Ruminations

[Lurker5]

Thanks - and holy chit . . . Right thread to stumble onto, huh

 

[Warrior]

http://www.xenu-directory.net/glossary/glossary_p.htm#PTS_Type_D

Also see Modern Management Technology Defined, page 499.

 

[He-man]

Also see Modern Management Technology Defined, page 499.

That's the green dictionary right? Don't have any of them books left, burned what I had back in 2010.

 

[Warrior]

That's the green dictionary right? Don't have any of them books left, burned what I had back in 2010.

Yes, MMTD (aka The Admin Dictionary) is a large green book the size of the OEC Volumes.

 

[Enthetan]

That's the green dictionary right? Don't have any of them books left, burned what I had back in 2010.

I think I still have my original Green vols in the basement somewhere.

 

[Warrior]

I think I still have my original Green vols in the basement somewhere.

If you do still have them, you might consider donating them to an attorney who litigates against Scientology.

This way they could be put to great use.

 

[Enthetan]

If you do still have them, you might consider donating them to an attorney who litigates against Scientology.

This way they could be put to great use.

Do you have any in mind?

 

[Warrior]

Do you have any in mind?

The first that comes to mind are the attorneys representing Bobette Riales, Chrissie Carnell, and two Jane Does.

Maybe Ray Jeffrey would like a set.

 

[He-man]

Ummm, "Alan" is a good guy here and not the liar that Allen is being proven to be.

The nic "Alan" is and belongs to Alan Walter

So that people can make up their own minds on Alan and Knowledgeism I recommend Google which yielded me quite some nuggets.

https://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/the-difference-between-scn-and-knowledgism.7406/

https://whyweprotest.net/threads/knowledgism-the-new-scientology.38732/

https://exscn.net/forum/threads/the-major-flaw-in-knowledgism.11851/

https://knowledgism.com/about/what-is-knowledgism/?v=f003c44deab6

https://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/the-tech-error-of-’62-’63—how-it-went-negative-rogerb’s-fz-presentation-in-pasadena.14524/

To my knowledge Roger B is a great proponent of it.

https://www.mikerindersblog.org/friday-regraded-being-179/

 

[Lulu Belle]

Why did Mike Rinder say this about his own career then?

"For most of the time between 1982 and 2007 I was a senior official in the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the so-called mother church of Scientology. I was on the Board of Directors of CSI from its inception in 1982 until I left in 2007.'

"During the majority of the time between 1982 and 2007 I was the most senior official within CSI responsible for “external affairs”, meaning government and media relations, investigations and intelligence operations, as well as all litigation and contract matters. This function is performed by the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”) and I was the head of OSA for most of this time."
- Mike Rinder Texas Declaration

https://www.mikerindersblog.org/mike-rinder-texas-declaration/

I don't know exactly.

Except that "Senior Official in the Church of Scientology" could mean anything. Anyone posted at Int would be in that category.

Same with "Board of Directors CSI". If you dig through the Board of Directors stuff of the Scientology orgs, you'll see all kinds of people you knew to be minions on these boards. I don't know how they determined these people. The ex-CO of my org was on some kind of big Scientology board; I came across it on the internet years later. Didn't mean anything. It certainly didn't give him any kind of clout.

"Most senior official within CSI responsible for “external affairs”, meaning government and media relations, investigations and intelligence operations, as well as all litigation and contract matters. This function is performed by the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”) and I was the head of OSA for most of this time." Not sure about that either. As I've said, he did move around from CO OSA to D/CO OSA to WDC OSA as well as other places. All three of those positions could be considered "head of OSA", I guess. The operative word is "most" in "head of OSA for most of this time". He definitely wasn't just in OSA. I remember seeing him running around PAC in black more than one time period, as well as his missions (at least one in to AOLA, for one) and stints in RPR.


I didn't read the whole "Texas declaration" you quoted (or any of it except what you quoted, for that matter), but I assume the purpose of his little opening about his Scientology work history was to establish that he knew what went on in OSA. To prove that what he was saying was credible. To that end, it would make sense to establish himself as someone who knew what was going on and called the shots in OSA during that whole vast time period.

Doesn't mean he really did. Doesn't mean there weren't actually gaps. Maybe huge gaps.

Haven't you ever written a resume? You kind of have to smooth over and bridge those big holes when you were unemployed.

This might have been kind of a similar deal.


As I said, my accounts are strictly what I knew, what I saw supplemented with what other people who were there who I knew from the Sea Org knew and saw.

I definitely don't know or remember everything, but I definitely am not making any of it up, either.

Don't have a dog in the fight. I have no issue with Mike Rinder one way or the other.

 

[Lulu Belle]

I'm late to the conversation. But I do think many people simply would not do the things that Rinder and other OSA personnel did. I know I wouldn't. This is not because I'm morally superior! It's because I never would have been given the post: I was almost always in lower conditions, even when my stats were in affluence or power. I never could shake the truth, which was that I was INVESTIGATING scientology. I was not convinced of the rightness of Hubbard or the Church, and so I questioned everything that I was told to do that violated my previous understanding. I think the only way you get those posts is by either being a "True Believer", or by being a cynical manipulator.

Were you in the Sea Org?

 

[He-man]

Were you in the Sea Org?

Not answering for UM, but imnsho it always seems to be the dividing question on that note.

 

[Lulu Belle]

Not answering for UM, but imnsho it always seems to be the dividing question on that note.

For good reason.

 

[He-man]

For good reason.

Yeah I think so.

Were we really a world apart from the plebs, sorry, public?

Or is it that they can claim the moral upper ground by never signing their life away to the Sea Org?

 

[Lulu Belle]

Were we really a world apart from the plebs, sorry, public?

Or is it that they can claim the moral upper ground by never signing their life away to the Sea Org?

Yes and yes.

 

[freethinker]

@freethinker What is D & H ?

PTS Types. i was PYS Type D and H. I would have to find the issue to clarify each one.

 

[Caroline]

PTS Types. i was PYS Type D and H. I would have to find the issue to clarify each one.

Here's the policy letter, posted by Suppressive Person Defense League:

SOURCES OF TROUBLE​

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble.” They include:

a. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology.

In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

b. Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

c. Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

d. Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is “wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in.” Such cases demand unusual favors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary, they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

f. Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

g. Persons who claim that “if you help such and such a case” (at great and your expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighbors would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance.

Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them.”

i. Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so, in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained, they use their training to degrade others. Thus, they should not be accepted for training or auditing.

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know.” If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

http://suppressiveperson.org/1964/1...ical-healing-insanity-and-sources-of-trouble/

 

[Caroline]

I'm late to the conversation. But I do think many people simply would not do the things that Rinder and other OSA personnel did. I know I wouldn't. This is not because I'm morally superior! It's because I never would have been given the post: I was almost always in lower conditions, even when my stats were in affluence or power. I never could shake the truth, which was that I was INVESTIGATING scientology. I was not convinced of the rightness of Hubbard or the Church, and so I questioned everything that I was told to do that violated my previous understanding. I think the only way you get those posts is by either being a "True Believer", or by being a cynical manipulator.

I think this is an important post, thank you. Earlier, Warrior asked "Were you ever told you were "PTS Type H"? Here's what Type H means:

h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them.”

When you were doing lowers, if you were investigating Ethics, as opposed to doing the formulas wholeheartedly, i.e., with the idea that doing them sincerely would change your condition, you could have been signaling to HCO that you had a "Type F or J sit." Hard to say.

f. Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.
[...]

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know.” If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

[Emphasis added]

But to be clear, there are many other post assignment criteria besides PTS A-J that determine who gets promoted up the Scientology hierarchy. Obviously a desire for upward mobility has to be present.

Your "true believer" vs. "cynical manipulator" groupings have merit, imo.

 

[Caroline]

Quoting myself here.

This is regarding Rinder.

Rinder spoke at a lot of Int events in the 80s and 90s. If you had ever gone to those events during that time, you might remember him.

When he spoke at those events, it was either usually or always from the "hat" of LRH PRO Int. This, as I said in my original post, was the head of RPR. It's a CMO Int post, held from Int. Not an OSA or a legal job. He spent a lot of time on that job during this time period. (My best recollection is that he bopped back and forth between OSA and RPR mainly.)

If Rinder is to be held accountable for his crimes against humanity, his speaking at these events is the foremost thing he can be charged with.

It's ironic that he's on a TV show because as an Int speaker he had the most boring, droning voice you could ever imagine. The worst. I mean, it was painful. Even as good little Sea Org members, my girlfriend and I would always slip out and go to the ladies room or take a walk when he came on.


Watching paint dry was like seeing a Nascar race in comparison.

It was that bad.

Every event was an assault on the ears. From Jeff Pomerantz and his "Diiiianeeeetiiiics", to Dan Sherman's "gay as" rambling singsongy bullshit, to DM's over-scripted, tortured and strangled sentences, to Mike Rinder's coma inducing weird accent. Uugh. I preferred to do nanny duty.

Why did Mike Rinder say this about his own career then?

"For most of the time between 1982 and 2007 I was a senior official in the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the so-called mother church of Scientology. I was on the Board of Directors of CSI from its inception in 1982 until I left in 2007.'

"During the majority of the time between 1982 and 2007 I was the most senior official within CSI responsible for “external affairs”, meaning government and media relations, investigations and intelligence operations, as well as all litigation and contract matters. This function is performed by the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”) and I was the head of OSA for most of this time."
- Mike Rinder Texas Declaration

https://www.mikerindersblog.org/mike-rinder-texas-declaration/

I'd agree with Lulubelle and Emma about those "mandatory" Int events, the speakers and the coma-inducing hypnotic effects. I'd feel more or less the same way during these events (desperately trying to sleep and being repeatedly woken up) as I did during a run of Hard TR 0, toward the end of "Book and Bottle," etc. It was almost impossible to follow the speakers, without going into a confused, dream-like state.

I wonder if Alanzo missed the joke about Rinder's speaking "crimes." Obviously speaking at events is not "criminal" except to the extent that the speakers flat out lied and dissembled, and kept our brainwashing working.

But Rinder and other senior execs have many real legal liabilities about which they are undoubtedly aware, and would want to give themselves and each other an "All Clear" about.

It seems to me that the new Child Victims Act, with the Statutes of Limitation being suspended, would be a serious issue for Rinder, given his insider positions throughout his corporate Scientology career, and because his current relationship with the corporation doesn't save him from legal liability. Rinder and DM share exposure that did not expire when Rinder "blew." Even if Rinder renounced the ideology, which he clearly did not, leaving the corporation means next to nothing in this legal context. (ianal)

It's conceivable that Rinder affiliated with Child USA to help shield him and his co-conspirators from charges they would otherwise face. Scientology executives have never been above using lawfare to benefit their legal and PR standings. Rinder sailed that ship with his Aftermath admissions.

That's why it is so important to the victims that their claims not be diluted or in any way adversely impacted by people whose real interests may remain in conflict.

From legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

Conflict of Interest
A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.

In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.

Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.

conflict of interest
n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

conflict of interest
noun
conflict, divergent interests between clients, ethical breach, prohibiting acceptance or retention of a case, variance of interest between clients
Associated concepts: code of professional responsibility

 

[Alanzo]

I don't know exactly.

Except that "Senior Official in the Church of Scientology" could mean anything. Anyone posted at Int would be in that category.

Same with "Board of Directors CSI". If you dig through the Board of Directors stuff of the Scientology orgs, you'll see all kinds of people you knew to be minions on these boards. I don't know how they determined these people. The ex-CO of my org was on some kind of big Scientology board; I came across it on the internet years later. Didn't mean anything. It certainly didn't give him any kind of clout.

"Most senior official within CSI responsible for “external affairs”, meaning government and media relations, investigations and intelligence operations, as well as all litigation and contract matters. This function is performed by the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”) and I was the head of OSA for most of this time." Not sure about that either. As I've said, he did move around from CO OSA to D/CO OSA to WDC OSA as well as other places. All three of those positions could be considered "head of OSA", I guess. The operative word is "most" in "head of OSA for most of this time". He definitely wasn't just in OSA. I remember seeing him running around PAC in black more than one time period, as well as his missions (at least one in to AOLA, for one) and stints in RPR.


I didn't read the whole "Texas declaration" you quoted (or any of it except what you quoted, for that matter), but I assume the purpose of his little opening about his Scientology work history was to establish that he knew what went on in OSA. To prove that what he was saying was credible. To that end, it would make sense to establish himself as someone who knew what was going on and called the shots in OSA during that whole vast time period.

Doesn't mean he really did. Doesn't mean there weren't actually gaps. Maybe huge gaps.

Haven't you ever written a resume? You kind of have to smooth over and bridge those big holes when you were unemployed.

This might have been kind of a similar deal.


As I said, my accounts are strictly what I knew, what I saw supplemented with what other people who were there who I knew from the Sea Org knew and saw.

I definitely don't know or remember everything, but I definitely am not making any of it up, either.

Don't have a dog in the fight. I have no issue with Mike Rinder one way or the other.

More revisionist history and plausible deniability - from a faulty memory, no less - to obfuscate and distract from the criminal and abusive history of one of the most fanatical people to ever be in Scientology.

We are not "all Mike Rinder", Lulu.

None of us are.