“ I said—wait a second, I want to know the way they market on the Internet and then we can keep it going forever.” – David Miscavige1
Chairman of the Board David Miscavige said that in August of 2004, not long before his right hand man catapults himself out into the field of Scientology – coincidentally (or not) followed by several other top executives.
An Executive Directive by Hubbard2 states:
A “field” ARC breaks when you don’t take an interest in Individuals. Failure to comm to people. failure to lead them upward. failure to handle their upsets or get flubs repaired all lead to “ARC broken field”.
The first step a proper marketing campaign would involve, per Mr. Hubbard’s plagiarized Public Relation materials called “admin tech”, is to: Survey the public as to what their buttons are. Buttons as in, you push them and the person is supposed to react. Not think – react.
This is the Freudian regurgitated spin of American propagandist Edward L. Bernays, the father, as some call him, of modern Public Relations. Bernays learned this technique of how to manipulate others without them knowing it at the knee of his mentors – his cousin Sigmund Freud and his boss Lord Northcliffe, head of the Department of Enemy Propaganda (MI6) during World War I.
Propaganda, he wrote, should be “the pace-maker for policy, and should form opinion without opinion realizing that it is so being formed.” This was the first and principal maxim of the principle of “government by the consent of the governed”. – Lord Northcliffe, 1918
And so it was with current Scientology marketing strategies. David Miscavige’s right-hand man “surveys” the field concerning Scientology for 5 years approximately. Step 1 completed. Step 2, the strategy is formed and planned out. Step 3, In 2009, David Miscavige’s right-hand man now begins the internet campaign operation to: salvage the field, salvage L. Ron Hubbard’s name, and salvage the subject of Scientology itself.
Does that look like a random act of coincidence to you?
Now what’s this “field” term mean from a Scientologists’ perspective -
Scientologists, anywhere you may find them, generally consider “the field” to be persons who are public Scientologists and who are not staff Scientologists, but it also has a broader meaning of all people that are not Scientologists.
ARC break, refers to the first triangle of Dianetics called the ARC triangle. ARC is an acronym where A stands for Affinity, R stands for Reality, and C stands for Communication. It is not an equilateral triangle. C is considered more important than A or R put together. A break in ARC simply refers to that a person had something happen that theoretically resulted in a “lowering” of one of the points and then consequently all three are “lowered”.
What the above quote in the Executive Directive is saying, is that staff-oriented Scientologists need to repair such breaks by conversely:
- treating people in “the field” as individuals
- handling their upsets (breaks in ARC) – which in auditing, they ask the question “Do you have an ARC Break?”
- fix mistakes made by staff or organizations and
- properly “lead them upward” – which means “up” their Bridge to Enlightenment.
The bottom line is that there are no other valid reasons - besides the ones mentioned for “the field” – to not be pleased with Scientology and Dianetics technology. This is not the only Scientology reference that says this kind of thing. There are dozens peppered throughout the materials.
Currently there is an operation – a planned set of actions – being carried about by Scientologists wearing “hats” (jobs) dictated by L. Ron Hubbard administrative and technical materials. This operation has many aspects to it, and I’m not going into them all in this particular post but one of the most important is to handle the field. In this case, and by the people currently carrying out this operation, the goal is to have people like you and I, plus the Scientologists who are disenchanted with the official Church, plus the “critics” of Scientology – basically anyone who is categorized by these people as “upset” with Scientology; the goal is to handle our ARC breaks so that we are no longer “upset” with Hubbard, Scientology etc.
The people involved in this attempted salvage of the sinking ship of Scientology, may or may not be known to you, but if you want to see who they are do a google search for “Independent Scientology” and “Save Scientology” and you’ll quickly learn who they are. They are not important, their marching orders are.
HCO Policy Letter of 25 JUNE 1972 states:
ARC Break Reges and Tours personnel (as well as Ethics Officers) collide with students and pcs who have blown (run away from) the org.
The recovery of these and getting them back on the line is of great interest to such personnel.
In the first place, they muddy up a field. In the second place EVERY ONE OF THEM CAN BE GOTTEN BACK IN.
If you leave them about they spoil prospects.
And there’s nothing more startling to their friends than to have these people who have been nattering around suddenly turn up (repaired) saying, “Okay, it’s all fine now. They’re great guys.
There is a lot of complicated (meaning many and lengthy) materials dealing with the subject of ARC in Scientology but one of the most basic has to do with the preliminary steps before a person can be “in session” – which in Scientology means that you are interested in your own “case” and more importantly…that you are willing to talk to the auditor.
These people that are attempting to salvage the rest of us into “seeing the light” concerning Scientology, use materials such as these to try and handle us. For example, if you are not willing to talk about how Scientology works, then that is because you have basic breaks that need to be repaired first. First on the list, 9 times out of 10, is that they will ask you “Do you have an ARC break?”
Really think about that – Do you see the utterly arrogant view behind it?
It’s arrogant because it is false superiority.
This “handle your ARC break” presupposes as a fact that someone should be in ARC with Scientology, and presupposes as a fact that there is this triangle that we are all subject to the “laws” of – called the ARC triangle.
There are people that are so arrogant and protective of Scientology’s mind-control techniques, (such as this law of an ARC triangle) that they will run Black Intelligence Operations on people who are most definitely not supportive of Scientology’s insane premises! With all this supposed concern about people’s ARC (or not) with Scientology, just how exactly…. is running Black Operations going to get them in “ARC”? Talk about paradoxical attitudes….
Now add this into the mix – on the one hand there is the idea that “attacks (criticism) are bad”, but here is Hubbard saying he wants attacks, or he doesn’t feel right! There’s a lot of really bad logical errors in this premise Hubbard presents – see if you can spot them.
FINAL LECTURE in Australia 8 NOVEMBER 1959
.. They only attack the real McCoy.
And whenever we are attacked it must be from some source that feels we know what we’re talking about, and that that constitutes a fantastic menace to their future security because we could find out. And that is something that they must not permit us to do.
…The symptoms of future success are marked by the critics. That we are succeeding here in Australia, that we’ve already got a show on the road-not that we’re just starting one-that we’re already winning is signalized by the factthat there are some people around who don’t want us to win.And if nobody was criticizing us at all, I would feel very upset and wondering what you were doing wrong.
Hubbard is simply blowing smoke up his audience’s ass to try and explain why he failed in Australia – and he’s attempting to use the British plan to try and give their groups and ideas credibility by either 1: generating the attacks themselves or 2: calling any attack a premise that their ideas “must” be right! It’s called CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. By the way, did you ever notice that Hubbard tended to go to work on countries where the British/Americans were worried about real opposition and interference to their “New World” plan? Africa, Australia, America, and so on.
Our man Benjamin Disraeli (a former Prime Minister of England) all the way back in 1844, wrote a supposedly fictional book called Coningsby. In it, he revealed something interesting as to an operating point of The Great Plan strategy, which was this:
No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition. It reduces their supporters to that tractable number which can be managed by the joint influences of fruition and hope. It offers vengeance to the discontented, and distinction to the ambitious; and employs the energies of aspiring spirits, who otherwise may prove traitors in a division or assassins in a debate.
- Book II of Coningsby, or The New Generation, by Benjamin Disraeli, 1844 Quotes
This paradoxical attitude of “let’s all have ARC, attacks are bad” at the same time as “attacks are good, let’s black op those unbelievers into the ground” has gone on since the earliest days of Hubbard, and can not be truthfully places on David Miscavige’s shoulders as the “sole source” of this.
David Miscavige, the head of the Church, and his misapplication of Scientology allegedly, has been repeatedly and loudly characterized as what’s wrong with Scientology.
On the flip-side, you are presented with the idea that Scientology, with it’s materials properly understood and used by a good-hearted person, doesn’t create enemies and ARC breaks.
Do you see the arrogance, again, in that last idea?
What I just explained about ARC breaks IS Scientology – it is so basic to all of it’s premises, that it cannot ever be separated from it. So the abusive arrogance is built-in to the very foundation of the subject from practically Day One. The ARC triangle IS a fact, it DOES work like this, etc., etc.
Does it look like there’s any wiggle room in those words?
In Scientology, the A, R and C points, EQUAL understanding. Hubbard materials state that the only reason for an ARC break that “blows up” which in this case, means the person leaves Scientology, attacks its materials as false, etc. – the only reason is missed withholds. He also said that all missed withholds boil down to “should have knowns”, but that this is also what the person says after-the-fact of doing something wrong (called an overt in Scientology).
PREPCLEARING, 13 February 1962 – SHSBC
…The subject matter that I’m taking up in this lecture is HCO Bulletin of February 12th, 1962, which I believe you have. But not because it isn’t covered in this bulletin yet, but because I haven’t given you all the dope on it …
… if you restimulate a withhold and then you don’t pull it, you have the sole source of ARC breaks. …you have the source of all of your ARC breaks, of all of the yap-yap against the organizations, of all the yap-yap against Scientology, of all of the nya-yak-nyak-nyak-nya-nya-nya-nya …
…It isn’t true that every time you miss a withhold you get an ARC break.
… But it is true that every time you have an ARC break you’ve had a missed withhold.
…But it is invariable that if the pc blows up to the roof, you’ve missed a withhold.
Now, as Scientologists, for God’s sakes, get a reality on this.
…This character is going on and on and on, saying, “Central Organizations charge too much money. Besides, besides I had a brother once and so on and so on and so on. And the Registrar wrote me a letter and do you know what it said? Nya-nya-nya.”
You’ve got no business whatsoever trying to explain it to them or trying to heal the ARC break.
…You can call them “should-have-knowns” if you want to.
…the not-know that is most important is the should-have-known.
…should-have-known is what gives you regret.
…We don’t care what he should have known.
… the prior pictures of having experienced are invalidated at once. So he just tries to say they never happened.
… See, nothing happened is what [his] the final analysis is. He should have known. He didn’t know.
…And the only thing that creates an ARC break in the final analysis is a should-have-known.
This is another example of where Hubbard gets a “little” (very little) bit of truth going – but what he leaves out makes complete bollocks of the whole thing as any kind of useful information.
What Hubbard leaves out, and this is important – is that when it comes to “things I done wrong” kind of thing – the real truth is that THE PERSON DID KNOW. That is what the person is trying to deny to himself and when he stops doing that? It makes all the difference in the world as far as a real handling of “occluded memory”.
What is Hubbard’s handling for the missed withholds, or “should-have-known’s”? The handling is expressed as: Pull the withhold, which means find out what it is that is being withheld.
Speaking from within Scientology’s world of ARC breaks and missed withholds, you could say that a very true statement about Scientology is:
Most people don’t have an ARC break or a “should-have-known” with Scientology – they understand what it really is.
The difference with a Scientologist is – they understand what it really is but they are withholding that fact – from themselves.
Just who needs their should-have-knowns pulled around here…
The Good Scientologist versus the Bad Scientologist
I think David Miscavige sees himself as the character The Dark Knight, where he’s so good and strong that he can allow himself to be the bad guy, and be chased for the good of the field and for Scientology.
Isn’t that exactly what you see happening? David Miscavige – THE BAD GUY.
The Dark Knight.
Well then, we must have a GOOD GUY in this fairy tale, right?
Our…White Knight (s).
And so we do. David Miscavige’s right-hand man is portrayed over and over again on the internet as… the GOOD GUY.
The White Knight.
The average, heart-of-gold, a little bumbling and not-too-comfortable with the rich folk, investigative reporter/district attorney character leading the way for the little people’s rights.
This is straight out of Edward L. Bernays (and really originates from the British Lords of Propaganda):
Chapter VII – The Application Of These Principles
…the cause he represents must have some group reaction and tradition in common with the public he is trying to reach.
Chapter II – Technique and Method
…classifies seven primary instincts with their attendant emotions. They are flight-fear, repulsion-disgust, curiosity-wonder, pugnacity-anger, self-display-elation, self-abasement-subjection, parental-love-tenderness.
Pugnacity-anger…..he is often forced to enact combats and create issues. He stages battles against evils in which the antagonist is personified for the public.
What unites our two supposedly diametrically opposed stage characters?
1. They both attack certain people that are their true opponents. And not in a half-hearted slapstick way.
2. They both seek to “handle the world” (the field) on the subject of Scientology.
They don’t view the ARC triangle as a belief, it’s a scientific fact to them! I have never seen a Scientologist say that a specific, technical point of Scientology, like the ARC triangle, is a “belief”. They only use the expression “my beliefs” as a broad term, never do they say “my belief in the ARC triangle”. They only start talking about “my beliefs” when they are in a tough position and are trying to downplay how hardcore their attitude really is, or when they want to try and make someone else look bad for challenging them on what are not beliefs in Scientology – they are “laws” and they are “axioms”.
So, whether you are an ex-Scientologist, a current Scientologist, or anything in-between, just realize that the salvage operation currently underway views the world (the field) as ARC Broken with Scientology.
And now, we are being “handled”.
I say – good luck with that. I don’t buy their ARC triangle law, and I never did, but that doesn’t didn’t mean that I couldn’t understand the materials about it and demonstrate their application (as per their materials) without it ever “changing” me into their view of who I really am, which is what Scientology boils down to.
Furthermore, after 38 years of experience with the materials, and any of the people supposedly versed in those materials, I can categorically state that not a single person who was supposed to, ever really saw me and that…….. told me everything I needed to know about Scientology.
They talk a good game, but they cannot DO.
If you want to see some serious hypocrisy and mind-fuck in action by L. Ron Hubbard – look at what he says here about “enemies” of Scientology.
RESPONSIBILITY 1 JANUARY 1960
…that’s the history of the enemy of Dianetics and Scientology.
…only those people are against us who have something to hide. And this is not an opinionated, political datum. It’s cast-iron technology, and for dramatic purposes, lends itself extremely well. But it is simply coldblooded, advanced Scientology and nothing else: That a case that has something to hide will run-find some excuse to run-and then will sit and jabber, jabber, jabber about how bad you are or we are. And that case drarnatizes what’s wrong with the case, which is to say overt acts against the various dynamics and will dramatize it by saying there’s something wrong with the auditor, something -wrong with Scientology, there’s something wrong with the way it is, there’s something wrong … Well, we’re not perfect-but we’re not trying to hide anything.
Although, it is true that Hubbard wasn’t TRYING, he actually WAS hiding things! And then, he tries to turn his fears of exposure around on his exposers.
Typical. But this is what these people really are taught to think about anyone who “attacks” Scientology.
Sounds rather Spanish Inquisition mentality, doesn’t it – yep. AND…true to form, from the same tape, here is Hubbard trying to excuse his vicious actions (and instructions to others to also do so) that were taken against “enemies” of Scientology. It’s because they are being “victims” so therefore it’s OK TO PUNISH THEM!!!!
I took such a case, and because he had done something to the organization, I didn’t restrain myself from being punitive. I have a well-grooved pattern on being punitive, as lots of people have. You know, if people do something, you’re supposed to do something to them, you know? And it’s just my standpoint: The guy elects himself a victim, so I say, “Well, all right. You’re a victim.”
In modern times, you can see the right-hand man of David Miscavige, treating OSA target Gerry Armstrong in much the same way – now you know where he gets this “healing through understanding” - read PUNITIVE ACTIONS AGAINST VICTIMS – diametrically opposed hypocrisy from. Hubbard himself!
Both Marty and Mike R. ran Office of Special Affairs Black Ops on Gerry Armstrong starting in the early 1980′s. After Marty came out with all his supposed “changed views”, Gerry (much like Gandhi did in the late 1940′s to the British – Churchill – and their “policy of humanity and self-government for all”) had the temerity to boldly and directly question Marty as to whether this new “openness” applied to him. This was Marty’s answer (excerpted).
Marty did answer. August 8th, 2011
…Between May and September 2009, I wrote Marty several very logical communications that he didn’t answer. His one answer to me was in response to my sincerely and patiently logical letter to him of September 4, 2009, I titled “Apology Not Needed or Wanted.”
…Marty’s answer: [September 6, 2009]
b) You decided to become a victim, and relish it so much you’ve continued to be one to this day. Everything you utter is through the prism of a victim and to the degree that it is refracted as such, it is false. I am devoted to helping people from entering the dark, dank dungeon of victim-hood.
Do you see how Marty, David Miscavige’s right-hand man – now cast in the starring role of Operation Save Scientology as The White Knight – is doing exactly the same thing as Hubbard?
A little free advice -
You can’t pull off the whole “good guy” thing whilst still living as an enslaver…
And believing their crap-ass materials.
Bill Franks, L. Ron Hubbard and “the public leave [Scientology] because of ARC breaks, not overts and withholds”
In an interesting twist that happens to align with the current salvage Scientology operation, the Former Executive Director International of the mother church of Scientology, Bill Franks, came out of the blue and started posting on Facebook in 2011 or so.
He said something very odd, and that’s what I’m going to discuss next.
Glenn Samuels is an “old-timer” former Scientologist who came out on February 10th, 2010 on the blog of our “White Knight” character in this show. Glenn was presented as pro- Independent Scientologists (I mentioned them earlier) and things were all happy-dappy theoretically. Fast-forward two years to 2012 and now Glenn has apparently distanced himself and is posting as to what is wrong with the Independent Scientologists.
I first ran into the Bill Frank’s declaration on Glenn Samuel’s blog.
…Mr. Franks tells a story about an incident which occurred in the mid-70′s on the Apollo [a ship of theChurch's Sea Organization]. He was Director of Training over the FEBC with Hubbard aboard, trying to recover a student who had escaped the ship while docked in Morocco. Hubbard was irate. Mr. Franks and David Mayo, the Senior C/S International, wrote up all the “standard” Scientology actions they had done to recover the escaped student and submitted them to Hubbard.
…Mr. Franks said that, through a messenger, Hubbard informed them that he was about to tell them something that must never get out. It was labeled extremely confidential. Hubbard told Mayo and Franks that the real reason people leave was not because of overts and “missed withholds”. It was because of ARC Breaks. Hubbard told these two men this and said that the reason this could never get out was because Hubbard feared he would “lose control of orgs” [organizations of Scientology] if it did.
Well, that’s about the polar opposite of what most of Hubbard’s other references on this say.
I did some more checking to see if Bill Franks had said this, and came across a long discussion thread at an Ex-Scientologist message forum. Apparently, Bill Franks had posted about this at his Facebook in February 2011. There was some back and forth as to was it him, was it real, until finally a woman named Karen de La Carriere (one of those staff type Scientologists mixed up with the Salvage Scientology operation) vouched for that it was a real post, and it was really Bill Franks.
This was then excerpted, and this is the original version:
…….on one night in 1974 I found myself in David Mayo’s office in the tween decks of the Apollo. It was very late or early in the morning. We were, I believe, in the port of Safi, Morocco. A student of mine, I was currently D of T (director of training) and Mayo was Flag Senior case supervisor, had blown. Hubbard was extremely angry with us due to this blown student of mine on the FEBC program.
We waited and waited and about 0300 hrs a messenger came down with a dispatch written by LRH. My memory does not recall any folders being returned. The dispatch was entitled Very Confidential underlined. He went onto say that ‘if you or Franks ever reveal any of this information that I am about to reveal, the consequences will be severe for SCN (Scientology).’
He then wrote, ‘a person does not blow due to Overts or Withholds. He blows only due to ARC BreaKs (upsets)’.
‘However, If any of this information ever became public, I would lose all control of the orgs and eventually Scientology as a whole.’ Signed LRH
Now why do we care about any of this?
For a couple of reasons. For the Scientologists that read this, this is rather a bomb-shell. Scientologists are always being told that if they leave Scientology, if they attack Scientology in any way, or even if they “have bad thoughts” about it’s materials and practices – it’s because of something wrong with them. They have done bad things (overts) and they are hiding them (withholds) and they need to “come clean” until they change their mind and like Scientology again. That’s just such a terrible way to have to live, isn’t it?
For the former Executive Director International (ED Int for short) to suddenly say such a thing though, is interesting. Especially in light of all the attempts to “handle” us and our supposed ARC breaks with scientology.
My interest in it went in two parallel directions. One, I checked my extensive reference library (computerized) to see what I could find on this idea that Franks mentioned, and I found several other very fascinating things along the way, and Two, I checked into Bill Franks relationship into the whole operation trying to salvage Scientology – by handling the “fields” ARC breaks and trying to restore Hubbard’s image as well. (choke)
I’ll cover direction one first.
Some references that probably haven’t seen the light of day in a long time, the first one will give you an understanding of what a Scientologist means when he uses the word “understanding”.
L. Ron Hubbard Lecture – DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS-PART I given on 13 January 1955
And so you have the ARC triangle which was developed in July of 1950. I developed the first two parts of it, C and R, I think they were. No, they were A and R, and gave a lecture on it as A and R, and then all of a sudden hit C, some such combination, and there was this triangle.
Now, about two months after that I did a paper which has not survived unfortunately, because I will never do it again, which extrapolates ARC into mathematics [how Pythagoras of him] and demonstrates that mathematics cannot exist in the absence of any one of the factors, and that a mathematical formula must contain A and it must contain R and it must contain C in order to be mathematics.
… There was much more to this, but the fact of the matter is that understanding, mathematics, reason, all these things are in the same basket, and we got the oddity right there, in I think it was September of 1950, that these three things composed understanding, these are the three component parts of understanding. And when we have raised these three parts we have raised somebody’s understanding.
Here’s another reference on this “understanding” business:
TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION IN ACTION
The entirety of ARC is the subject of understanding. Knowingness is highest on the scale, and this exceeds ARC and is in the realm of considerations and ideas. The moment we enter into understanding we get into the communication formula and the ARC triangle. Understanding is a highly superior commodity, but still lower than knowing. Understanding itself produces a column of the Chart of Human Evaluation which could be added to it. At the top we would have a complete understanding of all things, and it would be complete knowingness, but this would require no communication to effect. From this knowingness we would drop downscale into understanding.
Every once in a while, there is a grain of truth in Scientology materials. A grain. But never without some twist. The grain, is just barely visible in the part that I bolded.
This next reference does show a vague allusion to that people that “mutiny” can be handled using the ARC triangle – the Communication corner – which is about the only publicly available reference that even vaguely goes in the direction that Bill Franks says Hubbard went in on the subject.
Here’s the reference, and also note, that Hubbard is obviously plagiarizing this “handling” from somewhere else, and simply re-naming it.
ANATOMY of GAMES given on 21 December 1954.
“The way to stop any mutiny is the traditional way to stop it. This is the traditional way. And that’s simply have everybody come in and say what he’s mad about. Listen to him and give him an answer of one kind or another. People won’t mutiny. They went into communication.
“Now, we call this blowing the engram or doing almost anything. We could call it a lot of things. But the truth of the matter is that the barriers are built up by various cuts of communication. And they are destroyed by the setup of communication lines. Barriers cease to exist the moment you set it up.”
And there you have it.
This is also a vague allusion to the later invented “group” engram handling where one “audits” a group all at the same time by “letting them communicate” amongst each other – in public.
There is another lecture by Hubbard, where he talks about how to “handle” the revolutionary. What he means by “revolutionary” is someone who is not lockstepping with the “great plan”, and this reference is applicable to what Operation Save Scientology is trying to accomplish as well.
“Now, that’s the wrong way to handle a revolutionary, is to de-revolutionize him. That would also apply to a conquered people. A conquered people really never gives up. “
“Now here is the other way: Take a revolutionary-take a revolutionary and the very least, or the very most, you can do is to simply directionalize, to some slight veering, his revolution.
You maybe can slightly alter the direction of his revolutionary tendency. See, you could maybe persuade him not to revolt against the king but to revolt against the prime minister, see? Change his vector a little bit, see? You could say, “Well, don’t revolt against the-why revolt against the state because you can’t win; they’ve all got machine guns. A very much better activity at the present moment is revolt against its educational system and eventually overthrow it thereby.”
-Wisdom as an Auditor (April 28, 1964)
Aren’t those two ideas also what we see David Miscavige’s right-hand man and his merry band of field Scientologists doing currently?
Yet another way to try and enforce us to have a “raised ARC triangle” towards Scientology. Remember – that’s the only acceptable state for thee and me. We all have a “group engram” that needs to be run out, and then our ARC triangle will be raised and everything will be hunky-dory.
This, “group engram” running thing, by the way, was something that we brought out in our websites back in 2000. Steve Hall, the PR boy for this particular misadventure called Save Scientology, then copied us.
From my post, Scientology Today – A Study of Contrasts and Parallels:
Here are a few examples of attempted parallels by the current Save Scientology movement.
|Year – 2001||Year – 2009|
|Written by Mike McClaughry late 2001, the First page of scientologyintegrity.org:Note: When doing a Google Search for the words “scientology” and “integrity”, our website was #1 for years despite the Church of Scientology OSA division doing various marketing things to try and take over that position – we did nothing to market this site to Google. Virginia chose the name and we put it up and that was that.We were #1, effortlessly.. “Our intention is to get KSW applied, thus restoring integrity to the subject.” Written by Mike McClaughry – early 2001, The Introduction page of our website, scientologyintegrity.org. “…The purpose of this website is to audit out a third and fourth dynamic engram.”
“There are those men who have the evil purpose of enslaving mankind. We have given them the name – Global Enslavers.”
These men have been the cause of almost all of mankind’s woes – including wars, diseases and economic hardship. They are the secret government of Earth and they are the source of Nazi mentality.
|Written by Thoughtful – Steve Hall, December 25, 2009, Introduction rediscoverscientology.comSteve efforts atwhat we do effortlessly:“When working on the domain name [scientology-cult.com]one year ago, I examined the most popular search terms on the subject of Scientology and number #2 on the list (next to the word scientology) was “scientology cult.””“…Launched in April 2009, that website is now ranked by Google as #2 out of nearly 9 million search results for the phrase “scientology cult,” a pretty impressive featin the web world.”Steve studied the success of our website and then copied our sloganof restoring integrity…“[scientology-cult.com] It’s goal is torestoretransparency, accountability and integrity to Scientology…”
Written by Thoughtful – Steve Hall, December 25, 2009, Introductionrediscoverscientology.comIt’s goal is to restore transparency, accountability and integrity to Scientology by auditing the group. It is engaged in 3rd dynamic auditing…“…You can trust us. We have something better in mind.”– sayeth Steve Hall, PR man for an enslaver operation.
|You can also view: Internet Archive reformedscientology.org– May 18, 2001*|
*Note: reformedscientology.org was our first website, but the domain was owned by Bob Minton of the Lisa McPherson Trust. Later that year (2001), while I was on the phone with yet another person trying to infiltrate us, the person said we needed a new domain name. I said it should talk about integrity, he and I both said Scientologyintegrity…and then he said I’ll buy it for you. I told him “just a minute, I’ll be right back.” and I went and bought the domain real quick and then came back and told him. You should have seen how nonplussed the guy was by that.I’d love to tell whoever that was on the phone that day – Come on now. Did you really think I was going to be that easy?
Frankly I would prefer to deal with OSA. In fact, these two make OSA look
like pussycats in search of a ball of yarn.
- old newsgroup conversation between Ralph Hilton (under a pseudonym), Bunny Ann, and Alan Walter, talking about my husband Mike and I. Some excellent examples of Sock Puppet action in that conversation.
They got that right.
The rest of the references I found deserve their own post, especially because of what I found.
Now for direction two, Bill Franks and his relationship to the whole Save Scientology thing.
Some fascinating things showed up there.
To start with, a man named Robin Scott posted the following on Bill Franks Facebook, which was what got Franks started about this new secret data about why people leave Scientology. Robin Scott left the Church proper in the early 80′s and then hooked up with Captain Bill Robertson (who had also left). Robin then donned a Sea Org uniform and marched into one of the Churches Advanced Organizations and walked out with the Church’s OT level (the highest levels) materials. Quite the character. He also suddenly resurfaces around the same time as David Miscavige’s right-hand man started up Step 3 – the use of the internet to “handle” the world and our ARC breaks with Scientology. (see beginning of this post.)
Thursday at 4:37pm · [February 2011]
Robin Scott ->Bill Franks
Hi Bill – I think you will be intrigued to learn that there is a website http://www.savescientology.com/ which recommends putting you back on post as ED Int (if you can be ‘cleaned up’)!
I wonder if you have been consulted in this respect, and what your thoughts are in relation to such a plan? Personally, I would love to see you taking… over the reins once again!
Warmest regards, Robin Scott
Save Scientology website? What’s that?
The very first post of that blog was done on New Year’s Day – January 1, 2011
And it does indeed mention putting an ED INT back on post, as Robin said.
ED International, the convening authority for worldwide matters pursuant to Committees of Evidence, Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration Of, HCO PL 7 September 1963, needs to get cleaned up and put back on post or replaced as may be appropriate in the estimation of the CSI board of directors. The cleaned-up or new ED Int then needs to grant a general amnesty and convene a Committee of Evidence on the overall situation with David Miscavige as an interested party.
 HCO PL 7 September 1963, Committees of Evidence, Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration Of)
There’s a lot of Scientologese in the above, the bolded parts are what’s important. Put back on post, then (in order to “handle” the ARC Broken field) issue an amnesty (which paradoxically can’t apply to you unless you write up all the things you did wrong) and then there’s the usual…discipline David Miscavige – it’s all his fault. Our Dark Knight. That’s the part that talks about a “Committee of Evidence” which is a justice procedure against a Scientologist by other Scientologists. Sort of like going to court.
That was enough for me to have a good idea of at least one or two of the people behind this “anonymous” website. I checked into all the other posts and the more I read, the more it became obvious. Particularly the parts talking about a Scientology organization called the Church of Spiritual Technology, that is supposedly the true holder of the copyrights. It wasn’t so much what was said, it was how and the feel of it. It’s unique. Hard to describe.
It’s exactly the same feel as another website called Sc-i-r-s-ology that espoused things that an anonymous poster (with many pseudonyms) posted about on Scientology newsgroups more than 10 years ago. Scirsology (and these original posts I mentioned) talk about mainly two things. CST, David Miscavige and his terrible attrocities of one kind or another, and Remote-viewing in relation to an alleged CIA take-over of Scientology using David Miscavige.
Interestingly enough, the Debbie Cook op, fronted into public view by Synthia Fagen and “Emma”, started out capitalizing on the same points about “restoring Ed Int” as did the Save Scientology website.
January 1, 2012
LRH Command Structure: LRH left us with a complex and balanced command structure, with our orgs led by the Office of ED International. This office was considered so important that LRH created a special management group called the Watch Dog Committee whose only purpose was to see that this office and the other needed layers of management existed. LRH ED 339R speaks of this extensively as the protection for our Church. But these people are missing. And not just some. As of just a few years ago there were no members of the office of ED Int on post, not tob mention top execs throughout the International Management structure.
Coming back again to this savescientology.com website and it’s similarities to the original Sc-i-r-s-ology site owners…
Note: The sc-i-r-s-ology website used to be on a shield domain called pair.com I believe, and now it has changed ownership and is registered to scientologist Michael Moore. Moore was the President of something called the International Freezone Association (it’s another outside the church Scientology thing). He recently hooked up with David Miscavige’s right-hand man and his merry band of Independent Scientologists. In a demonstration of allegiance this year (2012) he is now calling his group The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists.
There is a poster called “RJ” who was a frequent commenter at Marty’s Blog. In November of 2010, “RJ” reveals that his name is Robin Adair.
martyrathbun09 | November 5, 2010 at 12:19 am | Reply
Three years earlier, in 2007, Robin Adair is mentioned at another blog, concerning that the history of remote viewing at [Sc-i-r-s-ology] was his and presumably trying to get his site promoted around the blogging community.
We received a link from Robin Adair to a history of remote viewing at the Church of Spiritual Technology website, which is self-described as “a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the “L. Ron Hubbard Library”), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes.”
The supplied link http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/rvtimeline/index.html claims to offer an objective and verified history of the role of Scientology in the CIA’s development of psychic spying, known as remote viewing.
A “Scientology Researcher” – also mentions Robin Adair
…. “Remote Viewing: A Brief History” by Robin Adair. … Courtesy of ‘Strange Horizons’, please contact them for the complete work.
However, the link to Strange Horizons, when you enter that title of Robin’s name, brings 0 results.
This “Robin Adair”, posting as RJ at Marty’s blog, said some pretty standard attack things about me – which is very interesting in light of his connection to BOTH of those websites.
Here’s just one example, and in this example RJ is responding to a man called Terril Park. This man absolutely cannot pass by any opportunity of someone mentioning me, without feeling compelled to “inform” everyone of how crazy I am, and other vicious lies – he’s been doing this for over 10 years now.
I remember she was pretty “out there”.
Constantly asserted that everybody else’s ethics were out.
‘Cept hers of course.
Yeah I think the confusion on the name is when I started referring to her as Virginia “McNutty”.
Chick was definitely a piece of work.
Though she very right about quite a few things.
Here’s another interesting RJ comment, excerpted.
…Ask Randy MacDonald , Virginia McNulty and an endless list of Scientologists who ticked off the fearless leader and ended up in the cold, you and I included.
Randy MacDonald, now there’s a name from the past. A name also often used in connection with the Church of Spiritual Technology Exposes, at their first website (before Scirsology and Save Scientology) which was called Veritas, way back in 1999.
I doubt it’s coincidence that Robin Adair brings up his name, and deliberately alters my name. That’s twice he’s done that with my name.
Speaking of “Remote Viewing” histories, it looks like this Robin Adair guy goes way back in “connections” to us and what we were doing.
Note: “Church of Scientology:Investigations, or COSI for short was a private discussion list from way back in 2000 where Mike was engaging people in regards to investigating the Church’s CRIMES.
Post to COSinvestigations:
I’m an old-timer and I’ve saved a lot of the old promo. I’ve got a bunch of Auditors and Advance! and Celebrity mags. I remember Yvonne Gillham talking about Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff so I started going through my Celebrity mags and found a few things.
A Dianetic success story from Hal Puthoff was published in Celebrity. He signed it:
Standford Research Institute
They were giving Dianetics to OTs back then.
So he was telling the Scientologists at Celebrity Center that he was just a professor. But that was definitely after he got his contract with the CIA:
On 27 June 1972 Hal Puthoff writes a letter to CIA Office of Strategic Intelligence analyst K. Green, advising him of the results of Ingo Swann’s test experiment with the magnetometer at Stanford
…So this stopped me because I know that Bill Church was on lines at Celebrity Center around this time too and he and his wife were doing their OT levels too around then. So there is another Scientologist involved in this while Puthoff is involved with CIA. The Churches owned Church’s Fried Chicken in Texas and were loaded, I know that.
RJ/Robin Adair, posted literally hundreds and hundreds of comments to Marty’s blog – practically catapulting himself into sock puppet status, but I happen to think that this is a smart, meticulous man, and sooner or later he’s going to really figure out what’s going on.
I think that he, like some of the people he associates with (not referring to Marty etc.) think that Scientology is their only option and that if they see it as it is, then they have no option. FEAR, in other words. If there was one thing I’d like to say to those people, it would be this. You have nothing to lose by opening your eyes and seeing Scientology for what it is. NOTHING. You aren’t committing to becoming a “meat body” in so doing. Scientology, the entire movement, right from the beginning, was an attempt at a parallel of a very real thing, and that still exists. You have everything to lose by continuing to contribute your personal “juice” to an enslaver movement – a road to nowhere, and a “bridge” to nowhere.
That’s what I have to say about that.
During all the time period (1984 and forward) that Sc-i-r-s-ology and Save Scientology are both referring to concerning this CST organization and David Miscavige, etc,. a man nick-named Marty was his right hand man. This is the man mentioned earlier, that supposedly left Scientology proper to become an “Independent Scientologist”. Then, together with 3 or four other people, he begins to manage a blog that was started in 2009. This is our White Knight in this staged story.
We are one month past the beginning of year three in a plan that I initially estimated would take about five years.
- Marty3 - March 18, 2012
This man has copied just about everything my husband and I did, with only a few exceptions, from back when we began exposing the Church of Scientology from a Scientologists‘ point of view - from 1999 through half of 2005. I haven’t seen a single, original and significant move on his part that was not mine or my husband’s first, or someone else’s. He’s such a follower it’s gotten almost funny (if it wasn’t so sadly desperate).
His blog is truly painful to read. It’s as bad as being in the Church ever was. All that bowing and scraping, and false “I’m a bad-ass revolutionary” stuff in the comments section, and the “this is so theta! “ ‘s ringing over and over again, the schmoozing, the love-bombing and the sadistically pleased way that they jump on obvious ringer “disagreeing posters” in order to publicly prove their “freedom” and “willingness to fight back” - is all so exactly like the Church that it’s horrible. I see no difference with these people whatsoever. They act exactly the same as how I saw them behave in the Church during my 25 years “on the inside”.
Exactly the same.
Like a bunch of voodoo followers.
On this man’s blog, some really over-the-top blatant lies and misrepresentations have been perpetrated, especially about “attacks by the Church of Scientology” on the Independent Scientology movement, and there are lies and misrepresentations about other people that are not allied with or supportive of this new operation.
What are their so-called “plans” in regards to our “bad guy” in this show – David Miscavige?
In one of the original video interviews with Dan Koon he reveals what some of the strategy of Independent Scientology is:
:32 to :41 “The whole point of putting another management structure in the church…”
4:18 to 5:00 says courses will become available on the internet and “…Scientology needs to evolve.”
Mike Rinder in a comment concerning the Village Voice, says:
Out with Miscavige? In with the new? Typical enslaver power-plays at best, an entire false show at worst.
I am not so naive as to back these people just to “get Miscavige”. I’m not interested in “getting” Scientology – I’ve already done that.
I take great pleasure in every Scientologist and OT VII or above, that has left the Church during the last 14 years because they now know that the highest executives in the Church do things like:
- edit out key parts of Philadephia Doctorate Course (PDC) lecture #20 concerning Black Dianetics- See new post documenting this (Dan Koon, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, David Miscavige)
- falsely do six-month checks on OT VII’s with no proper technical reference, purely for harassment and money-making motivations. See new post documenting who is responsible for this (Dan Koon, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder and David Miscavige)
Those are MY moves. Hundreds of Scientologists, regardless of anything else occurring, have started their way out of Scientology because of what I did.
That makes me very happy.
Every day that another one discovers about the six month check (now called a “Refresher”), or significant alterations like PDC 20, or who starts talking about Reverse Dianetics and implanting in the Church, or any of the other things that I exposed and that my husband and I made widely known on the internet, I know it’s because of me.
It makes all those years “living the cover” on the inside worth it – 1000 times over. And every one I see come out, is another smile on my face.
1. 25 Aug 2004, a despatch from Chairman of the Board (Scientology) David Miscavige to Church executives Marc Yager, Mike Rinder, Guillaume Lesevre and Angie Blankenship regarding planning Internet Marketing Strategies for Scientology and Dianetics
2. Executive Directive International #145 of 4 July 1971 listed as by L. Ron Hubbard
3. Blog post March 18, 2012