HCOPL 10 Sep 1983, "PTSness AND DISCONNECTION"
Anonymous
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 SEPTEMBER 1983
Remimeo
HCOs
E/O Hats
MAA Hats
Tech/Qual
All Staff
PTS/SP Course
PTSness AND DISCONNECTION
Refs:
Tape: 6505C18 "Organization and Ethics"
Tape: 6506C08 "Handling the PTS"
HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA Rev. 10.9.83 SUPPRESSIVE ACTS,
SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
Tape: 6608C02 "Suppressives and GAEs"
Tape: 6608C25 "The Antisocial Personality"
HCOB 27 Sept. 66 THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST
HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I C/S Series 79 PTS INTERVIEWS
HCO PL 3 May 72R Exec Series 12 Rev. 18.12.77 ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES
HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING
HCOB 29 Dec. 78 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 II OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 III EDUCATING THE PTS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD
HANDLING: PTS C/S-1
HCO PL 20 Oct. 81R PTS TYPE A HANDLING Rev. 10.9.83
HCOB 8 Mar. 83 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS
THEORY
Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the
right to communicate.
Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate.
Communication, however, is a two-way flow. If one has the right to
communicate, then one must also have the right to not
receive communication from another. It is this latter
corollary of the right to communicate that gives us our
right to privacy.
These rights are so basic that governments have written
them into laws - witness the American Bill of Rights.
However, groups have always regulated these rights to one
degree or another.
For with the freedom to communicate come certain agreements
and responsibilities.
An example of this is a marriage: In a monogamous society,
the agreement is that one will be married to only one
person at one time. That agreement extends to having
second-dynamic relations with one's spouse and no one else.
Thus, should wife Shirley establish a 2D-type of
communication line with someone other than her husband
Pete, it is a violation of the agreement and postulates of
the marriage. Pete has the right to insist that either this
communication cease or that the marriage will cease.
HANDLE OR DISCONNECT
In the HCOBs on PTS tech you'll see the phrase "handle or
disconnect." It means simply that.
The term "handle" most commonly means, when used in
relation to PTS tech, to smooth out a situation with
another person by applying the tech of communication.
The term "disconnection" is defined as a self-determined
decision made by an individual that he is not going to be
connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line.
The basic principle of handle or disconnect exists in any
group and ours is no different.
It is much like trying to deal with a criminal. If he will
not handle, the society resorts to the only other solution:
It "disconnects" the criminal from the society. In other
words, they remove the guy from society and put him in a
prison because he won't HANDLE his problem or otherwise
cease to commit criminal acts against others.
It's the same sort of situation that husband Pete is faced
with in the example mentioned above. The optimum solution
is to handle the situation with wife Shirley and her
violations of their group (marriage) agreements. But if
Pete cannot handle the situation, he is left with no other
choice but to disconnect (sever the marriage communication
lines if only by separation). To do otherwise would be
disastrous, for he is connected to someone antagonistic to
the original agreements, postulates and responsibilities of
the group (the marriage).
A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected
to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its
tenets. In order to resolve the PTS condition, he either
HANDLES the other person's antagonism (as covered in the
materials on PTS handling) or, as a last resort when all
attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the
person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or
not to communicate with a particular person.
With our tech of handle or disconnect, we are, in actual
fact, doing nothing different than any society or group or
marriage down through thousands of years.
LOST TECH
Earlier, disconnection as a condition was cancelled. It had
been abused by a few individuals who'd failed to handle
situations which could have been handled and who lazily or
criminally disconnected, thereby creating situations even
worse than the original because it was the wrong action.
Secondly, there were those who could survive only by living
on our lines - they wanted to continue to be connected to
Scientologists (see the HCOBs on the characteristics of an
SP). Thus, they screamed to high heaven if anyone dared to
apply the tech of "handle or disconnect."
This put Scientologists at a disadvantage.
We cannot afford to deny Scientologists that basic freedom
that is granted to everyone else: the right to choose whom
one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with.
It's bad enough that there are governments trying, through
the use of force, to prevent people from disconnecting from
them (witness those who want to leave Russia but can't!).
The bare fact is that disconnection is a vital tool in
handling PTSness and can be very effective when used correctly.
Therefore, the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to
use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and
standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.
HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES
In the great majority of cases, where a person has some
family member or close associate who appears antagonistic
to his getting better through Scientology, it is not really
a matter of the antagonistic source wanting the PTS to not
get better. It is most commonly a lack of correct
information about Scientology that causes the problem or
upset. In such a case, simply having the PTS disconnect
would not help matters and would actually be a nonconfront
of the situation. It is quite common that the PTS has a low
confront on the terminal and situation. This isn't hard to
understand when one looks at these facts:
a. To be PTS in the first place, the PTS must have
committed overts against the antagonistic source; and
b. When one has committed overts, his confront and
responsibility drop.
When an Ethics Officer finds that a Scientologist is PTS to
a family member, he does not recommend that the person
disconnect from the antagonistic source. The E/O's advice
to the Scientologist is to handle.
The handling for such a situation is to educate him in the
tech of PTSness and suppression, and then skillfully and
firmly guide the PTS through the steps needed to restore
good communication with the antagonistic source. This
eventually dissolves the situation by bringing about an
understanding on the part of the antagonistic source as to
what Scientology is and why the PTS person is interested
and involved in it. Of course, when this is accomplished
you no longer have a PTS at all-and you may very well find
a new Scientologist on your hands!
The actual steps and procedure of this sort of handling are
well covered in the materials listed at the beginning of
this HCOB.
WHEN DISCONNECTION IS USED
An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone
is factually connected to a suppressive person, in present
time. This is a person whose normal operating basis is one
of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does
not want anyone to get better, at all.
In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of
anyone becoming more powerful.
In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere
trying to "handle" the person. The answer is to sever the
connection.
HOW TO DISCONNECT
How a disconnection is done depends on the circumstances.
Example: The pc lives next door to, say, a psychiatric
clinic and feels PTS due to this environment. The remedy is
simple - the pc can move to another apartment in another
location. He need not write any sort of "disconnection
letter" to the psychiatric clinic. He simply changes his
environment - which is, in effect, a disconnection from the
suppressive environment.
Example: A pc is connected to a person or group that has
been declared suppressive by HCO in a published ethics order.
He should disconnect and, if he wants to inform the SP of
the fact, he may write a letter of disconnection. Such a
letter would be very straightforward. It would state the
fact of the disconnection and the reason for it. It would
not be misemotional or accusative, since this would only
serve to stir up further antagonism. The letter would be
inspected by the Ethics Officer before it was sent and
copies kept for the PTS person's own ethics file and pc
folder.
No attempt would be made to establish communication with
the declared SP "to clear matters up" or to seek to reform
the SP. The SP's reform is strictly in the hands of HCO.
The PTS simply disconnects.
Example: One discovers that an employee at his place of
business is an SP - he steals money, drives away customers,
wipes out other employees and will not correct no matter
what you do. The handling is very simple-the PTS fires him
and that's the end of it right there!
To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person
not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of
the suppressive-in itself a Suppressive Act.
And it must be so labeled. (Ref: HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA,
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND
SCIENTOLOGISTS)
SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
There is of course another technical way to handle PTSes
and that is to get them through all problems they have had
with the terminal involved and the PTSness will disappear
(Ref: HCOB 29 Dec. 78, THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN).
But it still requires that during the handling the person
disconnects.
SUMMARY
The technology of disconnection is essential in the
handling of PTSes. It can and has saved lives and untold
trouble and upset. It must be preserved and used correctly.
Nothing in this HCOB shall ever or under any circumstances
justify any violations of the laws of the land. Any such
offense shall subject the offender to penalties described
by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Anonymous
Frog
Nomen Abditum
Anonymous
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
Anonymous
Frog
Frog
Fluffygirl
"Frog" <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:O1ZWG7CG37743.6003703704@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
> Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
<snip text>
There are such people as "SPs" but problem is that there are no absolutes.
Hubbard even said so which is ironic in view of fact he sometimes purveyed
absolutes.
I do not believe that they are a very sizeable part of the population. I
think of them more as a Ted Bundy type, etc.
Hubbard has said elsewhere that there are degrees of SPness which was a
pretty sane statement considering the bee in his bonnet he later got on such
things.
Bottom line, yeah there are destructive people and they vary, but when one
starts painting everyone who disagrees with one's group or one's aims as
suppressive, evil, etc, one is being self serving and is setting up future
pograms, purges, etc.
Very irresponsible.
This is why I advocate going outside the lines.
There was a time when Hubbard did as well but he mainly, mostly got into the
power and not wanting to be questioned.
This, unquestionably, is the ruin of the church. The very thing they thought
would protect it - this thing of having the needs of the church be senior to
those of the members.
But it failed miserably (as witness their stats) because a church, cult,
mystic spelling bee, whatever, is supposed to be for the people in it, not
the other way around otherwise why have the thing.
That is what ex members here and elsewhere ask.
"Why have it?" Pursuant to saying "~I~ don't need it."
No one needs a theocratic dictatorship. The trade off is such that the
spiritual gains,if any, are always compromised.
Fluffily,
C
Anonymous
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 SEPTEMBER 1983
Anonymous
ed bogel
Thank you for posting this policy letter. It's very interesting. But
there is another one that someone posted that talks about the Church
forcing people to disconnect from family members that may be a little
more to the point. It is the policy letter that lists the crimes and
high crimes, etc., in the Scientology justice code. If you publicly
criticize Scientology it is considered a high crime punishable by
being kicked out of the Church and of having all your friends and
family members who want to stay in the Church have to completely sever
ties with you or be kicked out yourself.
However, the thing is Hubbard canceled the forced disconnection policy
back in 1968 or 69 because, as he said in that policy, it was
extremely unpopular. So some jerks in the technical compilations unit
took the justice codes from earlier than that and reinstated the
policy of disconnection -- or should we say forced disconnection.
But in the early and mid '80s lots of 'tech compilations unit'
policies were written and lots of policies were revised and the name
L. Ron Hubbard was put on the bottom. Because whether you liked him
or not, Hubbard usually cancelled his own meaner policies when he saw
that they were creating too much bad public relations. David
Miscavige, on the other hand, seems to live to shrink Scientology.
So, the tech compilations unit messes things up by taking earlier
issues that were later cancelled or revised by LRH and putting a later
date on them. They make a mishmash of different Hubbard references -
they take a quote from here and a quote from there and string them
together and put L. Ron Hubbard on the bottom and say it's a new
policy. But a lot of them don't make sense.
Anyway, the following is something I am cutting and pasting from
something celebritycenturian posted a few months back, which tells
some specific instances of the Church breaking up families:
A couple I know have been declared and their son has had to disconnect
from them because if he doesn't he will also be declared and he wishes
to remain in the Scientology community. Other than that this family
had been in good communication and everyone got along. In other
words, if it had not been for Church pressure, the son would still be
in good communication with his parents.
This couple has decided not to do "A to E" because this process is one
way that the Church extorts huge sums of money from people. Security
checking is mandatory as part of the process to get into good standing
and it costs roughly $15,000 to $40,000 for this type of situation.
Multiply that by 2 people and you get a horrendous amount of money.
Then, when you are finished with the 'A to E' steps, after a year or 2
of nonsensical requirements that take a lot of time and money, you
have to petition to be readmitted to the group. It is unlikely that
they will readmit you. That is the catch. The current International
Justice Chief and the Continental Justice Chief (at least in LA) get
satisfaction from having people squirm during this process and truly
seem to enjoy the upset that the process creates. Only they know that
no matter how sincere the 'penitent' is, they will never be allowed
back in.
Richard Kipperman, a Class 8 auditor who was the Mission Holder of the
Beverly Hills Mission before he was declared suppressive in the early
1980s for no good reason -- probably because he was a good person,
tried to get back in good standing because his teenage daughter got
into Scientology and she was told to disconnect and she didn't want to
so she talked Richard into trying to get into good standing. Well, he
went through all the hoops and Richard Valle, the Continental Justice
Chief West US just tormented him, caused a tremendous amount of stress
for the family and when Richard had completed all the steps he was
still denied re-admittance to the group.
And this is only one instance of many. The Church does NOT want any
critic to regain admittance. Or that is how it seems.
Most Scientology declares of staff members are for daring to question
a psychotic order from a senioir executive. These staff members are
rarely welcomed back.
Years ago you could do A to E and get back in. Now it's much harder.
If you have lost a child to this Church do what you can to undermine
the current management. In my humble opinion you will get your child
back sooner that way. It's doubtful that they'd ever let you back in.
Did you know that the Church actively supported people who had formed
a group to protest the income tax system? This group was called
'CATS' which means something like 'citizens against the tax structure'
or something. Anyway, members of the group and other Scientology
income tax resisters were given a big committee of evidence at
Celebrity Center a few years ago and all were declared suppressive.
This was after the IRS deal. This is just one more instance of how
the Church betrays people who do what they want them to do.
A long-time staff member at ASHO by the name of Toby Cantine was
kicked out of the Sea Org after 25 years because she had some sort of
non-lethal physical condition. Just kicked out! The Sea Org shows
loyalty to some of its own but often just is as cruel as can be to
some of their own members.
Most people who are in good standing with the Church know only a part
of how the current management works. They are afraid to look on the
internet. They are afraid to gossip because they are afraid they will
be 'written up' and get into trouble. A lot of them would lose their
job or livelihood or family if they got kicked out. Many pity people
who get declared suppressive but treat them as though they had gotten
cancer or AIDs and there's nothing that they can do about it.
Anyway, if you know of people who have done 'A to E' recently and
gotten back into good standing let me know. My experience is that
once you're out, you're out. But this level of brutality only started
maybe 5 or 6 years ago. Or maybe not. But I do know that Bob Veach,
who had been a NOTS C/S at AOLA and got declared did do 'A to E' about
10 years ago and was reinstated into good standing. So I think maybe
it has changed. But, as I say, my information is limited. Do with it
what you will.
It is very helpful to me when people who have had recent experiences
with the Church post them here. Thank you to them.
Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<7DHZAI3L3774...@anonymous.poster>...
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
edb...@mail.com (ed bogel) wrote:
>However, the thing is Hubbard canceled the forced disconnection policy
>back in 1968 or 69 because,
The Code of Reform was published on 29 November 1968:
THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
THE HUBBARD SCIENTOLOGY ORGANISATION IN
AUCKLAND
Founder: L. Ron Hubbard
Cable: Scientology
Telephone: 362-921 (4 lines)
150 Hobson Street,
Auckland,
New Zealand.
CODE OF REFORM
1. Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from
familial suppression.
2. Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
3. Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down.
4. Cancellation of declaring people Fair Game.
If you yourself have observed any further aspect of this Church's
activities that you feel calls for reform, please let us know.
29 November 1968
THE ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY
THE HUBBARD GUIDANCE CENTRE
Board of Directors:
Leaka Marenkovich, President
Julia Lewis Salmen (U.S.A.), President for U.S.A.
Anthony John Dunleavy, Vice-President
Kenneth Milton Salmen (U.S.A.), Vice-President
Kenneth Eric Urqubart, Secretary
Denny Louise Fields (U.S.A.), Secretary
Resident Agent (N.Z.), Eunice Henley-Smith
(A non-profit corporation in U.S.A. Registered in New Zealand)
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/Cowen/audit/nz02.html
> as he said in that policy, it was
>extremely unpopular. So some jerks in the technical compilations unit
>took the justice codes from earlier than that and reinstated the
>policy of disconnection -- or should we say forced disconnection.
To seriously suggest that Hubbard knew nothing about disconnection, sec
checking, making auditing notes and Fair Game practices after the 1968
'cancellation', is too preposterous for words.
Basic scientology stuff like that is necessary to keep the faithful in
fear and he would never done away with that. The old stick and carrot
routine. Promises of becoming a superman vs. found out as harboring a
critical thought during sec checking.
>But in the early and mid '80s lots of 'tech compilations unit'
>policies were written and lots of policies were revised and the name
In the 70s the cult infiltrated many, many government offices, those had
nothing to do with some mid '80 poor techie. It was Hubbard instigated all
the way. It was his paranoia that was behind it and has affected every
scientologist in a more or lesser degree.
>L. Ron Hubbard was put on the bottom. Because whether you liked him
>or not, Hubbard usually cancelled his own meaner policies when he saw
>that they were creating too much bad public relations. David
>Miscavige, on the other hand, seems to live to shrink Scientology.
>So, the tech compilations unit messes things up by taking earlier
>issues that were later cancelled or revised by LRH and putting a later
>date on them. They make a mishmash of different Hubbard references -
>they take a quote from here and a quote from there and string them
>together and put L. Ron Hubbard on the bottom and say it's a new
>policy. But a lot of them don't make sense.
And your prove for this allegation is?
>Anyway, the following is something I am cutting and pasting from
>something celebritycenturian posted a few months back, which tells
>some specific instances of the Church breaking up families:
posting is here
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4f5bc81.0303192045.c428b0a%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
Mike Gormez
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- Death and lies. Lisa is gone the lies remain - lisa.whyaretheydead.net
- Cover up of child sexual abuse by Scientologists - sexual.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- RPF kids and their misery - http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/rpf-children.html
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
Gormez <mik...@SPAMwhyaretheydead.net> wrote:
>In article <f01650a8.03050...@posting.google.com> ,
>edb...@mail.com (ed bogel) wrote:
>
>
>>However, the thing is Hubbard canceled the forced disconnection policy
>>back in 1968 or 69 because,
>
>The Code of Reform was published on 29 November 1968:
>
>THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
>THE HUBBARD SCIENTOLOGY ORGANISATION IN
>AUCKLAND
Ah!.. I figured out why it was isssued and just was window dressing: it
ain't a policy letter!!
I do wonder if it was broadly disseminated in Scientology circles. That
makes or breaks the importances, says RVY in Robert Vaughn Young
Transcripts // June 17 2002 - PM session
258
1 A Which part? I lost your question.
2 Q Fair game, the concept, it was being used against
3 the Church by opponents of the Church?
4 A No. The first time it was being used was in the
5 early '60s in the Australian inquiry in the state of
6 Victoria. That was one of the primary things that the state
7 of Victoria came out with when they were writing the reports
8 about Scientology. And that is actually the history of why
9 that issue came out was because, as Hubbard says, it causes
10 bad PR.
11 Q And do you remember that Mr. Hubbard, on
12 March 22nd of 1976, actually executed an affidavit
13 explaining fair game and explaining the reasons why he
14 canceled fair game, and affirming that, in fact, fair game
15 had been canceled and wasn't to be used? Do you remember
16 that?
17 A Right. And I point out to you that affidavit is
18 not policy of the Church. That was never given out to any
19 of the people of the Church of Scientology.
20 Q You didn't write that affidavit, did you?
21 A No.
22 MR. WEINBERG: I marked as 206, your Honor --
23 BY MR. WEINBERG:
24 Q Do you -- do you recognize Defendant's 206 to be
25 an affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard, and a copy -- a copy of a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
259
1 real affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard dated March 22, 1976,
2 explaining fair game and cancelation of it?
3 A This appears to be, yes.
4 Q This is true, isn't it? This is Mr. Hubbard
5 speaking and explaining exactly what fair game was and
6 exactly what the cancelation was, correct?
7 A This is not policy and was never given to anybody
8 in the Church of Scientology. Therefore, this has no
9 standing with regard to Scientology. He may have given it
10 to a court but it has absolutely no standing within
11 Scientology.
12 Q Well, let me show you what I marked as --
13 MR. WEINBERG: By the way, I offer 206 into
14 evidence as Mr. Hubbard's affidavit of March of
15 1976.
16 THE COURT: Any objection?
17 MR. DANDAR: It's not authenticated as official
18 Church policy. It is total hearsay. It is not
19 authenticated. We object.
20 THE COURT: That is true.
21 MR. WEINBERG: So he can -- so Mr. Dandar has
22 stood here and put in policy after policy and
23 writing after writing --
24 THE COURT: Well, it is policy.
25 MR. WEINBERG: And so this is -- this is an
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260
1 affidavit by L. Ron Hubbard who no longer is alive
2 where he -- where he addresses the issue that
3 Mr. Young has been waxing eloquent with regard to
4 suggesting that when Mr. Hubbard canceled it he
5 didn't really cancel it and he submits an affidavit
6 on it?
7 THE COURT: I mean, I'm going to let it in.
8 But from everything I have seen and everything I
9 know about this case, this witness is absolutely
10 correct in what he just said.
11 This affidavit may have been submitted in a
12 court -- I have no idea where it was submitted --
13 but if it isn't policy of the Church of Scientology,
14 it isn't policy.
15 The policy is what is fair game and what is
16 fair game cancelation.
17 MR. WEINBERG: Right, except he did
18 authenticate the affidavit. He recognized the
19 affidavit. I'm not offering it as policy. I'm
20 offering it as evidence in this case.
21 MR. DANDAR: He said --
22 THE WITNESS: It doesn't change the policy.
23 THE COURT: I'm going to let it in for whatever
24 it is you want to argue about it. I am telling you
25 that an affidavit, I would suggest, is not policy of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
261
1 the Church. Maybe it is. I mean, I don't know.
2 But nothing has been admitted yet to tell me
3 this would have any basis on which to determine what
4 is a policy of the Church of Scientology.
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
Lulu Belle
> >L. Ron Hubbard was put on the bottom. Because whether you liked him
> >or not, Hubbard usually cancelled his own meaner policies when he saw
> >that they were creating too much bad public relations. David
> >Miscavige, on the other hand, seems to live to shrink Scientology.
> >So, the tech compilations unit messes things up by taking earlier
> >issues that were later cancelled or revised by LRH and putting a later
> >date on them. They make a mishmash of different Hubbard references -
> >they take a quote from here and a quote from there and string them
> >together and put L. Ron Hubbard on the bottom and say it's a new
> >policy. But a lot of them don't make sense.
>
> And your prove for this allegation is?
I can't prove it either, Mike, but I know it's true.
Policies are written by the tech compilations unit in CMO Int (also
known as "RTRC.") Various LRH references or "advices" are taken and
put together in a certain way, and made into a "policy."
Whether or not a lot of this stuff even originally comes from LRH,
especially recently, is another can of worms that I'm not getting
into.
But I do know that policies are generally originally "advices" that
have been put together and processed by Sea Org staff. I know because
I've seen the original advices and have seen the policies that later
sprung from them. Very few of them were actually written by LRH the
way they currently exist.
Jommy Cross
in msg <3eb27e05$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
<snip>
>
>No one needs a theocratic dictatorship.
Except theocratic dictators and their top echelon of salesmen for the
theocratic dictatorship concept.
> The trade off is such that the
>spiritual gains,if any, are always compromised.
<snip>
Compromised? I think that's putting it excessively kindly.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Fluffygirl
"Lulu Belle" <exes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7db3d0ad.03050...@posting.google.com...
There are, I've heard, many things actually written by others, like Mayo,
that had LRH's name affixed but which were not actually written by LRH.
I always assumed he reviewed them for errors, whatnot, before affixing his
imprimatur but that may or may not have always been the case.
C