11 May 2013 comment on Tony Ortega’s Scientology subject blog:
[I’m referring below to the perception of how Miscavige rose to power, and the fact that Miscavige’s rise omits the context, the history that was ongoing and hasn’t yet been detailed, and needs to be prodded out of a lot more ex Apollo vets, who all left, just prior to the era of Miscavige.]
If only more senior execs of the time period of Miscavige's rise could be coaxed to fill in the details.
There's so much more important history, and Miscavige being put on a Mission as a subordinate, and then due to the superiors falling from grace, Miscavige then slipped up the command channels, which is just one of the continuing problems of all bureaucracies, no matter what organization.
Miscavige was there when his superiors fell by the wayside.
I remember when Miscavige and Steve Marlowe came to the Flag Landbase to give Flag Bureaux/Commodore's Staff Aides a briefing of what they were doing. Both were of the original RTC setup, this was 1981-83, at the West Coast Building (the WB), and Marlowe, who was never a top manager until that moment (Marlowe was the Flag Recruiter for West US for the Apollo for years as his best loved position in Sea Org history up to that point in Marlowe's career), and the arrogance and ignorance of management history even in the flawed Hubbard limited "management tech" arena, was unbelievable.
No one in RTC's history was a good manager, not a single one, in my opinion, I judged top managers by their exemplifying Hubbard management and Sea Org policy, and how tech trained they were (think Phil Stevens, think the old Class 12s each of whom were Commodore's Staff Aides as well as Class 12 Case Supervisors, for example). I was a green volume training course supervisor who watched the earlier "failed for the millionth time" era of Apollo vet managers, and per LRH's standards, as bad as they were, I witnessed in shocked amazement as our movement ejected the most trained and most experienced Sea Org leadership and people who spent the longest face time with Hubbard in the movement's history!
Three was a massive brain drain of honestly better outside world educated "top managers" who all left when Miscavige and the first round of RTC staff assumed their top roles as replacements.
The whole late 1970s "failed management" story is just hugely more detailed than Jon has ever written.
We need all of the LRH traffic all through that period, the biggest vacuum that let Miscavige rise to power, was the leaving of more well educated and skilled Apollo vintage managers, who were gone by 1982.
Miscavige was top errand boy, catching up these last several decades, as he gradually rose to his "only one" role today as sole serious movement strategic decision maker (never arriving even anywhere to the level of the "failing managers" of the Apollo era).
Hubbard's late 1970s top management, see the green hardback dictionary and see the LRH ED of the mid to late 1970s which introduced the then "new" team of top management, there was a whole coordinated grouping of top management units, the LRH Comm Network, the Flag Reg network, the Flag Bureaux, the Commodore's Staff Aides. Who was in what position, who got what strong Hubbard orders to do what in their zones, and then the whole transitional phase when the Exec Strata, which went through several incarnations, Bill Franks as the head of the first two incarnations of the Exec Strata, just all esoteric by extremely important, as the late 1970s and beginning 1980s era of top management just was bleeding Apollo vet managers left right and center, while the likes of Miscavige and others who were miles from being up to speed to take over from those departing, and amidst Hubbard's scathing screeching condemnations, condemnations that ultimately the failed and departing Apollo vet managers themselves were condemned for just repeating Hubbard's condemnation of them! The Catch 22 most dramatic mind screwing period in the movement's 60 years history of top management was the late 1970s and early 1980s, during the mass exodus of the Apollo vets, including the Class 12s who departed and the top managers Apollo vets who were scapegoated by LRH even, and it's Hubbard policy to just bury all the bad news, and so unreal to newer Sea Org members who have no clue who these people who got scapegoated, all of whom had their ups and downs, but who were by far so much more capable and better educated especially compared to the new brooms like Miscavige and those who first took the top roles and who were Hubbard's relay people.
The history of top management is way more detailed than any journalist has even attempted. The John Zegel attempt to detail some of the history is just the beginning.
What's in the books about late 1970s and early 1980s management history is one tenth of the details that relate to why and how Scientology has devolved to the single sole decision maker David Miscavige.
As one who lived from 1975 through 2003 in Sea Org management or above management ranks, and who's taken it all seriously, there is just a huge omitted amount of details to even support what I'm saying, and I'm urging the ex Apollo vets, again, to please pipe up!
The Hubbard rules for demoting and deposing top Sea Org execs, removing them from their offices, leaving them out to dry or leave altogether, just cutting them off from all that LRH said about them, later, after they'd gone. Hubbard's omitted praise, Hubbard's omitted compassion and no words of thanks to the vets who dedicated their lives, but only Hubbard's harsh scathing private words against those that gave so much of their lives, to me, just is searing in my mind, all the decades I was in the inside, and read what LRH wrote, that those that were ejected were not allowed to ever again read and try to communicate to LRH, he was "off the lines" and not able to be contacted.
The last several years of editing of the communication to LRH, omitting the pleas of people like Mary Sue, to be in touch and plead her own pleas to LRH, are so overwhelmingly important.
There is just a huge lot more details, leading up.
I mean, for instance, how LRH wrote LRH EDs, over the years, and the fact that LRH EDs were pilot one year and two year projects, that was one of their purposes.
LRH even acknowledged that Int Base management ought to have their own "issue types" for specific reasons. LRH ordered that Senior C/S Int Office have its own issue type to alert the orgs on technical matters.
LRH ordered Exec Strata to use the International Management Executive Orders.
LRH ordered ASI to have its own issue types.
I mean LRH spread the power around to all the various groups, to consolidate and operate on his marching orders to each part.
LRH used to spread in briefing format, his own LRH EDs briefed staffs and public alike, on the movement's leadership arrangements.
For the 1980s some of the way LRH operated was continued, in a feeble manner.
When LRH said and admitted he had failed, to me, that sentence, again, I even can think in somewhat sympathetic terms, that LRH, who thought and was attempting to operate through so many fronts in his management setups, that he also must have been thinking not only in the tech matter of not budging that one troublesome body thetan he couldn't shake loose, but that also he must have felt some degree of failure for how the movement was progressing as of late 1985.
I so wish the actual traffic details of Hubbard's final months of 1984 through 1986 when he died could be made public to scrutinize.
That so many Class 12s opted out of the movement, and so many Apollo vet top management just slipped out of the Sea Org, was truly appalling and a huge disappointment.
I wonder how Hubbard thought about the losses of the late 1970s early 1980s, of so many people who he'd trained and spent so much face time with, and if he lamented all those Apollo vets who left their Sea Org jobs with Hubbard isolated and out of touch in his final years.
11 May 2013, comment made on Tony Ortega's blog
Even though Hubbard with few exceptions, hated lawyers.
Hubbard's bloated writer grandiose ideas of himself, as inspiring, I think lawyers who "helped" Scientology were also of the bloated large ego types!
The Crusade era was sickening to live through, from my viewpoint, as a Sea Org member, so many bad speeches about religious liberty, when we knew Hubbard was all about using words for just PR purposes.
It was all about saving the practice of Scientology's right to practice its pseudo-spiritual-enlightenment-exoricism quack therapy as religion.
Hubbard honed his inspirational "fire" writing style as a pulp writer.
In one of the most important Hubbard policies for scholars to study of Hubbard's, for understanding and grading "top management" for being able to rise up to Hubbard's grand statndards as movement leaders, is th HCO PL 4 March 1965RA Issue II, TECHNICAL AND POLICY DISTRIBUTION,
OEC Vol 2 (green volume 2), pages 125 - 132.
What struck me most, when reading Hubbard's grand strategic long range policies about how to even write and distribute and revise his policy, is how no one in the movement's history ever successfully rose to the standards he outlined and allowed them. All top management personnel have failed, and the only top manager who is a joke in my opinion, David Miscavige, is that Miscavige has prevailed by discrediting and demoting and deposing and ejecting or driving the other whole long history of the last 30 years of attempts by the fellow top managers, to rise to the still unfulfilled levels of skills that Hubbard outlined for top managers. (One private despatch regarding the late 1970s management top managers from Hubbard screeched "...management has failed for the millionth time....."---this screeching condemnation is one Hubbard scathing attitude that Miscavige unfortunately got drilled into his psyche, for which I'm pretty sure when Miscavige was beating up top Int Base managers, Hubbard's scathing words likely rung in the back of Miscavige's mind)!
It would be a young person's challenge of a lifetime, to venture into Scientology, rise up the staff ranks, try to take it all seriously, and pull off reforming Hubbard's bad policies, internally. It is of course to a normal person a complete waste of a lifetime, but if one is a Scientologist and believes in eternal future lives, then one could even think and believe that any amount of time spent on Sea Org staff, which helps the movement, or might someday lead to a significant reform of Hubbard's bad policy rules from a top management position (PR, Exec Strata are the two places Hubbard gives license to advise policy change).
Maybe the billion years contract mentality is needed, I'm sure it's been a passing thought of most failing Sea Org staff, that there are plenty of lifetimes in the future, to try one's hand again, in the Sea Org. "Next lifetime, or in a couple lifetimes, ahead, I'll maybe join the Sea Org again....maybe."
I've thought of writing a small free booklet "What You Might Think About Before Joining the Sea Org", and seriously lay out LRH quotes about what LRH really expects, more fully than the hype new recruits today are deluged with by the Sea Org recruiters. But give a young person what really is needed to seriously even attempt within the Hubbard allowed limits, what the movement's real big problems are, and what they could do about it, from the inside, if they really take ALL of what Hubbard even wrote they should do!
Hubbard bursts his own bubble, when one reads what he wrote, and compares it to the history of the movement's top management members, and even compares it to the star membership.
And in Lawrence Wright's book, the admission of Hubbard to Steven Pfauth, that LRH admitted he felt he failed, is such an important new exposed piece of Hubbard Scientology history.
comment made 11 May 2013 on Tony Ortega's blog
".... asking for a refund makes you “Fair Game,” as L. Ron Hubbard explained: “The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game” (HCOPL 5 APRIL 1965, HCO Sec Hat HCO JUSTICE DATA RE ACADEMY & HGC)"
This policy is listed on checksheets as:
HCO PL 5 April 1965 Issue I, HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON, THE BASIS OF INSANITY
The 1974 edition of the green volumes contains the version of the policy you have quoted in this blog article (1974 edition, OEC Vol 1, page 382):
"...The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refund. And after signing can only return to Scienotlogy as per policy on Fair Game....."
Important history note, is the 1974 edition of the green volumes were printed at a time still very close to when "Fair Game" was very much on people's minds as valid practice, it'd been used constantly for almost 10 years as of the 1974 printing of the green volumes. (And of course "Fair Game" continues to be used, but it's just not used as a phrase by official Scientologists, all explained in detail in Hubbard's own orders about "Fair Game.")
There is a very important policy justification given by Hubbard to use to revise his works. He ordered several dozen "stable data" (rules) for the compilations personnel who were responsible to ensure his stuff was revised.
The degree to which those compilations personnel and executives, over the decades, have taken it upon themselves to apply Hubbard's orders allowing revisions in policies, is a huge needed study and paper or chapter, to lay out to experts. It's something I will try to write about, since long range, I believe laying out clearly the internal options that the movement compilations people and executives at the top, have the rights and duties to revise Hubbard's works, is something that only those well informed of the options, and also informed of the loopholes and some of the most key policy long range statements of Hubbard's need all be balanced in the mind of the future compilations officers and executives who dare revise Hubbard's big policy directions.
This is absolutely relevant to full discussion of where Scientology is headed, long range,
The movement is lacking leaders who can think with all that Hubbard wrote that was their responsibilities, and the limited options/loopholes he left them to reform his bad policies.
I've tried for years to tell about the long list of writings by Hubbard, governing how to revise and reissue his writings,
Hubbard did allow some major policy revision options.
It takes brighter smarter top management members who can overcome all the obstacles to accomplish sane internal reform of Hubbard's bad policies though.
There has NOT been leaders at the top with sufficient intellectual powers and persuasion to propose the big reform solutions to the other top council members (WDC is one council, above Exec Strata, but Exec Strata ought to be the brains, the real "think tank" that comes up with the proposed solutions). RTC never had any bright theoretical smarty pants in them, in the 1980s through the 1990s, and it wasn't their job to come up with the strategic proposals to deal with Scientology's self caused biggest problems.
Hubbard's final top setups placed the "think tank" people in Exec Strata with the jobs of nuts and bolts biggest theoretical responsibility, for the movement, I have argued for years, to deaf ears out here.
Hubbard ordered rules and options for revising Hubbard's works.
Exec Strata never was staffed with individuals capable of the roles they ought perform.
Hubbard gave in principle, to ED Int, the job of dealing with administrative arbitraries.
Guy White and any other ex Exec Strata members who remember LRH's traffic to Guilliume Leserve I hope someday writes in detail what he remembers of that LRH traffic.
There is ample evidence of Hubbard through his career, giving others' proposed successful actions that the various administrators implemented which "worked", and Hubbard would then give those successful actions the stamp of policy approval. Some ex administrators when they got out, and could speak freely have said they felt in some ways ripped off by Hubbard just putting their successful actions into church policy under his name, and not giving them credit.
Scientology experts will read many stories from many contemporaries of Hubbard of the 1950s and 1960s, even James Byrne, the today "Estates Project Force In Charge" (boot camp for new Sea Org recruits in Los Angeles) told me his own story, he told me this story in 1988, of how it was he who came up with the policy for one esoteric point about asking course room students if they had enough sleep, and if the students say no, that Bryne put them on admin work in the org. Byrne said Hubbard took Bryne's report of Bryne's successful actions and had those actions turned into class room policy (which is why I myself was curious of what exactly preceded Hubbard writing those actions into policy), which led me to Bryne, who told me how that policy came about. Course supervisors around the world in churches use this Byrne devised successful action for dealing with student with insufficient sleep in the class rooms.
Expert policy nerds know that Hubbard wrote a whole slew of important rules for publishing and re-publishing his works. Most relevant when republishing his writings, certain Hubbard ordered revisionist rules apply to whomever republishes his writings.
The two word toxic hated concept, "Fair Game", was ordered expunged as a phrase, but the loophole of allowing it to continue in practice is a well understood and a rightly hated aspect Scientology continues to implement today on its critical ex members and enemies.
But just for the history books, and for experts, the "Fair Game" two word toxic phrase has been expunged in writing, per Hubbard's explicit orders, which is why the quoted sentence above, is not currently read in the current revisions of this exact Hubbard policy.
In the 1991 edition of OEC Vol 1 (green volume 1) is:
"...The ex-student should realize this puts him outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refun. And after signing can only return to Scienotlogy as per HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RB, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENOTLOGISTS."
The difference is expunging the toxic two word phrase, "Fair Game."
As ordered to be removed from future published writings, by Hubbard.
I'm a glass half full type of person, and think like I hope some future Exec Strata well educated future strategy leader of Scientology's "think tank" I hope someday thinks, when he/she contemplates proposing revising disconnection policy.
Hubbard's PR policy, the policy the PR students must clay demo EACH single word of this following Hubbard PR quote:
HCO PL 18 Nov 1970 PR DEFINITION
page 54, Management Series Volume 3, 1991, 2001 edition, page 1000:
"...Every word in it should be clay tabled.
"THE DUTY AND PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC RELATIONS MAN IS:
"THE INTERPRETATION OF TOP MANAGEMENT POLICY TO THE DIFFERENT PUBLICS OF THE COMPANY---TO ADVISE TOP MANAGEMENT SO THAT POLICY IF LACKING CAN BE SET---TO MAKE THE COMPANY, ITS ACTIONS OR PRODUCTS KNOWN, ACCEPTED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE DIFFERENT PUBLICS---AND TO ASSIST THE COMPANY TO EXIST IN A FAVORABLE OPERATING CLIMATE SO THAT IT CAN EXPAND, PROSPER AND BE VIABLE."
- .L Ron Hubbard.
For years as a training course supervisor, PR trainees did this above clay table exercise, and I gave the pass on their clay table. I thus myself knew its importance.
The above IS what is expected, and it was and is an impossible task, due to all the other Hubbard rules, and the fads that go on and have gone on all through Scientology top management history.,
And the reason PR people fail, is Hubbard's very limited allowance for revising his policies, the policies that cause the unfavorable climate surrounding Scientology and it's reputation.
The crux of why Scientology remains so troublesome, to itself, lies in Hubbard's very limited windows for change, internally, in his own backlash causing rules.
But expunging from Hubbard's later edition writing the two word toxic phrase "Fair Game" was a tiny cosmetic example of "change", and it is important to understand the "change" was cosmetic, and still today, the counter attacks and legalistic tactics against ex members are still continuing per the whole slew of still existent other detailed policies, including the one this blog quotes.
My only continued point, is that it takes some really bright well educated and thoroughly experienced and history minded persons, articulate, themselves able to fend their way in the top ranks, and think their way through all of the limits at the top management levels of Scientology, to deal with the big issues for why Scientology is hated.
1991 edition, OEC Vol 2 (green volume 2) page 130, is the biggest highest level of responsibility that NO "top management" person after Hubbard's death, has ventured to this level of responsibility, to deal with the entrenched policy problems left by Hubbard:
"As we write out admin up in books, business will use it all the more. But the point is, we lead in this field, others follow. We only develop and use Scientology admin to help us as we go toward freedom. But we still use it and only it. Because it's more modern and it's what we need.
"The thing to guard against in releasing teaching and admin policy letters is the change factor. Teaching and admin evolved with our formative years. Thus, patterns and policies, like our tech, grew better. Growing better, some of it became obsolete.
"When rereleasing an old policy letter, always blue pencil out everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters."
- L. Ron Hubbard
A whole more fuller paper ought be done on this policy above, and the full context this policy relates to how to reform Scientology, internally.
This above quoted policy is one of the most major loopholes, that top management, top PR people, the Exec Strata "think tank" future leaders of Scientology need to contemplate and rise to that level of maturity and responsibility to reform what is wrong with Scientology.
It's not happened, and likely won't happen, for a decade or more, if ever, only because of the talent that is required by top management staff, to even rise to this level of taking seriously how to reform Hubbard's bad policies, to last long enough within the top management setups, to even get to the point of thinking one can or should revise Hubbard's major bad policies, takes so long, most are derailed and ejected or self-eject out and lose their right to even bring about the needed major movement changes.
Even that Hubbard wrote this immediately above policy on 4 March 1965, a mere month before he burst out with the "heavy ethics" policy that this blog article quotes, is important context, and while dull, this is exactly the level of detail that a future Exec Strata "think tank" member I hope someday thinks about.
I'm going to be doing two papers, my first will be just about the Hubbard Corpus, a summary and introduction. And a second paper on Scientology top management history.
I've thought about writing a small book, "Advice to Exec Strata, How to Reform Scientololgy, Your Options". That would be my hindsight free advice, how to internally reform Scientology.
DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology?. Dianetics?, Scientology are service marks and trademarks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.