Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, and Confidentiality

Techless

Patron Meritorious
Great to read through all of this thread. Important stuff to know by any/everyone indeed.

Funny: The whole PTS/SP thing for me, is what had always put some twinge of doubt into my mind from the very beginning (early 80s) and what I since 'decided' to struggle with for some 30 years.
It kinda, sorta sounded 'right' from the onset - and especially enhanced by seeing all hell breaking loose in the world overall -but it also appeared to just be an extremely important topic overall, mainly for mankind in general and not just Scn.

The 'topic' still is most important - it's this Scn version of it that is the scariest thing ever.

I read, reread materials ad nausium, over many, many years and as persuaded (made) to by 'ethical' folks everywhere. - as the 'only real problem' in my little world was that I must be 'not' understanding something about it.

About 15 years ago I had the idea, and after seeing many years of Scn target this or that group as the next thing to destroy: Why wouldn't anyone ever conclude that the only target should be: SPs?
(I've never seen any official docs where this was stated specifically)
HHmm - very interesting.

And since the whole topic rather 'loosely' ties into a designed concept of 'right' or 'wrong' -again defined to mostly suite it's own purposes - why would an SP be someone specifically against Scn, and not attempt to say that an SP will negate or seek to destroy 'any' other well-meaning group, they try to a bit, but minimally. But, the activity that then occurs when a supposed SP says/does something negative against the CofS they'll get more 'direct attention' than Hitler or Bin Laden could ever have hoped for. (yes: they did get 'attention' after some point - a bit too late perhaps)

It never made sense to me why the doctrine was or seemed so specifically set-up (or mainly 'used') only for Scn...?

I do believe therein is going to be the undoing of it all.

It didn't take too long to find out the control mechanism behind it. To me now, it's so glaringly obvious that it was 'designed' as such and will be their Achilles heal, as all the real-world horror that has dribbled out from it: mostly the broken families, disconnection thing is what is going to be found as the main criminal act(s) - not soon enough though I'm sure. Especially since those 'in-charge' (government -wise) and who've been employed to protect are in some hiccup of consciousness that eludes them. The Police, FBI, CIA and such. They'll be getting nailed soon for not protecting US citizens, but only behind the lines until they DO something...maybe join staff?

It's not easy for me to keep reading others inputs here about 'just how is it' that certain people (we all know) aren't dragged into the town square and hung. Yet most realize or know too, that it is the crimes of our 'elected officials' that need to get into a spotlight before anythings is going to be done and which is criminally impeding this process now.

But I do feel that the PTS/SP materials will be the backfiring device that comes to a head. So, as any words to add to the original questions from JB starting this thread: Please sir, do not worry or seek to find any hard, meaningful answers from your original questions - they are not what you should asking. (although all the many expert responses you've gotten are dead-on. No pun intended)

There is some point to not 'discussing somethings' with the person closest to you when you are in the middle of some self-discovery or what-not- and that very slightly could cause any harm - But: If you believe any such doctrine that states you absolutely cannot talk with your life-partner,etc - You will be helping to set up your divorce.

It's just amazing how evil the crap can play out. And, it'll be all your fault!

Not fun - Run
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
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.

Dear PR,

Your opinion re: the existence of good policies within CO$ is well-reasoned and its logic valid, and more importantly, it is your own, and I thank you for sharing. Mine differs - primarily because it is the seemingly good policies which help sell/sustain the more plentiful bad policies. Thus, I hate them all.

The 3rd wheel points raised above add depth to anyone who seeks to understand and see how much damage even a single CO$ policy can do -- 'confidentiality' doesn't initially sound onerous or dangerous until one reads how far the policy invades and, eventually, rules all of one's relationships if left unchecked/unchallenged.

JB.
 

Gib

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

I really wish I could order my CUSTOMERS to pay. That would be really cool.

Oh that apple iphone you say doesn't work right, off to cramming for you, you must pay another $200 to understand the materials in our course room. Oh, you don't want cramming now you say, well this is an ethics matter now. Oh you don't want to do the PTS course and you're having doubts about using the iphone now. And you say you might consider another product. Well, you are hearby declared a suppressive person. Any critical remarks about our iphone, service or company will lead to litigation for you, so you'd best shut-up.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Great to read through all of this thread. Important stuff to know by any/everyone indeed.

Funny: The whole PTS/SP thing for me, is what had always put some twinge of doubt into my mind from the very beginning (early 80s) and what I since 'decided' to struggle with for some 30 years.
It kinda, sorta sounded 'right' from the onset - and especially enhanced by seeing all hell breaking loose in the world overall -but it also appeared to just be an extremely important topic overall, mainly for mankind in general and not just Scn.

The 'topic' still is most important - it's this Scn version of it that is the scariest thing ever.

I read, reread materials ad nausium, over many, many years and as persuaded (made) to by 'ethical' folks everywhere. - as the 'only real problem' in my little world was that I must be 'not' understanding something about it.

About 15 years ago I had the idea, and after seeing many years of Scn target this or that group as the next thing to destroy: Why wouldn't anyone ever conclude that the only target should be: SPs?
(I've never seen any official docs where this was stated specifically)
HHmm - very interesting.

And since the whole topic rather 'loosely' ties into a designed concept of 'right' or 'wrong' -again defined to mostly suite it's own purposes - why would an SP be someone specifically against Scn, and not attempt to say that an SP will negate or seek to destroy 'any' other well-meaning group, they try to a bit, but minimally. But, the activity that then occurs when a supposed SP says/does something negative against the CofS they'll get more 'direct attention' than Hitler or Bin Laden could ever have hoped for. (yes: they did get 'attention' after some point - a bit too late perhaps)

It never made sense to me why the doctrine was or seemed so specifically set-up (or mainly 'used') only for Scn...?

I do believe therein is going to be the undoing of it all.

It didn't take too long to find out the control mechanism behind it. To me now, it's so glaringly obvious that it was 'designed' as such and will be their Achilles heal, as all the real-world horror that has dribbled out from it: mostly the broken families, disconnection thing is what is going to be found as the main criminal act(s) - not soon enough though I'm sure. Especially since those 'in-charge' (government -wise) and who've been employed to protect are in some hiccup of consciousness that eludes them. The Police, FBI, CIA and such. They'll be getting nailed soon for not protecting US citizens, but only behind the lines until they DO something...maybe join staff?

It's not easy for me to keep reading others inputs here about 'just how is it' that certain people (we all know) aren't dragged into the town square and hung. Yet most realize or know too, that it is the crimes of our 'elected officials' that need to get into a spotlight before anythings is going to be done and which is criminally impeding this process now.

But I do feel that the PTS/SP materials will be the backfiring device that comes to a head. So, as any words to add to the original questions from JB starting this thread: Please sir, do not worry or seek to find any hard, meaningful answers from your original questions - they are not what you should asking. (although all the many expert responses you've gotten are dead-on. No pun intended)

There is some point to not 'discussing somethings' with the person closest to you when you are in the middle of some self-discovery or what-not- and that very slightly could cause any harm - But: If you believe any such doctrine that states you absolutely cannot talk with your life-partner,etc - You will be helping to set up your divorce.

It's just amazing how evil the crap can play out. And, it'll be all your fault!

Not fun - Run

Thanks, Techless, for posting as you have. I, too, have enjoyed every prior posting and the many points raised have certainly added to my understanding -- and a few have raised more questions which is always a good thing.

What the 4 sets of questions in my OP sought to discover, if they share any single premise, is when did it become palatable/acceptable to an individual to substitute his/her own judgment with that of another, specifically CO$? And if it was noticed by that individual as it happened, what did that feel like?

No one has stated in this thread or any other I've been able to locate that on such and such date, at such and such time, s/he invited CO$ into their marriage. Or invited CO$ to share in a bond between father & child. Or invited CO$ into any other private/intimate relationship.

What I have discerned, however, is that individuals recall adhering to, for example, 'confidentiality' as practiced by CO$, without recalling when adherence to this one policy, turned into something else entirely. Agreement to 'confidentiality' became 'invitation' somehow and there's no consensus as to how/when such consent was ever sought by CO$ or given to CO$.

JB.
 

jenni with an eye

Silver Meritorious Patron
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.

Probably true in some or even most cases.

Panda & I actually got together outside of the cofs. The cofs had nothing to do with it.

I always believed & still do to this day that if push came to shove & I stated outright that I didn't want to be a scio anymore my husband would have stood by me & supported me in my endevours.

We actually know of many scio couples where one is still in & the other is definitely out (albeit in some cases undercover :giggle:)

The thing is I'm really lucky, my husband loved / loves me. At the end of the day no matter what he would still be my husband.

Our marriage was always & still is 'senior' to any 'third party' whether it be a person, group, policy, opinion, or evil action. I guess it must be love ! :love2:

The cofs would probably never understand that.


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.

Very true :yes:

But hopefully not. :)

While we were being 'good scientologists' we kept some of our considerations about the cofs to ourselves.

These days there are no secrets in this house that's for sure. :dance:
 

Techless

Patron Meritorious
I think JB - and to trying to answer your question better: It seems as like you are looking for a particular 'moment' - when did 'some shift' occur, etc - and how easy it was - or otherwise - to lose sight of your own morality vs, others/ Is this close?

Well - my only answer can be: there is no 'moment'! If this were such, and there was some definable time-frame or measurable moment - it would be too easy to figure it out. This is what - in large part - keeps the thing (deception), eh... working.
Another way to say: It'll be different for everyone. If it were otherwise, then all Scn would be is one big self-contained, perpetual 'ethics' handling machine - attempting to handle everything it has generated within itself...and no time for anything else.

Hmm...sounds like a good idea to me really!

But take heart: they are almost already at the point of total suffocation now trying to 'handle' the clusterF it's created. Funny though: you'd think someone would get a slight clue and realize they are and have been undoing themselves for some time now with this 'data'. Itself Alone: showing it's unworkability.

Hope that may help out some here.

Best
TLess
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Probably true in some or even most cases.

Panda & I actually got together outside of the cofs. The cofs had nothing to do with it.

I always believed & still do to this day that if push came to shove & I stated outright that I didn't want to be a scio anymore my husband would have stood by me & supported me in my endevours.

We actually know of many scio couples where one is still in & the other is definitely out (albeit in some cases undercover :giggle:)

The thing is I'm really lucky, my husband loved / loves me. At the end of the day no matter what he would still be my husband.

Our marriage was always & still is 'senior' to any 'third party' whether it be a person, group, policy, opinion, or evil action. I guess it must be love ! :love2:

The cofs would probably never understand that.




Very true :yes:

But hopefully not. :)

While we were being 'good scientologists' we kept some of our considerations about the cofs to ourselves.

These days there are no secrets in this house that's for sure. :dance:

Yes, hopefully not. But then you have cases like where they showed Nazanin Boniadi privileged material from her partner's file. So who knows how long Scientology knew there was a situation and she didn't. And I've read similar stories, particularly around child abuse (another reason that whole kha khan sort of idea sucks).

In my case my former husband was ordered to break up with me and chose to stay with me instead. But I didn't know that till it happened really. Like with the Nancy Many story, how her husband had a problem with the idea that she wouldn't want to be a Scientologist anymore, that led to the terrible black Dianetics stuff. Of course, he did choose her in the end, but then there are beautiful people like Tory who are still grieving for the choices their spouses made.

I think the love that you and Panda share shines through to the whole world, and I think it would be the same whatever your situation in life. That is something beautiful and very special and, like with Ladybird's story, I find it inspiring to know that happiness like that does exist.
 

Gib

Crusader
Probably true in some or even most cases.

Panda & I actually got together outside of the cofs. The cofs had nothing to do with it.

I always believed & still do to this day that if push came to shove & I stated outright that I didn't want to be a scio anymore my husband would have stood by me & supported me in my endevours.

We actually know of many scio couples where one is still in & the other is definitely out (albeit in some cases undercover :giggle:)

The thing is I'm really lucky, my husband loved / loves me. At the end of the day no matter what he would still be my husband.

Our marriage was always & still is 'senior' to any 'third party' whether it be a person, group, policy, opinion, or evil action. I guess it must be love ! :love2:

The cofs would probably never understand that.




Very true :yes:

But hopefully not. :)

While we were being 'good scientologists' we kept some of our considerations about the cofs to ourselves.

These days there are no secrets in this house that's for sure. :dance:


:thumbsup:
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
<snip> ..."It seems as like you are looking for a particular 'moment' - when did 'some shift' occur, etc - and how easy it was - or otherwise - to lose sight of your own morality vs, others/ Is this close?" <snip> Yes, that is part of what I seek to learn. :yes:

<snip> "Well - my only answer can be: there is no 'moment'! If this were such, and there was some definable time-frame or measurable moment - it would be too easy to figure it out. This is what - in large part - keeps the thing (deception), eh... working.
Another way to say: It'll be different for everyone." <snip> Exactly. Your opinion is there is "no moment" and cannot be defined as having happened within a measurable time-frame, because, per you, it'd be too easy.

But it is the "It'll be different for everyone..." portion of your post that is where you and I agree completely. I, and you, would benefit from learning whether your opinion of "no moment" is common to many/most or rare.


"But take heart: they are almost already at the point of total suffocation now trying to 'handle' the clusterF it's created." While I would very much like to agree, I have read a few posts here at ESMB which dampened (unintentionally) my enthusiasm -- this CO$ has been on the ropes before but has somehow continued.:angry:

I want, and will support all legal efforts which work to ensure this entire business is closed permanently - CO$, and every, single one of its front groups.


Hope that may help out some here.

Best
TLess

Thanks, TLess.:clap:
I hope everyone learns all they can about CO$ & Co.
JB.
 

Techless

Patron Meritorious
"this CO$ has been on the ropes before but has somehow continued"

Yes, this is true, but the internet didn't really exist or had matured to any point such as today. Like these boards and such which are such a high concentration of 'easily' credible stories - way too much to be ever considered spun by a few, so, hang in there!

I think the thing is now facing it's ultimate demise, more than anyone can imagine. And the Net is something that no-one, I believe, can totally get their mind around. In this case, that's a good thing. It may fade too slowly for anyone of us to truly have a great 'hooray' moment, but I'm sure the death of it's fake heart, is and will be sensed by anyone who knows. It is already happening by gosh!

The 'no moment' thing: I am guessing there are those have had some sort of singular (like) moment of revelation - it's how such things get started anyway so it's be most ignorant of me to say otherwise.
Yet I do feel that it's rather a 'series' of moments, at whatever speed anyone is moving at. Weird thing: I got into it initially - and in large part - because of what I saw as a 'real' effort towards 'individuality' and I think many are of same thoughts here about this aspect. But it got stranger and stranger as the 'unquestioned' allegiance or whatever you wish to call it (something I NEVER had achieved or developed very well) turned into the greatest inexplicable paradox that it is. And it still tends to start undoing your mind when thinking about.

(It very successfully undid my marriage - which actually turned out to be a good thing! anutter story...)

Anyone still doubting this or still eecking your way thru to joining up or not: there are too many examples out there now of it, (losing one's mind, money, friends, family) for everyone to see. Unless you are threatened by other's demanding you not look at...whatever price you may have put on penalty of 'looking': there is simply no amount equal, immediate or eternal to pay, for NOT having looked at it. And this being especially for those friends and kindred spirits (whats hopefully left) still on the Inside.

I'll stop yapping now -
TL






 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Dear PR,

Your opinion re: the existence of good policies within CO$ is well-reasoned and its logic valid, and more importantly, it is your own, and I thank you for sharing. Mine differs - primarily because it is the seemingly good policies which help sell/sustain the more plentiful bad policies. Thus, I hate them all.

The 3rd wheel points raised above add depth to anyone who seeks to understand and see how much damage even a single CO$ policy can do -- 'confidentiality' doesn't initially sound onerous or dangerous until one reads how far the policy invades and, eventually, rules all of one's relationships if left unchecked/unchallenged.

JB.

Part of the issue is cultural within org staff and sea org staff. You have a multitude of policies, which can contradict each other. When they contradict, which policy takes precedence? Which policies are seen as "central", and which policies are seen as just being there for PR purposes, with no intention of actually being followed?

In the Sea Org, you can be slammed for not following a senior's orders, even if you were following policy. This is particularly true when the senior in question was LRH or DM (and usually you would get orders from your immediate senior and not know whether the order was his idea or was being pushed from higher above, particularly when the order involved something that the ultimate senior might not want visibly attributed to him)

What I saw as having evolved within the Sea Org was a focus on the "Bolivar policy" (HCOPL Responsibilities of Leaders), a very long document which talked about a South American leader Simon Bolivar, and his ultimate failure as having come from his (and his followers) being inadequately ruthless in dealing with enemies (and by "ruthless", examples by LRH of what Bolivar should have done included assassination of enemies, having enemies' daughters subjected to gang rape, and seizing of the property of enemies). The central focus of the policy is that a subordinate should take opportunity to deal with the enemies of your senior, while ensuring that blame for the action never could fall upon your senior. A very abridged copy is here, there's some discussion of it with more quotes here. I've never been able to find a complete copy of it on the Internet. I imagine it's one of those documents that Scn's lawyers are especially quick to complain about "copyright infringement".

Essentially, the real policy of the senior Sea Org was "accumulate money and power for Scn, by whatever means necessary".
 
Last edited:

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Part of the issue is cultural within org staff and sea org staff. You have a multitude of policies, which can contradict each other. When they contradict, which policy takes precedence? Which policies are seen as "central", and which policies are seen as just being there for PR purposes, with no intention of actually being followed? Agree w/your view this occurred/occurs within CO$; too, this exists in every other :coolwink:large corporation.

In the Sea Org, you can be slammed for not following a senior's orders, even if you were following policy. This is particularly true when the senior in question was LRH or DM (and usually you would get orders from your immediate senior and not know whether the order was his idea or was being pushed from higher above, particularly when the order involved something that the ultimate senior might not want visibly attributed to him) Haven't read anything that disputes your understanding of this and accept it as true. :yes:

What I saw as having evolved within the Sea Org was a focus on the "Bolivar policy" (HCOPL Responsibilities of Leaders), a very long document which talked about a South American leader Simon Bolivar, and his ultimate failure as having come from his (and his followers) being inadequately ruthless in dealing with enemies (and by "ruthless", examples by LRH of what Bolivar should have done included assassination of enemies, having enemies' daughters subjected to gang rape, and seizing of the property of enemies). The central focus of the policy is that a subordinate should take opportunity to deal with the enemies of your senior, while ensuring that blame for the action never could fall upon your senior. A very abridged copy is here, there's some discussion of it with more quotes here. I've never been able to find a complete copy of it on the Internet. I imagine it's one of those documents that Scn's lawyers are especially quick to complain about "copyright infringement". Have studied more about Bolivar's 'leadership style' than I'd have liked (6 yrs in the Army) so don't feel especially inclined today to read whatever bastardized version Hubbard concocted for his own, twisted purposes. But, I do thank you for providing the links - that was very generous and I appreciate the effort(s).

Essentially, the real policy of the senior Sea Org was "accumulate money and power for Scn, by whatever means necessary".

Dear Enthetan,

I've bolded your last sentence above because I think its truth is undeniable given the many, many people who were, essentially, robbed of assets by every means available.

JB.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Dear Enthetan,

I've bolded your last sentence above because I think its truth is undeniable given the many, many people who were, essentially, robbed of assets by every means available.

JB.

The attitude I encountered, particularly at Flag Bureaux, regarding public Scientologists (particularly FSO public) was that they were sheep whose job was to accept shearing. That the only real Scientologists were the Sea Org.

The people I worked with spent 16+ hours per day, seven days a week, doing post. They had a low (private) opinion of the public who would sit by the pool and expect service. The attitude was that public should be working Sea Org hours to make money, and hand all of it over to support Scn. This attitude would color their interactions with public in predictable ways, the attitude that the public OWED us all their assets. I saw it from the other side when I left the SO and years later went to the FSO as public.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
The attitude I encountered, particularly at Flag Bureaux, regarding public Scientologists (particularly FSO public) was that they were sheep whose job was to accept shearing. That the only real Scientologists were the Sea Org.

The people I worked with spent 16+ hours per day, seven days a week, doing post. They had a low (private) opinion of the public who would sit by the pool and expect service. The attitude was that public should be working Sea Org hours to make money, and hand all of it over to support Scn. This attitude would color their interactions with public in predictable ways, the attitude that the public OWED us all their assets. I saw it from the other side when I left the SO and years later went to the FSO as public.

I would add that I suspect that the creation of this attitude was the deliberate intent of LRH. A staff member whose own suffering creates a feeling of resentment against public, is a staff member who is less likely to balk at screwing a public for a worthy cause.
 
Part of the issue is cultural within org staff and sea org staff. You have a multitude of policies, which can contradict each other. When they contradict, which policy takes precedence? Which policies are seen as "central", and which policies are seen as just being there for PR purposes, with no intention of actually being followed?

In the Sea Org, you can be slammed for not following a senior's orders, even if you were following policy. This is particularly true when the senior in question was LRH or DM (and usually you would get orders from your immediate senior and not know whether the order was his idea or was being pushed from higher above, particularly when the order involved something that the ultimate senior might not want visibly attributed to him)

What I saw as having evolved within the Sea Org was a focus on the "Bolivar policy" (HCOPL Responsibilities of Leaders), a very long document which talked about a South American leader Simon Bolivar, and his ultimate failure as having come from his (and his followers) being inadequately ruthless in dealing with enemies (and by "ruthless", examples by LRH of what Bolivar should have done included assassination of enemies, having enemies' daughters subjected to gang rape, and seizing of the property of enemies). The central focus of the policy is that a subordinate should take opportunity to deal with the enemies of your senior, while ensuring that blame for the action never could fall upon your senior. A very abridged copy is here, there's some discussion of it with more quotes here. I've never been able to find a complete copy of it on the Internet. I imagine it's one of those documents that Scn's lawyers are especially quick to complain about "copyright infringement".

Essentially, the real policy of the senior Sea Org was "accumulate money and power for Scn, by whatever means necessary".

i was on staff when the simon bolivar PL was published and it struck me as something less than a document.

i found much very useful but not that
 
Top