How one church allowed a WISE presentation on how to fire "SPs".....

25 views
Skip to first unread message

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 7:00:09 AM7/18/07
to
[An anonymous ex Scientologist sent me this:]

"Hi Chuck,

"Thought you might find this interesting. You can re-post this
elsewhere if you wish.

"Around 1999 or 2000, the local Org gave a WISE presentation to
Scientology business people. No wogs (non-Scientologists) allowed.
About 30 people in attendance.

"Obviously, WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises) is a
front group for Scientology; any Scientologist knows this. WISE is
the arm of Scientology that tries to rope in wog businesspeople
through "non-religious" Hubbard admin (business) tech.

"Note that this (secular, non-religious) WISE briefing was given
inside the Org (Church of Scientology).

"A few grim looking org staff and OSA volunteers in the background,
away from the lights, watching attendees and looking for BIs (Bad
Indicators).

"This presentation was for Scientologists only. The briefing was
trying to force Scientology businesspeople to have their company staff
take WISE courses as part of their job training, and getting rid of
company staff who refused.

"WISE lecturer went over in detail how to legally fire wogs in your
company that do not want to take WISE "non-religious" admin courses.
Also how to legally fire any SPs in your business. And any
Scientology-run businesses that did not do this would be considered
PTS (Potential Trouble Source) and Out-Ethics (bad).

"Several ways to protect yourself and your company from lawsuits while
trying to force employees to take WISE courses were discussed.
Employees that refuse to take WISE courses as part of their required
job training are to be considered SPs (Suppressive Persons).

"Create a secret ethics file for whoever you want to get rid of.
Minimize any good work or good stats that this person has. Maximize
any outpoints (bad things). Make the list go back as far as
possible. Keep written records of this, with time, form, place and
event. Dead agent anything positive the SP did by making it appear
that another good employee was responsible for it. Document
everything on Company Letterhead paper, duly signed and dated.

"Give the SP impossible tasks at work, and when they fail or do
poorly, give them a written warning / reprimand for their bad
performance. Do this several times. Publicly berate the SP for bad
performance. The person may quit on their own at this point.

"If you are forced to fire the SP, present it in a way that stresses
that the company has no choice to let the SP go, due to chronic poor
performance, chronic poor stats, and unwilling to follow company
policy. List in writing a variety of reasons.

"If the SP hires a lawyer after being fired, bring out the written,
documented down stats and documented poor performance for the SP,
which was collected earlier in the secret ethics file. Deny the SP
was fired for any reason except for chronic poor performance despite
repeated written warnings. The SP and lawyer will be unprepared for
this earlier documentation, provided you kept the ethics files secret
from the SP.

"If the SP hires a lawyer and threatens religious discrimination, deny
that WISE has anything to do with religion. Stress that WISE courses
are strictly non-religious. Stress that WISE gives secular business
courses that expand any company. Stress that WISE training is part
and parcel of working for the company. Stress that it is unacceptable
for any employee in any company to refuse to get required training for
their post (job duties).

"Question was asked how to get rid of an SP with good performance.
Response was that SPs cannot possibly give truly good performance in
anything, because they are SPs. ALL SPs are PTS, if only to
themselves. The performance of the SP might appear to be good, but
the SP will have secret crimes and will be covertly trying to destroy
the company. Get creative in finding fault with the SP, document it,
and rid of the SP.

"A few years later, I heard that several Scientology businesspeople
who actually tried this ended up deeply regretting it.


"This is true."

[anonymous ex Scientologist]

realpch

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 8:02:11 AM7/18/07
to

Oh dear! It would be nice if the presenter's notes for this presentation
were available for people who have been fired from W.I.S.E. businesses!

Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com

Larry T.

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 8:26:27 AM7/18/07
to
"chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184756409....@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...


Chuck:

Very interesting BUT...

When Scientology ia a household words I will start worrying about it, in the
mean time Scientologists are NOBODY!

Larry


Chip Gallo

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 9:14:31 AM7/18/07
to

ted_c...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 9:23:19 AM7/18/07
to
In a nutshell, this advice is to first decide on who is the SP THEN
gather information to support the decision and usher the person out of
the organization.

This is the most suppressive management advice I have ever seen,
probably an extension of what goes on deep inside the church.

--
Ted

Zinj

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 9:35:36 AM7/18/07
to
In article <1184756409....@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
chuckb...@aol.com says...



> "A few grim looking org staff and OSA volunteers in the background,
> away from the lights, watching attendees and looking for BIs (Bad
> Indicators).

See Orwell, George; '1984':

facecrime - Orwell's definition : "It was terribly dangerous to let
your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within
range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A
nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering
to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of
abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an
improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a
victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable
offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it
was called."

Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think

Zinj

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 9:48:21 AM7/18/07
to
In article <1i1fwgq.fvt50jw7611cN%ted_c...@hotmail.com>,
ted_c...@hotmail.com says...

> In a nutshell, this advice is to first decide on who is the SP THEN
> gather information to support the decision and usher the person out of
> the organization.
>
> This is the most suppressive management advice I have ever seen,
> probably an extension of what goes on deep inside the church.
>
> --
> Ted

Why deep?

Once you grant the 'Suppressive Person' doctrine; that there is an
'absolute' class of people who are responsible for all failure,
illness or 'negativity' etc., and that Scientology has the 'Tech'
for 'spotting' them, it's a natural (and universally practiced)
given that 'framing' and 'setting up' and 'finding and
manufacturing' cause for screwing with them will be necessary.

After all, their *actual* crimes might be 'whole track', and Wog
business isn't set up to deal with such things...

:)

R. Hill

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 10:22:07 AM7/18/07
to

!!!

There are current lawsuits that could use this person's first-account
testimony:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/a13cda5c5a9772ec

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/993ba977fdd68578

Ray.

--
"I started thinking, and I got carried away"
- Dan Garvin, former scientologist

"We simply do as [L. Ron Hubbard] says"
- Dennis Clarke, scientologist

ted_c...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 11:05:10 AM7/18/07
to
Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <1i1fwgq.fvt50jw7611cN%ted_c...@hotmail.com>,
> ted_c...@hotmail.com says...
> > In a nutshell, this advice is to first decide on who is the SP THEN
> > gather information to support the decision and usher the person out of
> > the organization.
> >
> > This is the most suppressive management advice I have ever seen,
> > probably an extension of what goes on deep inside the church.
> >
> > --
> > Ted
>
> Why deep?
>
> Once you grant the 'Suppressive Person' doctrine; that there is an
> 'absolute' class of people who are responsible for all failure,
> illness or 'negativity' etc., and that Scientology has the 'Tech'
> for 'spotting' them, it's a natural (and universally practiced)
> given that 'framing' and 'setting up' and 'finding and
> manufacturing' cause for screwing with them will be necessary.


Zealots often overlook the phrase, "greater or lesser degree" when
considering that all illness is a PTS situation. Many times the lesser
degree is such that it is insignificant.

--
Ted

Android Cat

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 1:49:30 PM7/18/07
to
<snip>

This account is both shocking and expected. I mean, even people who haven't
been involved in Scientology get a feel how the awful system operates after
a while.

*Of course* they have to apply the tech and KSW in _all_ aspects on their
lives, including doing business.
*Of course* anyone who doesn't cooperate is an outpoint that _must_ be fixed
as a Potential Trouble Source.
*Of course* if they refuse to be "fixed" then they are Suppressive and
_should_ be disconnected from.
*Of course* if the person is an SP, then they _must_ be guilty of crimes and
anything is okay to gather evidence of it.
*Of course* wog world laws and rules don't use tech or have their ethics in,
so they _must_ be circumvented.

...and so on and on, QED by Elronic axioms...

Wrap it up with the smug holy quest to /Save the Planet/ and tie it around
someone's self-worth and world-picture, and it's _exactly_ the same sort of
thing that keeps sending people out to for another Operation Snow White or
Freakout.

And finally, *of course* CoS is such an anal organization that it's obvious
that they'd have an _exact_ drill for how to go about illegally firing
someone. (Probably a hidden appendix on the green and red admin vols.)

But it _is_ a shocker when someone comes out and says that, yes, they really
do it.

Scientology: It's *dumber* than you think!

--
Ron of that ilk.


antisectes

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 3:12:40 PM7/18/07
to
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com wrote:
> [An anonymous ex Scientologist sent me this:]

interestingly enough, I was said some days ago that indeed, crime cult
WISE leaders were easily expelling theitr own "breed" - I mean, their
own 'cultic sisters and brothers' in good standing, if by instance, they
were asking some more money in some circumstances...

r

Kim P

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 5:03:28 PM7/18/07
to

This so sad and pathetic - and truly evil in every sense of the word.
Nothing like destroying the reputation of good people just because they
are wise to scientology ways and means.

All SP's are bad and PTS (a non-existant thing outside of scientologoy)
and therefore incapable of being good workers? All SP's have hidden
crimes etc etc - standard scientology . Who says fair game no longer
exists.

Sheesh

Kim P

John

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 7:04:25 PM7/18/07
to

"Kim P" <yduzit...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:469e801f$1...@news2.lightlink.com...

> chuckbeatty77 @aol.com wrote:
>> [An anonymous ex Scientologist sent me this:]
>>
snip

>> "Question was asked how to get rid of an SP with good performance.
>> Response was that SPs cannot possibly give truly good performance in
>> anything, because they are SPs. ALL SPs are PTS, if only to
>> themselves. The performance of the SP might appear to be good, but
>> the SP will have secret crimes and will be covertly trying to destroy
>> the company. Get creative in finding fault with the SP, document it,
>> and rid of the SP.
>>
>> "A few years later, I heard that several Scientology businesspeople
>> who actually tried this ended up deeply regretting it.
>>
>>
>> "This is true."
>>
>> [anonymous ex Scientologist]
>>
>
> This so sad and pathetic - and truly evil in every sense of the word.
> Nothing like destroying the reputation of good people just because they
> are wise to scientology ways and means.
>
> All SP's are bad and PTS (a non-existant thing outside of scientologoy)
> and therefore incapable of being good workers? All SP's have hidden
> crimes etc etc - standard scientology . Who says fair game no longer
> exists.
>
> Sheesh
>
> Kim P

Truly scientology acts like sand in the mechanisms of society, never enough
to stop things running, but constantly causing grief 'ere it goes. Imagine
how many perfectly decent people lost their jobs (and all the knock-on
effects that can have) because of weasely actions like these.

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 9:52:59 PM7/28/07
to

> Chuck:
>
> Very interesting BUT...
>
> WhenScientologyia a household words I will start worrying about it, in the

> mean time Scientologists are NOBODY!
>
> Larry


Agreed. The extremely limited scholarly interest to even read
Hubbard's books and the red or green volumes proof of what you say.

Chuck Beatty

Kevin Brady

unread,
Jul 28, 2007, 10:32:48 PM7/28/07
to

"chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185673979.4...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Disagreed. While it is true that the Church has made a total nightmarish
mess of things, in terms of public image, and on many other fronts, they
aren't "NOBODY". I don't know why it is necessary to make little of them or
their ideas in order to accurately assess them. I think it is actually
counter-productive. I can understand being frustrated with the people who
are parishioners and staff who have been duped into serving a machine that
they think is helping mankind, but which is actually just bilking as many
people as possible before some fall-guys go to jail the the house is closed
up. I can understand being extremely angry at those who are engineering the
bilking of people, and the attacks on critics and the abusers of the legal
system. And there's a gray area, where some staff and public are aware that
what they are doing is either immoral, illegal or stupid, but still are
knowing and willing participants. That group is a small minority, however.
All of them are still human beings, however, and should be treated with
basic respect.

Their philosophy has largely been rejected based on the sensationalistic
Xenu story and the unrelenting money-grubbing of registrars and FSMs. While
people who have actually read the books and policies are largely dismissive
(when they are not themselves ex-church-members) or even prone to ridicule,
I think this is largely due to the unscientific presentation and wild
claims, and not really so much about the ideas themselves. I think the
complete derision which scientology receives on this NG is at least
partially due to resentment of those who have been frequent posters, which
is completely understandable, coupled with the fact that the only
scientologists typically posting here are either incredibly angry or
defeated apostates, or dyed-in-the-wool OSA-types intent on fomenting
disruption and "entheta". Thus, the only scientologists most critics will
know much about are those who consider themselves enemies of the people
posting here, or very angry and sometimes confused ex-members.

Those of us who are actually trying to understand each other and communicate
without an ulterior agenda are few and far between, whether scientologist,
critic, or simply interested parties.

And none of us are "nobodies".


Eldon

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 12:32:55 AM7/29/07
to

Definitely. It's creepy as hell, and as usual a Hubbardian perversion
of real psychological phenomena.

There are "bad apples" around, variously called psychopaths,
sociopaths, narcissists or serial bullies. Dr. Robert Hare, author of
"Without Conscience" and "Snakes in Suits" has developed an assessment
method to identify them.

It goes without saying that with Scientology, the place to start such
an evaluation would be at the top, working downward. For example, I
think it would be safe to say that L.R.H. fit into that general
category, and D.M. emulates his example authentically.

What Scieno business owners will do with this flim-flam act -- if they
fall for it -- is get their companies into legal trouble and
eventually wreck them.

It's pretty ironic that they blatantly tell people to go after wrong
targets and fabricate "ethics conditions" to be used after the fact.
This is fundamentally suppressive, perverse advice, even by
Scientology's own perverse standards.

barb

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 11:17:53 AM7/29/07
to
Depends on your definition. Do you think they would have let you pass
the velvet rope into Studio 54?

You ain't no Paris Hilton! (as an aside, I kind of consider her a
vacuous intellectual nobody, but who cares what I think?)

Kevin Brady

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 2:05:02 PM7/29/07
to

"barb" <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:uc2ri.23538$vS1....@newsfe16.phx...

Depends if I had my assless chaps on or not.

> You ain't no Paris Hilton! (as an aside, I kind of consider her a vacuous
> intellectual nobody, but who cares what I think?)

Yeah, you're a nobody.

No, seriously, even Paris Hilton is a somebody, although maybe not somebody
I want to know. Using those sorts of "invalidations" of people is a way of
separating us, establishing a pecking order, and I consider it contemptible.


zeeorger

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 2:52:15 PM7/29/07
to
On Jul 18, 6:23 am, ted_cram...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In a nutshell, this advice is to first decide on who is the SP THEN
> gather information to support the decision and usher the person out of
> the organization.
>

> This is the most suppressive management advice I have ever seen,
> probably an extension of what goes on deep inside the church.

Heck! if you really look, suppresive management advice is not
even skin deep, it is on the surface. There are entire classes
of people who fall under the "ineligible class" (type A-J).
As a general rule, psychs, journalists, people who have engaged
in 'other practices', the insane, the unable, etc need not even
bother to seek help at any Church of Scientology. The determining
factors boil down to having the right pro-scientology ("Command")
Intention, a prescription designed to create zealots.

The whole concept of 'Equal Protection under the Law' does
not exist within scientology. All internal rules are governed
by one overriding rule, You are either classed as being with
"scientology" or you are, by definition, PTS and/or SP.

The sorting process starts very early and there is no
appeal within scientology once you fall out of step. It
explains why scientology is such an extremely quick and
fast-paced indoctrination process.

Z

The words inscribed above the entrance to the U.S.
Supreme Court are: "Equal justice under law"

John

unread,
Jul 29, 2007, 6:46:26 PM7/29/07
to

"zeeorger" <zeeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185735135.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 18, 6:23 am, ted_cram...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip

> Heck! if you really look, suppresive management advice is not
> even skin deep, it is on the surface. There are entire classes
> of people who fall under the "ineligible class" (type A-J).
> As a general rule, psychs, journalists, people who have engaged
> in 'other practices', the insane, the unable, etc need not even
> bother to seek help at any Church of Scientology. The determining
> factors boil down to having the right pro-scientology ("Command")
> Intention, a prescription designed to create zealots.
>
> The whole concept of 'Equal Protection under the Law' does
> not exist within scientology. All internal rules are governed
> by one overriding rule, You are either classed as being with
> "scientology" or you are, by definition, PTS and/or SP.
>
> The sorting process starts very early and there is no
> appeal within scientology once you fall out of step. It
> explains why scientology is such an extremely quick and
> fast-paced indoctrination process.
>

It might also explain why the dropout rate is so high.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages