The Suppressive Doctrine on Trial: Opening Statement by Gerry Armstrong

koki

Silver Meritorious Patron
Gerry ,I love what you do,but..........
Please come in to 21.century.......
Now,lots of people use abbreviations....
Your posts,videos are always toooooooooooooooooooolong.
You're wright but that is to much....I was there until 2 min.....
Keep what you are doing,but think about those young kids that are lurking....that is toooooooofuuuuucccckkkkiiiiinnnnngggg much for them,and it is not just this time....
Remember.... you are not speaking to people who are already out....lots of them are lurking....
They don't have time for this....
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
it is a perfect example of a fascist and evil collectivist attitude. take bradley manning for instance, he truthfully exposed horrendous war crimes commted by the us government. now he is on trial for "aiding the enemy."
and snowden who dared pit his intergrity against that of those who run the government. he exposes the truth and that is being labeled as the worst kind of treason.

our government is turning into soviet russia. and we all know ron, while railing abut communism secretly envied their totalitarian control of the lives of others.

and marty is ARROGANT AS FUCK.
 
it is a perfect example of a fascist and evil collectivist attitude. take bradley manning for instance, he truthfully exposed horrendous war crimes commted by the us government. now he is on trial for "aiding the enemy."
and snowden who dared pit his intergrity against that of those who run the government. he exposes the truth and that is being labeled as the worst kind of treason.

our government is turning into soviet russia. and we all know ron, while railing abut communism secretly envied their totalitarian control of the lives of others.

and marty is ARROGANT AS FUCK.

IPT...

this sort of thing isn't new; from the 1797 alien and sedition act on ward

just like jefferson knew it would be
 

Veda

Sponsor
[video=youtube;9RPPjOSFKok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPPjOSFKok[/video]

Related WWP thread: https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/rathbun-armstrong-the-debate-is-on.111336/

For starters, here's a post from the thread featuring reviews of the book, 'What's Wrong with Scientology?' To connect with the thread, and see the quotes from the book in SpecialFrog's post, click the horizontal arrows:

Still working my way, and I did have some favorable things to say about the book, but the chapter on "Suppression" just keeps getting worse and worse.

First of all, there is the equating of "SPs", as defined by Hubbard, with "sociopaths", as defined by the mental health community:



I'm not an expert but I have a pretty decent familiarity with the field of mental health and I don't see the definition of an SP as being very much like a sociopath at all.

From there he pretends that under Hubbard, most people who got SP declares actually were sociopaths! But under Miscavige:




There is an interesting aside on Miscavige's rise to power:




Which fledgling movement was this? AAC? Also, who helped Miscavige in this endeavor?

However, the bit that really got me outraged was when Marty laments that Hubbard wanted to try and help incurable SPs so he created the RPF to do so, inadvertently creating an ongoing source of bad PR for the church.




Yes, apparently all the Scientology management declared by Hubbard actually were SPs, but despite their betrayal, the Ol' Man still wanted to help them. And then Miscavige turned his noble undertaking into a tool for sociopaths to abuse healthy people.

And I still have over 100 pages to go.


Marty's attempt to make Hubbard's Suppressive Person writings respectable, and even depict these writings as being ahead of their time, and ultimately validated and adopted by psychology, is so strange that focusing on his assertions is enough to induce a migraine.

It may be that Marty is attempting to minimize his own misdeeds, as Miscavige's right hand man, so as to exempt himself from feelings of guilt.

If so, then, while (perhaps unconsciously) gilding Hubbard's Suppressive Person Doctrine lily, so to speak, so as to minimize or eliminate his sense of guilt, he's also breathing new life into a dangerous and hurtful doctrine.

The difficulty with debating Marty is that Marty is unlikely to participate in any debate, and that, while Marty insists that his views, currently, have not changed from those expressed in his books, it appears that Marty's views are - slowly - changing.

It would be a beneficial experience for Marty to participate in this debate, as it would help him to clarify his thinking; however, his thinking, clarified, would then require his revising some of the content of his books, and, apparently, these books, as Marty sees them, are the final word.

Except, I suppose, there could be a fourth book, that would correct and/or clarify the earlier books.

As a side note, the Hubbard voice in the video, reading segments of documents such as 'Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists' of 7 March 1965, is startling.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Gerry commented on Mike Rinder's PRing the Scientologists’ practice of “disconnection” in the recent TimesTalk discussion and on his blog.

Times Talks (March 2 said:
Timestalks.com
March 2, 2015


19:32 Moderator Logan Hill: And disconnection, by the way is the process where members— well maybe Mike. You might be a good person to describe the disconnection process.

Mike Rinder: Ah, yeah.

The theory of it is a little different than the practice. The theory is a relatively simple theory.

It is that— and this is why, another part of the sort of trap.

The belief is, “Look if there is someone that you’re dealing, you’re working with or have a relationship with, or something, that’s a sociopath, then go, remove yourself from that relationship and environment because it’s harmful to you.

Paul Haggis: Someone who is overly negative, someone that’s always at you, they’re not to have in your life. Simple.

Mike Rinder: And that’s not a very unusual concept.

However, what happens, and what happens in Scientology is that that becomes institutionalized as a control mechanism to control people in the church.

And how that is done is that certain people are denominated as “You must disconnect from these people.”

And they are called “suppressive persons.”

Like Alex Gibney is one. Lawrence Wright is one. I’m one. He’s one.

Source: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/43597/events/3843118

Scientology's "SPs" should never be equated with "sociopaths," any more than Jews should be. It is completely wrong and it beastifies our classes.

Disconnection is a scriptural application of the Suppressive Person doctrine.

Gerry's Response to Rinder re Disconnection: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1344
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Gerry commented on Mike Rinder's PRing the Scientologists’ practice of “disconnection” in the recent TimesTalk discussion and on his blog.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Times Talks (March 2, 2015)

Timestalks.com
March 2, 2015


19:32 Moderator Logan Hill: And disconnection, by the way is the process where members— well maybe Mike. You might be a good person to describe the disconnection process.

Mike Rinder: Ah, yeah.

The theory of it is a little different than the practice. The theory is a relatively simple theory.

It is that— and this is why, another part of the sort of trap.

The belief is, “Look if there is someone that you’re dealing, you’re working with or have a relationship with, or something, that’s a sociopath, then go, remove yourself from that relationship and environment because it’s harmful to you.

Paul Haggis: Someone who is overly negative, someone that’s always at you, they’re not to have in your life. Simple.

Mike Rinder: And that’s not a very unusual concept.

However, what happens, and what happens in Scientology is that that becomes institutionalized as a control mechanism to control people in the church.

And how that is done is that certain people are denominated as “You must disconnect from these people.”

And they are called “suppressive persons.”

Like Alex Gibney is one. Lawrence Wright is one. I’m one. He’s one.

Source: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/43597/events/3843118


Scientology's "SPs" should never be equated with "sociopaths," any more than Jews should be. It is completely wrong and it beastifies our classes.

Disconnection is a scriptural application of the Suppressive Person doctrine.

Gerry's Response to Rinder re Disconnection: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1344


Well Carolyn, you and your husband are taking Rinder and probably Rathbun out of context. I haven't read Rathbun's book, but as for the dialogue above Rinder is not "equating sociopaths with SPs" in the manner you suggest.

He's saying that it's basically common sense in anyone's real life experience to remove themselves from a sociopath, but then Scn institutionalizes an otherwise common sense practice as a way to control people. The way it is done is by denominating some as "suppressive" and that they must be disconnected from such entirely. Of course "the tech" defines suppressive as anyone who opposes Scientology.

The context is that Scn defines who is suppressive and it's not the same thing necessarily as sociopaths, in the way most in the real world define sociopaths.

He then uses as examples that he is an SP, Lawrence Wright is one, Alex Gibney is one, etc...

In other words for the purpose of control Hubbard defines what is Suppressive. Of course you know that, but you are trying to throw a wet blanket on Rinder due to you and your husband's past dealings with him. You've got an axe to grind. I get it. But at this time in history you aren't doing any good by taking every opportunity you can to negate him or Rathbun while they are exposing the cult. And doing a damn good job I might add.

I wish you wouldn't use this board to air your personal grievances time and time again. Rinder and Rathbun are in this film, and it is doing a great good.
 
Last edited:

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Well Carolyn, you and your husband are taking Rinder and probably Rathbun out of context. I haven't read Rathbun's book, but as for the dialogue above Rinder is not "equating sociopaths with SPs" in the manner you suggest.

He's saying that it's basically common sense in anyone's real life experience to remove themselves from a sociopath, but then Scn institutionalizes an otherwise common sense practice as a way to control people. The way it is done is by denominating some as "suppressive" and that they must be disconnected from such entirely. Of course "the tech" defines suppressive as anyone who opposes Scientology.

The context is that Scn defines who is suppressive and it's not the same thing necessarily as sociopaths, in the way most in the real world define sociopaths.

He then uses as examples that he is an SP, Lawrence Wright is one, Alex Gibney is one, etc...

In other words for the purpose of control Hubbard defines what is Suppressive. Of course you know that, but you are trying to throw a wet blanket on Rinder due to you and your husband's past dealings with him. You've got an axe to grind. I get it. But at this time in history you aren't doing any good by taking every opportunity you can to negate him or Rathbun while they are exposing the cult. And doing a damn good job I might add.

I wish you wouldn't use this board to air your personal grievances time and time again. Rinder and Rathbun are in this film, and it is doing a great good.

Here's Rathbun on The Sociopath Next Door:

Mark Rathbun said:
I am adding to that list a remarkable book that I just finished, The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout. I am adding it because I think it might do quite a lot of good for a lot of people who left the church of Scientology. Not only for those not wanting to review any Scientology material, but for anyone who has encountered David Miscavige or his minions dutifully carrying out his directives.

Stout is a clinical psychologist who specialized for twenty-five years in helping the victims of sociopaths. The first half of her book shares her real life observations about sociopaths and the effects they have upon social personalities. Her observations are remarkably parallel to Hubbard’s description of the Suppressive Person. Note, modern accepted characteristics of the sociopath very closely align with Hubbard’s descriptions of the emotional tone level of Covert Hostility and of the Suppressive Person. This is so much the case that I have taken to using the terms “suppressive person” and “sociopath” interchangeably.

From Rathbun's blog entry on The Sociopath Next Door
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
.....and Marty posted that in Oct of 2011. Back when he was still a techie.

You still took Rinder out of context above.

But do carry on with your grudge fest. It is so helpful. :eyeroll:

I didn't take Rinder out of context. Or, what is your evidence? "Above" is not enough.

Here is Mark Rathbun in 2013, from Memoirs:

Rathbun at page 105 said:
such an individual was labeled a suppressive person – roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath.

Rathbun at page 164 said:
A suppressive person, in Scientology vernacular, is roughly equivalent to a sociopath – a conscienceless individual who could put on a convincing front of wanting others to thrive, while harboring the secret goal of destroying everyone in his or her vicinity. Hubbard had written and lectured on the subject rather extensively in the sixties. Ironically, thirty years later the very mental health profession that condemned Hubbard during his life would describe the sociopath or psychopath in very much the same terms Hubbard had in the fifties and sixties. A comparison between Hubbard’s writings and lectures, and current leading mental health texts on the subject bears this out.

Rathbun has never corrected any of this black propaganda. Nor, as we have stated, has he told the truth about fair gaming the SP class.

Gerry and I represent the Suppressive Person Defense League. Here is our web site: http://www.suppressiveperson.org I have assembled the key documents to the Suppressive Person doctrine, here.
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
And the point of trying to discredit Rinder and Rathbun NOW, with the doc Going Clear coming out, and the co$/scnos going so far out of their way to do that to them (and others) - the point of you doing same right now is what??????
 

Lone Star

Crusader
I didn't take Rinder out of context. Or, what is your evidence? "Above" is not enough.

Here is Mark Rathbun in 2013, from Memoirs:





Rathbun has never corrected any of this black propaganda. Nor, as we have stated, has he told the truth about fair gaming the SP class.

Gerry and I represent the Suppressive Person Defense League. Here is our web site: http://www.suppressiveperson.org I have assembled the key documents to the Suppressive Person doctrine, here.

Actually I think you both represent the Perpetual Butthurt League.

You've showed up again waving the official flag of Butthurt Nation. You're goal, as usual, is to discredit Rinder and Rathbun. Even now at the time this film is going viral.

I know you're not OSA. But I bet the OSAbots who monitor this board get a chuckle everytime you show up with your grudge fest. They'll take all the help they can get discrediting Rinder and Rathbun.

You are making waaaaaaaay too much out of this sociopath vs. suppressive nonsense. But the bitter and butthurt usually don't think straight.

That's all.

Have a nice day.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
And the point of trying to discredit Rinder and Rathbun NOW, with the doc Going Clear coming out, and the co$/scnos going so far out of their way to do that to them (and others) - the point of you doing same right now is what??????

"People who hold grudges, who would never let go of an offense are living examples of people who have not experienced healing. They become cripples for life. Bitterness comes from the mental rehearsing and remembering insults, hurts, injustices, rejection and pain from others. That can turn into hatred when we are unwilling to let go, to dismiss or to forgive the other party."

http://www.family-counseling-therapy.com/forgiveness.html
 

Veda

Sponsor
Actually I think you both represent the Perpetual Butthurt League.

You've showed up again waving the official flag of Butthurt Nation. You're goal, as usual, is to discredit Rinder and Rathbun. Even now at the time this film is going viral.

I know you're not OSA. But I bet the OSAbots who monitor this board get a chuckle everytime you show up with your grudge fest. They'll take all the help they can get discrediting Rinder and Rathbun.

You are making waaaaaaaay too much out of this sociopath vs. suppressive nonsense. But the bitter and butthurt usually don't think straight.

That's all.

Have a nice day.

I think that Gerry and Caroline should be patient. Rathbun and Rinder are still going through changes. Those changes in the last couple of years have been dramatic, and I think there are more changes to come.

The points Gerry and Caroline have made, in this and other threads, have been valid, although continuing to comment on years old statements by Rathbun has the drawback of being, possibly, very out of date.

Why not wait until the documentary airs?

Histrionic comments such as by Lone Star do little good.

Is there a moratorium on all criticism or questioning of Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun?

When the documentary is finally aired will only approving comments be allowed?

Of course not. :)
 
Last edited:

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
And the point of trying to discredit Rinder and Rathbun NOW, with the doc Going Clear coming out, and the co$/scnos going so far out of their way to do that to them (and others) - the point of you doing same right now is what??????

That Rathbun and Rinder (or any Scientologists, whether or not affiliated with the Scientology corporation, or proclaimed Ex-scientologists) discussing the doctrine that underlies and “justifies” their victimization of good people might discredit them can hardly be blamed on me. That any of them discuss their black PR while promoting Going Clear is also not something for which I deserve censure. I had no control over what Rinder or anyone said in the March 2, 2015 NY TimesTalk interview. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to shine some more light on this very important topic.

It is obviously in the public interest that Scientology's pernicious policy and practice of disconnection be understood accurately. Obviously as well, the time to speak up about it is sooner, not later.

Gerry and I haven't seen the documentary, but evidently disconnection is a theme in the film, and has to also be a legitimate and extremely relevant topic for discussion among ex-Scientologists, and the public at large. In any case, it was the TimesTalk comments by Rinder that we responded to, and TimesTalk's coincidence with the documentary also cannot logically be blamed on me.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
I think that Gerry and Caroline should be patient. Rathbun and Rinder are still going through changes. Those changes in the last couple of years have been dramatic, and I think there are more changes to come.

We are all changing, Veda, and a lot of everyone's changes are dramatic. Logan Hill selected Rinder to answer the question about disconnection, no doubt because of his claimed expertise and personal experience, and because of Logan Hill's expectation that Rinder's answer in his claimed current relationship to Scientology would be accurate and useful.

The points Gerry and Caroline have made, in this and other threads, have been valid, although continuing to comment on years old statements by Rathbun has the drawback of being, possibly, very out of date.

Rathbun's statements are from his Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior which he published in 2013. Rinder's statements are from March 2, 2015. What do you mean by out of date? You publish material from Hubbard from 1950. How about Miscavige's statements? is anything earlier than March 3, 2015, or any other year out of date?

As far as I know, neither Rathbun nor Rinder has corrected any statements about SP doctrine from Memoirs (2013), nor about other public statements they've made on this topic before or since. Rinder's answer to Logan Hill comports with what Rathbun wrote (and Rinder edited) in Memoirs.

Why not wait until the documentary airs?

Otoh, what is the point of waiting until the documentary airs? This concerns statements Rinder made in a public discussion. Whether the documentary airs or not is irrelevant.

I cannot believe that an open and honest conversation about the SP doctrine would compromise the success of the film. If the film improperly also depicts the SP doctrine, as did Rinder's answer in the interview, the time to talk about it is still now.

Histrionic comments such as by Lone Star do little good.

Is there a moratorium on all criticism or questioning of Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun?

When the documentary is finally aired will only approving comments be allowed?

Of course not. :)
 

Lone Star

Crusader
I think that Gerry and Caroline should be patient. Rathbun and Rinder are still going through changes. Those changes in the last couple of years have been dramatic, and I think there are more changes to come.

The points Gerry and Caroline have made, in this and other threads, have been valid, although continuing to comment on years old statements by Rathbun has the drawback of being, possibly, very out of date.

Why not wait until the documentary airs?

Histrionic comments such as by Lone Star do little good.

Is there a moratorium on all criticism or questioning of Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun?

When the documentary is finally aired will only approving comments be allowed?

Of course not. :)

[STRIKE]
Yes, you are right that there isn't a moratorium on criticism or questioning of Rinder or Rathbun.

I just felt that "here we go again" when Carolyn made that first post earlier going after them again at this time when there's so much to be glad about with the film and all.

I've made my viewpoint known and will just leave it there. I know I could've worded my posts more diplomatically and I wish I had.

Carolyn you and your husband have also done a lot over the many years, and are to be commended as a part of what I call "the foundation layers". I also know that the "two R's" caused you both a lot of pain back in the day. If I were in your shoes I'm sure I'd feel the same way as you, or even more so.

Hopefully one day Marty and Mike will reach out to Gerry and Carolyn and help resolve the fair gaming ugliness in the past.[/STRIKE]

Nope....on second thought I retract the above post.
 
Last edited:

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
This board can move very quickly, and I keep losing track of the the threads where I mean to comment, get distracted by small children, and then can't find the thread. Repeat to fade.

Although I haven't seen, Going Clear, and while I don't think it's going to be this apocalyptic moment that some may hope for, I do think that much has changed in past few years. Initially when Mike and Marty left, aside from the, 'DM bad, Hubbard good' theory, they were considered to be leaders. Lots of people looked up to them, which I always found puzzling, and a hang over from the cult of personality originating in scientology. But nevertheless, both were respected and essentially being their previous posts in exile, so to speak.

Now, it seems that both Marty and Mike are considered to be victims of scientology. For the most part they have been treated with kid gloves by the media, and so far don't think anyone has asked them really difficult questions as most of the interviews have been on their terms, both have moderated blogs, they shy away from question and answer sessions.

My view is that this will change. I think Marty will be asked pointed questions about the IRS negotiations, and Mike about the grubby aspects of being in charge of OSA. There will be more and more showings of the film, maybe requests for Question and Answer sessions, less control will mean more openness.

Lastly, think Caroline is absolutely right to keep Gerry's story in the public eye.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
This board can move very quickly, and I keep losing track of the the threads where I mean to comment, get distracted by small children, and then can't find the thread. Repeat to fade.

Although I haven't seen, Going Clear, and while I don't think it's going to be this apocalyptic moment that some may hope for, I do think that much has changed in past few years. Initially when Mike and Marty left, aside from the, 'DM bad, Hubbard good' theory, they were considered to be leaders. Lots of people looked up to them, which I always found puzzling, and a hang over from the cult of personality originating in scientology. But nevertheless, both were respected and essentially being their previous posts in exile, so to speak.

Rathbun and Rinder of course were also cult leaders and they maintain their "opinion leader" status to this day, including in the media. Rathbun says he left the corporation in 2004. Rinder says he left in 2007. They have certainly not signaled they need more time to get their thoughts together before making public statements or starring in documentaries.

Now, it seems that both Marty and Mike are considered to be victims of scientology. For the most part they have been treated with kid gloves by the media, and so far don't think anyone has asked them really difficult questions as most of the interviews have been on their terms, both have moderated blogs, they shy away from question and answer sessions.

My view is that this will change. I think Marty will be asked pointed questions about the IRS negotiations, and Mike about the grubby aspects of being in charge of OSA. There will be more and more showings of the film, maybe requests for Question and Answer sessions, less control will mean more openness.

Rathbun and Rinder have been "demonstrating" their "progress" out of Scientology for public consumption and near endless commentary by their followers and in the media for years. I would guess that people who watch TV shows or news about Scientology, but don't necessarily follow Rathbun and Rinder the way their supporters do, would tend to accept Rinder's "SP=sociopath" meme, especially if stated authoritatively in the media.

To me, Rinder, Rathbun and every Scientologist's characterization of the "SP" class is ugly, and dangerous. We don't have a cult following or comparable resources to defend; the "playing field" is far from level.

As Gerry mentioned in his recent blog article linked earlier in this thread, Canadian Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney stated in the media this week, “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers. It began with words.” The shattering of SPs begins with words like "sociopath" and other beastifying terms. (Also reference: Battle Tactics, a fundamental policy which has directed Rathbun's and Rinder's public activities for many decades.)

But, what do you base your view or prediction on, prosecco? Rathbun and Rinder are both trained interrogators and know how to ask and answer pointed questions. They know facts from opinions. And they know legal standards and procedures. They have also had every opportunity to voluntarily reveal the truth about their parts in gaining Scientology's tax exemption, with any number of media to which they have had access. So far, they have not done so, and appear to be working in a very different direction from undoing Scientology's tax exemption or helping the people they conspired against for decades.

Lastly, think Caroline is absolutely right to keep Gerry's story in the public eye.

Thank you. And on the critically important topic of the SP doctrine, I think it is absolutely right that where people make false and defamatory statements about Scientology's "SP class," it is our responsibility to stand up to it and call it for what it is: black PR. The Jews do it when antisemitism raises its hateful head. Should the SPs do less when antiSPism raises its equally hateful head?

An inarguable reason that Rathbun and Rinder lie about the SP doctrine at this stage in their careers is because the SP doctrine, and their practical application of it outside their walls, violates public policy. The people practicing the SP doctrine work assiduously to keep the public from finding out how antisocial and dangerous it is.
 
Top