agreement. So if she leaves him, she’ll be homeless and penniless. She is obviously very PTS and only a very standard handling and auditing on the subject will get her to gentle “cause” over this situation. True, when all has been said and done, she’ll realize that she herself brought about the sit in the first place by the misapplication of life fundamentals and by pulling in motivators which prompted her own O/Ws against the terminal and against her own Code of Honor.
But without help , she might just end up stuck with the guy or even dead. But according to the “Suppressive Acts” if she fails to “handle or disconnect” from this SP that is making her PTS, she’ll be declared. Does that even seems sensible to anyone? Isn’t this a clear violation of Human Rights ?
This is fanaticism and fundamentalism beyond belief. Only to save the organization trouble, rest assured.
No, my dear fellow Scientologists , it is not OSA , COB, or “The Church” , I am afraid. They all had a very good teacher. Without his writings, those people wouldn’t have a basis for their tactics and attitude. They have the HCOBs and HCOPLs in which to justify their actions. And an alter-is of them isn’t even needed to bring it about , as with many of them pure and unadulterated, the same damage and 3P effects can and are being created. Without changing one iota of several LRH’s writings, I assure you that the same conflicts can and do arise due to the fundamentalistic and fanatical approach with which we Scientologists interpret the scriptures.
What is missing here is a self-deterministic approach to the subject, free from religious mania with its consequential abandonment of the willingness to “think for ourselves” and the ability to OBSERVE.
Does any of this means that Peter doesn’t support Scientology anymore ? Or that he stopped believing in it?
Not at all I assure you. Do you suddenly stop “believing” in Newton’s Laws of Motion just because you found some detailsabout his life you disagree with ? Of course you don’t. Newton’s discoveries were exactly that – discoveries rather than inventions. They were based on experimentation and empirical data. They have been tested again and again ; and they remain valid. It took us to the Moon, it gave us airplanes and rockets as how they move is based on those laws.
Same with most of Scientology’s discoveries; they were based on empirical research and a lot of testing. It is highly workable in very different ways. Just one single discovery of SCN is enough to put the subject in the “World Hall Of Fame” of great human discoveries.
LRH was a genius indeed; one of the greatest ones this planet has ever had. Any one of his discoveries is enough to immensely admire and validate him for his great contributions to a better Humanity. But he was only a man, not an infallible god. He made many mistakes in his judgments too.
For some reason, we as Scientologists feel guilty and even “nattery” about uttering anything negative about LRH or Scientology itself. And let me point out to you, my dear friends, that it is a misguided attitude. It denies you the right to your own opinion and your freedom of choice about deciding what is really true or not for you ; something you can’t live without. .
Scientology is a very workable and valuable philosophy my friends . It doesn’t have many subjects of comparable magnitude against which to compare it with any justice, but it is far from being perfect. It is not an end to every path of knowledge there is in this universe. It is only a beginning; and an excellent one I may add.
It is a “Route out” but not necessarily the only or most perfect one. Most of it is highly workable, but it has contradictions and some sections that dangerous and violate our basic Human Rights. That is an undeniable fact , and only through fanaticism can that fact remain hidden from view.
We are living in a new era, one of reason and fostering Human Rights. Not as a hypocritical PR tactic as used by the CofS , but with real understanding about what it really encompass and with the correct attitude of really granting beingness to one’s fellow human beings. With an inclination towards tolerance, understanding and respect for their Human Rights instead of a fanatical-fundamentalist approach which will only serve to bring pain to all of us in the end.
We CAN differ, respect each other, and get along at the same time. We can be friends. How? By embracing Human Rights, respecting the rights of others as explained in the UDHR, and even in Scientology’s own CREED. And by increasing our tolerance for divergent views.
For group #1 , “Fundamentalists” , or “KSW fanatics”.
Let the KSW adherents follow their chosen path. If they believe that only in following “Pure LRH” their route to Freedom is found, then who are we to attempt to change their mind? If they are happy in pursuing that path, then I am all for it. But please, please understand that others might not hold the same opinions about Standard Tech and KSW , and they are entitled to their own views about LRH and SCN without being called “haters”, “BPCed natterers” , etc – Just as you resent being referred to as “Fundamentalists”, “Fanaticals” or any other epithet with your strict adherence to KSW #1.
Let’s refrain from heavily criticizing our fellow bloggers just because they have “publicly departed SCN as Rinder ,Shelton, Karen, Marty, Marc and many others have. It is their right to do so, and YOUR duty to respect that right. They also have a right to talk against LRH if their personal experiences with him proved that he wasn’t worthy of their admiration. Nobody has a duty to feel any admiration for anybody. Stop enforcing ARC on others; that ain’t right.
Those terminals that I just mentioned opened the door to exposing all the crimes that the suppressive CofS was and is committing. Without their blogs, many of us would probably still be happily applauding DM at many of his silly speeches. So give these people the credit they DO deserve. They wanted to move beyond SCN? Good! Acknowledge them , and thank them for having opened your eyes to the crimes of the Church. Be nice to them. They are not your enemies, you know.
Be nice to people who don’t share your views. Anybody has a right to believe in what they want to as long as their beliefs do not interfere with your rights, and as long as they are not injuring anybody. Stop being so self-righteous about your views; stress inclusion instead of exclusion. Be gentle, be nice, be kind to others. Have manners.
For group #2 and #3 , “Indies” (though that word has no charged content for most)
Let the “Independent Scientologists” follow their own path too. If they believe that LRH erred in some of his policies and that KSW #1 is not totally infallible, then so be it. It is their right to so dissent.
Let the “Liberal Scientologists” keep their liberal thinking as well. They very much believe in the Tech but not so much in Policy and rigid Ethics. For them, LRH was only a man with many virtues , but with several destructive traits as well. They have a right to their opinion, and to be listened to.
For group #4 , “Squirrels”.
Let the “Applied Philosophers” research their way to Total Freedom. Nobody has a monopoly on Truth. Every being has the potential to perceive and discover Truth by himself. LRH is not the only genius in existence, for Christ sakes. This misguided idea from LRH about us “little humans” being incapable of raising above our bank and only agreeing in “bank ideas” , is just a HUGE invalidation of human potential, and a fanatical approach to knowledge. Just get rid of that false assumption.
Do not call those who have chosen an alternative path “Squirrels”. That’s a derogatory and fundamentalistic term. They are pioneers and are only attempting to create a better Bridge – most of them at least. They also have a RIGHT to use whatever parts of SCN they find workable even if modified, and still call them SCN. Scientology IS a discovery not an invention. It’s use is a RIGHT and not a privilege. Has anyone ever seen any scientists attempting to “Trademark” and “copyright” their discovered laws? That’s totally unheard of. Researchers are expected to broadly offer others their discoveries and to share in improving them. What’s with this attitude that “I am the only one capable of recognizing Truth”? Give me a break, please. There are hundreds of thinkers a lot more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than LRH.
The fact that LRH attempted to create this “monopoly” only shows how misguided he was, and that SCN is not a religion at all , but only a mooney-making business as an institution.
For group #5 , “Anti-Scientologists” or “BPCed natterers”.
The “Anti-Scientology(ists)” have also a right to express their views on the subject and on LRH as well. They’ve seen enough of its destructive parts, about which there is ample accumulated evidence, so as to have a sensible opinion about it all, at least from their perspective. So instead of attacking and censoring them, allow them to freely communicate their views ; listen to what they have got to say ; acknowledge them. You’ll only get persistence of strong emotions and BPC if you don’t. Why not just be auditors to the world ? Remember, you’ll only get a persistence of those things that you fail to admire. And how exactly does one admire something? Well, you do it by attempting to understand it.
For group #6 – “Haters”.
And finally about group 6 , “The extremists” , just listen to what they have got to say as well, and get them to express their EXACT disagreements with the subject and not generalities. Just by doing that, you’ll be able to handle more ARCxs than you can possibly imagine, as ARCXs are many times just caused by generalities. Why make enemies when you might probably end up with a friend?
I am good friends in PT with a very knowledgeable individual with VERY strong emotions towards SCN and its founder. We agree to disagree on that ,and just find points of mutual agreements and do just great with that. I’ve actually learned a lot from him. So I am not talking here from an Ivory Tower. I do practice what I teach.
Please , do not allow your basic goodness and affinity for your fellows to be alloyed out of a rigid and unbending interpretation of the Scientology scriptures. They are our brothers and sisters too . They need our hand and understanding. This world is already full of hate and intolerance ; we need not add any more to it.
The fact that many of us are here participating, as well as participating in other blogs and sites, means that we are in a spiritual path ; that we, many of us, are seeking the same thing : FREEDOM. And the basic components of Freedom are ARC which equates to UNDERSTANDING.
May you all find, each one of you, your true path to enlightenment and I hope that the “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” becomes our guiding principle with which we deal with our fellows and handle our differences.
My best wishes to you all.