David Miscavige’s Day of Reckoning

Reckoning, definition: The avenging or punishing of past mistakes or misdeeds.[1]

“Make no mistake, it’s not revenge he’s after. It’s a reckoning.”

– Doc Holliday line in the movie, Tombstone.

In 1968, LRH cancelled the policies of Disconnection, Security Checking, and Fair Game. To hear LRH himself announce the cancellation in Ron’s Journal ‘68, play the audio excerpt, click here. To read the text of LRH’s statement, click here. See also, “Reform Code” in the Admin Dictionary, which references RJ 68.[2]

LRH took these measures in response to the results of massive public surveys he ordered be conducted for the purpose of determining why some of the general public didn’t like Scientology, as evidenced by legal actions taken against Scientology by England, Australia and a threatened investigation into Scientology by New Zealand.

The public, LRH discovered, didn’t like our use of these policies.

So he cancelled them and wrote a letter to New Zealand explaining his actions. The plans for an investigation were dropped.

It is probably no coincidence that, after the cancellation of these policies, Scientology experienced a boom in membership. Many people who got into Scientology in the late 1960s and early 1970s have many fond, fun memories of that era.

History Repeats Itself

David Miscavige revived the LRH-cancelled policies, on steroids one might fairly say.

Stories of abuses at our international headquarters in Hemet, California (the “Int Base”) began leaking out in recent years. The abuses have been alleged by former high-ranking Sea Org Officers, such as Mark “Marty” Rathbun (Inspector General for Ethics, RTC), Mike Rinder (Commanding Officer, Office of Special Affairs) Amy Scobee (longtime Watch Dog Committee member) and many others. The allegations include:

Beatings; degradations of Int staff;
Imprisonment (in the so-called “hole” at Int Base & locking up those who wished to leave);
Fences topped by razor-wire (pointed inward – meaning, keeping people in the Int Base);
“Overboardings” (throwing disfavored staff into a lake at the Int Base, admitted and defended by Miscavige spokesperson Tommy Davis);
Breaking of Sea Org marriages, either by ordered divorces or separations through postings in different parts of the world or country for long periods of time;
Coerced abortions;
Enforced disconnections (even among family and between spouses);
“Blow Drills” (where those who managed to have escaped the Int Base are reportedly tracked down and brought back to the Base);
And on and on.

Thousands of people with no previous affiliation with Scientology have taken up what they believe to be a righteous cause, routinely picketing our organizations, clamoring for media and governmental action to curb the alleged abuses. Media and governments from various parts of the world have obliged them, with calls for revocation of tax-exempt status, investigations, criminal charges and outright bans of Scientology.

Why We Fight Our Critics

As Scientologists, it is easy to reject the reports of our critics, instinctively unite, and attack back. It may be especially inviting to lock horns when their reports are laced with inflammatory labels pinned on our Church (a “cult,” etc.), on its members (that they are “DM bots” – meaning mindless robots of David Miscavige, etc.), and on Miscavige himself, its leader (that he is an “SP,” “squirrel,” etc.).

But dismissing reports of abuse out of hand because of who is reporting and their manner of reporting collapses the messenger with the message, burying it.

Failure to confront the reports of abuse, investigate them (independently of those staff members who are implicated in the wrongdoing), and address any confirmed abuses is reckless and irresponsible, resulting in ever-increasing damage to the repute of Scientology, LRH, and the technology.

When one looks at what is being reported and protested, we believe one will see a common, underlying message to David Miscavige, which is:

Make no mistake, it’s not revenge [we’re] after. It’s a reckoning.

Judging by the actions and words of the whistleblowers and our critics, many of the public have decided that the Miscavige Administration’s policies of disconnection, fair game (annihilation of anyone who dares to criticize, even fairly), and sec checking (more accurately, the misuse of sec checking) must go. And along with them, beatings, abuses, degradations, and dictatorial control.

LRH cancelled the first three policies because he discovered the public intolerance for our use of them, which had resulted in not one but three government actions in 1968 against the Church.

It should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, that after the reinstitution of the LRH-abolished polices (now applied more rigorously than ever before based on a multiplicity of reports), we find ourselves immersed in an almost daily onslaught of public attacks, which can be verified by a quick Internet search.

At this writing, for example, four recently released books exposing Scientology abuses top Amazon’s “Bestseller Scientology” list, outselling Dianetics. Three are written by former Sea Org members. One, the top seller, is written by a nationally known reporter for Rolling Stone magazine.[3]

Previous articles on this blog have documented other major media stories and calls for government intervention into Scientology, including an FBI investigation into the allegations of abuses at Int Base.

The Miscavige Administration claims that all of the reports are false, that Miscavige is a victim of liars, squirrels, and SPs, and it has engaged in campaigns to discredit the accusers, allegedly using the same techniques decried by them: disconnection and fair game (including the dissemination of personal information confessed by them in session).

The situation persists. The response of the Miscavige Administration isn’t working.

The attacks aren’t dissipating, they are increasing. Eventually, governments will weigh in. That is what LRH saw in 1968, which is why he cancelled the policies to begin with.

We need to get rid of these objectionable policies and practices, once and for all, stop attacking back, and conduct an independent, internal investigation. We are creating war rather than peace. We want a world of peace, not war.

Words and Deeds Define Who We Are

The allegations bullet-pointed above, whether true or not, tend to define us in the eyes of the public. If you want to know what Scientology is in the minds of many in the general public, review the list again. What kind of an organization uses confidential information obtained in a religious confessional against a person who later leaves and speaks out? Beats and degrades staff? Orders its members to disconnect from their spouses and families? Uses razor-wire fences and guards to ensure staff do not leave?

Whatever kind of organization does these things is what Scientology is in the minds of many, because the Internet is filled with allegations of this nature, many of which are in the form of first person testimony made in videos by credible appearing accusers.

The fact that the Miscavige Administration has denied the allegations does not dispel of them in the eyes of the general public because the claims are leveled at David Miscavige and his Administration, the person making the denials. This is like investigating oneself and finding oneself innocent. Thus, the denials aren’t credible; they don’t count.

The allegations need to be investigated by a body wholly independent of David Miscavige. Only then can they be confirmed or disproven. The more independent and credible the investigative body and its members, the more the findings are likely to be accepted by the general public. When the findings and any remedial actions taken are publicly announced – and especially if the allegations don’t recur, only then can the matter be put to rest.

In our articles on this blog, we have repeatedly asked for an independent, internal investigation as part of what we referred to as the Corporate America protocol, which is an accepted, proven way of handling charges of corporate corruption.

Our requests have gone unanswered and unheeded.

Our Duty as Scientologists

As individuals in Scientology, we tend to not look at external criticism. To the extent we do look, we often reject it out of hand. We don’t talk to friends about what we see and hear, even when we are troubled by those things. If a friend ventures onto a questionable subject, he or she does so delicately, with one eye on our “indicators” (reaction), aware that the inquiry might prompt us to write a report that reveals his or her “disaffection,” or aware that the next security check might lead to the same result. And we may be fearful of writing reports or protesting Church policies and practices too strongly or in a manner that might be interpreted as criticism of (“reverse”) management.

True, there is an element of survival to explain our allowance and tolerance of this condition. We had to battle for our religious status and fight external criticism in the course of that battle. We want to keep our religious status. We want a strong group.

We can never be a group, never mind a strong one, however, if we don’t take responsibility for our group as individuals.

Organizations do not bleed, they do not breathe; they do behave oddly enough like a single organism… But when the individuals in it cease to behave as individuals, cease to have their own thoughts, cease to be capable of their own initiative, cease to be able to take their own action, then the whole organization boils down to just one man, and he’s the only one who could make a decision … the only one who could act… [but an organization] is composed of individuals who observe and who look… The only thing I am trying to teach you is to look. (Emphasis added.)[4]

In order to resolve the current situation, and to ensure it never repeats itself, we must start by behaving as individuals, choosing to consider that information we as individuals acting on our own determinism decide what is relevant for us to consider in order to effectively wear our hats as Scientologists. Each of us must decide for ourselves to whom we should connect and with whom we should communicate, and when we should take action.

A Call For Action

We need to make peace with former members and the general public. We need transparency. We need to honestly assess our actions and policies through the use of both an internal, independent investigation and broad surveys of the general and Scientology public.

We can either originate corrective actions and by doing so control our destiny and ensure an accurate evaluation and a just result, or just allow events to play out and risk greater and greater harm to the repute of Scientology, LRH, and the Tech, putting in jeopardy our valued tax-exempt status and exposing the organization to criminal sanctions, even seizure of assets.

Miscavige should follow the long and noble tradition of great leaders who have placed the interests of their organizations above their own personal interests, even when not guilty, and stepped down for the good of the group. He should sanction these corrective measures and voluntarily step aside pending their outcomes.

If not, we have to bypass and remove him. Before it is too late.

This is not a choice. This is our duty.

What should we do? Anything but nothing. Even if you only send a link or a copy of this article to friends, anonymously if you must. Mail a copy to Miscavige. Copy and print off LRH policies against fund raising and send them to your friends, show them to reges. Talk to your friends. Write Miscavige or your local orgs and ask what their delivery stats are. How many auditors in training do they have? How many well-done auditing hours are they producing? Get a history. It’s your Church, you have a right to know. How else can you take responsibility?

Mail a letter to Miscavige asking him to step aside pending a thorough internal investigation of the claims of former top Sea Org executives and the claims made on this website that LRH’s intended cross-checks and balances were never implemented, the seven boards of directors and trustees of the three governing corporations of Scientology mere “rubber stamps” for him. You don’t have to sign your name.

Mail him a copy of The Virtues.

Ask him where Heber is? Where are all the other top Sea Org executives who used to appear in public? Who’s currently on the Watchdog Committee (or ask if it currently exists)?

Demand from Miscavige the true membership statistics? How many auditors are being made? How many cases are being cracked, Clears and OTs made? How many Ideal Orgs do we have, using the standards of LRH: orgs, including number of staff, students on course, PR Area Control, not the size and splendor of the buildings.[5]

Certainly, the number of large, elegant buildings is not an LRH standard.

When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters.[6]

(Print off the above policy (see citation in endnote) and stuff it in your friends’ mailboxes – electronic and snail. Or, if your neck is not too precious, and your spine is intact, hand a copy to the next person who tries to reg you for building donations.)

End the culture of repression here and now. Support this website. Do Something.


In the coming days, we will roll out a major action program designed to bring an end to one-man rule and usher in a new era of transparency, and to end the splintering of Scientology.

You can help. We will have constructive actions for each of you to do. The suggested actions can be done anonymously if your circumstances dictate.

(The mere fact that we offer this caveat, and that you understand why, proves our earlier point that we live in a culture of repression in Scientology.)

Check back to this website often for specific things you can do to make a difference.

A New Era Of Management

We postulate a new era of management with Scientology organizations overseen administratively by a reconstituted Watchdog Committee and corporately by LRH’s intended cross-checks and balances through seven (truly) independent boards of trustees and directors.

We further postulate:

A general amnesty.
Cancellation – FOREVER – of disconnection, sec checking, and fair game (by any name) policies and practices.
Acceptance of those people who want to return and take part in reforming the Church; let everyone contribute who wants to.
A special project to clean up the field.
Families brought back together.
Care for aging and ailing Sea Org members who have been neglected.
Management based on LRH-recommended values set forth in The Virtues, which are listed at the end of The Way to Happiness booklet.

Note: These golden standards are the polar opposite of the publicly-despised policies of disconnection, sec checking, and fair game.

Implementation of LRH’s intended management and corporate structure, along with a new era of management style postulated above, we believe, will help restore to Scientology a group of incredible camaraderie, working together to achieve 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

Post Script: How can we create a civilization without war if we cannot create an organization without war?

[1] Online definition

[2] Modern Management Technology Defined, First Ed., p. 440.

[3] Amazon Booksellers

[4] L. Ron Hubbard, 15 July 1957, Scientology and Effective Knowledge – PRO TRs Course Lecture

[5] See, LRH ED 339R and HCOPL 12 March 1975, Data Series 40, THE IDEAL ORG

[6] L. Ron Hubbard, 31 December 1960 lecture, The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology; see also, L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 24 February 1964, Issue II, Urgent, Org Programming (OEC Vol. 7, p. 930) (Don’t engage in fund raising, “Solve it with Scientology.”)

About cristian

London Designs here to provide high quality, affordable web design, web development, SEO and web hosting in London. More info on https://www.london-designs.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to David Miscavige’s Day of Reckoning

  1. Jim Logan says:

    We’ll get just as far as we apply reason toward the optimum solution across 8 Dynamics of life. This article and its vision of the denouement of the Miscavige Administration is that reason.

  2. RJ says:

    I totally agree!

    It’s time for the Reform Codes to go back in force:

    *Abolish Sec Checks per HCOPL 26 Aug 68 Security Checks Abolished

    *Reissue HCOPL 15 Nov 68 Disconnection Cancelled

    *Abolish OSA since there is no LRH policy that supports it.

    *Comm Ev David Miscavige if he doesn’t step down.

    And issue a full unconditional Amnesty.

    • admin says:

      Thanks for your comment, RJ. As for OSA, however, it is Dept 20 of the CSI Org Board, for which there is policy. HCO PL 1 March 1966 made the functions automous through the Guardian’s Office. The GO was taken over and later put on the CSI Org Board and named OSA.

      We think the issues you may have with OSA may stem from the underlying situation we address on our website, namely, one-man rule. As we point out in our page, Existing Scene, Miscavige, as COB RTC, runs everything. In effect, DM is running CSI’s Dept 20 from his COB RTC office.

      He also runs CST (Church of Spiritual Technology), which is a senior echelon to RTC. CST can buy back RTC’s rights, rendering CST powerless to fulfill its LRH-intend role to rein in RTC should that become necessary.

      If we implement LRH’s intent for the governance of Scientology, then everything else should fall into place.

      • RJ says:

        Thanks Admin,

        I am well aware of HCOPL 1 Mar 66 entitled “The Guardian”.

        OSA like the GO under Jane Kember has and had nothing to do with the purpose and reason for the GO whose basic function was to “Enforce policy”.

        Not pervert it!

        And handle long range promotion by knowing which way “cats were going to jump”.

        Personally I prefer Guardian over the Orwellian bastardization known as the “Office of Special Affairs” which suggests the “Special Tasks” section of the KGB’s First Directorate.

        The fact is that if the Guardian wasn’t taken out by CMOI it may have averted the eventual coup followed by the Miscavige dictatorship.

      • Sapere Aude says:

        “If we implement LRH’s intent for the governance of Scientology, then everything else should fall into place.” Totally agreed. It matters less what it is called – GO, OSA, or whatever. What matters is that the intent and purpose is carried out. What is vital is that the FUNCTIONS of Dept 20 are autonomous. At the org level they are not under the ED, or the LRH Comm, or anyone. Dept’s 19, 20 and 21 are all independent of each other. At the upper management echelon’s is where coordination of function is to occur. It was never meant to be a pyramid structure with one person sitting on top.

        If proper management was in place we would have Dept 21 maintaining it on source, Dept 20 creating the indespensability of Scientology and creating a vacuum into which the org could expand, and Dept 19 changing conditions by making auditors and clearing the area. Simple and effective.

        We currently see the use of all 3 Dept’s just to support the fixed ideas of one person and not following the green on white and red on white left by LRH.

  3. admin says:


    We have been notified by one reader who wanted to comment that the field for an email address, coupled with the statement that we will not misuse the information, suggests that one is required.

    We will fix this in the near future. Meanwhile, feel free to comment anonymously.

  4. Axiom-addict says:

    Re: your first “We further Postulate” item “a general amnesty”

    Listing this as a first order of business is telling in and of itself, but more importantly it presumes a degree of arrogance and a sign the lesson has not been fully learned…in my opinion.
    Why would I say that? Because its backwards. IF (and that’s a big IF) all the restructuring and reforms were to occur as you postulate, and the church truly did learn how to play nice in the sandbox and behave as a good corporate citizen, then it might petition the field, Scientology parishioners and public at large to be accepted as a legitimate organization. (one of, but not THE sole repositories for LRH wisdom and technologies)
    So in effect it would be the Church that would be asking for an amnesty, not vice-versa.

    For anyone to “accept” an amnesty from that organization (even a reformed one) would be both a tacit and overt acknowledgment of corporate Scientology’s moral and ethical status to dispense such things. It would be tantamount to giving up ones freedom to practice, apply, use and disseminate as one chose to. Something many, if not most Independent Scientologists would never agree to. It’s not the “field” or public Scientologists that went off the rails, it’s Scientology itself. (corporate Scientology)

    The days when corporate Scientology is the only repository of standards and able to give blessings out in the form of “amnesty’s” is over. That ship sailed.

    My hope is that it does reform and reorganize itself. I think it could become a force for good in the world. But the phrase “never again” applies here. imho.

    • Jim Logan says:

      I understand your point. I don’t take it the same, the Amnesty that is, as being a ‘deigning’ to ‘grant’ and amnesty as the message here nor is that granting from ‘on high’.

      Rather I consider the purpose of an amnesty – to END rancor – as part of the postulate put forth.

      Sort of WE grant ourselves, all of the various viewpoints of dimension, a clean slate and a new beginning to a better future.

      As-ising what has occurred, confronting it all and with no little ridge there to set up the next accumulation of animosities.

      That’s my postulate. Ideal to be sure, idealistic even, but with a high ideal the existing scene may yet more closely approach something we really should have for ourselves.

      • Cowboy Poet says:

        I’ve grown to appreciate you and your comments over the years. However, even the word amnesty puts the hair on the back of my neck up.
        I would no more request an amnesty (from who?) than the man on the moon would ask for cheese.
        I have no qualms, no reservation and no apologies for who I am, who or what I’ve supported or what I’ve done. And anything approaching anything other than that, is complete intended introversion and balderdash.
        We can keep the peace between you and I–leave me out. I won’t be showing up for anything along these lines.
        Had enough of that shit.

        • Cowboy Poet says:

          I got a bit “sudden” there, didn’t I?
          I’m sorry.
          I guess I got a few issues with being advised what to do by groups, huh?

          It’s just that some kind of “general or blanket amnesty” for feeling warm and fuzzy, well, who’s gonna even pay attention?
          It’s a token. A gesture.
          Anyone you’re talking about is long past square one. We don’t require feeling warm and fuzzy. What’s left of this thing is a group of pretty good people. Take em on face value, omit the group sh*t and get on with it.
          And I know you do that–you’re a good man.
          Ya just can’t count me in on any of these celebrations, okay?

  5. Pascal Dorion says:

    Great to see you guys alive and kicking! It feels as if we’ve already won!

  6. top of the vale says:

    The word by the way is ‘ camaraderie ‘ – Mutual trust and friendship among people who spend a lot of time together.

    For future reference……

  7. Patricia Curtis says:

    Admin, I took the liberty of reposting this blog entry in a thread on OCMB. (url=http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=37096) As a human rights activist I have been a protester since the day I had a conversation with a Scientologist friend who acknowledged that fraud and abuses were occurring but was unwilling to do anything about it. My response was, well if you won’t, I will. I’ve rather enjoyed my activism, but in my heart I’ve always known it was the Scientologists themselves who were going to have to “save” their church, and more importantly, their members. I want to congratulate you for boldly stepping up and I wish you success. The human rights abuses must stop.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The Validy of the IAS also needs to be challenged.

    There is no HCO PL authorizing the use of the IAS as the offical membership program of scienotology.
    Also the trademark for the IAS is not owned by RTC. The IAS is not part of the corporate structure either.
    In essence the old membership program is still in force and it is still possible to get an org membersip per LRH membership policies in OEC Vol 6.

  9. Mike R says:

    On the subject of amnesty, I’m for it, but it would have to be done AFTER DM is gone, and all the robots who served him got their own “handlings”. After seeing Norman Starkey, Guillume etc on CNN last year, they are too far gone.

    As this website has very well laid out, the original documents from 1983 on the Corporate Structure would as well have be applied to the letter. Frankly I don’t know if this is possible, after what has gone down since 1983.

    It’s all a very interesting subject how to salvage Scientology, but first things first Dave must confess and leave-bottom line.

    PS: Thanks for the link to RJ 68, awesome to hear that in full.

  10. Chuck Beatty says:

    Thanks for this site.

    LRH privately wrote countless harsh comments, like his comment that anyone leaving the Int Base, was an SP. LRH wrote harsh comments about people in the 1980s, in his final years of traffic.

    I think we all know that David Miscavige is applying those comments, some of which are in policy, like taking LRH’s “Knowledge Reports” PL of 1982 literally, when ordering people to be slugged in the face so as to cause “black eyes” (the figurative comment I call the “black eye tech” comes from “Knowledge Reports” where LRH figuratively says that staff member sticking pins in their fellow staffers would have a black eye were they in an “in ethics” group), literally.

    DM takes LRH’s harshest policy and comments literally, like “….and if you see WDC SMI [then it was John Aczel] spit on him for me…..” And we know that DM then sought out John Aczel and spit and punched John and did the same to Roger Barnes who was CO SMI and walking next to John when DM and others came upon John and Roger, walking between buildings at the Int Base.

    LRH ordered the False Purpose Rundown as part of the RPF program, and thus actually tacitly condoned the continued permanent use of the RPF, in LRH’s 1982 traffic.

    LRH’s scathing traffic to the Int/S Mission, has to be looked at and confronted also. LRH is very dismissive and critical of the flubbing Int/S staffers, particularly audio and cine staff. It is these comments and statements which led to the wholesale offloading of Int/S staff in 1982.

    Janet Reitman’s book covers how DM failed to see the earlier more benign side of LRH.

    And the consequences are pretty devastating, I’d agree. Rather than Int Management exemplifying the “virtues” of Precept 20 of The Way to Happiness, we still have blackmail misuse of disconnection against people who are absolutely NOT SP.

    Thanks for the reference to RJ68, I’m listening to it carefully, today, since this RJ68 is a very historical Ron’s journal, which shows the unfortunate dichotomy of LRH’s emotions. At one moment he admits they are at war with psychiatry, but on the other he very genuinely apologizes for the Sea Org’s heavy ethics fallout.

    This Ron’s Journal 68 is a microcosm of the long range job of whoever is going to run the Scientology movement.

    Obviously the DM harsh beat them up and declare all who don’t follow DM’s leadership, is a total failure.

    Were stronger smarter saner people more amongst those receiving and executing LRH’s final years of traffic, and had others NOT let DM assume dictatorial power, then we’d not even have this discussion.

    I feel there is still so much contradictory emotions and some illogicalness to LRH’s statements and his policy and administrative orders.

    I think it will take stronger willed people who are more benevolent to depose DM’s style of management.

    Advanced discussion of LRH’s writings, day by day, through the years, and hindsight focusing on what would be best for the whole movement, I thought WAS/IS the International Executive Strata’s role (the “think tank” of the Sea Org and movement).

    I don’t think official Scientology is gonna tank fully.

    LRH’s admin setups will carry on.

    I just hope you persons who think about reform, could somehow put your good wits in the minds who whomever are going to in the years ahead, take on the responsibility of the Int Exec Strata “think tank”.

    One of my pet suggestions, is release ALL of LRH’s private writings, and let Scientologists everywhere discuss it all!

    I think for the movement to develop Exec Strata caliber leaders, that Hubbard’s private final years’ writings should be shared.

    When I read his writings, I was struck by his emotional harshness, but I never took those writings to be taken literally.

    Precept 20 I lament LRH didn’t make Precept 20 and the Virtues the Int Production Strategy.

    Were I given some power, I’d release LRH’s final years of writings, and release ALL of the years of limited edition issues, so all Scientologists could see his whole mindset.

    And I’d hope that the top smart cookies who aspire to be Int Exec Strata give a lot more weight to the Way to Happiness.

    Chuck Beatty
    Ex-Sea Org (lifetime staffer, 1975-2003)
    Flag Dec 1975-Jun 1983 (TTC, Sup, Word Clearer, D of T, etc.)
    Int Base 1983-1984 (Routing Forms Pjt)
    Snr HCO Int in the FB in LA 1984-87
    Course Supervisor Re-Training (Int and LA) 87-88
    Int Training Org, LA 88 (Sec Checker Sup)
    LRH Tech Research and Comps, CMO Int, (Sept 88-Feb 89)
    Int RPF (Feb-Mar 89)
    PAC RPF (Mar-May 89)
    Int Training Org (May-Sept 89) (Admin Sup)
    INCOMM Sep 89-Sept 90 (Routing Forms Pjt)
    INCOMM Sept 90-May92 (Computer Room LA & Int)
    ASI May 92-Dec95 (Computer Room, In-Training Esto)
    Decks Int (Dec 95-Jun 96)
    Int RPF (Jun 96-Nov 2000)
    PAC RPF (Nov 2000-Mar2003)
    Routed out March 29, 2003.

    • admin says:


      In our previous article we ask for a new era of management based on The Virtues. See here.

      The theme of the entire website, of course, is LRH’s intent to end one-man rule upon his death, to be replaced by a system of checks and balances. The failure to implement LRH intent is the underlying “WHY” to our current situation, in our estimation. The handling of this situation will lead to a resolution. Whether or not Miscavige took a cue for his management style or conduct from some aspect of LRH’s perceived personality or behavior is not a relevant topic in our view.

      Assuming for the sake of argument your points about LRH’s management style are true, do you contend that every person who witnessed the behavioral quirks you allege would therefore behave that way? Even 30 years later? Would you? We wouldn’t. Addressing this issue, therefore, is neither a necessary nor useful endeavor.

      A good manager stays in touch with the reality of the public through surveys. LRH wrote this in the PR Series and also demonstrated how to do it by his actions in 1968, as evidenced in RJ 68, which we link to in our previous article.

      The world has changed since LRH’s death in 1986. Scientology has become more prominent — not always as the result of good deeds, unfortunately; the Internet has not only been created but has become part of the fabric of society; and there has been a movement toward transparency in organizations, not only in private, for profit organizations, but in nonprofit and religious organizations as well.

      What once passed for acceptable behavior no longer does. Many of us remember when it was acceptable for a teacher to spank a misbehaving student. Doesn’t fly today. The rules for behavior in the work place have also dramatically evolved in the past 30 years. And on and on.

      The point is that good management will observe societal and legal trends and stay ahead of them, not lag behind, dragged kicking and screaming. One would expect even more of Scientology, with its great advancements in the humanities. It should be at the forefront of such trends, leading the way. Instead, we can’t even resolve quarrels within our own group! Or deal with serious allegations of internal corruption in a manner that satisfies the public and puts the allegations to rest.

  11. FredKrueger says:

    Fair Game canceled ?
    Fairy Tale!!
    Evidence: Paulette Cooper was Fairgamed in a really bad way for years during LRH was
    On lines holding all vital lines and receiving reports from all over the planet. 1970-1975

    • admin says:

      The policy was canceled. References cited in article. The practice [of fair game] either was not cancelled or was later revived as you correctly point out.

      The points remain: (1) When faced with negative public sentiment, survey the public; (2) respond to fair criticism — by cancellation of policy, if appropriate; (3) it worked; and (4) this should be done presently.

      To the extent the practice of fair game was revived 1970-75, we ask: How did that work out for the Church? Not good, right? Hence our call for the policy (and also those of disconnection and sec checks) to end once and for all.

  12. Anonymous says:

    To note, it will take patience. Kevin Smith wrote it write. Changing an idea is easy. Changing a belief system is tricky. People die for beliefs. Be very sure, its happening and the belief system of Scientology shows it is not beyond changing. But it will take a long time.

    • admin says:

      Not sure what this means or what “belief system” you feel needs changing. What we propose doesn’t require a change in belief systems. But then, maybe we missed your point.

      • Anonymous says:

        Pardon if my definition or context of belief and belief system is out of context from the point of view of others here.

        A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of them.

        For example, Christainity is broadly considered a belief system due to the various combinations of beliefs that include religious, philosophical, and ideological beliefs. Religious may include belief in Christ as the son of God, philosophies may include ‘turn the other cheek,’ and ideology may include ‘forgive those who sin against us.’

  13. admin says:

    SS, what comment are you referring to? Please email us at info@savescientology.com .

Leave a Reply to Axiom-addict Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.