The Truth about Debbie Cook as Captain of Flag

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
To be picked as an exec, and to STAY an exec, you had to give your seniors what they wanted. The ones who survived as execs were the ones who could make themselves operate with complete ruthlessness towards staff and public, if that's what it took to get the results which made their seniors happy. Keep in mind, also, that being ruthless whip-wielders was something that was demanded all the way up to LRH's level. LRH openly expressed contempt, in HCOPLs, towards execs who were "worker oriented". To be accused of being "worker oriented"(being more concerned with the welfare of your juniors than with getting the stat) was a kiss of death to a manager in Scn. Many thus would feel they had to go out of their way to demonstrate they were not "worker oriented".

A toxic environment produces toxic behavior. Removal from the environment can revert the behavior.

As an extreme example, I've known several wonderful guys, great to hang out with, warm and sensitive. They also have each killed multiple people without hesitation. They were in the military at the time, so it was all fine. You do what you have to do to survive.


I agree. There's no way Debbie could have stayed on as CO FSO as long as she did without being...pretty much what the OP said.

Whether that behavior went totally against her nature or not...I really don't know. I met her once when she was still a NOTs auditor and she seemed nice to me. But I didn't know her very well.

There are several women who were high up execs in the SO who are now out that kind of fit this description. They were total ruthless bitches when they were in. Were responsible for the same kinds of things as Debbie Cook - and more.

Now that they're out, they're on Facebook and post pictures of themselves frolicking with their grandchildren on the beach or painting pictures in Sweden with puppy images as their avatar.

Whether they look back on what they did with regret or they have it totally rationalized as doing what they needed to do and it wasn't really their fault...I don't know.

I'm past the point of feeling like I need to judge them.

Everyone has to live with themselves.

I have my own demons to deal with. Let them deal with theirs.
 
Last edited:

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
I agree. There's no way Debbie could have stayed on as CO FSO as long as she did without being...pretty much what the OP said.

Whether that behavior went totally against her nature or not...I really don't know. I met her once when she was still a NOTs auditor and she seemed nice to me. But I didn't know her very well.

There are several women who were high up execs in the SO who are now out that kind of fit this description. They were total ruthless bitches when they were in. Were responsible for the same kinds of things as Debbie Cook was - and more.

Now that they're out, they're on Facebook and post pictures of themselves frolicking with their grandchildren on the beach or painting pictures in Sweden with puppy pictures as their avatar.

Whether they look back on what they did with regret or they have it totally rationalized as doing what they needed to do and it wasn't really their fault...I don't know.

I'm past the point of feeling like I need to judge them.

Everyone has to live with themselves.

I have my own demons to deal with. Let them deal with theirs.

Thank you for this Lulu Belle. A bit of an eye opener for me. I would say I have been judging people from Sea Org and Scn. Some of them, not all.

But the odd thing is in my current life, I am not judgemental on people around me currently.

Really, all of these people (including myself) have to live with ourselves.
 
snipped.




Yep, she sounds as if she was a complete and utter cow ... just like most other SO "execs" were (or very soon became) possibly in order to survive that revolting and stressful environment, hopefully once out they reverted to being human again.

:confused2:

I don't see anyone defending or excusing her ... I don't personally like to see anyone specific being attacked here for things they did in the cult because I don't think it's helpful to the many others who may have done things they now regret who may be reading here.

I'm interested in the info about children and COB though, what on earth is that all about ie what did he want with them ... and why till 2am?

That bothers me.

A lot.


Co$ has two kinds of executives...

some are cleared cannibals and the rest need more auditing
 

Pheryn

Patron with Honors
GP, I understand where you and Purple Rain are coming from on this. But I can see the other side of this too.

I only had a short run-in with Debbie, which was while I was on training at Flag in 99 and 2000. I did not know her in the earlier years.

The dox are likely unavailable to determine any of these allegations as fact. And so, it is just rumor, really.

----

Having LIVED the kinds of things stated in the first post by Knows (at PAC, not around Debbie), it does not surprise me at all. Child molesting was RAMPANT at PAC in the 70's and 80's. The children would be dragged into ethics for it. I have no idea if anything happened to the adults at all.

Maybe to specifically point out and target Debbie on the matter would be incorrect, but the fact is, back then EVERY SEA ORG MEMBER TOLERATED IT. COB is not the only fault in Scn and the Sea Org.

------

And another point, which may just be my own personal view, is that Debbie has done well with writing the email (which, from my understanding was not actulaly sent to many people by her, but was forwarded by someone else), but it does not make up for the many many years as a Sea Org member and the damage caused.

Hell, I was a Case Supervisor for years and probably have my own pile of crap to deal with and make up damage... The C/Ses, especially after GAT, became mind manipulators. Probably far worse and insidious than the directness of Debbie's actions.

I have already ranted on an entire thread about Debbie and my lack of respect for her, and why, and I think I will leave it at that.

Thank you, Bea. I honestly could not have said it better myself.

One thing I wanted to point out from the original post in this thread... there are numerous reports of sexual offenders being 'handled' internally without alerting the police, so no dispute there (though, I'm not referring to Debbie's direct involvement. Whether she did or didn't is speculative). However, the part in the post about 'handing children over to COB'. My personal take is that this was about children (read:minors) being sent to work insane hours for COB. NOT that they were given to him for more sinister purposes. I think we can all agree that Miscavige is a lot of things, but, I'm fairly certain a pedophile he is not. I have not seen anything anywhere to suggest that he has those tendencies and if I have missed something then please point me in that direction. I've heard those things said about LRH, but, not Slappy. NOW, yes, I do think that it was worded in such a way as to imply that particular thing. On purpose or not, I can't say.

Btw, that was not directed at anyone in particular..just my general thoughts.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Thank you, Bea. I honestly could not have said it better myself.

One thing I wanted to point out from the original post in this thread... there are numerous reports of sexual offenders being 'handled' internally without alerting the police, so no dispute there (though, I'm not referring to Debbie's direct involvement. Whether she did or didn't is speculative). However, the part in the post about 'handing children over to COB'. My personal take is that this was about children (read:minors) being sent to work insane hours for COB. NOT that they were given to him for more sinister purposes. I think we can all agree that Miscavige is a lot of things, but, I'm fairly certain a pedophile he is not. I have not seen anything anywhere to suggest that he has those tendencies and if I have missed something then please point me in that direction. I've heard those things said about LRH, but, not Slappy. NOW, yes, I do think that it was worded in such a way as to imply that particular thing. On purpose or not, I can't say.

Btw, that was not directed at anyone in particular..just my general thoughts.

Yes, but if someone like Hanna Eltringham was talking about the abuse of children she'd give an example like, "There was this one boy - little Derek Greene...." That sort of thing is much more credible to me, than "Children had to work 20 hour days for two weeks straight" or whatever the actual allegation is.

Because I don't believe Miscavige would work 20 hour days for even several days in a row when he has actively pursued this entitled, luxury, lazy, sleep in till lunchtime Hollywood superstar super-rich lifestyle. So how did that work? Was he sleeping in the Fort Harrison and one or more of them posted outside his door? Were they on call? The whole who, what, where, why, when, and how is missing.

I have tried doing this while studying at university, and after several days you are almost delirious - the computer screen is literally swimming in front of you.
 

Pheryn

Patron with Honors
Yes, but if someone like Hanna Eltringham was talking about the abuse of children she'd give an example like, "There was this one boy - little Derek Greene...." That sort of thing is much more credible to me, than "Children had to work 20 hour days for two weeks straight" or whatever the actual allegation is.

Because I don't believe Miscavige would work 20 hour days for even several days in a row when he has actively pursued this entitled, luxury, lazy, sleep in till lunchtime Hollywood superstar super-rich lifestyle. So how did that work? Was he sleeping in the Fort Harrison and one or more of them posted outside his door? Were they on call? The whole who, what, where, why, when, and how is missing.

No, I absolutely agree with you. The whole thing is quite vague. I wondered that myself. I was just saying how I took it to mean as the implication was rather disgusting on a number of levels. There's enough nasty things about Miscavige that are factual that we all can discuss without rumors like that buzzing around. Now, if it were a more detailed story than that would be something to chew on, but, to vaguely imply such a thing about anyone is pretty damn low.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
No, I absolutely agree with you. The whole thing is quite vague. I wondered that myself. I was just saying how I took it to mean as the implication was rather disgusting on a number of levels. There's enough nasty things about Miscavige that are factual that we all can discuss without rumors like that buzzing around. Now, if it were a more detailed story than that would be something to chew on, but, to vaguely imply such a thing about anyone is pretty damn low.

Yes, agreed.
 
.
.

When some horrible regime is called to account for terrible things they have done to population in some country, where do the individual members stand legally and in the public opinion?


When the Nazis were called to account, where did individual Nazis stand and who was made to give an account of what they did or did not do?

The top brass and layers just beneath them were not excused on the basis that they were caught up in a political cult. They were not presumed to be innocent because somebody could not 'show the docs'. It was known that the whole organization, was BAD and had done bad things, so people in certain positions had most likely HAD to take part just to maintain the level of command that they did.

So legal powers, and the general public demanded to know what they were doing in the regime. Were they going to sit around and wait for the Generals and their juniors who carried out the orders to "decompress"?

Were they going to just wish them good luck because they did not have the Docs yet?
(Send me a postcard from Argentina - or Debbie's overseas retreat destination).

I have read countless stories on the net about financial harassment, coerced or 'suggested' suicides, coerced abortions, sleep deprivation, overwork - slavery, immigration illegalities, cover-ups of crime -including child sex abuse, medical interference/denial of proper care, leading to death, keeping people captive, denying psychological/psychiatric treatment,
attempted murder - actual murder? etc.

Anyone above a certain rank in the Sea ORG, SHOULD BE UNDER SUSPICION!
If not for being involved in the things above; for concealing them.

For those who want Docs re Debbie Cook, or don't want her accused of things she didn't do, please :) ask he what the fuck DID she do?
and where are those bodies that she was referring to when she said she 'knows where the bodies are buried'.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
.
.

When some horrible regime is called to account for terrible things they have done to population in some country, where do the individual members stand legally and in the public opinion?


When the Nazis were called to account, where did individual Nazis stand and who was made to give an account of what they did or did not do?

The top brass and layers just beneath them were not excused on the basis that they were caught up in a political cult. They were not presumed to be innocent because somebody could not 'show the docs'. It was known that the whole organization, was BAD and had done bad things, so people in certain positions had most likely HAD to take part just to maintain the level of command that they did.

So legal powers, and the general public demanded to know what they were doing in the regime. Were they going to sit around and wait for the Generals and their juniors who carried out the orders to "decompress"?

Were they going to just wish them good luck because they did not have the Docs yet?
(Send me a postcard from Argentina - or Debbie's overseas retreat destination).

I have read countless stories on the net about financial harassment, coerced or 'suggested' suicides, coerced abortions, sleep deprivation, overwork - slavery, immigration illegalities, cover-ups of crime -including child sex abuse, medical interference/denial of proper care, leading to death, keeping people captive, denying psychological/psychiatric treatment,
attempted murder - actual murder? etc.

Anyone above a certain rank in the Sea ORG, SHOULD BE UNDER SUSPICION!
If not for being involved in the things above; for concealing them.

For those who want Docs re Debbie Cook, or don't want her accused of things she didn't do, please :) ask he what the fuck DID she do?
and where are those bodies that she was referring to when she said she 'knows where the bodies are buried'.

Why ask HER that and not someone like Claire Headley?

Because people LIKE Claire Headley.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
And what about someone like my friend, Denise? Are you satisfied that she has confessed all to your satisfaction, after all there must be SOMETHING there because she was one of the chief executives on the planet.

WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES??????????
 

JustSheila

Crusader
.
So legal powers, and the general public demanded to know what they were doing in the regime. ...
Anyone above a certain rank in the Sea ORG, SHOULD BE UNDER SUSPICION!
If not for being involved in the things above; for concealing them.

For those who want Docs re Debbie Cook, or don't want her accused of things she didn't do, please :) ask he what the fuck DID she do?
and where are those bodies that she was referring to when she said she 'knows where the bodies are buried'.

:yes: IMO, to get back to one's self and over the brainwashing requires the courage and humility to admit and tell all about every detail of the crimes one observed or became involved.

Until there is complete transparency and honesty, the person continues in a culty trance and justice has every right to intervene where the responsibility of the individual to others and society is lacking.

ADDED: That said, someone like Debbie Cook or Mike Rinder still needs a person or group to appeal to and disclose these things that can offer at least the hope of possible forgiveness.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
:yes: IMO, to get back to one's self and over the brainwashing requires the courage and humility to admit and tell all about every detail of the crimes one observed or became involved.

Until there is complete transparency and honesty, the person continues in a culty trance and justice has every right to intervene where the responsibility of the individual to others and society is lacking.

ADDED: That said, someone like Debbie Cook or Mike Rinder still needs a person or group to appeal to and disclose these things that can offer at least the hope of possible forgiveness.

So Scientologists who commit crimes at local orgs should not have to explain - only high level Scientologists? And any Scientologist holding a high level executive position is automatically to be considered guilty until proven innocent.

That whole system is anathema to me.

Pronounce guilt first and then consider the evidence. I reject that with every fibre of my being.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
So Scientologists who commit crimes at local orgs should not have to explain - only high level Scientologists? And any Scientologist holding a high level executive position is automatically to be considered guilty until proven innocent.

That whole system is anathema to me.

Pronounce guilt first and then consider the evidence. I reject that with every fibre of my being.

??? I didn't say anything like that and personally felt an obligation to publicly disclose all I'd seen or done and you know I did that, so I don't know how you could interpret anything else from what I wrote? :confused2:

All creatures great and small, all positions great and small have responsibility/repercussions for their actions and inactions. In the case of Scn. full disclosure by all.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
??? I didn't say anything like that and personally felt an obligation to publicly disclose all I'd seen or done and you know I did that, so I don't know how you could interpret anything else from what I wrote? :confused2:

All creatures great and small, all positions great and small have responsibility/repercussions for their actions and inactions. In the case of Scn. full disclosure by all.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position, JustSheila.

But I don't know how anyone can ever know if someone else has disclosed everything - and I'm not talking about you here, I'm saying, practically, who gets to decide?

Only the person themself ever truly knows the fulness of what they have done.

And you know, I disclosed a hell of a lot of my "crimes" on my thread and I'm now really of the opinion that it's a mistake. I don't think anymore that everyone automatically has a right to know what I have done wrong - they don't have a right to my past. My past belongs to me - the good, the bad, the ugly and I have really learned that I don't owe that disclosure to anybody.

Edit: I mean, I used to think that I did. That somebody had a right to ask me how many lovers I'd had and who they were and what I'd done. Or judge me for any of my other failings, you know, like with my kids. Or maybe I wasn't truthful enough. Or what did I do when I was in Scientology - just nobody's business unless I choose it to be.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
^^

OK, I see where you're coming from.

Whom we decide to disclose what information would depend on who we hurt or allowed to be hurt and how much personal risk is necessary to help get others out or keep them from going in.

And how healed we are to be strong enough to take on how much personal risk.

Like Lulubelle, I have my own issues and only recently really got my head together. Now I must practice keeping it that way.

Like I said, I forgive everyone that isn't promoting it except Elcon, but that's just me. I would not block any societal attempts for justice or attempts by others to gain justice from individuals who hurt them and in future, with more strength and information, I might even assist that cause. I won't make that decision until I come to it, though and have no interest in justice against individuals who are out at this time and with the sparse information we have. I don't want to jump to conclusions.

I am completely behind the justice of dismantling Scn, though.
 
^^

OK, I see where you're coming from.

Whom we decide to disclose what information would depend on who we hurt or allowed to be hurt and how much personal risk is necessary to help get others out or keep them from going in.

And how healed we are to be strong enough to take on how much personal risk.

Like Lulubelle, I have my own issues and only recently really got my head together. Now I must practice keeping it that way.

Like I said, I forgive everyone that isn't promoting it except Elcon, but that's just me. I would not block any societal attempts for justice or attempts by others to gain justice from individuals who hurt them and in future, with more strength and information, I might even assist that cause. I won't make that decision until I come to it, though and have no interest in justice against individuals who are out at this time and with the sparse information we have. I don't want to jump to conclusions.

I am completely behind the justice of dismantling Scn, though.

I think I am sort of coming from the same place as you. I think there should be a strong demand for the truth about wrongdoing, particularly illegal wrongdoing. There are levels of seriousness about the particular wrongdoing or illegality though. There are a lot of complex issues about culpability etc. My main point really, is that it is extremely lax to let everyone "off the hook" for everything on the basis that we did some of it ourselves or the even more lame idea that we WOULD have done it if we were in their shoes.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Yes I am aware they sued her. It doesn't change what I think about it and I don't see why you think that is important. You may have a good reason, but I just don't see it.

I think it's great that her email got you to think and leave and that others did so as well and I'm sure when she wrote it Debbie knew that would happen and IMO, that was an effect she wanted from writing it. That is what I believe.

I also think she knew that she would be sued but had planned ahead and had probably consulted with Ray Jeffrey before she did it and was convinced he was the man for the job.

I think she would have been a complete and utter fool if she hadn't consulted a lawyer before writing it and if she didn't then she would have left herself far more at the mercy of DM.

I think she planned it and knew people would leave and that this was what she hoped for because it would show DM that she could potentially empty his church's at a much faster rate than they could be replenished and he would lose many of his biggest contributors.


I don't hate Debbie or anything like that but I wouldn't trust her with my dog. I think she is calculating and conniving but if you don't want to believe that then that's OK, I don't have issue with that but I still don't believe she did it to help anyone but herself and Wayne.

And it's OK if I'm wrong but I will be safely wrong as I doubt I will ever see Debbie again in this life.

Her email helped many people but it was inadvertent and calculated the way I see it.


I disagree because her email message in 2012 sent out got me to look, question things in scientology. (mind you, she was out, and I was in. Or, I didn't know she had left the SO when I got her message).

And because I was aware of her status as Captain, as OT, as highly trained,

why she got my agreement that something was wrong in scientology (which I had observed, obnosed) and because of her status in scientology made me feel wonderful that another of her status, rank, had observed the same thing.

Mind you, when I got her message I was a still in, and I am communicating here, now, from the same point of view,

But realize, I now think it is all, scientolgy , a hellvahoax.

I am just telling you my POV from when I was in and got her message.

Do you understand?

edit:

Freethinker,

do you realize the COS sued her? Debbie did not sue the COS
 

freethinker

Sponsor
That letter, though it is unsigned and not corroborated is a doc. It isn't notarized or witnessed or government approved but it is a doc.

Not all docs contain truth. Not all docs are full of lies. Some are partially true but embellished but nonetheless it is a doc, an unsupported doc, but a doc.

It is not uncommon for someone to write about their experiences with someone and not wish their identity to be known because of fear of retaliation.

It may be completely false or partially false or entirely true. It is usupported but still a doc. It was posted by someone who would be known to the admin of OCMB.

I personally had my doubts about Debbie before I read that. But that is my opinion and I still don't think she wrote that email just to help other people. I could be wrong and that's OK and It's OK with me if others want to defend her writing it for everyone elses benefit but I just don't.

Anyway, it is a doc.
This whole thing really bothers me.

Debbie Cook has only just recently come back on Facebook and is making herself known again, and then out of the blue comes this pages-long rant about her, claiming that she is guilty of some very heinous and illegal acts. There is no source for this document, no name, no face. And despite whatever it says in the rant itself, there is not one bit of evidence or dox for any of this. No names of witnesses, no photos or documentation. I've looked and I can't find any dox anywhere on this.

Doesn't the timing of this make it seem kind of suspicious all by itself? Purple Rain, Gib and a few others can see that. I wish everyone else could too. This whole thing reads like an OSA Fair Game op 100% out of the Art of War playbook. It is written in such a way as to distract all attention from COB and put all attention on Debbie. It takes great pains to repeatedly point out what an evil slime Debbie is, and totally downplays any real world influence of Miscavige, CMO and RTC. It's all on Debbie. Anyone who thinks that the Captain of an org, even FSO, gets such a free pass from CMO and RTC Reps is not living in the real world and doesn't know what the life of an org CO is really like. I have years of experience with this and I do know what their lives are like, who runs them and what kind of direction they get 24/7. It's almost impossible to imagine because there's no other real world equivalent to what being an org CO is like. You just wouldn't believe it until you've lived it.

The thing I keep thinking is what if this rant was about you? What if it was about me? How many of you would jump all over me based solely on some anonymous post claiming to have dox about all my crimes while I was in Scientology? I'm out in the open under my own name and am totally open to an attack just like this. I would hope that if it comes, all of you would see through it and know that it's just so much BS. Yet it seems the more extravagant the accusations, the more easily they will be believed.

Would I then have to come here and spend my time defending myself from this kind of tripe instead of continuing to do my work to expose OSA and Miscavige for exactly this kind of Fair Gaming?

I am not stating that these accusations against Debbie are true or false. I have no idea as to their veracity. And that is where any sensible conversation about this matter should stop, not start. These are serious claims being made against Debbie, not just "oh yeah, we all did bad things in the Sea Org." I think the brutality and harshness of the accusations were worded that way on purpose to specifically attract attention with their shock value. I think the only real answer to this rant is "Dox or STFU". And in this particular case, I also want to know the actual source, not some second or third-hand repeat of it.

And as always, I'm totally willing to state loud and proud that I was wrong if it can be proven that this is not an OSA op. But until it is, Dox or STFU!
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Okay guys I've read all the posts on this thread and went through a lot of emotions while reading the various points of view.

I don't know what Debbie Cook did or didn't do . I think I only met her once.

The info presented here is not in a form that without other verifiable info ,or supporting prior knowledge one could confirm BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

This may be an innocent thread or an OSA or other op. Who is accountable for the crimes of the SO is a VERY emotional issue ,and by being driven by emotion , in thinking people often take mental shortcuts to draw conclusions they otherwise might not.

OSA knows many exes have emotional "buttons" on who to blame for many issues.

Not to come across like a pompous know it all , but in analyzing this thread ONCE I have found examples of the following logical fallacies being used:
middle ground , anecdotal , composition/division , personal incredulity , genetic , appeal to authority and black and white thinking.

These " shortcuts " in thinking are to some degree natural, BUT still faulty when seeking truth.

I have to lean towards Galactic Patrol's point of view (even though we're not joined at the hip) and say IF you personally KNOW and KNEW something before posting or reading it here than you obviously have an edge in sorting truth from lie, BUT if ,like myself , you don't your best move is to be skeptical , logical and KNOW your emotions may influence your thinking and conclusions.

Best of luck in finding/telling the truth.:thumbsup:
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Your post above Mockingbird reminded me of one thing and that is that I have an understanding that DM doesn't want his name associated with anything negative as regards the church.

If it were an OSA OP then I doubt that he would allow the comment about children being sent to him for twenty hours by Debbie.

It wouldn't make sense to have that in an OSA OP when he wants an impeccable upstanding image so even if that letter is false or a "get even with" letter, I seriously doubt it is from OSA.
 
Top