Possibly Helpful Advice


Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult
Vista

Jan. 23: Lawrence Wright and Anderson Cooper and “Going Clear”

Last night’s Anderson Cooper 360 featured an interview with author Lawrence Wright (of Going Clear fame).

Scientology Inc has its panties all in a bunch about the book, as it paints the Church of Scientology Inc in many bad lights.

During the interview, the topic of Scientology Inc’s legal threats and strenuous objections to the book as inaccurate and full of false facts (that’s something of an oxymoron) and only using data supplied by disaffected apostates was raised.

Wright pointed out a truth: that the Church’s obsession with secrecy and its policy not to talk to the press are its own downfall.

In Ability Magazine 1 (mid-March 1955) THE SCIENTOLOGIST, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, LRH writes: There are several things we would like the general public to say to the general public about Scientology. The first of these is that we would like the general public, when it sees an individual or group problem, to be quite certain that the proper thing to do is for that individual or group to consult a Scientologist. For instance, if somebody is having headaches, we would like his friends to come to the obvious solution that this person should see a Scientologist or should join a group undergoing processing.

The next on this communication line is that Scientology does not pose any threat, that Scientologists are good citizens, and that they can be trusted with problems of a private and confidential nature, or with problems dangerous to other people, such as the problem of criminality. Another frame of mind we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologists have something wrong with them (and if you could meet any such people personally you would see that this is no more than truth). As a subdivision of this, the actual substance of communication about what Scientology is, from the general public to the general public, should be that Scientology says that good health and immortality are attainable. That it is something compounded out of all man knows of the subject of man, and that people are living units operating bodies, rather than bodies, and that this living unit is the human soul. Given this much communication line, the general public can embroider enormously, and unless a person in the general public can express his opinions, and unless the subject gives him a chance to express his own opinions, and so let HIM be interesting, he will not talk about the subject. Thus the data in the general public should give individuals a chance to be interesting, by knowing no more and no less than the above. We are not interested in sensationalism, personalities, or the complexity of Scientological methodology being discussed by the general public. As a subdivision of this, we do not want Scientology to be reported in the press, anywhere else than on the religious page of newspapers. It is destructive of word of mouth to permit the public presses to express their biased and badly reported sensationalism. Therefore we should be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology. What the newspapers say is not word of mouth. As an example of this, how many minutes today have you spent in discussing current events?  NEWSPAPER REPORTERS WRITING ARTICLES ON SCIENTOLOGY DO NOT EXPRESS SCIENTOLOGY. Scientologists should never let themselves be interviewed by the press. That’s experience talking!

It would be the rare occasion, no matter what the substance, for the HASI to release to the general public through the public presses and magazines of the country any information of any kind whatsoever about anything.

The HASI is not a secret organization, and the materials it has to hand are not secret materials, but it has been discovered in five years that the general level of the public press is such that it interviews with a pre-formed conclusion, and might as well have written the story before it did the interview. Several such interviews granted in the recent months have resulted in no story being written, for that was the way the reporter was handled. He had come to write anything sensational or bad as ordered by his editor, and he found himself confronting programs and activities which he became afraid to slander. In such cases interviews were granted in order to stop stories, not to give them out. In all the thousands of articles published on Dianetics and Scientology, only three or four published in minor publications gave anything like true rendition of the subjects or their activities. The stories were preconceived before interview. Therefore, all the interview could do was to convince the person he couldn’t write the story he had planned to write, and so that prevented him from writing any story at all.

In other words, the moment a reporter discovered that he could not write a bad story, he did not want to write any story. And this applies to reporters who are “friendly,” who promise faithfully all good intent and good press, and who have even been processed successfully. They wrote knowingly inaccurate libel, whatever they said.

If this is the general intent of the public press, then it is our experience that interviews are better forgotten, and that press releases should not be engaged upon, and that reporters should not be granted interviews, whatever they promise. Dianetics and Scientology would have made far more progress had there been no single word about them in the public presses.

Newspapers, magazines, do not represent public opinion, and are not the formative agencies of the public. The only time they become formative agencies in public opinion is when they express something bad badly enough to completely blacken a person or an action. Then the public will become alert and cease to have anything to do with that person or action. It could be said about the modern press that if they were to know for certain that there existed newly discovered an immediate cure for every case of polio in the world, they would mention it somewhere inside the paper, in small print. But that if one doctor in examining one polio case made an error in its handling, then the incident would receive headlines.

The motto of the press is “it is all bad over there.” Although several commentators of international repute have, from time to time, given Dianetics and Scientology and LRH a resounding pat on the back, these comments have been completely lost in an avalanche of misinformed and inaccurate material appearing in the press.

Frankly, that seems like good advice on the surface.

Our own experience with the press here at Possibly Helpful Advice bears out LRH’s advice.

Re-reading that post now, I see a list of things that might constitute a table of contents for a book about Scientology that’s really needed and wanted, would result in informing the public, and possibly really result in some justice being done.

Note that I wrote about Scientology Inc’s financial abuses in that post.

It took from October 20, 2011 until now to get a lawsuit filed about the fraud and non-transparency of Scientology Inc finances.

That story is getting some traction and some press inches.

Longtime Scientologists will recognize this as an example of the outpoint altered importance.

And this is the bugbear with talking to reporters or giving interviews.

Lawrence Wright’s book in many cases rehashes corny trite already-overworked sensationalism, when the real wrongs…the criminality of the church…need to be dealt with.

But I notice that Scientology Inc has jumped the rails in handling the situation.

We live in a world where

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” can be ridden by the press to the exoneration of a philandering President;

a deliberately provocative Super Bowl half-time nipple slip gets brushed off as a “wardrobe malfunction”;

a world-class cyclist can denigrate and vilify people for outing his doping and other performance-enhancing cheating;

● a woman’s children can be found dead and she can claim that black men stole her car and kidnapped her children only to have it discovered she killed her children herself;

● a man can be found not guilty of savagely murdering his wife and vow he’s going to ceaselessly hunt for the real murderers, only to be caught later spening a lot of time on golf courses, with the “real murderers” yet to be found;

● a man can murder a city’s mayor and supervisor and claim that Twinkies made him do it;

● a man can launch a balloon and then claim to the authorities and the press the runaway balloon took his child;

● a man named Ponzi can set the standards of behavior for financial managers;

● a presidential candidate and a California governor can father children out of wedlock and then get away with covering it up for years;

● athletes can break the rules about steroid and other performance enhancing cheats and by lying, in some cases to Congress, continue to compete;

● a presidential candidate can fib about being under fire in a foreign country and still remain a credible candidate;

● a reporter for the Newspaper of Record can plagiarize and then fight to keep his job;

● a US President can claim “I am not a crook” just before he resigns in disgrace without any criminal penalties coming to bear;

● a 2000-year-old religion can hide predatory sexual activity on the part of its clergy for decades.

There are scores of other such examples. When I look at the list of scoundrels here I can only wonder when will someone add David Miscavige, Karin Pouw, and Tommy Davis to that rogue’s gallery.

Yet Scientology Inc continues to claim that every bad thing that’s reported about Scientology is a lie, yet it does not produce the true data to refute it.

That’s because Scientology Inc has a history of producing refuting “evidence” that is a lie in itself, invoking further accusations and questions that need responses.

In HCO PL 37 October 1974 SAFE GROUND LRH says

1. NEVER SAY OR PUBLISH ANYTHING YOU CANNOT PROVE OR DOCUMENT.

2. ALWAYS DOCUMENT THE TRUTH TO OPPOSE LIES.

These two rules are a PR’s safe ground.

Violating them can bring on a catastrophe!

And of course, in HCO PL 13 August 1970 THE MISSING INGREDIENT, LRH says NEVER USE LIES IN PR.

Scientologists who feel “set upon” should study and understand both those bulletins.

Then take a look at what the church is doing.

I have a question: Isn’t the church talking to the press by handing out statements that people are disgruntled apostates? Didn’t the church have something significant to do with them becoming disgruntled apostates in the first place?

If they’re calling Lawrence Wright a liar, why didn’t they use LRH policy and document, thus proving, the truth?

Or did the church simply resort to knee-jerk calling people “liars” and “disaffected” and “apostates”?

Wright has DOCUMENTED over 150 requests for data and fact-checking to the church that he says were denied.

Wright is following up on his end of the LRH/press deal.

The problem is that in most cases, the church cannot document the truth credibly.

For example, in an effort to “disprove” that the church routinely violates child labor laws, the church claims “There is no record, no police reports, no medical records, no photos to support these allegations.” There are, for example, witnesses! And anyone who just up and believes the church’s refutal needs to familiarize themselves with the story of Daniel Montalvo as well as the stories of other youths trapped in the Sea Org.

The Daniel Montalvo story goes like this: Daniel Montalvo at age 19 blew the Sea Org. Once the problems with Scientology Inc convincing the LA County Sheriff’s office to arrest him had been sorted out, he told the story of working 16 hours a day for the church, 7 days a week. Half the time he worked at Bridge’s manufacturing facility running a “notching machine”, a machine with a curved blade that cuts out the indexing notches in the edge of a book that are used to rapidly select which chapter is desired. A film of a book notching machine is here. California law specifically forbids operation of the machine by anyone under the age of 20, yet Montalvo was 15 or 16. One night he cut off his index finger in the machine. He was transported by the church and a security officer to the children’s hospital in Hollywood, and before being treated was instructed by church personnel to tell the medical people he had injured himself in a skateboarding accident. Since the doctors were unable to reattach the finger, Daniel was reassigned to a desk job, still working over 100 hours a week in violation of California’s child labor laws that limit working to eighteen hours per week.

The tales Montalvo told of the other two-dozen undernourished and sleep-deprived minors working in the Bridge manufacturing facility are chilling.

The important thing to note is this: the church “minders” knew that Montalvo was working and had been seriously injured while working in violation of the law and had told him to lie to prevent an investigation of the working conditions at Bridge. Instructing the minor to lie is evidence of culpability on Scientology Inc’s part.

Yet, the church issued a statement saying “There is no record, no police reports, no medical records, no photos to support these allegations.” If you don’t stop and get what details are available, you don’t ask yourself “Why did the church instruct the minor to lie?”

So the church is not dealing with what it says is a lie by documenting the truth. The church is dealing with what it says is a lie by telling an evasive misdirectional half-truth at best. The truth is not contained in the church’s refutal. Plain and simple.

Also, chillingly, the church claiming “there’s no documentation” is a little like the Jews who survived the holocaust in WWII going to get their family’s deposits out of Swiss banks after the war’s end being told they couldn’t have the money because they “didn’t have a death certificate”. The irate families to this day rant that Auschwitz didn’t provide them!

If witnesses to a beating exist that are still in the church, they will not be allowed to be interviewed by an author without a Scientology Inc gorilla-like thug strapped to his back.

If someone close to the source, like Shelly Miscavige, knows the truth, why can’t she be interviewed so as to disprove the lies?

Is it because if she tells the truth, it will make the so-called lies not-lies? Or will she open up further cans of worms exhibiting Scientology Inc evasiveness?

So if the church says someone is a liar, then who is the liar?

Or is the world now just a place where liars can point the finger at people telling the truth and say those people are lying?

It’s a real Catch-22.

How can you disprove lies by providing the evidentiary truth to a (gasp) reporter?

Can’t be done.

Not in Scientology.

Not according to Scientology’s rules.

— written by Plain Old Thetan

Number of views:3388
11
  

6 Comments

D'Anne  on January 25th, 2013

Another amazing article arrives!! A reporter from Newsweek actually thought to go to the Explorer’s Club and find out how the Explorer’s Clubs Logs differ from the Co$ history. It’s riveting. And would be hilarious… if it had not caused so much tragedy for so many. Check it out here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/exclusive-new-texts-from-scientology-s-l-ron-hubbard.html

John Doe  on January 25th, 2013

Scientology’s PR is at a lowest ever and continues to plummet. And yet the lies keep coming.

If the church wonders why parishioners don’t disseminate, it is not because of a lack of tech on how to do it. They don’t disseminate or even mention the subject to their friends and coworkers because it has greatly become pro-survival to withhold one’s affiliation with Scientology in the greater world.

Parishioners don’t need another “tech of dissemination seminar”. They need the church to own up and start telling the truth!

PlainOldThetan  on January 26th, 2013

John Doe: Good spot! Parishioners don’t disseminate for many reasons.

1) With so much evidence and so many reports existing in the public domain about church malfeasance that a parishioner trying to disseminate to friends and family will only produce one thing…and it’s not a new Scientology parishioner. What he will produce is a person who thinks the parishioner is nuts. And in order to keep from being thought nuts by his friends and family, he won’t even try to disseminate.

2) Scientology says that a person stops trying to do things when he’s trying not to commit an (another) overt. He withholds himself from that area or activity. So, if the parishioner considers that getting a friend or family member into Scientology is an overt, he won’t disseminate!

3) LRH says in HCO PL 3 December 1964R BOOMING AN ORG THROUGH TRAINING that Students disseminate. Pcs don’t. The reasons this is true are legion. But the reasons that come to mind most readily are (1) a correctly trained auditor has taken a professional TRs course as one of his first training actions. Therefore he can HONESTLY communicate to people while auditing and not coincidentally he can communicate to friends and family when disseminating. (2) a correctly trained auditor has seen the technology work right in front of him and so knows he is not lying when he disseminates to friends and family.

I’ve never forgotten a cognition given to me by an student who had audited over 1000 hours on Level O of the SHSBC: We’re only here to audit these people up to the point where they can audit others.

I want to see the “list of completions” in the Freewinds magazine not only have what auditing level they completed, but what training level they completed. That’s because I’ll wager that you can predict whether that auditing completion will fall on his head based on if he’s an interned auditor or not.

So by destroying auditing, Miscavige has shrunk the pool of auditors to zilch while simultaneously shriking the pool of disseminators to zilch. What else could you expect from a not-a-trained auditor?

4) In lecture 6001c02 WHY PEOPLE DON’T LIKE YOU LRH explains that you actually commit an overt by letting another person commit an overt on you if you don’t do something about it. Parishioners know at some level, even if they won’t admit it to you, that the church has been busy committing overts on them over the past twenty years. Parishioners, even if they got gains from Scientology, know that they’ve been victimized by the church and they don’t want to put their friends and family in a position of having the same done to them.

5) And because the parishioner has been committing overts by allowing the church to victimize him, any attempt to disseminate restimulates the overt and causes the parishioner to accumulate missed withholds which means that he’ll stop disseminating, so as to prevent the restumulation of the overt.

Miscavige’s New Year’s Sky-High Promise Revealed  on January 26th, 2013

[...] Scientology Inc knew it couldn’t counter with truth it decided to do the most expensive and least effective thing: flood the internet with [...]

John Doe  on January 27th, 2013

Nicely summarized, POT! Particularly point number 2. It is an overt of magnitude to get a friend or family member embroiled in the toils of the current c of s.

OldAuditor  on February 11th, 2013

Watching interviews about Larry Wright’s new book “Going Clear” is a poor substitute for actually reading the book.

Larry wright has done a masterful job of pulling together the loose ends of many stories and presenting the inside story of Scientology and its founder through a series of intimately personal views of the people involved.

For example, the writing of Science of Survival took place in Cuba during one of the wilder episodes of Ron Hubbard’s life. Having studied and used the material in SOS for many years, I am absolutely amazed that he was able to rise above his personal travails to author a book of this nature considering the mental state he was in at the time.

The casual reader may consider that this book covers material that has been covered before by others but no one so far has put the pieces together to document Ron’s underlying motives for the actions he took throughout his life.

To paraphrase LRH himself, Ron was able to rise above his bank occasionally.

His finest works stand as a tribute to his incredible strength of will. The rest of his life stands in stark contrast to the official accounts of Ron as “Mankind’s greatest friend”.

Leave a Comment

Powered by Sweet Captcha
Verify your real existence,
Drag and put the swimsuit in the suitcase
  • captcha
  • captcha
  • captcha
  • captcha

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.