My recent readings of posts webbed on Bernie's site moved me to make this post.

My points addressed herein mostly relate to exchanges I had with Claire and Enzo, but also, to a lesser degree, with others like Heidrun Beer, Bernie and Diane Richardson. I will begin to discuss my thoughts in no particular planned order.

After coming across Bernie's web page today, I wondered if Claire still feels the same these days as she did 4 1/2 years ago when she stated (in her post below, for example) that disconnection is "rare". I'd like her to answer this in a "new unit of time". I'm asking this for several reasons which I will explain below.

I also relate other matters which I hope you will find of interest.

First I want to address Bernie's statement, which has recently been echoed by Diane Richardson, and I'd like to give a little background which will show I am not of a "cultic mindset". I don't perceive the world through Hubbard's lenses, as Diane put it. I certainly don't see the world as a frightening place -- far from it, and quite the reverse is true, in my experience.

With the notable exceptions of several Scientologists I knew and worked for/with *years ago*, most people are quite decent, kind, helpful and understanding. I don't define my world in terms of Scientology's or Hubbard's "tech". That I am blessed with a better than average memory is helpful in analyzing and communi- cating my experiences. That I can cite, quote and understand Scientology policy, and that I was a Sea Org member who lived and worked amongst other Sea Org members and Scientologists ("public" members) has enabled me to help others understand the indoctrinated mindset. I've effectively used my knowledge and experiences to help others leave the greedy, manipulative, dishonest clutches of the Scientology cult. Someone still in the cult mindset can't do *that*. What I especially want to stress here is that I absolutely KNOW and can therefore predict (they are *that* Pavlovian in their responses) how Scientology management can be expected to act because I understand the policies they apply, and there- for, the indoctrination they have been subjected to and subject others to in the name of "keeping Scientology working".

Bernie makes the statement that my response to Claire's post is one of a "cultic reaction", so I will address that first. I've not been of a cultic mindset since many, many years ago after leaving Scientology. True, when I first left Scientology in March of 1982 (over 20 years ago) I held the opinion that Scientology (the subject/philosophy) was good, but that Scientology management was corrupt. It took me about 5 years -- from September 1983 until December 1988 -- to fully shake off the remnants of my Scientology programming/ indoc-trination of the previous decade. I was able to free myself from the Scientology implants by questioning each and every single belief I had been taught, told, "drilled on","crammed on", ordered to "ethics" on, etc. in order to determine the source of it and whether it was factual. I did this by first rejecting *wholesale* everything I had been taught, and then, by examining all over again, each and every piece of the "tech". I came to the conclusion years ago that anything truly workable in Scientology was _actually_ the work of someone _other_than_Hubbard_.

I won't repeat all the reasons I felt (and still feel today) that Scientology management is corrupt. I've already stated most of my reasons on a.r.s., which I've supported with specific examples of real life experiences I had while in the cult, innumerable times in the past. If anyone has a question about my experiences which finally led me to the realization that management was corrupt, I will be happy to respond. Similarly, if anyone has questions about why and when I realized Hubbard's "tech" didn't work as promised I will be happy to address that as well.

After leaving the Sea Org in March of 1982, I was convinced by the HCO Area Secretary ASHO Day, Barbara Levine Adams, in late November of 1982 to return to the Sea Org at ASHO Day. I had abruptly left ("blown") my post of Treasury Secretary ASHO Day in early December of 1981, but continued to live in the Cedars Complex main building until March of 1982 while waiting for HCO Area Secretary ASHO Day to find an "auditor" to give me my leaving staff sec check.

I didn't wish to be declared "SP" as I had a wife and child in the Sea Org at that time. I now realize that ASHO didn't *want* to sec check me, for a number of reasons. (I'll save this for a different post.)

In her successful recovery of me back into the Sea Org, Barbara told me that management had weeded out ("declared") all of the "SPs" and "squirrels" who were responsible for the sweeping finance changes that had been implemented over the past 3 years (1979-1982). She told me essentially that "everything was better now that the suppressive elements have been gotten rid of". That turned out to be another big lie in a longer chain of huge lies, so I left the Sea Org for good in September 1983. I remain convinced Scientology's top management leaders are corrupt, dishonest and greedy, in addition to being first class assholes, vindictive bullies, gargantuan liars, cowards and frauds of the highest order.

Scientologists like David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock, Norman Starkey, Heber Jentzsch, Mike Rinder, Kendrick Moxon, Warren McShane and Guillaume Lesevre are not interested in truth. They'd rather HIDE behind a gaggle of half-truths, flat out LIES and/or NO communication than admit the massive fraud in which they are involved.

I completely disassociated from those liars 19 years ago. To this day, not one Scientology management person has ever seen fit to answer a few simple questions I've had since way back then, beginning over 23 years ago. They, especially OSA staff, do not want me to speak with my friends for fear they too will see through the fraud. They'd all rather continue on in their corrupt ways, while trying by covert means to intimidate me into silence. I'm talking about nasty fair game activities, such as:

1- the email threats I received from David Lee telling me "Let the games begin" and other information designed to intimidate me

2 - a different private investigator who came around my neighborhood asking questions of my neighbors on different guises, one of which was that he had heard I was selling my car, while telling a differnt neighbor a completely different story as to why he was asking about me

3 - having my mailbox destroyed

4 - having someone come to my home impersonating a police officer and demanding that I unlock my screen door under a phony pretense

5 - mail never arriving

6 - money being "lost" in the mail

7 - myriad numbers of anonymous and hang-up phone calls

8 - having false allegations made by the local DSA to the Austin Police Dept.

that I had engaged in a hate crime against the Austin Org

9 - other activities which will remain undisclosed on a.r.s. for now

Apparently the Scienos are applying the policy on "ethics gradients" to me, while as may be expected, failing to take responsibility for their lies.

Back to my story...

After leaving the Sea Org, I found I had no marketable skills in the real world *unless* I could convince a prospective employer that I could do accounting as well as anyone, but lacking a degree from an accredited institution of higher learning, most doors would not open to me. I worked for almost two years at a middle management position in finance at Royal Crown Cola. Things didn't work out as there was too much corruption in the company, and I, finding myself in a difficult position of having exposed corruption on a grand scale, learned that RC Cola management was too weak and cowardly to take a stand against the local bottlers union in LA. Threats were made against my life. A couple of union employees attempted to murder me by running into me with their fork lifts while I was performing my accounting duties. Management chose to try to pretend it never happened. I gave my notice.

During the next three years I was controller for a couple of companies owned by "OT" Scientologists. The first employer wanted me to commit IRS tax fraud (falsify his federal tax return) for him. I refused, gave my notice, but he fired me the next day saying, "I'll find someone who will." I even wrote this up to Flag, and as may be expected, my boss was allowed to receive "auditing services" anyway, over an "out-ethics" situation. So much for honesty and standard application of the "tech". MONEY talks. "Tech" walks -- right out the door whenever dollar bills and credit cards are flashed. I saw *this* over and over while in Scientology.

The next "OT" I worked for was bleeding his corporations dry while living a lavish lifestyle, paying lots of money to Flag for "advanced services", but failing to pay for merchandise his company had obtained on credit and/or consignment. Meanwhile he declared bankruptcy ("legal" theft) and walked away with the stolen cash he used to hire a nanny and a maid, buy a fancy car and a big house, and give lots of MONEY to Scientology while working on the Ship Project out of ASHO for OSA. (What's very, very interesting about this is the very same bankruptcy trustee in that case is now involved in the Slatkin/Dohring matter.)

Alomst every Scientologist I ever knew either became MORE criminal after "going OT", or they suffered a mental breakdown and/or financial ruin, estrangement from family and friends, depression, etc. By late 1988 I completely realized that the "tech" was a fraud and decided to leave Los Angeles and move back to Texas. My Scientology friends had already made it quite clear to me that they could not be my friend any longer because I had NO INTENTION of *ever* doing any further Scientology "services". The "tech" does not make people more able, unless you wish to define "able" as able to *get away with* despicable acts against "unenlightened, stupid, out-ethics wogs" and those a Scientologist treats as "enemies" or fair game targets.

So here I am now, outside of the fraudulent cult, speaking about it on a.r.s.

What's so funny to me is back 4-5 years ago when I was telling Claire she was committing "Suppressive Acts", *I* had to be the one (a non-Scientologist at that!) to point out to her how _her_group_ would react and apply "ethics" policy to her situation. Again, my understanding and predictions turned out to be right.

Enzo of course pretended to misunderstand what I actually said, and he never failed to dance all around the points I made about Scientology management. He would talk about how he had a disagreement with former Guardian World Wide, Jane Kember, but he would never allow himself to talk about it, even when *he* brought it up first and I had asked for more information about what happened.

Ah, the dreaded "entheta". He couldn't speak it. Yet he weirdly attacked me as having a "black on white" or "robotic" mentality. He couldn't have been more wrong.

My point had nothing to do with whether I felt others could have a different point of view. My point was (and is) that those who simply disagree with *certain* Scientology policies are not allowed to continue to be Scientologists in good standing. Time has proven my position to be correct. It's the same way NOW as it was 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years ago. It MUST BE SO or it would NOT BE Scientology.

Claire and John were declared by Scientology. I certainly never viewed Claire as a suppressive person. I don't buy all that crap anyway, except to say, yes, I think Hitler was suppressive. But my use of quotes around the words "suppressive person" were intended to help her on her way to seeing that _Scientology_ WOULD DO EXACTLY as I said.

_As_defined_by_Hubbard_SHE_was_committing_ "suppressive acts". The cult is just that damned predictable.

I DO NOT see the act of communicating to someone as a suppressive act. BUT, I do see it as a "suppressive act" in _Hubbard's_ mind, as defined by him. Or in an _OSA_staff_member's_ mind with the Hubbard program installed.

To argue that I'm of a "cultic mindset" because I can speak the lingo, that I talk about it, understand how Scientology management interprets and enforced certain policy letters, is nuts. I'm not of the "cultic mindset" and I stren- uously object to anyone who feels I do.

Re: Enzo Piccone, he danced all around my numerous posts detailing *exactly* what Scientology management has (and Hubbard had) to say about "maintaining a willing connection to a Suppressive Person or Group". In support of my position, I posted specific policies written by Hubbard. I posted later policy issued as a Scientology Policy Directive. I posted examples wherein Scientologists (Stu Sjowerman and Ron Chester) and leaked TNX posts detailed that OSA doesn't want Scienos posting to a.r.s. I've posted bits regarding OSA handling programs for a.r.s.

Almost no one here knows it, but way back when Heidrun Beer (aka "Clear Baby") was still in good standing, I pointed out anonymously that she would be declared "SP" if she continued to post to a.r.s. I was right.

I saw it coming even before Heidrun could see or admit it. Inevitably, the DSA of her local organization called her in and gave her the ultimatum. She's in the Free Zone now, still able to believe whatever she likes, but *at*least* she is no longer monetarily supporting the cult of greed.

The point of all this is, I *know* and *understand* how Scientology management will react in certain circumstances; my understanding is based upon knowledge of the applicable policies that managament uses to ensure enforcement of its goals.

Now here's the URL I referred to above; it can be found at:

http://bernie.cncfamily.com/C_disconnect.htm . I've added some comments which are indicated between brackets.

[The top of Bernie's web page says:]

"Another cultic reaction along the same line: the one of the poster named 'Warrior'."

Message-ID: <35A42D86.BF891812@home.com>
From: Claire Swazey <swazey@home.com>
Subject: Re: shills
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 03:33:01 GMT

Claire:

Hi, Warrior, my dear!

Starshadow:

> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not
> >that they are lying. Just my guess.
> >
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those
> >beliefs support.

Warrior:

> The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years.
> There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
> regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
> the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.

[As I pointed out in my discussions with Claire, *every time* a Scieno is declared, _disconnection_ occurs. Not all members disconnect from the declared person -- and I never stated they do -- but it is so commonplace in Scienoland, a person would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to not see it. When I stated in my post that there is no way they -- the Swazeys -- could not be aware of Scientology policies regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes", I wrote that *specifically* because I had already told her that those policies are on the "PTS/SP Course".]

Well, we have been Scientologists for years. And it really is rare.

But rare does not mean never. And that does not mean abuses do not occur. It's always sad when LRH policy isn't applied standardly, huh Warrior? :-) But seriously, I'm not making this stuff up. I cover it again in my post today responding to Jour's Questions for Claire posting, I imagine you may find that interesting...

[Whether policy is "standardly applied" is not sad to me -- that wasn't the issue then and it isn't now, except of course *I* knew how Scientology WOULD apply the policies on "PTSes and SPs". How I knew/know you might wonder. Well, I was in the Sea Org once. I did the "PTS/SP course". I know how Scientology management treats members who have a willing "connection with SPs". And I knew *because* the _Sea_Org_RUNS_Scientology, a fact which I believe Claire hadn't fully realized back then. I suspected back then that Claire's only experience in Scientology had been in a mission or a lower (class IV/V) organization and not the Sea Org. She most likely hadn't realized how fanatical Scientology management -- especially OSA -- truly is. Maybe I am wrong about this, and maybe she thought she could "handle" anyone who might tell her she had to stop reading/posting to a.r.s. In reality though, she could NOT remain on a.r.s. *and* _continue_ to _be_in_good_standing_.]

> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
> honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
> member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
> to spot BS.

I have been honest. Although I admit that I refuse to divulge private personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held, any more than I need to let you know my bra size.

[I had no desire to know anything personal about her except for which courses she had done, what "auditing level" she had reached and which orgs/missions she had been in. Just as Enzo refused to talk about personal information, so did Claire. In my opinion, it's a way to hide their level of indoctrination, because if I knew what "level" she had "attained" I could then address individual absurdities, illogics and inconsistencies taught at *that*particular*level. And if I did that, Claire might have more "cognitions"

about other matters of the "tech".]

> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.

Actually, I have not. I haven't been sent by anybody. Anyway, which is it, first you want to say that I must be here against CofS wishes, then you alternate this absurd claim with the even more absurd claim that maybe I am working out a liability formula and now it's a PR game. What this tells me is that you don't know what I'm doing here, but you are going to try and press different buttons til something goes beep.

[I admit, I was "guilty" of trying to communicate on a human and personal level rather than having to continue to play a guessing game with Claire. Is this is what Bernie sees as a "cultic mindset", i.e., that I try to break down the walls between honest communication?]

> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much
> of the BS.

So we are not in agreement. And your experiences with Scn have obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same outlook as I have. Well, it would be odd if you did. I can deal with the fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do. This should not bother you, Warrior. You knew there were still Scientologists around, right? I mean, of course you didn't know about my unique singular qualities, but still, you need (IMNSHO) to get accustomed to the fact that someone could have a totally different outlook from you and actually not be lying.

[Certainly my experiences have been different than *anyone* else's, but by now I would hope that Claire can see the points I made back then. I'd still say the same sorts of things now. I'd still quote the same policies. And I'd still state the same conclusions. What bothered me was she represented Scientology as something relatively benign. I knew better. I knew/know Scientology BETTER than she does, and I'm a "wog". I understand she has a different "outlook". I see her "outlook" as having rather large remnants of Hubbard's program. But without having the advantage of knowing where on "the bridge" she got to, I am disad-vantaged insofar as I am not allowed to communicate about certain aspects of her Scientology experiences. I don't mean to pick on Claire here. She has the right to remain silent. It's just that I routinely see Scienos clam up when certain beliefs/topics are questioned. To me it's a defense mechanism which helps keep the Scientology implant in place.]

If you were to think I was incorrect, which you do, fine. But I'm just amazed at your inability to add 2 and 2 together and get anything other than a held-down 7.

[I never had any "held down 7's". Claire just didn't know Scientology policy as well as I did, and she hadn't seen the things I predicted.]

Your friend, Claire

Next, with regards to Bernie page at http://bernie.cncfamily.com/e_part.htm where he has a post by Enzo Piccone as follows, I will comment. As above I am using brackets around my comments.

From: Enzo Piccone <enzo@hermes.it>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:37:16 +0100
Message-ID: <36F1018C.44BC@hermes.it>

> enzo@hermes.it wrote:
> > I'm neither an official nor a semi-official nor any other kind of
> > subscriber than who I've stated I am on a number of occasions since I
> > began writing articles to a.r.s..

Podkayne-Xenu wrote:

> You're here, you claim to be a Scn in good standing, ordinary Scns have
> been told not to post to ars else they lose their good standing, what
> other conclusion can be drawn?

Yo, Pod.

Here are some statements of fact for you and for anyone else who might be interested in taking them into consideration.

I've been here for over a year. I was, and I remain, a Sci't in good standing. No one asked me here. No one has asked me to leave or to remain.

[I wonder if this is still true.]

No Sci't has communicated to me that there might be any consequences whatsoever either to my having been here or to my remaining here.

[Right. Even though I pointed out HIS "church's" policies. Well, I happen to know that Scientology does NOT want members posting to or reading a.r.s.

unless they have been hatted to do so. And this entails being at least "OTV".

All I ever was trying to get Enzo to see is that _Scientology_management_SAYS_ who should post here. He never did explain how it is that Scientology seems to have made a special exception allowing him to post here. Perhaps he'll return to answer.]

No one tells me what to write or what not to write. No one has "hatted"

me to participate here. No one has given me authorisation to be here.

No Sci't has communicated to me that they disapprove of my being here.

[I very seriously doubt he has not been told by now not to post to a.r.s.]

I've written on a number of occasions that any Sci't is free to participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wants and cares to do. And if, obviously, he's prepared to be responsible for doing so and for what he communicates.

[Exactly my point. Post here and pay the price -- be declared "SP", or at very least receive a warning from "ethics" and be willing to PAY for auditing time charged for sec checks and/or auditing on "O/Ws", "ruds", etc.]

And by this I mean nothing other than what anyone else might mean by such a statement as it might concern participating in any activity and assuming one's responsibilities for doing so.

[Right. In the end we all have to be responsible for our actions. At least I think that's what he's saying, and even if "being responsible" means being willing to be declared "SP'.]

No Sci't has communicated to me anything contrary to the paragraph above since I began making this statement here nearly eight months ago. I didn't then, and I don't now, expect any Sci't to do so. If, however, a Sci't ever might, I'd be pleased to set him straight.

[I'd certainly like to know if this has occurred since 3 3/4 years ago when Enzo stated this.]

The only persons who have communicated to me anything contrary to what I've described in the penultimate paragraph are some ex-Sci'ts and some non-Sci'ts here.

[Everything I said never once contradicted Enzo's points about "responsibility".

I was fully aware that a Scientologist could post here if he/she wants *IF* one is prepared to pay the price.]

The most notable is Warrior. But then Warrior has his head so firmly up his bot on this subject, that he seem incapable of getting it out long enough to understand anything I communicate to him.

[This is a load of BS. Enzo always danced all around the points I made, and he consistently refused to answer ANY personal questions about himself. He is so far indoctrinated into the Scieno program he'll probably be a member for life. I would further say that if by "being willing to be responsible" for his actions it means that he is willing to pay for the required sec checks to address matters which inevitably come up by reason of posting here, in order to be able to continue to post here, then he has willingly paid the price.]

If he ever manages a more enduring feat of head-extrication -- but that doesn't currently seem likely, so why bother at this point to even speculate.

[In other words, call me ugly names and insult my intelligence instead of admitting *he* was unable to communicate about *real* matters.]

I've no problem with anyone here being, or remaining, sceptical about anything I've written above or anything else I've written. It would, however, behoove anyone who would challenge the veracity of any of my statements of fact to do so without at the same time engaging in the robotic assumptions, the robotic think, and the robotic allegations of which these same people normally accuse Sci'ts.

[The robotic think IS NOT and WAS NOT mine. The robotism is inherent in Scientology. This brings me back to my main point. Anyone who thinks I'm robotic or am engaged in "cult think" or of a "cultic mindset" is just plain wrong. Fact is, I've done way more reading on cults than most people, and I KNOW the Scientologists "buttons" and thought-stopping commands that have been installed into their minds. Scientologists are so Pavlovian dog-like it's incredible. And to think Hubbard *tells*them* they are "homo novis" -- "New Man" -- is truly pathetic. Talking to some Scientologists is like talking to a wall.]

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects http://warrior.xenu.ca

Go Back