Another provocative essay from our old friend Terra Cognita.
Scientology and Suppressive Persons: Types A & B
LRH said Suppressive Persons—SPs for short—were turned suppressive by getting profoundly crushed by another somewhere in the distant past—like way distant. Apparently, they’ve been stuck in this incident and fighting this battle ever since—sometimes for quadrillions of years. Everyone they see in present time is an enemy from this traumatic event.
LRH wrote, “The technical fact is that they have a huge problem, long gone and no longer known even to themselves, which they use hidden or forthright vicious acts continually to ‘handle.’ They do not act to solve the environment they are in. They are solving an environment, yesterday’s, in which they are stuck.”
How Can I Tell if Darth Vader is Really Bad?
The following is a list of the characteristics of an SP from HCOPL, 7 Aug 65, Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics.
- The negation of policy without knowing it and the use of “policy” to prevent success in Scientology is the primary tool of the SP against orgs.
- SPs find fault with dissemination and find fault with any being done.
- A suppressive will try to get rid of an org.
- An SP will seek to upset and get rid of the best staff members
- Entheta is the sole stock in trade of the SP.
- An SP is satisfied with auditing only when he gets worse.
- SPs are happy when their pcs get worse and sad when their pcs get better.
- An SP in an examiner post will only declare released the bad result cases and will not pass actual releases but will ARC break them.
- Cover invalidation is the level of an SP’s social intercourse.
- An SP deals only in restimulation, never easing or erasing.
- The persons around an SP get so restimulated they can’t detect the real SP.
- The SP is sure everyone is against him personally and if other became more powerful they would dispose of him.
- An SP commits hidden overts continuously.
- Back of crime you will find SP characteristics.
- Because an SP uses generalities in his speech “everybody,” “they,” etc., the SP is hard to detect.
- Releasing an SP does not make a worthwhile person. It only makes a person who can now learn to get along in life. “A cleared cannibal is a cleared cannibal.”
And here is an abbreviated list of the attributes of the antisocial personality—which is pretty much the same as an SP—from HCOB, 27 Sept 66, The Antisocial Personality, The Anti-Scientologist.
- He or she speaks only in broad generalities.
- Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation, and general suppression.
- Alters to worsen communication.
- Does not respond to therapy.
- Surrounding such a person we find cowed or ill associates and friends.
- Habitually selects the wrong target.
- Cannot finish a cycle of action.
- Many will freely confess to the most alarming crimes, but have no sense of responsibility for them.
- Supports only destructive groups.
- Approves only of destructive actions.
- Helping other drives the antisocial personality nearly berserk.
- Bad sense of property. Nothing is really owned.
It’s interesting to note that David Miscavige exhibits many of the above characteristics and yet remains the leader of the church. Kind of makes one wonder how well LRH’s tech works if his followers aren’t able to identify such a blatant example of a suppressive behavior. Tech or no tech, so many are so blind.
Note to readers: By reading this you are committing a Scientology High Crime and risk being declared a suppressive person. I’m an “SP” for writing this. Mike’s an “SP” for hosting this blog. And… Oh heck, most of you have already been declared anyway.
But Wait, There’s More!
Somewhere along the line, LRH decided that anyone who’d committed a “crime” against the church could be declared a suppressive person, as well. In other words, it wasn’t necessary for a person to have been squashed on the past track and exhibit the above characteristics to be labeled suppressive. One need only have committed any one of a list of crimes to be declared an SP.
In HCOPL, 23 Dec 65RB, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, LRH wrote that, “A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts. SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.”
He wasn’t kidding when he said “at length.” He went on to list over one hundred such harmful acts, everything from murder, blackmail, and sexually perverted conduct to “violation or neglect of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working…” Not only could one be declared an SP for speaking out against David Miscavige, one could be declared for not “Having the correct technology,” (one of the sacred points of KSW).
As you can see, Scientology has two classes of SPs: A) those who got severely pummeled a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away and who have been fighting imaginary enemies ever since, and B) those who didn’t get squashed and are operating in present time, but who had the audacity to question Scientology, LRH, his tech or policy, or David Miscavige.
At some point in Scientology history, LRH seemed to have lumped these two classes of SPs together. I don’t know when exactly. Probably sometime in 1965.
I’m not sure if this is relevant but in HCOPL, 29 Apr 65, Ethics, Review, in the section entitled Levels of Ethics Actions, being declared an SP is not one of the thirty-six levels of discipline.
Are SPs Really Real?
Does this first type of SP actually exit? Is this a real thing? Are there thetans that were overcome so brutally that forever after, they’ve been fighting long dead enemies? Did Hitler and your wicked stepmother become SPs by something that happened on Dagobah a trillion years ago? Or was their evil the result of an unfortunate upbringing coupled with a chemical imbalance between their ears?
There is no disputing that truly evil people exist in this world. Villains are real. Not only do we find these bad apples rolling along our local lanes, we find them running whole frikken countries. From the penniless to the fabulously wealthy, from the weak to the mighty, they’re all over the place.
This second type of SP is a whole other fish. Simply disagreeing with tech or policy doesn’t warrant being labeled an SP. Neither does speaking out against abuses. People who leave the church are not automatically suppressive. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who get declared fall into this second category.
People inside Scientology know this, too. They would have to be brain-dead not to have noticed.
According to LRH, SPs make up 2 ½ percent of the population. Which at first glance, seems like a reasonable number. Let’s do the math. (Population times 2.5% equals Number of SPs.)
Population of metro LA: 13 million. Number of SPs: 325,000!
Population of England: 53 million. Number of SPs: 1,325000!!
Population of America: 319 million. Number of SPs: 7,975,000!!!
Population of Europe: 743 million. Number of SPs: 18,575,000!!!!
Population of the world: 7.4 billion. Number of SPs: 185,000,000!!!!!
It would take six Dodger Stadiums to hold all the SPs in Los Angeles. It would take fifteen Wembley Stadiums to hold all the suppressives in England.
There are more SPs in the United States than the combined populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, and the District of Columbia.
How many people has the church erroneously labeled suppressive persons? I read that the majority of staff at Old Saint Hill were declared and offloaded some years ago. Many high ranking management at Flag, Pac Base, and Int Base have been similarly declared. I don’t know the exact count but would guess the number is pretty high.
In the good old days, declare issues were written up on goldenrod-colored paper and broadly distributed so everyone knew who to shun. Now, the numbers are so great, and the reality of who they’re declaring so transparently false, the PR would be horrendous if the church actually published the names. It’s so bad, they don’t even inform the person who’s been declared. It’s HCO’s little secret. (Or would that be OSA’s little secret?)
Type A or Type B?
Isn’t it kind of insulting to the SP not to be told which type he is? Shouldn’t there be separate Type A and Type B declares? Like wouldn’t they want to know? If they don’t know which type they are, how are they supposed to get better? (Or suppress their friends using the exact tech combined with the precise amount of force.)
Life would be safer for the public, too. If you and an SP got together over lattes at Starbucks, you’d be more mindful of whom you were dealing.
If you knew the guy was a Type A, you could pretend to be a messenger from that incident in which he was destroyed and tell him the battle was over. The bad guys had finally surrendered. We won! Everybody could go home now. Imagine the relief after seventy-six billion years of fighting. Imagine the size of his floating needle back at the org later that afternoon.
Declaring people suppressive is a control mechanism. By getting rid of any who would question the tech, policy, or leadership, the church is better able to rule the rest of the dwindling flock. Better to cut all communication and declare these rabble-rousers than allow them to stick around and spread slander and dissent—especially to family members.
Ironically, declaring people suppressive is most often a suppressive act in itself.
Still not Declared,
Brianna Brent says
Is there any way that I can find out if I, myself, have been declared by the church as a suppressive person?
I grew up in the church, was a cadet/child staff member in Clearwater at age 11 and 12 until my dad routed out and moved us back to our hometown, then joined the sea org at age 14 at AOLA, blew, got talked into flying back to route out, came back, and then blew again, and then got out of Scientology for good in about 1995 at age 15.
I just recently about a year ago decided to speak out against the church by replying to the multiple pieces of mail I receive on a weekly basis, and sent back replies stating things like DM is a fraud, and Scientology ruins lives and rips families apart, etc. Very soon after that, my dad who is a Scientologist and active doing service at FLB still deleted me from Facebook and his wife blocked me (As a side note, we haven’t actually spoke in many years because he’s always considered me a DB). It makes me think they did finally declare me and tell them they had to disconnect from me, and I guess I’m just curious if that’s what’s actually happened. Just wondering if there is a way for me to find out if I’m a part of that club of people now? Haha.
Thank you so much for all you have done me and for all of us that needed you and Leah and the work you are doing!! I am forever traumatized by my childhood and the life I lived growing up in the church, and am still healing to this day at 40 years old.
Mike Rinder says
Brianna — you can call them up and ask if it is important for you to know….
Chris Barnes says
Dear Mike et al,
It is now 2020 and I think it a perfect time for us all to re-establish some good communication in a private forum to re-assess after all the recent FOI document releases. We need to R-Factor people who are possibly operating under past misinformation. We know that insiders were just as black-opted as much as the public. That was a huge mistake. We became the very people we thought we were defending against. No wonder we got it all so wrong. We should take our own good advice and go back to source material unadulterated by people who sought to harm. The Truth is far better than the lies we were told. Mankind can be free! We are at the doors of freedom. We have to let go of the past and allow THETA back into our lives. I refuse to play that old unrewarding game any longer.
Mike Rinder says
If you think all that is wrong with Hubbard’s writings/lectures is that people have “adulterated” it who “sought to harm” him you are sadly mistaken. His unadulterated stuff is the worst stuff…
Chris Barnes says
Good Morning Mike,
Thank you for your reply to my comments. I apologise for the misunderstanding, when I used the words ‘source material’… I was not referring to scientology or dianetics or LRH. I am not involved with anything like that. You and I were kids at the Adelaide Org. May Myers was our pastor. Many people your family knew were friends of our family too. Your dad Ian was a very nice friend to us along with the FitzGerald, Wilkinsons and Safra families. Our family went to Saint Hill in 1972 where we were SO staff. My dad was killed soon after in an accident. The GO ‘did a number’ on our family. My mother took us kids out. I fully left SO staff in 1983. (I had been a Flag Missionaire and NOTS Tech Services DTS for a while). I got a job, got married, obtained an education, had children and had an ordinary life. I never once involved myself with anything to do with the GO, B1, Flag or INT. Not once did I violate any moral code as thousands of others did. I continued my soul journey and explored the world. As a documentarian, I have an interest in historical document releases as you do. I am trying to be friendly. I know you have been hit hard in the past by insiders and crazies. I guess it is hard for people to accept your new position after all your work whilst on staff. I have accepted your change of allegiance. All I was saying is that many people are so hung up after leaving scientology, that they suffer needlessly, when such opportunities to grow and freedoms abound. I am not aware of any details of your activities, but I did hear briefly that you and Mike MacClaughry had a disagreement. I have enjoyed his exposes. I always suspected since I was a teenager that Hubbard was playing a triple-agent game. I spent four years associating with DM when we were cadets. Lori and I were sweetheart friends. My mom was on the Apollo briefly as programmes chief for UKLO. She witnessed events with LRH with her own eyes. Whatever happened in February 1986 at Hemet only you and the people there know for certain. They missed the opportunity to make things straight and right. I am just sad that we were all lied to by the old man. When I last spoke to him in Spring 1983 I could not fathom what was going on. I thought we were all working together towards a better world.
Mike Rinder says
Thanks, obviously I did not understand what you wrote and still don’t follow your reference to source.
Who is it you had a comm cycle with in 1983? Hubbard?
Chris Barnes says
Hi! I wrote to LRH around June 1983 and got a signed letter back. Wish I kept it now. LOL. He said something about growing roses and breeding horses. I asked him about his ‘Rifle’ residence and he said he could not comment on that. He was pleased that I had been instrumental in repairing and cleaning out his swimming pool at Saint Hill Manor.
Mike Rinder says
Thanks Chris. That was definitely an “SO#1” letter written by the people assigned to answer his mail on his behalf. Despite what he claimed, he did NOT see letters sent to him. He was out of touch and staying that way for fear of being served or accused of running scientology (which he was still doing, but didnt want it to be obvious)
Kevin Dyer says
I wanted to leave scientology sea org and did leave and that meant I was a degraded being and was so labeled. Such a conditioning term, every person who wishes to leave correctly is degraded.
As mentioned in this article, truly evil people exist in this world. There is even a science studying them : ponerology (from Greek poneros, “evil”), especially political ponerology is studied (Hitler, Mao, Staline, Polpot, etc.). And you don’t need 12 characteristics to identify them. They are just destructive, remorseless and feel no emotion. They also recognize someone elese with the same characteristics and they can join. You could cut in pieces with a knive a dozen of people in front of them without any reaction or emotional reaction from them. At this moment, the World is unfortunately ruled by this people. And LRH point 7 – “Cannot finish a cycle of action.” is not accurate or true. They can finish their cycle of actions that is always destruction. They can’t finish a cycle of action ONLY if someone is STOPPING THEM !
M Crow says
A trillion years ago? Really? How ignorant can one be!
Hey Terra Incognita, you’ll have to change your moniker that you sign with because you probably are declared now. OSA knows who you are. Just because they didn’t mail you your goldenrod doesn’t mean you aren’t declared. Try walking into your local org or Flag and ask to sign up for a course or auditing and see if they don’t throw you out and say you are “no longer in good standing.” Or they may send you to the MAA to salvage you starting with many hours of sec checks at your own expense. You were outed on Tony Ortega’s site a few days ago. So you might as well wear your SP badge with pride and sign with your real name.
Mike Rinder says
They SAY they know who Terra Cognita is. What if they have the wrong person altogether? Just because they say it’s “obvious” doesn’t mean anything. You know they lie about virtually everything.
Good points, Mike. Since you know who Terra Incogita really is, and you’ve probably read the Ortega outing, does the church have it wrong and they have the wrong person?
Mike Rinder says
Why do you think I know who Terra Cognita is? If someone writes to me with a pseudonym I don’t hire hackers or PI’s to find out who they are.
For all I know, Terra could be a current SO Member mole who has a secret laptop hidden away and a mobile hotspot they had with them before they joined the SO. That would be fun wouldn’t it?
Or a class V staff member who is herself a computer programmer and knows how to create a trail of digital evidence that leads to someone completely different.
I just know I get articles sent to me by Terra Cognita. ANd if Terra wants to keep saying “still not declared” I have no reason to believe otherwise as I don’t buy anything scientology says about who is or who is not 9in good standing or who is or who is not declared or who is or who is not an SP. Period.
Gene Trujillo says
Disconnection IS part of mind control, by controlling the ideas the person has access to. It’s right out of the “Brainwashing Manual”. You have to prevent any “bad apples” from infecting the rest of the barrel by getting rid of them.
At my org, the DSA Ann Pearce is the head mind controller. When I protested specific instances of abuse I had witnessed and forced abortions in the SO, she had me put on a “persona non grata” list and almost all of my CofS “friends” disconnected. She had also previously taken part in human trafficking me as a way to “solve” the org’s self inflicted personnel issues that comes from mercilessly exploiting the staff long term.
Because they had told me that if I found something in CofS that I did like, take responsibility for changing it, I had spent my entire staff career explaining that the ~actual~ “greatest good” included the well being of the staff and their families instead of just ignoring them, but they didn’t want to hear anything like that. It just got me labelled “selfish” and “1D Oriented” – when I was living in a hovel volunteering for them. That is because the organization itself is a giant pyramid scheme to enrich only the person at the top while enslaving everyone else for their benefit.
Gene Trujillo says
“…if I found something in CofS that I *didn’t like…”
6. “An SP is satisfied with auditing only when he gets worse.”
So do you think he created this piece of gibberish so that anyone who had a bad session or continued bad sessions would think twice before criticizing too much? He associates the concept getting worse and feeling satisfied with getting worse. That is an absurd concept.
This is an illogical piece of rubbish. Even “evil” people wasn’t to be happy. No one is is satisfied when they get worse.
I think the hypnotic operator was associating criticism of the tech with being an SP. So that the holes in the bridge would be suppressed from being seen.
Ron does this a lot. Like critics and criminals; SPs and blowing; overts and blowing.
I believe a lot of Ron is a deliberate manipulation to keep his student numbers high and cash flowing in.
An SP is truly, in Ron’s view, anyone who disagrees with Ron. Ron was a brilliant psychological manipulator of human values.
Brian, you seem very interested in analysis and understanding, as am I, so let me contribute a few thoughts.
To begin with, I think you are right that overall this is effectively a control mechanism used on the whole body of Scientologists.
I think that Scientology tends to select for people who its particularly type of processing is going to benefit or to at least make feel like they are benefitting, and then along the way weeds out people who are not benefitting or feeling like they are benefitting, until they are left with a group for whom the processes have worked to some extent or who are at least are firmly convinced that they work. This provision about SPs serves to reinforce selection mechanisms like that. Hypnotherapy, for instance, doesn’t work for about 5% of the population who can’t be hypnotized at all and a further 20% who are minimally hypnotizable, while at the other end it produces the best results for 5-15% of people who are highly suggestible,* so successful hypnotherapy patients are going to be a limited group for whom the therapy works best due to innate individual characteristics, and excluding many for whom the technique simply doesn’t work (and who would be unhappy and disappointed) regardless of the quality of the therapy or practitioner.
It occurs to me that this could also be intended to weed out people who are skeptical but giving auditing a try because of something like a personal relationship, and not getting any benefit or not believing they are benefitting. Someone who felt forced into giving it a try might also actually want to not have auditing work, so that they could get out of a promise or even feel that they had made a point about the ineffectiveness of what they had reluctantly agreed to try. In a high control environment, leadership wants anyone like that to either get with the program or get out.
Finally, in the suppressive person characteristics Hubbard does seem to me to be describing one or more truly pathological personality types. I have a bit of experience with people seemingly in that category who I have run across in some of the organizations I have been affiliated with, though I don’t have the training or experience to classify and describe that properly. Perhaps the most common-sense example I can think of, are the people who really like to complain, who at the extreme might actually want things to go wrong so that they can complain about them. There may be some tiny fraction of the population that legitimately fits Hubbard’s characteristics, that a large organization would indeed encounter from time to time, but I think that these characterizations mostly serve other purposes than describing any real and relatively rare phenomenon.
* Since the 1950s there has been a scientific scale of hypnotic suggestibility that is quite reliably and easy to test, using measures similar to those that early hypnotists have long used and that stage hypnotists use to pick the best subjects for their tricks. Recent functional MRI research has shown that suggestibility ties to particular types of brain functioning that can be identified. I suspect that auditing works best with people who are more suggestible, which would be interesting to test.
My 2 Cents says
Peacemaker, when I was in college, before I got into Scientology, my girlfriend got very interested in hypnosis, and talked me into taking a class with her, in which all the students would get hypnotized along with learning how to hypnotize others. Out of 15 students, 3 of us couldn’t be hypnotized. I was one of the three. But I got terrific gains from my Scientology training and auditing. So much for your theory that Scientology works only on the easily suggestible.
M2C, thanks for sharing that, that’s very interesting.
Your experience is a strong and compelling one, but still just one.
My theory is only that suggestibility and hypnotic techniques are part of what is at work. My personal experience is that other mechanisms are at work as well, though I did notice the use of or similarity to hypnotic techniques based on my own familiarity with hypnosis, long before I ran across the many other (and more experienced, and expert) opinions that Dianetics and Scientology involve hypnotic processes.
And as I said, I’d like to see testing to demonstrate what is actually at work, through proper research.
My 2 Cents says
Hypnosis is involved in Scientology, but not in the way critics say. All auditing processes run out previous hypnotism by restimulating it in a setting in which the preclear is helped to confront it and become free of it. Of course, that means that if processes are not accurately chosen and properly run with the preclear’s freedom in mind, he could end up worse. That has become more and more common under the leadership of David Miscavige. But outside the Church it is easy for well-meaning auditors and case supervisors to actually help preclears shed their previous hypnotism and become more and more free and able.
M2C, ideally auditing should work that way, I might agree with you if you were talking about just the essentials of Dianetic auditing. But even by 1955 Volney Mathison (the actual inventor of the e-meter used by Scientology) was saying that Scientology involved hypnosis.
And I would agree that some of the independents who are sticking to the essentials of auditing, and who are mindful of and knowledgeable about hypnotic techniques and how to avoid them, could help as you state. There are also others who are holding on to practicing the elements of Scientology that seem inevitably if not inherently hypnotic. And as I’ve said before, the indies haven’t created any professional standards or organizations that would let someone know what they were getting in to, without making themselves a guinea pig.
I know that we may not agree on this, but I wanted to make this final comment in case anyone else was following the discussion.
My 2 Cents says
What in Scientology do you consider to be hypnotism?
So-called, “hypnotism” is nothing more than any skillfully articulated effort to influence how we think and feel. It employs repetition. TV advertisements, persuasive political speeches and religious sermons, etc. Of course there has to be a dazzling object of desire, an enticement, (maybe nothing more than an invitation to ‘relax’) otherwise ‘hypnotism’ is given a name that reveals it for what it really is: NAGGING.
M2C, let me give you a quick rundown of what in Scientology I think involves hypnosis:
* The basic setup of auditing is considered by many to be light hypnosis, and I would agree with that based on personal experience with both hypnosis and the process. I’m willing to grant that a knowledgeable, ethical auditor can probably use that for the client’s benefit without getting into undue suggestion, but it could also easily go wrong. I guess that it might also be possible that an auditor really getting away from Scientology could even try avoid the light trance, though any client with prior experience of Scientology probably almost automatically
* Listing is hypnotic when it is repetitive, and suggestive unless the questions are much more general than the ones developed by Hubbard and Scientology.
* TRs are hypnotic when done repetitively and for long periods as is typical of Scientology – though some of them can be useful if pared down to their essential processes, which I have seen and experienced.
* Drills are hypnotic and suggestive
* Running engrams, which is a flawed theory, risks being suggestive and implanting false memories hypnotically.
* Past life auditing as done in Scientology is almost inevitably suggestive and implants false memories hypnotically.
* Any processing dealing with Scientology’s notion of supposed “implants” is inevitably suggestive and implants false memories hypnotically
* Generally, Hubbard himself identified “altitude” (or authority) as hypnotic, which I think was accurate – and then, typically, he went on to exploit the control mechanism that he had seemed to be warning against. I would say that putting Hubbard or another guru or leader, or even the “tech” or processes in a position of “altitude” or authority over the client, is a setup for hypnosis and suggestion.
I think this is a large part of why so many independent practitioners eventually pare down what they do to just the simplest form of auditing similar to basic talk therapy.
p.s. roger, there are many levels of hypnosis and suggestion, from the sort of mundane things that you mentioned up to real control of suggestible subjects. Hubbard himself claimed to have the ability to use hypnosis and other techniques to control people, talked about it extensively including how to get someone sleeping to wake up in a hypnotic trance. Hd was also reported by his peers as having pulled sophisticated stage hypnosis tricks on unsuspecting people at parties and gatherings, such as implanting hypnotic suggestions that the subjects acted on a few minutes later when triggered by a word or sound. You can find youtube videos of Darren Brown demonstrating just these sorts of hypnotic effects (along with other stage tricks that demonstrate human vulnerabilities to manipulation). You might also want to watch or read the interview that Hubbard’s friend an literary agent Forest Ackerman gave that recounts several hypnotic tricks including the following:
” And what I particularly remember about his appearances there was an evening of spectacular hypnostism when hypnotized just about every kid in the club. I remember he gave one young man a… what would you call it… In any event, the boy was convinced that cupped in his hand, he held a little tiny Kangaroo that was hopping around and I remember he came over and showed the Kangaroo to me. ”
“We were all standing around holding our sides trying to keep from being hysterical and then Ron told one other boy, he said well now I’m gonna bring you out of this. As some point I’m just going to scratch the tip of my nose and (snap) you’ll go instantly to asleep. Well everybody was so fascinated by Ron’s performance, that they clustered around him. And ah…one mad moment his nose itched you know, and he’d forgotten all about the special command. he kind of scratched his nose. I happened to be standing right behind this boy. Instantly limp, he fell right into my arms (laugh).”
Stage hypnosis is widely known to be cheap theatrics. Otherwise, I have read nothing on the subject that causes me to believe ‘hypnosis’ is anything other than a term used by people who have an agenda to turn what falls within the scope of ordinary human mentality into something mystical and or nefarious.
As for TR’s…I think TR zero is a wonderful technique for clearing the mind and bringing it to a state of serene equilibrium. It’s an ancient tantric yoga practice as I’ve said before on this blog.
My 2 Cents says
Peacemaker, how much Scientology training and processing have you had?
roger, stage hypnosis is “widely known” to be representative of complex phenomenon of suggestibility and group dynamics, that reveal the extent to which many individuals are subject to influence or even control (even when unskilled practitioners resort to trickery to get some of the effects, it still shows the extent to which people can be fooled). I realize that is disturbing to confront, particularly given the clear evidence that Hubbard was quite expert at using hypnotic and suggestive techniques, as well as techniques like misdirection from stage magic.
TR0 confront is one of those things that I would agree could be an enlightening exercise – when done differently than in the standard Scientology process with extended periods of required perfect rigidity and open eyes reinforced by shouted commands. I think it would be harder to come up with an enlightened version of TR0 bullbait, but once again if hypnotic and suggestive elements such as excessive repetition and authoritarian commands were taken out of it, along with the indoctrination into the Hubbard model of “reactive mind” and “case,” you might be left with something.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says the following in an article on the subject of hypnosis:
“The hypnotized individual appears to heed only the communications of the hypnotist and typically responds in an uncritical, automatic fashion while ignoring all aspects of the environment other than those pointed out by the hypnotist. In a hypnotic state an individual tends to see, feel, smell, and otherwise perceive in accordance with the hypnotist’s suggestions, even though these suggestions may be in apparent contradiction to the actual stimuli present in the environment. The effects of hypnosis are not limited to sensory change; even the subject’s memory and awareness of self may be altered by suggestion, and the effects of the suggestions may be extended (posthypnotically) into the subject’s subsequent waking activity.”
PeaceMaker, thank you for sharing your views on the matter. I’m satisfied I’ve made mine clear and I have no desire to refute yours.
roger, thanks to you to. You’ve made me think, and be at least a little bit more clear and careful in some of the distinctions that I draw.
M2C, when I was young I gained a lot of experience and familiarity with the sort of sources that Hubbard drew upon, from hypnosis to the occult, not to mention classical philosophy and traditional psychology, so I think that I had a lot of perspective about what was at work when I first came upon Scientology. I also have experience with some indie and “squirrel” groups and work, and have followed the thought and science that has come after Hubbard. My specific experience with Dianetics and Scientology is not deep, I readily admit, but I think that I have a pretty broad perspective on the subject, and my experience is that my point of view is about what a lot of people seem to come to over time after they’ve left the CofS and familiarize themselves with Hubbard’s sources and recent developments.
My 2 Cents says
Peacemaker, it is as I suspected. You have familiarity with subjects similar to Scientology, and with what others have said about Scientology, and that’s fine. But you haven’t personally participated with the subject enough to really know what you’re talking about. Your essays seem well-reasoned and wise, but to someone who actually understands Scientology by virtue of extensive personal experience delivering and receiving auditing, they reek of arm’s-length, ivory-tower, dilletantish ignorance and flat-out false data. That’s not to say that they are totally lacking in valid observations. But you go too far with your judgment, and not far enough with actual looking.
My 2 Cents: “Your essays seem well-reasoned and wise, but to someone who actually understands Scientology by virtue of extensive personal experience delivering and receiving auditing, they reek of arm’s-length, ivory-tower, dilletantish ignorance and flat-out false data.”
Also, sometimes it’s a matter of “Style over Substance.”
“Style over Substance is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone bases their argument on compelling language, obfuscation, and various terms of art, instead of legitimate logical analyses.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance
Or being glib:
“marked by lack of intellectual depth; having only superficial plausibility.”
M2C and marildi, it’s always interesting to see how the tech loyalists are continually looking for some grounds to glibly invalidate anything that doesn’t fit with their beliefs about the subject.
I’ve avoided being too specific about my training because I didn’t think it relevant, but I suppose that at this point I should tell you that I was audited to clear. I even think I still have one of the rare old openwork gold mens’ clear bracelets somewhere – do either of you go far enough back (LRH era) to know what I’m talking about?
I had already read the sort of sources that Hubbard refers to as well as some he doesn’t admit, and had gone further in some of the practices he had explored that he himself had, when I started with the subject, and that lead to my interest in pursuing it being limited once I got a good sense of where Hubbard was headed with it. I now observe that many who took it much further than I did and who invested much more time, and who only later familiarized themselves with the sort of background on the subject that I had, seem to have come to more or less the same perspectives on it that I have, so I think there is good evidence that my understanding is fairly comprehensive.
Do either of you actually know enough about the subject and its origins (both the ones that Hubbard credited, and failed to credit) to evaluate and understand what is at work and what Hubbard did (and didn’t) accomplish, and to be aware of how his practices actually compare to others old and new? Or might your over-reliance on Hubbard as the one-stop “source” leave you with your own “arm’s-length, ivory-tower, dilletantish ignorance and flat-out false data”?
My 2 Cents says
Peacemaker, you said, “it’s always interesting to see how the tech loyalists are continually looking for some grounds to glibly invalidate anything that doesn’t fit with their beliefs about the subject.”
Take a look in a mirror, my friend. You’ve just described what you’re doing. You glibly invalidate auditing tech that you demonstrably don’t fully understand, while using an academic writing style to elicit readers’ intellectual submission. In other words, rather than getting to the actual point, you “gesture hypnotically.” (Apologies to Mandrake the Magician.)
Of course, you’re far from the only commenter on Mike’s blog guilty of this cognitive crime. It’s rampant. So perhaps I shouldn’t pick on you. But unfortunately I don’t have the time to take on the whole team.
I do acknowledge that like all psychological, philosophical, and scientific investigators, LRH got a lot of ideas from his predecessors. In fact, I’ve studied a lot of those guys myself, and doing so enriched my understanding of Scientology. But that doesn’t mean that one can adequately understand Scientology without studying it directly, which you admit you haven’t done in any depth.
There’s also the factor of one’s understanding or misunderstanding of earlier subjects. Your defective understanding of Scientology may be due to defective understanding of some other subject. See your local Indie auditor for a Remedy B.
Until then, take my word for it — there are no “shouted commands” during TR 0.
As for auditing, it does restimulate previous hypnosis, but then gets the preclear to fully observe it and thereby erase it. It’s hypnotic in its results only when processes are ended too soon, or continued too long. Done properly it wakes people up.
Meanwhile the Auditor’s Code prohibits the auditor from invalidating or evaluating for the preclear, so properly done auditing suggests nothing. It accepts and runs out whatever comes up in the preclear’s mind.
Lastly, your idea that running past life incidents is nearly always suggestive is itself suggestive of there being no actual past lives. Flunk.
All that being said, auditing in the Church of Scientology today is not the same as it was 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Your criticisms are not entirely unfounded with regard to the Church. But auditing done by independent “old timers” outside the Church results in no post-hypnotic suggestion. It wakes people up from the trances they’re already in.
How is this done? No memory loss?
Chris Barnes says
Your statement is something I can agree with. It is possible to leave scientology and staff behind and de-program yourself and return to having a worthwhile life. If a person is still upset and complaining 30 years later, then they have missed something. Let it all go! Go play outside with your kids and enjoy a romantic evening on the porch with your partner. My own interest is purely historical and academic now because I love documentary. I was there and carry the scars.
Thank you Peace Maker. A very interesting read. Thank you so much for sharing youth ideas. I enjoyed their depth. ?
I guess it’s the ultimate in irony in a “church” that seems to specialize in irony – that everyone aspires to bring their org to the level of a historical org that was apparently staffed entirely by SP’s
This is a beautiful essay. Thank you
Terra Cognita says
Chris Barnes says
Hi, All I wish to say is that I was amused by the fact that there are more SP’s than people in good standing. It means nothing now. We have moved on and the whole subject of Hubbard’s works is no longer an obsession or item for millions. When one learns the true origins, one no longer needs to try to ‘save the planet’. Many of us now know who we are and how we came here and what we are doing and where we are headed. All that mind stuff and spy games are no longer needed. Be Free! There’s an entire ‘Multiverse’ out there to explore. We need to drop the games condition and exteriorise our perspective. Were you aware that this old level of 3rd Dimensional existence has been surpassed by a higher-dimensional universe? It is sort of like a preclear being stuck in an old ridge GPM for too long. Run the flows and release that energy. People have been experiencing Fifth Dimensionality for a few decades now and the old MEST rules no longer apply. I know it is hard, but anyone who has experienced exteriorisation with full perception knows this to be true.
John Doe says
If you step back and look at PTS/SP “tech”,
all the clues are right there.
Most new scientologists were first introduced to this information when they read about it in the Scn Ethics book.
Right at the top of the first chapter you read, it says “The antisocial personality, the anti-Scientologist”.
Pretty clearly welded together there is the idea “opposing Scientology = bad person”.
And what about those who are PTS? Look at that very term. Why is the person who is under the influence of a suppressive not called a “victim” or “oppressed person” or “abusee” (like “aberee”)?
No, a person under the thrall of an SP is a “Potential Trouble Source”. Trouble for whom? The organization and Hubbard. The very name shows the focus was all about Hubbard protecting himself and his creation.
Robert Almblad says
I agree John Doe. In KSW he said no one really helped him with his research. And, during his lifetime he got rid of people who got close enough to voice an opinion.. LRH knew many people and many people knew LRH but he had no friends. Anyone who got close enough to voice an opinion eventually got declared, abandoned or left of their own volition. Bar none, that I know of. You are either a complete slave to LRH and Scientology or you are to be crushed by any means possible. He would be the first to agree with this statement.
Terra Cognita says
John Doe: “the antisocial person; the anti-Scientologist.” Man-o-man, thanks for pointing that out.
Seems to me that the definition of an anti-social personality equals David Miscaviage.
Alex De Valera says
I made the maths of Old SaintHill once. If was stunning, it seemed like 90 % of the people were declared and when you see old timers still in like Mark Yaeger, , starkey, Heber, Lesèvre, they don’t seem to be attaining any spiritual wisdom or any sort of wellbeing. Old staff look pitiful and live in dire conditions. They live behind the iron curtain of cult suppression. In a bubble led by a self made suppressive called David Miscavige. Getting out of that madness is the first healing step. Just look at Mike’s expression in the day and the way he looks now and the love and admiration he earns.
Katy Lied says
Yesterday in a marketing presentation at work, I caught myself using the term “straight up and vertical.” I was ashamed and declared myself an SP.
lol! and a ‘copyright terrorist’ to boot. Welcome to Peoples Republic of DMology….where you are guilty until your broke, dead broke. 🙂
Old Surfer Dude says
Good for you, Katy! There can never be too many SPs!
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you aboard.
Deputy Director IC, of SP’s Are Us.
Cynthia Ejiogu says
I can say my father was so right. He hated LRH not for his religion but for his writing! He loved sci fi and hated most of his work as trash. I was raised in LA and from a young age was told “see if you can’t make a living start your own religion like LRH”. It was a joke so I never thought people took it for real. As I got older they tried to get me to join in my freshman year at USC. But when they told me I had to pay a lot of money to learn about them I thought “what the f…?” I was not a person of faith at that point but even I knew a “Church ” was not there to take money from a poor student. If anything they should be offering to help! A few years later I worked with a poor guy who was in for a few years. The church had helped him get off drugs but then too all his money after he became a successful manger of a pizza restaurant. He had made 200000 that year in the mid 1980’s but was left with nothing! But he did leave but it left him with a big whole in his mind and heart! Keep going Mike and Leah!
Someone please explain ‘as-is’ and “as-isness.’
The considerations resulting in conditions of existence are fourfold:
a.AS-ISNESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.
b.ALTER-ISNESS is the consideration which introduces change, and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-ISNESS to obtain persistency.
c.ISNESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-ISNESS. This is called, when agreed upon, reality.
d.NOT-ISNESS is the effort to handle ISNESS by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an ISNESS.
perhaps more context here:
If it were a term that somehow mattered I might take a shot at it. But I think you can find a copy of the $cientology tech dictionary on line for cheap and with that you should be able to wade through any of the cult jargon you desire to know about.
My 2 Cents says
It’s a term that matters more than any other in Scientology. It’s the core principle.
Looking at something directly with no prejudices and biases. Seeing it as it is. In Scientology auditing it refers to the moment we look at something in our mind and resolve a personal problem, pain or confusion with an “a ha” moment.
That “a ha” moment is a moment of seeing something as-it-is. To as is someting would be the verb. The act of doing it.
Axiom 11 from Hubbard’s Axioms.
As-isness is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival (duration).
“As-is” means to make a creation disappear by knowing it exactly for what it is. It is based on Hubbard’s invented principle that a duplicate copy of a thing, when forced to occupy the same space as the original, cancels out the thing causing it to disappear. This translates into making troublesome thought forms vanish by seeing them with full understanding.
If “as-isness” doesn’t make sense to you don’t worry. The principle has been disproved through logical discourse. It doesn’t hold up to analysis. For instance, if an object has no duration in time then it can’t exist. Even a nanosecond is duration.
George M. White says
Enjoyed your explanation
Snake Thompson's Ghost says
What does “cover invalidation” mean? I couldn’t find a definition of this term.
Should be “covert invalidation”.
I think that was a typo in the original PL, which was later corrected to “covert invalidation.”
It’s not ‘cover’, it’s ‘covert’. In this case it would be a hidden or behind the scene activity as compared to say ‘overt invalidation’ such as saying something straight to the persons face.
My 2 Cents says
typo — should be “covert”
Idle Morgue says
When I was in that last year – I noticed that the Church of Scientology runs a “covert invalidation and nullification” on everyone except the fresh raw meat.
I also noticed that David Miscavige was the ONLY one in the propaganda videos feeding us bullshit about how Scientology was expanding. I traveled all over and saw every ORG I went into EMPTY!
I used that PTS SP tech ON Scientology and left.
One of the glaring clues was “It is a HIGH CRIME to investigate Scientology, L Ron Hubbard and Scientologists”
I now know why – Scientology IS hiding huge crimes!
L. Ron Hubbard says “Those who attempt to suppress our tech do not themselves have the faintest clue of how to better anyone. This they cannot do. And this is your ace in the hole.”
Based on that the only power and SP has is the power you give him.
And is Incident 1 on the time track as LRH describes in the above referenced HCOPL, 7 Aug 65, Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics what makes an SP an SP? I think not. And there are many instances in life when and where LRH does not even know his own tech yet. This is just one example. But because SP “have always been there undoing the good and progress that is being made” it is a pretty serious outness to render inadequate false date to people as if it were fact whether it be LRH or David Miscavige that is doing it. David Miscavige suffers from unflat amends he will never do because he will never admit he is in a lower condition to any one. Bad call.
Just like the true tech existed whether or not LRH or DM ever pronounced it to anyone before anywhere. There can be such a thing as OT’s outside the church with their ethics intact. Some. 🙂
Sarita Shoemaker says
The bricks on the bridge are falling away every day. Soon there will be nothing left.
The people “still in” must wake up everyday anxious about which of their friends were Declared. The circles of friendships getting smaller and smaller.
How do people inside know who to talk to anymore? Maybe they’re communicating in a different form or code… was there an official Xenu language? Forgive my ignorance on Xenu (I didn’t make it very far on the Bridge To Total Freedom). I think I was on the Bridge To No Life!
TC I look forward to your writing. Thanks.
Mick Roberts says
“Ironically, declaring people suppressive is most often a suppressive act in itself.”
I’ve always thought that many things were ironic about the policies of this church (lots of “pot calling the kettle black”), but the fact that this so-called “church” that declares other people “suppressive” just because they don’t “toe the line” or they criticize (or even question) the policies of the church or LRH, even though this “church” is actually much more “suppressive” as an organization itself in more ways than one (even to current members and Sea Org folks), is the absolute epitome of irony.
Dave Fagen says
A few years after I was “declared”, I ran into someone at the grocery store who was “under the radar”.
This person told me that she observed that when people in the org would ask about my and my wife’s declare, because they wanted to find out what happened and why we got declared, that those people who asked about us would be investigated themselves.
The org considered a person’s asking about our declare as an “out-ethics indicator” on the part of the person asking.
And don’t forget that the worst overt one can commit is making others guilty of overts! Welcome to mind-fuck central…
mimsey borogrove says
Hi TC – shouldn’t you change your tag line to “Still haven’t received a copy of my declare” if what the church said about you is true per what they submitted to the court in the Garcia case?
Mike Rinder says
They ASSUME they have the right person.
With nothing in writing — by scientology’s own policy — even it is was the right person, they have not been declared based solely on rumors and innuendo.
I thought rumors and innuendo were the new truth in the 1984 world of the Co$
Mike Rinder says
Well, yes, that is true. Rumors and innuendo are all they use these days. But from the perspective of a standard tech kind of guy like me and Terra Cognita, that just isn’t good enough.
L Yash says
As per the 1970’s TV Sit-com….The Odd Couple”…..NEVER ASSUME
Sarita Shoemaker says
That’s crazy awesome.
February 18, 2017
I’m a big fan. The courage you display is uncommon. Thank you for standing for what is right.
The communications I review indicate LRH has written many inflated rants. LRH writes very well however one must be on inside to understand his meaning. From the outside his writings are full of overblown mental cookbook recipes. The guy, in my opinion, might have thought he made sense but to me. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I noticed there are many photos of his likeness everywhere. Why? The man looks horrible. You indicated his health was declining. The photos I’ve seen the guy looks like he’s got one foot in the grave. He could be the poster-child for (How to live unhealthy). His words created a monster. Look at this Miscavige character. It is so obvious he has, (small-man) syndrome but at least he looks healthy.
To be lost in a sea of that man’s bullshit must give it’s readers false entitlement. This disgusting overweight xenophobe led good people to their isolation. Once alone he extorted money and time. Extortion is a crime.
For the ‘complete’ picture, there are 10 PTS Types (A through J), as well as 3 connections Type 1 through 3 (present connection, past connection, ‘everything’ connection), and the not often enough discussed “known before” connections, (covered in the PTS rundown materials) as well as planets “known before”.
Interestingly, “true love” is mentioned as a symptom of PTS type 2, which is a rare mention of “love”, as compared to affinity in it’s broader sense.
In my day, a full PTS handling entailed not only ‘Handle or Disconnect’ but also an auditing rundown that was designed to ‘handle’ the Suppressive’s universe, who would then cease critical behavior. It is called the ‘Suppressed Person Rundown’. I know, because I received one concerning a close family member. The moment of cognition and A-Is-Ness of that knot of problems occurred above Time, and my auditor and I both ‘knew’ at that point. And sure enough 3 days later I get a letter from him, seeking to bury the hatchet. It was magic. But that was a ‘first dynamic’ handling, and I will admit that ‘win’ stuck me in the subject to a degree. I don’t think that service is being delivered anymore.
The third dynamic crimes are all BS. A Buddhist discourse on Actions and Consequences make more sense for beings seeking enlightenment. As far as ‘bringing order’ is concerned, they enable the 3rd dynamic to dominate and oppress the 1st. The premise was “Man is basically good”.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Also, MOAR LEAH!
L Yash says
@Tom, Thank you, watched the amazing Leah, so well spoken, matter of fact, and down to Earth!
Tom: “In my day, a full PTS handling entailed not only ‘Handle or Disconnect’ but also an auditing rundown that was designed to ‘handle’ the Suppressive’s universe, who would then cease critical behavior. It is called the ‘Suppressed Person Rundown’. I know, because I received one concerning a close family member. The moment of cognition and As-Is-Ness of that knot of problems occurred above Time, and my auditor and I both ‘knew’ at that point. And sure enough 3 days later I get a letter from him, seeking to bury the hatchet. It was magic.”
In fact, the Suppressed Person rundown offers evidence of the validity of not only PTS tech (on the first dynamic) and validates the principles of SP / PTS theory – it also gives evidence of his theory of the mind in general and the benefits of auditing tech overall. The rundown addresses overts, withholds, problems and ARC breaks between people, and it demonstrates how these things connect people with each other – literally, through the mind – and how someone can adversely affect another.
In fact, the rundown is not just “evidence” of the validity of the tech but *objective* evidence, as the end result is the suppressive person reaching out in a friendly way to the person s/he has been antagonistic towards – something that can be validated objectively.
Yes, it is “magic.”
Terra Cognita says
Tom and Marildi: Thanks to both of you.
I always wondered about that Suppressed Person Rundown. At the time I was in, it sounded fantastic. I’d heard rave wins of the kind you described but never saw it delivered or talked with anyone who’d received it.
Thanks very much for the ack, TC.
I’m curious – did you understand what I meant when I said the Suppressed Person Rundown provides direct evidence of the validity of PTS tech? To summarize, it does so by addressing and freeing a person from the mental mechanics that are causing him to be PTS. Basically, the person is not the effect of the SP but of his own lack of confront of overts, withholds and problems he has had with that person. When he thoroughly confronts these things in session, the mechanism that causes the antagonistic person to be suppressive towards him is deconstructed. (This tech applies to a person’s first dynamic and not the 3rd dynamic so-called “tech” that you also wrote about.)
Even more noteworthy is that the Suppressed Person rundown also provides evidence of the overall theory of the mind, as I described in the comment above. I realized this as I was writing the comment. Thanks for getting me to think about it!
p.s. Instead of “deconstructed” I should have said “as-ised,” since the pc is fully viewing what is there – as-is – and thus as-ises it.
Mike Rinder says
Just for info. I have seen more Suppressed Person Rundowns go on interminably with NO origination from the supposed SP than I have get the result. You might say this is simply evidence that the “tech was not being applied.” Who knows whether this is true or not. It could also simply be the result of statistical chance. Or perhaps confirmation bias. Or it could be that one person can effect another remotely and in the “theta universe.” I do not think there is anything wrong with the concept that the spirit has powers beyond the scope of the physical universe and that this is something that can be observed, even if only on a subjective level.
My only point is that I am not so certain that this provides “direct evidence” of anything, because the “direct evidence” is that it does NOT work more often than it does work.
Mike, I don’t doubt what you say occurred in your experience in the CoS, but here once again I think it’s a matter of WHEN and WHERE.
On a quick google search I found the following testimonies of both pcs and auditors – all saying it worked and none saying it didn’t:
Maria | February 17, 2013 at 6:03 pm
“…I’ve had the rundown on one terminal and I did get the EP exactly as specified. It really made me look at this whole SP concept in a really different way. The SP in this case was a bonfide SP, based on all possible methods of detection and all extant materials on the subject.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/sitting-in-judgment/#comment-255154
Frank Davis | February 18, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Reply
Thank you for that statement about the Suppressed Person Rundown. Over the years I had only one PC I ever ran who did not get the person who was the terminal suppressing the PC contact them and make things right. That one person was contacted and apologized to. The “SP” even made things okay with others they had done wrong. But my PC was pissed that the rundown had not destroyed the “SP”. They went looking for an auditor who would help them realize their goal…the complete and utter destruction of the person they perceived was suppressing them. Those who have really duplicated the tech on handling an “SP” , and how to do the Suppressed Person RD will get what I am saying. Every other time it worked, no exception. I learned from this. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/sitting-in-judgment/#comment-255247
Thoughtful | May 21, 2011 at 2:59 am
Thanks for the props. When I got into Scientology in 1979, like many others, I soon had a PTS situation brewing with a family member. I was not allowed to disconnect however, because the practice had been canceled. Honestly I wanted to take the easy way out, but the Church wouldn’t let me! THAT was Scientology. So, I did the PTS-SP course, the PTS Rundown and the Suppressed Person Rundown to its full OT EP (for those unfamiliar, on the Suppressed Person Rundown the pc runs problem processes from all angles until the attacking person experiences a profound change and originates letting bygones be bygones. This rundown actually changes another person from a distance). And yes, it totally worked. Today I am very glad I was not allowed to disconnect but instead forced to handle. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/a-solution-to-economic-coercion/#comment-124926
Worsel | May 1, 2010 at 2:11 am
“…the suppressed Person Rundown as an additional tool to all the other actions. It changes the behaviour of an active antagonistic person by auditing the pc. After all, a ‘suppressed person’ is not so much away from a ‘suppressed group’.
I have personally seen it working twice. And I admit, one has to see it to believe it. In one case an antagonistic, but social person, who had refused to communicate, became friendly and communicated again. And in the other an SP “mysteriously” became inactive who had been active for years before.
I have to admit that I changed the application into a solo-action, had just grabbed an E-meter, took the questions and audited any charge found and as-ised any charge that presented themselves to be as-ised, – following all the rules of auditing. It was easy. It worked exactly as described. And it was very gentle and very surprising.
I would like to invite anyone who is a trained auditor and who maybe does have an idle E-meter, to study and understand the two Bulletins and apply them intelligently.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/to-lrh-he-was-jb/#comment-22573
The poster Tom, who described his experience in a comment above, also described it on Marty’s blog, and Marty replied and confirmed that it is a “magical” rundown:
Tom | August 13, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“…the next level of tech was applied, PTS Rundown, and Suppressed Person Rundown.
I have to tell you, that that was one SPECIAL rundown, and one special EP.
When “it” (the moment of as-isness that erased the longstanding ridge between us) occurred, both the auditor and I “knew” what had just happened. It was confirmed physically 3 days later. The rest of the story is that after that, my father and I really enjoyed each others company up until the day he died. And it is THAT type of ‘win’ that I wanted (and still want) others to HAVE. BUT, I HAD to kick and scream and pound a few desks to even get C\S’ed for that rundown ( and being on staff I of course had to come up with the $$$ for the intensives). WHY IS THIS TECHNOLOGY NOT IN BROAD USE?!!!!!!!????
Oh, I forgot…it is Reverse Technology Center, My Mis-understood. Nothing to see here, carry on…. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/murder-outs/#comment-42914
• martyrathbun09 | August 13, 2010 at 3:50 pm
…I too have seen magic occur before my very eyes with application of that tech. It is magical.”
Mike Rinder says
You actually think that there are going to be “testimonies” that it didn’t work published by anyone?
Look, if this really works, how come Miscavige hasn’t applied it to rid the world of those who are suppressing him? Or as Wynski asks, how come you or anyone else hasn’t used it to stop Miscavige from committing endless Suppressive Acts? Why isnt the tech being applied to handle these situations – either by you or other practitioners or by the church?
Mike Wynski says
As an S.O. MAA I oversaw about six of these. I saw one that MAY have worked (as the guy was targeted for handling before the R/D it clouds the outcome) and about 4 that had to move to disconnection to get the PC back to non-PTS status.
That was with Class 6 & 8 C/Ses overseen by LRH trained Class XII Snr C/Ses PRIOR to DM’s reign.
Consequently that R/D was NOT the go to tech handling. Maybe the go to Reg “handling”. 😉
Mike: “You actually think that there are going to be ‘testimonies’ that it didn’t work published by anyone?”
I used the word “testimonies” but what I was referring to were the random blog comments that I posted, and I’m sure you would agree that posters who have had negative experiences are generally not hesitant to post a comment about it. Yet in any of the Google results I looked through, I didn’t find even one that said the Suppressed Person Rundown didn’t work on them, or on their pcs.
“Look, if this really works, how come Miscavige hasn’t applied it to rid the world of those who are suppressing him?”
Well, to begin with, I highly doubt Miscavige would agree to being audited on his overts – or to being audited at all, according to reports.
“Or as Wynski asks, how come you or anyone else hasn’t used it to stop Miscavige from committing endless Suppressive Acts?”
The Suppressed Person Rundown isn’t designed for that purpose (although there does exist tech to fully handle an SP – if he can be gotten in session). The Suppressed Person Rundown only handles a suppressive person in relation to his antagonism and hostility towards the particular pc being audited, and it does so by handling the out-ruds between the two of them.
Mike Rinder says
The difference is that most people who don’t get results in scientology simply walk away. They don’t write testimonials and generally they don’t speak at all. This is the VAST majority of people who have departed scientology. I’ve seen people on this rundown for months on end with no result and then determining that the “handling” is to “disconnect”… And they were miserable months. And in the end, I am sure the person was so relieved to no longer be being sec checked on what they had done to this SP that they had floating TA’s and wrote glowing success stories after disconnecting and then saying it was “greatest action ever”!
Not many pcs have done the Suppressed Person Rundown. Of those who did, I can believe it wasn’t “expedient” for the CoS to carry it through to the EP. It does take a lot of auditing since the relationship between the PTS and the SP usually goes back many lifetimes. Pcs who are C/Sed to do it have had all other handlings, including the PTS Rundown, but are still the effect of the SP in such heavily PTS situations.
Outside of the CoS, and even within it (in the earlier decades, for the most part) there have been auditors who state that their pcs always got the EP, according to the comments I’ve read.
I just thought the odds were great against a google search turning up only positive comments if in fact there have been many pcs who didn’t get the expected result. Generally, there’s no shortage of posters who readily speak out about not getting the results they expected.
Mike Wynski says
marildi said, “The Suppressed Person Rundown isn’t designed for that purpose ”
Yes, it IS designed to get an SP to STOP being suppressive towards the PC in question.
Now you are either ignorant beyond belief or you are intentionally lying now that your back is against the wall because the “tek” does NOT work as advertised and you are desperate to prop up the criminal Hubbard.
I’ll let others guess which of those two are correct.
Wynski: “Yes, it IS designed to get an SP to STOP being suppressive towards the PC in question.”
That’s exactly what I said. Read my comment again without trying desperately to negate any possible sign that the tech works.
Mike Wynski says
Mike, if that R/D worked as marildi claimed, Indies should just run it and have DM get handled that way. Don’t ya think?
marilfdi, why don’t you get right on that?
Mike Rinder says
Well, I think more to the point. Dave would just run it and all the SP’s that are seeking his destruction would all just vanish…
Mike Wynski says
So right Mike. LOL
Most of us appreciate Hubbard’s “suppressive person” to be his editorial on what behavioral science calls “anti-social personality disorder” (APD). The terms, “sociopath” and “psychopath” are less official but do represent two categories of that disorder, “A & B”. Interestingly, David Miscavige conforms closely to the hot-headed, ‘made that way’ sociopath with Ron Hubbard being the classic, cold and calculating, ‘born that way’ psychopath.
These are the traditional bad guys we all love to hate and while an anti-social lone wolf can do a lot of damage it’s nothing compared to what they can effect when they have an army of loyal sychophants do their bidding.
Hubbard equated APD, which is observably real, with challenges to his authority. Giving ubiquitous lip service to all things right and noble put him and his throne on top of that very tall platform. It then becomes a matter of logic that anyone opposing him is against all things right and noble.
Scientology thrives in a culture of blind acceptance. The opposite of that acceptance isn’t rejection but inquiry. Did anybody ask where where he got his 2.5% statistic and while we’re at it, who asked where he got the rest of his information??? Non-inquirers merely accepted his assertions and ended up doing his evil bidding.
Ironically all those non-inquiring followers who did the evil were not themselves evil (not all of them anyway). They were (are) just needy and vain and therefore highly suggestible. That describes not just scientologists but all people historically who have harmed others for ideological purposes.
Terra Cognita says
rogerHorneday: “Inquiry!” Yes!
Chris Barnes says
I lived and worked and studied alongside DM. He was an SO cadet, but he rarely left the course-room whilst he was doing his grades and basic auditor training. I knew his family like dutch cousins. David Miscavige seemed to all of us as if he were autistic or mentally underdeveloped. He could not empathise with humans. He was an avid student. He raced through his grades at Saint Hill within months. We were surprised that he was not corrected for being a ‘Quickie Grades’ student. I never saw him make any case gain. He never conversed or socialised with any peer. When he was being a cadet he was a tyrant. He was in a weird valence. He was sent away to the Flagship Apollo and the new (1975) Flag Land Base. He joined the Special Film Unit and the rest is history. We so often forget that the family came from the US to England around 1972 to address the drug issues some of the family were struggling with. His siblings are all nice enough people. Denise and Lori were babes. I think that DM sort of adopted LRH as his mentor and father figure. The whole scientology game must have been an escape from reality for DM. Hubbard may have seen David as a protege, but I have no proof of that. I wonder just at which point David started to dramatise the LRH persona valence so disastrously. When DM was CO CMO INT and Watchdog Committee Chairperson he demonstrated suppressive behaviours and violence. Running around a pole and digging sand at Gilman Hotsprings was not much fun in that summer heat. Building the Clipper was fun. David may have always had a serious personality disorder… or was he a PDH subject/victim… pre-1972… or just an LSD drug personality? I could never get through to him.
Mike Rinder says
Unfortunately you have some very basic facts wrong here which puts your entire Comment in doubt. Miscavige was never a cadet. He joined the SO when he was 16. He was not on the Apollo. He was never CO CMO Int or WDC Chairman.
Chris Barnes says
Sorry Mike, Maybe I am being a little obtuse. 1972-1975 I was a Sea Org cadet at Saint Hill at UKLO under Ron Hopkins , Greg Smith and Norman Charlton. I worked with other Saint Hill cadets after school and weekends. DM was there too, he was training to be an auditor. He and his brothers were around and did some work at AOSHUK. Thinking about it now I described DM as a cadet, when he may not have signed his SO contract until later. He was sent to Flag. I assumed it was the Apollo. Maybe he just missed that after the move ashore to the Forth Harrison. My point was that he was a young teenager at Saint Hill around 1973/74 and I used to eat dinner with him at the Stables. I was very close to Lori. His family rented a house in EG town. We saw him most days when we were in the course room. Years later, DM was CO CMO at Gilman and my brother was there too as Treasury Sec CMO. for a while. (I guess you may have been there in 1983 possibly when the Clipper ship was built). I met DM and his CMO staff again at AOSHUK when I was 18 when they were visiting briefly just before the Mission Holders Conference and takedown of the GO WW. My bother told me that he and DM were on the first WDC around 1982/83 as my brother was on the CMO staff at Gilman.
Mike Rinder says
OK, thanks for clarifying Chris. Yes, he was never a cadet. He was in Philly with his family. Ronnie had already joined the SO and Dave eventually came to Clearwater to join him. It is true he was one of the original WDC members, but when it was formed the chairman was Dede Reisdorf. Dave was never WDC Chairman or CO CMO Int. He busted Dede and then Gale, but he did not assume that position. It’s a long story. Yes, I was there in 83. I was there every year from it’s purchase to when I left for the last time in 2006. What is your brother’s name? I do remember your mother, though it seems she was not on the Apollo for long?
Wognited and Out! says
It is a fact that the SP’s as Hubbard described – the truly evil Hitler types- (yeah those)…
are the 2.5% that Keeping Scientology Working.
Science Doc says
Is “not a scientologist in good standing” the new SP? If someone is not in good standing, are they shunned?
Marie guerin says
Not in so many words , but yes they are shunned. I was declared in November but my phone stopped ringing in July prior. Crickets except for the “braves” sent by hco to attempt a handling.
ed kette says
Off topic, but Marcial Maciel, the founder of Christ Legionaries in the Catholic Church had a revelation when he was at the Opus Dei and the world knows the rest.
dm had another revelation when he was at a hospital, and assumed the power change!
Doloras LaPicho says
For those who don’t know, Maciel was a child rapist.
LRH has me wondering why he used children as his messengers. Tony Ortega’s post today someone posted “how to use a vibrator” edict from LRH himself. smh.
“PTS tech” is a Hubbard institutionalized crutch that unfortunately prevents Scientologists from inspecting flaws in Hubbard’s ideas or their movement.
Hubbard institutionalized “cult thinking” “tech” solutions like the PTS A, B C, etc “handling” procedures all the Hubbard tech unfortunatley does is replace Scientologists’ full rights to debate Hubbard’s ideas and even enterain there is anything wrong with ANY of Hubbard’s ideas.
Adept Scientologists and official Scientology higher staff in OSA can’t argue about Scientology in public sensibly or even relevently about Hubbard’s ideas, they can’t even allow discussions to go far enough and instead, PTS A handling immediately kicks in, and good roads and good weather deflection off the flaws of Scientology onto everyday pleasantries, if the Scientologist is adept enough at the PTS A simplest method.
PTS tech keeps them cult cacooned intellectually unobservant and immature and give them the cult like non debate mentality that is their hallmark.
Join Scientology and let crank Hubbard’s thinking do your thinking for you. Thank for yourself, and join Scientology and leave the thinking to Scientology/Hubbard’s ideas for you!
TC, thanks for an insightful and funny post!
It was interesting to have a chance to re-read that original definition. It does describe a tiny minority of truly awful people that are sometimes encountered.
Paired with the second definition, this strikes me as a blatant example of a typical control technique. First people are brought into agreement with a definition or action that seems fairly reasonable, but then eventually they are led to accept a much more radical version in line with the ideology or ends of the leader or organization. This sort of phenomenon is sometimes explained with the analogy of the frog in a pot on the stove.
Terra Cognita says
PeaceMaker: I like how you pointed out this transgression form “brought into agreement” to “acceptance of a much more radical version.” So true.
Lois and I were declared SP purely because we had “bad connections” to SPs (my wog, eldest son, my “sp” sisters etc). I don’t know what kind of SP that is but their latest thing is declaring people just for communicating to the wrong people. Oh well, glad they did it!
Agreed. Hubbard’s idiocies cause the unintended but ultimately thankful consequences of ousting people out of his movement.
Cranks are like everyone else at times, whose dumb solutions boomerang.
People kicked out of Scientology ought be thankful they’ve been kicked out of Hubbard’s crank outfit, LOL.
Terra Cognita says
clearlypissedoff: Declares are so ridiculous. If you mapped out anyone’s family’s tree, I’m sure you’d find we all have “bad connections.”
I Yawnalot says
I’ll sit in the corner sipping my beer on this one. However, there sure are some psychotically irresponsible nut jobs out in the real world who’ll slit your throat if they had half the chance and then complain about the blood on their shoes as they clean the knife, they even wear suits some of ’em. They will call you “friend” when it suits them too. If you live a “closeted life” no tech or explanation from anyone about evil people will ever be real to you. Not many people know a street cop personally either, while others are blissfully unaware people (just like you, me & the rest of humanity) are dying for your rights to have a uninterrupted life.
I Yawnalot says
LOL, had a good chuckle the other day when I heard someone say, perfectly timed with the circumstances, “it’s not drinking I have a problem with, it’s sobriety!”
Just saw the latest Leah Remini video posted on TO’s site (after writing the above) – what a wonderful girl she truly is! But it dawned on me listening to her that there was NEVER, EVER a snow flake’s chance in hell Scientology was ever going to be a success on the mere fact of it’s management style with its mechanisms of personnel control imposed by policy and enforced by uniform. Any work-ability or feel good “tech” in it really hasn’t got anything to do with it, except maybe as bait! The platform it all sits on is so finely crafted that every piece of it is dovetailed to every other piece of it (even the contradictions have answers) so it all eventually leads to complete domination over each and every member of it. It truly is quite sickening, it doesn’t matter what results the end user expects to get out it, all you have to do is to continue to believe the answers to life’s problems are available to you via that organisation and the same disastrous effect of that cult engulfs anyone who gets caught up in its web. It’s only a matter of time if you stay connected – no one is immune!
Thanks Terra. I appreciate what you do and the thoughtfulness of your criticism. I don’t acknowledge you enough as I get inspired when I read you and my own thoughts start churning.
I think Ron was paranoid and used that paranoia consciously to protect his paying customers.
The revelation by David Mayo,in is conversation with Ron, that ARCx and not overts cause blowing; is evidence that Ron used theories to control.
He told Mayo that he’d lose control of Scientology if people knew that overts were not the cause of blowing.
Let’s look at that:
if ARCxs were the cause, then we’d have to look OUTWARD on what caused the ARCx. It would cause an examination of something; the tech, Ron, a senior, the RPF, some punishment for disagreeing, a lost family member etc etc etc.
The OUTWARD looking would seek a cause outside of the person and thus a criticism of Ron or Scientology.
But Hubbard said as an unbroken rule that it was an overt.
Do you see what he did here? Blaming it all as an overt introverts the person. It suppresses our capacity to see the reality of the issue and puts the cause as some evil we have done.
RON ALLOWED US TO THINK THIS WAS THE TRUTH OF BLOWING TO DO TWO THINGS:
1) keep us as paying customers or staff
2) suppress our capacity to truly see the cause which may be Ron or the tech.
If he is capable of lying to us regarding overts and ARCxs, it is absolutely reasonable to conclude that he did it in other areas of the “tech”.
That other area is the SP tech.
Do you see the pattern? I believe I can boil Ron’s insanity down to one trait: fear of being found out.
With the SP tech Ron causes his disciples to demonize critical looking. When this is agreed with, we demonize those that disagree with Ron, and worse, demonize our own freedom of thought.
POWER, CONTROL, MONEY AND FEAR OF BEING FOUND OUT…………
are the motivators that steered the ship of Scientology’s green on white and red on white.
HIDING……………. Ron hid from the law, created the SP and overt theories to cover his tracks so that we would not find out that he was conning us.
Ron apologists are still affected by this. There can be an intellectual feeling of self shaming in realizing that it was a snake oil salesman who usurped our mind, life and emotions.
It was a conscious, deliberate intention by Hubbard. He knew he was lying to us. His revelation to Mayo that it was ARCxs and not overts that caused blowing is proof positive that Ron used our belief in him, used the Scientology information, to use us for his own egotistical power hungry purposes.
He hid all his life. He convinced us that SPs were out to get him.
There is only one thing that was out to get Ron that caused him to run and hide:
The genius of Ron is that he created a church that was a projection of his fear of being found out. A persecution complex made into church doctrine.
Scientology could be described as the church of L Ron Hubbard’s paranoia and greed for power and money, with a smattering of real help.
One more thought:
This doctrine of you become an SP because you were affected by an SP on the track is the philosophy of victimhood.
Maybe that is why Ron ignorantly and wrongly avoided the doctrine of karma.
The doctrine of karma is the doctrine of causation. We cause our experience. We are the creators of our lives.
The doctrine of the SP is the doctrine of victimhood. Someone did it to us and now we become an SP.
This doctrine totally is ignorant of freedom of choice, free will etc.
Ron marketer cause as a spiritual trait, but we ended up as the victim of his paranoid persecution complex made into church doctrine.
My 2 Cents says
Brian, you write well and with emphatic certainty as usual, but your understanding of Scientology is incomplete on this point. The “make-an-SP” incident is late on the chain of what actually makes one. It’s a long series of ARC breaks, based on missed witholds, based on overts, based on unsolved problems, based on failed communication, that sets the person up karmically to “pull in” the culminating incident of being totally overwhelmed by an opposing SP or SP group and thereby stuck in assuming their “winning valence” (persona).
Hey My Two Cents. I have ceased many years ago assigning Ron’s theories and practices to life. And when I did, life got more simple.
In my study of liberated teachers, teachers who are free and one with the wisdom of life, and in my own direct perception of life; I have seen a deeper more accurate truth regarding the nature of good and evil.
Evil, or seeking to benefit ourselves at the expense of others. Causing suffering to others in acquiring “happiness for self” is so much more simple then what Ron theorizes.
The cause of souls doing evil through selfish actions has a fundamental cause; ignorance of the true source of happiness and power.
The darkness of evil that some souls go through is a result of misidentifying the true source of happiness. They misidentify and project their own happiness and potential onto names and forms.
Bank robbers, tyrants, rapers and murderers; being in a state of ignorance, are still seeking happiness through their acts. They seek to acquire a sense of well being in external reality. A motive that will always betray as all compound things are subject to decomposition.
Having no knowledge of the consequences of their actions, paying homage to no standards of decency; souls playing the role of evil seek pleasure, security for self in animalistic left overs from previous lives in lower natured bodies.
No soul is damned eternally for their evil. That is wrong knowledge. But what happens is that those who harm others inevitably are led to experience the effect of their cause. If your live the evil life your throat has to be cut. We must suffer the acts that we have done to others.
In this way souls are educated. Karma is really the law of spiritual education. If you hurt others you must be hurt to learn the lesson of love and respect for others, and to have an understanding of the pain we created.
And when a person suffers they sometimes are led to the spiritual path to find the cause of suffering.
When we find the practice that suits our nature we embark on the journey within. It’s there that we, after many lives, find what we’ve been looking for; happiness as our very own nature. Happiness that has no cause. No reason, no externality, no relation, no object.
Evil is also temporary because nothing in the phenomenal world of cause and effect is permanent.
Ultimately it is lack of self realization, God realization, soul realization that is the cause of acts that harm others to aquire well being for self.
Ron’s understanding of these things is more complex than need be. But that was Ron; very complex.
The truths of life are actually very simple. Truth is simple. Scientology is a Gordian Knot of complexity and falsehoods.
That is my experience.
My 2 Cents says
I agree with you up to a point. Anyone can experience the simple serenity of the absolute directly at any time, but only to the degree that his attention is free.
Scientology done correctly takes apart the relative creations in which a person has trapped his attention, thereby freeing him to experience the absolute.
Scientology tech is complex in its details because it parallels the complexity of people’s entrapment. Its most important principles, however, are very simple.
Intelligence is the ability to determine relative importances. Per that definition he tragedy of Scientology was due to the stupidity with which it was applied.
My 2 Cents says
Brian, one more point: Your description of good and evil is spot on and NOT different from early Scientology properly understood.
Mike Wynski says
My 2 Cents. By “early scamoloogy” I assume you mean the 50’s?
If so you are VERY wrong. Read the HCO Manual of Justice to see what Hubtard considered “evil”. It IS wildly different
I respect your take on things M2C. You make your argument minus personal attacks. I also respect that you find your path in a more saner approach in the Scientology way.
There may be a time in the future that this form of controlled looking will become more prevalent.
But there is a lot of garbage to take out before that party can be had.
Regarding complexity; it really is not necessary.
The path is endless. The expansion of knowledge is endless.
Terra Cognita says
Brian: I’d never thought of PTS tech as a philosophy of victim-hood. Thanks for pointing that out.
Old Surfer Dude says
+1! Absolutely correct!
Terra Cognita says
Brian: You acknowledge me plenty! Thanks, buddy.
Long ago I had noted that SP declare was not an ethics gradient. It was not listed on the levels of ethics gradients, however Expulsion was, and was the last gradient.
In my studies and application I concluded that this was because of the difference between ethics and justice actions and case state.
Hubbard explained what an SP was and it was a case state – stuck on the backtrack fighting unseen enemies in present time.
Thus the handling for an SP would be first ethics actions to get him to try to stop committing overts, (do a-e) and then case actions which then handled the true source. (and what was it – was it ExDN that he came up with and proclaimed that we can now ‘handle the psychotic’ (ie SP) …? (correct me if you recall)
But Scn was to help the able become more able so that we would be then big and strong enough to take on the SPs and Type IIIs of the world, and those damaged by psych treatment. They were last by necessity.
But as PTS people can take on the valence of an SP, they then can commit suppressive acts. We have ethics gradients to apply to such people, so that ethics can bring on more pressure than the bank. By applying ethics gradients the pressure of this would surmount that which was causing the pts person to go effect of the sp and commit these acts. Thus ethics gradients would be applied right up to expulsion. We knew that this was a kind thing to do, it was using our tech to make the person cause and not effect of an SP.
This was why we labelled them and left the door open a crack.
So in effect we had true 2.5ers and then we had the PTS who had gone effect and had to be kicked out until they came to their senses.
this is how I was able to stay in devout for so long.
I may be a raving lunatic at this point, but I was able to stay in because I was a master at making it all hang together for myself.
As the days have added to weeks and months, I’m seeing that I did most of the heavy lifting in brainwashing myself.
Eventually ones reasonableness about scientology collides with actual integrity.
Dave and Tom, or is that Tom and Dave?,
Both of you are Grade-A inconvenient-facts deniers. Your parallel universe is shrinking.
Old Surfer Dude says
Oh, c’mon, TFB! Let’s call a spade a spade! Both are insufferable assholes! Of the first degree, no less!
There is plenty of speculation that they use those insufferable holes as bonding mechanisms.
By the way, following the storms, have you noticed any bits and pieces of Dave’s Fringe of Hemet bunker washing out to sea?
It doesn’t matter in the mind of $cientologists which type of an SP you are. Lron’s list of ‘characteristics’ is hilarious and is fairly close to what psychologists call sociopaths and psychopaths. Both are more the type of people who become management or go into politics.
When the fecal matter hits the air circulating device, someone has to get the blame. That some one is often not the one causing the problem, it is the one who set policy and failed to adjust or change that policy when things went South. Someone like the Chairman of the Board.
All that blamestorming is useless if a Ka-Kahn is involved. And there is only one permanent Ka-Kahn in the $cientology. Everyone else is disposable and when all levels of management know they are disposable, expect a lot of management by proxy and by Dilberts pointy haired boss.
Doug Sprinkle says
I acknowledge that I just read this article and am in agreement with it. Can someone please mail me my SP declare? I feel that I deserve it.
Old Surfer Dude says
Damn right you do! You can always have the declare stamped on your forehead to make sure everyone knows. But, hey, that’s just me…..
Mike Wynski says
That 2nd list also has L. Fraud baked into it. DM & L. Fraud, two great “SP’s” that go great together!
* According to DoJ stats about 4% of the pop commit violent felonies (are SP’s). L. Fraud gets it wrong again.
And 2% of sociopaths recover from therapy.
Mike Wynski says
“recover from therapy”?
recover with the use of therapy by licensed therapists, their own statistic, used with their public education materials to identify and deal with sociopathic relationships
Mike Wynski says
Yes, only 2 out of 100 “recover” to no longer commit crimes. That matches known recidivism rates.
George M. White says
I was declared about 6 years ago and it was one of the best days of my life.
Finally finished with Scientology. Hubbard’s fundamentals are totally wrong so
it is natural that Scientology ends in a mess. Miscavige is probably one step away
from declaring all on earth suppressive. It will be his justification for taking all
of the money. The dividing line in Scientology is money. If you have money, you can never
be declared suppressive. If you have no money, you are inherently suppressive.
No money; no production. You are suppressive.
I never encountered any cult worse than Scientology. Hubbard promised so much; charged a
ton of money; delivered in the end nothing. I don’t mind cults. Some are fun.
Scientology was simply a long list of copied ideas from the 19th century occult base.
It is now only three centuries out of date.
Glad someone has finally ‘SOURCED’ Hubbard. LOL
Mike Wynski says
George M. We should have ALL realized that axiom as Hubbard himself declared that the only crime was to be without money. It is baked in to the scamology “religion”.
Thus once again, DM is following L. Fraud Tubbolard’s teachings to the letter.
And LRH described an SP ONLY based on how he or she acted towards Scientology. A bubble since then, a small narrow vision.
Yet, having a world around full of many people, a book that really helps to narrow down those that is better not to be close friends with, is The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout. Is worth reading Terra Cognita.
Elmo Tankmore says
I have this math from the Scientology Ethics book. 20% of the population is Suppressive; 2 1/2% of that 20% is dangerous. This makes 1/2% dangerous or 1 of 200 ppl dangerous Suppressive. Have I got that wrong?
Dave Fagen says
Literally, you are correct. But I don’t think that’s what he meant, as evidenced by so many other references that say a flat-out 2 1/2%, rather than 2 1/2% of 20%. So according to him, 20% are suppressive but 17-1/2% are not as dangerous as the 2-1/2%. I’m pretty sure I remember seeing one reference with the 17-1/2% figure as well.