Anonymous UK

I received the following comment from someone identifying him/herself as Anonymous UK:

Hi Marty, I was listening in to a phone call the other week when a colleague called you up while you were in the swamp. I will say that you need to work on your tonescale if you have any hopes of helping others. You came across as defensive, arrogant, egotistical and you displayed absolutely zero remorse for your previous crimes. Anonymous knows your plans and we can easily see what you are trying to achieve. We are happy that you have left the cult, but we are saddened to see that nothing has changed in you. You have abused before, and you will abuse again. You believe in technology written by a lunatic, and you believe that you are in a ‘high’ position to ‘help’ (read use/abuse) others We are watching. We will call again soon. Expect us 😉 nowhere@nowhere.net
Anonymous UK

http://forums.whyweprotest.net

I did receive a phone call from a blocked id caller last week. The caller identified himself  as Anonymous. I asked his name since he knew mine. He refused to identify himself, but assured me he was a WWP/Anonymous veteran.  He made no mention of anyone else participating in the call as Anonymous UK said he did. He implied he was appointed to find out some things about me for Anonymous.  I was not in a swamp. I was walking on a street with my wife and a friend.  The friend had spent three days with me to sort out his 35 year experience with Scientology. He had been living in silent, desperate confusion for more than a decade. My friend was summing up how he’d gotten his life in better order in the past three days than he ever imagined he could ever get it.  The cycle involved some use of Scientology. The Anonymous fellow was arrogant, rude, and threatening to me. He said Anonymous would probably need to deal with me since it was clear that I still practiced Scientology. I asked whether it offended him that I applied some principals while doing everything within my power to rectify abusive practices within Scientology. Anonymous told me that Anonymous might have to come after me if I believed in any corner of Scientology.  I asked him if he felt it was ok that anyone  practice Christianity. He said no. I said I thought that was very odd, because I thought that after listening to a lot of Mahalia Jackson I got the notion that Christianity – if properly practiced in the way she found how to – seemed like a good thing, certainly not harmful. He had no clue who Mahalia Jackson was, and would make no concession for even her. I asked if he felt it was ok for people to practice Islam if they did so in a positive fashion. He said that would not be ok too. I told him the only group I knew of that covertly threatened people for peacefully practicing a religion or philosophy – and who took great pains to not identify themselves – was the KKK.  I told Mr. Anonymous I thought it ironic that I was being interrogated, with implied threats, while I was taking an attack from Miscavige that by conservative estimate has cost him a cool three million to date. He saw no irony in that fact.  I told him if there is one thing I took away from my experience in Scientology it was a firm decision that no one – ever – would order me again, particularly in matters of conscience, and that if he was trying to state that if I did not denounce everything about Scientology Anonymous would come after me – so be it.  In four years since leaving the Church I had never had a conversation so resembling the many thousands I’d had with Miscavige that I’d left to be free of.

While logged on and reviewing that message as well as several quite apparently forged in the name of Billy Lindstein (which Anonymous – we are legion – acknowledged he created on WWP ultimately – yet still denounces me as an “asshole” and much worse for not answering poor, non-existant Billy), and another two emails from people identifying themselves as Anonymous affiliated my computer contracted spyware and crashed.

If you renegades (more people identifying themselves as part of Anonymous have been civil to me than have not) only knew how badly you were harming your own cause and helping mine. Keep up the splendid work fellas.

Advertisements

59 responses to “Anonymous UK

  1. Marty:

    As the saying goes, “Critics are like assh0les; everyone has one.” Seems when it comes to the subject of Scientology, some are more insane, militant & irrational. Ignore them. There are those of us that truly appreciate that you had the courage to stand up and speak the truth. Please be safe and watch your back. History has shown irrational people, particularly those cowards that hide behind anonymity can be the most dangerous to others.

  2. Clearly, OSA is mobilizing all its forces including those they’ve managed to burrow into Anonymous.

    By survey of their website and blogs the majority of Anonymous are happy to have Scientology continue in a non-abusive way (once changes are brought about). That view — that people are free to practice their religion as long as they don’t hurt others — is a moral high ground which has significantly added to their broad appeal.

    To attempt to characterize Anonymous as anti-religious is an attempt to hurt us all = an enemy action = OSA/Miscavige. Only Miscavige would gain from anyone starting to think Anonymous were anti-religious extremists. Only Miscavige gains from any hits made in the direction of Marty.

    It’s crude but it does look like intell activity from OSA.

  3. Yeah, I’d say DM’s got his little tiny knickers in a little tiny knot. Just curious, did the voice on the phone sound smallish? You know, like a little tiny person?

    Imagine him running around trying to get the knot in his knickers undone, going in circles, eyes aflame, cords in his neck tight, face red, ‘I can’t get this knot out of my knickers, arrrgggh, why won’t this knot come out of my knickers’.

  4. Yeah I know Marty I came to the same conclusion myself about anonymous. I mean what’s the difference between a Guy Fawkes’ mask and a bed sheet?

  5. There are ignorant jerks everywhere, and there are well intended kids still short of some key life experiences. Some are also mixed up in all of this for very different reasons. I meet them all – from all sides.

    Even as a public critic of the Church of Scientology, of L Ron Hubbard, and of David Miscavige, I have no problem with people believing or practicing different things than me. It being Scientology, Islam or Christianity, and most know I have strong opinions on all three. I know many Scientologists with values I can share and with just as good intentions as I have. It takes all types to make a world, and different people have different needs. I sure appreciate the differences. I’ll never hide my opinion if challenged, but I also love to listen and try to understand. We must oppose ignorance and oppression wherever it arises, especially when in our own camp.

    There is a suspicion that there is a couple of more things wrong with Scientology and CoS than David Miscavige. What is your opinion on that? And do you see why some might be sceptical to defectors who might look like they downplay the harm and danger of CoS? What can we do with that if you agree and understand?

    I would love to get a better understanding of your history Marty, in CoS and coming out. I believe many would like to see some more details on what went on inside, about us individuals outside and as a group of critics. Maybe even some closure where due.

    Do you see this as something that will come, do you see the expectation from us outsiders, do you see more things that should be clarified or recorded for the history books? Do you have such information that could be interesting for us? Do you have thoughts you want to share about what should happen to CoS if Miscavige took the treasure chest and fled?

    I repeat my wish that I hope we get to meet over a beer one day. 🙂

    Best regards from
    Norway

  6. anyone_can_claim_anonymous

    These comments by your loyalists are kind of sad.

    Bed sheets & GF masks? First of all learn history. Secondly, check out the pics from protests and you’ll see Anonymous is more racially diverse than SeaOrg.

    Hiding behind anonymity means someone is dangerous?

    What your brain trust fails to understand is that Rathbun or others wouldn’t be free to speak out openly if it wasn’t for well over a year of peaceful protests by Anonymous all over the world. Not only would he and Rinder not be so brave, but the media wouldn’t be as interested.

    Ask Marty, he and Rinder know the kind of ops they can/used to run. Scientology would have sent more then noisy PIs two years ago at critics speaking out so openly, and Rinder or Rathbun would have ordered such ops to take place.

  7. I think the bottom line is that you have done great work in fighting the human rights abuses that happen within the COS. Moreover, you’ve probably contributed more to that cause that any Anonymous member. (although a lot of them have done some great work)

    I don’t care what your beliefs are, because as long as you’re fighting the abuses, you’re fighting the good fight, and that’s what matters!

  8. I’ve met very few Scientologists that I’ve disliked. The only one I can think of off hand is Dennis Clarke who struck me as a bully. Perhaps because he physically struck a few people I know and threatened others. That would be clue that the man should never have been put in charge of a “Human Rights” group like the CCHR.

    Most have seemed like very nice people who were royally pissed off at me for speaking up against their group. That didn’t surprise me. Some did things against me that weren’t very nice like picketing my home and lying to my neighbors. Some did worse things to me like sending PI’s to follow and investigate me, hire off duty cops to arrest me and lie to the authorities. Some actively worked to destroy my friends Bob and Stacy and others around me.

    But I couldn’t blame the worst actions on the entire group.

    It’s the same with Anonymous. Most of the people I’ve met in Project Chanology have been really decent people. A couple have been annoying jerks, as other Anons before me have noticed. And a few have at times turned against me and my friend Tory and made our lives hell. But that wasn’t all Anonymous.

    I can understand the people who want you to do more. They’re impatient at what they see as grave injustices that seem to go unpunished. They want something to happen now. They want someone to walk in, hand documentation to the feds and put a stop to the corruption once and for all. That’s the way the movie would end. We’d see a low angle shot of the insider walking into the Department of Justice with a bulging folder of documents as the music swells and titles on the screen would tell us that David Miscavige is serving life in prison for the death of Lisa McPherson and others crimes against humanity.

    But this ain’t the movies and even if that folder was delivered to the feds, the government likely would do nothing. After all, the feds saw plenty of documentation in Operation Snow White and Scientology is still standing, disconnection continues, the RPF is allowed to exist, and on and on and on.

    I may want you to do more. But I can’t force you to do more. And I’m just going to guess that Anonymous annoying you is not going to get you to do more either. And I don’t think any of us even know for sure what the more would be. We just imagine if we had that stuffed folder, we would walk up the DOJ steps to the swelling music and happy ending. But life is much messier — and we seldom look around and find a stuffed folder sitting at our feet.

    You’ll do what you do, just as Bob did what he did and I do as I do and life will unfold. What you’ve done so far has been pretty amazing and it’s allowed other people to speak up and take action as well. It’s a snowball effect.

    I never would have thought that you and Rinder would blow let alone some day speak out about abuses. Or David Miscavige’s niece would talk about the effects of Disconnection on Miscavige’s own family. Each of you make it easier for others to come forward — and the more truth that is exposed, the more progress is made.

    People can think, “If I had Bob Minton’s money, I would have spent it doing this…I wouldn’t have done that…” or “If I was in Marty’s position, I would do this…I wouldn’t do that…” but I remember a very wise piece of advice I once received:

    Anonymous is not your personal army.

    Neither should you be forced to follow commands.

    • Here’s something Anonymous and I agree upon: Bunker is Wise Beard Man.

      • Mark is right, there is always going to be an antagonistic undercurrent in any group; I would not call myself a member of Anonymous but I do feel there is a valid reason to stand against the abuses of $cientology.

        Someone said earlier there is little difference between a mask and a bed sheet, this strikes me as short sighted. When, then, is taking a stand against something (doesn’t even need to be religion, but war, politics whatever) that you feel strongly against and is shown to be harmful, valid? I wouldn’t share a bed with a black widow because I respect its right to be rather poisonous.

        This sort of argument put forward by some strongly promotes the status quo, no matter how horrific it may be – the underlying subtext being that everything is fine and don’t rock the boat.

        Inaction does not equate to the moral high ground, and equally the opposite is true but in a robust intellectual community I think this dilemma resolves itself, the middle ground can be found.

    • Mark,

      That was great.

  9. Too many enemies…
    Too many diferent stories and factors and very difficult to put them all in peace.
    We must seek what is common to us all or nothing is going to be achieved.
    For example Jason B. is friend of Marty and has helped to annonymous (Germany).
    Fortunatelly this is not a popularity contest.
    Each one of us is going to do whatever seems to be the right thing to do.

  10. It’s a crazy world and when people can hide behind anonymity over the internet or the phone, it gets even crazier.

    I see a couple of possibilities here. The most likely one for me is that this guy is just a garden variety nutter who should be told to f off.

    The other is that it is a veiled attempt by the church to pose as Anonymous and be a hidden 3rd party so that you go out of ARC with those who want you to speak out more.

    I’ve got some chic writing me who is likely a Scn agent – she sends me messages on my forum saying she knew me from back in the day when I was staff. She says she left the church and is out now, etc. She has given correct information on the staff member names of who was there and tells a good story. Then she says she always wanted to ask me out and sends me a naked pic of some attractive female. Well, after pulling a few strings on her it’s become obvious her story doesn’t hold water. I’m now turning the tables on her, talking about the Code of Honor, asking if this is what she signed up for, etc. It’s all kind of amusing, really.

    Some jerks just try like hell to make a dangerous environment. Let’s continue to create our reality, stick to our integrity, and flourish and prosper.

  11. I’ve seen Anonymous from all sides, the best and the worst, and after almost 2 years of protesting with them, I believe the worst is a small number. Believe it or not, many many anons are motivated for the most part by a dislike of what they see are the abuses committed by the church. You might be surprised to see how emotional people get over stories of disconnetion, etc.

    For example, a woman came out to LA this year all the way from England to try to see her Sea Org daughter at HGB, and on very short notice, many anons showed up to peacefully protest, and support her. Many tears were shed when she was not allowed to see her daughter.

    I really don’t think it’s helpful or fair to paint them as comparable to the KKK.

    On the other hand, I am not a fan of prank calls, either. I don’t know what was said; people who listened in said the call was very polite. You say otherwise.

    The bottom line is, as far as I know, you haven’t expressed your opinion on things like disconnection, fair game, SP declares, and the RPF so far. This makes people wonder. Every single anon I have met is against these abuses. Are you?

    Like others have said, I think it’s great (and courageous) that you have spoken against the abuses of DM. It just makes people wonder even more though, if you are against the abuses in general, or DM in particular.

    Andreas asked in his comment what your opinions are. I, too, am curious.

    Lastly, I am going to be slightly presumptuous and offer some unsolicited advice. Jason Beghe stated that he was in the unique position of having been in Scientology for a long time, and now being out. From this vantage point, he could make a lot of observations that others couldn’t. As someone who is also out now, you could do the same. However, this involves looking at people’s stories, comments, and criticisms with an open mind. Jason even said he was unaware of some things that were going on, until he got out. You have a lot of knowledge from the inside, but it would be great to listen to some observations from the outside now.

    Susan Elliott

    PS. There’s a hilarious cartoon that I think of when I get mad at people on the internet. It really helps put things in perspective. Google the image of “Someone is wrong on the internet.”

    • i’mglib,
      I hope not as I’m going to answer your question, even though I’m not Marty, on the topic of disconnection, fair game, the RPF and SP declares.

      First, I AM a Scientologist. I’m presently declared an SP and was forced to disconnect from loved ones and friends. I was not officially fair gamed, yet for some they didn’t get that LRH in fact cancelled that, well, forced disconnection too, which they seemed to have not either understood in the first place and surely don’t get it now. I’ve also done the RPF.

      Let me say this about each. SP declares: if one is in fact an SP then it might help. If one isn’t, it’s brutal. The trouble is this ‘declare’ thing has been uttlerly turned on its head at this point. I can’t give a short course here in the subject but what you see in play today is reversed to what it is in theory.

      Disconnection: when you falsely label someone an SP then force disconnection you get what you guys, and believe me us guys who are actually going through it, find as crass and blunt injustice. Disconnection from a person is a right of the person or persons themselves. Enforced it becomes the onerous thing that rational beings protest.

      Fair game: it was cancelled. That didn’t mean to mollify the press. That meant it was cancelled. Didn’t fly, doesn’t work. Dropped. OUTTA THERE. True anti-social personalities, sociopaths, psychopaths, are tough to handle. Fair gaming them doesn’t do it. What you see from DM and others, is NOT Scientology policy.

      The RPF: as a control mechanism it’s bs. As a program on the lines of what was intended, it can and does provide a safe environment where a person in real travail with life and work and making it go gets a chance to sort it out on a focus that does work. Like all sorts of things, it all depends on the intention of those handling the thing. Seven years forced labor in the RPF today is something unrecognizable to me as anything remotely resembling the program I did.

      There you go. One guy, me, who had done it all. I’m still a Scientologist, and I can spot an SP, one of the very few that are really SPs, and that’s a piece of skill and relief.

      If what yous guys from the ‘other side’ are saying in the above posts are what they seem to be, then you too have spotted one; David Miscavige. He’s a study.

      • I’m wid ya Jimbo.

        I still consider myself a Scientologist which was originally someone who changes conditions for the better using Scientology as opposed to that clique and claque ruled by Miscavige.

        What’s he’s doing ain’t Scientology, even it is Gobermint Approved.

        To sum it up the guy is a menace to Scientology and to the world in general and I do applaud those in Anonymous that are working on taking this guy out by exposing his abuses. However I do have a button on people who attack the subject which is very different from the organization that and those who practice it, while wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.

        To me that is the scary aspect of anonymous and it can be summed up in one word:

        intolerance

  12. Free and Clear,
    Nice moniker, sounds apt.

    I’ve got a friend who got some naked pix sent to him by someone similar in circumstance to the one you mention. This is a mistaken ploy by OSA in complete desperation to ‘plant evidence’ as you can see.

    What they should do is send a copy of Eyes Wide Shut. Plenty of naked girls in that one. I even see a naked girl in my house, everyday! (She hogs the covers at night too).

    Oh my, it seems in fact the facade of masters of intel is just that. One more goes down. PTS people make mistakes. Overts shut down perception and with shut down perception, the analytical mind has no data. Seems I read about this somewhere.

    • Xenutv,
      I never much cared for that agree to disagree thing.

      Let me put this another way. Yes, originally it meant do nasty things to SPs. That is abundantly clear. NO, it doesn’t mean continue to do nasty things to SPs and just cancel the label of ‘fair game’.

      That nasty things are done to those declared SP is abundantly clear. It is wrong. It IS NOT LRH POLICY.

      The rest of the cracks aren’t part of this thread. You should chill on those if you are sincere in your disdain of ‘fair game’. It sort of sounds like ‘fair game’ to me. It’s not right on any flow.

  13. It all very well and good to say that Fair Game was cancelled. That’s the easy party line. It’s an acceptable truth, isn’t it? Yes, it was cancelled. But the cancellation specifically said the use of the term Fair Game is cancelled and went on to say this does not in any way change the way we treat an SP. That’s cancellation in name only.

    Look at the Freedom Magazine issue about Marty, Rinder, et al. Wouldn’t that be considered Fair Game? Or the people run in on them to get info or cause distress? The PI’s sent out to investigate them?

    You may give it a different name but that seems to me like Fair Game. It may not be listed in OSA files under “Fair Game attacks currently being run” but what better name could there be than Fair Game?

    Just last week, John Fashanu came out and said the nasty attack done on Bob Minton in 2000 with the Fashanu Report was completely false. That was Scientology’s Fair Game attack through and through whether you want to call it by that name or not:

    http://www.xenutv.com/blog/?cat=193

    You may want to try to clear Hubbard’s name by saying the policy was cancelled but you should come to grips with the fact that he was the man who explicitly wrote:

    SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

    I’ve listened for years to Scientology PR people trying to put a happy, smiling face on that. One of the simplest things Scientology could do is just say, “You know, that was wrong.” But they refuse to do so because they can’t admit that Hubbard came up with such a nasty order.

    Granted, it is harder for them to stop attacking anyone who speaks out against abuses but please at least stop using the “It was cancelled” dodge.

    And it sure does hurt when disconnection is used on you, doesn’t it? But this may come as a shock to you. It hurts just as much to one of those “real SP’s” who might not be as suppressive as you are convinced they are. There are plenty of people inside Scientology right now who are convinced that Marty and you are really the SP’s and deserve the disconnection. Are they right? Or are they going on the information they have been fed and refusing to look more deeply into it for fear of being declared themselves or being sent to the RPF?

    • Xenutv,
      I’m afraid I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. I said ‘officially’ fair gamed. Unofficially of course I was if by fair game it is considered I was less than a human being with any rights. DM does practice ‘fair game’ on just about any being, willy nilly they are declared a suppressive, falsely or validly. Make no mistake however, the spin that fair game was cancelled only as a term is not fact. The fact is the handling of an SP is through a series of steps, A-E, and that is only to get him to stop being destructive long enough to handle the spiritual turmoil that is at the root of his destructive acts. THAT is what is meant by Mr. Hubbard. However, if you’ve set your mind on the other interpretation I hardly think my suggestion will have much weight with you.

      As to the ‘party line’ and me, well, that’s covered by a colourful Nova Scotia expression, ‘me arse’ as in…I’ll leave the rest out as it won’t get across in this medium.

      Come on now, we’re in a dialogue and that’s something considering it hasn’t happened much before. You, Scientologists, actually communicating and not trying to mangle each other.

      • I always welcome a dialogue. I generally have tried to remain civil in all my exchanges.

        We may not agree on everything but we agree that Miscavige is doing a lot of bad things and should be busted.

        But help me out. Here’s the full cancellation order:

        HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
        Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

        HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968

        CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME

        The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.

        FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

        This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.

        L. RON HUBBARD Founder

        LRH:ci:cden
        Copyright (c) 1968
        by L. Ron Hubbard
        ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

        I hardly believe you can say that my comment was spin. I said what Hubbard wrote. Nothing more or less.

        What else are you relying on to say Fair Game handling of SP’s has been cancelled? If there is another document cancelling Fair Game why has that never been produced for 60 Minutes or any number of other journalists asking about the policy. It would be a simple thing to do and would quickly short circuit the decades of bad press. “Yes, we cancelled the term but here is the specific policy that cancelled the Fair Game handling of an SP.”

        And while I’m familiar with steps A-E being used to get you back in good graces and on lines once again, that can’t be considered the only tactic ever used to handle an SP.

        I ask these questions respectfully and they are not meant to attack.

    • Xenutv,
      Oh yeah, I specifically said, as a thoroughly trained and experienced Scientologist, fair game was a mistake. It’s there, and it’s here. It was a mistake, it WAS cancelled. Wrong handling, bad, didn’t work, won’t work, cancelled and not just the term.

      Did I say ‘it was cancelled’ and didn’t work?

    • Xenutv,
      OK, I missed clarifying something else. Sorry, there is a lot on this topic of ‘fair game’. That PL you’ve quoted is not just misinterpreted by those never been in Scientology or on staff. It is also misinterpreted by Scientologists and staff. In fact, much the same way as I said was ‘spin’.

      A-E is not just a a tactic. It is in fact part of a theory in Scientology that ethics is a tool that is used to the point of getting a technical result with Scientology counselling. And NO MORE THAN THAT. The ‘SP’ is a being, basically good like all beings. He’s in spiritual turmoil and lashes out mistakenly, overtly, covertly, at mistaken enemies. In order to get him to begin to deal with this, he is often declared publicly as a Suppressive Person. That’s supposed to aid both him and the group in recognizing there is something to deal with. If he follows the very tight discipline of the steps, it is only a start. The real root of the trouble he is in is dealt with in a session with a trained counsellor following a specific program.

      Punishment of this type of personality only beefs up the initial turmoil he’s in. THAT is what was recognized and cancelled. The actual handling of this type of case is by the steps of A-E as nothing else than a start to get him to address what is underneath his destruction which is done by spiritual counselling specifically addressing those factors that led him to that state.

      Now, it’s impossible to cover the entire subject of the all the factors leading to that state in this short chat. Those factors and their handling weren’t cancelled. They are the steps, and the counselling. They aren’t ‘fair game’ as that doesn’t work.

      Unfortunately, the misinterpretation isn’t just by non-Scientologists that it was some sort of ‘inside’ joke that only the term was cancelled. That is amply evident and something that lots of us Scientologists are really sick and tired of. It ain’t right. It’s downright suppressive.

      I hope that helps in getting this straighter. Let me know, as I’m happy you are, and I’ll stay in communication until at least you and I are straight on it.

      • I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree, Jim. To those of us in the wog world, the Fair Game order and the cancellation order are simple and easy to read and require little interpretation.

        The first one clearly says you can do nasty shit to enemies of Scientology. The second one says you can continue to do nasty shit to enemies of Scientology but don’t put the words Fair Game into writing because it causes bad PR.

        That’s it. Simple. No one needs auditing to read and understand that. You don’t need to reach the state of clear. You don’t need OT powers.

        1. An SP is an enemy – destroy him.

        2. Don’t say Fair Game because it makes us look bad. Now destroy those enemies.

        I don’t have a mastery of the tech and never pretend I do. I don’t care if people want to audit one another and support your right to do so. I will grant your interpetation of A-E though many would argue that it is yet another example of how the organization wants to bend you to accept their will. “These are our rules. If you don’t follow them there is something wrong with you. Do what we say and you can have your eternity back.”

        Be that as it may, Scientologists should be willing to confront the Fair Game policy and cancellation and accept that saying the policy was cancelled does not gibe with the decades of nasty shit done to perceived enemies since the purported cancellation.

        It’s dishonest. It’s like Sarah Palin saying Obama wants death panels. It’s not true even — if Sarah Palin believes it.

        Even if you believe Scientology does not try to lie, sue, trick or destroy people they perceive to be the enemy, they still do it.

        Cancellation or no cancellation.

      • Hi Guys,

        Now about “Fair Game” as you can see Mark. The Pl says exactly what it says because “Fair Game” was a label attached to anyone who was declared suppressive back then.

        A label which meant according to HCOPL 23 December 1965 ‘Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists and the Fair Game Law ‘

        “By Fair Game is meant , may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist.”

        That’s what Ron says about Fair Game in that policy letter.

        He goes on further to say in HCOPL 17 March 1965 Issue II ‘Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source of the Fair Game Law’

        Pg1 paragraph 4

        “Hence we have the Fair Game law.

        “If a person rejects the group, he rejects everything about the group and no further question about that. Certainly there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping the group. Why should the group then seek to expand its protection over him unless it wants to defy its first right: that of survival.”

        So that’s basically what was considered “Fair Game”.

        For an analogy in the world of intelligence( which is something I’ve done quite a lot of research on )it would be something like a “Burn Notice” which according to the ‘Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.’ Is “(a)n official statement by one intelligence agency to other agencies, domestic or foreign, that an individual or group is unreliable for any of a variety of reasons.”

        Anyway sorry to interrupt.

      • But Jim, do you agree with what Hubbard writers here: “If a person rejects the group, he rejects everything about the group and no further question about that. Certainly there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping the group. ”

        To any number of you who have been declared SP, do you reject everything about Scientology? I dare say no. Do I? No.

        You may say that you were improperly declared but a hell of a lot of people surrounding Scientology, even when Hubbard was around, were declared SP. Did Hubbard always get it right? I’ve got to believe he did not, yet he writes with 100% certainty.

        It still doesn’t change the fact that nasty attacks happened to enemies of Scientology and continued to happen even after Fair Game was cancelled. So what policy was it that Hubbard used that DM has carried on and made worse?

        You might as well just call it the Fair Game policy which says may lie, sue, trick or destroy by any means without any repercussion to the Scientologist.

        It’s a good short hand way of describing the actual practice that took place and takes place.

        You know, Fair Game.

        In some ways I think we are going back and forth because I said the basement door and you call it the cellar door. It’s still the door we both mean.

        Don’t do nasty shit that could be classified as lying, suing, tricking or destroying an individual. You know, all the things listed in the Fair Game policy.

        I know it sucks. It would probably be like Catholics finding a policy letter from the Pope in 1965 called Molestation Policy stating priests can molest, diddle, fondle, penetrate and photograph little boys. Then in 1966 the Pope wrote Molestation Cancellation which said “we will no longer write down or speak about the boys we molested but keep doing whatever you want to the kids, we’ll just move you to another parish if you’re caught.”

        It would be very hard to fight back against those written policies even if there were other policies that said “Don’t touch the little boys.”

        It wouldn’t look good, especially if the evidence show the little boys continued to be molested.

        So what you have is a nasty policy and nasty actions. Accept reality, apologize and change.

        That’s the simple action to take.

    • Xenutv,
      I never much cared for that agree to disagree thing.

      Let me put this another way. Yes, originally it meant do nasty things to SPs. That is abundantly clear. NO, it doesn’t mean continue to do nasty things to SPs and just cancel the label of ‘fair game’.

      That nasty things are done to those declared SP is abundantly clear. It is wrong. It IS NOT LRH POLICY.

      The rest of the cracks aren’t part of this thread. You should chill on those if you are sincere in your disdain of ‘fair game’. It sort of sounds like ‘fair game’ to me. It’s not right on any flow.

      (reposted as I misplaced it out of sequence in the thread. JL)

      • Ok now that I’ve quoted Ron in my last post.

        I will post a quote by Rodney King:

        “Can we all just get along.”

        The reason I posted those quotes Mark was to show that “Fair Game” was a label given to SPs at one time and like anything else it was abused.

        Jimbo, I love ya man but from what I see Mark has his reality on the scene and you’ve got yours.

        Please respect that and move on. I mean I hate to be didactic and some will say pedantic but there is this thing called “granting beingness”.

        Yeah you remember, Ol’buddie 🙂

        I’m no paragon by any stretch but we can all try.

    • For the purposes of others reading this interchange, I must refer you to what I’ve written on whether or not ‘fair game’ is fair or foul. It’s foul. It’s not fair. It is a game.

      I don’t practice it, I don’t agree with it and I’m a Scientologist.

      Read what I wrote again if needed as I’m pretty much 100% certain I’ve been saying just that.

      I gave it a shot x, but if you won’t le’go the idea ensconced that I’m a robot just saying I don’t practice fair game then I’ll just have to let you hold to your hairy bosom, just below your grey beard, that thought.

      One thing we do agree on, as you said, DM’s gotta go. When he does, I’m not going to ‘fair game’ him.

  14. Good points Xenu TV.

    I can’t answer for Marty either but as an experienced and dedicated Scientologist (third of a century with more than 25 years spent on staff), one who is neither a member of Anonymous nor a current member of the Church of Scientology, I will give you my answers to the questions raised by you and others on this blog.

    Unequivocally, the Church of Scientology practices of fair game, disconnection and RPF assignments should be abolished for all time. Even if you thought these policies had some merit (and I’m not saying I do) they have been used to abuse people beyond belief and in certain cases justified the commission of illegal acts. They are just plain wrong and I think the Church would experience no down side to getting rid of them. In fact, it might usher in a new era for Scientology.

    The laws on freeloader bills should also be revised, among other things.

    And to go some way to eradicating any other form of abuse within the Church and upon its detractors I think basic human rights must be written into the laws of Scientology as the senior rules. Again, I see no down side for Scientology on this, only an up side.

    And I freely admit that all forms of abuse did take place prior to the ascendency of David Miscavige. But while abuses did not start with him, in the past 29 years he has taken them to a whole new level in terms of both intensity and frequency and continues to do so.

    But Miscavige makes ideas on how the Church should be reformed purely academic because he will allow no dialogue, no changes or anything that would threaten him. He will continue to use these very abuses to hold firmly to his power base.

  15. And getting rid of those abuses will go a long way to stopping people protesting Scientology.

    David Miscavige would appear to be a deeply damaged man who has caused enough harm to people under his thumb.

    A regime change coupled with real change would be the best thing from Scientologists in and outside the group.

    As for writing basic human rights into the laws of Scientology, it has to be more than just words. There are a lot of noble words written by Hubbard but he failed to live up to them himself.

    “That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance;”

    Tell that to the Freezone.

    “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others;”

    Unless you speak freely against Scientology abuses…

    Need I go on?

  16. No Xenu TV, you took the words right out of my mouth. But since Hubbard has written those words its up to some of us to enforce them. As he has written them there can hardly be a valid argument against their enforcement.

    It’s all in the doing and is more easily said than done that’s for sure. But I see no more worthy a task (as far as I’m concerned).

  17. Mr. Bunker,

    Some of things you have said have been very insightful and do agree that many of the practices of the Church need to be reformed once the pretentious, pretender is removed from his self created throne and I think people like you should be consulted on what these reforms should be.

    For one, seeing what happened to Marty. I say that the policy “Security Checks Abolished” which was instituted in an earlier reform should be resurrected and reinstated.

    Enforced or coerced disconnections should cease immediately. Members of the staff or public who chose voluntarily that is of their own volition to disconnect from a family member or spouse should be dissuaded from doing so and instead should come to some kind of compromise with their family (my view of religion in general is that it should bring families closer together not tear them apart!). This is the way we used to handle people back in the ’70’s before the issue of the HCOB “PTS and Disconnection”.

    Prices should be lowered so that the average low income individual can afford them. I’ve always thought $6000.00 for an intensive of auditing and $32000.00 for the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course was an absurd travesty!

    I agree with TP the RPF should be canceled. At one time it served a purpose but the action as we have seen has been criminally abused!

    Finally, I think all SO staff should be paid a decent living wage this allowance was supposed to be a temporary solution not as a permanent solution or in Miscavige’s hands a final solution.

    Any way as a Scientologist those are some of my ideas for reform. I’m sure you have a few ideas of your own Mark.

    Best

    R

  18. I think as a general rule, I’d say don’t lie and don’t abuse people. There’s two simple commandments for Scientology that don’t need to be carved in stone or carried down a mountain.

    I’ll let others worry about all the specifics.

  19. Thanks Mark.

    Two very good rules to live by 🙂

  20. “The rest of the cracks aren’t part of this thread. You should chill on those if you are sincere in your disdain of ‘fair game’. It sort of sounds like ‘fair game’ to me. It’s not right on any flow.”

    Okay, Jim. I’ll move on. I wasn’t attempting to do anything other than discuss. But my contributions are being seen as some sort of attack so I will retire from the thread.

    Good night and all my best,

    Mark

    • But, but, did you read my last one?

      Seriously, I think we’ve accomplished something. We talked, it’s a start and who knows how much we can actually accomplish as fellow beings on this planet to make it better for all.

      Good night to you too. Jim

  21. Jim, I know I said good night but I wanted to make sure you know i wasn’t saying YOU practice Fair game. That wasn’t my point at all.

    I understand you condemn the nasty stuff. I think most human beings would.

    My whole argument was that for Scientology to say the policy is cancelled is a way for them to say “we don’t do the nasty stuff anymore,” which I think is an acceptable truth at best.

    No slams were meant at you or anyone on the thread.

    Good night again.

    • At the risk of re-opening what might be a closed wound, a couple comments on Fair Game. First, what the former SO guys are saying is true – Fair Game has simply not been referred to for almost thirty years in the Church. I never even heard of it until four years into the SO when I went on the All Clear project and first saw it attached to a pleading filed against the Church. However, during the GO purge and OSA establishment, some GO folks believed and expressed that they were justified in committing felonies under the auspices of Fair Game – all were dismissed. On the other hand, I believe one that was missed was DM himself. He never used the term to justify his conduct, but he acts externally and internally like that mentality is a-ok – may be deprived of property; may be cheated, lied to or destroyed. Quite frankly, I think Fair Game is far too mild a policy to explain his conduct. On the other side of the coin, WBM makes a good point by citing this language justifying the original Fair Game: “If a person rejects the group, he rejects everything about the group and no further question about that. Certainly there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping the group. ” Certainly, and you guys fully supporting Scientology and LRH have to agree objectively and subjectively, this is just not so. You are the living proof of it. When anyone – LRH or anybody else – starts talking in absolutes, he/she violates the very foundational premises that what works in Scientology is predicated upon – infinity logic, the Factors, the Axioms. Fundamental to everything is that “absolutes are unattainable.” So, I think you all are right.

      • Marty,

        You speak sooth here.

        I agree with you. I’ve always thought declaring someone “Fair Game” was way to harsh and opened the door to many abuses. Just as disconnection has.

        We both know that the Ol’man wasn’t perfect.

        Anyway the fact is that many of these harsher policies were canceled by the “Reform Codes” of ’68-69′. However as you mentioned there were certain factions in the GO who still continued these policies.

        In fact as anyone knows who was there the GO after Jane Kember took over became lawless!

        A tradition that has been continued by OSA. The fact is that if you took all the worst aspects of the GO and reconstituted them, you’d have OSA!

        The biggest mistake was not to do a postmortem of the events that precipitated the raid in ’77. What we Scientologists call a full danger handling and establish firm policies to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future.

        Instead Miscavige has perpetuated these failed policies but instead of going after Government agencies (who are now his friends) he uses these brutal tactics on individuals. Thus you have the exhumation of the stinking corpse of “Fair Game”.

    • Hey X,
      I went to bed myself so I’m sorry for the lag in getting back to you. There is one thing I think you and I might be bumping up against on this one. The paragraph where it said: “ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” was from an Oct 67 policy. That policy and that handling for that condition was cancelled in 68, and again, with a peremptory statement by Mr. Hubbard in 76: “There was never any attempt or intent on my part by the writing of these policies (or any others for that fact), to authorise illegal or harassment type acts against anyone. As soon as it became apparent to me that the concept of ‘Fair Game’ as described above was being misinterpreted by the uninformed, to mean the granting of a license to Scientologists for acts in violation of the law and/or other standards of decency, these policies were cancelled.”

      So what I’m saying is that even though it appears only the use of the term was cancelled, the actual practices originally stated were cancelled. They were wrong and they were cancelled too, not just the term or the label. One may not care for the manner in which they were cancelled and that’s fair enough, however, it is unequivocal, they are cancelled as policy for the church.

      Today, a person declared an SP is supposed to be handled strictly with the steps of A-E and the counselling steps I mentioned.

      Now, that’s what the policy is. We both know that there have been abuses of people declared SP and those we both agree are not OK. They must cease.

      So, that’s what I mean when I say it is cancelled.

      I think with the additional comments on this line, from RJ, yourself, Marty and others, we’ve covered some ground. That’s pretty darn good as far as I can see.

      Sincerely,
      Jim

    • Excellent post x. That’s a perfect statement of where we both stand, and we don’t have to agree to disagree. We agree. Good on ya.

      Jim

      • The above excellent post is the one you gave just before you went to bed for real. That’s the sequence of comments.

  22. ” The fact is the handling of an SP is through a series of steps, A-E, and that is only to get him to stop being destructive long enough to handle the spiritual turmoil that is at the root of his destructive acts.”

    Soderqvist1: The above seems sound to me!
    But that some Big Brother above my head has decided that some person is an SP, and I am forbidden to talk with him, is a clear violation of my rights to “Freedom of Speech”. He may be an SP, or wrongly declared, or just vilified in order to cover up something, but Big Brother has decided that, it is best for me to not find out the truth!

    • Good observation. I’ll tell you what really makes it Big Brother. Since around 1990 there is NO chance for justice dispensed by a panel of one’s peers. The policies on SP declares affords anyone declared the opportunity to have a committee of evidence review it. No chance for an impartial one to be convened. Miscavige has taken it a step further. He won’t even issue a declare so that someone can either a) ask for a comm ev, or b) take it to outside channels to protest (like the internet). For example, where in the hell is my declare?

      • Marion Hernano

        You spoke of your wife in this posting. Did you marry again, Marty? Congratulations.

        I’ll see the Justice of Peace in October too. My second marriage, wish me luck! 🙂

  23. I am Anonymous.

    I commend you guys for this discussion. We seem to be in agreement on the thing that matters most: the abuses must stop.

    Whether we label the treatment of “SP’s” by the CoS as “fair game”, or something else, we all recognise that there have been practices in place for decades whereby disagreement was met with intimidation, defamation, economic duress, physical duress, property damage, lies, and much more. The practices pre-date Miscavige and post-date the “Fair Game” Cancellation Policy. So, let’s call it by another name. Let’s call these practices “SP Attacks”, for instance. Then we seem to agree that SP Attacks have been occurring for decades, that they are wrong, that they must stop and that other abusive practices by the CoS toward its staff and public members must change.

    Amen, brothers.

    (*If I didn’t state your position accurately, forgive me. But let’s recognise, and celebrate, our common ground.)

    • Amen Heather, and again, we’ve all certainly accomplished something in this thread. I’m celebrating it.

      Jim

  24. Just out of interest, I wonder if you guys were aware that in 1989 the CoS argued that fair game was a “religious practice” and constitutionally protected.

    Wollersheim didn’t join Scientology until ’69, AFTER the Fair Game Cancellation Policy.

    The CoS argued at trial that the policy had been cancelled, then on appeal that it was a “religious practice” and its implementation in respect of Wollersheim in the 1970’s was therefore protected.

    Can you understand that this, together with the pattern of the attacks on SP’s, and the wording of the cancellation policy – all gave the critics good cause to doubt that the policy really had been cancelled?

    Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal. App. 3d 872 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1989) – http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=212+Cal.+App.+3d+872

    • Heather,
      Oh yes, I was aware of the travesty of claiming ‘fair game’ was sacrosant. Do you know who led that case? David Miscavige.

  25. Well man, you definitely are prevaricating there, or you missed the point. I heard that call, and you are clearly being asked if you plan to start “Scientology 2” .
    I can see why in your case specifically, your belief in Scientology would be an issue for people.

  26. It is beyond dispute that Fair game and disconnection is alive and well in DMs COS.
    [ I hope its beyond dispute ]

    I’ve long considered that COS has almost, or perhaps greater evils in regards of reversing,
    fundamental policy.

    First policy, ” Maintain friendly relations with the environment and ones public”,

    Service policy, loosely, break all rules is OK if it results in delivering service.

    Senior policy deliver what you promise.

    I’m sure many other examples of reversing policy may be found.

    Then their is the Creed!

  27. Listening to the phone call I didn’t hear many of the things you mention.

    The young man was not rude, he did not threaten to do anything to you except expose you if you try to hurt people.

    You say “He had no clue who Mahalia Jackson was” when in fact he said he had listened to her.

    You say:
    “I told him the only group I knew of that covertly threatened people for peacefully practicing a religion or philosophy – and who took great pains to not identify themselves – was the KKK. ” – But that is also not true, you did not say anything like that.

    You also say: “two emails from people identifying themselves as Anonymous affiliated my computer contracted spyware and crashed.”

    Those two things are things we have heard before about Anonymous. That they are “hackers, and equal to the K.K.K.” those are false claims made by the Church of Scientology.

    Further it appears to me that you still enjoy claiming to be a victim like the all the past and current spokesmen for Scientology.

    And to close your phone conversation you stated what is true for you, is this article you wrote still “true for you”? now that a recording of that conversation can be heard by anyone in multiple places on the internet ?

  28. Hi Jim,
    The KKK ref is in Marty’s opening post above.

    Caller from around 3 min 35 on the tape :-

    ” What scares me is that we’re going to have to fight you guys again”

    Marty:- ” What guys”

    Caller:- ” Scientology. The war has been declared on scientology”

    In polite society, and I guess in not so polite society, a declaration of war could be coinsidered a threat?

    I thought the caller was otherwise fairly polite,
    and it seemed a good dialogue.

  29. Pingback: Norway’s Only OT8 Leaves Scientology : XENU TV

  30. I am a critic of the abuses and crimes of CoS. I have also protested along side of Anonymous. The caller does not (no one does) represent Anonymous. I feel this was a prank call by a very annoying person – who pretends to have a personal army.

    I heard the recording of the call. The annoying voice, condescending manner, and outrageous claims of having control of Anonymous. What a twit.

    Anonymous generally feels one may engage in whatever religion they please; it is the abuses and crimes of CoS that are opposed.

    Whomever the caller was – and I am convinced is not an anonymous protester – should be wholly disregarded. I suppose chalk up one point for them because they probably just wanted to troll you and get recognition for doing so. Let’s forget the jerk who bothered you in the midst of doing your good work.

    On the upside, you have risen above the troll, and are clearly of sterling character, and doing excellent work. Thank you. I wish I could say on behalf of Anonymous, but no one has that ability.

    Keep up the good work!

    Mark Cabian

  31. Great post,interesting,thanks for sharing.

  32. Sounds more like a call from someone in Co$

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s