Our man in Sweden, Dan Koon, has sent us a copy of the “Dead Agent Pack” being distributed to those who dare question the wisdom of David Miscavige’s Ideal Org Strategy.
As D/A packs go, it leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, it is really lame.
It could be Exhibit 1 in a presentation to prove that Ideal Orgs are a squirrel, off policy “bright idea” by the Chairman of the MEST Universe.
Of course it can be tough to try to find quotes to “Dead Agent” clear LRH Policy. It’s sort of like the North Koreans trying to “D/A” the “enemy line” that they live in a closed society with impoverished, brainwashed citizens.
I have broken this pack down into the topics it covers. Each is posed in the form of a question. The full document is at the end of this posting.
Why is the OTC responsible for this? Good Question — they shouldn’t be!
Whoever put this together apparently has no idea of the history of Scientology (not a big surprise). The PL they cite from December 1966 makes reference to “OT Activities”. OT II had been released in 1966 and LRH resigned as Executive Director International that same month. He was already looking to form the “OT Team” that would become the Sea Project. It is clear that the SH OT Committee (the subject of this PL) became the OT Central Committee and in a PL dated 11 August 1967 (the day BEFORE the official foundation of the Sea Project/Sea Org) he describes the far reaching responsibilities and even designates a pale blue flag with an OT symbol for this – the emblem on the stack of the Apollo.
So, in fact the assignment of the functions of “Buildings for Scientology Orgs” and “General improvement of finances” is a SEA ORG function. There are hundreds of policies, Flag Orders, Central Bureau Orders, Flag Bureau Data Letters and other issues that make clear that the Sea Org is responsible for finances and buildings. Believe me, LRH NEVER addressed these functions to anyone other than the Sea Org after 1967. To misquote this 1966 PL today as justification for the “OT Ambassadors” (a term found nowhere other than in the world of Miscavology) is disingenuous at best.
Why do we do fundraising? Gung-ho Groups. Seriously?
More twisted misquotes from two PL are all they could come up with. Of course they completely ignore “What Your Fees Buy” that says:
So where does your fee go? … the biggest part of your fee stays right in your area. It is used to make training and processing and data available to the next fellow first by keeping the org there and second by letting him know about it and third by making as sure as possible that the training and processing he gets is standard and effective.
The quote from KSW requires a total dub-in that because finance is listed as “contributions that were worthwhile” this means people donated money for no service. It’s like saying “defense” is on the list so that means LRH sanctioned people being beaten up as that was “defense.”
And the second PL “Gung-Ho Groups” is equally inapt. This reference is clearly talking about GUNG HO groups, not Scientology orgs. He refers to them as “civic-minded groups” and that they be “a member of existing nonprofit organizations” and “Governments have been known to contribute large sums to groups.” Clearly, not talking about demanding “contributions” from Scientology public for buildings.
What about HCOPL 18 Jan 65 Building Fund Account? (A policy that has NOT been modified by later references or organizations being established). It says:
“The weekly proportion of income owing to the Building Fund Account must be paid into it weekly and may not be withheld.
…the Building Fund is to purchase property, but when this is done, the purchase must be for cash or, if any mortgage is involved,all further payments than the initial payment must be made from the expense sum.
Could we not instead just build up the finances with steady growth and then after some time we have the needed finance? Well that IS a good question….
Oh, you mean EXACTLY like LRH says in dozens of references?
And the “handling” for this is to lift a quote completely out of context from LRH ED 339R about “speed of expansion is the problem of management”. There is not a SINGLE mention of buying buildings in 339R, there are about 15 pages between 339R and 339R-1 explaining what must be done to EXPAND an org. Recruitment, hatting, purpose etc. And nothing about buying buildings or getting “donations” from public. ONLY about delivering service.
What did the founder do himself? Another good question! Maybe we should do that!
Errr, apart from writing hundreds of policy letters about expanding orgs, about premises not needing to be posh, about “solving it with Scientology”, about not having bingo nights to raise money?
Oh, you mean the paragraph from the 1959 PL where LRH says he bought St Hill with his own money and used all the reserves he had to do so? Hey good idea – USE the reserves to buy the buildings. A couple of billion dollars buys a LOT of buildings, even the extravagant palaces David Miscavige dictates. At $20 million each, you could get 100 of them all at once and we done with clearing the planet!!! And release OT IX and X! And have public that still have money to go up the Bridge (as long as you also got rid of the IAS).
Why are the new ideal orgs so big? Napoleon Complex?
There is not even a reference that responds to this at all.
The first quote is simply irrelevant and bordering on non-sequitur.
The second merely says we need “a strong central organization, steady effective staff members and precisely formed and compartmented posts and departments.” Somehow this is supposed to be interpreted to say “big buildings.”??
Then the third quote talks about the space planning for a hypothetical “ideal org” and that it would be three long buildings and the floorplan would follow the Scientology org board. Still no justification for a huge building where the utilities alone exceed the weekly FP.
So, there is apparently no answer other than to try and pretend there is a large org in the big building. Sort of like stuffing a sock in your underwear….
Is image that important? Only to those who place appearance above substance….
Dear me. This one goes into free fall before it gets started. The first quote is from the very PL that says right within their quote:
While we know it takes income to make a place look smart and to have elegant quarters, this is not the point of this policy letter. … A clean set of quarters and a neat professional looking staff can increase your income by about 500 percent.”
And then they quote from LRH ED 102 Int THE IDEAL ORG. This is where Miscavige took the name for his squirrel program of MEST acquisition. Thhis is their excerpt:
The ideal org would be an activity where people came to achieve freedom and where they had confidence they would attain it.
It would have enough space in which to train, process and administrate without crowding.
It would be located where the public could identify and find it.
It would be busy looking, with staff in motion not standing about.
It would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public.
Sorry, once again, that proves absolutely nothing. It militates AGAINST an insane stampede of heavy handed regging to buy huge buildings and renovate them at ridiculous cost. And ESPECIALLY when you include the end of the LRH ED which reads as follows:
“Such an ideal org would be built by taking what one has and step by step building and smoothing, grooving in and handling each of its functions, with each of its divisions doing more and more of its full job better and better.
The business is always there – the skill with which it is handled and the results on pcs and students is the single important line which makes it possible to build the rest.
The ideal org is the image one builds toward. It is the product of the causative actions of many. Anything which is short of an ideal org is an out-point that can be put right. The end product is not just an ideal org but a new civilization already on its way.
L. Ron Hubbard
The final insanity:
Ideal Orgs are Fulfilling LRH’s Intention for Churches of Scientology. Only in the imagination of the blind being led by the blind…
This takes the cake. To “Dead Agent” the “squirrels quote out of context two LRH sentences: Don’t get interested in real estate. Don’t get interested in the massed of buildings, because that’s not important.”
Then they proceed to quote the two paragraphs (the exact quotes I have seen the “squirrels” use repeatedly???) as follows in an effort to prove that it says something completely different in support of the squirrel Ideal Orgs program. It could not be further from the truth! I guess they think if they say “It’s out of context” and “here is the full quote” people will not read it and will simply assume the “out of context” bit was actually meaning the opposite of what it said. This is a new twist on the “Dead Agent caper.” Just claim it’s a lie and attach a document that proves it isn’t a lie….
Here is the full quote they include to “prove” Ideal Orgs are perfect embodiments of LRH intention…
We own a tremendous amount of property. We have a tremendous amount of material and so forth, and it keeps growing. But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God sakes, some of you born revolutionists will you please blow up central headquarters. If somebody had put some HE under the Vatican long ago, Catholicism might still be going. Don’t get interested in real estate. Don’t get interested in the masses of buildings, because that’s not important.
What is important is how much service you can give the world, and how much you can get done and how much better you can make things. These are important things, these are all that are important. A bank account never measured the worth of a man. His ability to help measured his worth, and that’s all.
Oh yeah, that proves it!
Here is the entire pack (click to magnify):