I just checked my email and it was there. Here it is:
“All right. As far as the state of the organization is concerned, this organization of Scientologists will be as successful as it communicates, one with another – and not necessarily into a central office – but as successful as it communicates, one with another about its problems and antipathies and demonstrates these into a reality and says what’s going on and discusses it and keeps together, you might say, as an understanding.” …
“So there is no barrier in Scientology to good communication. There are no fixed convictions across the boards, one way or the other. The only thing you’re invited to do is just, please, understand what is going on. Don’t make a wild guess at it and a fixed conviction and jump down somebody’s throat.
“I have, time after time, restrained the organization and parts of the organization from trying to unmock Scientologists and, just yesterday, restored the certificates of a fellow who’s evidently been quite wronged by another organizational member in Australia. Why? They’ve both got good intentions, I sent them cables and told them to talk. It’ll all work out.
“There is no organizational trouble we can’t solve. But there is a world situation that will remain unsolved right down to the last whimper unless we stay together, work together and do something about it.” LRH – 4th London ACC, The Role of a Scientologist, 27 October 1955
CC: [FONT="]“[/FONT]Friends[FONT="]”[/FONT] List
AO FSO MAA (Slavka ) August 2, 2012
Mark Shreffler
Re: My Questions
Dear Slavka,
I heard an interesting rumor the other day that leaves me with a bone to pick with you if it[FONT="]’[/FONT]s true.
As you know, it is my contention that standard DOUBT formula applications are no longer allowed in our church. People with doubts concerning management or church operations must accept what they are told by their MAAs, and anyone with the temerity to communicate outside of those parameters is quickly throttled back in to line with further [FONT="]“[/FONT]handlings,[FONT="]”[/FONT] sec checks or goldenrods.
However, not being happy with a conclusion means the doubt was not resolved, and the notion that one must settle for whatever he is told is fundamentally repugnant to any free being applying a standard Doubt Formula, and would only be accepted by a robot.
There, by the use of force and the intelligence of an SP, goes the Church of Scientology.
I have recently learned that the latest rumor being spread to my friends at Flag about me is that [FONT="]“[/FONT]Mark[FONT="]’[/FONT]s questions were answered but he did not like the answers he got.[FONT="]”[/FONT]
This lie puts everyone on the wrong scent as the implication here is that I am the one who needs the correction and not the squirrel activities I have been reporting and trying to get corrected in the church for years.
My friends are trusting and honorable people who would never think that their most trusted terminals in the church would lie to their faces or feed them false data intentionally. On the other hand, they will wonder how an OT with 38 years of highly commended service to the church would suddenly [FONT="]‘[/FONT]go postal[FONT="]’[/FONT] and walk away from his friends and colleagues, refusing viable answers to his questions. I[FONT="]’[/FONT]m just not THAT crazy!
It is made easier for you to tell them whatever you want to say about me because these people are also told that if they call me on the phone to get my side of the story, they[FONT="]’[/FONT]ll be involved in other [FONT="]“[/FONT]handlings.[FONT="]”[/FONT]
I did not take lightly the questions I presented to you and the OSA personnel in 2011, and I really would have noticed if they were answered. It was not in my mind that they would take more than a week or two to answer, and I certainly did not anticipate that I would be walking away from a successful career as a consultant and disseminator of Scientology Technology until I discovered you had no answers for these management aberrations, and there was no willingness on the part of my terminals in the church to even inquire as to why these issues and destructive violations remained unresolved.
Please repeat for me, if you would, the answers I was supposedly given to the following questions:
1. LRH said that the [FONT="]“[/FONT]make-break point[FONT="]”[/FONT] of org expansion is 5.4X. This figure was the foundation of the Birthday Game which was giving Ron the only thing he wanted for his birthday: church expansion. He did not want new buildings or people to increase their level of membership in some unaffiliated gung-ho group. My question to you was: [FONT="]“[/FONT]What org in the world that was here 30 years ago is 5.4 times larger today than it was then? How many orgs have achieved this expansion rate? If your answer is [FONT="]“[/FONT]ZERO[FONT="]”[/FONT], how can we explain these proclamations of [FONT="]“[/FONT]unprecedented expansion?[FONT="]”[/FONT] WHAT is expanding, exactly? And to what does [FONT="]“[/FONT]47 times the expansion of any earlier time[FONT="]”[/FONT] refer? What happened to LRH stats? I don[FONT="]’[/FONT]t recall your answers to these questions.
2. What are the STATS of the church from 1985 to 2011 on an annual basis on First Service Starts, WDAH, Pd Comps and GI? How many CL 8 auditors have been created over those years, and what is the trend? I did not get ANY stats from you or any of the terminals at OSA after hours of meetings and many requests [FONT="]–[/FONT] yet this is an essential part of the doubt formula.
3. How is it that COB does [FONT="]“[/FONT]International Events[FONT="]”[/FONT] every few months and, in so doing, violates the policy DANGER CONDITIONS, RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECLARING by bypassing the entire command structure to relay information to the rank-and-file that SHOULD be coming to them from their local executives (and thus maintaining the command lines and empowering them)? This action brings about Danger Conditions continuously in the lower echelons. These events also disperse the attention of our congregation to the four winds and AWAY from their local scenes. They alter the importance of the one-by-one nature of Scientology, and the vital need to put most of our attention on bringing NEW people in to the church for services, per PROPORTIONATE MARKETING. How are these [FONT="]“[/FONT]INT EVENTS[FONT="]”[/FONT] justified when there is not ONE policy that supports them or explains their value [FONT="]–[/FONT] quite to the contrary. This is a continuing and Titanic management faux pas.
4. Why have my reports since 1992 on the squirreled nature of the FSM program been ignored? If [FONT="]“[/FONT]the whole purpose of the field staff member program is to help increase the number of new people contacted, disseminated to and gotten on to the bridge,[FONT="]”[/FONT] (FSM SERIES #1) how is it that the entire program has been hijacked to the TOP of the bridge, gutting the lower echelons of their public? Why have I gotten 6 sec checks and a comm ev [which fully vindicated and commended me but ignored utterly the squirreled FSM program] for just writing these reports when millions in fraud have been reported and the flow of new people on and up the bridge brought to a standstill, and the pay of staff members in our missions and orgs effectively erased? How can such obvious crimes that unmock our front-end groups be committed and prolifically reported with no interest or action from management? I don[FONT="]’[/FONT]t recall your response to these queries.
5. I mentioned to you the fact that the OCA that LRH used at Saint Hill is not the squirreled version used in the Church today, and that the results of these different versions vary dramatically. This is a game changer because this test is a fundamental tool used in div 6 and div 4. It allows us to MAKE CONTACT with the public with reality. It gives us prediction and allows honest evaluation and correct programming so the public is winning at every turn. Because staff are not trained in the use of this tool but are ordered to simply read off computer printouts, trait-by-trait, they have no familiarity with the real power of this tool or with the fact that it is not the same profile LRH used at Saint Hill and to which he refers in Policy. The results rendered today set up our Div 6ers for wrong indications on their new public, and wrong case programming for C/Ses. This guarantees un-standard results. Since the only thing for which we can be upbraided is no results or poor results, one wonders about the complacency of management concerning such a fundamental departure from standard procedure. This alteration strikes at the heart of our survival as a group as it throws open the door for squirreling the tech. My question to you, Slavka, is how can such a huge alteration occur and it not be corrected [FONT="]–[/FONT] after innumerable reports on the matter?
6. Why are there no Basic Books in most of the libraries in the United States even after our management promoted that this job was [FONT="]“[/FONT]DONE![FONT="]”[/FONT] Anyone can check this because all public libraries are listed on the internet, including what books they have and which ones are being checked out and in what volume. This was my FIRST question to you when you asked [FONT="]“[/FONT]did you write this up?[FONT="]”[/FONT] Remember? I don[FONT="]’[/FONT]t recall your answer to this question. You clearly did not have one at the time [FONT="]–[/FONT] and obviously assumed like many others that [FONT="]“[/FONT]management knows what they are doing.[FONT="]”[/FONT] (So did the captain of the Titanic.) Millions of dollars worth of books[FONT="]…[/FONT] vanished. How did this occur, and what is being done about it? And what policy is being adopted to keep it from happening again [FONT="]–[/FONT] because I notice management is now asking for audio books in all libraries, as though the earlier [FONT="]“[/FONT]phantom book campaign[FONT="]”[/FONT] was a raging success.
7. Why has the hallway at the Sandcastle for years been lined with photos of people who have given money to the IAS, but no photos of people who have achieved the two purposes of orgs and given blood and years to the task of clearing people or opening missions or auditing people? I understand that these photos have been taken down just recently and I would be thrilled to think that my bitching had something to do with that - but I wonder if the off-Source purpose and altered importance they represent has been removed as well? I didn[FONT="]’[/FONT]t have this question last year as the photos were still up, but I am amending that question with this one about the false purpose being removed.
8. What policies create and drive the IAS? It takes many millions from the congregation of the Church of Scientology, to say nothing of the distraction it creates to the attention of our group, and yet has no oversights. This is the elephant in the room. It is, by what I can determine, a renegade operation that has ZERO representation in policy but is apparently simply a money pit to be used in whatever arbitrary fashion is required by management. There is no connection with the church. It is not answerable to the Church or to the congregation or to anyone who I can find. So where does all the money go that is paid to the IAS? What policy governs it? Who is in charge of it[FONT="]’[/FONT]s disbursement? It is not controlled by the Church of Scientology and does not go through the FP Committee of the Church. If the church is only dwindling since the [FONT="]“[/FONT]founding[FONT="]”[/FONT] of the IAS by Yeager and Miscavige, how is its existence justified? Where is it in writing that LRH had any knowledge of this group[FONT="]’[/FONT]s formation or purpose? I don[FONT="]’[/FONT]t recall your answer to these questions but this operation moves to the head of the class for demonstrations of 1.1 on the tone scale.
9. How many members are there in the IAS? This is an important number because one cannot do service in Div 4 without being a member. (And where is that in Policy, by the way?) We hear numbers of Scientologists [FONT="]“[/FONT]in the millions,[FONT="]”[/FONT] but all I can document is less than 40,000 worldwide, including children [FONT="]–[/FONT] and shrinking.
10. Why does management promote that there are so many [FONT="]“[/FONT]new orgs[FONT="]”[/FONT] when in fact they are just new, subsidized buildings that dwarf the amount of production being accomplished inside them? Expansion did not require these buildings: Management arbitrary did. The Scientologist field has not expanded: only their org[FONT="]’[/FONT]s expenses have expanded. How is this beneficial to the actual exchange of Scientology with the world? Who is going to pay the bills for these buildings when the delivery of the orgs cannot support them? As this program is (falsely) represented as being supported by LRH and by implication his policy, does the vacant interior of these beautiful and expensive buildings not invalidate the workability of LRH policy and demean the image of Source? I presented a stack of policies that invalidate the conduct of the so-called [FONT="]“[/FONT]Ideal Org[FONT="]”[/FONT] project and was shown ZERO references that justified it. Did I miss something here?
11. You will recall the Rollback you gave me regarding my answer to the query of a friend in Australia concerning the Ideal Org project. You asked me where I got these [FONT="]‘[/FONT]enemy lines[FONT="]’[/FONT] and I showed them to you in OEC Vol 7. That ended the rollback, of course, but I wonder if you pulled the string further to get to the real heart of that matter [FONT="]–[/FONT] that the Ideal Org program was in contravention of that policy I cited to my friend? The one who started the Ideal Org program, in fact, is the enemy you seek with your rollbacks! So the natural question here is, who is the bonehead who came up with this program? There is the source of your enemy lines.
12. Who actually OWNS the Ideal Org real estate that is purchased? The Church? CST? What is the policy that governs this?
13. The promotion for these Ideal Orgs and the IAS is a consistent and faithful demonstration of how to commit verbal tech. The policy VERBAL TECH PENALTIES cautions against the use of brief paragraphs out of context without saying from which policy the quote was taken in order to make it appear that LRH is in support of the program when in fact he is not. There was no reply to this question, so let me phrase it in a way that an ethics officer would understand: The definition of [FONT="]“[/FONT]fraud[FONT="]”[/FONT] is: [FONT="]“[/FONT]a thing intended to decieve others, typically by unjustifably claiming or being credited with qualities.[FONT="]”[/FONT] It is an act, for example, of using LRH[FONT="]’[/FONT]s words out of context to falsely represent a cause he would throw us overboard for supporting! There are examples of this all over Flag.
14. Where is it written that LRH put David Miscavige in charge? Where is the structure of church institutions (CST, RTC, CofS and so on) published so we can all see the command structure and org board of our management bodies and understand their relationships and the checks and ballances that LRH built in to ensure the church would continue without the threat of a bank takeover?
15. Where are the people who run these activities? I know that Guillaume was made [FONT="]“[/FONT]ED INT for LIFE[FONT="]”[/FONT] by LRH, but we never see him anymore. Where is Heber? Mithoff? Eastman? Wilhere? And where is Diana Hubbard? Did you answer these questions?
16. How is it that [FONT="]“[/FONT]Command Intention[FONT="]”[/FONT] and LRH Intention are taken to mean the same thing when they clearly are NOT? How is it that I have friends who have been declared for being concerned about issues raised in Debbie Cook[FONT="]’[/FONT]s letter [FONT="]–[/FONT] before she was declared? When was it decided that concern for our survival as a group became a suppressive act? When did communication become a crime in our body? Did you answer these questions, and I just missed it?
17. How is it that one whole issue of our FREEDOM magazine was mailed out to the readership of the St. Pete Times decrying one of our senior executives for beating up, on 40 separate occasions, other members of the crew? David Miscavige was accused of this brutality, but in the haste to protect him from harm our magazine threw his second in command under the bus, along with management strata, our Church, the religion of Scientology and LRH. Management executives allowed themselves to be videoed by the press (also in volation of policy) professing the innocence of Miscavige and the guilt of his lieutenant. This bizarre and very public demonstration of PTSness was then protested by the community in Tampa and in other news journals, and these protest were written off by HCO at FSO as [FONT="]“[/FONT]Disorder blowing off[FONT="]”[/FONT] and [FONT="]“[/FONT]Signs of Success.[FONT="]”[/FONT] My god. These were signs of PTSness with the volume turned up.
18. If COB[FONT="]’[/FONT]s lieutenant was guilty of these beatings as was admitted in the FREEDOM mag, was COB not aware of this behavior? To believe this we would have to think that COB is either incompetent, stupid, or deaf, dumb and blind. If he was aware of it and did nothing to stop it, it brings the question of this episode: What is the training (Tech and Admin) and processing level of David Miscavige? What are the credentials he brings to the post he holds? Who is this person who is attracting so much terrible PR to our group [FONT="]–[/FONT] and into who[FONT="]’[/FONT]s hands we have entrusted the future of our church and the incubater of Sientology. Is he OT VIII CL IX OEC FEBC DSEC? Has he completed Super Power? How many posts has he put in to Power? I have a right to know this. Who is this person?
19. If our management is as unethical as all of these things suggest, is it rational to assume that the tech and the admin in our church are IN? Has it not occurred to anyone that people actually like Scientology [FONT="]–[/FONT] Ron[FONT="]’[/FONT]s Brand - and stay away in droves from squirreled activities? How many in the church would leave it if they did not have children or businesses that would be affected? And how many NEW people are turned off by what they THINK is Scientology when it is only the unchecked dramatizations of a few PTS executives [FONT="]–[/FONT] and the PTS congregation that permits it to continue?
None of these questions concern themselves with Scientology. They concern themselves with the crimminal misapplication of Scientology by church management, and the betrayal of a congregation that is generous and kind and honest and gullible and betrayable because they have lost their alertness and their willingness to fight back.
I had many other questions, but let[FONT="]’[/FONT]s use these to start.
OK, one last bit before I close; You showed me the reference about how an SP becomes one [FONT="]–[/FONT] where a period of stress at the hands of the SP is followed by the person taking on the SP[FONT="]’[/FONT]s valence. You were showing me this reference as regards Debbie Cook to explain [FONT="]“[/FONT]how she became suppressive.[FONT="]”[/FONT]
I asked you [FONT="]–[/FONT] and I mention this as the last unanswered sample question in my collection [FONT="]–[/FONT] which person it was who[FONT="]’[/FONT]s valence this long-time, highly trained and decorated Sea Org veteran was first suppressed by and who[FONT="]’[/FONT]s valence she later assumed?
WHO were YOU talking about? Did it not occur to you that perhaps the SP who suppressed her and who[FONT="]’[/FONT]s valence she allegedly assumed is still in the church?
Is it a truthful thing to say that by pointing these destructive but actual things out that Debbie Cook was displaying suppressive characteristics?
My own contention, as I reported to you last year, is that after the wars with the IRS in the 80[FONT="]’[/FONT]s and the battle with that band of suppressives, the [FONT="]“[/FONT]war[FONT="]”[/FONT] was actually not over as COB so grandly proclaimed. Our own management strata was completely stressed out and actually took on the valence of the SP IRS personnel. It[FONT="]’[/FONT]s just a theory, but there is substantial evidence to support it.
A review of the policy PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE would describe what is happening in our church today, and the need for the gargantuan PR machine that was put in place to cover it all up.
It[FONT="]’[/FONT]s all very fixable, but won[FONT="]’[/FONT]t be as long as the insane are running the asylum. Hence, the growth of the Independent movement - many of whom have shed their PTSness and ironically are more Scientologist than the ranking uniformed reps running around. (You cannot tell a squirrel by the clothes he wears or the buildings he occupies.)
In any case, this would seem to me to be an important investigation, and might open up the door for a handling or two - and close the door on innumerable misapplications.
Please stop telling people that [FONT="]“[/FONT]We answered Mark[FONT="]’[/FONT]s questions but he did not like the answers.[FONT="]”[/FONT] You KNOW this is not remotely true, and it is beneath you. I implore you to find out for yourself the answers to these questions and let me know what you discover.
In the meantime, I’m going to set out and find Scientology again.
Love,
Mark
Markshreffler.wordpress.com
