CoS Does NOT follow its own Disconnection Policy!

[Maria Cuervo]

A corporation is a person. They are incorporated. According to its policy Scientology persons are supposed to disconnect from their "SPs". So I am confused. Help me.

That would mean that the CoS would have to IGNORE and disconnect from its SPs or risk continued "enturbulation." It's policy with Rinder and Rathbun and Ortega and Gibney would be to put them on MASSIVE IGNORE. LEAVE them alone completely. If anything, engage in massive love bombs and promo and "make things go right" as they call it, rather than continue to communicate with the person they feel to be SP. I no longer use their lingo so the above is only constructed for the benefit of clarifying what they are doing and why it is contradictory. I don't find their definition of SP to be of any use, or their concept of making it go right, or any other policy of theirs to have validity. I am speaking as a lay person who long since dropped their reductive value system.

But CoS does not disconnect. It attacks its SPs. Now one could argue that yes there is an LRH policy saying to do that to those who attack. But does that policy also state that those attacked are SPs or merely that they attack? I am asking the experts in the room: is there a loophole by which the two policies are not in conflict and in fact support each other?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

So Hubbard writes:

"In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful. In such an instance the PTS isn’t going to get anywhere trying to 'handle' the person. The answer is to sever the connection."

So, the above is Hubbard policy. Hubbard says handling the person (the SP) will not work and will not get anywhere. (Just recallilng all those people who go visit Monique or other people and convince them they are bad and try to talk to them or yell at them or otherwise 'handle' them, in violation of the 'hcob'.)

So how does CoS not know that all their 'handling' of the SPs will NOT get anywhere, since it is right there in Hubbard's words?

Do they need to do the "clay demo" again?

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

A corporation is a person. They are incorporated. According to its policy Scientology persons are supposed to disconnect from their "SPs". So I am confused. Help me.

That would mean that the CoS would have to IGNORE and disconnect from its SPs or risk continued "enturbulation." It's policy with Rinder and Rathbun and Ortega and Gibney would be to put them on MASSIVE IGNORE. LEAVE them alone completely. If anything, engage in massive love bombs and promo and "make things go right" as they call it, rather than continue to communicate with the person they feel to be SP. I no longer use their lingo so the above is only constructed for the benefit of clarifying what they are doing and why it is contradictory. I don't find their definition of SP to be of any use, or their concept of making it go right, or any other policy of theirs to have validity. I am speaking as a lay person who long since dropped their reductive value system.

But CoS does not disconnect. It attacks its SPs. Now one could argue that yes there is an LRH policy saying to do that to those who attack. But does that policy also state that those attacked are SPs or merely that they attack? I am asking the experts in the room: is there a loophole by which the two policies are not in conflict and in fact support each other?

It's only under wog law that a corporation is a person.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

It's only under wog law that a corporation is a person.

But CoS incorporated itself under WOG law. It uses those laws to support its essence. It lives and breaths according to its IRS exemption as a non-profit CORPORATION and religion. The IRS exemption protects it as a religion. The incorporations of their various arms extends that 'protection'.

In other matters, I think I found 1 loophole, that is, that they use NON-Scn lawyers to do their attacking, thus avoid the need to disconnect. They attack by proxy. But that does not fully explain the times when they attack themselves via spokespeople and staff goons sent to communicate with their SPs.

If they were not beholden to the wog world then they would not be incorporated or need IRS approval. They are entirely imbricated in the WOGness of their choices. They ARE UNDER WOG LAW.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

But CoS incorporated itself under WOG law. It uses those laws to support its essence. It lives and breaths according to its IRS exemption as a non-profit CORPORATION and religion. The IRS exemption protects it as a religion. The incorporations of their various arms extends that 'protection'.

In other matters, I think I found 1 loophole, that is, that they use NON-Scn lawyers to do their attacking, thus avoid the need to disconnect. They attack by proxy. But that does not fully explain the times when they attack themselves via spokespeople and staff goons sent to communicate with their SPs.

If they were not beholden to the wog world then they would not be incorporated or need IRS approval. They are entirely imbricated in the WOGness of their choices. they ARE UNDER WOG LAW.

Yes, way under - so far under, so fucking far down, only one law can save them - that darn religious amendment. But you are forgetting one, small, minor, miniscule, tiny fact. David, much like Hubbard, is source. He calls the shots. Being source, and thus, is the creator of Sciena-ma-tology as we know it. (the game creator if you go back to games theory) Therefore NONE of Scientology's rules apply to him. So if he tells OSA to sic the camera hat boys on Marty against the court's orders, they do it.

Hope that clarifies things for you. Mimsey

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

A corporation is a person. They are incorporated. According to its policy Scientology persons are supposed to disconnect from their "SPs". So I am confused. Help me.

That would mean that the CoS would have to IGNORE and disconnect from its SPs or risk continued "enturbulation." It's policy with Rinder and Rathbun and Ortega and Gibney would be to put them on MASSIVE IGNORE. LEAVE them alone completely. If anything, engage in massive love bombs and promo and "make things go right" as they call it, rather than continue to communicate with the person they feel to be SP. I no longer use their lingo so the above is only constructed for the benefit of clarifying what they are doing and why it is contradictory. I don't find their definition of SP to be of any use, or their concept of making it go right, or any other policy of theirs to have validity. I am speaking as a lay person who long since dropped their reductive value system.

But CoS does not disconnect. It attacks its SPs. Now one could argue that yes there is an LRH policy saying to do that to those who attack. But does that policy also state that those attacked are SPs or merely that they attack? I am asking the experts in the room: is there a loophole by which the two policies are not in conflict and in fact support each other?

Cooperation is a veil, created to protect the assets of an individual or person who could be liable under law
including personal assets.

It's sometimes confused because in the eyes of the law it is an entity thereby giving it the right to
enter into legal binding contracts with people or other cooperate entities.

In my humble opinion it is the most dangerous threat to humanity that could have been dreamed up
and is the cause of more personal abuse than even $cientology.

More simply put "no skin in the game" invites and takes compassion out of the equation and makes
companys into pyschopathic entities with not the least bit of concern for who or what they harm.

Cooperations are the modern day Frankensteins Monster and no amount of veiling can hide the ugly
face of greed and power hunger that underlies the inventors of a such a monster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H3dFh6GA-A

 

[Terril park]

A corporation is a person. They are incorporated. According to its policy Scientology persons are supposed to disconnect from their "SPs". So I am confused. Help me.

That would mean that the CoS would have to IGNORE and disconnect from its SPs or risk continued "enturbulation." It's policy with Rinder and Rathbun and Ortega and Gibney would be to put them on MASSIVE IGNORE. LEAVE them alone completely. If anything, engage in massive love bombs and promo and "make things go right" as they call it, rather than continue to communicate with the person they feel to be SP. I no longer use their lingo so the above is only constructed for the benefit of clarifying what they are doing and why it is contradictory. I don't find their definition of SP to be of any use, or their concept of making it go right, or any other policy of theirs to have validity. I am speaking as a lay person who long since dropped their reductive value system.

But CoS does not disconnect. It attacks its SPs. Now one could argue that yes there is an LRH policy saying to do that to those who attack. But does that policy also state that those attacked are SPs or merely that they attack? I am asking the experts in the room: is there a loophole by which the two policies are not in conflict and in fact support each other?

To consider all LRH statements as a logical whole is a mistake.

The marketing of the PTS/SP course is how to confront and shatter
suppression.

PTS tech can be valid, as an ex E/O I have done that.

Confronting and shattering are marketing terms and my guess is
to primarily direct parishioners to handle/disconnect from criticism.

Those new and unsophisticated will then disconnect from family,
friends etc.

That a PTS/SP grad is then told to not watch TV, internet or
newspapers is clearly major bullshit and fail!

This is also an extreme violation of the philosophy of Scientology.

"look don't listen."

"When in doubt communicate." etc. etc.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

snip!

In my humble opinion it is the most dangerous threat to humanity that could have been dreamed up
and is the cause of more personal abuse than even $cientology.

More simply put "no skin in the game" invites and takes compassion out of the equation and makes
companys into pyschopathic entities with not the least bit of concern for who or what they harm.

Cooperations are the modern day Frankensteins Monster and no amount of veiling can hide the ugly
face of greed and power hunger that underlies the inventors of a such a monster.

Hum. Modern day? They've been around a lot longer than perhaps you are aware of:

The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people." By the time of Justinian (reigned 527–565), Roman Law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names universitas, corpus or collegium. These included the state itself (the populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives. Private associations were granted designated privileges and liberties by the emperor

Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company. These chartered companies became the progenitors of the modern corporation. Acting under a charter sanctioned by the Dutch government, the Dutch East India Company defeated Portuguese forces and established itself in the Moluccan Islands in order to profit from the European demand for spices. Investors in the VOC were issued paper certificates as proof of share ownership, and were able to trade their shares on the original Amsterdam stock exchange. Shareholders are also explicitly granted limited liability in the company's royal charter.[11]

In England, the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament with the grant of a monopoly over a specified territory. The best known example, established in 1600, was the East India Company of London. Queen Elizabeth I granted it the exclusive right to trade with all countries to the east of the Cape of Good Hope. Some corporations at this time would act on the government's behalf, bringing in revenue from its exploits abroad. Subsequently the Company became increasingly integrated with English and later British military and colonial policy, just as most corporations were essentially dependent on the Royal Navy's ability to control trade routes.

Labeled by both contemporaries and historians as "the grandest society of merchants in the universe", the English East India Company would come to symbolize the dazzlingly rich potential of the corporation, as well as new methods of business that could be both brutal and exploitative.[12] On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted the company a 15-year monopoly on trade to and from the East Indies and Africa.[13] By 1611, shareholders in the East India Company were earning a return on their investment of almost 150 per cent. Subsequent stock offerings demonstrated just how lucrative the Company had become. Its first stock offering in 1613–1616 raised £418,000, its second in 1617–1622 raised £1.6 million.[14]

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

I'm aware of the long history of cooperations Mimsey, it was just to put a point
how much uglier the modern versions are, lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu0Q8CZ6now

 

[Gib]

So Hubbard writes:

"In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful. In such an instance the PTS isn’t going to get anywhere trying to 'handle' the person. The answer is to sever the connection."

So, the above is Hubbard policy. Hubbard says handling the person (the SP) will not work and will not get anywhere. (Just recallilng all those people who go visit Monique or other people and convince them they are bad and try to talk to them or yell at them or otherwise 'handle' them, in violation of the 'hcob'.)

So how does CoS not know that all their 'handling' of the SPs will NOT get anywhere, since it is right there in Hubbard's words?

Do they need to do the "clay demo" again?

I guess Hubbard didn't even achieve the EP of Grade 0 - willing to talk to anybody about anything.

On another note, I suppose he recognized one source of a Problem, Grade 1, Paulette Cooper, but he couldn't make her vanish, but he had to use minions to try to make her vanish.

 

[Veda]

http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105/index.html​

A chronology:

"I can make Napoleon look like a punk." L. Ron Hubbard, from his "real goal" 'Excalibur' letter, 1938


_________


"Men are my slaves." L. Ron Hubbard, from his 'Affirmations', 1946


__________



"There was a difference between the ideals inherent in the Dianetic hypothesis and the actions of the Foundation in its ostensible efforts to carry out these ideals. The ideals, as I saw them, included non-authoritarianism and a flexibility of approach. The ideals... continued to be given lip-service, but I could see a definite disparity between ideals and actualities."

Dr. J.A. Winter, who wrote the Introduction for 'DMSMH' in 1950, from his book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics', 1951


__________


"No rights of any kind... Dispose of quietly and without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, 'Science of Survival', 1951


________




""Always attack..." "Debate engaged upon [that] demeaned and degraded Scientology... SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED... [caps in original]

"...if you discover that some group calling itself 'precept processing' had set up and established a series of meetings in your area, you should do all you can to make things interesting for them. In view of the fact that HASI holds the copyrights for all such material the least that could be done in such an area is the placement of a suit against them for using materials of Scientology without authority. Only a member of the HASI or a member of one of the churches affiliated with the HASI has the authority to use this information. The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional demise. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." From 'Manual on Dissemination of Material', March 1955


__________



"Lightness of organization..." June 1955


_________


"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did [He wrote an unauthorized book about Dianetics] and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos." From L. Ron Hubbard's 'HCO Manual of Justice', 1959


_______



"Find or Manufacture enough threat." L. Ron Hubbard, 'Department of Government Affairs', 1960


________



"Have you ever had unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?" L. Ron Hubbard, Security Check, 1961


________



"Suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology... continued membership in a divergent group... continued adherence to a person or group pronounced suppressive...

And,

"A Suppressive person or group becomes 'fair game'.

"By Fair Game is meant, without rights for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or group...

"Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce, or impede Scientology or Scientologists.

"Such suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology.

"[Suppressive acts also include] 1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings not [emphasis added] guilty of suppressive acts.

"[Suppressive Persons] place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being...

"The homes, property, places, and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology... are all beyond any protection."

From 'Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists', March 1965.



_______



"I am not interested in wog morality... I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday School teacher," L. Ron Hubbard, 'Discipline, SPs and Admin', 1969.


_________​

Scientologists are expected not to associate with "SPs," but it's alright to have contact with an "SP" if one is neutralizing, overwhelming, or harming the SP.

When this contact is other than brief, OSA, or some other official Scientology "terminal," is usually involved.

A Scientology PR-Intel officer is expected to be able to associate with SPs - without becoming "enturbulated" - for purposes of spying and covert attack.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

RE: "COS does NOT follow its own Disconnection Policy!"


The COS does in fact follow its own Disconnection Policy.

Half the time.

The other 50% of the time they follow their other Disconnection Policy, which is the exact opposite of the first policy.

But, one puzzles, how can they possibly have two equal and opposite policies?

ANSWER: "The Hubbard Law of Commotion"

Scientology: The mindless joy of swimming in an infinite sea of contradictions. Splurge on it!

 

[Techless]

In lesser words: why would anyone try and 'dissect' what scn might do based upon some written 'policy' within their 'tomes of religious' bs, and or better yet some idea of logic-which they do not possess? They just make it up as needed anyway.

They do whatever they feel like they need to do, within a very small, thin-line of the law, and as requires them to do. It's Pavlovian at best.whatever they feel.

In other words: they make up their shit as needed, and it manifests as whatever they can get away with. And it seems to work too well often for them.

I think this is where and why we need to concentrate and focus on just how this happens? Boggles the mind for sure...but it still happens.

The 'root cause' as I would call it, is totally embedded in our already questionable 'rules of government' and they - scn - are playing it to the hilt, knowing full well the weakness of the existing laws and structure, and use to their advantage.

I'd think it would be more productive to find out more about just how and why they can 'prosper' in a messed up system. then maybe, other attempts at similar can be stopped too...and they're brewing all the time for certain. Maybe just not as interesting as our favorite topic.

Yet they are out there now, dreaming up there scams...and knowing full well the loop holes of our government - if not just paying off for it to occur.

I just feel strongly that scn is NOT the government, as much as they try to be, and problems need to be worked through that thing which IS the government. Scn tries to disguise that idea a lot. - ya think?

"They are superior to and all that bs"

And not to try and get anyone bumming about how this sad fact is indeed happening -the saddest fact of matters will be when scn gets members into congress and senate.

Where apparently all the power is these days. Personally, I'll be happy when the whole thing (US gov) crashes down. Signs seem to be there that it will. (I refrain from any other conspTheory bs at this point..gives me a headache)

 

[ThetanExterior]

I seem to remember that in some Policy Letter regarding PTS/SP tech it says "Don't create antagonism.".

Hmmm. I wonder if Miscavige has read that?

 

[Kookaburra]

So Hubbard writes:

"In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful. In such an instance the PTS isn’t going to get anywhere trying to 'handle' the person. The answer is to sever the connection."

So, the above is Hubbard policy. Hubbard says handling the person (the SP) will not work and will not get anywhere. (Just recallilng all those people who go visit Monique or other people and convince them they are bad and try to talk to them or yell at them or otherwise 'handle' them, in violation of the 'hcob'.)

So how does CoS not know that all their 'handling' of the SPs will NOT get anywhere, since it is right there in Hubbard's words?

Do they need to do the "clay demo" again?

Maria, what HCOB are you quoting here?

There was a complete reversal of how to handle SPs in 1983. Miscavige ordered a PL to be written reinstating disconnection and even giving HCO the power to enforce it. It was signed LRH but I doubt he even knew about it. Prior to that, you handled all PTS sits and they were indeed 100% handleable. So this whole disconnection thing is a way to keep the sheeple in line. Nothing to do with them being PTS. Losing your family and friends and business associates is a huge threat.

 

[guanoloco]

I'm aware of the long history of cooperations Mimsey, it was just to put a point
how much uglier the modern versions are, lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu0Q8CZ6now

By law any publicly traded company has a fiduciary obligation to return a profit to its shareholders and to maximize that profit. Maybe that's the problem?


Oh, and Scinematology is a mess...a wreck.

 

[Veda]

?

-snip-

Prior to that, you handled all PTS sits and they were indeed 100% handleable.

-snip-

Well, let's see. Disconnection - along with Fair Game - was cancelled by L. Ron Hubbard in 1968. Right?

SPs made people PTS and, with PTS handling, there was no need to disconnect from SPs any more.

So, after that time and before 1983, an SP, such as internally declared Scientology SP, Eileen Vernjack, would have been able to freely associate with Scientologists, marry a Scientologist, go into business with a Scientologist, or run a group in which Scientologists were members.

A typical SP Declare from 1972.

"...they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings..."


______​

And an external SP, such as, for example, Paulette Cooper, would have been able to freely associate with Scientologists, marry a Scientologist, go into business with a Scientologist, or run a group in which Scientologist were members.

?

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

By law any publicly traded company has a fiduciary obligation to return a profit to its shareholders and to maximize that profit. Maybe that's the problem?


Oh, and Scinematology is a mess...a wreck.

No problem with companys or profit or bussiness in general, prosperity is a good thing
and poverty obviously sucks, but the coorperate veil the hiding behind a fictitious person
of legal construct that by it's very nature has no conscious is to put the machine world
and the amorality that comes with that in charge of the fate of it's millions of workers.

Yeah the law you speak of is a problem because it distances dilutes and disassociates
the owners from the human face from which those owners take their profit from.

It's a perfect match for Scientology with it's no "Human Emotion and Reaction" cold hearted decisions
based on the purely analytical and statistical computation of greatest good for the greatest "NUMBER"

It's not a wonder Hubbard had such disdain and disgust for human beings it was from his own blackheart
and computuing pychotic mind that he drew his ideas of a great new world.

He must of had such a self loathing that it would be very hard to wrap your head or heart around
and in the end his paranoia and swatting at the BT's must have reached a celluar level of millions
and billions of enemies attacking him planning his destruction.

In the end his own demons came to get him and all the money and power in the world could not
buy him a single tear of human compassion,it can't be bought it can't be commanded only freely given
from one human being to another.

His disconnection policy became his and his groups legacy, disconnection and dissasociation from their humanity
for powers that never existed so could never be regained except in a delusional state like a small bubble
so fragile that the least criticism would could and does destroy it.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: ?

Well, let's see. Disconnection - along with Fair Game - was cancelled by L. Ron Hubbard in 1968. Right?

SPs made people PTS and, with PTS handling, there was no need to disconnect from SPs any more.

So, after that time and before 1983, an SP, such as internally declared Scientology SP, Eileen Vernjack, would have been able to freely associate with Scientologists, marry a Scientologist, go into business with a Scientologist, or run a group in which Scientologists were members.

A typical SP Declare from 1972.

"...they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings..."


______​

And an external SP, such as, for example, Paulette Cooper, would have been able to freely associate with Scientologists, marry a Scientologist, go into business with a Scientologist, or run a group in which Scientologist were members.

?

So is there a specific hcob that brought back disconnection or is that reinstatement of the policy all just verbal tech or was the cancellation itself 'cancelled'? Hm.
Bizarre. During my time in CoS there was no disconnection policy in place. It was voluntary, which makes sense. Sometimes I'd hear of someone disconnecting but not that often.

 

[Veda]

Re: ?

So is there a specific hcob that brought back disconnection or is that reinstatement of the policy all just verbal tech or was the cancellation itself 'cancelled'? Hm.
Bizarre. During my time in CoS there was no disconnection policy in place. It was voluntary, which makes sense. Sometimes I'd hear of someone disconnecting but not that often.

It's still voluntary.

Just as voluntary as when you were in.