From Rob Thomas| KR by Rob Thomas | | Print | |
| Sunday, 18 October 2009 15:12 |
Knowledge ReportOctober 14, 2009 “IT IS A FAILURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS TO CONTROL THEIR FELLOWS THAT MAKES A GROUP HARD FOR ALL TO LIVE AND WORK WITH.” – LRHThis report is three years too late. It is a response to the knowledge I have received while in and out of the organization. David Miscavige has been beating his staff for years now with no recourse. I have personally spoken with people who have witnessed it and then practiced personal integrity by telling what they have witnessed. Others who witnessed it are doing NOTHING for fear of retribution. This must cease. Silence is acquiescence. The question is will other eyewitnesses do anything? The wrong thing to do is nothing. The organization is in danger and this could ruin Scientology as we know it today. Unwillingness and irresponsibility has already nearly ruined the word “Scientology” so that when I am out in the public and use the word it is received as reprehensible. David Miscavige’s crimes are all over the web. They’re even in the media now! The basics release is a change to Hubbard’s original tech. I highly doubt that Hubbard set anything up in such a way that an “editor changed something but it wasn’t caught until 50 years later.” What the basics really are in my opinion is a way of extracting more money from the same public over and over. This is being evidenced by the existing public being crush regged on it. OTs even being forced to buy them or have the next action withheld. We also saw this in the Golden Age of Tech where OT VIII’s are forced to do OT VII and VIII again at their own cost. This violates many policies I am sure. To deny this and not investigate this or prove it wrong with Hubbard’s written materials makes many more an accessory to the crime. I am hearing that OT VIIs have to go get sec checked every 6 months. I know that there is no policy on this because when I asked Kathy True of OSA to confront this and prove me wrong with tech she told me she wouldn’t address it. It doesn’t make sense that the most ethical people on the planet have to undergo this treatment yet the lower bridge pcs do not. This again is a way of extracting more money form the same public rather than just getting more new public. It was never LRH’s intent to ask anyone to put their bridge on credit or buy it with money they didn’t have, yet it is done everyday in most orgs. In Tampa, which was my org I was constantly regged for money I didn’t have and encouraged and even assisted by Ken Thomas to find lower interest rate credit cards and mortgage lenders to use for bridge donations, ideal org donations, etc., I constantly referred to the LRH references covering financial policy but was overruled by other supposed bulletins or policies. How can that be? Why is getting squeezed for IAS donations to raise your “status” on the routing form if the IAS wasn’t even around when LRH was alive and it wasn’t his intention to be begging for money from parishioners at every turn? Right before I left the group I was visited by the IAS while mowing my lawn. There were three of them. Annie is the only person I really knew. I thought that was strange. Can you show me a policy for this where LRH says for IAS staff or ANY staff to visit people’s houses while they are working to reg them, invalidate them, introvert them because I couldn’t donate and didn’t? I recall another time that Paddy Cunningham visited my house and gave some some helpful tips for my business and then told me “Look, I haven’t charged you for this advice, the least you could do is exchange with me by donating when the money comes in from what I’ve shown you.” Is this appropriate behavior by a person whose job it is to get ethics in on the planet? I was asked in 2006 at Tampa Org to do some of my auditing over again. When I asked why they said after a $600 folder review they found that some objectives weren’t flattened. This was a sincere invalidation. If you think I would lie at the examiner and still get the FN, then we need to have another conversation. I never conceded with this as I am certain there was nothing wrong. Is there a policy on invalidating people and having them do actions over and over again at their own expense for org profit? Is there a policy on not answering questions to the satisfaction of a parishioner but instead forcing them to do something over again despite protest? This was during a push, by the way, to open the ideal org in Plant City, I suspect this is why this happened. Finally, the Tampa Org had an opportunity to salvage me before I left by addressing 33 questions that I had derived from hours of research. Kathy True of OSA told me that none of them would be addressed and that I was PTS and my solution was to do the PTS SP course (translation: gimme $1,500 more please). This was insulting and solidified my reasoning and position that they had something to hide. By the way, I did the course, fast flowed it, finished long before my ex-wife and still left. Maybe Kathy needs hatting. In September of this year Kathy True called me up to discuss a conversation I had with Jeff Haney. I told her about my upset with the situation above and she said she didn’t do that. After helping her recall she said “Well, if that is the case I would have answered your questions.” She still did nothing about it. The way I see it, she could care less about me or any other parishioners. Written by Rob Thomas |
"Scientology has been taken over by a self-appointed dictator, David Miscavige, who has turned the Creed of the Church of Scientology, the Code of a Scientologist, and the Credo of a True Group Member on their heads and instituted the virtual practice of Reverse (Black) Dianetics..." 
Comments
Again, I can't thank you enough for posting this KR, because I blew charge just reading it. You have in very few words pin pointed a situation, not just miscellaneous out points and that situation is an actual lack of caring on the part of those still in control of the organization.
After speaking with a friend recently, they encouraged me to do it for other reasons - moving to slight or gentle cause. They said that the internet would access it, other former SCN would access and people still inside might access it.
That was enough for me to do it. I agreed with them that the wrong thing to do was nothing. If enough people did this, then the wall would come down.
My observation is too many people are scared to say something but most are thinking and observing the same things. I wanted to make it safe for them to practice the creed of SCN without recourse.
I had hoped that OSAs would be a last haven of sanity within the church structure and not just another arm of enforced off-policy actions. To present 33 questions and be told they would not be addressed is not a handling that gives me any confidence that we can resolve the mismanagement problems from the inside.
RSS feed for comments to this post