SP Doctrine on Trial: Opening Statement by Gerry Armstrong

, , Leave a comment


>>Gerry Armstrong: Earlier this month, I
proposed to Marty Mark Rathbun to debate him about statements he had made about me, which
I knew to be erroneous, in his recently published book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. Before we settled on specific statements that
concerned my personal history, it was decided to first address the transpersonal issue of
the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine, or SP doctrine, which affects and has damaged
so many people’s lives. Mr. Rathbun has since claimed that he no longer
calls himself a Scientologist, and I certainly should take that as a triumph. But he has
not repudiated the Suppressive Person doctrine, nor his assertions about Suppressive Persons
in his book. Nor, for that matter, his statements about me in Memoirs , or anywhere else. Mr. Rathbun says at page 105:>>Quoting Mark Rathbun: such an individual
was labeled a suppressive person – roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath. And he says at page 164:>>Quoting Mark Rathbun: A suppressive person,
in Scientology vernacular, is roughly equivalent to a sociopath — a conscienceless individual
who could put on a convincing front of wanting others to thrive, while harboring the secret
goal of destroying everyone in his or her vicinity. Hubbard had written and lectured
on the subject rather extensively in the sixties. Ironically, thirty years later the very mental
health profession that condemned Hubbard during his life would describe the sociopath or psychopath
in very much the same terms Hubbard had in the fifties and sixties. A comparison between
Hubbard’s writings and lectures, and current leading mental health texts on the subject
bears this out. My position, or proposition, is that a Suppressive
Person, or SP, is not roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath. Mr. Hubbard did describe the sociopath or
psychopath or antisocial personality in the 1960’s. His description is specious, self-serving,
and unhelpful to the rest of us. Nevertheless, if misdescription is still description, Mr.
Hubbard did describe this personality. There is no argument that Mr. Hubbard’s misdescription
of the antisocial personality has the odd term — such as “antisocial personality” itself
— or concept — such as “they’re destructive,” or “no sense of remorse or shame,” or “they
appear quite rational” — that are very much the same as terms or concepts in descriptions
of this personality in current leading mental health texts. It is clear that Mr. Hubbard
took terms and concepts from mental health texts that were current when he wrote about
the antisocial personality; so it is no wonder that there are similarities between those
terms and concepts and terms and concepts in leading mental health texts today. This does not mean, however, that Suppressive
Persons are equivalent to sociopaths, psychopaths or antisocial personalities, or roughly, or
remotely equivalent. There is no positive correlation between SPs and sociopaths, psychopaths
or antisocial personalities. SPs, as Mr. Hubbard actually defined and classed us are very likely
to be social personalities, even conscienceful personalities. Since Mr. Rathbun accepted Mr. Hubbard’s assertion
that SPs equate with antisocial personalities, he accepted Mr. Hubbard’s false data and black
propaganda. There is no doubt that Mr. Hubbard made that assertion many years before Mr.
Rathbun made it; not vice versa. Mr. Rathbun applied Mr. Hubbard’s judgments, directives
or other scriptures. Mr. Hubbard did not apply what Mr. Rathbun said or wrote. I consider it impossible that Mr. Rathbun
is unaware of this equation’s falsity, or unaware that he is black PRing the SP class.
It is reasonable to consider that he knows what he is doing. In any case, whether he
is aware of it or not, he is still spreading this patently false and destructive, hence
black, propaganda. I made a video on this issue last year in response to certain of
Mr. Rathbun’s statements in his previous book What Is Wrong With Scientology? In that book,
he also equated SPs with sociopaths, psychopaths and antisocial personalities, and supported
his equation with citations to mental health professionals’ writings on these personality
disorders. Because the SP class is created in Scientologists’
scripture, it is a religious class. Black PRing us as sociopaths, etc., is the foulest
religious bigotry. The Scientologists’ SP doctrine locks them forever into religious
bigotry. That is why they constantly accuse others of religious bigotry. Suppressive Persons
really do form a class by scripture, which is confirmed by the Scientologists’ decades
of words and actions against them. The Scientologists’ common conditions of religious
bigot can be relieved, and perhaps even fully erased, by acknowledging that SPs are not
the antisocial personalities, sociopaths, etc. that Mr. Hubbard said and Mr. Rathbun
and their scripture say. The assertion that SPs equate with antisocial
personalities is shown false by a simple, honest reading of Mr. Hubbard’s writings that
define and identify the SP class, and by observing SPs and comparing them, or us, with what is
honestly known about antisocial personalities, sociopaths and psychopaths. Mr. Rathbun is not alone in his position.
Other Scientologists, some Exscientologists, and even people beyond, have accepted, or
at least have spread, that false equation. Mike Rinder, like Mr. Rathbun, a long time
enforcer of the Suppressive Person doctrine for the Scientologists, stated on his blog
earlier this month: Suppressive Persons are denominated as those
individuals who display the majority of characteristics of the anti-social personality. This is false. It also contains a grammatical
oddity. To denominate something means to name it. So, retaining his sentence elements, what
Mr. Rinder meant was, and he should have written: Those individuals who display the majority
of characteristics of the anti-social personality are denominated “Suppressive Persons.” This is false, however, because individuals
denominated “Suppressive Persons” do not display the majority of the characteristics of antisocial
personalities, or even any of these characteristics. What Mr. Rinder is saying is black PR. Steve Hall, an “Independent” Scientology leader,
as Mr. Rathbun has been, wrote, for example, on his blog in 2012, in an article he called
“The Sociopath of Scientology,” referring to current cult head David Miscavige:>>Quoting Steve Hall: it is easy to see in
LRH’s [Mr. Hubbard’s] writings when he had encountered the sociopath or “suppressive
person” because he starts to describe the personality several times.
[…] the clearest picture of the sociopathic, antisocial
or suppressive personality.>>Gerry Armstrong: Mr. Hall also asserts
that mental health professionals have validated Mr. Hubbard’s work identifying the characteristics
of antisocial personalities. Martha Stout has greatly contributed to the
work that LRH began — she has identified the SP using criteria that are truly original.
Sociopaths (SPs) currently number 4% in the US as I mentioned which puts social personalities
at 96%. Martha Stout is a psychologist, and author
of the widely-read and often-cited book The Sociopath Next Door , and she has done no
such thing. She has not identified the SP or SPs, and she has provided no criteria for
identifying them. She identified the sociopath, and it could be said that she provided criteria
to do so. SPs are not, however, sociopaths, and the criteria for their respective identification
are unrelated. All criteria for identifying SPs are scientological
and scriptural, provided by Mr. Hubbard. They are unalterable, as is all Scientology scripture,
and may not be added to. In 2009 the Tampa Bay Times recorded Amy Scobee
saying: And the description of a suppressive person,
if anyone wants to look it up on the Internet or whatever, the perfect example is the description
of — the profile of a sociopath. Ms. Scobee might really have believed this
at the time, even as an Exscientologist, but it is false. The profile of a sociopath does
not describe a Suppressive Person. Mr. Hubbard described, even defined, the SP very exactly
in Scientology scripture. Lawrence Wright in his 2013 Scientology book
Going Clear says:>>Quoting Lawrence Wright: Anyone who stands
in the way of a thetan’s progress is a Suppressive Person (SP). This is a key concept in Scientology.
Hubbard used the term to describe a sociopath.>>Gerry Armstrong: Mr. Hubbard did not. It is true that, more or less, anyone who
stands in the way of a Scientologist’s progress in Scientology is a Suppressive Person or
SP. That’s roughly per definition. It is true that this is a key concept in Scientology. Mr. Hubbard did not, however, use the term
Suppressive Person to describe a sociopath. He used the term sociopath, or really psychopath
or antisocial personality, to describe a Suppressive Person. There is a difference. The key scriptural policy letter for understanding
the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine, and in which Mr. Hubbard defines SP quite
clearly is Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter of March 1, 1965 “Suppressive Acts,
Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists — the Fair Game Law.” In different contexts
this policy letter is dated March 7, 1965. He states:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by
Suppressive Acts. SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede
or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy
letter.>>Gerry Armstrong: In the same policy letter
he provides further definitions for “Suppressive Acts:”>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: Suppressive Acts
are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology
or Scientologists. Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert
or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of
Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part
of a Scientologist.>>Gerry Armstrong: The “Suppressive Acts”
Mr. Hubbard lists in that policy letter are virtually all Scientology-specific. For example,
public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists. Public disavowal is not a Suppressive Act
if it is disavowal of another religion, or another group, or a country, or a spouse,
or a child; as long as the spouse or child is not a Scientologist in-good-standing. For example, reporting Scientology or Scientologists
to civil authorities. Reporting any other organization or any wog or Homo sapiens to
civil authorities is not a Suppressive Act. In fact, Scientology and Scientologists religiously
report other people to the authorities, and even report falsely about them to have them
wrongly charged. For example, failure to handle or disavow
and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts. It is not a Suppressive
Act to remain connected to an antisocial personality; as long as that antisocial personality doesn’t
do anything to reduce Scientology’s influence or activities. Mr. Hubbard states in the same policy letter
that Scientology court procedures, called “Committees of Evidence,” are called to prove
or disprove that persons or groups are guilty of Suppressive Acts. If so, the policy states,
they are to be labeled Suppressive Persons or Groups, and are fair game. If a Committee
of Evidence fails to demonstrate guilt of Suppressive Acts, the persons or groups must
be absolved, and cease to be fair game. Mr. Hubbard introduced Committees of Evidence
into Scientology organizations in September 1963. He described them as “fact-finding bodies”
that were convened in “justice matters” to hear evidence, arrive at findings, and make
recommendations. Comm Evs were called by issuance of a “bill of particulars” that named the
chairman, secretary and members, the interested parties, and “the matter to be heard and a
summary of data to hand.” Mr. Hubbard wrote in his policy letter “Committees of Evidence,
Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration of” dated September 7, 1963:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: TYPES OF BILLS:
A Committee may hear any civil or criminal matter or dispute within the realm of Scientology
whether the parties are connected with an organization or not. Libel, estranging marital
partners, dismissals, debt, theft, mayhem, violations of Codes, deprivation of income
or any dispute or harmful improper action of any kind may be heard.>>Gerry Armstrong: Mr. Hubbard did not, however,
issue a list of Comm Evable offenses, except for these general examples, until 1965. In
his policy letter dated March 7, 1965, “Offenses and Penalties,” he wrote:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: These are the penalties
we have always more or less used, and these are the offenses which have been usually considered
offenses in Scientology. Formerly they were never written down or routinely
enforced […] Accordingly, this Code of Offenses and their
penalties becomes firm and expressed policy. Lack of specified offenses, penalties and
recourse brings everyone to uncertainty and risk at the whim of those in command. There are four general classes of crimes and
offenses in Scientology. These are Errors, Misdemeanors, Crimes and High Crimes.>>Gerry Armstrong: In the same policy letter,
Mr. Hubbard wrote about “Crimes:” “These cover offenses normally considered criminal.” He
then provided a lengthy list of “offenses which are treated in Scientology as crimes.”
He wrote about “High Crimes:”>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: These are covered
in HCO Policy Letters March 7, 1965, Issues I and II, and consist of publicly departing
Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts.>>Gerry Armstrong: After publication of his
Offenses and Penalties Code, and High Crimes Code, by March 7, 1965, charges on Committee
of Evidence Bills of Particulars came verbatim from these lists. The “correction” of a declaration or assignment
of the condition of Suppressive Person requires that a declared SP make a public announcement
that actions attempted to suppress or attack Scientology were ignorant and unfounded. “Correction”
does not require that a declared SP make a public announcement denouncing actions attempted
to suppress or attack groups other than Scientology, or people other than Scientologists. “Correction”
is Scientology-specific. Additionally, I have not found where the psychiatric
or psychological declaration or assignment of the condition of sociopath, psychopath
or antisocial personality can be “corrected” by the sociopath, psychopath or antisocial
personality making a public announcement that actions attempted to suppress or attack Scientology
were ignorant and unfounded. This would only be workable if the world’s sociopaths, psychopaths
or antisocial personalities only attacked Scientology, and Scientology was the only
concept or entity on which attempted suppression or attack was ignorant and unfounded. At the beginning of this policy letter, Mr.
Hubbard writes:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: Due to the extreme
urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our
progress. The chief stumbling block, huge above all
others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to
Suppressive Persons or Groups. A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a
person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or
group that is a suppressive person or group.>>Gerry Armstrong: Mr. Hubbard identified
the “extreme urgency” of the Scientologists’ “mission” in a policy letter he issued February
7, 1965, just three weeks before his “Suppressive Acts” policy letter. The extreme urgency was,
and remains for Scientologists, “Keeping Scientology Working (KSW).” Mr. Hubbard:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: We’re not playing
some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized future of this planet,
every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions
of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. This is a deadly serious activity. And if
we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. Remember, this is our first chance to do so
in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant
or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Do them and we’ll win.>>Gerry Armstrong: At least by 1970, when
he published it in a reissue of the “Keeping Scientology Working” policy letter, Mr. Hubbard
would make any violation of any of his famous ten points of KSW a Suppressive Act. “Not
having the correct technology,” “Not knowing the tech,” “Not knowing it’s correct,” “Not
hammering out of existence incorrect tech,” etc. The list of Scientology’s Suppressive
Acts would expand over time, and the additions were more Scientology-specific acts, or High
Crimes. The terms “High Crimes” and “Suppressive Acts”
were used interchangeably by Mr. Hubbard in Scientology scripture and by Scientologists
in Scientology. A long list of Suppressive Acts is included
in Scientology’s book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and the same definitions are given
for “SP,” “Suppressive Acts” and “PTS” as in the 1965 policy letter. The Ethics book
I’m reading from is © 1998.>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: Due to the extreme
urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our
progress. The chief stumbling block, huge above all
others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to
suppressive persons or groups. (In the Ethics book, the Scientologists minusculized the
“s” and the “p” of Suppressive Persons and the “g” of Groups.) A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a
person who while active in Scientology or a preclear yet remains connected to a person
or group that is a suppressive person or group. A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that
actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts. (The
Scientologists minusculized the “s” and “a” of Suppressive Acts.) SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede
or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed here at length. (The
original says, “which are listed at length in this policy letter.”)>>Gerry Armstrong: On August 7, 1965 Mr.
Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics of.”
“Suppressive” as a noun, or “Suppressive Person” appears 5 times in this policy letter. “SP,”
or “SPs,” referring to Suppressive Persons, appear 41 times. There is no mention of antisocial
personalities, psychopaths or sociopaths. The 16 “characteristics” of SPs that Mr. Hubbard
lists in this policy letter are virtually all Scientology-specific. The “characteristics”
concerned, for example, Scientology policy, dissemination of Scientology, orgs, Scientology
staff, auditing, the “Examiner” post, and “restimulation,” which has a particular meaning
in Scientology. On September 27,1966, a year and a half after
issuing the “Suppressive Acts” policy letter, Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled
“The Antisocial Personality — The Anti-Scientologist.” He also issued this policy letter as a “technical
bulletin.” The title is the only place in this approximately 3,000 word document where
the word “Scientologist” appears. The word “Scientology” does not appear. The term “antisocial”
appears 59 times. Of those, “antisocial personality” or “antisocial personalities” appear 43 times.
“Characteristic” or “characteristics” appear 12 times. Mr. Hubbard also uses “attributes,”
referring to “characteristics,” which is the term known throughout Scientology. In this policy letter, Mr. Hubbard lists what
he claims are the 12 characteristics of the antisocial personality, and the converse 12
characteristics of the “social personality.” Scientologists learn very early in their indoctrination
about these “12 characteristics” of the antisocial personality, and these describe what SPs are. He wrote:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: Thus it is the
twelve given characteristics alone which identify the anti-social personality. And these same
twelve reversed are the sole criteria of the social personality if one wishes to be truthful
about them.>>Gerry Armstrong: This policy letter is
what is being used to show that Mr. Hubbard described the antisocial personality. The
fact of his description is being used to equate antisocial personalities with anti-scientologists,
or “Suppressive Persons.” This equation is being validated or proven,
Mr. Rathbun and others say, because mental health scientists’ descriptions of the antisocial
personality in the 21st century are in some ways or words similar to Mr. Hubbard’s 1966
description. In a rewrite of the SP doctrine’s history,
Steve Hall has altered the sequence in which Mr. Hubbard first published his Suppressive
Acts or High Crimes list and his 12 characteristics of his antisocial personality. For example, did you know that at one point
LRH wrote in an HCOPL anyone who blows from course should be declared an SP? In other
words, there are the 12 characteristics of an antisocial personality plus 12 characteristics
of a social personality which together was at one time, “The Test.” Then later, there
came a list of high crimes which apparently if you violated them, rendered the test irrelevant. The High Crimes list was March 1965. “The
Antisocial Personality, the Anti-Scientologist” with its 12 characteristics was September
1966. These “characteristics” were never the test, or a test, for identifying or declaring
someone a Suppressive Person. SPs were identified by their commission of Suppressive Acts; that
is, acts that might reduce Scientology’s influence or activities or the success of some Scientologist,
such as L. Ron Hubbard. When SPs were identified, then the characteristics of antisocial personalities
were ascribed to them, or smeared on them. On 17 March 1965, Mr. Hubbard issued a policy
letter entitled “Fair Game Law — Organizational Suppressive Acts — The Source of the Fair
Game Law,” which specifically added “blowing,” as Mr. Hall put it, to the March 1, 1965 policy
letter “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists — The Fair Game Law.” Students or pcs who resign or leave courses
or sessions and refuse to return despite normal efforts, become suppressive of that course
or organization and cease to have the rights of its protection or assistance. So the correct sequence, using Mr. Hall’s
terminology and process:>>Speaking for Steve Hall: at one point LRH
wrote an HCOPL that contained a list of high crimes, which if you violated them got you
declared SP. Later, the same month, he wrote in an HCOPL: anyone who blows from course
should be declared an SP! 18 months later there are his 12 characteristics of an antisocial
personality plus 12 characteristics of a social personality which together LRH presented as
“The Test.”>>Gerry Armstrong: Mr. Hubbard had to have
been lying about his 12 characteristics being the test, or any test, in Scientology, for
identifying and declaring SPs. His test, as he states it in his “Antisocial Personality
— Anti-Scientologist” policy letter is actually infantile and antisocial. But it was never
used; and he ran all of Scientology. What was used for identifying and declaring SPs
was the commission of SP Acts that might reduce his or his organization’s influence or successes. Mr. Hubbard also used the term “psychopath”
to label and black PR Suppressive Persons. For example in his policy letter “Ethics,
the Design of,” dated December 7, 1969 , he writes:>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: There are people
who suppress. They are few. They often rise up to being in charge and then all things
decay. They are essentially psychopathic personalities. Such want position in order to kill. Such
as Ghenghiz Khan, Hitler, psychiatrists, psychopathic criminals, want power only to destroy. Covertly
or overtly they pay only with death. They arrived where they arrived, in charge of things,
because nobody when they were on their way up said “No”. They are monuments to the cowards,
the reasonable people who didn’t put period to them while they were still only small bullies
and still vulnerable. Ethics has to get there before tech can occur.
So when it doesn’t exist or goes out then tech doesn’t occur and suppression sets in
and death follows.>>Gerry Armstrong: According to an article
entitled “Psychopathic Personality” by the late David T. Lykken, a behavioral geneticist
and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psychiatry, which was published in the 2006 book Handbook
of Psychopathy, the term “psychopathic personality” was first introduced into mental science in
the late 1880’s. Mr. Hubbard has claimed that during that period, he was Cecil Rhodes, busy
politicking in South Africa and creating a global diamond monopoly. There is a mass of published material showing
that mental health scientists have known about and described the psychopathic personality,
the sociopathic personality, the antisocial personality, the aberrative personality, the
merchant of chaos, the merchant of fear, decades before Mr. Hubbard described such people in
Scientology scripture. For purposes of this debate, however, there is no need to go into
this, and it can be done later. For psychobiographical purposes, it is fascinating
that Mr. Hubbard has claimed, or admitted, that in the 1930’s he had spent some time
in St. Elizabeths Hospital, the Washington, DC psychiatric hospital, and had been personally
assigned or connected to neurologist, psychiatrist and then hospital head William Alanson White.
The American Psychopathological Association was founded in 1910, and Dr. White was its
President in 1922. Suppressive Persons exist as Mr. Hubbard defined
us in scripture. We have committed acts he identified as Suppressive Acts, and we’re
unrepentant. We have not made public announcements that our actions attempted to suppress or
attack Scientology were ignorant and unfounded. We are not, however, antisocial personalities,
sociopaths, etc. Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists also label
us — the Suppressive Person class — as “psychotic,” “the true psychotic,” “psychos,” “insane,”
and “the truly insane.” SPs, in the vast majority, are also not those people or in those conditions.
All of these invectives are part of the Scientologists’ organized fair game campaign against SPs.
Mr. Rathbun, writing on behalf of Scientologists everywhere, famously professed that they all
truly believed me to be “psychotic,” in his submissions to the IRS on which Scientology’s
1993 US tax exemption is based :>>Quoting Scientology’s 1993 IRS submission:
Our consistent view has been that the civil litigants are solely motivated by greed. The
exception is Armstrong who we truly believe to be psychotic.>>Gerry Armstrong: “Psychotic,” “insane,”
etc., however, are not labels that Mr. Rathbun used for the SP class in his Memoirs book.
He calls us roughly equivalent to sociopaths or psychopaths. A very useful, and poignant, comparison can
be made between the Scientologists’ SP doctrine and the German Nazis’ Jewish doctrine. There
is a striking parallel between the Scientologists’ organized black PRing of Suppressive Persons
as antisocial personalities, etc., and the Nazis’ organized black PRing of Jews as vermin. Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists also dehumanize
SPs as vermin, even in their scripture, calling us “parasites,” “rats,” “squirrels,” “lice.”
Mr. Hubbard ordered such dehumanization as policy and practice, for example in his February
16, 1969 policy letter he titled “Battle Tactics :”>>Quoting L. Ron Hubbard: The only safe public
opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this
means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war
crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That’s
the enemy. What they love. That’s you. You preserve the image or increase it of your
own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.>>Gerry Armstrong: The “troops” are the Scientologists,
and the “enemy” is the Suppressive Person class, the people who, according to Scientology
scripture, commit Suppressive Acts, and might reduce Scientology’s influence or activities
or reduce some Scientologist’s success. Although Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists black PR SPs
as vermin, Mr. Rathbun did not do so in his book. He doesn’t mention vermin. He black
PRed us as sociopaths or psychopaths, and that is the issue here. Hitler and his henchmen and supporters described
Jews as vermin, labeled Jews as vermin, used their media machinery to black PR Jews as
vermin, and treated Jews as vermin. Vermin are pests or nuisances. They are harmful
to health, threaten human society, and are difficult to control or exterminate. They
are generally thought of as repulsive; and infestations of vermin are considered even
more frightful and repulsive. Vermin consume resources. They are parasitic.
They breed and spread unless they are hunted down or otherwise restrained. Virtually all
society agrees that they may, and must, be disposed of quietly and without sorrow. Left uncontrolled, vermin lead to vermination,
which is problematic to the human occupants of a region. Since Hitler, et al. wrote, lectured and acted
on their Jewish doctrine, many scientists have added considerable scientific knowledge
confirming the existence of vermin, and their characteristics, treatment and handling, etc.
These scientists include biologists, the scientists who study living things, zoologists who study
animals, entomologists who study insects, and rodentologists who study rodents. All
recognize vermin as a real and serious issue and problem. But there has been no knowledge added, no
papers published, in all that time, demonstrating, or even arguing, that Jewishness equated with
verminishness. There are Jews. There are vermin. They are
not the same. They are not roughly equivalent. There are SPs. There are sociopaths, psychopaths,
antisocial personalities. They are not the same as, or roughly equivalent to, SPs. The people who commit what Scientologists
identify as Suppressive Acts are not who or what mental health scientists identify as
antisocial personalities. Equating us — people who might reduce Scientology’s
influence by leaving it, or telling the truth about it to the media, courts and public — with
the world’s antisocial personalities is willful black propaganda, and the people promulgating
or forwarding this black PR are acting antisocially. To demonstrate how illogical, and unconscionable,
the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person Syllogism is — SPs exist, antisocial personalities
exist, therefore SPs equal antisocial personalities — I will rewrite some of the statements quoted
above using the earlier similar Jews equal vermin conclusion. Mr. Rinder:>>Speaking for Mr. Rinder: Jews are denominated
as those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of vermin.>>Gerry Armstrong: Or more grammatically
correct, but no less scientifically false:>>Speaking for Mr. Rinder: Those individuals
who display the majority of characteristics of vermin are denominated Jews.>>Gerry Armstrong: Ms. Scobee:>>Speaking for Amy Scobee: And the description
of a Jew, if anyone wants to look it up on the Internet or whatever, the perfect example
is the description of — the profile of vermin.>>Gerry Armstrong: Lawrence Wright:>>Speaking for Lawrence Wright: Anyone who
stands in the way of a Nazi’s progress is a Jew. This is a key concept in Nazism. Hitler
used the term to describe vermin.>>Gerry Armstrong: Mr. Hubbard himself:>>Speaking for L. Ron Hubbard: HITLER COMMUNICATIONS
OFFICE Bundeskanzleramt, Berlin, Deutschland HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1933 Remimeo VERMIN THE JEW There are certain characteristics and attitudes
which cause a percentage of creatures to harm health and threaten human society. Such animals are known to have verminous tendencies. When the legal or political structure of a
country lacks the resources or will to control such vermin, then all the civilizing organizations
of the country become suppressed, and plagues and economic duress ensues. Disease and poverty are perpetuated by vermin.
Sick people commonly trace their state back to contact with such animals. Thus, in the fields of government, health
and pest control, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate
this animal type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences
attendant upon letting such have free rein to injure humans. As they only comprise 20% of animals and as
only 2½% of these vermin are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort
we could considerably better the state of society.>>Gerry Armstrong: And Mr. Rathbun in his
Memoirs book:>>Speaking for Mr. Rathbun: A Jew, in Nazi
vernacular, is roughly equivalent to vermin — pests or nuisances who are harmful to health,
threaten human society, and are difficult to control or exterminate. Hitler wrote on
the subject rather extensively in the thirties. Ironically, seventy years later the very scientists
who condemned Hitler during his life would describe vermin in very much the same terms
Hitler had in the twenties and thirties. A comparison between Hitler’s writings and lectures,
and current leading scientific texts on the subject bears this out.>>Gerry Armstrong: The Nazis in their Nuremberg
Laws defined Jews quite specifically, and, the Nazis said, quite scientifically. If people
had close connections to specific other people, and did the wrong thing, that is, descended
from them, then they were Jews. Once people were identified as Jews, then they were to
be equated with vermin, and other evils of course, and handled or treated accordingly. The Scientologists in their Justice Codes
define Suppressive Persons very specifically, and, the Scientologists would definitely say,
very scientifically. SPs do a wrong thing. The wrong things that can be done are very
specific, known as Suppressive Acts or High Crimes. A connection to members of the SP
class, even close family connections, is one of those many High Crimes. Once people were
identified by their High Crimes as Suppressive Persons, then they were to be equated with
sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personalities, etc. and handled or treated accordingly — by
segregation and fair game. The Scientologists have a right to invent
religious classes by their scripture. Here it is the class of people who commit Suppressive
Acts as they are identified in their scripture. The Scientologists do not have a right to
incite hatred against us, a religious class they created, by black PRing us as sociopaths,
psychopaths, antisocial personalities, psychotics, psychos, vermin, etc. The Scientologists do
not have a right to defame us in the face of all reason and facts. On the other hand, we, the good people the
Scientologists and their supporters black PR as sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial
personalities, etc. have a right to do whatever we can to get the Scientologists to end their
antisocial campaign against us. We have that right just as surely as the Jews had a right
to do what they could to get the Nazis to end their antisocial campaign. The SP doctrine not only makes Scientology
a hate group, but a criminal conspiracy against rights. The Scientologists would be wise to
reject the doctrine, rather than keep black PRing and fair gaming us to keep the doctrine
working, and keep their hate group working. Wikipedia says about the “psychopathology
of hate groups:”>>Quoting Wikipedia: According to a 2003
FBI Law Enforcement bulletin, a hate group, if unimpeded, passes through seven successive
stages. [ ] In the first four stages, hate groups
vocalize their beliefs and in the last three stages, they act on their beliefs. The report
points to a transition period that exists between verbal violence and acting that violence
out, separating hardcore haters from rhetorical haters. Thus, hate speech is seen as a prerequisite
of hate crimes, and as a condition of their possibility.>>Gerry Armstrong: The Scientologists’ black
PRing of the Suppressive Person class is hate speech. Fair gaming us is a hate crime. For debate purposes, just as it is appropriate
to acknowledge that Scientologists and some other people support Mr. Rathbun’s proposition,
it is appropriate to acknowledge too that there is real support for my proposition. Paulette Cooper, in her 1971 classic The Scandal
of Scientology, which was published just six years after Mr. Hubbard issued “Suppressive
Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists — the Fair Game Law,” wrote:>>Quoting Paulette Cooper: if a Scientologist
did decide to say something against Scientology, perhaps to publicly disavow it or report or
threaten to report it to civil authorities, he was immediately declared a “suppressive
person” and sometimes an “enemy of Scientology.”>>Gerry Armstrong: Ms. Cooper devotes a whole
chapter to “The Suppressives.” Her understanding of the SP doctrine and its significance in
Scientology at that time — the same year I joined the Sea Org — is extraordinary.
It is no wonder Mr. Hubbard and his Scientology troops fair gamed her so religiously. In his 1976 book The Road to Total Freedom
, sociologist Roy Wallis wrote:>>Quoting Roy Wallis: ‘A Suppressive Person
or Group is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by
Suppressive Acts. Suppressive Acts are calculated to impede or destroy Scientology…'[ ] Apart
from the other penalties which included ‘May be restrained or imprisoned’,[ ] a Suppressive
Person became ‘Fair Game’>>Gerry Armstrong: Dr. Wallis had published
the Suppressive Person doctrine in a nutshell. At that time, I was on the Rehabilitation
Project Force by Mr. Hubbard’s order at the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, Florida. Bent Corydon and Brian Ambry’s book L. Ron
Hubbard, Messiah or Madman , at least the 1992 version I have, nailed it in a chapter
about “The Brainwashing Manual ,” which Mr. Hubbard had written in 1955 as Lavrentiy Pavlovich
Beria. Labelling any dissident “psychotic” is commonplace
in Scientology. This is mandated by Hubbard’s written policies. For instance in his Introduction
to Scientology Ethics, written in 1966, Hubbard states under the category of “suppressive
acts” (i.e., “high crimes” against Scientology):>>Quoting Bent Corydon: DISAVOWAL, SPLINTERING,
DIVERGENCE 1. Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists
in good standing with Scientology Organizations. 2. Announcing departure from Scientology … 3. Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions
and refusing to return despite normal efforts … 4. Dependency on mental or philosophic procedures
other than Scientology … To commit any of the above — or dozens of
other similar — “high crimes” is to be, per Scientology “ethics,” a “suppressive person,
and to officially be announced in a “declare” as such. To a Scientologist any one “declared
S.P.” is immediately and unquestioningly considered insane.>>Gerry Armstrong: Hugh B. Urban, Professor
of Religious Studies at Ohio State University, got it right in his 2011 book The Church of
Scientology:>>Quoting Hugh B. Urban: SPs were identified
as any persons who might pose a threat to the functioning of the church. These included
those who questioned Hubbard’s authority, those who revealed classified information
to unqualified recipients, and those who sold Scientology materials at a cut-rate price. […] The most infamous form of this aggressive
policy of counterattack was known as “fair game.” First introduced in a 1965 letter entitled
“Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists,” the policy directed that
enemies of Scientology (SPs) could be fought using any and all means at one’s disposal.
Not subject to any rights, the SP is simply “fair game”: “A Suppressive Person or group
becomes ‘fair game.’ By Fair Game is meant, without rights for self, possessions or position,
and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any
action taken against a Suppressive Person or group.”>>Gerry Armstrong: There is one more point
to address at this time: If it is so obvious, which it is, that Suppressive Persons, the
people who might reduce Scientology or Scientologists’ influence, are not sociopaths, psychopaths,
antisocial personalities, psychos, evil, etc., why does Mr. Rathbun still say we are? What
is his motivation? It is clear that it is the same as his motivation while he was specifically
assigned to handle us for Scientology. It is to hide or justify past, present and future
fair game. If Mr. Rathbun acknowledged that the people
he fair gamed, over many years, in conspiracy with other Scientologists, private investigators
and attorneys, were not sociopaths, and not bad, but decent, sincere people who did not
deserve fair gaming, he would be expected to show some remorse. He would be expected
to try to do what he could to repair the damage that undeserved fair gaming by a criminal
organization does. He has shown no remorse, and he has not tried
to do what he can to repair the damage he did to SPs, some of which is ongoing. His
Memoirs can be read as a book-length effort to justify L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and
Mr. Rathbun’s own part in the massive criminal conspiracy against persons and basic human
rights, which is rooted in the lie equating Suppressive Persons with sociopaths, etc. If the public can be fooled, by agreement,
constant repetition, academics, journalists, etc. into accepting that Suppressive Person
equates with sociopath, not only can the Scientologists get away with what they’ve done to fair game
SPs, but they can get away with future fair gaming, and obliteration, of the SP class,
the people who might reduce Scientology or Scientologists’ influence or successes. These are the goals of Scientology’s “Battle
Tactics,” and they still appear to be Mr. Rathbun’s goals. As the Scientologists and
their supporters strive for these antisocial goals, it will be necessary, and a good thing,
to reduce their influence and successes.

 

Leave a Reply