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.
My position, or proposition, is that a Suppressive Person, or SP, is not roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath.
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 Memoirs1, or anywhere else.
Mr. Rathbun says at page 105:
such an individual was labeled a suppressive person – roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath.
And he says at page 164:
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?2In 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 month3:
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 Miscavige4:
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.
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 Door5, 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 saying6:
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 says7:
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.
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, 1965.8
He states:
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.
In the same policy letter he provides further definitions for “Suppressive Acts:”
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.
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, 19639
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.
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,”10 he wrote:
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.
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:”
These are covered in HCO Policy Letters March 7, 1965, Issues I and II, and consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts.
After publication of his Offenses and Penalties Code, and High Crimes Code, by March 7, 1965,11 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 letter12, Mr. Hubbard writes:
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.
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)13”
Mr. 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.
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 © 1998.14
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.”)
On August 7, 1965 Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics of.”15 “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.”16 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:
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.
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 Hall17 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,”18 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:
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.”
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, 196919, he writes:
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.
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,20 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 1922.21
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 based22:
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.
“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 Tactics23:”
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.
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:
Jews are denominated as those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of vermin.
Or more grammatically correct, but no less scientifically false:
Those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of vermin are denominated Jews.
Ms. 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.
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.
Mr. Hubbard himself:
HITLER COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Bundeskanzleramt, Berlin, DeutschlandHCO 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.
And Mr. Rathbun in his Memoirs book:
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.
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 groups24:”
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.
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 Scientology25, which was published just six years after Mr. Hubbard issued “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – the Fair Game Law,” wrote:
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.”
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 Freedom26, sociologist Roy Wallis wrote:
‘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’
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 Madman27, at least the 1992 version I have, nailed it in a chapter about “The Brainwashing Manual28” 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):
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.
Hugh B. Urban, Professor of Religious Studies at Ohio State University, got it right in his 2011 book The Church of Scientology29:
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.”
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.
Notes
- Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. Amazon Books. Kindle Edition. ↩
- Youtube video: What’s Wrong With Scientology and the Suppressive Person Doctrine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeeWZPdZ-U8 ↩
- Mike Rinder’s blog: http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-disconnection-who-qualifies-to-be-declared/ ↩
- Steve Hall’s blog: http://www.scientology-cult.com/the-sociopath-of-scientology.html ↩
- Stout, M. (2005). The sociopath next door: The ruthless versus the rest of us. New York: Broadway Books. ↩
- Tampa Bay Times Scobee interview: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/scobee.shtml. Quote taken from Part 5 starting 0:55 ↩
- Wright, L. (2013). Going clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the prison of belief. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ↩
- HCOPL 7 March 1965 Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 552-7. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- HCOPL 7 September 1963 Committees of Evidence Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration Of Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 538-43. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- HCOPL 7 March 1965 Offenses and Penalties Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1, pp. 549-51.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- HCOPL 7 March 1965 Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 552-7.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California ↩
- HCOPL 7 March 1965 Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 552-7.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- HCOPL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 0, p.35-9.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- Hubbard, L. (1998). Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Los Angeles, Calif: Bridge Publications. ↩
- HCOPL 7 August 1965 Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics of. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1, p.428-30.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- HCOB/HCOPL 27 September 1966 The Antisocial Personality – The Anti-Scientologist.” Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1, p.449-54.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California; How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course (2001 ed., pp. 32-9.) ↩
- The Sociopath of Scientology http://www.scientology-cult.com/the-sociopath-of-scientology.html ↩
- HCOPL 17 March 1965 Fair Game Law — Organizational Suppressive Acts – The Source of the Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1, p. 558-9.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- HCOPL 7 December 1969 Ethics, The Design Of. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 0, pp.187-8.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
- Patrick, C. J. (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guilford Press. ↩
- Wikipedia: William Alanson White ↩
- See http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/documents/irs; Letter to Mark Rathbun re Black PR to the IRS ↩
- HCOPL 16 February 1969 Battle Tactics. ↩
- Wikipedia: Hate Group ↩
- Cooper, P. (1971). The scandal of scientology. New York: Tower Publications. ↩
- Wallis, R. (1977). The road to total freedom: A sociological analysis of scientology. New York: Columbia University Press. ↩
- Corydon, B., & Hubbard, L. R. (1987). L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or madman? (p. 110) Secaucus, N.J: L. Stuart. ↩
- Hubbard, L. Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics. PDF format. ↩
- Urban, H. B. (2011). The church of scientology: A history of a new religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ↩
