GA Open letter to Mark Rathbun (May 31, 2009)

Dear Mark:

I’m writing to you at this time, initially anyway, to see where you’re at on your August 13, 1991 declaration that was filed in the first Scientology v. Armstrong case appeal, and to see if you’ll do something about what you stated in this dec.

I’m sure you’re knowledgeable about many of the years of attacks on me while you were working under David Miscavige. But right now I just want to address your August 13, 1991 dec. While I’m at it, because DM is steamed and some of his Scientologists or ops have been communicating particularly insanely recently about Hubbard’s Admissions or Affirmations, I’ll also take this opportunity to ask whether DM ever let you read them.

I’m communicating to you about your dec after all these years because of your recent statements on your website and on ESMB. You offered to help those in need who once formally participated in Scientology but who now hold no hope nor intention of ever seeking help from that organization. That’s me to a T.

You also say that Scientology (you’re not talking about some other “Church,” right?) “stand[s] one-hundred and eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets.” And you add that, despite the one hundred eighty degree diametrically opposed stand to its own most fundamental tenets, “the tenets can still be workable.” It’s an indirect sort of way of saying that, for example, the golden rule can still work even if the members of the Golden Rule Church, whose fundamental tenet it is, stand opposed to it. From the Goldenrulologists’ point of view, the people who might have the same or a similar golden rule tenet but don’t stand in opposition to the tenet, and instead apply it, are suckers, or, as in the Scientology case, raw meat, or wogs.

A “tenet” is “a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially, one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession. Your declaration presents what you stated are Scientology’s fundamental tenets, or basic values, of honesty, integrity and ethical behavior, and you supported this statement with the assertion and evidence that the organization’s or religion’s scripture is “replete with admonitions to its adherents to build their lives on the foundations of honesty and integrity.” I don’t really disagree; Scientology scripture is full of it. You’d also probably have a hard time finding organizations or religions, or even businesses or business models, with the most fundamental tenets of dishonesty, out-integrity and unethical behavior. Or, at least, again, that is, who claimed these evils were their own most fundamental tenets.

In your declaration, you used these claimed ethical tenets and Scientologists’ claimed honesty and integrity in demonstrating, manifesting or applying them as your basis to attack my allegations or assertions, or evidence, in the 1984 Los Angeles Superior Court Scientology v. Armstrong (I) trial that Hubbard and Scientology were dishonest, lacked integrity and engaged in unethical behavior. You asserted that my allegations or assertions of dishonesty, out-integrity and out-ethics were “patently absurd and unbelievable.”

It’s fascinating, in view of your post to ESMB, that you wrote in your 1991 declaration that I had “twisted and perverted the facts about [the Scientology] religion and its system of ethics and justice one hundred and eighty degrees from the truth.” It’s clear to me that you’re now acknowledging that actually nothing could be further from the truth. I’m very much looking forward to hearing back from you with all the details.

The following is the whole dec with some interparagraph or intersectional comments and questions:


I, Mark C. Rathbun, hereby declare:

1. I am the President of the Religious Technology Center (”RTC”). RTC has the responsibility of ensuring that the nature and quality of the services and products associated with the religion of Scientology and with its technologies of spiritual counselling, ethics and administration are properly applied in accordance with the standards set forth by the Founder of the Religion, L. Ron Hubbard.

In that Scientology stands, as you now publicly say, one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets, it must have been Hubbard’s standards that he set forth, as well as his policies, orders, and his actual, deducible, most fundamental tenets that made the organization stand that way. This conclusion is supported, of course, by the fact that Hubbard was a judicially declared pathological liar, by the wealth of good evidence that resulted in that judicial ruling, and by Scientology’s long documented history of lying and other unethical behavior. Your purpose and function in RTC, in fact, were to ensure that Hubbard’s ethics technologies were applied, in accordance with standards he set, which were one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to his own claimed most fundamental standards.

It is not believable that Scientology was aligned or in agreement with its own most fundamental tenets while you were responsible, or claiming you were responsible, for ensuring that the nature and quality of Scientology “ethics” were applied in accordance with Hubbard’s standards, and that only when you left the organization did its stand become one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own claimed most fundamental standards. Nor is it believable that Scientology was not aligned or in agreement with its own most fundamental tenets while you were inside, but is now after your apparent leaving. It is only believable that Scientology’s stand was always one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its claimed most fundamental tenets, and still is.

The organization was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental standards before you were recruited, one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental standards while you were inside, and remained exactly one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental standards after you left. When it finally happens, should it ever happen, and Scientology’s stand actually aligns with its own stated or claimed most fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity, the change in the organization’s nature and behavior will be profound and nobody who deals with Scientology will miss it.

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify thereto.

Thank you. I’m so calling on you now.

2. In addition to my corporate position as President of RTC, I also hold the ecclesiastical position of Inspector General for Ethics. The function of that position is to ensure the standard application of the ethics technology of the Scientology religion. I am responsible for ensuring that the ethical standards of Scientology are observed to the letter.

If you ensured that Scientology’s ethical standards were observed to the letter, and the organization stood one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets, which it did, then you were ensuring Scientology’s stand was and remained just that: one-hundred and eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets. Or rather, its own claimed most fundamental tenets. Scientology’s actual most fundamental tenets, because the group, organization, religion or cult does have actual tenets, are dishonesty, out-integrity and unethical behavior.

In truth, I think you have to acknowledge, you were not in the position you claim in your declaration of ensuring the standard application of ethics technology, because it was David Miscavige who actually said what “ethics” were enforced, and you executed his orders. You don’t even mention Miscavige in your declaration. And in fact you don’t even mention him on your site or in your ESMB post. Yet he is the guy virtually totally responsible for Scientology’s stand being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets.

My life is dedicated to the support and preservation of the Scientology religion and its scripture, which consists of the religious writings of Mr. Hubbard.

What you were supporting and preserving, clearly, was a religion that was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets. It appears that you are now claiming that your life is no longer dedicated to the support and preservation of the Scientology religion and its scripture, which religion and scripture resulted in that stand that is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the religion’s own most fundamental tenets.

3. I am familiar with this litigation and the outrageous accusations introduced against the Church of Scientology under the guise of an explanation of Armstrong’s “state of mind.” Armstrong was thus permitted to introduce evidence which twisted and perverted the facts about his former religion and its system of ethics and justice one hundred and eighty degrees from the truth.

So you see the astonishing irony. If my facts and explanation about Scientology and its ethics and justice were one hundred eighty degrees from what the organization was claiming was the truth, and you now see that Scientology’s stand, by which you must mean the reality of Scientology’s and Scientologists’ behavior, is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the religion’s own most fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity, then what I was saying in 1984 must be the truth. Which, of course, it was, and is.

In fact, Scientologists, as a group, comprise the most ethical people, following the highest ethical standards, of any group in the world today.

You used this descriptor “most ethical people” three times in your dec. It comes, of course, from Hubbard, who stated in HCOPL “Keeping Scientology Working:” Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.”
Being the most ethical group on the planet is a meme that Scientologists universally “know” and mouth in all sorts of contexts; e.g., in their condition formula steps. An organization that stands, not a few degrees off, but one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets, cannot be the most ethical people or group in the world, but must be, or be among, the most unethical. You can’t get more diametrically opposed to the highest ethical standards than one hundred eighty degrees.

4. At trial, the Church of Scientology of California was effectively prevented from placing into the record the overwhelming evidence of Scientology’s emphasis on honesty and integrity, or from demonstrating to the Court the truth about its system of ethics and justice which its parishioners prize so highly.

You know that this is false. Scientology’s public claims on honesty and integrity were admitted into evidence from both sides. I put such materials in evidence to demonstrate in 1984 what you’ve since acknowledged: that what Scientology was claiming as its fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity were one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its actual fundamental tenets, stand or behavior. The organization could have offered any pieces of its scripture, or any other relevant documents, into evidence. The truth is that as more and more of Scientology’s claims of its honesty and integrity were placed in the trial record, just as with your multitudinous claims of Scientology honesty and integrity in your sworn 1991 dec, the clearer the organization’s willful hypocrisy became to the trier of fact, and to any other observers who care to observe. It is Scientology’s willful hypocrisy that you’ve now observed after eighteen years is its stand that is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own claimed most fundamental tenets. Or seen another way, willful hypocrisy is Scientology’s own actual most fundamental tenet.

The trial court erred when it accepted, as has this Court, Armstrong’s evidence concerning his alleged “state of mind” and then used that evidence to support findings of fact as though such supposed evidence had been admitted for the truth of the assertions. Consequently, the false accusations leveled by Amrstrong were never answered, as they could have been, with a resounding demonstration by the Church of the standards of ethical conduct that are required of each and every Scientologist and of the developments of L. Ron Hubbard which led to the creation of an ecclesiastical ethics and justice system that is honest, ethical and fair.

So really, what in 1991 you called my “false accusations” were actually one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to false accusations, which is to say, the truth. And what you were then averring was the truth was actually one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the truth, which is to say, false accusations and false assertions.
The reason that the truth I leveled was never answered, which is actually just another false assertion, was because it was the truth. Scientology’s answer, which is not really an answer, was to simply make more false claims of honesty and ethical conduct, and to level more false accusations at me, as you did in this dec.

You are also aware by now, I’m sure, that Scientology’s ecclesiastical ethics and justice system is not honest, ethical and fair, but one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to honesty, ethics and fairness. The system is based on Hubbard’s “Suppressive Person” doctrine, which is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to honesty, ethics and fairness. It is an immoral, hateful, anti-human rights, anti-human doctrine based on lies, and it is used to justify and incite immoral, hateful, anti-human rights and anti-human actions.

Consider what it has been like all these years for the target of your false accusations and of Scientology’s willful hypocrisy and anti-human actions. Isn’t it time now to at least correct your part in the targeting? The world has waited a long time for Scientology’s resounding demonstration of standards of ethical conduct that are required of each and every Scientologist, which is not the resounding demonstration it has been for half a century, of conduct one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to ethical.

This declaration is an attempt to demonstrate to this Court just a fraction of the evidence that the Church would have supplied to the Court below, had it been allowed to do so, to prevent the reliance by that Court and now this Court on the distorted picture of Scientology created by Armstrong.

No, your declaration was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to preventing a distorted picture of Scientology. Your declaration in fact was attempting to create a distorted picture of Scientology being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the factual and accurate picture my evidence made.

There is not one item among the scriptural entries you include, cite to or quote from in your declaration that Scientology was not allowed to put into evidence in the trial court. Each item would have supported the conclusion that you have now articulated 25 years later: that Scientology’s reality is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets. Or, as Judge Breckenridge described this phenomenon or condition:

The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements.

5. Armstrong spent a considerable time at trial asserting that an alleged practice of “fair game” made him fearful, and that this fear was a justification for his theft of documents. Armstrong’s use and description of the term “fair game,” and his allegations of fear concerning it, are entirely belied by Church scripture, doctrine and essential philosophy. “fair game” was a term used in the Church for a short while in the 1960’s. By the time Armstrong first entered the Church, the term was no longer used, and the policy referring to it had been expressly cancelled.

You know very well that this is untrue. Scientology was adhering to, using and enforcing the “Suppressive Person” doctrine when you signed your dec, and is still doing so. Although you imply that you disagree with the Scientology organization’s practices of evaluating who SPs are, and demanding disconnections, you obviously still embrace and employ the SP doctrine. You state in your ESMB post that you provide “education on the mechanics of suppression,” and you refer to “suppressive individuals.” The application of the doctrine to SPs is Fair Game; that is to say, the manner in which identified SPs are viewed, handled or treated. Your claim in your dec that Suppressive Persons, after that short while in the 1960’s, essentially, were not viewed, handled or treated in any way or manner by any Scientology director, officer, employee or agent, is false and ridiculous.

I have studied the SP doctrine, both inside and out, and along with my wife Caroline built a website devoted to its exposure and opposition.
This bit I wrote recently about the doctrine and fair game, as part of a larger piece, provides my position and reasoning, and could be helpful at this or some point in your relationships with Scientology, Hubbard and Miscavige.
The following section may correct some Fair Game misconceptions, and provide some talking points should we ever talk:

The philosophy Hubbard adopted to govern and justify the treatment or handling of SPs is technically and commonly called “Fair Game,” meaning that the “enemy” in that condition or status is legitimately open to attack or pursuit. Scientology’s position is that the Suppressive Person doctrine, being from Hubbard and being religious scripture, makes attack and pursuit of SPs wholly legitimate, and protected, indeed mandated, religious expression. Fair Game is the basic philosophy of war, the condition in which attacking or pursuing the designated enemy is legitimated, and failure to attack or pursue may be illegitimate or even punished. Fair Game in Scientology has also come to mean the battle tactics the organization employs against SPs, and the actions its personnel and agents have taken in their treatment or handling of SPs over the decades since Hubbard first ordered his troops to adopt and apply the Fair Game philosophy.

In his scriptures during a period in the 1960’s, Hubbard even called the treatment or handling he intended for SPs “Fair Game;” although he later ordered that the use of the term “Fair Game” be discontinued because “it causes bad public relations.” In one of his directives, which has come to be known as the “Fair Game Policy,” Hubbard stated:

“ENEMY – SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

Scientology has for decades claimed that Fair Game, as a philosophy, policy and practice, was cancelled, but this assertion is patently false since all that Hubbard cancelled in scripture and in application was use of the term.

Although it has unquestionably caused Hubbard and his organization bad PR, and has repeatedly been exposed in the international media and condemned in court judgments, Fair Game continues to be the only treatment or handling Scientologists are permitted to administer on SPs. The tactics and actions that comprise Fair Game in the organization’s long war of total attrition vary according to target, opportunity, availability of resources, fear of exposure or legal repercussions, the sociopathy and whims of the organization’s head, and other factors. Scientology’s state of war against SPs, however, and the Fair Game philosophy and decision necessary to wage that war, have remained constant and unchanged into present time.

Scientologists’ or their agents’ Fair Game against me in execution of the Suppressive Person doctrine include: physically assaulting me on six occasions; breaking into my car; stealing my property, including photographs, documents, a manuscript and original artwork; spying on me and my spouse; scaring our neighbors; menacing our families; threatening to assassinate me; terrorizing my companions and me on highways in California and Germany; paying a corrupt Los Angeles Police Department officer for fake authorizations to eavesdrop on me, my attorney and my associates and to tap our telephones; Fair Gaming and compromising my attorney; covertly and unlawfully videotaping me; attempting numerous times to have me prosecuted on false criminal charges based on fabricated evidence, including with the Los Angeles District Attorney, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Prosecutor of Ekaterinburg, Russia; suing me six times; forcing me into bankruptcy; driving me from my home; obtaining unconscionable jail sentences against me and warrants for my arrest in California; forging hundreds of Internet postings over my name, including nonsense and racist messages; running endless intelligence operations against me and my family; and carrying out a global “Black Propaganda” campaign against me that extends to U.S. Federal Government departments, Members of Congress, U.S. diplomatic missions and staff, U.S. state and local government officials, foreign government officials, judges, law enforcement agencies and officers internationally, clergy internationally, media internationally, and the broad international wog and Scientologist populations.

Note the common dictionary meaning of Fair Game: “legitimately open to attack or pursuit.” The people that Scientology sics its personnel, agents, PIs and attorneys on to pursue and attack are all SPs, formally declared or not. Pursuit and attack, of course, is limited by the Scientologist Fair Gamers’ fear of being exposed, prosecuted, etc. and by other factors.

Hubbard’s scriptural statement quoted above, which, as you know, many people call the “Fair Game Policy,” shows the range of acceptable pursuits and attacks, or treatments and handlings, he stated were legitimate. All of the Fair Game actions against SPs that he listed and specifically authorized or permitted are immoral or antisocial, and three are patently criminal – depriving SPs of property, injuring them by any means, and destroying them.

Your falsehoods in your declaration, Mark, were in fact Fair Game, being attacks on me that you considered legitimate; or at least you acted as if you considered your attacks on me legitimate. You pursued me and had me pursued through the courts and beyond. You Fair Gamed many people because you handled many SPs, and you treated them as if your handling was legitimate. If you’re still using Hubbard’s SP doctrine in your life, you are still fair gaming people, because the SP doctrine allows no other handling or treatment. You must jettison the doctrine in order to be able to view, handle or treat SPs as anything other than Fair Game. Fortunately, the SP doctrine is eminently jettisonable.

Oh, now that I’ve mentioned it in the above list of Fair Game attacks on me, I’ll also ask you about the theft of my original manuscript, artwork and other materials from my car. I know from both Vicki Aznaran and Jesse Prince that Miscavige actually claimed to them that he had these things in his possession after they were stolen my car, which was during the Armstrong videotape operation in the fall of 1984, so I trust you won’t pretend the theft didn’t happen. Just help me get my things back from Miscavige, okay?

6. As used for this brief time within the Church, “fair game” had not even the slightest resemblance to the wild accusations made by Armstrong. It meant simply that an individual so labelled was not entitled to the protection of the Scientology system of justice. In this regard it is similar to the Old English concept of “outlaw” which was “one who is put out of the protection or aid of the law.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Rev. Fourth Edition, pg. 1255).

As you know, this is a shore story, a false cover for the unsavory, indeed criminal, reality. Certainly Scientology wouldn’t give any protection to its Fair Game targets. That takes no time or personnel, and uses no resources. What takes time, personnel and other resources is Scientology’s and Scientologists’ pursuing and attacking their Fair Game targets. Not one penny in Scientology’s budget has ever been allocated for denying SPs Scientology’s ethics protection. Everything in the budget for handling SPs is for their pursuit and attack, that is, Fair Game. That is every penny ever paid to in any way make any SP’s environment dangerous to him or her.

You’re not the only Scientology representative or witness to justify the organization’s acknowledgement and use of Fair Game, for, of course, that short while in the 1960’s, by equating the policy’s targets or victims with “outlaws.” Outlaws, however, were not merely put out of the protection or aid of the law, which, again, took no time or resources. Far more importantly, as every North American certainly knows, outlaws were legitimately open to pursuit and attack from law enforcement, or deputized citizens, or even undeputized citizens. And attack and pursuit take time and resources.

Although, as you know, Scientology also uses wog law and wog law enforcement to have its targets pursued and attacked, the organization teaches and acts as if it is itself a law enforcement agency “putting in ethics on the planet.” Scientologists and their agents treat SPs as outlaws and treat themselves as the posse, thereby “legitimizing” the Scientologists’ pursuit and attack of their targets. In truth, as you’re finding out, Scientology’s stand in the outlaw-posse paradigm is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own claims and positioning. Scientologists and their agents are not what are considered by thinking people as the law-enforcing posse, but the outlaws — the crooks, the fraudsters, the extortionists, the Fair Gamers. The “protection” of the Scientology system of justice that the organization’s declaration of Fair Game disentitled a person to is a slick “religious” version of the “protection” given to victims of the mob’s protection rackets. The racket operators don’t merely put their Fair Game victims into the dangerous wog environment and out of Scientology’s protection or aid, but make their victims’ environments as dangerous for them as the cultists can get away with.

7. The Scientology ethics and justice system is a privilege and benefit for Scientologists. Scientologists can and do avail themselves of the Scientology ethics and justice system as it is inexpensive, swift, sane, accurate and based solely on getting to the truth. One is judged by a committee of his peers whose only task is to get to the truth of disputes between Scientologists. Scientology justice committees do not punish, they only get to the truth and attempt to rectify injustices. The system is based on trust, and because Scientology is predicated on truth and honesty, no Scientologist in good standing would even think of lying in such a proceeding or attempt to derail and misdirect a proceeding through false and inflammatory testimony such as one sees in civil cases in every courthouse.

The organization’s ethics and justice system is actually, as you appear to have now cognited, or perhaps have always known, one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to being a privilege and benefit for Scientologists. Scientology’s justice system cannot get to the truth, because what is sought by the organization’s leader, who dominates the system and orders and directs its “justice” procedures, is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the truth. The Scientology system is arbitrary and is so dominated by the system’s supreme ruler that all its privileges and benefits are his.

The Scientology justice system is based on mistrust, distrust, suspicion, fear and paranoia because, again as you’ve now discovered, the organization is actually predicated on what is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to truth and honesty. Scientologists in good standing not only think of lying in “justice” proceedings, they are compelled to lie. If anyone told the truth during a Scientology justice proceeding, about, for example, Scientology’s stand being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets, that Scientologist would be suppressed into silence, suppressed into the RPF, and, if he or she persisted in sticking to that truth, suppressed into becoming a declared SP. How about this Scientology justice proceeding?

That Michelle Miscavige wouldn’t even think of lying in Scientology justice proceedings is a ridiculous idea, one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to reality. She’d lie like a sidewalk. And how about the example of your declaration in the wog justice proceeding in which you filed it, Scientology v. Armstrong? Did you even think of lying in this proceeding, before you wrote 26 pages of sworn statements that were one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the truth?

8. One of the fundamental discoveries of L. Ron Hubbard is that man is basically good. As an individual becomes more aware and able through the application of Scientology religious technology, he becomes more honest, ethical, and interested in helping others. This is why Scientologists become the most valued members of society as they advance in Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard developed a system of ethics and justice which is based on this bedrock principle. The Scientology ethics and justice system is built on the premise that honesty and integrity are essential to happiness and survival.

That man is basically good is no discovery because it’s untrue, and meaningless. It is banal BS that Scientologists universally use to make themselves right, and to make wogs, who haven’t been privileged or programmed with this “fundamental discovery,” wrong. The man-is-basically-good twaddle or taradiddle is used to “prove” Scientology’s public claim of Scientologists becoming more honest, more ethical, and more interested in helping others as they “advance” in Scientology, and to justify behavior that is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to honesty, ethical action and humanitarianism.

If it’s of interest, and it should be, I believe that man is basically holy. And that no matter what is done to try to make him unholy, as Scientology does, overtly and covertly, physically, mentally and spiritually, he remains basically holy. It would have been heresy, indeed blasphemy in Scientology, certainly in the SO, to espouse the idea that man is basically holy.

Scientologists becoming the most valued members of society as they “advance” in Scientology is a complete crock. As Scientologists “advance” in Scientology they become one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to wog society’s most valued members, and indeed become more and more in conflict with our society. Who has advanced in Scientology further than David Miscavige? And is a bully or sociopath, except in a bully’s or sociopath’s mind, society’s most valued member?

You appear to now be claiming that you’ve stopped “advancing” in Scientology because you’ve realized that the organization or religion in which you’d been “advancing” for almost three decades stands, as its critics or opponents were saying during all those years, one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to Scientologists becoming valued members of wog society, or even members of wog society at all. Scientology and Scientologists in fact commit all sorts of antisocial or even criminal acts to prevent well-advanced Scientologists from becoming members of wog society.

It is true that Scientology agents pretend to be members of wog society in order to penetrate our institutions and subvert our society, but these organization moles and other ops are not actual wog society members. To wogs, they certainly are not wog society’s most valuable members, although to Scientology and Scientologists the organization’s covert agents who seek to subvert our society are very valuable. This is because what Scientology and Scientologists, certainly the most advanced ones such as Miscavige, actually find most valuable is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity that most wogs find most valuable.

I’m sure every ethics and justice system in the world is built on the premise that honesty and integrity are essential to happiness and survival. There is no ethics and justice system that is claiming it is built on the premise that dishonesty and out-integrity are what are essential to happiness and survival. Whether or not these systems in reality stand, as Scientology stands, one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity, is irrelevant to the acknowledgement and confront of Scientology’s clear hypocrisy, which your 1991 declaration evidences in spades.

9. Scientologists consider this ethics and justice system a major benefit derived from membership in the Church. To expel a person from Church membership and thereby withdraw the protection and availability of the Church’s ethics and justice system is the harshest penalty in the Scientology religion. Even then, however, because Scientologists believe that man is basically good, the door is always left open for that person to return to Church membership.

Expulsion is not the harshest penalty Scientology and Scientologists mete out by any stretch of any honest imagination. The source of this load, of course, is Hubbard in, e.g., HCO PL 29 April 1965 “Ethics Review.” Hubbard’s and Scientology’s penalties harsher than expulsion don’t appear in the PL because they’re, as I commented above, immoral, antisocial or criminal. These “penalties” involve pursuit or attack, and constitute Fair Game.

Note where Hubbard states in the PL: “Note that none of [the listed “levels of ethics actions”] carries any physical punishment or detention.” This is typical hubbardian weasel wording, since he put physical treatment and detention in other places in Scientology scripture; e.g., “may be injured by any means…may be…destroyed;” “confinement to org premises;” “use Auditing Process R2-45.”
I’m sure you’ve known of Scientology’s and Scientologists’ physical detention of many people, and undoubtedly participated yourself in such detentions. Miscavige, as I’m sure you know, has for many years been doing all sorts of dishonest, sociopathic things to have me detained or jailed.

It was known by virtually everyone who had “advanced” any distance in Scientology that the organization detained people, and that the actual stand on detentions was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to Hubbard’s weasel worded claim that detention was not a part of any org ethics actions. This is similar to what he wrote in HCO PL 16 February 1969, “Battle Tactics,” which Miscavige had reissued 24 September 1987, when you were one of DM’s head henchmen: “Nothing in this paper advocates physical violence or invites the physical destruction of persons.” This denial is shown to be one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to reality, however, by Hubbard’s order in the same PL that Scientologists “just go all the way in and obliterate” the enemy. It is impossible to go all the way in and obliterate Scientology’s “enemy,” who are all, of course, SP class members, without physical violence or physical destruction.

None of the other actions Hubbard orders in “Battle Tactics” are included in the list of ethics action levels or “ethics gradients” in Scientology’s non-confidential scripture. All of these actions are harsher than expulsion from Scientology, all are immoral, antisocial or criminal, and all constitute Fair Game. For example: waging a war of total attrition on SPs; expending the maximum of SPs; making the war costly to the SPs; cutting off SPs’ communications; cutting off SPs’ funds; cutting off SPs’ connections; depriving SPs of political advantages; depriving SPs of connections; depriving SPs of power; taking over SPs’ territory; raiding SPs; harassing SPs; making SPs attack wrong targets or persons; bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs; using standard wartime propaganda against SPs; degrading the image of SPs to beast level; capturing and using SPs’ comm lines; treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.

Even the issuance of SP Declares as expulsion orders was harsher than expulsion, because Declares standardly Black PRed the person being expelled. Black PR, of course, is a key weapon in Scientology’s and Scientologists’ Fair Game arsenal. “Talking to someone derogatorily about another,” is listed on the “Ethics Review” PL as ethics action level no. 5, so I suppose that’s used to justify Black PR as an ethics gradient less harsh than expulsion. But Fair Game is what happens after expulsion, or exit. It’s what Scientology staffers do to the enemy, and particularly to enemy traitors, as you viewed me. What Scientology staffers do to themselves are ethics gradients 1 through 36, with a few additions; e.g., RPF, sec checks, pc folder culling, signing crimes lists, gangbangs, detention of course.

Regarding their own organization, Scientologists never get past ethics action level no. 1: “Noticing something nonoptimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.” A Sea Org member, staff member, or really any Scientologist who silently inspected nonoptimum things in Scientology would be targeted as fast as you can say Mutiny. Commenting to Miscavige, even ever so truthfully, about his nonoptimumnesses, which would be ethics action level no. 2, could get the commenter hammered like a nail.

10. The reference to a person being “fair game” is a direct reference to what individuals who cannot have access to the Scientology justice system are likely to receive at the hands of the justice systems extant in society. Compared to Scientology ethics and justice procedures, lay justice proceedings are, in fact, barbaric.

This is another incredible crock, and quite an admission about Scientology’s protection racket. The organization’s “justice system” doesn’t protect anyone from the wog justice systems. In fact Scientology and Scientologists have a well deserved reputation for litigiousness, which was obtained, not because of their use of their religion’s system, but for using the wog system, particularly for such unlawful purposes as harassing and ruining their targets, both wogs and “independent” Scientologists. It’s true that Scientology’s and Scientologists’ organized Fair Game philosophy, policy and practice certainly give them protections that wogs who don’t willfully Fair Game people don’t possess. Scientology and Scientologists, moreover, enjoy a huge advantage using the wog justice system because they are so willing to testify falsely against their SP targets. This hardly means, however, that the billions of wogs in the wog world under every wog justice system are all likely to be Fair Gamed by their systems.

Scientology and Scientologists will, as I mentioned above, work assiduously, and even unlawfully, to get the wog justice systems and their law enforcement arms to pursue and attack their cult’s SP targets. I’m sure you’re aware of Ken Hoden’s and other Scientologists’ sworn false testimony to get the wog justice system to Fair Game Keith Henson. I’m sure you’re aware too of your own sworn averments in your 1991 declaration, which are one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the truth, and which you wrote to get the courts to Fair Game me. Through false testimony, litigation jiggery-pokery, and an array of other dishonest, antisocial actions in the wog legal arena, including the Fair Gaming of wog judges, Scientology and Scientologists seek to make our justice system as barbaric as possible for their SP targets.

It is true that wog society and justice systems do declare some people Fair Game; that is, declare them legitimately open to pursuit and attack. The US Government and military have declared al Qaeda members Fair Game, although the term might not appear on any pursuit and attack orders. Policies on the treatment or handling of al Qaeda targets are the same, of course, whether or not it’s called by what it is, Fair Game. See, e.g., “Fair Game: Al Qaeda’s new soldiers” at:
Citizens who, for example, are wanted by wog law enforcement on criminal charges, or who have escaped from prison, are Fair Game, meaning that they are legitimately open to pursuit and attack. The attack orders rarely would include destruction or obliteration, and it would probably be unlawful unless it occurs as self defense.

The media currently uses the term, in most cases anyway, in connection with an issue; e.g., Is McCain’s War Record Fair Game?
Or, “Now that he’s a hooplaed hoopster Obama’s footwork is fair game.” Usually too the media uses the term, when commenting about non-criminal citizens – politicians, celebs, media people themselves – to mean investigation and criticism of or on an issue. Wog media does not mean by Fair Game, as Scientology means, willful lies and Black PR. Scientology and Scientologists do not make issues Fair Game, but “terminals” or human beings. Scientologists are actually forbidden to even discuss relevant issues, but are commanded only to attack the people who seek to make issues the issue.

What Scientology does in its pursuit and attack of its targets, in fact, is actually not even Fair Game, but something much worse, because Scientologists religiously “wrong-target” their targets. From the viewpoint of the Scientologists, who all live under the Suppressive Person doctrine, it’s clearly Fair Game, because, to justify it, Scientology claims that its targets are legitimately open to pursuit and attack. From wogs’ viewpoint, however, Scientology pursues and attacks its targets illegitimately, which is immoral and criminal. Al Qaeda’s viewpoint is that its people’s pursuit and attack of its targets is legitimate, and its targets are Fair Game. But again, in the cops&criminals paradigm, Scientology’s and al Qaeda’s stands are one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to their own claims and positioning. They are the criminals.

I have been in the wog world constantly since leaving the Sea Org and Scientology over 27 years ago. I cannot have access to the Scientology justice system, and have never had access nor sought access during all these years. Yet, with some extraordinary exceptions, the justice systems extant in society have never pursued or attacked me. I have never received Fair Game from their hands. The exceptions are when Scientology and Scientologists, you included, sought to use the wog justice system to Fair Game me. What you all did, moreover, to get our justice system to pursue and attack me, was itself unlawful, and done for an unlawful purpose. Aside from Scientology’s and Scientologists’ unlawful use of wog law, however, the justice systems of any country I have lived in or visited have never Fair Gamed me. The organization’s failure to get these countries’ justice systems to pursue or attack me, in fact, supports the conclusion that the courts where Scientology was successful were in violation of the law and basic human rights charters.

11. Contrary to the allegations made by Armstrong throughout the trial of this case and repeated unquestioningly by Judge Breckenridge, the basic values of honesty and integrity are the bedrock upon which Scientologists build their lives and upon which any individual must so build if he is to live happily and in harmony with his fellows.

The last bit of this paragraph is a nice thought with which nobody half sane or half honest would disagree. But again, nobody is insisting that the basic values of dishonesty and corruption are the bedrock upon which individuals must so build if they are to live happily and in harmony with their fellows. Throughout your declaration, you were using, as you did in this paragraph, “implied straw man tech,” apparently in an effort to make Scientology’s and your claim to the basic values of honesty and integrity seem unique and exceptional. What is truly exceptional is the continuing willful falseness of that continuing claim.

In their SP victims’ observation, Scientology and Scientologists, standing one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to honesty and integrity, clearly act as if dishonesty and corruption are their bedrock. Building as they do upon this bedrock of dishonesty and corruption, of course, Scientologists don’t publicly claim they build their lives on these evils, but claim and proclaim, as you did, that they build their lives on the virtues of honesty and integrity. What you are now acknowledging with your admission that Scientology stands one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own fundamental tenets is exactly what I alleged in my 1984 trial and demonstrated with ample evidence, and what Judge Breckenridge unquestionably found as the trier of fact.

Far from living in harmony with their fellows, Scientologists are not even permitted to live in such harmony, but must live at war against SPs, treating mere skirmishes with SPs like wars. If a Scientologist so much as granted credence to an SP, which credence granting is fairly essential for living in harmony with anyone, Scientology and other Scientologists could make that Scientologist an SP target and victim in their war.

12. The scriptures of Scientology are replete with admonitions to its adherents to build their lives on the foundations of honesty and integrity. As Mr. Hubbard stated in a technical bulletin titled ” Auditor’s 1/ Rights Modified,” written in 1972: “The road to truth is begun with honesty.” 2/ This is a road that all Scientologists, by definition, consider that they are following.

Again, no sane and honest person is proclaiming that the road to truth is begun with dishonesty. Scientology’s road, however, that Scientologists actually follow is, as you’re now essentially saying, heading one hundred eighty degrees away from the truth, and, astonishingly, really is begun with dishonesty. Some extremely occluded or deluded Scientologists might consider they’re following a “road to truth,” but you, and all the SO members I ever encountered, knew you were not being honest and not on that road. Far more urgent and important than the road to truth to Scientology and its knowing troops was the road to DM’s duck shoot, the road to obliteration of the SP class.

Because of the SP doctrine, to which Scientologists necessarily grant credence to follow the obliteration road, all the lying, Black PR and false testimony was justified. Scientology teaches, as you know, that the only thing preventing Scientologists from following the road to truth and building their lives on a bedrock of honesty and integrity is SPs. The SPs have to be obliterated, and then Scientologists, so they say, can stop all the lying, and all the other forms of Fair Game.

Scientology’s and Scientologists’ lying, Black PR and false testimony, moreover, were “evidence” to them of their integrity and ethics. They lied so much about so many things to so many people that they could state about themselves in sworn testimony, and with an apparently straight face, things like: “Scientologists, as a group, comprise the most ethical people, following the highest ethical standards, of any group in the world today.” Accepting that Scientology scripture is indeed replete with admonitions to its adherents to build their lives on the foundations of honesty and integrity, what also must be true is that Scientology scripture is replete with hypocrisy.

13. Mr. Hubbard’s injunction to be truthful covers all aspects of an individual’s and organization’s activities. For example, he laid down a firm rule for Church of Scientology staff in official dealings: “Never use lies.” (”The Missing Ingredient”, [August 13, 1970]). In a policy directive entitled, “Safe Ground” (October 27, 1974), Mr. Hubbard reiterated this point: “1. NEVER SAY OR PUBLISH ANYTHING YOU CANNOT PROVE OR DOCUMENT; 2. ALWAYS DOCUMENT THE TRUTH TO OPPOSE LIES.”

Naturally, no organization you can point to, and no founder of any religion, laid down a rule like “Always use lies,” or “Lie your heads off.” No semi-sane person in the publishing industry, or in any other place in life, is proclaiming and ordering: “Always say or publish things you cannot prove or document. Never document the truth. Just keep lying.” It is true that intelligence personnel must tell lies and live lives built on a bedrock of deception. It is also true that Scientology operates as an intelligence organization, and, of course, its personnel are in a war with SPs that is mostly covert. But I don’t believe you were contrasting Scientology with an implied straw CIA here.

It must have been a bit weird, or at least ironic, at the time you were writing this, that the judgment in the case in which you would file your dec, had declared Hubbard “virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements.” You could not but have known that he lied about these things, and that he used his lies to sell Scientology, make a pile of money, and dominate, in fact enslave, thousands of his fellow beings. He published countless willfully false statements he could not prove or document, including false claims for results for his “science.” Documenting the truth in Scientology, for Scientologists in positions like yours, where the truth should have been documented, was strictly forbidden, and would have been severely punished as “treason” if ever discovered. People like me, outside of Scientology, who documented the truth to oppose Scientology’s or Scientologists’ lies were, as you know, not rewarded for their documentation efforts and compliance with Hubbard’s claimed command intention, but Fair Gamed pursuant to his actual command intention.

14. The value of truth and honesty in one’s dealing with others goes much deeper than mere pragmatism. Honest and ethical behavior enhance the well-being of an individual and a group; dishonesty and unethical acts degrade a person and an organization. In a book originally published in 1951, Mr. Hubbard explained why maintaining high ethical standards is so important, not just to Scientologists, but to everyone:

Thus, dishonest conduct is nonsurvival …. The keeping of one’s word, when it has been sacredly pledged, is an act of survival, since one is then trusted, but only so long as one keep’s one’s word.
To the weak, to the cowardly, to the reprehensibly irrational, dishonesty and underhanded dealings, the harming of others and the blighting of their hopes seem to be the only way of conducting life. Unethical conduct is actually the conduct of destruction and fear; lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences should one tell the truth; thus, the liar is inevitably a coward, the coward is inevitably a liar.
L. Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival, at 142-143 (1989 Ed.).

First, handling your implied straw people, nobody is claiming, at least seriously and publicly, that dishonest and unethical behavior enhance the well-being of individuals and groups, or that honesty and ethical acts degrade people and organizations. Nobody is claiming, or explaining, why maintaining low ethical standards is so important or so pro-survival to everyone. And really, many people, almost all of them wogs, have explained why maintaining high ethical standards is so important. Hubbard’s published fundamental tenets or standards of honesty and high ethical conduct are not new or revolutionary. But his and his Scientology religious troops’ willful, unyielding, utter disregard for those tenets or standards is a new, and alarming, phenomenon.

Hubbard is not the first person to link lying, fear, cowardice, harm and destruction. He might be the first judicially declared pathological liar to link all those contra-survival traits and actions, but people have known and written about this linkage for thousands of years. Lying is so pervasive in Scientology, I’m sure you’re aware, that it is almost universally known as the religion’s central sacrament. Cowardice is such a ubiquitous and vital quality among Scientologists that it is known as Scientology’s valuable final product.

Hubbard, by his own definitions and understanding, was, on his cowardice-courage scale, a gargantuan coward. This conclusion is also supported by his years in hiding from people who simply wanted from him the truth. He could not, his life proves, confront telling the truth – about all or any of the things he had lied about. Scientologists are programmed into cowardice to ensure that they never stand up to or even question their leaders, who are virtually pathological cowards.

Because Scientology’s leaders are liars and cowards, and its members must be liars and cowards or risk being Fair Game, it is reasonable and responsible to acknowledge that they will dramatize all the evils Hubbard says in scripture liars and cowards will dramatize. Scientologists must be expected to understand their scripture at least this well. Until they leave Scientology, Scientologists will support harming others and blighting their hopes, and will engage in the conduct of destruction. On God’s Scale, thank Him, gargantuan liars and cowards are equal to everyone else; so why opt for cowardice or gargantuan lies when they make no difference? The fact that lies are needed to keep Scientology working doesn’t mean that the truth is unavailable.

15. The subject of honesty and ethical behavior permeated Mr. Hubbard’s writings throughout the years. In a 1960 issue entitled “Honest People Have Rights, Too,” Mr. Hubbard stated:

Individual rights were not originated to protect criminals but to bring freedom to honest men. Into this area of protection then dived those who needed “freedom” and “individual liberty” to cover their own questionable activities.
Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be free–he is his own trap. When his own deeds cannot be disclosed then he is a prisoner; he must withhold himself from his fellows and is a slave to his own conscience. Freedom must be deserved before any freedom is possible.

* * *
Freedom for Man does not mean freedom to injure Man. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harm by lies. To preserve that freedom one must not permit men to hide their evil intentions under the protection of that freedom. To be free a man must be honest with himself and with his fellows. If a man uses his own honesty to protest the unmasking of dishonesty, then that man is an enemy of his own freedom.

Mr. Hubbard ended this bulletin with the reminder that:

“On the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on Earth. Don’t stand in the road of that freedom. Be free, yourself.”

It is phenomenal, I’ll freely admit, that the subject of honesty and ethical behavior permeated Mr. Hubbard’s writings throughout the years, because the man was such an inveterate liar and so flagrantly unethical. The road he followed personally was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the honesty and ethical behavior he wrote about and claimed to possess. He was the one who dove into the area of “individual rights” to cover his own questionable activities: lies, fraud and Fair Game for the thinking people who would try to correct or end the lies and fraud. He got his Scientology troops to dive in to cover their activities of lying, fraud and Fair Game, which he’d also had them dive into. You did just that in your 1991 declaration, pouring out your own river of ink on rights, honesty and ethics and diving into it to try to cover Hubbard’s, Miscavige’s, Scientology’s and your own questionable activities.

Hubbard’s writings on truth, honesty and ethics definitely permeated all the bait he had me swallow to be hooked and reeled into Scientology and brought under his control. He worked like hell to prevent us from penetrating this cover of claims, about himself and about his organization, which he and all his troops asserted is the most ethical on the planet. Anyone who questioned the questionable activities his claims of honesty and ethical behavior covered was targeted for “ethics handling,” which ran the range from reality adjustment to Fair Game. I am hoping with this letter that you are now willing to see through the Hubbard, Miscavige, Scientology and Scientologist covers and to tell the victims of those questionable activities what you know. Actually, I believe that you do see through, and had seen through years before you signed your 1991 dec, but you embraced and participated in these activities. The declaration is in fact irrefutable evidence of your participation.

Hubbard had his own stook of implied straw men, some of whom were insisting, he seemed to say, that freedom is for dishonest people. Elronically, because of his and Scientology’s one-hundred-eighty-degrees-diametrically-opposed rule for happy living, this sociopathic law was actually true for them. Because of the same rule, they covered their sociopathy by permeating Scientology scripture with the subject of honesty and ethical behavior. Hubbard actually believed, and acted as if, his freedom lay in his willful dishonesty. Miscavige acts as if his freedom depends on his dishonesty and consciencelessness. And Scientology’s spokespeople, you included, have always acted as if their religion’s freedom depended on keeping their dishonesty working. In fact, the freedom to lie, and even to defraud people with lies, is what Scientology and Scientologists universally seek, and universally seek to cover with claims of honesty and integrity.

In his “Admissions,” Hubbard produced his postulates to prevent or eliminate the self-deleterious effects of lying, which he says in published Scientology scripture would always happen to liars.

No matter what lies you may tell others they have no physical effect on you of any kind
You can tell all the romantic tales you wish. You will remember them,
you do remember them. But you know which ones were lies. You are so
logical you will tell nothing which cannot be believed.
Or if you wish, as you will, tell adventures which happened to others. People accept them better. You can recall in detail tales of adventure from all you ever heard or read.
You can believe or disbelieve whatever you read at will. You cannot be hypnotized by any but yourself.
Lies are not necessary. You have no need of lies for you are brave and can take any consequences.
You are courageous. You fear nothing.

Hubbard must have considered lies completely necessary, however, or he would never have lied his whole life, especially after his Admissions. Someone who didn’t value and need lies would never have lied so much he would be declared judicially virtually a pathological liar, which Hubbard was. He was a coward his whole life, who lied like a coward to make himself sound courageous. He did tell other people’s adventures as his own. Other people really were engineers and nuclear physicists, really were students of Sigmund Freud, really were crippled and blinded in a war, really were pronounced dead, and perhaps even really were Mankind’s best friend.

It’s uncertain if he actually remembered, as he postulated he would, all the lies he told. He doubtlessly didn’t postulate that people all over the world would discover or uncover his lies, which people did. He wasn’t, as history has shown, so logical that everything he said would be believed. In fact, his illogic in his scripture and other writings would greatly contribute to his becoming known as a pythonic prevaricator and almost universally disbelieved.

Hubbard didn’t postulate that his own undisclosed and questionable deeds would make him a prisoner, as he postulated would happen to everyone else. It’s true that he successfully avoided prison, and even avoided having to confront the myriad people he’d told endless lies to over his lifetime. So from a criminal’s perspective, he stayed out of the trap into which inveterate liars often fall. But his successful avoidance of prison trapped him in a series of hiding places withholding himself from his fellows, and in yet more lies he’d tell and have his Scientologist followers tell to keep his hideouts and withholds working.

In your post to ESMB, you write that having studied deeply the causes of Scientology’s conflicts, you can see how Hubbard fell into the trap of an “us vs. them” attitude. I don’t believe he fell into such a trap, but consciously built the trap himself to get everyone else to fall into. But don’t you now think he was also in the trap he wrote about in his HCOB “Honest People Have Rights, Too?” And don’t you also now think that if you cannot disclose your deeds, or misdeeds, and questionable activities you are a prisoner, in your own trap?

And if he was at all right in “Honest People,” that to protect dishonest people is to condemn them to their own hells, since he was consummately dishonest, weren’t you, by protecting him, doing exactly that, condemning him to his own hell? Weren’t you, by protecting Scientology, which stood one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity, also condemning the religion to its own hell? And wasn’t I, by not protecting him, Scientology or Scientologists, but indicating their dishonesty and lies, actually rescuing them, according Scientology’s own scripture, from their own hells? Isn’t it now time for you to do your part in rescuing all of them, and yourself, from these hells?

Hubbard’s solution to the conscience problem he identified in “Honest People” was neither to disclose his misdeeds and be honest, nor to be his conscience’s slave. His intention and action was to erase or suppress his conscience and keep right on lying and committing his misdeeds. Caroline has a section on her Refund and Reparation site called “Hubbard on the Conscience” that you might find instructive:

By writing that freedom must be deserved before any freedom is possible, Hubbard implied that he, being honest, deserved it whereas the dishonest do not. He certainly was not acknowledging that he didn’t deserve freedom. Yet he was a pathological liar. By writing that freedom does not mean freedom to injure, he implied that he wouldn’t injure anyone. Yet with his lies, his SP doctrine and its Fair Game and Disconnection implementations, his greed, and his malignant narcissism he hurt many people, and had his organization and his followers hurt many more. By writing that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harm by lies, he clearly implied that he was telling the truth. Yet he Black PRed and had Scientologists Black PR thousands of individuals, and whole groups, whole professions, whole fields of study, whole countries, whole races, indeed the whole wog race for the express purpose of harming them. Your declaration Black PRs me.

Wasn’t I though, by Scientology scripture, acting to preserve freedom of speech by not permitting Hubbard to hide his evil intentions, or permitting Miscavige to hide his, or you to hide yours, behind any freedom – thought, speech or religion? Hubbard never got honest with himself and with his fellows, Miscavige has never gotten honest with himself and with his fellows, and both of them prevented their Scientologist followers from being honest with themselves and with their fellows. Instead, Hubbard required, and DM still requires, that their followers be one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to being honest with themselves and their fellows. Hubbard punished, and DM punishes Scientologists who actually dare to be honest with themselves and their fellows. And Hubbard had, and DM has, their followers, like yourself, punish or Fair Game wogs who dared to be honest with themselves and their fellows about Scientology and its lying, aggression, criminality and sociopathy.

In your declaration, you not only implied that Hubbard was honest, as he implied throughout Scientology scripture, you also implied that you were honest. You now appear to be implying that you were actually being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to honest, and you imply that you’re now being honest. You used your implied honesty to protest, indeed punish, my unmasking of Hubbard’s and Scientology’s dishonesty. Even worse, you used your not implied but sworn averment that you were being honest, by declaring under penalty of perjury that your 1991 declaration was true and correct, to try to stop and punish my unmasking of dishonesty. And in doing so, you did in fact become an enemy of your own freedom, sentencing yourself to another fifteen or so more years in a cult that was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the fundamental tenet of real and honest freedom.

As you know, Hubbard’s pronouncement that “On the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on Earth,” is known verbatim by virtually every Scientologist. It’s in Scientology scripture, of course, and also gets used in promo, on posters, letterhead, web pages, and you name it. Scientology feeder groups use Hubbard’s trust aphorism to introduce their raw meat to Ron the Supermanitarian. I just found Youth for Human Rights International had gotten it into Europe’s November 2008 Parliament Magazine:

Hubbard’s clear implication is that although there isn’t peace on earth, at least he could be fully trusted. His whole HCOB leading to his aphorism implied that he was an honest person, that his head wasn’t lying uneasily from wearing any guilty conscience, and that consequently freedom was for him. He implied that, being so honest, so ready to investigate people and their pasts, and so willing to not protect the dishonest or the criminals, he would never stand in the road of freedom. He exhorted Scientologists to be free themselves so they would be honest in their reports or confessions to him, not have withholds from him, and face up to the responsibilities he imposed on them in the Scientology society. He never meant, although he implied it, that he was going to tell the truth, or that Scientologists should tell the truth, if that truth was different from what he said in his lies.

Fascinatingly, while hiding out in Creston, California and within three years of his death, Hubbard wrote HCOPL 31 January 1983 “The Reason for Orgs,” in which, rather than implying, as he’d done throughout three decades of Scientology scripture up to then, that he was telling the truth, he categorically denied ever lying, and even denied ever conning Scientologists. You cannot but have known about this policy letter, but I can understand why you would not have quoted Hubbard’s categorical denial, or why Miscavige would have ordered you not to quote it. By the time you signed your 1991 declaration, several of Hubbard’s willful lies had been exposed in unrebutted sworn testimony and he had been adjudged a pathological liar. You knew, I’m sure, that his 1983 assertion in Scientology scripture that he had never lied to or conned Scientologists was an out-and-out lie that would be laughed at, as it will be now.

I’ll quote the entirety of this scriptural text as it appeared in Organization Executive Course, Basic Staff Volume 0, © 1986 Bridge Publications, at pages 66 and 67 so that this letter’s readers have sufficient context to understand Hubbard’s denial of his lying.

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

(Corrects typo in paragraph 12)


The first and all subsequent organizations of the Church were founded for this purpose only.
It was manifestly impossible for one being to individually train and audit 2.5 billion people. Time alone would have prevented it.
Thus help was needed.
Every post in every org exists to keep the org there and accomplish this.
You see, we are not dealing with “just another self-help subject” or a “make people feel better.”
This universe has been going downhill for just one reason — lack of tech to resolve the problems of the mind and beings.
Recent research has confirmed this: There is nothing whatever the matter with the universe itself. But suppressive persons and groups have specialized in caving people in. And they had no tech whatever to undo their vicious actions.
So what emerged was a universal population stuffed with lies and artificial disabilities who have been brought almost to the point of obliteration.
For the first time ever — and this is confirmed with careful historical research — the tech exists to reverse this chaos.
An org and every staff member is there to get it applied.
Where we are this instant in time is at the reverse point of the universe. You are the one who will make it happen.
And you will do it by selling and delivering materials and service to the public you get in and keeping the orgs there so they can and will do it.
You have the tech now; you have the policy. It is you who are applying it.
And by applying it, you have it in your power to reverse the dwindling spiral that has gone on without pause for more years than you can get into an Earth calculator.
For the first time ever you have this chance. And it is you who, just by knowing and using relentlessly the policy and tech, will make it happen.
I have never lied to you or conned you and what I tell you now is true. I would be falsifying if I told you other than the facts in this policy letter. So there it is! It may seem large and awesome but it is a fact. You are not engaged in anything superficial.
And that is the reason posts and orgs exist: to change the course of all things past and send the whole of existence back upward from its long plunge.
Oh, of course the unholy will beg you not to do it, will try to pervert policy and corrupt tech, will cause trouble and mock and lie and try to discourage or stop you. But that’s the reason things went bad — and those were the creatures that did it. And no objective worth obtaining was ever achieved without some barriers arising or industrious dedication.
So: Make it happen!
The stars wait!

In the same HCOPL in Organization Executive Course, Basic Staff Hat Vol. 0, Bridge Publications ©1991, at page 91, “FREED CUSTOMERS!” has been changed to “FREED BEINGS!” It’s understandable that Miscavige in Religious Technology Center would change Hubbard’s “only reason orgs exist” in scripture, because the only reason orgs exist is so utterly commercial and irreligious. Hubbard’s “object” is, as you’ve implied, false, being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to freeing customers. Hubbard didn’t want, and Miscavige doesn’t want, freed customers or beings, but customers under their control, enslaved elementals who would comply with their every order, beings trapped in their webs of lies. If a Scientology customer or being actually sought to be free of Hubbard’s or Miscavige’s orders, control and slavery, that person would be targeted, and could be Fair Gamed, as I’ve been Fair Gamed for breaking free and thinking and speaking freely. Surely you didn’t leave the Sea Org because it was making you such a free being you couldn’t stand it. Would you be more free than you now are if you’d stayed in the Sea Org and under Miscavige’s “authority”?

Hubbard’s assertion that Scientologists are not engaged in anything superficial, which he wrote in the same paragraph in the same piece of Scientology scripture in which he wrote that he had never lied to or conned the Scientologists, is simply another lie. Scientologists doing Scientology are engaged in something extremely superficial. In addition to being a pathological liar, Hubbard was glib, irresponsible, manipulative and superficial, and so is his scripture, both written and spoken. Real analysis and critical thinking, as you know, were not permitted, much less encouraged, among org Scientologists. In mental, spiritual, philosophic, human or even business matters, any study or effort deeper than Hubbard’s or Miscavige’s superficiality was suppressed and punished as “off-sourceness,” “other practice,” or “squirreling.” Scientology calls itself an “applied philosophy,” yet with all those “millions” of Scientologists studying and applying that philosophy, it has produced no philosophers. Only by leaving Scientology did people become free enough to study anything deeper than its superficial, and articial, philosophy and “tech.” Scientology’s superficiality, because it is willful and enforced, is a significant contributing factor in the threat the cult is in lives and areas it touches.

I’m sure you realized, because you were involved with the Armstrong I lawsuit against me at the time, that Hubbard wrote “The Reason for Orgs,” which included the whopper that he had never lied to or conned people, while his own documents were exposing him in that litigation as a monumental liar and con man. On February 3, 1983, three days after he wrote that policy letter, Hubbard wrote a letter to the “The Presiding Judge
Los Angeles County Superior Court” requesting that his materials, which were then held by the Clerk of the Court, be released to the church.
Hubbard’s attorneys, then Lenske, Lenske (oops) and Heller, who sent him a special pen with “a unique formulation of ink” to handwrite the letter, had a duty to advise him of the court proceedings and what was being stated and filed in the case about his lying and conning. See also Scientology’s February 10, 1983 press release concerning Hubbard’s letter and the Armstrong I case.
It is abundantly clear to me that he lied in “Reason for Orgs” about not lying or conning people just because he did lie to and con countless people, and because he feared that all the people he’d lied to and conned would find out what he’d been doing.

Hubbard’s claim that, by selling and delivering materials and service to the public they get in, Scientologists can “reverse the dwindling spiral that has gone on without pause for more years than you can get into an Earth calculator” is another colossal crock. What Scientologists actually accomplished by selling and delivering materials and service to their customers was to rip them off, and to make a pile of money for Hubbard, and for Scientology’s attorneys and PIs who would Fair Game the ripped-off customers if they sought to get back the money for the useless or damaging services they’d been sold. Scientologists under Miscavige have done the same. You can’t get even one year into an earth calculator any more than you can get an aeon into an abacus, or time in a bottle. Hubbard obviously misspoke, and meant that the number of years his dwindling spiral had gone on was a larger number than any calculator on earth could calculate. Which is also pure bullshit.

Hubbard used the meme “dwindling spiral” repeatedly throughout Scientology scripture, probably hundreds of times, from 1950 until, as this HCOPL shows, his final years. The term is in the Tech and Admin Dictionaries, bulletins, policy letters, other scriptural issue types, and dozens of lectures. The dwindling spiral, you possible haven’t realized, is the essence of the hyposcope×240/2040081.jpg
what Hubbard called in very early scripture a “Hindu hypnoscope:”

And look very closely at Ron the Doctor

Ron the Doctor

Everybody in Scientology sees dwindling spirals on command, and in fact sees all life on a dwindling spiral. You always had to see one when Hubbard or DM said there was one. It was so dominant a “reality” you couldn’t argue with it. You couldn’t say, “Nope, Hubbard’s wrong, there is no dwindling spiral that selling and delivering Scientology materials and services to customers will reverse. In fact there’s no dwindling spiral to reverse because there’s no dwindling spiral.” You had to see and obey Hubbard’s dwindling spiral, his mocked-up and projected Hindu hypnoscope.

You used the term yourself in describing Hubbard’s “overt-motivator sequence” in your 1991 dec at paragraph 26 below:

“The individual, having descended away from personal honesty and integrity, down the dwindling spiral of the overt-motivator sequence, to the depths of criminality described by Mr. Hubbard in [HCOB 15 September 1981 “The Criminal Mind”] arrives at a point, where they are totally consumed by their criminality.”

You were trying to get the Court of Appeal tribunal, which, earlier in 1991, had ruled against Scientology in its appeal from the 1984 Breckenridge Decision, to see, and accept, Hubbard’s, and your, hypnoscopic image for the “reality” that would lead to the view, and acceptance, of me as the image of the individual totally consumed by their (sic) criminality.

You also used the term in your post to ESMB:

A lot of folks seem to be suffering from the inculcated idea that once they depart or cease to slavishly follow every arbitrary dictate they automatically forfeit any spiritual gains they may have attained along the road. Natively conscientious as most beings are, such an evaluation can begin a pernicious dwindling spiral of self-invalidation and unhappiness.

The folks who seem to be suffering from the idea that once they depart or cease to slavishly follow Scientology’s every arbitrary dictate they will lose their “spiritual gains” are not the people who have left the cult, but Scientologists under Miscavige still in the cult. If you’ve left Miscavige’s organization and control, you don’t have much authority to enlighten or even contact those folks. If you mean people who have actually departed Miscavige’s and Scientology’s control and truly ceased to follow the little dictator’s dictates, you’re mocking up straw folks. Such folks, if they’re real, don’t suffer from the idea, which they know to be utter BS, that by leaving they’ve forfeited any spiritual gains. Except to the straw departers or straw ceasers, or to Miscavige’s in-good-standing Scientologists, you’ve mocked up a straw dwindling spiral.

Should it be relevant, or of interest, my present thought is that spiritual gains don’t exist. Nor do spiritual losses. Spirit does exist, but can’t be increased or decreased, despite its increase or decrease being what’s true for all the Scientologists in the world. What Scientology sells as “spiritual gains” are ego gains, or “gains” in one illusion or another. Beyond that, what Scientologists call “spiritual gains,” or “spiritual abilities” regained, are mental exercises. The actual mental exercises Scientologists are permitted to practice are very limited, and the time in which they can actually practice their few mental exercises is also very limited – like “in session.” The one mental exercise that is the exception is projection that Scientologists under Miscavige must practice virtually constantly, even when practicing, for example, OT mental tricks.
Scientology doesn’t call its organization-wide enforced mental exercise “projection,” but “knowing.” It isn’t knowing, of course, because in truth it’s lying, and a lie can’t be known, except as a lie. Knowing is possible, but isn’t possible in Scientology where constant projection prevents it.

16. An entire book was compiled from Mr. Hubbard’s writings dedicated to the subject of ethics, entitled Introduction to Scientology Ethics. The book is replete with basic truths on this subject which cannot be fully discussed in this limited space. The following statements are representative of the concepts which it contains:

The man who lies, the woman who cheats on her husband, the teenager who takes drugs, the politician who is involved in dishonest dealings, all are cutting their own throats.

* * *
It may come as a surprise to you, but a clean heart and clean hands are the only way to achieve happiness and survival. The criminal will never make it unless he reforms; the liar will never be happy or satisfied with himself until he begins dealing in truth.
L. Ron Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, at 29 (1989 Ed.).

That an entire Scientology book was created on the subject of ethics evidences the depth of Hubbard’s and the religion’s hypocrisy and duplicity, or duplicitous hypocrisy, since their “ethics” have always been one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to their own most fundamental ethical tenets. There is no evidence that throughout his life Hubbard ever began dealing with the truth, unless dealing with it means something like being at the cause point of lying about it. Yet he was extraordinarily self-satisfied, and more than implied that he’d taped the way to total happiness. There is no evidence that he ever wanted to reform, but there’s a lifetime of evidence of his lying and bullying, including his “Ethics” book, his “ethics” policies, the “ethics orders he issued” and the perhaps millions he got other people to issue, and the application of all these “ethics” issues, orders, policies, books, etc. since the word “ethics” first appeared in Hubbard’s vocabulary. And Miscavige’s “ethics” are similarly unethical.

Scientologists deal with the obvious disconnect between Hubbard’s, Miscavige’s, and their own pervasive lying and bullying and their claim of being the most ethical people, following the highest ethical standards of any group in the world today, by relating “ethics” solely to their own group, and “taking responsibility” for their actions. Being “at cause,” their lying and bullying is postulated, or willful, and not, they would claim, reactive. Their lying and bullying are different from, or differentiatable from, the lying and bullying of liars and bullies who are not at cause, but “at effect.” What Hubbard, Miscavige and Scientology do, the Scientologists reason, is therefore not really lying and bullying at all but the demonstration of their being the most ethical people, following the highest ethical standards of any group in the world today. It’s the kind of Scientology “reason” that concludes that by being willing to hurt others as a point of honor the cause is just.

The “reason” that transforms Hubbard’s, Miscavige’s and Scientology’s lying and bullying into the highest ethical standards, which requires and justifies more lying and bullying, is indistinguishable from the “reason” unscientological sociopaths use to keep their lying and bullying working. Just like garden variety wog sociopaths, the Scientologists still know deep down that their lying and bullying and their leaders’ and organization’s lying and bullying are indeed lying and bullying because much of it is done in secret and withheld from public view, and, of course, lied about.

Hubbard, as you know, stated in scripture that “ethics are reason.” He could not but be implying that he was not only highly ethical but possessed a towering power of reason. He also stated in scripture that “theta could be said to be pure reason.” And elsewhere in scripture he said that “theta is thought, life force, élan vital, the spirit, the soul, or any other of the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years.” Being the most ethical people, following the highest ethical standards of any group in the world today, “proves” that Scientologists’ reason is superior to any other group’s reason, and of course “proves” that Scientologists are also the most theta people or spiritual people, following the highest spiritual standards of any group in the world today. The “reason” and “spirituality” of thousands of good people, as Scientology proves, can equate with a lot of lying, bullying, evil intentions, and other unethical and even criminal actions.

If you really have discovered that Scientology stands one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental claimed ethical tenets, it must be a bit embarrassing that when you wrote your dec in 1991, and for more years, you were the Inspector General for Ethics. If you really did your job, really spent time ensuring the standard application of the ethics technology of the Scientology religion, and really did ensure that the ethical standards of Scientology were observed to the letter, it proves that the ethics tech and ethical standards were not what were publicly claimed, but something different, perhaps one hundred eighty degrees diametrically different from the claimed tech and standards. That is, you knew that what you were swearing to about Hubbard’s and Scientology’s ethics and standards was false when you signed your declaration.

17. What Scientologists hope to achieve through living ethical, honest lives and showing respect for their fellow man is quite simple: happiness. Albeit simple and indeed a basic desire amongst all men, few know the requisites to true happiness as well as a Scientologist.

As for ideals, as for honesty, as for one’s love of one’s fellow man, one cannot find good survival for one or for many where these things are absent.
* * *
A man who is known to be honest is awarded survival– good jobs, good friends. And the man who has ideals– no matter how thoroughly he may be persuaded to desert them, survives well only so long as he is true to those ideals.
(Introduction to Scientology Ethics, at 23)

Much of the rest of these paragraphs will say much the same thing, forming up a herculean effort on your part, and, I suppose, on the parts of quite a bunch of Scientologists and Scientology lawyers and paralegals, to project a picture of Hubbard and Scientology, to the Court of Appeal and your other readers, as honest and ethical, and happy as a result, and a corresponding image of me as dishonest and unethical, and discredited. Possibly you’d now agree that the effort, along with all similar Scientology efforts over decades, have been a total failure. Hubbard, Miscavige and Scientology are being known by more and more people, perhaps yourself included, as dishonest and unethical, and their scriptural pronouncements on honesty and ethics are being known by more and more people as consummate hypocrisy. I still haven’t been shuddered into silence, and Miscavige, Scientologists and Scientologists still must face the music for their years of dishonest, unethical and in fact criminal efforts to silence or otherwise Fair Game me.

18. In a bulletin from 1961 entitled, “Clean Hands Make a Happy Life”, Mr. Hubbard underscored the basic problem behind the lack of human happiness:

For the first time in the soggy stream that’s history to the human race, its possible that happiness exists ….
What has made all Man a pauper in his happiness?
Transgressions against the mores of his race, his group, his family! …
And as we wander on, transgressing more, agreeing to new mores and then transgressing those, we come into that sunless place, the prison of our tears and sighs and might-have-beens, unhappiness.
* * *
All Mankind lives and each man strives by codes of conduct mutually agreed . …
But now against that codes there is transgression. And so because the code was held, whatever code it was, and Man sought comfort in Man’s company, he held back his deed and so entered then the bourne in which no being laughs or has a freedom in his heart.
So down the curtains come across the brightness of the day and dull-faced clouds enmist all pleasant circumstances. For one has evilly transgressed and may not speak of it for fear all happiness will die.

Ah, pathological liar as poet. Does it now provide pause?

19. With direct regard to the subject of spiritual progress in the Scientology religion, also referred to as “case gain,” Mr. Hubbard wrote a bulletin in 1985 called “Honesty and Case Gain.” In that Bulletin, he stated:

Thus, one can bar his own way up the Bridge by dishonesty.
I always feel a bit sad when I see somebody doing himself in this way. It is so pointless.

I think it’s reasonable, in order to provide inarguably adequate context for this statement, to quote the entirety of HCOB 1 May 1985, “Honesty and Case Gain.” Within a year of his death, and less than a year after being declared a pathological liar, he was still writing about honesty as if he possessed the lion’s share, and was still implying like mad that he’d reaped the supremely honest life’s bounty: “case gain;” a happier, more comfortable existence; sanity; real freedom; OT; way up the Bridge; and certainly not imprisoned or pinned like poor miserable Homo sapiens, us wogs.


Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Ethics Courses
Hubbard Senior
Sec Checker Course
C/S Series 120
HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116
Booklet: The Way To Happiness
Booklet: Axioms and Logics

Case gain depends entirely upon the person’s ability to view the truth of something in order to bring about an as-isness. (Ref: The Axioms of Scientology, Booklet: Axioms and Logics)
This ability is gained or regained on a gradient scale. The Grade Chart is designed to assist one to view gradiently larger areas of truth at each level. As one progresses up the Chart his ability to view the truth of things improves and expands. The accumulated masses and burdens and problems and falsities of a lifetime or lifetimes are dissolved and vanished, leaving the being free and clean and in control of his life and environment.
But to receive help as a pc or pre-OT, one has to be honest with his auditor.
Dishonest people have withholds, and withholds stack up mass and bring about stupidity. They cut the person’s reach and his ability to perceive. They hold in place the masses that imprison and pin the being at the level of Homo sapiens – and a miserable Homo sapiens, at that! Who is such a person really fooling?
Thus, one can bar his own way up the Bridge by dishonesty.

I always feel a bit sad when I see somebody doing himself in this way. It is so pointless.
One sees this in those who, for whatever irrational reason, cling knowingly to withholds and wind up critical, nattery and generating hostility. If one finds himself feeling hounded or persecuted, he should ask himself what his condition is on the first dynamic instead of going around persuading others to do him in.
How precious, after all, are one’s dishonesties, withholds and falsities in the face of the real freedom there is to be gained?
One CAN be honest. He will find it a happier, more comfortable existence when he is.
And more important-he’ll find the route to stable case gain is now open to him.
That is the route to sanity. It is the route up the Bridge to OT and real freedom. With honesty, one can make it and make it all the way!
Why settle for anything less?

As I mentioned above, I don’t buy the “spiritual progress” Scientology is selling any more than I buy Hubbard’s lies about his honesty, ethics and case gain.

Another of his writings on this subject matter is a book entitled, The Way to Happiness. This book has been the source of a grass roots movement to improve life in the world by providing non-denominational, common sense, moral principles for this modern time. The book is divided into different precepts, with titles such as “Be Worthy of Trust,” “Fulfill Your Obligations,” “Do Not Steal,” “Respect the Religious Beliefs of Others,” “Don’t Do Anything Illegal,” and “Seek to Live With the Truth.” A few brief excerpts will show its teachings:

Be Worthy of Trust.
Unless one can have confidence in the reliability of those about one, he, himself, is at risk. When those he counts upon let him down, his own life can become disordered and even his own survival can be put at risk.
Mutual trust is the firmest building block in human relationships. Without it, the whole structure comes down.
* * *
When one gives an assurance or promise or makes a sworn intention, one must make it come true. If one says he is going to do something, he should do it.
If he says he is not going to do something, he should not do it. …
People who keep their word are trusted and admired. People who do not are regarded like garbage. Those who break their word often never get another chance.
A person who does not keep his word can soon find himself entangled and trapped in all manner of “guarantees” and “restrictions” and can even find himself shut off from normal relations with others.
There is no more thorough self-exile from one’s fellows than to fail to keep one’s promises once made.
(The Way To Happiness, at 191-192; 198-200.)

The honesty of an individual is something that affects those with whom a person lives and works. As Mr. Hubbard said in a writing titled “Ethics and Executives,” 3 May 1972R,

“Dishonesty, false reports, an out-ethics [i.e., unethical] personal life, should all be looked for and, by persuasion, should be corrected.”

Again and again Mr. Hubbard has stressed that dishonesty in one’s dealing with others is harmful not only to the other individual, but to one’s self:

The ruin of another’s life can wreck one’s own. Society reacts — the prisons and the insane asylums are stuffed with people who harmed their fellows. But there are other penalties: whether one is caught or not, committing harmful acts against others, particularly when hidden, can cause one to suffer severe changes in his attitudes toward others and himself, all of them unhappy ones. The happiness and joy of life depart.
(The Way To Happiness, at 322 – 324.)

I won’t analyze The Way To Happiness in any depth here because I’m preparing its analysis for a separate publication. It’s enough to know that, in the book’s areas of actual morality, the behavior of Hubbard, its author, the behavior of Miscavige, the person who now controls the book, and the behavior of the Scientologists he uses to promote and distribute the book, are one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the moral precepts and moral behavior the book spells out. TWTH, which Scientology painstakingly defines as a “non-religious moral code,” and you say in your dec provides “non-denominational [ ] moral principles,” serves the same purposes as Hubbard’s “religious” pronouncements on honesty and ethical behavior that, as you said, permeated his scripture throughout the years.

TWTH urges honesty and ethical behavior on the wogs or raw meat who would read the booklet, and implies that its author and the Scientologists distributing it possess these qualities or virtues. But Hubbard was a pathological liar, Miscavige is a monstrous liar in his mold, and Scientology and Scientologists under his control will never themselves be honest and never stop their unequivocally unethical behavior as long as they are Scientologists under his control. These realities make The Way To Happiness, whether non-religious or religious, a most subversive publication. The way to happiness for sociopaths is a world in which everyone else is honest and ethical and think the sociopaths are too.

20. This standard is not limited to simply those with whom a person works with directly but in fact all those with whom one may come in contact in the community and within society:

A country has laws and regulations to coordinate its activities.
One does NOT seek to get around these or avoid these or find loopholes in them. This is COMPLICATED AND DISHONEST.
It is MUCH simpler just to know and obey them.
“Regulations and Laws, Obedience To,” 27 October 1973.

Seriously, you were a beneficiary in the Scientology v. Armstrong “contract,”
a beneficiary in the judicial enforcement effort, which had started by the time you signed your 1991 Declaration,
and a beneficiary in Scientology’s injunction, judgment, contempt orders and other judicial rulings against me.
You were moreover a knowing beneficiary in all these matters.

Miscavige has undoubtedly had many Scientologists under him kept in the dark about the evil they support and receive an unlawful “benefit” from. Because it’s a willful, and frankly scary crime, the effort to hide it, even from many of its beneficiaries is understandable. Even DM wouldn’t announce this crime as a big win at a Scientology rally, despite the fact that virtually everyone in attendance at these rallies for the past twenty-two plus years has been a beneficiary.

As Inspector General for Ethics, who, on paper, was responsible for ensuring that the ethical standards of Scientology were observed to the letter, you were responsible for the ethics of virtually every Scientology beneficiary as a beneficiary, including the organization’s litigation and intelligence units. It almost certainly didn’t work exactly like that because litigation and intel, for many of their functions and operations, would have been directly under DM, and his personnel’s “ethics” would have been his to handle, or not handle. Nevertheless, you would have had to police the organization internationally to make sure that the beneficiaries, like you, were in agreement or conspiracy with the crime and wanted to continue as beneficiaries.

As such beneficiaries, you and virtually every other Scientologist under Miscavige were specifically disobeying 18 U.S.C. §241 “Conspiracy Against Rights,” which states:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

I am, of course, aware that the Scientology beneficiaries’ claimed defense for their manifold and continuing violations of 18 U.S.C. §241 is that they had gotten around that U.S. Federal statute, or avoided it, or found a loophole in it, and a California State Court Judge had gone along with them. Scientology’s and Scientologists’ avoidance of 18 U.S.C. §241, with the collaboration of that corrupt judge and other members of the judiciary or officers of the court, however, has been, just as Hubbard warned, dishonest, and has greatly complicated the beneficiaries’ legal situations. The Scientology beneficiaries’ “successful” disobedience of 18 U.S.C. §241, and thus far “successful” avoidance of that statute’s penalties, actually comprise more crimes, specifically violations of 18 U.S.C. §242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law,” which says in pertinent part:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

I do not believe that anyone on Scientology’s side who was involved in the Scientology v. Armstrong war, or even knew about it, actually believed that silencing a person about his religious experiences in Scientology, or any religion, was, by U.S. law, lawful. Miscavige may have had some conscienceless attorney “advise” him that what you all were doing was legal, but Miscavige and any beneficiaries who obtained such advice did so because they knew what they were doing was not legal. Scientology, of course, was and is a religion that has insisted incessantly that it is a religion, and organized solely for religious purposes. Even I have been forced by crushing reality to acknowledge that Scientology, no matter how irreligious it is, is religion.

Another way of saying this is that Scientology, no matter if it’s actually one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to what non-sociopathic wogs sincerely understand is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to irreligiousness, is a religion. The U.S. Government has decided this issue, and there is no sense at this time in doing anything but accept the U.S. Government’s decision and deal with Scientology as a religion, even if such dealing precipitates the U.S.’s changing of that decision. Obviously the U.S. Government’s willingness is necessary to get 18 U.S.C. §§241 and 242 enforced against the Scientology beneficiaries in order to get the beneficiaries to cease their willful disobedience of those statutes.

I don’t believe that any Scientology beneficiary really believes that what Scientology and Scientologists have done to try to silence me about my Scientology experiences has been in obedience to the U.S.’s or any other country’s laws and regulations. The same beneficiaries all know that Scientology’s stand is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its claimed “obey-the-laws-of-the-land” tenet. The actual obedience tenet is “obey Scientology,” “or obey the leader.” The actual litigation tenet, regarding those pesky laws of the land such as 18 U.S.C. §§241 and 242, which might stop or slow Scientology’s progress or thwart DM’s command intention, is get around the laws, avoid them, find loopholes in them, or even use them, and very easily, to harass.

It is no more lawful to try to silence me about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists than it is to try to silence someone about Christ, Christianity and Christians. The horrendous judicial and extra-judicial campaign to silence me about Scientology is just as evil as a campaign to silence someone about Christianity or any religion. And just as impossible. It is also, I believe, impossible that any of the beneficiaries did not know that what they were beneficiaries in was evil, and impossible. I believe that all the involved beneficiaries conspired to do what has been done to silence me just because it is an evil they could very easily do, even if in disobedience to the laws of the land.

I believe that virtually every beneficiary knows that penalizing me $50,000 per expression of my religious experiences, knowledge or belief is unlawful, and just as evil as penalizing a person $50,000 per expression of his Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, of Muslim experiences, knowledge or belief. All the beneficiaries, moreover, do all this obscene penalizing, which they know to be both evil and illegal, while generating their own millions of expressions of their experiences, knowledge or belief about me, my family, friends, and members of my class, the “Suppressive Persons.”

21. In a writing issued in 1980 entitled, “Ethics, Justice, and the Dynamics,”4/, L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

Years ago I discovered and proved that man is basically good. This means that the basic personality and the basic intentions of the individual, toward himself and others are good.

When a person finds himself committing too many harmful acts against the dynamics, he becomes his own executioner. This gives us the proof that man is basically good. When he finds himself committing too many evils, then, causatively, unconsciously or unwittingly, man puts ethics in on himself by destroying himself; and he does himself in without assistance from anybody else.

This is why the criminal leaves clues on the scene, why people develop strange incapacitating illnesses and why they cause themselves accidents and even decide to have an accident. When they violate their own ethics, they begin to decay. They do this all on their own, without anybody else doing anything.

Enchantingly, Hubbard also hauled out his trusty old Hindu hypnoscope right at the beginning of this scriptural policy letter from which you’ve quoted:


Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex


All Hats


Every being has an infinite ability to survive. How well he accomplishes this is dependent on how well he uses ethics on his dynamics.

Ethics tech exists for the individual.

It exists to give the individual a way to increase his survival and thus free himself from the dwindling spiral of the current culture.

Check out (or any other source if you want):

Main Entry:dwin•dle
Inflected Form(s):dwin•dled; dwin•dling \-(d)li?, -d?l-i?\
Etymology:probably frequentative of dwine to waste away, from Middle English, from Old English dwinan; akin to Old Norse dvina to pine away, deyja to die – more at die
intransitive verb
: to become steadily less : shrink
transitive verb
: to make steadily less
synonyms see decrease

This will probably help too:

It’s very easy to draw a spiral, because, of course, it’s a common, simple two-dimensional figure. But can you draw a spiral that doesn’t dwindle? All spirals dwindle, and all spirals expand. To call a spiral a “dwindling spiral” is a befuddling redundancy. But Hubbard, both wordsmith and sociopath, I believe knew what he was doing. His grammar errors, apparent carelessness, contradictions, and even his shallowness and banalities were, like his outright lies, to control us. Accepting for the purpose of the discussion of ethics that current society possesses a spiral, what if the current culture’s spiral is one hundred eighty degrees opposed to dwindling and is an expanding spiral? And what if it takes no time, and costs nothing, for that to be true for you?

In the contexts you’ve used Hubbard’s hypnoscopic image and for the items you’ve got spiraling, a social being would actually want your spirals to dwindle until they disappeared, taking their items or content or perniciousnesses with them. An ethical person would cause the dwindling spirals to dwindle even more rapidly than they were dwindling before he made himself responsible for their dwindlingness. In your 1991 dec you form Hubbard’s overt-motivator sequence into a dwindling spiral, and in your ESMB post you have a dwindling spiral of self-invalidation and unhappiness, which, you also say, is pernicious. Surely if self-invalidation and unhappiness dwindled right out of existence everyone would be totally happy and feel fully validated. And if the overt-motivator sequence dwindled all over the place into nothingness, well that would be one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the overt-motivator sequence expanding everywhere, so dwindling the sequence, if expanding it is the only other option (and of course if the sequence is what’s true for you) has to be a good thing.

When Hubbard says that he discovered that man is basically good, he really means that he had a thought one day that man is basically good, not that he was the first person to think such a thought. If man is basically good, I think you’d have to agree, Hubbard couldn’t have been the first person who from the beginning of time had discovered it. If that claimed truth was so undiscoverable that it remained undiscovered until Hubbard discovered it, it’s quite likely not true. And indeed it is untrue, because truth shows that man, as I said above, is basically holy.

In any significant way, Hubbard only contrasted his “discovery” of what man basically is with one other idea of what man basically is: the “old religious beliefs that man is basically evil.” See, HCOB 21 January 1960 “Justification,” or even this squirreled version in the cult’s online Scientology Handbook Man-is-basically-evil is one of Hubbard’s straw facts, or straw theses, or straw discoveries, that a child could debunk. Scientology scripture doesn’t address, or even dare to address, the man-is-basically-holy fact, thesis or discovery, because it threatens the man-is-basically-good BS that keeps the cult’s unethical ethics system and the rest of the racket working. Spellbindingly, Hubbard also used his hypnoscope on us in his “Justification” bulletin: “Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral.” That’s a fine outpoint, because he was its source.

Hubbard’s “proof” that man-is-basically-good, which you quoted above, and which is repeated in different ways throughout Scientology tech, ethics and admin scripture, is that “when a person finds himself committing too many harmful acts…he becomes his own executioner.” Hubbard gets a bit more specific in HCOB 5 June 1984 “False Purpose Rundown,” dated, interestingly, right at the end of the Armstrong I trial:

That beings are basically good and are seeking to survive are two fundamental principles of Scientology.

A being’s basic goodness can be made brightly evident or be heavily obscured, the quality of his life and survival potential can be enhanced or reduced, all through a factor fundamental to the thetan himself: PURPOSES

Where a being has accumulated nonsurvival purposes and intentions, he will be found to be having, doing and being far below his potential. Having committed overt acts (prompted by false, nonsurvival intentions and purposes), he then restrains himself from action. Achievement, stability, certainty, respect for self, and even the thetan’s innate power can seem to deteriorate or disappear altogether.

And it can be found that many of these contrasurvival purposes have been fettering the being for a VERY long time. Recent upper-level research breakthroughs have led to the development of a new rundown designed to slash straight through to the root of such false purposes and unwanted intentions and BLOW them.

The name of this new rundown is the FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN.

Hubbard’s statement of this principle in a contemporaneous piece of scripture, HCOB 2 March 1984R “O/W Write-Ups” is also instructive:

It has been longstanding knowledge in Scientology that in the presence of overts and withholds no gains occur.

An overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. Overts are the biggest reason a person restrains and withholds himself from action.

Man is basically good. When people commit overts and then withhold them it is because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. By withholding overt acts, these are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves, as withholds, entirely the cause of continued evil.

A person who has overts and withholds becomes less able to influence his dynamics and falls out of communication with those people and things he has committed overts against.

Writing up one’s overts and withholds offers a road out. By confronting the truth an individual can experience relief and a return of responsibility.

Clearly Hubbard never wrote up his O/Ws, not, at least, as he had us write up our O/Ws. He admitted some of his O/Ws in his Admissions, but that was in the context of willing himself to never be affected by his O/Ws. (The overt-motivator sequence is for Homo saps, not Homo sorcerers.) In his PL “The Reason for Orgs,” quoted above, and written just a year before he wrote “O/W Write-Ups,” Hubbard does submit what he would say is his O/W write-up: “I have never lied to you or conned you and what I tell you now is true. I would be falsifying if I told you other than the facts in this policy letter. So there it is!”

Since Hubbard had “proved” that, because man restrains himself if he does bad, i.e., commits overts, man is basically good, Hubbard also “proved,” by not restraining himself that he had committed no overts. By not restraining himself his whole life from lying his head off, Hubbard “proved” that he was honest and ethical. By not withholding himself from action his whole life, he “proved” he hadn’t committed overts. By being a “no overts” case (Ref HCOB 22 October 1970, “”No Overts” Cases”) he “proved” that there was no reason to restrain or withhold himself in any way.

Hubbard never admitted, nor could a Scientologist ever admit, that his havingness, doingness and beingness were even minutely below his potential, a clear “proof” that he was O/W free. He presented himself, and had his Scientology staff promote him, as the very paragon of achievement, stability, certainty, self-respect and innate power, which had never deteriorated an iota throughout his whole life, also “proving” how awesomely honest, ethical, responsible, uncriminal, great-case-gain-making, and basically good he was. Hubbard never became his own executioner, “proof” he hadn’t committed too many harmful acts. His “proof,” however, was a sociopath’s “proof,” which permitted him to commit continuous harmful acts and even use those harmful acts to demonstrate his honesty and ethics.

After Hubbard committed suicide, or I suppose could have been foully played with, Miscavige became the most unrestrained Scientologist, also “proving” thereby, as Hubbard had “proved,” that he too had no O/Ws. Everyone knows Miscavige isn’t his own executioner, which “proves” he hasn’t yet committed too many harmful acts. He is so unrestrained that he is reported, as you know, to have not restrained himself from physically assaulting a number of people, “proving” how abnormally, or uniquely, ethical he is.

Almost all wogs restrain themselves from physically assaulting others, “proving” that they have overts. Wogs restrain themselves specifically, in fact, from physically assaulting their juniors in their organizations, groups, churches, militaries, etc. I think a great number of Scientologists also restrain themselves from physically assaulting others, and even restrain themselves from physically assaulting their juniors in their own organization. These Scientologists, their behavior “proves,” are just like wogs: their overts make them restrain and withhold themselves from action, in this case the action of physically assaulting people.

There is, however, a number of Scientologists who are unrestrained about being as unrestrained as DM, and like him “prove” how ethical they are by physically assaulting people. Scientologists or Scientology agents, as you know, have physically assaulted me on several occasions. DM “proves” his honesty with his unrestrained lying, and there are obviously many Scientologists who “prove” their honesty by telling the same lies he tells. DM’s so unrestrained he’s boasted publicly of shooting down SPs like ducks in a pond, and so proud of his unrestrainedness he’d do it. That’s a level of unrestraint “proving” a level of ethics, that very few wogs ever reach. How many Scientologists will join him at that level, where their overtlessness doesn’t make them restrain or withhold themselves from the action of shooting us down, like ducks in a pond or not, is not yet known.

22. The teachings of Mr. Hubbard are unequivocal on this point. The commission of dishonesties, of harmful acts against another is the road to personal destruction, to the loss of awareness, the loss of abilities, to personal unhappiness and the destruction of positive interpersonal relationships. Only the litigants who, due to their own harmful acts, have already travelled down this route or those who, through misinformation or ignorance know no better, would advance or believe that the scriptures of the Church could support the commission of harmful acts against one’s fellow man.

Yet, albeit after many years, you have yourself now noticeably advanced the idea that Scientology’s scripture supports the commission of harmful acts against one’s fellow man with your acknowledgment of the reality that, essentially, Scientology – the cult, church or religion under Miscavige – stands one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental scriptural tenets. I have additionally advanced herein the idea that Hubbard’s and Scientology’s man-is-basically-good “discovery” and the discovery’s “proof,” their “overt-motivator sequence,” their “Suppressive Person” doctrine, their “ethics” system, and all their other systems – tech, admin, money – stand one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to what for man is actually honest, ethical, courteous, safe and wise, and works.

23. In fact, the precise opposite is true. Scientology scriptures detail how it is that harmful acts against one’s fellows bring about the loss of integrity and decrease one’s ability to handle life successfully. The mechanism at work here was presented by Mr. Hubbard in 1968:

There was an important discovery made in 1952 . . . which did not get included in “Book One,” Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

This was the “overt-motivator sequence. . .”

AN OVERT, in Dianetics and Scientology, is an aggressive or destructive ACT by the individual against one or another of the eight dynamics (self, family, group, mankind, animals or plants, mest, life or the infinite).

A MOTIVATOR is an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics.

The viewpoint from which the act is viewed resolves whether the act is an overt or a motivator.

The reason it is called a “motivator” is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back — it “motivates” a new overt.

When one has done something bad to someone or something, one tends to believe it must have been “motivated.”

Bulletin of 20 May 1968, “Overt-Motivator Sequence.”
Thus, an individual who commits harmful acts against himself, another, the social order and so forth, grows invariably at odds with the person or institution whom he has attacked.

Hasn’t Scientology, under both Hubbard and Miscavige, mandated that Scientologists be invariably at odds with me, the person they have attacked? I’m quite certain you have relevant evidence concerning several of the attacks on me identified here: and I’m certain you have relevant evidence concerning other attacks on me that are not identified on that page.

24. Mr. Hubbard explained this phenomena further in a lecture given to Scientology ministerial students:

[M]an is basically good, despite his reactive bank.The reactive bank is only composed to make a man commit overts, which is against his better nature. If he commits these overts, therefore, he’ll trap himself because he won’t go on communicating, having committed them. So it’s the perfect trap. You do not want to talk to people you have wronged . … They commit an overt act, don’t you see, and then they will try to withhold and sever the communication line for fear that they will commit another overt act. That actually is the fundamental think of man.
Tape Lecture of July 2, 1964, “0/W Modernized and Reviewed.”

25. The path one trods when he commits harmful acts is the road to oblivion. It is the descent not only into despair and destroyed relationships; it is also the way to personal degradation and criminality. “A criminal is one who is motivated by evil intentions and who has committed so many harmful overt acts that he considers such activities ordinary.” (Bulletin of 15 September 1981, “The Criminal Mind,”) The desperate straits to which the criminal has descended have been clearly described by Mr. Hubbard:

It is a mind like any other mind but it has gone wrong. It is motivated by evil intentions which, even if idiotic, are greater than the possessor’s ability to reason. The criminal, even when he seems most clever, is really very, very stupid. The evil intentions get dramatized by senseless overt acts which are then withheld, and the final result is a person who is more dead than alive and who faces a future so agonizing that any person would shudder at it. The criminal, in fact, has forfeited his life and any meaning to it even when he remains “uncaught” and “unpunished,” for in the long run, he has caught himself and punishes himself for all eternity. No common judge can give a sentence as stiff as that. They know down deep that this is true and that is why they scream with such ferocity that men have no souls. They can’t confront the smallest part of what awaits them.

When you understand what the criminal mind consists of, you can also understand how ghastly must be the feelings or lack of them with which the criminal has to live within himself and for all his days forever. He is more to be pitied than punished ….



26. The individual, having descended away from personal honesty and integrity, down the dwindling spiral of the overt-motivator sequence, to the depths of criminality described by Mr. Hubbard in the attached bulletin arrives at a point, where they are totally consumed by their criminality. A person at this point sees all life as having the same sordid motives he does. Of such an individual, Mr. Hubbard wrote:

* * *
* * *


27. The entire thrust of the training, auditing, ethics and justice technologies of the Scientology religion is to improve the spiritual well-being of the individual and to make him more able so that he is able to assist others to attain greater spiritual awareness. Of all of the religions in the world, Scientology is unique in the degree it places emphasis upon the value of self-determined right conduct, honesty and personal integrity. The scriptures, however, do far more than simply warn of the consequences of evil ways. They also set forth techniques for the eradication of the harmful effects of past transgressions and the rehabilitation of an individual’s personal integrity and abilities. Confessional counseling sessions are standardly provided to Scientologists in order to help them unburden themselves of past transgressions. Through such counselling the individual Scientologist is made more able and is brought to levels of increased affinity and responsibility.

28. The ethics and justice system of Scientology, then, has honesty and integrity as its underpinnings. As a subject, ethics consists simply of the actions taken by an individual on himself to improve his survival. Through Scientology ethics a person is taught not a rote series of do’s and don’t’s, but tools which he can use to make ethical and moral choices and decisions.

29. In a policy letter of 12 July 1980 later revised on 5 November 1982, entitled “The Basics of Ethics,” Mr. Hubbard wrote of the unfortunate state a person finds himself in when he is unable to ethically deal with his daily life:

The individual who lacks any ethics technology is unable to put in ethics on himself and restrains himself from contrasurvival actions, so he caves himself in. And the individual is not going to come alive unless he gets hold of the basic tech of ethics and applies it to himself and others.

30. The basic ethics technology discovered by L. Ron Hubbard is found in the ethics conditions and their formulas.

These are described in the book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

The basic tools used to get and keep ethics in are the ethics conditions and their formulas.

An organization or its parts or an individual passes through various states of existence. These, if not handled properly, bring about shrinkage and misery and worry and death. If handled properly they bring about stability, expansion, influence and well-being.
* * *
The different conditions formulas make up a SCALE which shows the condition or state, which is to say the degree of success or survival of an individual…

(Introduction to Scientology Ethics, at 37-38.)

31. The ethics conditions are: Confusion, Treason, Enemy, Doubt, Liability, Non-Existence, Danger, Emergency, Normal Operation, Affluence, Power, Power Change. Each condition carries with it a series of steps to follow, called formulas, which result in improvement up the rising scale of conditions. The application of the specific formulas for each condition are a basic tool which Scientologists use to live happier, more successful lives. Each condition describes a level of survival in which an individual, business or other activity can be located at any given moment. Mr. Hubbard has laid out an exact formula, or set of steps, for each condition, which, if correctly followed, will result in the attainment of a higher condition. For example, both a new marriage and a new business start out in a condition of “non-existence” and to succeed, must follow the formula steps of getting in communication with one’s partner or potential customers, finding out what is needed from that person, and providing that. Whether one is doing well, poorly, or just getting by, there is a condition formula which applies. (For a full description of the various ethics conditions and their individual formulas, see Introduction to Scientology Ethics, pp. 56-104.) Through the use of the correct formula, one is able to improve how he or she is doing.

32. Condition formulas are used to handle all types of situations, favorable and unfavorable, alike. For example, if one made a bad error on one’s job, he could use an ethics condition, such as the Liability formula, as a guide to getting back on top of the situation — perhaps saving his job in the process. And if one were doing very well in some area in life, the Affluence formula would provide steps to help isolate the important points of one’s success and reinforce those.

33. Scientology also has an ecclesiastical justice system. Justice is applied in Scientology when an individual fails to apply the tools of ethics to correct his own unethical activities, and is causing problems for others.

34. The Scientology justice system has as its basic premise that justice is to be used only so long as it is necessary to restore the individual to self-determined ethical conduct. It does not have punishment as a goal; rather, the purpose is to rehabilitate the individual’s ability to use and apply the ethics technology. For this reason, the justice system is a gradient one, consisting of a whole series of actions which might be taken in an appropriate case to ensure that ethical conduct is restored.

35. These gradient steps are specified in a writing of Mr. Hubbard dated 29 April 1965, entitled “Ethics Review.” The various tools are laid out in a progression of lightest to most severe, ranging from actions such as “noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person,” to the severest discipline in the Scientology religion: “expulsion from Scientology.” None of the gradients carries with it physical punishment of any kind.

36. L. Ron Hubbard has stressed that the lightest forms of these levels are to be used first, and only increased as necessary to help the person:

Scientology Ethics are so powerful in effect … that a little goes a very long ways.

Try to use the lightest form first.


37. The Scientology justice system also provides ecclesiastical fact-finding bodies and formal justice actions which help determine the appropriate way to deal with a Scientologist who has been causing difficulty for other Scientologists. The first of these is an “ethics hearing.” Such a hearing consists of a meeting of the accused with a “hearing officer.” This is a fact-finding body; the accused is presented with the written accusations, is given the opportunity to question the people who have made the accusations, if necessary, and is given the opportunity to explain fully his own side of the story. The hearing officer then makes a recommendation as to how the situation should be handled.

38. If it is established by verified evidence in an ethics hearing that the person has been involved in some violations of Scientology codes or procedures, a “Court of Ethics” may be convened. The purpose of the Court is to determine what discipline should be imposed for the wrong-doing. For example, if a staff member is continually late for or absent from his assigned duties, he might be called before such a court and might be assigned a short, special project to clean the slate for the problems he has caused. Such an action would bring home to him that he is expected to appear for work on time and should regulate his actions accordingly. (See, policy letter of 26 May 65, Issue III, “Courts of Ethics,”).

39. The most serious type of justice action is a Committee of Evidence. This is “a fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a convening authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action.” (Policy letter of 27 March 1965, “The Justice of Scientology — its Use and Purpose.) The individual or individuals who are the subject of the Committee of Evidence are present at all times when evidence is presented and are given the opportunity to examine all witnesses. Once the Committee has determined the facts of the matter, it makes its recommendation to the “convening authority” who then reviews all the evidence and recommendations and accepts, or modifies the Committee’s findings and recommendations. The protection which committees of evidence provide for Scientologists from possible arbitrary sanctions or sanctions arising out of momentary upset is substantial. Thus, for example, staff members may not be suspended, demoted, or improperly transferred to another job without a committee of evidence. (Id.)

40. Scientologists can and frequently do avail themselves of the Scientology justice system as it is free, swift, sane, accurate and based solely on getting to the truth.

41. The value of a committee of evidence was described by Mr. Hubbard in 1965 in a policy letter entitled “The Justice of Scientology — Its Use and Purpose; Being a Scientologist”:

Committees of Evidence work. I recall one Tech[nical] Director [Church executive in charge of administering the delivery of Church services according to the scriptures or “Tech”] accused of tampering with a student. I was told he was about to be disciplined and sacked. I stopped that action and had a Committee of Evidence convened. Accurate testimony revealed the story false and the Tech Director innocent. Without that committee he would have been ruined. I know of other instances where a committee found the facts completely contrary to rumor. Some are guilty, most are innocent. But thereby we have justice and our necks aren’t out. If a person is to keep the law, he or she must know what the law is. And must be protected from viciousness and caprice in the name of law. If a person doesn’t keep the law, knowing well what it is, he or she hurts all of us and should be handled. Our justice really rehabilitates in the long run. It only disciplines those who are hurting others and gives them a way to change so they can eventually win too — but not by hurting us.

42. As set forth above, the ultimate penalty under the justice codes of the Church of Scientology is expulsion from the Church. Mr. Hubbard wrote in a 1965 policy letter that to withdraw the protection and availability of the Scientology justice system is the harshest penalty in that system; and that is the effect of expulsion. Yet, even a person who has been declared to be a suppressive and has been expelled from the Church, however, is still afforded an opportunity to redeem himself and to return to good standing. To do so, the person must follow a simple, five step, procedure: (A) “cease all attacks and suppressions so he, she or they can get a case gain”; (B) make “a public announcement to the effect that they realize their actions were ignorant and unfounded”; (B-1) paying off all debts owed to any Scientology organizations; (B-2) complete an approved amends project; (C) training from the lowest level; (D) providing copies of the above steps to the ethics officer who is dealing with him; and (E) providing a similar copy to the International Justice Chief of the Church.

“Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”, 8 January 1981.

43. The writings of L. Ron Hubbard are very clear on the point that even an expelled person may turn around and re-enter the Church. In “Expansion Theory of Policy”, 4 December 1966 regarding expulsion from the Church, he wrote:

Further, one must leave at least a crack in the door and never close it with a crash on anyone because a demand factor may still develop there…. One must always leave a crack open. The suppressive can recant and apologize.

44. Finally, because of their adherence to a strict standard of ethics, Scientologists have a great respect for the law. As Mr. Hubbard wrote in The Way To Happiness:

“Adhere to the principal that all men are equal under law: a principal which, in its own time and place – the tyrannical days of aristocracy — was one of the greatest social advances in human history and should not be lost sight of.

“See the children and people become informed of what is ‘legal and ‘illegal’ and make it known, if by as little as a frown, that you do not approve of ‘illegal acts.’

“Those who commit them, even when they ‘get away with them,’ are yet weakened before the might of the state.”

(Id., pp. 100 – 101)

45. The selections presented above are but a small portion of the hundreds of pages which Mr. Hubbard has written on the subject of Ethics and Justice, all of which is in full use and application in Churches of Scientology around the globe. As the cited materials make clear, the undeviating emphasis throughout this vast literature is that one must maintain a very high standard of ethics, that one must treat one’s fellow man with dignity and respect and that one must obey the laws and act in harmony with the codes of the society. Moreover, the Scientology scriptures themselves are comprised of over 50 million words which L. Ron Hubbard wrote on the subject of the religion of Scientology. And throughout all of this material, whether dealing with techniques of counselling or with the ultimate abilities and nature of the spiritual being that is the individual, Mr. Hubbard has written from the premise that truth, integrity, honesty and fair dealing with one’s fellows, with groups and races and with each of the dynamics, is the road to survival. This is a standard which never waivers in the Church of Scientology. And this is the reason that Scientologists are the most ethical people you are likely to ever meet.

Hubbard wrote, as I’ve documented above, from a premise that was one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to what his claimed premise was, and what you’ve claimed his premise was. All the evidence shows him to be such a liar about so many things, including his own truthfulness, and his own ethics and integrity, that he is properly identified as a pathological liar. It’s true that Scientology’s standard has never wavered (you didn’t actually mean never waivers, right?), because its standard is its stand that is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to truth, integrity, honesty and fair dealing. That stand has never wavered because the wills and willfulness of the people that keep the stand working have never wavered. We who stand up to Scientology’s stand of willful dishonesty, hypocrisy and Fair Game will know when Scientology and Scientologists actually waver in that dishonest, integrityless, unfair and criminal stand and standard, and we wogs will all welcome that waver.

46. Seen in this context — a context which never could be presented to Judge Breckenridge in the underlying case — Armstrong’s assertions are patently absurd and unbelievable. Armstrong attempted to take one line from a 1965 issue and to assert that this cancelled issue, which he deliberately misinterpreted to suit his own purposes, carries more weight than the thousands upon thousands of pages by Mr. Hubbard which directly and unequivocably state the exact opposite of Armstrong’s interpretation. Armstrong knew that the “fair game” issue was cancelled by Mr. Hubbard in 1968, before Armstrong was first exposed to the religion of Scientology. When Mr. Hubbard learned that the line was open to misinterpretation by those not versed in Church scripture, he immediately cancelled it for that reason. The Church has always been ready to accept a reformed suppressive person back into the Church. Mr. Hubbard’s writings are clear on this. The expelled individual is simply denied recourse to the Church’s internal justice procedures for the resolution of his disputes with Scientologists in good standing. The door is always “left open a crack”, as anyone is capable of reform. It has always been and will remain the intention of the Church staff to bring increased well-being and spiritual awareness to all individuals on this planet. That is what the religion and the Church of Scientology are about.

Your assertion that your “context,” the pieces of scripture you cited, or anything you wrote in your 1991 declaration never could have been presented at my trial was pure sheepdip. You could have testified yourself, and Miscavige was all that was actually preventing you. Through my attorney, I would have been grateful to examine you on all the claims you make in your dec. I believe that by your testimony and by documents introduced through you, a picture would have emerged of Scientology’s claims to truth, integrity, honesty and fair dealing being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the organization’s actual stand or actions when truth, integrity, honesty and fair dealing mattered. They mattered seriously at my trial, and still do now twenty-five years later.

Your testimony then would have generated, as your declaration does now, a picture of Scientologists being one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed, where it matters, to the most ethical people you are likely to ever meet. To oppose those who are one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the most ethical people you are likely to meet, it stands to reason., would be the most ethical thing to do. Your testimony then would have confirmed, and your dec years later, all your actions subsequently, Miscavige’s words and actions, and all Scientologists’ words and actions have confirmed that my assertions about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists were and remain one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to absurd and unbelievable.

Some might not understand my assertions, because, of course, I write so understandably it’s unbelievable. My assertions, moreover, include assertions concerning absurdities, since absurdities so saturate Scientology. My assertions themselves, however, are unabsurd, as this assertion shows. And, if they’re understood, which they can be accomplished through easy reading, my assertions are perfectly believable.

I never claimed that a policy letter, or any evidence, that showed directly Hubbard’s sociopathic character and intentions carried more weight than policy letters or other evidence that showed that his claimed essentially saintly character and intentions were one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to his in real life character and intentions. They all carry weight, all Scientology scripture carries weight, and all that weight adds up to the judgment that Hubbard was a sociopath and pathological liar, and that Scientology was his alter ego. Now, of course, Scientology is Miscavige’s alter ego. The same pieces of Scientology scripture, more publications since Hubbard’s death, and all sorts of other evidence, including even your leaving the SO and apparently getting away from DM’s control, all have weight that adds up to the reasoned judgment that Miscavige too is a sociopath and an incorrigible liar.

Hubbard never cancelled Fair Game. It cannot be cancelled until Scientology cancels the SP doctrine. The cult, in actuality, is more active than ever in its drive to indoctrinate people in the doctrine, as can be seen with all the ads in all the mags selling the PTS/SP Course, the SP Masks all over the place, and the doctrine’s inclusion even in the front groups’ basic programs.

Fair Game constitutes a crime. It is unlawful to attack and pursue people as Scientology attacks and pursues them, the Fair Game on me being a fair example. The SP doctrine is a key element in the conspiracy to commit that crime. Fair Game is the way sociopaths view their fellow human beings: legitimately open to attack and pursuit. Scientology is a specific form of organized sociopathy.

What you call “Fair Game” is a straw term. And whether Scientology calls Fair Game “Fair Game” or “something different from Fair Game” is irrelevant. Fair Game is Scientology’s philosophy, policy and practice for handling or treating individuals in the Suppressive Person Class. Fair Game includes everything done in handling or treating SPs, whether or not such actions are identified or “justified” in the “levels of ethics actions” listed in Hubbard’s “Ethics Review” PL. The philosophy of Fair Game states that attacking and pursuing SPs is legitimate. Fair Game policies and practices get that religious philosophy applied.

Since the SP class is “created” solely by Scientology’s religious scripture and Scientologists’ religious application of that scripture, the class is a religious class. As a religious class, it’s similar to the “non-believer class,” which is “created” by one religion of “believers” or another. The SP doctrine incites and directs Scientologists to persecute individuals in the SP class, which, being only two and a half percent of the planetary population, is a persecuted religious minority. Fair Game is every attack on SPs, every pursuit of any SP in any way, every word written or spoken about SPs in Scientology scripture or in Scientology orders or communications of any kind.

Scientologists cannot but insist that their organization or religion only attacks and pursues SPs, because to admit otherwise also acknowledges that, in some cases at least, the attacks and pursuits are illegitimate. Consequently, every wog that Scientology or Scientologists have ever attacked or pursued is actually in the SP class, whether Hubbard or Miscavige had them declared SP, either formally or informally. To honestly and gracefully end Fair Game, all attacks or pursuits of SPs in any way should be seen as illegitimate. It is not difficult to see all of Scientology’s attacks or pursuits of SPs as illegitimate, they are all illegitimate.

What greatness of Hubbard, Miscavige and Scientology to leave open a crack the door back into their organization or church, which stands one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets of truth, integrity, honesty and fair dealing! Scientology doesn’t bring increased spiritual awareness to all individuals; in fact it doesn’t even permit increased spiritual awareness because increasing spiritual awareness would be an “other practice.” Scientologists’ clear intention, as authorized and enforced by their religion’s leader, stands one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to increasing spiritual awareness, and, in truth, the intention is to bring spiritual ignorance to everyone and to suppress and eradicate increased spiritual awareness. That is what the religion and the Church of Scientology are about; because the way to increased spiritual awareness for any Scientologist, if that Scientologist seeks increased spiritual awareness, can begin with getting free of Scientology.

47. Armstrong stands as an apostate who has found a single mistranslated line that never made it into an edition of the Bible. An apostate who, on the basis of this non-existent piece of scripture, is attempting to allege that all of Christianity is built upon a false premise and that all the teachings of Jesus and his disciples are mere coverings for the one line of alleged “scripture” which he feels “tells it all”. The Court would surely recognize the absurdity of this position and would never permit the apostate to claim that his theft of sacred religious documents was warranted by his “state of mind”. Yet this is an exact parallel to the situation which occurred at the Armstrong trial and which was countenanced by Judge Breckenridge and, so far, by this Court. Moreover, Armstrong well knows that it is a fundamental tenet of the Church that Church policy must be in writing to be valid (”in Scientology we say, ‘if it isn’t written, it isn’t true.’”[“The Hidden Data Line, 16 April 1965] The term “fair game” is not in the writings of the Church and is not Church policy. All valid and enforceable Church policy is published and available to parishioners. The “fair game” policy has not been published since its cancellation prior to Armstrong joining the Church and is not published in any current volumes of Scientology writings, and indeed was never published in any edition of any of the Scientology policy volumes. It is not something that is open to interpretation by Armstrong, Judge Breckenridge, or anyone else. It does not exist.

Your assertion that I stood as an apostate who has found a single mistranslated line that never made it into an edition of the Bible, and who, on the basis of this nonexistent piece of scripture, is attempting to allege that all of Christianity is built upon a false premise and that all the teachings of Jesus and his disciples are mere coverings for the one line of alleged scripture, contains, as I’m sure you now cannot but acknowledge, a load of BS. There was no mistranslated line in Scientology cult scripture. I’ve never claimed that what wasn’t policy was policy, written or not. From the moment I accepted (it seems eons ago) that Scientology is a religion, I’ve also never claimed that anything that wasn’t in scripture was in scripture, or vice versa. So you stuck me up in a straw position for the Court to surely recognize as absurd, which, of course, it was, along with an almost endless parade of straw absurdities.

The exact parallel to Christianity in the Scientology v. Armstrong paradigm is what Scientology, Hubbard, Miscavige, you, everyone under him, and all other beneficiaries have done to prevent me from discussing my religious experiences and religious knowledge in the Scientology religion, and punish me for any such discussions. The willfully sociopathic Scientology leaders, first under LRH and now DM, concoct and enforce the idea that it’s perfectly legal, pro-survival, desirable, and very easy to use the secular courts to prevent people from discussing their religion or erstwhile religion, or their religious experiences and knowledge, if they’re “apostates.” It’s actually illegal, contra-survival, undesirable for everyone, impossible, dangerous and sick. Note, by the way, that “apostates,” as Scientology and Scientologists like yourself call us, also comprise a minority religious class that Scientology and Scientologists persecute, even by calling us apostates.

Every beneficiary knows that any sane secular court in the west would surely recognize the absurdity of Christianity and Christians and all their agents, lawyers, etc. using that court to prevent apostates; that is, people who have left the Christian faith, or left some Christian church or other; from discussing Christ, Christianity and the Christian apostates’ religious experiences in or knowledge of the Christian religion. Yet this is an exact parallel to the situation that all the Scientology religious beneficiaries postulated and brought to pass against me. Christianity and Christians don’t use the secular courts to prevent apostates from discussing Christ, Christianity or the apostates’ religious experiences or knowledge, so there are no cases of courts either enforcing or refusing to enforce such a sociopathic concept.

I do indeed well know that it is a claimed fundamental tenet of Scientology that policy must be in writing to be valid. I also well know that Scientology’s actual fundamental tenet on this point is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the claimed fundamental tenet. Many of Scientology’s actual policies are one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the organization’s claimed and written policies, including the claimed policy that policy must be in writing to be valid. The policy, order, arbitrary or whim that renders the Scientology policy that policy must be in writing to be valid invalid is, of course, not in writing. Scientology is a dictatorship and Miscavige is its dictator. Scientology “policy” serves his personal policies, orders, arbitraries and whims, a reality that is not in “policy” and is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the claimed and written “policy.”

The fact is that Scientology, despite its claimed fundamental tenet to the contrary, operates on a “hidden data line,” and its Fair Game philosophy, policy and practice are included in what Miscavige has Scientology try to hide. The term “Fair Game” was ordered not to be used, and has been removed from many of the places it appeared in Scientology’s scripture, because the policy and practice of Fair Gaming people is, in the wog world’s laws, unlawful, and Hubbard, DM and virtually all the beneficiaries know it’s unlawful. Fair Game exists as Scientology philosophy, policy and practice, and your averment that it doesn’t exist is a lie, and, to Fair Game’s targets, more Fair Game.

48. Now the Court has the heretofore missing data about the nature and weight of Scientology scriptures. Now the indefensible nature of Armstrong’s “state of mind” defense is clear. And further, now it is clear that Armstrong’s asserted defense has forced the Court into the role of interpreter of the true meaning of Scientology scriptures, a role which is anathema to the First Amendment. Church scriptures are straight-forward on this matter: Church members and Church organizations are expected to (and do) maintain the highest standards of ethical behavior in their dealings with their fellow men and with the institutions of our society.

I trust you now see you’ve written a crock. Scientology scripture is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to the fundamental tenet of straight-forwardness on the matter of its members’ and organizations’ standards of ethical behavior.

49. Mr. Hubbard cared deeply for mankind and dedicated his life and his work to doing what he could to make life better — and happier — for all mankind. It is this care and dedication which is carried on by Scientologists the world over, and their own happiness and that of those around them reflect just that. Mr. Hubbard expressed the purpose underlying his work in an article entitled, The Aims of Scientology:

A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.

Everybody knows those are Scientology’s claimed aims. But Hubbard’s and Miscavige’s Command Intention is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to these aims, and it is Command Intention that Scientologists comply with, not the organization’s published “aims.” Hubbard and DM being sociopaths, and Scientology being organized sociopathy, willfully generate insanity, or other psychological injury in their victims. They are pathologically dishonest, and every Scientology church and affiliated entity and virtually every Scientologist is contracted to suppress and destroy honest people’s rights.

50. The truth regarding the Church of Scientology is clear. These are the true facts about the ethics and justice systems of the Church and the values which the writings of L. Ron Hubbard advance. These are tools of personal salvation which litigants against the Church violently malign and impugn. From the blackened depths of their criminal minds, they seek to destroy this hope for mankind through false pictures and wild allegations which merely reflect their own sordid intentions and actions. Yet, as this small sampling of the scriptures show, the truth is very different. The religion of Scientology places a premium upon ethical behavior; and Scientologists, as a group, are the most ethical people in the world today. In fact, the ethical standards which they maintain are far and above those of any other group.

What a terrible pack of lies, Mark, for a terribly evil purpose. What organization- manufactured hatred you showed for the good people who stood up to your cult, which was so dishonest and so unethical that you would say, years later, it stands one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own claimed most fundamental tenets. Either Scientology successfully turned you into a liar and a hater, or maybe you rose to the ecclesiastical position of Inspector General for Ethics, and were used to execute this declaration, because you already were a liar and hater. And maybe you’ll do nothing about all the lying you did about the SPs or apostates who got Scientology’s number, who confronted the fact that it stood one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to its own most fundamental tenets, and who stood up to its lying and unethical behavior. Or maybe now you’ll come forward, tell the truth, and help Scientology’s Fair Game victims to end the unjust war the organization is waging on us.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in the State of California, the 13th day of August 1991.

Mark C. Rathbun

In case you now consider justifying not coming forward, not telling the truth, and not helping me, because I’m “just as bad as Scientology,” or I “pulled it in,” please know that I am not seeking to stop anyone from speaking, nor seeking to suppress or destroy anyone’s other basic human rights. I want wogs and Scientologists equally to think freely, speak freely, associate freely, worship freely, and live freely. On the other hand, Scientology, all its organizations or churches, its affiliated entities, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents and even attorneys seek to stop me from speaking, and all of them seek to suppress and destroy my other basic human rights. As you also know, these “beneficiaries” seek to suppress and destroy not just my rights, but the basic rights of anyone who would act in concert with me, which is potentially everyone on earth.

You didn’t mention in your 1991 declaration that you were a contractual beneficiary at the time, nor that Miscavige, the organization and individual beneficiaries were actively stopping speech and suppressing and destroying other basic human rights. It has dawned on some Scientologists, I’m sure, that they are contracted beneficiaries in something indefensibly evil, but they are themselves so suppressed, so trapped by their own misdeeds, and their heads apparently lie so uneasy from wearing their guilty consciences, that not one Scientologist over all these years has spoken up to be removed as a beneficiary. This is not astonishing, if the reality is confronted that Scientologists comprise a group that is one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to being the most ethical people in the world today, and that the ethical standards they maintain are one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to being far and above those of any other group.

What Scientology and Scientologists have done to stop me and people who associate with me or act in concert with me from speaking freely is in fact blackmail and abuse, which form a massive dark operation. You knew about all this for years inside, probably, because of your proximity to Miscavige and Scientology litigation, from before the contract was written, but certainly from December 1986. If you’re even a volunteer now for DM, or for any Scientology related entity, you would still be a beneficiary.

As I said at the start of this letter, I’m a person in the class of persons you offered to help: a person in need of the help that you can give, and someone who once formally participated in Scientology but who now holds no hope nor intention of ever seeking help from that religion or organization. I know you learned the skill of telling the truth, and that’s the skill I’m asking you to now share. I’m asking you to make good with me, and on a one-on-one basis is fine with me. I know how to get hold of you, and I’m making this an open letter, and posting it openly, because this is not solely a personal matter but one that affects many people, potentially everyone.

Yours hopefully,

Gerry Armstrong
[contact info]