Home

name

by Fabienne.

I wrote an article in July of last year about being under the radar and this article follows on from that one.

To use your real name or not to use your real name, that is the question.

Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the black PR and disconnection of outrageous injustice, or … is there another way? I’m talking about the decision to leave the Church of Scientology openly, using your own name, and all that irrevocable decision can mean.

I’m sure many Scientologists read this line in the Doubt formula and then feel trapped:

“6. Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.”

If they follow that line as it’s usually, literally applied, then they write their local org in their own name, get declared, have the church lie about why they left, and probably lose family, friends, a job, customers, etc.

Not an expansion or survival result (though I salute anyone willing to take this action.)

If they balk at going public under their own name they may feel forever ‘hung-up’ in Doubt  (not technically true as they CAN ‘come to a decision’),  but they may feel unable to move on.

I want to give some references and ideas that I hope can help. They are not in any particular sequence.

  1.  “EXPANSION (product increase) is THE WHOLE REASON you are assigning conditions in the first place, so you expect, reasonably, that if you assign conditions by graph you will get expansion.” (HCO PL20 Oct 67 Issue I, Conditions, How to Assign)
  1. “Ethics consists simply of the actions an individual takes on himself. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical or “has his ethics in,” it is by his own determinism and is done by himself.” (HCO PL 12 July 80R The Basics of Ethics)
  1. “The point of assumption in all policy letters is that we intend to survive and intend so on all dynamics.

To survive, then, one must expand as the only safe condition or operation.” …

“Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.

This can serve to clarify questions about policy. The correct interpretation always leads to expansion, not holding a level or contraction.” (HCO PL4 Dec 66 Expansion Theory of Policy)

  1. “I have to be, above all things, effective and cannot fall short of being effective or explain ineffectiveness away.

I never compromise with a situation to be agreeable.

In handling something I figure out if I want to play that game or not and if I don’t I won’t. And if I don’t I will do anything needful to disconnect from it and if I do I will do anything I can to win it.” (HCO PL12 Sep 67 Post, Handling Of)

5.   An LRH example of handling a potentially dangerous comm line as part of applying a condition is given in HCO PL 22 Mar 85 Full Danger Condition Handling:

“Let us say a fellow was accepting money from his uncle, saying he was buying a house with it when he wasn’t. He was spending it on a blonde. Now he’s in continuous danger. His uncle might find it out at any moment and he expects to inherit his uncle’s fortune some day, or something, so he’s in a sort of quasi-panic; even though he isn’t thinking about it, it’s still sitting there.” …

“Now, it’d be very dangerous to write, “Dear Uncle George: For the last year and a half, all the money you’ve been sending me to buy a house with, I have been spending on a blonde named Floozie.” He’d have to figure out how to handle that so that there wasn’t any danger in it. And it may take quite a bit of thinking.”

6.         An instructive quote as to how to handle one’s opponent comes from the film Patton:     “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.” (Included here as LRH reportedly recommended the PAC base crew see this film in the early ‘70’s, before I arrived in the area, and it’s not bad for a war movie.)

7.         An accepted and widespread practice among writers, including LRH, and especially on the Internet is the use of ‘pen names.’ The present Church happily uses anonymous web sites, emails and blog posts to spread sometimes vile personal attacks on Scientologists. I suggest not writing hate comms, but I do recommend finding your own voice. Despite anything they say about the internet, the Church does read Independent Scientology websites (such as Milestone Two) and blogs and posts, and anything you write here is a very public announcement.

My personal way through this is recognizing that the present Church has deliberately made an environment too dangerous to speak openly in, and therefore my public announcements are made under the name Fabienne. I’ll go public with my own name when I see it’s safe to do so. That’s just my present policy, you’re completely free to follow your own and I respect your decision.

Does this mean I think we’ve lost, that we have to hide from a more powerful antagonist and all we can do is post anonymous comments from the shadows?

NEIN, NIET, NUNCA and NOT while I’m still alive and remember who tried to steal LRH’s legacy and turn us all away from the tech.

I also remember point 17 of the Code of a Scientologist: “To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.” And I remember a lot of good people still in the Church, loosing their integrity daily, some of whom are there through my efforts.

Take all the time you need to safepoint your life (see my earlier article ‘To those under the radar’ July 7, 2013) but at some point you must act.

So what can we do? The answer is we can win!

OSA is geared up to handling high profile legal and media threats and ordering goldenrods. There is nothing they can do against thousands or even just hundreds of Scientologists quietly talking to their friends and family. When you feel up to it, I’m using the following steps and getting results. Every person is different but this could be a guide.

  1. Find a Scientology friend or family member alone who you care about and who has some integrity left.
  2. Assure them you’re talking to them as a friend, not as a reg, FSM, fundraiser, recruiter, or anything else.
  3. Ask them confidentially how they’re doing personally; physically, mentally, financially, Bridge progress, etc. Get interested and dig.
  4. Then ask them how their friends and family still in the Church are doing, really doing.
  5. Ask how their org or mission is doing, the staff, stats, etc.
  6. Then try saying this: “The reason I ask is that we loose too many good people out of Scientology every year, you’ve seen them disappear too. I want you to promise me that no matter how difficult things may get in the Church, you’ll never leave Scientology.” (Get an ack on this.) “Remember, if things get rough, the Church of Scientology doesn’t equal Scientology or the tech. LRH left the tech to anyone who wants to use it. So if you ever want to quit, remember there are good auditors and people outside the Church delivering all levels. Just if you ever need.”
  7. Then shut up and wait. If no answer, good. Just change the subject completely and move on. You’ve already impinged more than you’ll know. The public you’re likely talking to already know things aren’t well but they’re hanging on for their future eternity and can’t leave the Church until they know OT is possible outside. You have to impinge by planting that seed, rather than trying to overwhelm them with how bad it all is in the Church.

Some will object loudly to this message.

Fine, just remind them clearly over and over that your message was for them NOT to leave Scientology. And don’t give them your time ever again.

There is a little personal danger involved in this, I know.

Probably enough to satisfy many peoples Liability formula, but of course that’s a personal matter and I don’t want to indicate to anyone what condition they’re in.

Which brings me to the most important and personal issue, you and your Bridge progress.

If you haven’t yet experienced good, standard in-ARC auditing outside the Church, why not? I have.

There are many good auditors and groups out here, seek and you shall find.

You are responsible ultimately for your own case, and one day the people you spoke to above will come asking for directions.

The sooner we make a much safer environment outside the Church than inside, the sooner the present aberration will end.

24 thoughts on “Hidden identities

  1. Can’t say I agree with this. I understand the premises, but they’re based on what I see as false premises (jobs, customers, etc.) in a strict sense. For me, integrity is more important than jobs or money and self-determinism and freedom more important than family and friends. Not that these other things don’t have importance, but one needs to understand the their true is-ness in life.

    Here are some other quotes:

    “4. NEVER DISPARAGE YOURSELF OR MINIMIZE YOUR STRENGTH OR POWER.

    No matter how much other people would like you to believe that this
    is the way to be polite, the way to win friends and influence
    people, minimization of yourself, your strength and power, is the
    fastest way in the world to make enemies. It says, “I’m weak, go
    ahead, knock me flat, I’m nobody.”

    Where is this on the Tone Scale? Almost dead.”

    “9. YOUR SELF DETERMINISM AND YOUR HONOR ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR IMMEDIATE LIFE.

    10. YOUR INTEGRITY TO YOURSELF IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR BODY.

    11. NEVER REGRET YESTERDAY. LIFE IS IN YOU TODAY AND YOU MAKE YOUR OWN TOMORROW.”

    “13. DON’T DESIRE TO BE LIKED OR ADMIRED.

    You act the way you please and the way you should because it’s the honest way to act. It is kind of a lie to be one thing and act
    another, just because it is polite.”

    “A man has to be awfully strong to have principles and stand by
    them. If he is in a body, he actually has to be willing to die for those principles. That’s uncomfortable and very few people bother to.”

    “The truth of the matter is, it’s better to die, to die horribly over a long period of time, in the long run, than to traffic in any way with compromises which are against honor. Now that’s a funny thing, but it’s better to die than do it. The only times you’ve gotten into trouble anywhere along the line is because you compromised.”

    Chris Black

    • I agree with you Chris — particularly on the topic of integrity.

      It must not be clear, but this individual is not planning to remain under the radar, anonymously, for ever. And in fact, their ongoing strategy has been to walk the line, on the inside, while rounding up people and moving them over the line and away from the C of S.

      I had renamed the article, which has probably added a significance to the piece that was not there before — and that is an error on my part.

  2. I’ve got to agree with Chris Black. There’s no easy way around fully embracing ones personal integrity. One is either standing to face their tormenter in the light of day, or one is not.

    If a person chooses to escape their debilitating association with a suppressive group, but do so in an anonymous fashion, that’s ok. It is a gradient step to reclaiming ones honor. I can respect it because the person has at least withdrawn their support from the suppressor. That’s a big step up from being an unknowing pawn.

    But let’s not kid ourselves. It’s simply not possible to hold ones position in space, and push back against a suppressor in any effective way, while hiding behind a veil of anonymity.

    Freedom has been defined as having “constant alertness and the willingness to fight back.” I would posit that posting anonymously to blogs on the internet doesn’t constitute fighting back.

    And why wouldn’t someone who’s been injured by the cult not want to fight back? I’m sure that most do, but some among us are held back by the fear of repercussions for doing so. All I can do is to refer those people back to the points of the Code of Honor in Chris’ post above.

    There are things worth fighting for in life. I believe exposing the heinous conduct of the corporate Church of Scientology is one of them.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve already experienced the repercussions others fear for making a public stand against the church. Guess what? I’m still here, and I’m doing better than I have in decades.

    • Ronnie — you are spot on about a person not being able to hold a position in space, on a permanent basis, while they are concealing who they are and what they are doing. When they are walking in the jello of the C of S, that is an impossibility. But the application of PTS/SP, bringing a person to gentle cause, is certainly applicable. And if is an important point for them, to bring out their friends and family too, then this sometimes requires careful, well-executed strategy.

      The author of this article will be public in short order, and will bring out others, publicly, with them.

  3. Putting ones own integrity above all else is what imperatively has to happen in order to make any change with the now Corporate church and it’s incorporated public. Being on a (in every sense of the definition) withhold, with those you consider your brothers just cuts ones reach to, for, with them. How can one truly help those they care about if they cannot tell them what they themselves see as an altered reality or altered isness? The Actual Scientology philosophy is completely and wholly about helping their fellow beings. One is out of touch with their first dynamic firstly if they cannot see the damage of not communicating (read withholding once again to those they want to be part of but can’t.). The HCOPL “Hang up at Doubt.” is the applicable reference in this case. THEN the Code of Honor could successfully be applied to remaining under the radar. If one cannot BE themselves and truthfully communicate, then they aren’t really BEING who they want to be or should be and are truthfully “hung up in the doubt of it all”. Ultimately conditions, o/w tech., The Data Series, and truthfully all of Scientology, hinge on a Thetan being fully truthful and honest with themselves. The tech can be applied and gains of monumental proportion can only be had by being truly honest with oneself. If one cannot, they aren’t truly being a Scientologist, but something else to themselves, their friends, associates, and loved ones. Being honest about ones own true motives of anonymity, money, threat of loss, restimulated betrayal, third party, on and on are states based on the platform of not being honest with ones own self firstly. You have to start from there and realize there is something(s) not TRULY being confronted about these things. That which is complex has some thing you are not truly Confronting.(HCOPL “Complexity and Confronting”) the corollary to this is if you CAN confront it, it no longer is complex. Thus the reason to withhold vanishes. You now can BE Yourself.

    Auditing cannot occur with out rudiments, a withhold is an out rudiment. Get the withhold off, by COMMUNICATING it, and then the true gains of LRH’s research and compilation can only then be truly realized, and so goes life in the MEST universe and theta universe for starters. When in doubt, communicate.

    • Hi Jonathan, yes personal integrity trumps all, and when you lose that you have lost everything. And yes, being completely honest is the only way to benefit from and use Scientology. Also, withholds will prevent case gain and wrecks lives. But, I’d be careful about throwing around such references in a discussion about Scientologists using pen names to avoid probable (in)justice actions. In this time and place, if you send a Scientologist who’s just realized the church is off the rails, back into his Scientology life with the datum of not having any withholds from anyone, then you could be accused of withholding. ie Withholding from the guy that he’s likely to experience a horror movie (or at least a feature length “Series of Very Unfortunate Incidents.”)

      My integrity tells me this: I am and always will be a Scientologist. I am and always will be a friend to anyone applying standard tech. i do and always will feel some responsibility for other Scientologists (in or out of the Church) and will try to help them.

      My integrity and my being honest with myself doesn’t depend on my not withholding anything from anyone. In fact I will happily withhold entheta, and happily withhold any data I choose to from an enemy.

      One purpose in my writing is to help other Scientologists still inside, to recover their integrity. It’s done by face to face personal comm. It’s done starting at THEIR reality. It takes high ARC, confront and as much time as each person needs. I wish I could say I was good at it, but I’m willing to try, and it is rewarding. Also, in large part, I owe my place out here in the sunlight to someone who quietly, patiently spoke to me so I’d understand. Then I found websites such as Milestone Two and gained a comm line with many people I think of as friends. I think it’s safe to assume that most ‘still-in’ Scientologists browsing here already have far more integrity than the average Joe. And if they choose to use a pen name for a while, lets assume that its not for withholds or lack of integrity (after all, they’re just coming out of the land of O/W, Sec Check, A-J, conditions and make-wrong ad infinitum.) I’m happy to include and welcome all well-intentioned Scientologists here.

  4. Since i’m out and have been for awhile it’s been great.I have some friends who are under the radar and I have to respect them..
    For me,aside from the fact that I’m way too rebellious to stay under, I want to do something for Ron by standing up for him and the Tech-he certainly put his life on the line many times for us-this is the least I can do.

  5. Hi Lana,
    You beat me to a reply. In general, I agree with all the viewpoints here. They are all valid, and keeping ones integrity in can be a real bitch, depending on what one is trying to accomplish overall.
    As per Fabienne, helping a friend is usually best done as a friend, not as a declared apostate. He proposes an interesting idea of coaxing a cog from a “still in”.

    Also, If you view this as a war with the church (which it is by their own choice), a common tactic would be a full frontal assault. This is a preferred basic tactic by many, and is indeed needed.
    However, I will note that it is war of attrition. As such, the more fronts the C of S have to put their attention on, the faster they will fall. They are fighting the various factions of the indie field (and they are trying to divide and suppress the indie field). I am sure that they are also worried about a fifth column of under the radar people. They are not sure of their own support base, and they will abuse them also because if this, so this he3lps also.
    Then there is the legal, financial and PR fronts. There are other fronts. (Use your imagination.)

    It all rather depends on what one is trying to do. The code of honor is a personal thing. Bottom line, it is his call.

  6. Fabienne,
    I think you’ve presented a completely valid alternative handling to a difficult situation, and with a key datum – all policy is interpreted relative to expansion. Expansion of the Dynamics, life increased, survive enhanced, not contracted.

    I agree with those opting for the stand up and be counted approach too.

    It’s a question of intention. Is one hiding? Are they afraid and effect? Or is it an issue of discretion as a better part of valor?

    Pan-determinism, rather than a game on this particular issue, is a valid and workable means to an end. Maintaining ARC lines, means the lines are still open to increasing that ARC. Severing them abruptly, for an effect, a statement, even one’s own Code of Honor is also as right as it is the correct estimation of effort for what one is seeking to achieve.

    I think Fabienne has presented a cogent description of a workable alternative that can and does help many people struggling with “what to do” in this situation.

    This person is anything but a chicken-hearted, 1.1, faker, posing as something he isn’t to bamboozle others.

    My two cents.

  7. Chris and Ronnie, I want to agree and am on my way there, on my own gradient. I see an opposition that looks well funded and resourced, so I figure that Fabian tactics (the Roman general, not the socialists who stole the name) have a better chance than a frontal assault. Yes I do see a degree of PTS’ness and this is me working through it. My priority is to help others. I thank everyone who went before me and am here ready to help.

    • As I said, Fabienne, I see nothing wrong with anyone quietly walking away from the cult. I don’t even particularly demand that everyone stand up and be counted in public. Just the act of disconnecting and withdrawing ones support from that despicable regime creates its own effect.

      At the same time, I think it’s important to stress that that is the lowest gradient response to the suppressor. There are higher gradient responses, and with each improvement in confront, I believe there’s a corresponding improvement in the sense of honor and integrity for the individual.

      No one has to ‘assault’ the cult. They only need to hold their position in space and tell it like it is to everyone concerned. Pretty hard to do that from behind a veil of anonymity and make it stick.

      By way of example, Hitler would never have been overcome by writing anonymous letters to the editors of local newspapers. It took confronting the bastard face to face to bring him down. Thank goodness we don’t have to shed actual blood to bring down Miscavige, but I believe it’s still going to take the same kind of face to face confront.

      • Ronnie, the best dissemination method for Scientology was “word of mouth by people you knew”. That might be the best method to get them out of there also.
        Fabienne, I think that you have a very good potential method to try to get people to cog, and thereby reduce the number of people stuck in the CofS. It takes the time it takes, but (IMHO) it is worth giving it a shot. It is your call. (I would be very interested in knowing the results.)

        • Ronnie, the best dissemination method for Scientology was “word of mouth by people you knew”. That might be the best method to get them out of there also.

          Have you tried disseminating the truth about the church to those still on the inside? I have.

          When I first resigned from the church, I emailed my detailed resignation letter to every Scientologist I had an email address for. This was just prior to having my write-up posted at Marty’s blog and Steve Hall’s website. Out of the two dozen or so that I sent, I got back exactly ONE positive response. All the rest either ignored me, or told me they were reporting me to RTC.

          In the intervening eighteen months, I’ve had occasion to talk to maybe half a dozen other churchies about the crimes of Miscavige and the violations of policy and tech within the church. Not one of them has exhibited anything resembling a cognition, or even the faintest curiosity to check out the facts for themselves.

          Now, maybe I’m just unlucky, and have a rotten field of former friends, but I personally don’t see how anyone can become apprised of what’s been going on in the church — especially when it’s backed up by LRH policy and tech directives — and not have something stir in their head.

          Bottom line – I haven’t had much success with trying to spoon feed cognitions to others.

          • Ronnie, what you are detailing is exactly why some people have found that it is more successful to get the ears of people still in, BEFORE they are declared. As soon as someone within the C of S is told that you are SP, the chances of you now influencing them and their decisions is very low UNLESS they were a very close friend or family and the link between the two of you, and the trust and confidence they have in you, is enough to make them question the validity of the declare itself.

            Spoon feeding a cognition to someone that is unwilling to receive a communication, is a hard ask.

            But if a person is still in, still attending events, still in touch with friends and family, then the communication line is still open — and the chance to have communication accepted which is unexpected, contrary to the party line, or detailing subjects that are taboo to discuss.

            I think, no matter where we find ourselves (declared or not), we have a group, and we just gotta keep at the communication to those we know and love. The solution is to just keep on communicating.

            Which is what this blog is actually all about. 🙂

          • what you are detailing is exactly why some people have found that it is more successful to get the ears of people still in, BEFORE they are declared.

            Read my post again, Lana. I DID contact all my friends before I publicly resigned. My wife was the only other person on earth who knew that I’d withdrawn my allegiance from the church, prior to me sending those emails.

            And these weren’t mere acquaintances. I’ve known most of those people for decades. Seven people in my family also disconnected from me, because of my going public. Every one of them (except three of my brother’s children) was sent my detailed write-up, including a personal comm from me, in which I appealed to their longterm friendship with me. For good measure, I quoted LRH, where he says, “What’s true for you, is what you yourself have observed.”

            Trust me when I say that I took great care to approach my friends with the right comm, and the right timing. As I said before, exactly ONE friend replied with a supportive comment. The rest either reported me to RTC, or snipped connection with me without comment.

            All of these people are corporate Scientologists in good standing. I highly doubt that any of them were even aware of Marty Rathbun’s blog or Steve Hall’s website, where my write-up appeared subsequently.

            I’m sure the word went out among the Facebook police after I went public, and that lots of Scientologist acquaintances shunned me because of them, but my closest friends and family heard it from me first. All but ONE turned their backs on me.

            • Sorry for not understanding you Ronnie. Bloody awful that it occurred – and I get what happened now.

              Thank you for clarifying. I guess those individuals will, at some point, see the light, and will realize what fools they have been.

              It is a bitter pill to swallow. I understand.

              • Not a problem, Lana. I knew you missed a key point in my earlier comm.

                Yeah, it’s a pretty sobering thing to have the best comm you’ve ever produced, rejected by nearly every friend and ally. Better than a strong cup of coffee, I tell ya.

                Anywho, I do look forward to the moment when I finally get a comm from one of them, telling me how right I was. I have to maintain a bit of forgiveness in my heart for them, because I was once guilty of the same thing.

                In the early 80s, there was a rather large exodus of Scientologists into the free world. The church was so good at controlling the comm lines of the public in those days, that I wasn’t even aware that it was occurring.

                Turns out my first auditor was among that group of disaffected friends of LRH. She wrote me a letter explaining that she had resigned from the church, and why. I literally went blank after reading that she was leaving, and never duplicated her reasons for doing so. In my mind, she’d gone squirrel, and it rattled me to my core. Silly me. I actually took her letter into the org and sat with an MAA to help me get my bearings again.

                It was only in 2012 that I finally discovered the truth of what happened to my friend. I ran across videos of her talking about the exodus of the early 80s, and explaining how the church mercilessly crushed the comm lines of those who tried to reach back inside to save their friends.

                It broke my heart to learn that my auditor had passed away just months before I made my own escape in March 2012. I wanted so badly to tell her how sorry I was for not duplicating what she was trying to tell me. I sent her the biggest, most powerful theta comm I could muster. I really hope she got it, wherever she is.

                So now the shoe is on my foot. I did my best to alert my friends and loved ones to the evil they’re a part of. None would listen. Every one of them rejected my warning. I can only hope that they find me before I leave the game myself.

                • You did your best Ronnie, and you maintained your integrity. Keep the comm line there, and open, and time will tell. You certainly have my postulates that you can regain those severed comm lines.

                  I have the same with many dear friends at the Int base. The comm line is open, and gradually, over time, there are individuals finding me.

                  You are a good man and that you are not carrying a huge chip around on your shoulder, is proof of your good intentions.

  8. What strikes me most about this article is the bit about advising people NOT to leave the Church. I haven’t tried it, but it sounds like the most convincing argument I’ve heard yet. It’s almost a cliche that if you tell someone not to do something then they will do it.

    Microsoft funded an interface study one time and a major finding was that you should tell people straight what you wanted them to do and never ever tell them what NOT to do. They found some horrific things about this in pilots. For example, at a sawmill they put up signs showing arms going into saws with big crosses across them. Don’t do it! The result was a rash of accidents with arms in saws where it rarely had happened before.

    Technically, people are stuck in that flow. In the early 50’s Ron found that you could tell people to get out of their heads and only a very small number could do it. But tell them “Try NOT to be 3 feet back of your head” and a huge percentage just couldn’t help themselves.

    So I think Fabienne has made a very interesting contribution to this discussion of how to help people stuck in the Church.

  9. I agree with many points in this article. I think it presents a mostly workable handling for people sitting on the fence. I do think the “must have” may create problems for some people, as Steve alludes to above.

    Personally, I love my brother and father too much to leave them behind in the dust, so I’m taking my time with them on a gradient so they come with me. This is not out of cowardice or lack of integrity, but out of real love and caring. I want them to go free too which is not possible under current CofS conditions.

    And Ronnie, don’t underestimate the power that your communication may yet have on your friends. The whole reason I am writing this post today is that a friend some time ago mentioned to me that Rinder and Marty had left the church and were in a battle with DM. This was at least 4 years ago. And then my sister told me about Debbie Cook’s letter (how many months ago was that?). The out-points just kept adding up and eventually I had to see for myself.

    Keep the postulate there and people will cognite eventually. Meanwhile, flourish and prosper! 🙂

What is your view?

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