More On Operation Funny Bone
Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/operation-funny-bone-berry-ltrs.html
Back in December last year, I wrote about Scientology’s "Operation
Funny Bone," which executed Hubbard’s 1977 order to "disenfranchise"
cartoonist Jim Berry for an innocuous cartoon in which Berry merely
mentioned Scientology. Dozens if not hundreds of Scientologists --
organization executives, staff members and non-staff covert operatives
-- were marshaled for this intelligence and black propaganda
conspiracy and operation to ruin Berry’s career.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/operation-funny-bone.html
Berry’s career was almost certainly saved by the FBI’s July 1977 raid
of the Scientology cult’s intelligence bureaus in Los Angeles,
California and Washington, D.C. The raid caused Hubbard, who was then
hiding out in La Quinta, California, to flee and to hide out even more
secretively in Sparks, Nevada. The raid also derailed certain intel
ops such as Funny Bone that Scientology had in operation at the time,
because the cult’s resources were consumed with the overarching threat
of exposure of the whole sordid and criminal Fair Game war the
cultists had been waging for years, against the government, media,
charitable organizations and private individuals, like Berry. In
fact, Operation Funny Bone documents were among the few documents made
public following the raid, out of the mountain of documents detailing
covert criminal ops to destroy people’s careers and lives that the FBI
seized in the raid.
In 1997, a.r.s. contributor Ray Randolph had an e-mail conversation
with Jim Berry about Scientology’s op to disenfranchise him, and
posted some of this exchange to the newsgroup. I have now received a
copy of two pages from the Fall 1997 issue of the Association of
American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) Notebook in which the
correspondence between Randolph and Berry was published as follows:
[Quote]
SCIENTOLOGY
versus
Jim Berry
Last month, former AAEC President Jim Berry found himself exchanging
e-mail with a man named "Ray Randolph." Here's a copy of their
correspondence, as provided by Jim:
11/11/97
Jim,
Greetings! I'm a long-term reader of yours, and a critic of the church
of scientology. In going through some recently uncovered documents
about scientology, I discovered some documents concerning yourself.
In 1977, you did a cartoon captioned, "I was into EST, Primal Therapy,
Yoga, Scientology, Hare Krishna, Transcendental Meditation -- Now I'm
into money!"
In response to this cartoon, L. Ron Hubbard ordered his followers
within the church of scientology to harass you in an attempt to cost
you your syndication. Some of the text of that original order:
INFORMATION: Jim Berry has 1.1ed [sic] Scientology in attached
cartoon: It is desired that this fellow no longer has a sindicated
[sic] publication.
MAJOR TARGET: To cause Jim Berry to lose his sindicated publication so
that he can no longer SP Scientology.
PRIMARY TARGETS: All US B1 Secs are on Post Operating.
The worthwhile purpose of this action is to remove JB from his
position of power, so that he cannot attack the C of S.
The "operation" of getting you removed from your syndication was
called "Operation Funny Bone." The church of scientology then
implemented investigations into your background, into your employers,
political leanings, finances, and much more. The operation was
uncovered during FBI raids of scientology offices in the very late
1970s, although no charges were ever brought for this particular
incident.
The documents that were discovered during those FBI raids were
recently posted to the internet by an individual calling himself
"RonIsXenu" at the alt.religion.scientology USENET Newsgroup, which is
populated almost entirely by scientology critics. The entirety of the
documents posted at that time, including an old, old photocopy of the
original Cartoon can be seen at this address:
http://www.ezlink.com/~rayr/doc/
My question is this: Would you Please consider writing something up
about that period of time during which you were harassed? Any feedback
at all. Were you aware of this? Did the FBI notify you when THEY found
these files or did you have any idea at all that any of this had
happened?
Can you relate any specific incidences of harassment from that period
of time?
Thank you very much for your time.
Regards,
Ray Randolph
*****
Dear Mr. Randolph:
Thanks for your message. The subject of Scientology brought back
upsetting memories.
Years ago a reader sent me an article about Scientology that appeared
in a northern Florida newspaper (Talahassee?). It was about how the
"church" operated with respect to dealing with the people on their
"enemies list." It seems I did one or two cartoons that they didn't
like. In the piece there was reference to "Operation 'Berry's World,'"
or some such title. It told about the leader of the church of
Scientology urging all of its members to write and call newspapers
across the country and complain about my feature telling editors and
publishers to drop "Berry's World." This was an organized effort to
kill my career and I had no idea that it was happening. It's a wonder
my feature survived the onslaught.
I decline to write anything further about this subject.
Sincerely,
Jim Berry
*****
Mr. Berry,
Thanks so much for your reply!
You might be pleased to know that the tables have turned somewhat on
Scientology. In 1995, in response to a few vocal critics on the
internet, scientology attempted to silence discussions critical of
itself that were taking place. The "internet culture," as it were, is
extremely sensitive to censorship, and the church's actions managed to
literally create tens of thousands of new "critics" of this church.
I, myself, am a computer nerd for Hewlett Packard who was introduced
to scientology through their heavy-handed censorship attempts on the
net. This "war with scientology" on the net has grown to become the
group's worst nightmare. Many, like me, have taken on this cause and
have become experts in the field of understanding and exposing
Scientology.
Unfortunately, the harassment you received was not the exception, it
was "the rule." Scientology holds that people who speak negatively
about it are "Suppressive persons," out to destroy the future of
mankind. Hence, scientology wasn't merely attacking you for saying bad
things -- in the mind of L. Ron Hubbard, you were destroying humanity!
The Mayor of Clearwater Florida, a journalist named Paulette Cooper,
an author named Jon Attack and countless other individuals have been
harassed in similar ways as yourself.
For the first time since the 1950s, an entity has taken on the church
of scientology than cannot be "harassed into silence." Thank god for
the internet.
Check out some pages regarding scientology on the net:
http://members.aol.com/blackpr/, and
http://www.ezlink.com/~rayr/scieno.htm (my main page)
Thanks again for your reply, and I shall certainly respect your wishes
to remain silent on the subject.
Regards,
Ray Randolph
*****
Jim,
Could I have permission to place your initial e-mail reply to me re:
"Berry's World/Scientology" on my web page?
Regards,
Ray Randolph
*****
Ray:
About putting my comments on your web site -- let me think about it!
Jim B.
*****
Response to my not wanting to appear on the Randolph Web Site
11/15/97
Ray,
I've been thinking over the idea of your posting my message to you on
your web site. I prefer that you do not do it. One of the reasons is
that Scientologists undoubtedly check out your site on a very regular
basis.
[They do, in fact, do this. -- RR]
The inclusion of my name and feature might be like waving a red flag
in front of a bull. As you may know, my approach to cartoons is one of
subtle humor. I am not what you would call an "attack-type" editorial
cartoonist. If the Scientologists decided to organize another drop
"Berry's World" campaign, it might be devastating to my career.
[I will respect this, although the days of those sorts of attacks on
people are over for the scientologists. Their hands are full with so
many active, aggressive critics, lawsuits, etc., and their resources
so taxed now, that I doubt they could do something if they wanted to.
They simply aren't the monolithic organization that they were in the
1970s. -- RR]
On the other hand, I think that such tactics used to destroy a
cartoonist or writer should be aired.
[We have to wonder how many others have been "shuddered into silence"
without any memorial at all? It's pure luck that the pages with your
name on them surfaced in the first place. -- RR]
Accordingly, I have sent a copy of our e-mail messages to the
Association of American Editorial Cartoonists for consideration for
publication in the organization's newsletter, the Notebook. I hope
that's all right with you. if it is not, please let me know, and I
shall withdraw the submission.
[Definitely all right! Although it should be mentioned that these
documents have been recently posted on the net and on discussion
groups. Discussions regarding your harassment have taken place in
forums known to be monitored by scientology.
As far as any harassment as a result of this coming out -- In my
professional opinion, you simply needn't worry about it. They've got
ten thousand much larger fish to fry these days, and Hubbard is dead
-- which managed to rob them of some small amount of their criminal
fanaticism.
Even so -- the proper response to any harassment is to be extremely
noisy about it. So do let me know should anything come up, you will
find that you have more support than you know what to do with. The
internet, and the freedom fighters who live here are an amazing bunch
of people.
It must be exceptionally creepy to see yourself discussed in these
documents. The "Operation Funnybone" documents are unique in that they
specifically implicate L. Ron Hubbard in crimes that were claimed by
the cult to have been done by "rogue agents" working within the
church. For that reason, they are exceptionally valuable to us critics
in exposing the true nature of this organization.
Are there any questions I can answer for you? Or any information I can
provide you in relation to all of this?]
Ray
*****
Dr. Michael Ray Randolph (ra...@ezlink.com) -- SP4 w/Clam Cluster
Unemployed German Psychiatrist, Prozac abuser, and rogue agent aiding
in the suppression of silly cults. Member: Cult of the Anti-Cult
$cientology KILLS T-shirts http://www.ezlink.com/~rayr/t-shirt/
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/operation-funny-bone-berry-ltrs.html
Images of the pages from the AAEC Notebook:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/op-funnybone-berry-ltrs.pdf
A set of Jim Berry cartoons (without, unfortunately, the one that
torched Hubbard’s shorts) is available on the AAEC’s web site:
http://info.detnews.com/aaec/
Click on Jim Berry on the "Members Portfolios" nav bar to get his
cartoons and a bio.
It’s an unhappy irony that Ray Randolph, who wrote that "the days of
those sorts of attacks on people are over for the scientologists" was
himself shuddered into silence with just those sorts of attacks. Ray
asks a great question: "We have to wonder how many others have been
"shuddered into silence" without any memorial at all?" You wouldn’t
have gotten any hits on Google with "Ray Randolph Memorial," but it’s
an entry that should be there. I met Ray briefly in Colorado once. I
wish him the best.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Spacetraveler
We have an unfinished communication. You may have missed it, I quote
the relevant parts below. I am still awaiting your response.
Spacetraveler
<snip>
> >> You will also want to add references to and condemnations of Fair Game
> >> from Scientology v. Armstrong LASC No. C 420153 (Breckenridge), the
> >> appellate decision in that case, Wollersheim v. Scientology appellate
> >> opinion, Re B & G Wards (Latey decision). These are important because
> >> they show the cult's leaders having knowledge of the execrableness of
> >> their Fair Game philosophy, policy and practice.
> >
> >Gerry,
> >
> >It seems like that people may not defend themselves when under attack.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> Examples?
Where you not there when all these things occured during the later
60's? I have understood that you at least have been in this
organization. Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
Scientology was under heavy artillery at times. Is one not allowed to
find some way to defend oneself against attacks? The simplicity of it
is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
> >On both your site AND that SPDL site the reference actually cancelling
> >fair game is not to be found.
> There is no cancellation of fair game. It has never been cancelled.
> Certain policy letters may have been "cancelled,"
Then quote ALL of these references! You base an opinion on these
sites like that the 21 July 1968 issue does not exist. You simply say
that only the use of the name was cancelled. Is that honest? Quote
ALL of them! I don't expect anything honorable from Fredric Rice, but
I don't think that you are like him.
> but fair game -- the
> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
> for criticism, decades ago.
Define criticism in this context. Policy is very well defined in the
Admin Dictionary, I assume you still have a copy of this. Policy is to
be followed, there are also a variety of policies which will defend
your rights if being wronged somehow. Do you deny that this is so?
> But on the subject of "cancellation" of policy letters, please see
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
>
> And now it is your turn to present your proof of your claim that fair
> game is actually cancelled. This will be an impossible task because
> fair game has never been cancelled.
Policy is policy. What do I care about some jerks.
During my time being intern for many years I have seen lots of idiots
doing the most insane stupid things. Does this make L. Ron Hubbard
wrong, don't see why it should. Did all things went well when
Christianity was first introdued? People anywhere are most of the time
quite unpredictable and irrational.
> Policy letters may or may not be policy. Policy letters may or may not
> be followed. Policy may be counter to or in violation of what is
> stated in policy letters. The policy may be to ignore or act in
> violation of what is stated in policy letters. They are the basis of any
> action or inaction of the organization.
> With the Scientology organization this is quite clearly the policy.
Was there any time that you did NOT enforce policy when you should
have when you were there? DID YOU?
> >Attack, but do it on 'proper' grounds. Find the 'right' target.
>
> And the "Suppressive Person" doctrine guarantees you won't find the
> "right target." The SP doctrine is set up to create wrong targets --
> good, loving people to attack. It's really nice for Scientologists to
> have a class of people to fair game who are good, loving ones who
> don't have the resources or the mindset to attack back. No wonder the
> Scientologists feel so OT. Cowards.
This is the way David Miscavige and friends go about it, this however
is not Scientology. This is other practices.
> The "Suppressive Persons" Scientology targets are no more "right
> targets" than all the Jews the Nazis fair gamed were the "right
> targets."
After my many years being intern and my understanding of these things
I happen to disagree with that.
Spacetraveler
wbarwell
Scientology was under attack for good reason. Hubbard escalated it with
his "fair game" policies and his bully boy tactics against critics and
squirrels. "They MADE us do it, it wasn't out fault!"
Utter bullshit. Hubbard was a rank pseudoscientist and was criticized as
such. His outragoues claims in Dianetics made him a lightening rod.
Rarther than admitfacts, his lies about his careere as nuclear phyicist,
war hero and discoverer of the law of human thought were bullshit, he chose
to attack savagely all who opposed him.
He started on a downward spiral that was Cult at the end with a capitol C.
"They MADE us attack them, we didn't want to do it!"
What bullshit.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
mgo...@chello.nl
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
<3d6pe01n2u1s1osdt...@4ax.com>:
>It’s an unhappy irony that Ray Randolph, who wrote that "the days of
>those sorts of attacks on people are over for the scientologists" was
>himself shuddered into silence with just those sorts of attacks. Ray
>asks a great question: "We have to wonder how many others have been
>"shuddered into silence" without any memorial at all?" You wouldn’t
>have gotten any hits on Google with "Ray Randolph Memorial," but it’s
>an entry that should be there. I met Ray briefly in Colorado once. I
>wish him the best.
Who says Ray was shuddered into silence? As far as I know he simply let
his domain expire and went on with his life. It is no secret who
RonIsXenu was after Ray was outed by a nasty clam.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=347a4559.88003778%40news.zippo.com
--
Mike Gormez
- WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace http://stop-wise.biz/
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
- Hubbard on psychs http://whyaretheydead.net/misc/scientology_hatred_of_psychiatry.html
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>Gerry,
>
>We have an unfinished communication. You may have missed it, I quote
>the relevant parts below. I am still awaiting your response.
Excellent. I have hoped a long time to have a conversation with a
Scientologist on this basis.
>
>Spacetraveler
>
>See:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407030440.583717f7%40posting.google.com
>
>
><snip>
>
>> >> You will also want to add references to and condemnations of Fair Game
>> >> from Scientology v. Armstrong LASC No. C 420153 (Breckenridge), the
>> >> appellate decision in that case, Wollersheim v. Scientology appellate
>> >> opinion, Re B & G Wards (Latey decision). These are important because
>> >> they show the cult's leaders having knowledge of the execrableness of
>> >> their Fair Game philosophy, policy and practice.
>> >
>> >Gerry,
>> >
>> >It seems like that people may not defend themselves when under attack.
>>
>> What do you mean?
>>
>> Examples?
>
>Where you not there when all these things occured during the later
>60's?
Please identify all these things you call "all these things" to which
you're referring.
>I have understood that you at least have been in this
>organization.
Wherever did you pick up this understanding? Did you read this site?
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
> Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
>others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
That's probably untrue, but in any case an irrelevancy. Would you say
that Paulette Cooper has no personal experience of Fair Game? A
reasonable person would say that she has years of personal experience
of Fair Game.
But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
the "Suppressive Person" doctrine? Have you done any of the
Suppressive Person indoctrination courses such as "How to Shatter
Suppression" or the "PTS/SP Detection and Routing" course or
"Overcoming Ups and Downs in Life" course or any of the variations of
these? Have you ever had a PTS C/S 1 indoctrination?
Using your standard, since you are a Scientologist, you have no
personal experience whatsoever of the wog world® would you not agree?
And you have no personal experience whatsoever of wogs® would you also
not agree? So you have no personal experience whatsoever of
indisputable wogs® Fred Rice and Charles Barwell on which to base your
claims and opinions about them, would you also not agree?
>Scientology was under heavy artillery at times.
Please detail what "heavy artillery" the cult was under and at which
times.
It is very obvious to me that Hubbard invented "attacks" from
"enemies" to be able to "motivate" and to "justify" his fair gaming of
good people.
See, e.g., HCOPL 16 Februray 1969 "Battle Tactics." Hubbard writes:
[Quote]
This is a Defense Paper on material developed after 18 years of
ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy.
[...]
But there are also wars of attrition. We are engaged in one where
total destruction of us has been the enemy's aim for, at this writing,
19 years. This is barbarian warfare, thus the enemy must have had very
positive fears and terrors about us. Since he fought for total
attrition.
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1969-02-16-battle-tactics.html
There is, of course, no proof whatsoever of these claims by Hubbard of
18 years of ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy (the Marcabians?), or
of this "enemy" waging a 19-year war of "total attrition" against
Scientology the aim of which was the cultists' "total destruction."
But if you can identify this "enemy" that Hubbard generalizes about
here, and also identify all the incidents, with supporting
documentation, that comprise that 18 years of ceaseless attack by a
foreign enemy, and comprise that 19-year war of "total attrition"
against Scientology the aim of which was the cultists' "total
destruction," now is a great opportunity.
After manufacturing this "enemy," who is nothing more than good people
identified as "Suppressive Persons," Hubbard orders these attacks:
- waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
- going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
- expending the maximum of SPs;
- making the war costly to the SPs;
- cutting off SPs' communications;
- cutting off SPs' funds;
- cutting off SPs' connections;
- depriving SPs of political advantages;
- depriving SPs of connections;
- depriving SPs of power;
- taking over SPs' territory;
- raiding SPs;
- harassing SPs;
- making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
- bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
- using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
- degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
- capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
- treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
That is Fair Game.
> Is one not allowed to
>find some way to defend oneself against attacks?
Well sure. But remember that Scientology does not permit "defend."
Only "attack."
And the "some way" that Hubbard ordered is Fair Game.
Hubbard could have ordered that Scientology not respond, or that they
respond with reason, truth and a higher level communication. Instead
he ordered that Scientologists respond with unreason, lies and low,
nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication, with attacks
on persons.
That is why it is impossible to find a Scientologist that responds
with reason, truth and a higher level communication. It is necessary
to leave Scientology to be able to respond in that manner. And, of
course, leaving Scientology is considered by the Fair Gamers a "High
Crime" or "Suppressive Act," which must be responded to with unreason,
lies and low, nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication.
Also, a private army, or navy, is not allowed to wage war against
citizens, even if claiming it is waging the war to defend itself from
attacks. The Scientology cult is in the military/law enforcement zone
in its activities, plus seeks to infiltrate, influence and dominate
those zones.
> The simplicity of it
>is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
Game.
Also, you seek to position or define Fair Game as a *response* or a
*defense* to attacks. That positioning or definition is, however,
completely fallacious. Hubbard lets slip the reality, that Fair Game
is a philosphy, policy and practice of preemptive attacks and war, in
HCOPL 25 February 1966:
[Quote]
To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and
expose _before_ they attack us.
[End Quote]
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl-1966-02-25-attacks-on-scn-txt.html
(Emphasis is Hubbard's.)
And Hubbard orders in the same policy letters what this preemptive,
pre-attack exposure is to be:
[Quote]
You can elaborate on the evidence we have found and lay it on thick
attacking the attackers [_before_ they attack] only.
[...]
Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the
attackers to the press.
[End Quote]
That's Fair Game.
>
>> >On both your site AND that SPDL site the reference actually cancelling
>> >fair game is not to be found.
>
>http://mccalcon.notlong.com
>
>> There is no cancellation of fair game. It has never been cancelled.
>> Certain policy letters may have been "cancelled,"
>
>Then quote ALL of these references!
What references? You can quote them if you want. I think you're trying
to prove an irrelevancy, for which there is no proof.
Fair game is the philosophy, policy and practice of Scientology.
Hubbard lays out in "Battle Tactics" what is to be done to SPs.
"Battle Tactics" is still a Scientology cult policy letter. The Fair
Game tactics Hubbard ordered in "Battle Tactics" are still the cult's
tactics.
Call it my hidden standard, but I believe I will know when Fair Game
ceases to be Scientology's philosophy, policy and practice. You don't
recognize this very basic philosophy, policy and practice so wouldn't
know if they ever stopped.
> You base an opinion on these
>sites like that the 21 July 1968 issue does not exist.
What sites? What do you claim I'm basing my opinion on? What opinion?
> You simply say
>that only the use of the name was cancelled. Is that honest?
Yes. Scientology's and Scientologists' assertion that the philosophy,
policy and practice of Fair Game was all cancelled, when all that was
"cancelled" was use of the term "Fair Game" is what is dishonest.
What Hubbard orders in "Battle Tactics" be done to SPs is Fair Game:
- waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
- going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
- expending the maximum of SPs;
- making the war costly to the SPs;
- cutting off SPs' communications;
- cutting off SPs' funds;
- cutting off SPs' connections;
- depriving SPs of political advantages;
- depriving SPs of connections;
- depriving SPs of power;
- taking over SPs' territory;
- raiding SPs;
- harassing SPs;
- making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
- bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
- using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
- degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
- capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
- treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
The philosophy, policy and practice of Fair Game is utterly obvious in
this policy letter. The PL simply doesn't use the term "Fair Game."
Do you agree that Hubbard was judicially declared a pathological liar?
This is another great opportunity for you to do some actual honest
research about ALL the lies Hubbard told . Hubbard needs it.
> Quote
>ALL of them!
All of what?
I'd like you to quote ALL of Hubbard's lies. That would be very useful
in this discussion of honesty relating to Scientology.
> I don't expect anything honorable from Fredric Rice, but
>I don't think that you are like him.
>
>> but fair game -- the
>> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
>> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
>> for criticism, decades ago.
>
>Define criticism in this context.
Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
[Quote]
Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
criminal pasts.
[End Quote]
I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who do
not have criminal pasts.
Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
Will you acknowledge that Hubbard lied in his HCOBs and HCOPLs?
I am a critic, e.g., of Hubbard's "Suppressive Person" doctrine. I say
it is a dishonest, dangerous, evil and criminal doctrine. That's a
criticism.
You have so far refused to address the dishonesty, danger, evil and
criminality of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine. This is a criticism
of you.
> Policy is very well defined in the
>Admin Dictionary, I assume you still have a copy of this.
Let's see what Webster says: "a definite course or method of action
selected to guide and determine present and future actions."
And let's see what Hubbard says: "a definite course or method of
action selected to guide and determine future actions."
Hubbard also says: "a principle by which the conduct of affairs can be
guided."
HCO PL 25 November 1970
> Policy is to
>be followed, there are also a variety of policies which will defend
>your rights if being wronged somehow. Do you deny that this is so?
Yes I do.
I have been wronged by the Scientology cult and Scientologists. Please
identify what "policies" are being violated by the cult and the
cultists in what has been done to me. And identify what "policies"
will defend my rights against these wrongs being perpetrated by the
cult and its cultists.
>
>
>> But on the subject of "cancellation" of policy letters, please see
>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
>>
>> And now it is your turn to present your proof of your claim that fair
>> game is actually cancelled. This will be an impossible task because
>> fair game has never been cancelled.
>
>Policy is policy. What do I care about some jerks.
It's your overt-motivator sequence.
>
>During my time being intern for many years
What does this mean?
Please identify all your posts in the cult, when and where you held
each, and what training and processing you did when and where.
> I have seen lots of idiots
>doing the most insane stupid things.
Please identify each Scientologist you've seen whom you believe is an
idiot, and exactly what insane stupid things each identified
Scientologist idiot did and when.
> Does this make L. Ron Hubbard
>wrong,
Well, it's a part of what makes Hubbard wrong. There are all sorts of
things Hubbard said and did that make him wrong. As part of your
research, please identify ALL those things that make Hubbard wrong.
When, e.g., Hubbard says "Scientology works," and it is speedily and
eminently provable that it doesn't, that makes him wrong.
Hubbard makes Hubbard wrong. His dishonesty makes him wrong. The lies
told by Scientologists representing the organization he built make him
a bit wrong. Same with all the abuses and crimes perpetrated by
Scientologists. Same with Scientologists' illnesses, accidents and
deaths. They all add to Hubbard's wrongness. Scientologists, not wogs
(R) make Hubbard wrong.
They can't in reality, but Scientologists aren't allowed to believe in
reality. They believe in the ego, their illusions about themselves.
Hubbard too was a big believer in his ego, so he would see the
failures of his "tech," and his followers being such liars and crooks,
as making him plenty wrong.
>don't see why it should.
Look a little more deeply.
>Did all things went well when
>Christianity was first introdued?
All things didn't went well when the wheel was first introduced
either.
> People anywhere are most of the time
>quite unpredictable and irrational.
Oh, you're a merchant of fear? I assume you're including yourself in
the group you call "people," and it doesn't give me a great deal of
confidence.
>
>
>> Policy letters may or may not be policy. Policy letters may or may not
>> be followed. Policy may be counter to or in violation of what is
>> stated in policy letters. The policy may be to ignore or act in
>> violation of what is stated in policy letters. They are the basis of any
>> action or inaction of the organization.
>> With the Scientology organization this is quite clearly the policy.
>
>Was there any time that you did NOT enforce policy when you should
>have when you were there? DID YOU?
I'm not sure what you mean. You appear to still be beating the dead
policy horse. Policy may or may not be what is written in policy
letters. That's the policy. Orders are senior to "policy." That's the
policy. Arbitraries are senior to "policy." That's policy.
So, provide your list of ALL the times on each of your posts in the
cult when you did NOT enforce policy when you should have.
>
>
>> >Attack, but do it on 'proper' grounds. Find the 'right' target.
>>
>> And the "Suppressive Person" doctrine guarantees you won't find the
>> "right target." The SP doctrine is set up to create wrong targets --
>> good, loving people to attack. It's really nice for Scientologists to
>> have a class of people to fair game who are good, loving ones who
>> don't have the resources or the mindset to attack back. No wonder the
>> Scientologists feel so OT. Cowards.
>
>This is the way David Miscavige and friends go about it, this however
>is not Scientology.
No, this is false. What Miscavige and his cult do *is* Scientology.
You are defending and protecting Miscavige and his thugs when you make
this claim.
What Scientology, the Miscavige regimers, are doing probably isn't
found in Scientology policy letters, but that abusive, criminal
activity is most definitely Scientology. Not putting its actual
criminal policies in written directives or policy letters is
Scientology policy. A vital function of policy letters, both during
Hubbard's rule and now during Miscavige's dictatorship, is to hide
policy.
Your function could be similar. You appear to be trying to cloak what
is Scientology and what is Scientology policy with what is stated in
policy letters that are intended to hide policy, and with your
obfuscation "tech."
>This is other practices.
No it is not. Fair Game is a Hubbard policy and practice, and now it
is a Miscavige policy and practice, and Fair Game is Scientology.
Scientology without Fair Game would not be Scientology. Scientology
not hiding its actual policies behind contradictory policy letters
would not be Scientology.
You have failed to prove otherwise.
>
>
>> The "Suppressive Persons" Scientology targets are no more "right
>> targets" than all the Jews the Nazis fair gamed were the "right
>> targets."
>
>After my many years being intern
What does this mean? Please identify each post or hat you held in
Scientology, when and where.
> and my understanding of these things
>I happen to disagree with that.
I guess you'd have to disagree that the good people targeted as
"Suppressive Persons" by the Scientology cultists are being wrong
targeted. You'd have to, to do what you do.
But please identify in any case each person you know of who has ever
been targeted as a "Suppressive Person" and detail exactly why the
targeting of each person as an "SP" was a right targeting.
Here, start with me.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ga-sp-declare.html
And here's the Fair Game page:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html
>
>Spacetraveler
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Spacetraveler
> On 8 Jul 2004 03:35:01 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >Gerry,
> >
> >We have an unfinished communication. You may have missed it, I quote
> >the relevant parts below. I am still awaiting your response.
>
> Excellent. I have hoped a long time to have a conversation with a
> Scientologist on this basis.
<snip>
>
> Please identify all these things you call "all these things" to which
> you're referring.
Whatever that was happening during the time you were there. I believe
you speak about these things on your site.
> > Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
> >others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
>
> That's probably untrue, but in any case an irrelevancy.
Definitely not, those who have not actually been there can not relate
all information properly, they can only rely on hearsay and others.
Persons who have been there can in fact tell from what they have
experienced and seen, Rice, Barwell and others never speak in these
lines.
> Would you say
> that Paulette Cooper has no personal experience of Fair Game? A
> reasonable person would say that she has years of personal experience
> of Fair Game.
Some others does not automatically include Paulette Cooper, does it?
> But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
> What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
> the "Suppressive Person" doctrine?
I don't think it will suit any purpose to tell about that without
directly relating it to matters discussed. Anyhow I have been involved
with many missions (longterm establishment projects actually), have
been posted in CMO and various HCO's (Flag & LA). I do not intend to
disclose personal details, I prefer to keep my anonimity for personal
reasons.
> Have you done any of the
> Suppressive Person indoctrination courses such as "How to Shatter
> Suppression" or the "PTS/SP Detection and Routing" course or
> "Overcoming Ups and Downs in Life" course or any of the variations of
> these? Have you ever had a PTS C/S 1 indoctrination?
Actually no, haven't done any of the above. I was however ethics & msn
trained.
> Using your standard, since you are a Scientologist, you have no
> personal experience whatsoever of the wog world® would you not agree?
Disagree. I came into Scientology quite late. Have done quite some
studies prior to getting involved. Amongst other history, geology,
mythology, some psychology and various other subjects.
> And you have no personal experience whatsoever of wogs® would you also
> not agree? So you have no personal experience whatsoever of
> indisputable wogs® Fred Rice and Charles Barwell on which to base your
> claims and opinions about them, would you also not agree?
Disagree as explained above. Assuming business is no good business. I
think that my judgement about those 2 persons are pretty accurate.
Their behaviour towards acknowledge that.
> >Scientology was under heavy artillery at times.
>
> Please detail what "heavy artillery" the cult was under and at which
> times.
Mid/later-60s for one, Scientology was attacked in the media, there
are various books that also talk about these things published early
70s or nearabouts. It caused KSW to be written and fair game
implemented.
Defining what a Suppressive Person is may clarify that. And then if
you studied the history of man through all ages you can perceive some
pattern of behaviour towards information/doctrines/studies that claim
to free man in some way. I studied history very extensively. With my
understanding of all that it would be very incongruous to assume that
Scientology would not have been met with such opposition.
>
> > Is one not allowed to
> >find some way to defend oneself against attacks?
>
> Well sure. But remember that Scientology does not permit "defend."
> Only "attack."
Depends what it is about, it does not forbid it, does it.
>
> And the "some way" that Hubbard ordered is Fair Game.
>
> Hubbard could have ordered that Scientology not respond, or that they
> respond with reason, truth and a higher level communication. Instead
> he ordered that Scientologists respond with unreason, lies and low,
> nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication, with attacks
> on persons.
There is a gradient scale for such. HCOPL Ethics Review, look it up.
Meaning it is not true what you say, I never did any of all that when
I was there and I still don't at this time.
> That is why it is impossible to find a Scientologist that responds
> with reason, truth and a higher level communication. It is necessary
> to leave Scientology to be able to respond in that manner. And, of
> course, leaving Scientology is considered by the Fair Gamers a "High
> Crime" or "Suppressive Act," which must be responded to with unreason,
> lies and low, nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication.
Is not true actually. It suffices to refer to the applicable
references. I had little problem with leaving in that respect. Where
does it say that leaving is a suppressive act or a high crime?
Another side however is the agreements of staff and so on. Many of
those consider you somehow to desert the group, and you may very well
be treated like some enemy. But this is what people do. May I also
remind you of that few staff went to study! They were supposed to take
their 2½ hour on a daily basis, how many did that? And if you don't
study you don't get the tools how to deal with things happening in the
organization either. And then you make up your own little squirrel
activity.
> Also, a private army, or navy, is not allowed to wage war against
> citizens, even if claiming it is waging the war to defend itself from
> attacks. The Scientology cult is in the military/law enforcement zone
> in its activities, plus seeks to infiltrate, influence and dominate
> those zones.
It seems to be that way at this time, yes.
> > The simplicity of it
> >is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
>
> No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
> by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
> If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
> totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
> then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
> SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
>
> If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
> and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
> necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
> Game.
Only criticisms, or not agreeing with Scientology does not get you
fair gaimed. It needs a little more doingness. And please don't call
it my organization, it isn't. It is this simple, if you have a cougar
jumping on you, you better do something, if not you will surely die.
> Also, you seek to position or define Fair Game as a *response* or a
> *defense* to attacks. That positioning or definition is, however,
> completely fallacious. Hubbard lets slip the reality, that Fair Game
> is a philosphy, policy and practice of preemptive attacks and war, in
> HCOPL 25 February 1966:
>
> [Quote]
>
> To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and
> expose _before_ they attack us.
>
> [End Quote]
> http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl-1966-02-25-attacks-on-scn-txt.html
> (Emphasis is Hubbard's.)
Problem is that this is not necessarily connected to some practice of
fair game. What is wrong with preparing your defence prior to being
attacked. People have doen this through all ages on any kind of
premises.
>
> And Hubbard orders in the same policy letters what this preemptive,
> pre-attack exposure is to be:
>
> [Quote]
>
> You can elaborate on the evidence we have found and lay it on thick
> attacking the attackers [_before_ they attack] only.
> [...]
> Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the
> attackers to the press.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> That's Fair Game.
It says "actual evidence", this is not the same as making up stuff.
> >> >On both your site AND that SPDL site the reference actually cancelling
> >> >fair game is not to be found.
> >
> >http://mccalcon.notlong.com
> >
> >> There is no cancellation of fair game. It has never been cancelled.
> >> Certain policy letters may have been "cancelled,"
> >
> >Then quote ALL of these references!
>
> What references? You can quote them if you want. I think you're trying
> to prove an irrelevancy, for which there is no proof.
You should have gone to the link I provided. They are all there to be
found.
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
Both these references are quoted in full on that site. I recall having
seen the first one at some time, I checked and I actually own a copy
of the second one, an original 'green on white'. What more proof do
you want?
> Fair game is the philosophy, policy and practice of Scientology.
>
> Hubbard lays out in "Battle Tactics" what is to be done to SPs.
> "Battle Tactics" is still a Scientology cult policy letter. The Fair
> Game tactics Hubbard ordered in "Battle Tactics" are still the cult's
> tactics.
You are not referring to some broad publication issue: Central Orgs
Continental, Gos, PRO & Intelligence. That's not very many people. You
tell me that all Scientologists lie to you or something like that. It
was not standard practice to be used by all Scientologists. I recall
you even had to sign a bond to even be allowed to read it. Extreme
danger requires extreme action. I may not really like some parts,
however I can imagine that some times things can get rough.
> Call it my hidden standard, but I believe I will know when Fair Game
> ceases to be Scientology's philosophy, policy and practice. You don't
> recognize this very basic philosophy, policy and practice so wouldn't
> know if they ever stopped.
I don't recognize? Why do you think that?
> > You base an opinion on these
> >sites like that the 21 July 1968 issue does not exist.
>
> What sites? What do you claim I'm basing my opinion on? What opinion?
>
> > You simply say
> >that only the use of the name was cancelled. Is that honest?
>
> Yes. Scientology's and Scientologists' assertion that the philosophy,
> policy and practice of Fair Game was all cancelled, when all that was
> "cancelled" was use of the term "Fair Game" is what is dishonest.
You don't mention:
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
Why not? They exist! You can quote them and still say: "But they did
not follow them." What is the problem? Let your readers decide, only
don't leave out references that do exist.
> What Hubbard orders in "Battle Tactics" be done to SPs is Fair Game:
> - waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
> - going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
> - expending the maximum of SPs;
> - making the war costly to the SPs;
> - cutting off SPs' communications;
> - cutting off SPs' funds;
> - cutting off SPs' connections;
> - depriving SPs of political advantages;
> - depriving SPs of connections;
> - depriving SPs of power;
> - taking over SPs' territory;
> - raiding SPs;
> - harassing SPs;
> - making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
> - bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
> - using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
> - degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
> - capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
> - treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
>
> The philosophy, policy and practice of Fair Game is utterly obvious in
> this policy letter. The PL simply doesn't use the term "Fair Game."
Again, it was not broad publication issue at all. I actually know of
very few people who knew about this while being inside of the
organization. I knew about it because I had access to these kind of
things. I am a curious type, I look and read. A missionair was also
trained to be like that.
> Do you agree that Hubbard was judicially declared a pathological liar?
> This is another great opportunity for you to do some actual honest
> research about ALL the lies Hubbard told . Hubbard needs it.
>
> > Quote
> >ALL of them!
>
> All of what?
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
> I'd like you to quote ALL of Hubbard's lies. That would be very useful
> in this discussion of honesty relating to Scientology.
In my opinion it is dishonest to quote the 1967 fair game issue & the
21 Oct 1968 issue, but not the 21 July 1968 issue, nor the the 6 Oct
1970 issue, sorry. At least in writing as these issues lay out, the
practice of fair gaiming was cancelled. I said at least IN WRITING.
May be as you say they continued with it any way, but this is a
different matter. So treat them differently. Tell about both these
sides. If you don't mention them and people will find out about them
later on (and I have been throwing these issues in peoples faces
lately), they will start being critcal about what you have to say
elsewhere.
> > I don't expect anything honorable from Fredric Rice, but
> >I don't think that you are like him.
Fredric ignores this matter completely. He didn't add anything on his
fairgamed.org site (at least not the last time I looked)
> >> but fair game -- the
> >> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
> >> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
> >> for criticism, decades ago.
> >
> >Define criticism in this context.
>
> Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
> faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
> accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
> Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
>
> [Quote]
>
> Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
> have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
> found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
> existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
> criminal pasts.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
> find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
> lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who do
> not have criminal pasts.
>
> Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
Did he? "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
on. It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
This HCOB is probably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
clear up that issue or to get lost.
> Will you acknowledge that Hubbard lied in his HCOBs and HCOPLs?
I have questioned many things in his writings and I still may disagree
with him on various points, but I do not perceive he was lying, sorry.
> I am a critic, e.g., of Hubbard's "Suppressive Person" doctrine. I say
> it is a dishonest, dangerous, evil and criminal doctrine. That's a
> criticism.
It is not 1.1 if you can back it up. At least in MY opinion it is not!
> You have so far refused to address the dishonesty, danger, evil and
> criminality of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine. This is a criticism
> of you.
I have never refused that! I explained most of this in the foresaid.
Scientology claims to want only the good for all and so on. Those not
wanting that are opposing those goals. In that sense those who
actively are opposing that are most of the time referred to as
Suppressive persons. There are these characteristics (12), should be
easy. Once I had a person in an ethics hearing saying to me that I may
should look at that I might be a suppressive person because I had
displayed one of these 12 chacteristics at one time. ... and another
idiot came along .... This person was forgetting that one looks at the
majority of these characteristic of social or anti social. I met quite
a few of such individuals. Again this is what people do.
> > Policy is very well defined in the
> >Admin Dictionary, I assume you still have a copy of this.
>
> Let's see what Webster says: "a definite course or method of action
> selected to guide and determine present and future actions."
>
> And let's see what Hubbard says: "a definite course or method of
> action selected to guide and determine future actions."
>
> Hubbard also says: "a principle by which the conduct of affairs can be
> guided."
>
> HCO PL 25 November 1970
>
>
> > Policy is to
> >be followed, there are also a variety of policies which will defend
> >your rights if being wronged somehow. Do you deny that this is so?
>
> Yes I do.
So we don't have the Creed of the Church of Scientology, justice
policies, orders, query of and so on.
> I have been wronged by the Scientology cult and Scientologists. Please
> identify what "policies" are being violated by the cult and the
> cultists in what has been done to me. And identify what "policies"
> will defend my rights against these wrongs being perpetrated by the
> cult and its cultists.
>
> >
> >
> >> But on the subject of "cancellation" of policy letters, please see
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
> >>
> >> And now it is your turn to present your proof of your claim that fair
> >> game is actually cancelled. This will be an impossible task because
> >> fair game has never been cancelled.
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
> >
> >Policy is policy. What do I care about some jerks.
>
> It's your overt-motivator sequence.
Hardly, and you don't believe in this sequence anyway (or do you)?
> >During my time being intern for many years
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Please identify all your posts in the cult, when and where you held
> each, and what training and processing you did when and where.
I don't want to make it obvious who I am by giving all that
information. However I can share some of these things if relating to
the matter discussed. Besides that it doesn't say much what training
one has done. I have seen highly trained individuals as it seemed
unable to apply anthing they supposedly had learned. I was never
impressed by ribbons they had on their jackets, I looked at their
actions.
>
> > I have seen lots of idiots
> >doing the most insane stupid things.
>
> Please identify each Scientologist you've seen whom you believe is an
> idiot, and exactly what insane stupid things each identified
> Scientologist idiot did and when.
I can fill up a book with this, quite some things happened during a
variety of years. I disclosed some of them to Tory Bezazian in a
response to her. Quoted below:
I recall that people said at Flag that one was not allowed to read
newspapers. It's all bad news and so on. But then LRH does not forbid
you to not read a newspaper. I recall that we had that weekly tapeplay
in the auditorium at Fort Harrison, and there we had FSO HCO personnel
stopping people from leaving that tapeplay before the end of the tape.
Because they said that one had to give honor to LRH first before
leaving the room, and this was done by clapping hands and screaming
"To LRH" or something like that. And they could not do this before the
end of the tape, so people where physically stopped from leaving. Also
foreigners who's first language was not english (and there were quite
a few of them) HAD to attendtapeplay. I recall a supervisor being send
to RPF only because she asked: "Where is it written that one has to
clap your hands for LRH after finishing the daily 2½ hours study
term?" She was send to RPF, stats crashed in the courseroom and she
was returned to the courseroom(wrong why apparently). This is all
crazy. I can write a thick volumeof all such idiocy I have seen. This
is what people do. LRH did not advice any of these things.
>
> > Does this make L. Ron Hubbard
> >wrong,
>
> Well, it's a part of what makes Hubbard wrong. There are all sorts of
> things Hubbard said and did that make him wrong. As part of your
> research, please identify ALL those things that make Hubbard wrong.
>
> When, e.g., Hubbard says "Scientology works," and it is speedily and
> eminently provable that it doesn't, that makes him wrong.
Generally I find that people did not duplicate something and did
somthing else then what he actually said. This is not making him
wrong. I even caught myself judging that he was wrong about something
and then 10 years later I find out it was my own misconception, and
this doesn't mean it took 10 years to indoctrinate me with some
fix-idea.
> Hubbard makes Hubbard wrong. His dishonesty makes him wrong. The lies
> told by Scientologists representing the organization he built make him
> a bit wrong.
I don't see how, sorry. This is peoples doing.
> Same with all the abuses and crimes perpetrated by
> Scientologists. Same with Scientologists' illnesses, accidents and
> deaths. They all add to Hubbard's wrongness. Scientologists, not wogs
> (R) make Hubbard wrong.
No, disagree. This is people. If you say: "Turn left!" and you
persist to turn to the right and you fall down in some canyon, you may
blame yourself. You can't blame L. Ron Hubbard for your mixing up the
left and right. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
> They can't in reality, but Scientologists aren't allowed to believe in
> reality. They believe in the ego, their illusions about themselves.
> Hubbard too was a big believer in his ego, so he would see the
> failures of his "tech," and his followers being such liars and crooks,
> as making him plenty wrong.
No, people again. Many I've seen were somehow stuck in themselves,
however they generally also wanted to help, it was their blindness
that made them not look and doing the right thing.
>
> >don't see why it should.
>
> Look a little more deeply.
>
> >Did all things went well when
> >Christianity was first introdued?
>
> All things didn't went well when the wheel was first introduced
> either.
>
> > People anywhere are most of the time
> >quite unpredictable and irrational.
>
> Oh, you're a merchant of fear?
No, the reality of life itself. I studied history, politics and so on.
There is an obvious pattern in all of that.
> I assume you're including yourself in
> the group you call "people," and it doesn't give me a great deal of
> confidence.
I don't intend to give you that confidence. Look at what I say, get
the concept of it and judge for yourself. Nothing is be taken or
accepted blindly, nothing at all. We are offering eachother the same
deal. That's all.
> >> Policy letters may or may not be policy. Policy letters may or may not
> >> be followed. Policy may be counter to or in violation of what is
> >> stated in policy letters. The policy may be to ignore or act in
> >> violation of what is stated in policy letters. They are the basis of any
> >> action or inaction of the organization.
> >> With the Scientology organization this is quite clearly the policy.
> >
> >Was there any time that you did NOT enforce policy when you should
> >have when you were there? DID YOU?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. You appear to still be beating the dead
> policy horse. Policy may or may not be what is written in policy
> letters. That's the policy. Orders are senior to "policy." That's the
> policy. Arbitraries are senior to "policy." That's policy.
Actually no, orders are only issued if not wearing your hat, which
means not enforcing policy. Orders are only senior to policy if in
some emergency situations. And orders can be queried as well, you are
never, never, never to follow them up blindly. There is very clear
policy about that!
> So, provide your list of ALL the times on each of your posts in the
> cult when you did NOT enforce policy when you should have.
I may have hesitated at times, but I did enforce policies and stood up
for my rights whatever oppostion, I never lost my integrity at any
time.
> >> >Attack, but do it on 'proper' grounds. Find the 'right' target.
> >>
> >> And the "Suppressive Person" doctrine guarantees you won't find the
> >> "right target." The SP doctrine is set up to create wrong targets --
> >> good, loving people to attack. It's really nice for Scientologists to
> >> have a class of people to fair game who are good, loving ones who
> >> don't have the resources or the mindset to attack back. No wonder the
> >> Scientologists feel so OT. Cowards.
> >
> >This is the way David Miscavige and friends go about it, this however
> >is not Scientology.
>
> No, this is false. What Miscavige and his cult do *is* Scientology.
I described earlier what the aims of Scientology are (or what it
claims to be), this definition should be used. In that context fair
gaming, injustice, waving away one's rights and so on is not
Scientology.
> You are defending and protecting Miscavige and his thugs when you make
> this claim.
Hardly, when exactly recognizing the situation.
> What Scientology, the Miscavige regimers, are doing probably isn't
> found in Scientology policy letters
This all by itself makes it not being Scientology.
>, but that abusive, criminal
> activity is most definitely Scientology. Not putting its actual
> criminal policies in written directives or policy letters is
> Scientology policy. A vital function of policy letters, both during
> Hubbard's rule and now during Miscavige's dictatorship, is to hide
> policy.
This is not my experience, sorry. Have been Hatting Officer for 5
months or so. Policy was to be followed, no matter what. But at times
policy was seriously misunderstood, and then that was enforced, which
was not policy, and therefore not Scientology.
> Your function could be similar. You appear to be trying to cloak what
> is Scientology and what is Scientology policy with what is stated in
> policy letters that are intended to hide policy, and with your
> obfuscation "tech."
No, sorry. I was actually there. This is not what I saw.
>
> >This is other practices.
>
> No it is not. Fair Game is a Hubbard policy and practice, and now it
> is a Miscavige policy and practice, and Fair Game is Scientology.
> Scientology without Fair Game would not be Scientology. Scientology
> not hiding its actual policies behind contradictory policy letters
> would not be Scientology.
Which policies are contradictory to eachother?
Let's say that SPs and fair gaming are not synonym as many seem to
think.
>
> You have failed to prove otherwise.
It's obvious that a big change occured after L. Ron Hubbard
disappeared from the lines so around 1980. Are you denying that?
<snip>
>
> > and my understanding of these things
> >I happen to disagree with that.
>
> I guess you'd have to disagree that the good people targeted as
> "Suppressive Persons" by the Scientology cultists are being wrong
> targeted.
I don't disagree. Quite a few got the wrong label, and that's MY
opinion.
> You'd have to, to do what you do.
What do I do according to you?
>
> But please identify in any case each person you know of who has ever
> been targeted as a "Suppressive Person" and detail exactly why the
> targeting of each person as an "SP" was a right targeting.
It suffices to see how declares are being written, there are some
specific guidelines for that. HCOPL How to write an ethics order or
something. Apply the reference and you'll know!
>
> Here, start with me.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ga-sp-declare.html
>
> And here's the Fair Game page:
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html
I've read most of what you have there, some time ago or more recently.
Spacetraveler
Warrior
Spacetraveler says...
>
>Definitely not, those who have not actually been there can not relate
>all information properly, they can only rely on hearsay and others.
Did you ever meet L. Ron Hubbard in person, Spacetraveler?
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Barbara Schwarz
Did you, Warrior?
If yes, how come you missed that the guy, Jack Marshall, who died with
vistaril in his body was not L. Ron Hubbard, but an impostor?
If yes, how come you don't get that Gerry Armstrong and W. Barwell are
lying about L. Ron Hubbard's activities and character?
Barbara Schwarz
Babbling.Barbara.Schwarz
Foregoing is a forgery by Barbara Schwarz-Manson-Hubbard-Eisenhower
-Rathbun- deRothschild, a well-known psychotic living in Salt Lake
City and being financially supported by her family in Germany who wish
to avoid any personal contact with her at all costs for fear that she
will maim and kill them.
Read her in her own outrageously funny: "You're very lucky there's
2000 miles between us, David Touretsky. You'd either be married to me
or one of my sex slaves."
Barbara Schwarz-Manson-Hubbard-Eisenhower-Rathbun-deRothschild is a
very sick woman whose reality is fueled by outrageously funny
delusions. She claims to be a Scientologist, but in reality, was
rejected by Scientology because of her extreme psychoses.
Schwarz-Manson-Hubbard-Eisenhower-Rathbun-deRothschild is well-known
to Utah law enforcement authorities and do their very best to ignore
this wacko phenomenon.
Barbara deWackjob Schwarz
Director, Psychotics United for Sanity (PUS)
335 East Broadway, Apt. 401
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
1-800-IMA-SKANK
Barbara Schwarz
FOREGOING POSTING IS ANOTHER FORGERY BY GARRY LYNN SCARFF. WHAT EVER
HIS MOTHER RAISED IT WAS NOT A HUMAN BEING!
Don't touch the foam that comes out of the mouth of this one. He has
Aids, probably had sex with an African ape. Who else would want him?
Some people once told me that gay people are nicer than straight
people and would have also better manners. Gee, they should meet Garry
Scarff and some others from his gay pick up "church" bar. They never
would make that statement again.
This is about slimy maggot and notorious identity stealer and
chronical liar Garry Lynn Scarff. If lies and criminal acts would
hurt, that guy would scream all people in his town into completely
deafness.
Read Scarff in his own dangerous words: "You're very lucky there's
2000 miles between us, Beebe. You'd either be dead or in ICU."
Garry Scarff: "Yup! I AM SATAN, HEAR ME ROAR!"
------------------
His apology was simply part of the usual Scarff cycle. Still "valid"
is also his promise to kill me. -- T.H.
...but I see he (Garry Scarff) has progressed to making death threats
against me in a desperate plea for my attention. Something about
shooting me in the head? Someone e-mailed it to me; I missed the
posted thread. -- M.H.
And yeah, I know you (Garry Scarff) are dangerous...I know you can
easily mock up being really insane and take me out with your insanity
defense all nicely in place. -- G.A.
I would suggest to those who know Garry in LA that you should be
careful...So my advice to everyone: never never never never tell Garry
Scarff anything.... Remember, that is what drives his sick mind - he
wants to be known, looked at and to be listened to. -- T.H.
Gary! You had a sex change operation! -- MTR
You are a liar, Garry. We have met. -- W.
Garry Scarff is a know liar. -- L.F.
Graham has his own ass to cover since Scarff gave him reams of other
false statements about alleged murder plots and so on...Berry will
have serious problems trying to make Scarff's former statements under
oath old up. -- H.C.
Garry Scarff deliberately lied about his background while he was an
active member of CAN. He claimed his father and other family members
were killed in Jonestown -- when he actually didn't know anyone in
Jonestown or have any involvement with the People's Temple. He served
as CAN's poster boy for awhile, all based on his fabricated
experiences with Jim Jones. After CAN was embarrassed by Scarff's lies
and turned against him, Scarff then proceeded to claim he had
infiltrated CAN as a GO/OSA
operative. Outside of Scarff's own assertions, I've seen no indication
that this is any more true than his lies about his
Jonestown connections. Scarff told the Moonies that CAN was making
death threats to try to keep him quiet. Scarff told the Moonies that,
as a member of CAN, he had been involved in activities that included
theft and burglary against them.
This is the guy whose "sworn affidavits" many people use to "prove"
that the CoS is a criminal organization. We're taking Scarff's
unsubstantiated word for things like the drowning of Judge
Swearinger's dog Duke, Moxon's order to have Cynthia Kisser and her
mythical daughter killed, etc. Is it really wise for anyone to place
so much trust in Scarff's unsubstantiated accusations?
Now, thanks to Scarff himself, we learn that he didn't end his career
as a prevaricator when he lost his contact with CAN and various cults.
He attempted to scam the Roman Catholic Church out of a settlement for
what he himself admits was a bogus claim that he was sexually
harrassed by a Catholic bishop. -- D.R.
It is well known that Garry Scarff can't be trusted...Garry is not
worthy of our trust. -- H.C.R.
Garry Scarff has been caught in lies and deceipt time and time again.
I only wish I could post half of the stuff which clearly shows the
misery that Scarff brought to lots of people. -- J.B.
For your information, when Garry (Scarff) was with CAN he was telling
everyone that his family had died in Jonestown and was making these
statements to the media. Come to find out, it was not true in the
slightest. If the alleged murder plots were true why didn't he go to
the police? -- H.C.
Perhaps you forget about the numerous little con-games he's been
caught playing here? I continue to spit in his (Scarff's) direction.
-- Z.T.
Garry Scarff is not a Scientology victim, he is a mentally ill guy...
-- T.H.
Is this guy (Garry Scarff) for real or does he just need to lay off
the hemp? Sounds like he's suffering from the Reality Inversion as
Robert Vaughn Young. -- T.J.
He (Scarff) has admitted to the things he has done and said, and he
has admitted being unstable. --J.B.
Have you ever seen Garry Scarff apologize for his deprogramming
activities here, or anything else for that matter? -- D.R.
Garry's mental problem is that he cannot accept people contradicting
him. -- T. H.
Scarff has already underminded any use he has in litigation for either
side because he lied so much. -- H.C.
And now you've become a forger as well. Go ahead Garry, and forge hate
messages. Go ahead, lie all you want. Go ahead and be cruel. Go ahead
and deny that your're doing what you're doing. -- G.A.
You (Garry Scarff) surface with your attacks and pornographic postings
and each time that you do I will release more info on you, who Lynn
Garrett really is, how Lynn Garrett makes his living, how Garry Scarff
became Lynn Garrett, vice versa. How Garry Scarff has accused at least
six individuals of homosexual attacks. -- J.B.
BTW, for those who don't know Garry Scarff, he is a pathological
liar...Garry lies continually about the "celebrities" he encounters.
He pretended to be a Jonestown survivor. -- G.A.
I have Scarff killfiled and so I don't see_his_posts, dear whatever.
-- Z.
Placing him (Scarff) in a killfile as probably 100 ars regulars have
done. Anyway, ars sure is a different place without him hanging
around. Must say I like it. :) *No one* makes as much noise as this
deseased creep... -- M.H.
-------------
Postings with e-mail address Barbara...@emailaccount.com and
identities "Barbara_Schwarz", "the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild"
and "Truth Speaker 2" are not done by me. I also don't post with ID
Still_lying_about_Marty. No posting by me, the true Barbara Schwarz,
is made under Babbling.Barbara.Schwarz and e-mail address
theonewhoisadelu...@emailaccount.com.
Those postings are forgeries of criminal, Aids infected, gay lunatic
Garry Lynn Scarff who is a fanatical defender of the porn and bomb
instruction guy Dave Touretzky. I wonder how much Touretzky is
involved in getting my home address constantly posted against my will
and in Scarff's perverted misinformation that I admire Touretzky or
want to be married to him or to be his "sex slave"!
Scarff is nobody on his own and also stole the identity of Mark
Rathbun Marty Rathbun (mrat...@scientology.org). I believe there is
something like the gay Mafia, and Scarff belongs it it. He constantly
posts my home address on the net in hope I come to harm or that I am
being murdered by those that find the address, if he can't make
himself to my town to kill me.
Scarff persecutes me from thread to thread often using my name as
identity for those crimes (!) and verbally assaults me, threatens me,
harasses me, sexually harasses me, tries to intimidate me, libels,
insults and lies about me. He also posts with identity "Dicktop Stud"
and "Papa Boner". He furthermore lied that he spoke to a roomate of
mine in the Utah mental health hospital. I never was in that hospital,
but he probably escaped from one. It is also striking that especially
the worst and most lawless guys, as Scarff, promote junk science
psychiatry.
Scarff is active member of the gay WeHo "church", that according to
Scarff applaudes Scarff's lawless behavior against me. An ex-WeHo
member wrote me that this "church" sanctions and promotes dishonorable
behavior and that he and his friends were raped and drugged by one of
their active members, and that one of their active members murdered
others under the guise of "drug overdose". The ex-WeHo wrote that the
gay men make sexual innuendo during sermon and "church" leadership, as
their "Pastor" Terry Brewer, don't see what's wrong with that.
Barbara Schwarz
Dicktop_Stud
Yeah...you hit it on the head, PsychoSkank. My mother was really a
jackal. In fact, they made 4 movies about me and my family called,
"The Omen."
Now, if I can just find a really good plastic surgeon to take the 666
scar off my head.