For people still inside the CoS: How to get the reges off your back

[Motti]

Once in an org, you get harassed incessantly to donate to a myriad of 'causes'. Here's what worked for me beautifully when I was inside to get rid of these regging pressures in a breeze:

Don't flinch, stutter, look for excuses or otherwise feel uncomfortable. Just tell the reg: "Can you please show me an LRH reference that says I must do what you say?"

The reg will leave you alone in a hurry and go hunt for another unfortunate soul.

LRH never wrote any policy that said you must donate for anything other than actual services - training or auditing. The donations for IAS/Ideal Org/Library project etc. etc. were instituted only after LRH departed.
Moreover: LRH wrote explicitly against fundraising in general and against buying posh buildings in particular:

"If the org slumps... don't engage in 'fund-raising' or 'selling postcards' or borrowing money. Just make more income with Scientology. It's a sign of very poor management to seek extraordinary solutions for finance outside Scientology. It has always failed.
“For orgs as for pcs, 'Solve It With Scientology'.
Every time I myself have sought to solve financial or personnel in other ways than Scientology I have lost out. So I can tell you from experience that org solvency lies in More Scientology, not patented combs or fund-raising barbeques."

HCO PL 24 February 1964, Issue II.
Org Programming
(OEC Vol. 7, p. 930)

“…So little by little, using donations you give us for your service, your training and your processing, we create little by little areas of sanity.”

LRH The Auditor #51, 1970
What Your Donations Buy


When buildings get important to us, for God's sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters.
…
Don't get interested in real estate. Don't get interested in the masses of buildings, because that's no important."

Tape: The Genus of Scientology
Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress
31 December 1960

“…In twenty years an enormous amount of experience has been gained regarding the quarters and housing of orgs. From this experience there are only a few clear-cut lessons. These follow:
“A. VIABILITY of the org… is the first and foremost consideration… not how posh or what repute or what image”
“C. Image is a secondary consideration.”

HCO PL 23 Sept 1970.
Quarters, Policy Regarding – Historical

[Type4_PTS]

Hubbard DID write many things though about the importance of books and I believe he wrote some things which would fully support the library donation campaigns as well as some other donation campaigns such as The Way to Happiness.

True that he wrote some things that seem to conflict with the current accumulation of real estate and the Ideal Orgs but if he were around today he might have done a new Eval which showed the necessity of these things. He might have felt that the Ideal Org Campaign as implemented by Miscavige is totally brilliant.

[Motti]

Hubbard DID write many things though about the importance of books and I believe he wrote some things which would fully support the library donation campaigns as well as some other donation campaigns such as The Way to Happiness.

True that he wrote some things that seem to conflict with the current accumulation of real estate and the Ideal Orgs but if he were around today he might have done a new Eval which showed the necessity of these things. He might have felt that the Ideal Org Campaign as implemented by Miscavige is totally brilliant.

Perhaps. But Hubbard is not with us anymore to do it. My point was, that since org staff is indoctrinated with "If it's not written it's not true", you can get the upper hand by demanding a reference. There is no reference in existence that says you must donate to anything but actual services of training and auditing.

Another thing that I encountered: Many staff members say to you: "It's per policy". They don't know which policy, they don't even know if such policy exists, they just utter it to shut you up. The remedy for this is simple: "Show me the policy". gets them every time.

You can take it further: If they say: "You must do your basics", tell them: "Where did LRH write that I must do these basics?" It may sound like Heresy to their delicate ears, but this is the truth. LRH considered books merely as a means to get the person on the training or auditing bridge, not as an end in itself.

[Type4_PTS]

There is no reference in existence that says you must donate to anything but actual services of training and auditing.

True. Perhaps some former reg can show how he would solve that problem.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Perhaps. But Hubbard is not with us anymore to do it. My point was, that since org staff is indoctrinated with "If it's not written it's not true", you can get the upper hand by demanding a reference. There is no reference in existence that says you must donate to anything but actual services of training and auditing.

Another thing that I encountered: Many staff members say to you: "It's per policy". They don't know which policy, they don't even know if such policy exists, they just utter it to shut you up. The remedy for this is simple: "Show me the policy". gets them every time.

You can take it further: If they say: "You must do your basics", tell them: "Where did LRH write that I must do these basics?" It may sound like Heresy to their delicate ears, but this is the truth. LRH considered books merely as a means to get the person on the training or auditing bridge, not as an end in itself.

Everything you say is correct, but....

The problem with needing an "LRH reference" is that there IS an LRH reference for every single thing that staff or Sea Org do.

As a matter of fact there are at least two (2) references for everything that make it standard to do it and standard not to do it.

I have failed to find one single LRH policy that there was not an opposite policy to.

Thus, there is policy for literally EVERYTHING both for and against.

It's called the Hubbard Law of Commotion: "For each and every policy there is an equal and opposite policy."

In my considerable experience, this is not exaggeration.

Example: The policy says it is a "high crime" punishable by Declare to talk to another Declared SP and not disconnect from them. However, what if Tom Cruise decided to refuse to disconnect from his sister if she was declared?

Oh well, that's on policy too: "Purpose is senior to policy."

Don't try to use logic; it's Scientology.

[Panda Termint]

You raise an excellent point, Motti.

Whenever I think of the desperation behind these no-exchange "donations" I'm reminded of the phrase, "Beggars can't be Choosers". Any organisation which only manages to survive by begging money from its Staff and Public is...

just like every other organisation which does the same!

[Motti]

I posted this thread for the benefit of people still inside the CoS who like the tech but don't like the aggravation and pressure. What I suggested was tried and proven techniques that worked for me beautifully to get the leeches off my back.

[Panda Termint]

Yes, and it's quite workable too as long as they happen to be in an area where Hubbard-written Policy still means something.

[jenni with an eye]

Or when all else fails just say No

If they persist ask them

Which part of No didn't you get? Was it the 'N' or the 'O' !!!

Always worked for me

[BunnySkull]

As a never been a Scientologist I find it amazing that if there was a Hubbard reference saying "donate all your money so I can build grand bowling allies on Target 2" members would do it because it was written by LRH. Of course, he was a bit savvier with his swindling of all your money so he would never be so direct and obvious about raping your bank accounts, but had he been it would be expected of members to comply with it. I'll never get that con man's word being viewed as gospel and absolute rule members must follow, no questions asked.