Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, and Confidentiality

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Just as a side note to the married couple discussion aspect;

Nearly all scientologists learn early on what is safe, acceptable sharing and what is not. Sharing ideas about dissent is neither safe nor acceptable amongst scientologists. I rue the numerous times I "successfully handled" my wife's upsets with the CofS over the many years of our entanglement. If I'd been less successful at it, we probably would have been out years earlier.

In any event, the day we finally decided to have a full, no-holds-barred conversation about our true feelings about it all is the day we left scientology forever. It was one of the best conversations we've ever had! :)

^^^^^My bold above.

Thanks, PT*! :thumbsup:

You've already been generous with spending the time to post but may please I impose just a bit more and ask, generally speaking, when on the CO$ path it is that an individual first learns about not sharing with all others and one's spouse/partner?

Is it, say, the first time the 'ksw' blurb is read individually and then discussed with whomever else is in the course room and more fully explained among/between the informal group, to keep things absolutely confidential?

Or is it read individually, understood to mean exactly what some written passage or another says plainly, and an individual immediately knows - uh-oh, better not even tell the Mrs. - and immediately becomes a new, learned behavior?

And, whether it comes at the first course, or during book one, or at an early auditing session, I've not yet understood how an individual feels/thinks at that moment. Something/someone tells me to keep something strictly confidential, even from a loved one, it would prompt me to consider the idea, weigh it with what the tasks asks on one side, and what the derived benefit/outcome might yield on the other. I've made very quick decisions, just like everyone else, about important things in my life, again, just like everyone else.

I'm simply curious to know if the decision to agree to the confidentiality requirement described in the OP was made, if it's measured by time alone, either with a moment's consideration, an hour's consideration, or a full day's consideration.

JB.

*Not sure if you and your wife were featured with Feral on the video with the Xmas presents in the stylish, red bags, but if so, thank you to all involved - very memorable! I think two of the three were rescued/blew after that day but believe that same protest deserves much of the credit.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
First, a caveat. The RPF is only for the SO and "other CO$ members" may not even know that an SO member was ever in the RPF. Many SO members traditionally do not have much to do with the Scn public as they are squirreled away in CLOs or at Int where the public never go. However, SO members are also the staff who run advanced orgs and the CCs, and increasingly these days you'll find them at ordinary orgs as "garrison" missionaires -- which really only means that they're more or less based there for various reasons.

Turning to your question, the answer is (as usual) yes and no. Having been RPF'd twice, albeit for short stints (three months each, about three months apart), I can say that once I was out of the first RPF trip I was thoroughly accepted back by my peers. I was RPF'd from a senior management position and then, once reprieved, went back into a less senior but nevertheless important position heading up a new unit in a different area. But my first RPF assignment was for what was then considered a relatively minor offence and nothing to do with my post, which I was doing well in. Back in the day (early 80s) my crime was considered a technical crime rather than a serious, stat-crashing, counter-intention, counter-productive thing. (It was sleeping with someone I wasn't married to, even though we were both single and the "offence" took place in another country. But that's a different story.)

But I knew people who were RPF'd for a major crime -- such as out-tech, or embezzlement, or stat crashing, or deliberate destructiveness, or Rock Slamming, or causing a major PR flap -- who were never truly welcomed back in their previous posts or even in the SO. Some categories of RPFable offences caused the person thereafter to be viewed with suspicion and their return to the fold was always conditional. This was true even though the person might have been wrongly accused, wrongly comm ev'd, perfectly innocent or plain unlucky. Though SO members and Scientologists purportedly deplore "group think", in fact to be a true member of the group means that one has to buy in to group think and play follow the leader. Thus someone RPF'd of a "major crime" carried a taint about them for months or years.

The second time I was RPF'd it was for major crimes: stat crashing (I was supposedly the Who of ANZO), enturbulation of staff across several continents, embezzlement and neglect of fiduciary duties (!), conspiracy to take down current management, etc etc etc. Two foolscap pages of single spaced crimes and high crimes. I stuck it out for three months and when the opportunity presented itself, I left. But the attitude of my fellow SO members at the time was markedly different from when I was RPF'd the first time. The first time it was more like "you poor idiot" while the second time, it was more like "whoa, this is a major SP here". The accusations stick, no matter what is written about the purpose of a comm ev.

Wow - NOT happy you endured the RPF (twice!) but that's not at all what I'd thought, so EXTRA thanks, Petey, for steering me back on the right road. :clap:

JB*. (*Just put the thinking cap in the wash and will wear the dunce cap for awhile.)
 

Danger Mouse

Patron with Honors
LRH lifted the concept of Suppressive Persons from the book "Mask of Sanity" by Hervey Cleckley. I read this in one of the anti-Scientology books, but can't remember which one it was (I'd probably look in "A Piece of Blue Sky" first but don't quote me on that). When I read that, I checked "Masks of Sanity" out of the public library here while they still had it (about 15 years ago) but it is no longer in our catalog. I do believe that Hubbard lifted the whole concept from Cleckley.

Cleckley's thesis is that a small percentage of people have no conscience, and he gives some colorful case studies.

"Mask of Sanity" is long out of print, and old copies are quite expensive. However, this subject was treated more recently in a popular book called "The Sociopath Next Door" by Dr. Martha Stout. She relates that there is a scientific test for sociopathy that reminded me of Philip K. Dick's test for "replicants" in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the movie "Blade Runner." Sociopaths know how other people react and therefore, how they are supposed to react. There is some kind of measurable thing that happens while the sociopath figures out the response that would come naturally to you or me.

The scientific test is therefore not the current Scientology definition, "person who pissed off David Miscavige."

Those who are familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic Church may be aware of the concept of "Perfect Possession," where the devil has moved into a person and the person has welcomed him in. Same behavior pattern, different explanation. I believe that "Perfect Possession" "Sociopath" and "Suppressive Person" are different terms for the same observed phenomenon.

Dr. Stout believes that the percentage of sociopaths in the general population is slowly increasing through the years.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
The most obvious reason for the confidentially things is that the whole system is set up to extract money; you don't want people giving away the chickens when you're selling eggs sortta thingy. Just a thought.

Thank you, Ogsonofgroo :thumbsup:

Everything I've read and watched supports exactly what you've written above. It informs, too, when trying to forecast which segments of a population CO$ would set its sights on to next bilk. Groups already accustomed to having 'outsider' status, (whether real or imagined) appear almost, tragically, pre-sold for financial exploitation and/or ruin. I suppose the only way we'll know the CO$ has its hooks in the Amish is if someone snaps a pic of TC & DM sitting side-by-side in their buggies.

JB.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
What is a scientology Org for, anyway? To make money. It is counter productive (counter to the expansion of scientology) to oppose it, not support it, say something bad about it, criticize it, etc.

reasonfororgs.jpg
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
LRH lifted the concept of Suppressive Persons from the book "Mask of Sanity" by Hervey Cleckley. I read this in one of the anti-Scientology books, but can't remember which one it was (I'd probably look in "A Piece of Blue Sky" first but don't quote me on that). When I read that, I checked "Masks of Sanity" out of the public library here while they still had it (about 15 years ago) but it is no longer in our catalog. I do believe that Hubbard lifted the whole concept from Cleckley.

Cleckley's thesis is that a small percentage of people have no conscience, and he gives some colorful case studies.

"Mask of Sanity" is long out of print, and old copies are quite expensive. However, this subject was treated more recently in a popular book called "The Sociopath Next Door" by Dr. Martha Stout. She relates that there is a scientific test for sociopathy that reminded me of Philip K. Dick's test for "replicants" in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the movie "Blade Runner." Sociopaths know how other people react and therefore, how they are supposed to react. There is some kind of measurable thing that happens while the sociopath figures out the response that would come naturally to you or me.

The scientific test is therefore not the current Scientology definition, "person who pissed off David Miscavige."

Those who are familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic Church may be aware of the concept of "Perfect Possession," where the devil has moved into a person and the person has welcomed him in. Same behavior pattern, different explanation. I believe that "Perfect Possession" "Sociopath" and "Suppressive Person" are different terms for the same observed phenomenon.

Dr. Stout believes that the percentage of sociopaths in the general population is slowly increasing through the years.

Hi, and thanks Danger Mouse!

All helpful info and very much appreciated - I did read, "A Piece of Blue Sky" and will verify if that's where I first came across mention of Cleckley's work, too. Just finished Mr. Wright's book yesterday and before that...Mr. Sweeney's book...and four(?!) others.

Your description of the current CO$ definition of an SP? Perfect.

JB.
 
^^^^^My bold above.



"...but may please I impose just a bit more and ask, generally speaking, when on the CO$ path it is that an individual first learns about not sharing with all others and one's spouse/partner?

Is it, say, the first time the 'ksw' blurb is read individually and then discussed with whomever else is in the course room and more fully explained among/between the informal group, to keep things absolutely confidential?

Or is it read individually, understood to mean exactly what some written passage or another says plainly, and an individual immediately knows - uh-oh, better not even tell the Mrs. - and immediately becomes a new, learned behavior?....."



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Case" is something culties are not to discuss with anyone out of session. So they talk to auditors in session, and they can talk to the Director of Processing or other people specifically allowed to deal with those things.
They can make a statement to someone like that while hooked up to an emeter and the info will be passed to the Case Supervisor, if they are feeling bad about something. The Case Supervisor will say what processes need to be done on the person. It will be auditing or an interview on a meter to get more info so the Case Supervisor can decide what to do next.
But they are told not to talk "case" with people not in the above categories.

"Case" becomes relevant as soon as a person begins having auditing. There are auditing processes for beginners and not discusssing case applies to them. So they will be told not to talk about their case to others. They can say that they had a good session and that they feel great - but if they did not have a good session they are not supposed to talk about that. They are not supposed to talk about "today I ran this really interesting engram...blah blah blah". I am sure it is written in bulletins by Fatso and these are shown to the 'preclear".
The is some reason given..it could mess up your case to talk about it to others. That is one way not talking to others is woven into the picture.

Another way is that OT levels are just stated as "confidential". There were big red and white charts that showed all the different levels and in the lower levels it stated, the level and the ability gained (supposedly)
form the level and I think a bit about what processes were run. But on the chart, in the OT section, a lot of the iinfo was left out and "confidential" was written there. So it was very clear (pun or not) to any new person in the org that some things were not up for discussion. Of course reasons are written and you would see them soon enough...while you study or get auditing. As all humans on Earth now know, OT 3 specifically was confidential because it was so dangerous it might kill you if anyone said anything about it before you were brainwashed enough not to run away when you heard it, or before you had planned all your future income to go to the cult.

In the course room and in the org generally no one was supposed to accept "verbal tech", which meant if anyone told you that something was a certain way, or had to be done, it had to be sourced (or sourceable) to Fatso. "If it's not written (by LRH) it's not true" was the catchcry. That was supposed to prevent people's ideas or opinions muscling in on Fatso's Dogma. So you could discuss "tech" and "policy" but only in terms of which ones were appropriate as a reference in dealing with the large and tiny daily business. Once again, praise was ok, disagreement or suggesting alternatives to Fatso's dogma would get you sent to Ethics.
So this was another way of keeping everyone running along Fatso's train tracks on everything they said or thought. Confidential things could stay so with that in place.
 

jenni with an eye

Silver Meritorious Patron

jenni with an eye

Silver Meritorious Patron
^^^^^My bold above.

Thanks, PT*! :thumbsup:

You've already been generous with spending the time to post but may please I impose just a bit more and ask, generally speaking, when on the CO$ path it is that an individual first learns about not sharing with all others and one's spouse/partner? .

Just so we're really clear on this (bad use of words :giggle:) the reason I never mentioned my disagreements re: the cofs, to P was simply because I loved him that much I simply didn't want to cause him any trouble within the cofs.

it never was about what the cofs wanted as far as I was concerned.

P seemed happy & as long as he was happy & doing well I didn't want to change that.

To this day I would still suck up my disagreements as long as I thought P was happy.

The moment I sense he's not happy then I would / will move heaven & earth to make it better for him.

That is my marriage. :thumbsup:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by JBWriter

^^^^^My bold above.

Thanks, PT*! :thumbsup:

You've already been generous with spending the time to post but may please I impose just a bit more and ask, generally speaking, when on the CO$ path it is that an individual first learns about not sharing with all others and one's spouse/partner? .
That part of the Indoctrination begins almost from Day 1 with The Students Guide To Acceptable Behaviour (usually found in every early Course Pack or else shown to the new Student by the Course Administrator) and/or Guidelines for PCs (usually a locally produced version of the issue which the Director Of Processing shows to the new PC when first starting out).

Most newbies make a few mistakes early on; case discussion, verbalising dissent/disagreements/confusions etc to others (including one's spouse) etc but they're soon taught not to do such things, sometimes with a kind word and sometimes with a big stick. Keeping one's disagreements and upsets to oneself is part of the scientological mindset. It's Group Agreement!
:biggrin:
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
Wow - NOT happy you endured the RPF (twice!) but that's not at all what I'd thought, so EXTRA thanks, Petey, for steering me back on the right road. :clap:

JB*. (*Just put the thinking cap in the wash and will wear the dunce cap for awhile.)

I got off lightly, all things considered. I know someone now five years out who endured 17 years in the RPF, forced into a divorce and unable to see the kids. Sadly, that story is not unusual. And certainly puts my teeny RPF trips into perspective.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
^^^^^My bold above.



"...but may please I impose just a bit more and ask, generally speaking, when on the CO$ path it is that an individual first learns about not sharing with all others and one's spouse/partner?

Is it, say, the first time the 'ksw' blurb is read individually and then discussed with whomever else is in the course room and more fully explained among/between the informal group, to keep things absolutely confidential?

Or is it read individually, understood to mean exactly what some written passage or another says plainly, and an individual immediately knows - uh-oh, better not even tell the Mrs. - and immediately becomes a new, learned behavior?....."



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Case" is something culties are not to discuss with anyone out of session. So they talk to auditors in session, and they can talk to the Director of Processing or other people specifically allowed to deal with those things.
They can make a statement to someone like that while hooked up to an emeter and the info will be passed to the Case Supervisor, if they are feeling bad about something. The Case Supervisor will say what processes need to be done on the person. It will be auditing or an interview on a meter to get more info so the Case Supervisor can decide what to do next.
But they are told not to talk "case" with people not in the above categories.

"Case" becomes relevant as soon as a person begins having auditing. There are auditing processes for beginners and not discusssing case applies to them. So they will be told not to talk about their case to others. They can say that they had a good session and that they feel great - but if they did not have a good session they are not supposed to talk about that. They are not supposed to talk about "today I ran this really interesting engram...blah blah blah". I am sure it is written in bulletins by Fatso and these are shown to the 'preclear".
The is some reason given..it could mess up your case to talk about it to others. That is one way not talking to others is woven into the picture.

Another way is that OT levels are just stated as "confidential". There were big red and white charts that showed all the different levels and in the lower levels it stated, the level and the ability gained (supposedly)
form the level and I think a bit about what processes were run. But on the chart, in the OT section, a lot of the iinfo was left out and "confidential" was written there. So it was very clear (pun or not) to any new person in the org that some things were not up for discussion. Of course reasons are written and you would see them soon enough...while you study or get auditing. As all humans on Earth now know, OT 3 specifically was confidential because it was so dangerous it might kill you if anyone said anything about it before you were brainwashed enough not to run away when you heard it, or before you had planned all your future income to go to the cult.

In the course room and in the org generally no one was supposed to accept "verbal tech", which meant if anyone told you that something was a certain way, or had to be done, it had to be sourced (or sourceable) to Fatso. "If it's not written (by LRH) it's not true" was the catchcry. That was supposed to prevent people's ideas or opinions muscling in on Fatso's Dogma. So you could discuss "tech" and "policy" but only in terms of which ones were appropriate as a reference in dealing with the large and tiny daily business. Once again, praise was ok, disagreement or suggesting alternatives to Fatso's dogma would get you sent to Ethics.
So this was another way of keeping everyone running along Fatso's train tracks on everything they said or thought. Confidential things could stay so with that in place.

Dear DB,

Shallow or not, every time I read "Fatso" I cracked-up laughing. (Bad me, but true.)

Thank you for writing as you have. I'd suspected the concept/idea of not wanting to 'invalidate another's case' was the reason for not sharing one's doubts with other CO$ members, but couldn't see how that practice fit within a marriage. Your explanation makes it much easier to see how insidious the demand for 'confidentiality' truly is. In a very real sense, this policy demands everyone lie to one another, by omission, word, and deed.

JB.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Just so we're really clear on this (bad use of words :giggle:) the reason I never mentioned my disagreements re: the cofs, to P was simply because I loved him that much I simply didn't want to cause him any trouble within the cofs.

it never was about what the cofs wanted as far as I was concerned.

P seemed happy & as long as he was happy & doing well I didn't want to change that.

To this day I would still suck up my disagreements as long as I thought P was happy.

The moment I sense he's not happy then I would / will move heaven & earth to make it better for him.

That is my marriage. :thumbsup:

Dear Jenni w/an Eye,

What you've posted above is, to anyone reading it, exactly what we all hope our partner/spouse would write.

But I'll add that it's even more amazing to see those words, and the sentiments expressed, from a spouse whose marriage bested all attempts by CO$ to ruin (via vile policies/practices) your relationship.

Bravo and very loud, sustained applause to you both.

And thank you,

JB.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
That part of the Indoctrination begins almost from Day 1 with The Students Guide To Acceptable Behaviour (usually found in every early Course Pack or else shown to the new Student by the Course Administrator) and/or Guidelines for PCs (usually a locally produced version of the issue which the Director Of Processing shows to the new PC when first starting out).

Most newbies make a few mistakes early on; case discussion, verbalising dissent/disagreements/confusions etc to others (including one's spouse) etc but they're soon taught not to do such things, sometimes with a kind word and sometimes with a big stick. Keeping one's disagreements and upsets to oneself is part of the scientological mindset. It's Group Agreement!
:biggrin:

Thanks, PT!

Now, I think I get it -- the 'confidentiality' policy is introduced very early on and reinforced early on as well. (I'd found quoted sections of the Students Guide online but didn't realize it was an early hand-out; now I see where it fits in.)

JB.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I got off lightly, all things considered. I know someone now five years out who endured 17 years in the RPF, forced into a divorce and unable to see the kids. Sadly, that story is not unusual. And certainly puts my teeny RPF trips into perspective.

Dear Petey,

With all due respect, from an outsider's perspective, mine, 6 months of one's time spent under such intentionally cruel physical/mental/emotional restrictions is contemptible. The practice is also illegal, with or without the religious cloak CO$ so dearly loves to flaunt.

You are correct, and I fully agree, that so many other people have and continue to suffer within an 'RPF' locale for years on end - and, to my way of thinking at least, those who gave the orders for others to be sent/held under such conditions have earned a place in a prison cell.

JB.
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
Just as a side note to the married couple discussion aspect;

Nearly all scientologists learn early on what is safe, acceptable sharing and what is not. Sharing ideas about dissent is neither safe nor acceptable amongst scientologists. I rue the numerous times I "successfully handled" my wife's upsets with the CofS over the many years of our entanglement. If I'd been less successful at it, we probably would have been out years earlier.

In any event, the day we finally decided to have a full, no-holds-barred conversation about our true feelings about it all is the day we left scientology forever. It was one of the best conversations we've ever had! :)

Great post!!

So Kiss My Stats and I are standing in our kitchen after another round of "self-abasement" over our finances and I say something negative about Scientology (I can't remember exactly what) and the next thing I know, we're hugging, kissing and crying all at once because we knew we were done with Scientology forever!

Long and short of it was Kiss My Stats was done with Scientology shortly after the Golden Age of Tech - compulsory retread of OT 6 and had been withholding it all from me.

Meanwhile, like a drunken sailor, I careened back and forth to Flag and blew another 150k. But I did attest to Clear (for the 4th time)!

After the dust settled, I asked her why the fuck she let me go down there and blow all that money?

She said she was scared that if I knew the truth, the FSO would figure it out (e-meter) and I'd disconnect.

:omg:

I think this answers the OP.

Scientology - the ultimate enforced withhold tech!
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Great post!!

So Kiss My Stats and I are standing in our kitchen after another round of "self-abasement" over our finances and I say something negative about Scientology (I can't remember exactly what) and the next thing I know, we're hugging, kissing and crying all at once because we knew we were done with Scientology forever!

Long and short of it was Kiss My Stats was done with Scientology shortly after the Golden Age of Tech - compulsory retread of OT 6 and had been withholding it all from me.

Meanwhile, like a drunken sailor, I careened back and forth to Flag and blew another 150k. But I did attest to Clear (for the 4th time)!

After the dust settled, I asked her why the fuck she let me go down there and blow all that money?

She said she was scared that if I knew the truth, the FSO would figure it out (e-meter) and I'd disconnect.

:omg:

I think this answers the OP.

Scientology - the ultimate enforced withhold tech!

^^^^My bold above.

Dear ThisIsNotOkay,

I am THRILLED to learn of another married couple who bested the CO$ and its disgusting policies - THAT's love in action.

If I understand the events described above correctly, fear for the well-being of you, her husband, kept your wife silent and doubt caused you to 'break' the policy of 'confidentiality'.

So, until/unless one partner: a. privately begins to doubt; and, b. shares the doubt(s) with his/her spouse, CO$ in a very real way, remains a presence in the marriage. That any marriage may well have two spouses, each with private doubts, but because neither feels ready to share the doubts with the other, they remain involved with CO$ shocks the conscience. Really. It is unconscienable to invade a marriage, or any other loving relationship, by means of the theft of trust.

I'm not a person who feels hatred very often, but I do hate every policy/practice of CO$ I've reviewed to date. Those who choose to believe the policies/practices of CO$ have even a shred of merit have chosen to be willfully ignorant. And while I do not hate who they are, I do hate the choice they've made because it denigrates the truthful narratives of too many people who endured actual, real harm and pain.

JB.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
^^^^My bold above.

Dear ThisIsNotOkay,

I am THRILLED to learn of another married couple who bested the CO$ and its disgusting policies - THAT's love in action.

If I understand the events described above correctly, fear for the well-being of you, her husband, kept your wife silent and doubt caused you to 'break' the policy of 'confidentiality'.

So, until/unless one partner: a. privately begins to doubt; and, b. shares the doubt(s) with his/her spouse, CO$ in a very real way, remains a presence in the marriage. That any marriage may well have two spouses, each with private doubts, but because neither feels ready to share the doubts with the other, they remain involved with CO$ shocks the conscience. Really. It is unconscienable to invade a marriage, or any other loving relationship, by means of the theft of trust.

I'm not a person who feels hatred very often, but I do hate every policy/practice of CO$ I've reviewed to date. Those who choose to believe the policies/practices of CO$ have even a shred of merit have chosen to be willfully ignorant. And while I do not hate who they are, I do hate the choice they've made because it denigrates the truthful narratives of too many people who endured actual, real harm and pain.

JB.

Some of the policies were good, like "Always deliver what you promise." That was invariably ignored, however. It seems like only the destructive policies were followed with vigour and gusto. Others like "Purpose is senior to policy" were routinely used to thwart protective policies but seldom to mitigate harmful ones.

Scientology is definitely a third wheel in a marriage. You never know for sure what choice your spouse will make if it comes down to it, or any other member of your family for that matter. Potentially they can know more about your marriage than you do, such as whether your partner has ever cheated, contracted venereal diseases, spent money without telling you, molested your daughter, hiding a gambling addiction and so forth.
 
Top