To date, the Miscavige administration’s attempted handling of Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder and other whistleblowers (and prominent figures in the independent movement) has consisted mainly of bashing them in the media and to Scientologists and running harassment programs on them.
In the broad public media, Miscavige-run PR agents attempt to position the former senior Sea Org members as apostates, liars, and criminals, accusing them of beating subordinates (one of the crimes of which David Miscavige is accused by the whistleblowers). To Scientologists, they are labeled suppressive persons, people not fit to be associated with in any way. Not spoken to, not listened to, and their Internet postings not to be read. Scientologists who violate these prohibitions are themselves reportedly subjected to punitive actions by the Miscavige administration.
To a trained and observant Scientologist, the administration’s attempted handlings are wildly at odds with the writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard.
The “WHY” is Not God
The Cause of the Situation Is Internal
Rathbun and many other long-time, senior Sea Org executives have recently left (escaped from, according to some) the worldwide headquarters of the Church, the International Base, in Hemet, California. They have reported that David Miscavige regularly commits unethical acts, some of which are violations of criminal law, including the beating of staff. The Miscavige administration responded to the claims by denying that Mr. Miscavige ever beat anyone, accusing instead his accusers of doing the beatings.
Miscavige administration spokesperson Tommy Davis, in a public statement given last year, confirmed that some fifty beatings have occurred at the INT Base. Tommy and other Miscavige administration representatives do not seem to realize that by confirming such a large number of incidents over the course of years, rather than one or two isolated beatings during a week or two, they have admitted the existence of a culture of violence in the highest management echelon of the Church.
By a “culture of violence,” we mean a group agreement that physically assaulting and abusing Sea Org members is okay. A culture had to exist for the group to permit a second incident, let alone fifty or more. According to LRH:
In a group where members have some concept of controlling their environment and their fellows, you don’t have loafers or out-ethics cats. Because the rest of group, on an individual basis, just won’t tolerate it.
Even if top level officials other than David Miscavige delivered the beatings, several of these executives were David Miscavige’s direct juniors. He appointed them. As their senior he was responsible for managing them. Accordingly, whether David Miscavige himself beat staff, whether he and his juniors both beat staff, or whether his juniors, alone, beat staff, he is responsible for the beatings. Under his leadership, the practice occurred and, at a minimum, he did not put in place mechanisms to detect and prevent the use of violence against some of the most dedicated, hard-working, best-intended people on the planet: Sea Org members.
Obviously, the ethics procedures and safeguards mandated by LRH were not being utilized.
This likely is the result of a culture of fear superimposed on top of a culture of violence, which is another claim of the whistleblowers who assert that anyone speaking out against the beatings feared punishment themselves. If true, this points to Miscavige as the source of both the beatings and the climate of fear. Otherwise, Sea Org members would have felt safe in reporting the assaults by his juniors, thereby closing the door to violence.
In any event, the Miscavige administration’s attempt to shift responsibility to David Miscavige’s juniors has not and will not lead to a handling, because it violates basic Scientology principles; it puts Miscavige at “Effect,” rather than “Cause,” of the so-called “Suppressive Persons/Apostates.” (In addition to defying astronomical odds that so many top level international executives who spent decades of their lives devoted to the Church are liars and suppressive persons.)
According to LRH, the WHY of a situation is “that basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats.” The independent movement is expanding. More and more parishioners, OTs, ex-staff and Sea Org members are speaking out, and the PR of the church, already at an untenable low point, continues to decline. Obviously, the Miscavige Administration has not found the correct WHY.
Blaming Rathbun or other former senior Sea Org executives who are speaking out is an obvious incorrect WHY. According to LRH, “By believing it is the fault of other divisions or departments [or, in this case, former members], a staff member does not look into his own scene.”
The independent movement is, from one perspective, an ARCXen (i.e., upset) Field, present to an extent not previously seen in Scientology.
LRH is clear on who is responsible for it.
Failure to strenuously act to clean up an ARCXen field shall be deemed a high crime for the Exec Council.
As we point out in the Existing Scene, there is no longer an Exec Council or its equivalent at the international level of Scientology management (in itself, a violation of LRH policy). Reports of the senior Sea Org execs who have escaped from or left the INT Base are uniform in reporting that virtually all programs are micro-managed by Miscavige.
This means that per policy, he is the person responsible for handling the upset field, the independent movement. As the person claiming senior authority, the buck stops with him. And, a handling is not just sticking labels on people and harassing them in an attempt to shut them up, but consists of finding the real WHY.
In most corporations, with the amount of negative publicity recently run on the Church (CNN multi-part series, the front page of the Sunday edition of the New York Times, etc.) and allegations of violence, the CEO would resign for the benefit of the corporation, even if innocent of the specific criminal acts, as an acknowledgment of their failure to maintain a safe environment for employees and in order for the organization to make a fresh start. If they refused to resign for the good of the group, they often are removed for the same reasons.
If our evaluation is correct, the real WHY for the situation is the failure to implement LRH’s intention for the governance of Scientology – to have in place checks and balances in order to prevent Scientology from falling into the hands of one person, a person who can place himself beyond the reach of Scientology ethics and justice, immune from reports of off-policy and out-tech actions, and immune from correction by HCO and Qual.
We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us
If true, this is foolish. And illustrative of a profound lack of understanding of Scientology principles and the teachings of LRH.
If Rathbun, Rinder and other prominent figures in the independent movement are indeed now our enemies, we created them. We don’t have to try to “stop” them; the correct action is to cease creating them as our enemies.
The following quotes from LRH are excerpted from his lecture entitled “Attitude and Conduct of Scientology,” given on 3 November 1955 at the 4th London ACC:
But we do not, I repeat, do not separate them from Scientology or Scientology organizations, nor at any moment fail to give them organizational support or cooperation in the starting of any new activity in which they wish to engage for the benefit of Scientology. You got that?
In other words, the arduous lesson along this line is that no-communication lists, revocation/suspension of certificates, court action of any kind whatsoever within the realm of Scientology and so forth is not only… not only difficult to do, but does not work.
That’s just the end of it. It just doesn’t work. It’s for the sea gulls. That might work in… Westinghouse but it doesn’t work in Scientology. Got that?
It’s because they are people of good intention. And by saying that these people are not fit to associate with us anymore, we have told a lie of magnitude. This is not true. It’s never true. You got it?
Our inability to understand the actions of other Scientologists has a very fascinating barrier. The limitation on our understanding is simply this: we say they have bad intentions, and that is a lie. Got it?
So the whole situation is liable to enturbulate around that postulated bad intention. That’s what enturbulates the situation. That makes a lie.
The situation then becomes unsolvable. Because we’ve entered a changing factor called a lie into it.
This guy says he’s been hurt, he’s screaming to high heaven, let’s try and give him a hand.
In view of the fact that he’s in Scientology the probability is that he’s – actually has been hurt. See? He probably…that’s the… the probabilities are very in favor of that…
Well, I hate to unsettle a very stable datum, if it does unsettle it. But the only way anything ever does resolve is by letting your own kind heart reach through. That’s the only way it ever does solve.
And it never solves by being tough.
From the HCO Manual of Justice:
When you punish a man you punish also his family and friends. Even if you slayed the man you would then still have his friends and family as your enemies. If you slay everyone he knew – why, they have friends and families, too – and at last you’ve got a whole populace against you.
You punish a man. He goes away to join the ranks of the squirrels.
You swell the opposition. Don’t do it.
Also by LRH: “A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly.”
Additionally, attacks on one’s right to freely express one’s own opinions are at odds with the Creed of Scientology, which is included in the Bylaws of CST:
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others;” and, “…that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
Have we become so intolerant and thin-skinned – so insecure – that we cannot stand any criticism, even if the observations are true? Is it possible that we are sometimes wrong and subject to ethics gradients ourselves? For example, the gradient of “[t]alking to somebody about another derogatorily.” (Ethics Gradient No. 5.) Or do ethics gradients somehow not apply to us? Can it really be that the Miscavige administration is always completely innocent, as it asserts, and that its troubles are always the fault of others – horrible SPs (many of whom were long-term, high-ranking Sea Org executives)?
Are we really aligned with LRH on this?
Based on the LRH quotes given above, the existence of the independent movement
and the terrific PR pounding the church – and, indirectly, the reputation of LRH – has taken, and continues to take the answer is clearly, “No.”
So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject, anybody that knows these techniques, is himself actually under a certain responsibility – that’s to make sure that he doesn’t remain a sole proprietor. That’s all it takes, just don’t remain a sole proprietor. Don’t ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It’s not safe. It’s not safe for man; it’s not safe for this universe.
We need to implement LRH’s intention for the governance of Scientology organizations. This should include the following:
● Reconstitute the boards of the three governing corporations;
● Train the board members of each corporation in their duties;
● Separate the finances of the three corporations, conduct audits, and fix any irregularities found;
● CST’s newly constituted board of directors conduct an independent investigation into how and why LRH’s intention for the change in governance of Scientology from one-man rule during his life to rule by multiple checks and balances after his departure were not implemented, and determine whether it should exercise its purchase rights from RTC; and
● CSI should conduct its own, separate investigation to determine how and why its hats got knocked off.
The ED International, the convening authority for worldwide matters pursuant to Committees of Evidence, Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration Of, HCO PL 7 September 1963, needs to get cleaned up and put back on post or replaced as may be appropriate in the estimation of the CSI board of directors. The cleaned-up or new ED Int then needs to grant a general amnesty for the Field and convene a Committee of Evidence on the overall situation with David Miscavige as an interested party.
In the third and final part of this series, we will discuss how Corporate America has learned to successfully deal with whistleblowers. It may not surprise you to learn how closely the corporate solution, which was evolved through trial and error, tracks LRH policy.
1. HCO PL 22 July 1982, Knowledge Reports
2. See, e.g., Advanced Procedure & Axioms (2007 Ed.), Responsiblity, pp. 127-132
3. Data Series 19, THE REAL WHY
4. To be taken up in our next article.
5. Emphasis in original; Data Series 22, THE WHY IS GOD
6. HCO PL 23 February 1970, Ethics, Quality of Service
7. To be taken up in our next article.
8. HCO PL 10 December 1969, Superior Service Image
9. HCO PL 29 April 1965, Issue III, Ethics Review
10. PDC Lecture No. 20, Formative State of Scientology: Defintion of Logic, 6 Dec. 1952