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.
- “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)
- “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)
- “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)
- “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.
- Find a Scientology friend or family member alone who you care about and who has some integrity left.
- Assure them you’re talking to them as a friend, not as a reg, FSM, fundraiser, recruiter, or anything else.
- Ask them confidentially how they’re doing personally; physically, mentally, financially, Bridge progress, etc. Get interested and dig.
- Then ask them how their friends and family still in the Church are doing, really doing.
- Ask how their org or mission is doing, the staff, stats, etc.
- 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.”
- 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.