Skip to content

Portrait of a Sociopath

July 22, 2010

I have occasionally used the term sociopath to describe David Miscavige. I use the term advisedly, not as some random insult. Mainly because every description of a sociopath that I have read fits Miscavige to a T.

And please, don’t make the mistake of saying, “oh yes, sociopath – that’s the same as an SP. And I already know all about SPs, therefore I don’t need to learn anything further.” That’s known as thought-stopping, a phenomenon that deserves its own post.  One of the biggest barriers to learning something is thinking you already know it.

In my opinion, “Suppressive Person” has always been primarily used as a political term in Scientology. Sure, there’s a list of “Characteristics of an Anti-Social Personality” in the Ethics book, but come on, really, when was the last time you saw someone methodically going down through that checklist before declaring someone? And when was the last time you saw someone declared SP who actually had a majority of those characteristics? No, it’s a way to label and isolate people who challenge the power and authority of the Church – and specifically these days, David Miscavige.

Still want to argue with me on this point? All right, consider this: according to PTS Rundown technology one cannot name senior Scientology executives or Scientology principals as one’s item in a PTS Rundown. And you wonder why people “can’t spot” Miscavige as an SP? Because they’re not allowed to. Technically.

My own view is that the reason Scientologists cannot spot David Miscavige for who he has nothing to do with not knowing how to spot an SP. It’s because they don’t know how to spot a sociopath.

All right. So let’s jump right in here with one of the most-used lists of the characteristics of a sociopath, as developed by Dr Hervey Cleckley, pioneer in the study of psychopathy and author of The Mask of Sanity, and Robert D. Hare, an expert in the field of criminal psychology.

1. Glibness and superficial charm: Glib is used here in the sense of being able to use language effortlessly to beguile, confuse and convince others. The sociopath is able to exude self-confidence and can be very convincing. They are also able to destroy others verbally. If you’ve ever been in one of David Miscavige’s four-hour or six-hour meetings, you know his ability to talk. And talk. And talk. His meetings are mostly him talking and others listening, and even when he contradicts himself, as he frequently does, he does to with absolute confidence and aplomb. And as to being able to destroy people verbally, well, he’s a master at that.

2. Manipulative and conning: Sociopaths do not recognize the individuality or rights of others, and so there are no checks on their behavior.  They only see two types of people, suckers and sinners. People are either enemies or tools to be used. The sociopath discharges powerful feelings of terror and rage by humiliating and dominating others. Anyone who has met with Miscavige knows that this is an accurate description of the man’s actions.

3. Grandiose sense of self: The sociopathic leader always has to be at the center of attention. He has tremendous feelings of entitlement, and feels he is owed money and luxury by right. Just look at the pictures of Miscavige’s tanning room and private gym, as posted on Marty’s site. Just look at the elaborate Baroque sets he has to have behind him at events. Just look at the glossy color magazines he has published all to glorify himself.

4. Pathological Lying: Sociopaths lie coolly and easily. A sociopath in the position of a cult leader will tend to invent a whole belief system about his history and abilities. Miscavige has created such a mystique about himself, about how he was “chosen by Hubbard “ (he never was) and how he is the only person who can correctly interpret LRH’s works. At his direction, the spokespeople for the Church blatently lie about disconnection, forced abortions, staff abuse, RPF and anything else they are asked about.

5. Lack of remorse, shame or guilt: People, to a sociopath, are targets or tools. They are opportunities or obstacles. For a sociopath, the ends always justify the means, because they feel they are the only valid moral arbiter. I have never seen David Miscavige exhibit the slightest feelings of remorse, guilt or shame. He has never admitted to a mistake. Every failure or mistake is someone else’s fault.

6. Shallow emotions: Sociopaths can exhibit violent bursts of emotion, usually rage or anger, but these are usually calculated to produce a result. Positive emotions of compassion, love, warmth or joy are not felt or exhibited, except as a deliberate show to achieve some end. Miscavige can carry out the most brutal acts of abuse or humiliation without showing the slightest emotion, except maybe a kind of smirking humor.

7. Incapacity for love: The sociopath demands love and admiration from followers, but is skeptical and cynical about any love or loyalty offered. The ‘loyalty” of followers is sometimes tested in cruel and bizarre ways. “Musical Chairs” anyone?

8. Need for stimulation: The sociopath will indulge in bizarre behavior, punishments and lies. They get stimulation through unexpected outbursts, verbal abuse and physical punishments. Sounds familiar.

9. Callousness and lack of empathy: The sociopath makes no real connection with people, and often expresses contempt or ridicule for people’s real feelings. Whatever “people skills” they have are used to exploit others.

10. Poor behavioral controls and impulsive nature: When a child throws a tantrum, it can be annoying or frustrating. When an adult throws a tantrum, it can be terrifying. The sociopathic leader believes he is omnipotent, all-powerful and entitled to indulge any whim. Followers tend to rationalize and justify the sociopath’s behavior and hide aberrant behavior from outsiders.

11. Early behavior problems and juvenile delinquency: I don’t know Miscavige’s history, but it would be interesting to know if he was friendless, controlling and borderline criminal as a child.

12. Irresponsibility and unreliability: Sociopaths are oblivious to the pain they cause others, or the lives they ruin. It’s not their problem or their responsibility. Miscavige habitually scapegoats others. If there are any failures or mistakes, it is always others that are to blame, never him. Blame is a powerful weapon he uses to keep his followers submissive.

13. Promiscuous sexual behavior and infidelity: One question – where’s Shelly? Miscavige has had his own wife turned into a “non-person” and imprisoned at a CST ranch. Meanwhile his constant companion is his Communicator, Laurisse. It was also rumored here that he had an affair with Jenny Linson.  In contrast, sociopaths often insist on strict sexual control of their followers, with forced breakups and divorces, enforced abortions, and splitting up of families. All of which Miscavige has done. Sex is a control and power issue to a sociopath.

14. Lack of realistic life plan and parasitic lifestyle: Sociopathic cult leaders live a luxurious lifestyle while their followers are impoverished – and Miscavige is no exception. His lavish parasitic lifestyle has been well documented.

15. Criminal or entrepreneurial versatility: A sociopathic cult leader can change a group’s operations or goals in order to make more money or amass more power – such as, say, switching a group from providing self-help services to constructing huge lavish buildings. When illegal or immoral activities and exposed, sociopaths will sometimes relocate, taking some or all of their followers with them.

Ordinary people, which is to say sane people, who are confronted with a sociopathic personality often do not recognize what they are looking at. The sociopath appears to be powerful, confident and very sure of himself. Having no experience in dealing with people who lack any empathy or moral compass, people will try to rationalize the sociopath’s behavior, to make sense of it. They will mistake his icy coldness and volatile temper for “intensity” or “dedication.”

I know I did when I was at the Int Base. Seeing a grown man throw a temper tantrum like a petulant child, scream and yell and threaten and even physically attack others is a shocking experience. People tend to blame themselves for making the leader mad, or for not doing a good enough job and upsetting him. We tend to take it all on ourselves, and make excuse after excuse for the leader.

Even years later, I was trying to make sense out of Miscavige’s behavior. But there is no sense to it. He is simply sociopathic, and as soon as Scientologists realize that, they will be able to deal with it appropriately.

  1. July 22, 2010 7:38 am

    Great description!

    Now, is it only me who sees that Hubbard himself fits to a T to this description?

    I also see Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin (not Lenin) fit here very visibly and markedly.
    I have this feeling that each one of those characters (sub)consciously were wannabes of those really great people (like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Christ…) who truly seriously influenced and made serious dent in the history of human kind.
    Seems those wannabes had no power of their own to be humane to others so they pretended to be like and act like those whom they idolized and strived to exceed.

    In my opinion, DM is a wannabe in “second generation”, i.e. wannabe to Hubbard who himself was wannabe to Buddha, Christ and those alike.
    Hubbard failed – dying alone, lonely, in pain and agony.
    DM is doomed to fail the same way, methinks.

    • Fidelio permalink
      July 22, 2010 5:09 pm

      Vadim, -)


  2. July 22, 2010 8:03 am

    Your analysis makes great sense. I have used the term sociopath to describe Miscavige, but you have described him exactly.

    You also bring up the undeniable fact that Suppressive was always a “political” term for use in controlling dissidents, even as far back as in Keeping Scientology Working #1.

    It always meant exactly what Scientology management wanted it to mean.
    As you pointed out, Scientology ethics code forbade naming a suppressive senior as Suppressive so the sociopaths in the church got a free ride as long as they were high enough in the org structure.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Karen#1 permalink
      July 23, 2010 6:51 am

      David ~~

      I well remember the sheer happiness of an encounter and small chat with LRH on the Apollo. The high ARC, the granting of beingness. The anecdotes of a little warm chat LRH would have with a staff member. He was so approachable when taking a stroll on promenade tech outside his office.

      Now the ship had high high randomity, but the ARC was out the roof. There was a team spirit, a sense of purpose, a sense that we were doing something good in a larger sense. But the Apollo was really one gigantic family. SO members did not operate out of fear or dread the next punch, the next beating, the next sentence to Australia or to the bilges of Freewinds.

      I posted on Facebook ~~


      He may call himself “COB” and the “POPE” but he is a sadist, he deals out sadistic punishment, he beats people, he spits on people, he sends people to the RPF for YEARS, he splits up families, he holds people against their will on Freewinds and at INT BASE, and he is by all definitions a criminal psychopath.

      Heber is still in lockdown in SP Hole !

  3. Fidelio permalink
    July 22, 2010 10:03 am


    I get bored with myself but I can’t help but applaud you again with “BRILLIANT!”

    And yes, what a gorgious kink in the PTS/SP Tech to exclude senior SCN executives and principals from being called SPs when they in fact are just that. What a noose!! What a Hubbardian gem ready to be exploited by a sociopath and used as a perfect safe haven to hide!!!

    God, you are right that thought stopping as a phenomena deserves an own post and already now, I am looking forward to that one I am sure is yet on your writing agenda. And I would be VERY surprised if it turned out to be your shortest one. 🙂

    Since for right now, I will consider that thought stopping gimmicks to be invalid for me, I take full liberty to put Hubbard against these traits of the Portrait of a Sociopath.

    Haven’t made up my mind though about the outcome of that exercise…

    Thank you again for priceless food for thought.


  4. Kingair350 permalink
    July 22, 2010 12:48 pm

    I just wanted you to know how much your post helped me bring closure to a decades long problem.

    Pointing out that one cannot find a senior supressive was a splash of ice water. I’ve always thought that was utter bs, but justified it with the usual Koolaid besotted think.

    This towers as one of your most valuable posts.


  5. Aeolus permalink
    July 22, 2010 1:34 pm

    This is so exact that Dr. Cleckley must have been using Miscavige as his model when he wrote that list.

  6. WhatWall permalink
    July 22, 2010 1:39 pm

    Thank you for another enlightening article.

    In it you said:
    “Followers tend to rationalize and justify the sociopath’s behavior and hide aberrant behavior from outsiders.”

    “Ordinary people, which is to say sane people, who are confronted with a sociopathic personality often do not recognize what they are looking at.”

    These factors allow the sociopath to extend his sphere of influence unchecked, sometimes until a large number of people are affected, as exemplified by Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

    How far will Mr. Miscavige’s sphere of influence expand before he attracts a counter-force capable of nullifying him?

  7. lunamoth permalink
    July 22, 2010 3:04 pm

    Thank you, Jeff, for pointing out the political nature of the term “SP.” It’s a term that used to mean something to me, in the context of the PTS/SP tech, but which is also used to mean someone who’s license to survive has been revoked by the church. That this definition existed before dm should be mentioned, too.

    Having one word that means two such different things makes confusion of thought (and thus manipulation of thought) on the subject unavoidable. How many people would support Fair Game on people who were simply “administratively” SP’s, if they didn’t believe that they were also completely anti-social personalities? How many scientologists would support what is being done to their friends and family for simply disagreeing, if they didn’t also hold the idea that those people were now somehow evil? The meaning gets clouded. The definitions get collapsed. There is some confusion in the area and an already hard-to-confront issue becomes more so. People don’t examine the issue, and crimes are gotten away with right in front of their eyes.

    I’d also like to point out that what the church is describing, when using the term “SP,” is a heretic. To actually use that word, though, would put them in the company of people who burned innocent women at the stake for being witches, with sadistic Inquisitionists, and other religious figures that we hold in contempt for their narrow and intolerant views, and yes, their crimes against humanity in the name of religion. It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying any attention that the c of m indeed does BELONG in that company, so they have been very careful not to use that word.

    On the subject of sociopaths, I have to say that it does broaden my understanding of someone like dm to see him in the context of this list of attributes. A sociopath operates under different rules (obviously) than the rest of us, which makes it disturbing to think what new atrocities the little
    criminal is still capable of. As the pressure on him increases and his resources continue to be replaced at a rate slower than they are being used, I hope law enforcement is paying close attention. I am now convinced that dm presents a real threat to the lives of others at this point.

  8. Boyd H. permalink
    July 22, 2010 3:27 pm

    This is something we can agree on Jeff. Except you say you’re not allowed to name a senior exec as an SP. I find this hard to believe LRH wrote this, it’s an auditors code violation, gross auditing error, for one thing, and goes against all of LRH’s warnings about how easily Scientology might slip into the wrong hands. Can you give some context? Did DM change this tech? What’s your source for this? Your own experience and what others say happened?

    • Jeff permalink*
      July 22, 2010 5:07 pm

      I don’t have any Tech Vols to hand, but maybe someone who does can look up the reference. It was definitely part of the rundown, I remember very distinctly not being allowed to name any senior execs as my SP item. It was not allowed. I’d be interested in the history of this bit of tech as well.

    • It's me again permalink
      July 22, 2010 7:38 pm

      Boyd H.

      According to the PTS rundown of 1972 and even the SP Rundown of 1979, there is nothing that I can see that states you cannot name an Exec or anyone else as an item.

      There is a reference “Two Types of PTS” written May 21 1985, 4 months after Ron died, that states “(Ref; HCOB 24 Apr. 72, C/S Series 79, PTS INTERVIEWS) If a standard interview is done and the pc names well-intentioned persons as the people he is PTS to, the C/S, seeing this, would not order a PTS Rundown. The C/S would program the case for those auditing rundowns designed to uncover and blow O/W’s and evil purposes.”

      Now here is what is funny. It states in the Two Types of PTSes” that the above reference comes from HCOB 24 Apr. 72, C/S Series 79,” PTS Interviews.”

      Now go to the reference “PTS Interviews” and this is what is actually states:

      “A somewhat suppressive pc will find the good hats suppressive. This does not relieve his condition. He is PT to SP people, groups, things or location, no matter how SP he is.”

      THE “PTS INTERVIEW” REFERENCE OF 1972 STATES NOTHING ABOUT BEING C/S’D FOR A AUDITING RUNDOWN TO UNCOVER AND BLOW O/W’S AND EVIL PURPOSES WHEN NAMING WELL-INTENTIONED PERSONS. The only states “The PTS condition is actually a problem and a mystery and a withdrawal, so it is sometimes hard to find and has to be specially processed (3 S&Ds) to locate it.”

      So I guess we can sum it up that someone in 1985 decided to throw some of their own altered PTS tech into the mix. Maybe there is another reference I don’t know about. If it is written in 1985 or forward, I am not interested.

      • Jeff permalink*
        July 22, 2010 9:25 pm

        “Well-intentioned” is the equivocal term. Who is to decide who is “well-intentioned”? It’s the same fallacy in the definition of “Black PR.” To state the obvious, it is the Church who decides who is well-intentioned and who is not. A technical staff member coming across a person who claims he is PTS to David Miscavige is going to tend to discount it under this reference as “obviously” David Miscavige is “well-intentioned.” After all, he is presented that way at every event and in every Church magazine.

      • LookDon'tListen permalink
        July 22, 2010 10:02 pm


        This “well-intentioned” term was the ALTERED term. It was not a term in the reference it was linked to. The actual reference this was taken from was stating that a person who was somewhat suppressive himself could find good hats suppressive and this would not relieve his condition.

        Someone totally ALTERED the whole thing by saying that if a well-intentioned person (altered) was named then the C/S would program for auditing rundowns to handle O/W’s and Evil purposes instead of the PTS RD (altered). None of this is in the actual “PTS INTERVIEW” HCOB that is being given has the reference for the altered tech.

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 22, 2010 10:18 pm

        Since when did someone else get to decide who I feel is suppressing ME? This is a complete departure from the very essence of ethics – it is a PERSONAL matter. Once you enter the eval of a third party into the mix, you are getting some one else’s think on the situation, not that thing which will bring about as-isness for the individual.

        Just so much bullshit. This is actually pretty interesting, but really, we could go on like this for a very long time, examining each and every particle every published as
        scientology. I don’t have the patience. I’d almost rather figure it all out on my own.

      • Jeff permalink*
        July 22, 2010 10:39 pm

        Well, not to nitpick, but “good hat” has the same problem. Who decides who is a good hat?

      • lunamoth permalink
        July 23, 2010 2:48 am

        Jeff – Yes, I remember that “good hat” phrase being used in these cases – which is even more subjective than the phrase “management terminals” because it can also include an “upstat” staff at a lower org, an fsm who brings in lots of money, or an OT who does the same.

        So in other words, if you’re the one who is playing their game nobody can talk smack about you. Even if it’s done in a session, even if it gives the person case gain and improves conditions to do so.

        I had never seen that particular prejudice/illogic built into the system before. Once again, the “good” of the organization trumps the good of the individual.

        Thanks for the insight.

    • Aeolus permalink
      July 22, 2010 11:10 pm

      Here’s a relevant passage from the curent (2007) Ethics book, in the chapter Potential Trouble Source: “..if the person starts naming org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP, the Ethics Officer….. sends the person to Tech or Qual.”

      Besides not naming your senior, in practice anyone who’s donated more money than you is going to be considered as ‘other unlikely persons’, and you won’t be able to complete your ethics handling until you come to your senses and/or donate more money than them.

  9. Boyd H. permalink
    July 22, 2010 8:46 pm

    Otherwise you could have a floating TA and VGIs and the auditor has to continue the session or keep on with the same question because it’s the wrong item. Then you get high TA or a dirty needle or whatever and it can’t even be handled on the correction list besides saying you disagree with LRH’s evalution. What if it’s a junior level Snr. Exec, what’s the cutoff? There’s got to be more to it, I’ve never run across anything in the tech like this. I haven’t read it all but…

  10. It's me again permalink
    July 22, 2010 8:55 pm

    Sorry, I need to correct my comment above. I was just informed that LRH died in 1986.

    This doesn’t change the fact that the reference given in “Two Types of PTS” stating that this reference came from”PTS Interviews” altered what the “PTS Interviews” reference actually said.

    • lunamoth permalink
      July 22, 2010 10:20 pm

      I appreciate your research on this, either way. Thanks. And I agree with your assessment.

    • Boyd H permalink
      July 23, 2010 5:51 am

      It’s Me Again, thanks for the info, very good stuff.

  11. It's me again permalink
    July 22, 2010 11:12 pm

    Hey, I was just answering Boyd H. question.

    I think this was altered and passed around to scare people into not saying who the actual SP was in a PTS interview if you were PTS to someone in the Church. If you can’t name a person of well-intentions ( Executive or Principal in Scientology), then of course you are not allowed to look were the real problems are coming from and will remain PTS. This is just another way to cave someone in and hide the crimes of Execs and others.

    The actual reference said that a “somewhat suppressive person” finds good hats suppressive. It sounds like this is what DM does himself and it is probably why the reference was altered.

    That is all I was trying to point out. This was altered and passed around, as far as I can see, for a purpose.

  12. It's me again permalink
    July 22, 2010 11:37 pm


    I think the person can figure out who is a good hat himself. Your list of characteristics of a sociopath are great. LRH definition of suppression (a harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back. Thus when one can do anything about it , it is less suppressive” is also great. I call these people Enslavers, the people who want for themselves and who run can’t have for others.

    No matter what you want to name these types of people, it all boils down to one thing. These are not the type of people you want around you. They will suck the life out of you.

  13. July 23, 2010 3:29 am

    Another excellent post Jeff! I, like Fidelio, look forward to the article on “thought-stopping.”

    I have been entertaining the idea that there is actually an intelligent species of life that is inherently sociopathic. Like the rest of us, they’re also here in human form but their nature, their impulses are far from human in that they are life suckers (vampires) and enslavers. They are incredibly adroit at capturing, holding and preserving their victims i.e., their food. In other words, I am of the mind that sociopaths are not isolated cases of specialized aberration but are actually part of an organized species where what is and has been their SOP for eons is perceived by us to be sociopathic. And yes, to this species, we humans are considered to be nothing more than food and perhaps a bit of entertainment.

    Jeff, as spooky as your image of DM is at the beginning of your blog post, for me, it would be even more appropriate if you gave him some abnormally long eye teeth with possibly a bit of blood drippin from their sharp tips.

    For an excercise….imagine how the other species on this planet, if they could articulate it in a way we could understand, would describe the human species. Personally, I think that if they had the concept of sociopath they would probably quickly discard it as being too kind.

    • Fidelio permalink
      July 23, 2010 2:06 pm


      you write: “I have been entertaining the idea that there is actually an intelligent species of life that is inherently sociopathic. …..”

      Very similar considerations I had made and still make recently and thus came across the works of a Russian author Vadim Zeland who gave me tremendous insights and understanding on these “life suckers (vampires) and enslavers.”

      If you like, please explore

      There you’ll find a whole chapter of his first book giving a very good initial clue on that very subject.

      Got the picture you draw of dm – LOL – and yeah, let’s look forward to Jeff’s article on “thought-stopping”… 😉

      Best, Fidelio

    • John Doe permalink
      July 23, 2010 4:27 pm


      Please tell me you are speaking metaphorically and not implying that vampires that suck peoples blood DO exist…

    • July 23, 2010 11:51 pm

      To elaborate upon this species of sociopath that I speak of, I want to mention that the SOP of this species is not to be taken personally. They do what they do because that’s what they do. Just like a shark, seeing a guy that is out paddling on a surf board in the ocean, swims over and bites the guy’s leg off (snack time) – there’s nothing personal against the guy. He was just perceived by the shark to be food. I think its the same for DM. There’s nothing personal in his actions. It’s just how he operates being a member of the species of sociopaths. Just like the hundreds of thousands of living animals that humans slaughter daily. We have nothing personal against the animals. It’s just that they are considered by use to be lower life forms and their sole purpose of existence is to be our food. That noted, I’m not saying that DM doesn’t have an agenda. In fact, I very much suppose that he is executing a specific agenda that is part of a bigger agenda being orchestrated by his species. If one’s perception is focused too tightly onto DM then the agenda will not be recognized. Instead, DM will be seen as just being an isolated case dramatizing a specific aberation to which we assign the label, sociopath. In order to see the agenda it is necessary that one “zooms out” to get a broader picture of the gameboard that DM is playing on. But….when one goes to zoom out, they very quickly run head-on into those pesky and effective “thought-stoppers.”

      You know, not all that long ago if someone was telling me the “crap” that I’m laying on you here, I would’ve categorized the content of the story and the person telling it as being out of present time. I would have rapidly arrived at the conclusion that the person was obviously badly restimed and talking right out of their bank i.e., delusional. LOL!!

      @ Fidelio – thanks for that link. I will most definetly check it out.

      @ John doe – No, not blood…ENERGY! A specific wavelength of energy. The wavelength of energy emitted by a person who is being put under great duress. This species, although it assumes human form, is NOT human. And it does not nourish itself in the same way that a human nourishes itself.

      • Fidelio permalink
        July 24, 2010 2:51 pm

        outright stunning how you describe that particular species, dm is part of. It’s very much how I perceive it, too!

        And I even conceive Hubbard to be a marionette of that bigger agenda orchestrated by that species. He may not have started as a puppet but definitely got sucked into that agenda as time went by. Where he might have started as a shark and a player, continually strengthening that agenda, he eventually ended up totally beaten down to pulp and eaten up by it himself.

        One way or the other dm can’t help but end that miserably, too. Geez.

        Take care, Fidelio

  14. July 23, 2010 4:48 am

    Good hats? Bad hats? SP? Sociopath?

    I can’t decide these things for myself. You see, I’ve only done the PTS/SP course twice (pre-GAT/post-GAT), plus the PTS rundown in the late 90’s.

    Without the gentle guidance and wisdom of the infallible Mr. David Miscavige, I’m afraid I don’t know anything at all.

    Except, that is, how to agree. I learned the patter drill on that one, baby!


  15. July 23, 2010 5:04 am

    Having plenty of first-hand experience with Mafioso Miscavige, I can attest that all 15 points fit him like fingerprints on a bloody knife. It’s not “Oh, yeah, I can sorta see that.” Those points reflect David Miscavige like a reflection in a mirror. Jeff, you are 100% right.

  16. sherrymk permalink
    July 23, 2010 5:22 am

    Very interesting post Jeff and quite enlightening.

    Trying to “evaluate” who is an “SP” and who is not using Scientology jargon is one of those circle jerks that can never get resolved. That it is entirely an internal political matter is completely right on the mark. And probably, it always has been despite the usefulness the information has in the rare case of there actually being a true suppressive (sociopath) Geir Isene wrote a brilliant post about that very thing sometime last year on his blog.

    The “reference” in the new Ethics book that Aeolus pointed out is the one I was trying to think of. When I was on staff at Pasadena and observed all the insanity going on from the local management level, I received a 10 August PTS interview from Pomm Hepner, who, at the time, was helping me try and resolve some issues. It was, in fact, the best “PTS” interview I ever received…one that eventually, over the course of a couple of weeks, lead me to the true source of the suppression..yup..David Miscavage. I realized that I could NEVER voice that discovery within the church, that I would be shot from cannons for even THINKING such a thing. I had to go outside the church to try and get some closure. That’s when I began to discover all the stuff on the internet. Very very interesting indeed…

    The circular thinking is the crux of the problem with Scientologists…and it’s inherent within the policies and tech themselves. Everything can be explained in terms of Scientology and any critical thinking outside the box of Scientology is also explained in terms of Scientology!

    Thanks for keeping us on our toes Jeff. You allow people to think and evaluate for themselves..what a gift you give to us all.


    • Mickey permalink
      July 24, 2010 3:08 am

      Sherry: “The circular thinking is the crux of the problem with Scientologists…and it’s inherent within the policies and tech themselves. Everything can be explained in terms of Scientology and any critical thinking outside the box of Scientology is also explained in terms of Scientology!”

      This is a brilliant statement and explains why the idea of “clearing the planet” will never, ever happen to any degree at all. Integration into and duress-free joining with society in order to accomplish such a “star high goal” would be over before it began because of exactly what you have so succinctly stated here.

      Circular thinking has lead to circular jerking which has lead to movement in the opposite direction of ever clearing anything other than everyone’s bank accounts and sadly many, many “uncleared” and broken/disconnected relationships.

      Question Sherry (or anyone else)…. think your statement carries onward into the Indie movement, too?

  17. July 23, 2010 12:27 pm


    Hope you are doing great!

    I went to one of Pomm’s art seminars long ago. She is a great person but I wonder what it will take to wake her up?

    I just can’t understand how guys like Chic Corea, Billy Sheehan, etc, cannot see what’s going on. They are far less famous than guys like Cruise and Travolta. Probably far less insulated into the Disneyland-ish cocoon of extreme wealth, power, personal assistants, chaffeurs and red carpets.

    We need a celebrity or two of any level to step forward and be courageous as Jason Beghe has done. This possibility was mentioned briefly in the recent Mike Rinder interview on Today/Tonight. It would have quite the impact.

    C’mon celebrities. If you are reading these words, it’s not okay to allow good people to be financially destroyed, RPF’d, endlessly Sec Checked for no real reason and harrassed/intimidated for not joining staff, etc, etc. Not to mention being short-changed on COB’s abbreviated and altered Bridge.

    That is how the church operates for us, the “little people”. Miscavige is a sociopath. And you don’t even have to have met him to observe this in the day-to-day operation of your local Class V org. One of the least friendly places I’ve ever walked into, in retrospect.

    Do the right thing celebrities, despite personal danger, and you will find that you actually come OUT of danger for real…….. especially regarding your long-term, future track.


  18. July 23, 2010 2:59 pm

    It brings me back to my “handling” by Joan Disken –auditor at the OSA/RTC building. She – at that time – was only one of the two people on the planet to give “sec Checks” the ‘rightway’ – meaning the DM way. I knew it was the strangest auditing I had ever had, but there was one point in which I was getting off an overt I had committed on a declared SP, in my job history file you will find that it was my job to spend time with a lot of declared SP’s. She not only refused to accept my O/W, she stood up, leaning over me, and screamed “You can never committ an Overt on an SP”. Having studied PTS/SP tech thoroughly, and also written a course check sheet for one, — in that moment I knew I was in nothing close to LRH’s Scientology, in fact – LRH says the exact opposite — the ONLY way you can become PTS to a suppressive is to committ overst on him/her. This goes all the way back to the “DED and DED EX’s” that he spoke of in the Philadelphia Course in 1952.

    At that moment I wasn’t aware that I was now getting DM’s version of Scientology, but I did know this was no longer Hubbard’s Scientology. And “If it’s out at the top, it’s out at the bottom”.

    I was in uncharted territory after that.

    Nancy Many

    • Fidelio permalink
      July 23, 2010 4:58 pm


      do you know what happened to Joan Disken in the meanwhile?
      Read your book and please let me say: My deepest respect to and for you!!


      • July 23, 2010 6:39 pm

        dear fidelio,

        yes, she continued on that job for quite some time. I do know that she has spent the past 6 years in the Los Angeles RPF, and no matter what she did to me, no one deserves to be placed in that thought reform camp for years and years. Last graduate I heard of was from a couple of weeks ago, and that person had spent 13 years in the Los Angeles RPF. It truly is a place worse than prison.

      • Fidelio permalink
        July 24, 2010 2:30 pm

        Thank you Nancy,

        and YES: NOBODY should be submitted to such torture, I mean NOBODY, not even a torturer, executioner or gang bang reversed SCN sec checker.

        Those who claim to have somehow benefitted from such a “treatment” benefitted in reality because it was THEM themselves who came to THEIR genuine senses (after whatever they considered to have done wrong) and then THEIR senses were luckily allowed to play out and not further smashed again into zombie-like submission. Almost always, it strikes me odd, too, how there is a fanatical touch in the defense of the “original RPF” which comes across to me as an outright, blatant lie in some unconscious desperate self-defense.

        There is no proof anywhere on earth at all that the RPF as it is applied has anything to do with “redemption” or “rehabilitation” – it’s simply and plainly brutal, violent criminality to exploit workforce and to enslave souls. Nothing short.

        Nancy, my deep respect for blowing the whistle (or should I say the vuvuzela? 😉 ) !

        Best, Fidelio

      • July 24, 2010 6:45 pm

        Hi Fidelio:
        I had my husband demonstrate the somewhat annoying sound of a Vuvuzela. I think I would rather “whistle” like a fog horn, warning of danger. Unseen danger because it’s surrounded with fog,

      • Fidelio permalink
        July 24, 2010 11:52 pm

        Dear Nancy,

        like the fog horn better myself – unseen danger – yes.

        😉 Fidelio

      • July 25, 2010 12:36 am

        dear Fidelio,,,

        yes,,,, fog horn and light house, that’s me

      • Fidelio permalink
        July 25, 2010 3:50 pm

        Love you, Nancy! 😉 Fidelio

      • July 27, 2010 11:32 pm

        thanks Fidelion, that will be my new nick name — light house…
        with a LOUD Fog horn….


  19. John Doe permalink
    July 23, 2010 4:58 pm

    Jeff said: “In my opinion, “Suppressive Person” has always been primarily used as a political term in Scientology.”

    Very good point. I think everyone knows this, even if they are unable to acknowledge it, even to themselves. I can think back to how shocked I felt when good people started getting declared or when high and long-time senior officials started getting declared, with specious embellishments such as implying they had been “plants” by the government all along. Okaaaaaay…

    I think this practice of declaring people suppressive and then enforcing disconnection is the most self-destructive policy used by the church. When people start seeing their friends victimized by these political declares, each declare adds to the growing cognitive dissonance with the subject itself. And then when a sociopath like David Miscavige has the chilling effect of making one feel cowed and ill, and yet he has free reign to do so, the cognitive dissonance becomes intolerable.

  20. Revenimus permalink
    July 23, 2010 10:42 pm

    Brilliant! I was in the RPF for years and it is worse than prison in many ways. It is interesting, people who have been through the RPF if re-assigned would very rarely agree to go through it again. I know I never would. Overall most of my experiences in the RPF as well as at the int base represented a whole lot of mental and physicall pain, I will never allow myself to be used or manipulated like this again. I had “comm cycles” with Miscavige and I remember getting punished for having “a bad comm cycle with COB” and it had been his own terrible comm cycle and psychosis that were to blame. But the frustrating thing is the inability to then when it was happening why didn’t I stand up in one of his briefings and denounce his ass? We were truly blind and were cowed into submission. Wouldve been cool – painful, but cool…

  21. Filtered permalink
    July 24, 2010 2:42 pm

    A sociopath, by this writing appears to be a 1.1 with some 1.5 tendencies.

    • Jeff permalink*
      July 24, 2010 5:37 pm

      A sociopath is a sociopath. There are extensive studies on the subject. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you have to translate everything into Scientology words and concepts to make it understandable.

    • PlainOldThetan permalink
      August 2, 2010 1:57 am

      Jeff: can you ‘splain to me how “Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you have to translate everything into Scientology words and concepts to make it understandable.” doesn’t qualify as thought-stopping?

    • Jeff permalink*
      August 3, 2010 4:18 am

      Re-read the definition of “thought terminating cliche” and see if it fits. If you feel it does, you are welcome to ignore my comment.

      • Fidelio permalink
        August 3, 2010 7:33 am

        perfect answer!! Thanks for the education!
        Best Fidelio

    • PlainOldThetan permalink
      August 3, 2010 6:07 pm

      I re-read the definition of thought-terminating cliche several times and don’t see how it answers my question. In other words, I find your answer is not an answer to my question. I wanted to know HOW your response ” Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you have to translate everything into Scientology words and concepts to make it understandable.” is just the more thought-stopping, except with a viewpoint that’s 180-degrees out.

      To me, labeling something “thought-stopping” doesn’t help clarify or correct the situation since it itself is seems to be a thought-stopping mechanism. Its own cliche, as it were.

      • Jeff permalink*
        August 3, 2010 6:55 pm

        Consider two statements:

        1. You have to translate concepts into Scientology terminology in order to fully understand them.

        2. You do not have to translate concepts into Scientology terminology in order to fully understand them.

        Which is thought-stopping? Are they both thought-stopping? Is neither one thought stopping? Tell me what you think.

  22. It's me again permalink
    July 24, 2010 9:43 pm

    RPF… I hate to show how stupid I was and how easily I was fooled, but I was at the complex about 10 years ago doing my OT Levels. I saw a bunch of people running around on the streets at my break time. I asked someone sitting with me on break… Who are these people always running around? They don’t seem very happy and they never say hello or anything. This is what I was told:

    They are people who just joined the SO and they are getting in shape by doing a lot of MEST work before they go onto post.

    No kidding, that is what I was told. I don’t know if the other person really knew what the RPF was really for or the torture going on and I don’t remember ever reading anything about it on my training levels.

    I am extremely sorry to all who suffered on the RPF, if a lot more public knew what was really going on, the contributions would of stop a long time ago. I see no justification for the treatment of people this way. I think I can speak for most public saying that this type of program goes against everything descent people would put up with. I don’t even understand how anyone who is an auditor would allow this to happen, it is a total violation of the Code.

    Does anyone know were I could get a copy of the RPF Policy? I really would be interested in reading it.

    • July 24, 2010 11:41 pm

      yes, it is the deep dark secret kept in the closet. It’s very hard to believe. And ceelbs are never allowed to see any part of it. The public don’t believe something like this coud be going on in America. it is unbelievable. That’s why it was the subject I chose to speak of on the Boston Commons. No one believes iit.

      • It's me again permalink
        July 25, 2010 5:58 am

        Nancy, It is truly horrifying to hear these stories about the RPF. Do you know of an internet source to see a copy of this policy? Is it an SO policy or just something that started a long time ago and got worse as time went on (like everything else)?

    • December 26, 2010 5:33 am

      The 1997 Flag Orders laying out the latest policy for the RPF are on Wikileaks. They can be downloaded from Wikileaks and read.

      Wikileaks has MORE Scientology materials than can be purchased from any of the orgs, since Wikileaks has the Class 8 tapes and course, the “old” (pre 1982) version of the OT levels, etc, etc, meaning Wikileaks has all the “old” OT 3 materials.

      and probably to me, most importantly, Wikileaks has a huge chunk of the “confidential” Office of Special Affairs Network Orders, which lay out what OSA is authorized to do to church “enemies”.

  23. July 25, 2010 6:38 pm

    It is Sea Org Policy, which means it will come in the form of a Flag Order, Black ink on white paper.
    Yes it has changed over the years, but the basics that I find most inhumane are almost the same —
    Two RPFers come to escort you to the RPF. You change your clothig into black or blue boilersuits, I hear it is now a new color, but the purpose of marking you as different, as no worthy, jut by looking at your clothes remains the same.

    The berthing area — the area were members sleep, and the courseroom for them, and the office for the leaders, is always in the most out of the way place in the buildings.

    Members have to run everywhere.

    Members have to call everyone sir.

    Members are not alowed to have a voice to originate communication to anyone outside of the group.

    You are assigned a twin – one other person, and you are attached at the hip, if some punishment befalls one member of the twinship, it can also befall the twin.

    Members always eat their meals — after the regular crew have eaten, and eat what is left over.
    (Chuck Beatty has told me that food has improved over the years)

    What was initially supposd to be a several month long break from the stresses of executive positions and the paperwork of being an exec. It was originally meant for the members to get some auditing and some sleep and just work on manual labor — no stress jobs.

    We just had our first graduate of the RPF in Los angeles within the past month — that person was in that unit for 13 years. An Unbelievable length of time.

    Once you are in the RPF you are never allowed alone.

    You have two outfits, one is being washed while the other one is worn.

    So what I know has changed over the years is — Length of time of being in the labor camp from Months to years and years.

    At different times married couples were allowed to have full nights together one night aweek, now the memeber not only can not speak wtih spouse, they are not allowed to speak with any children or other family members there. There also is a high rate of divorce between married couples are seperated by the RPF, sometimes they are not allowed to speak with the spouse, so they are just given divorce papers to sign.

    There has alway been the RPF’s RPF, which is a step worse than the RPF, in that particular person is not allowed to even speak to members of the rpf. They are isolated and made to do some form of manual abor like clean this out with a toothbrush.

    So, over the years many things are worse in that the volume is higher, but the basics of shame and segregation were there right from the beginning.

    You can google Rehabilitation Project Force. I do know some of he actual Flag Orders are on lline.
    I don’t know if there is a complete set that would show all changes thru the years…

  24. July 25, 2010 8:40 pm

    In a bullfight there is the Bull, the Picador and the Matador. The hat of the Picador is to lance the neck muscles of the Bull so as to enusure that the Bull’s charge is direct. In addition, the Picador, through, his jousting with the Bull, causes to the Bull to tire. Especially tiring those muscles in the Bull’s neck which become fatigued through the Bull’s many attempts to lift and gore the Picador’s horse. When the Picador has fully prepared the Bull, the Matador enters the ring equipped with a red cape. The Matador is there to entertain the audience and kill the Bull. The Matador skillfully and artfully directs the Bull’s focus of attention and attacks to the cape while standing only a fraction of an inch away from the furious animal. To the Bull, the Matador is nonexistent. It is the red cape that must be stopped and that cape is all the Bull can see or think about. Of course, the Bull’s fight is futile and little by little the Bull manifests a failed purpose, tires, drops downtone and the Matador perceiving that the fight is soon to leave the Bull, calls for his saber and in what has been decided to be the Bull’s last charge, the Matador faces the struggling Bull and drives his saber deep into the Bull’s chest wherein the heart is pierced. The audience cheers as the Bull drops dead.

    We are the Bull. We were prepared for our fight with the Matador by getting indoctrinated with a broad diversity of thought-stoppers. We were given altered and false tech and consequently accumulated deposits of failed purposes. Our focus of attention was continually directed to the road and promise of spiritual freedom for which we do almost anything to achieve. The CoS, The Bridge to total freedom and DM are all the “red cape.” We have yet to spot the Matador. Wonder who makes up the audience?

  25. It's me again permalink
    July 25, 2010 10:17 pm


    Thank you for the information. I will try to Google for more information.


    Thank you for those great pictures of the bull being tortured and set up for slaughter all in the name of a game. The matador and the audience? Well, aren’t those people out in the open for everyone to see? I think the questions is who is pulling the strings and benefits the most from the game.

  26. It's me again permalink
    July 25, 2010 10:38 pm

    Oh, Nancy, If you are still on this link, I wanted to ask you one more thing (I got distracted by the bull story).

    Why do you think that people are left on the RPF so long? About 10 years ago I was told that there was about a total of 5000 SO members. It sounds like SO members are overworked to death. Why aren’t the people on the RPF but back onto their post quickly to ease the work load? Is there money being made off the backs of the people in the RPF that produces more income than if they were on post?

    Just wanted your option.

  27. July 26, 2010 3:27 am

    It’s Me Again — The outrageous added time to the RPF programme is described very well in Amy Scobee’s book. As I’ve said you have a twin and you are tied at the hip to get out together, well if the twin is released from the RPF (as some sometimes are), you are left, like the game shoots and ladders, back to the beginning and have to start over with another person. Also they have changed the way in which the auditing you receive has to be done. LRH had it set up so you did minimal training to only learn what you needed to learn technically for your twins next step – it was called the Read It, Drill it, Do it, a very quick way to get through the technical requirements for the RPF graduation. Amy now, I believe, explains this also in her book, where instead of simple Read it, Drill it, Do it, the members are now required to take ALL the needed FULL course, which adds a tremendous amount of time to getting out. Also, over the years, the requirements for getting out have shifted and made more and more.

    • It's me again permalink
      July 26, 2010 4:45 am

      Thanks Nancy,

      I am still baffled as to why they are kept in so long. Reading these sites, it seems that DM is very interested in money. I was trying to figure out if he makes more money on keeping people on the RPF than on a post were money could be made. I guess I am trying to figure out his sick logic and what is in it for him. Sounds like having power over others may be senior to him than the money.

    • Boyd H. permalink
      July 26, 2010 4:05 pm

      The RPF was a months long program if you’re average speed and now it’s 4 years on average if you’re fast, is what I get from my hearing accounts when at the CLO and reading them. There’s 12 year RPFers including Chuck Beatty and I think you Nancy?

      What’s key is the arbitrary extended time makes the RPF something to fear and so no-one dares take on corruption in management. It’s not about case gain it’s about silencing dissent to DM’s policy changes. DM know the entire track of RPF changes intimately, there’s no question in his mind.

      As an example, the CO WISE EUS, who is all around fast flow, was already Clear, and who’s IQ is above the Scientology IQ rating system, spent 3 to 4 years on the RPF in the early 2000’s. He’s a major registrar but he was apparently sent to it again recently and he’s back now, It’s only a rumor. He spent days on end staying awake to prepare L. Ron Hubbard way for one of DM’s illegal events. It wasn’t a local event it was broadcast Internationally so it’s illegal per the Central Bureau Order? authored by LRH. During that time the RPF isn’t on their program. Callie Parz/Gambino who was low on the bridge but fast on course took about 4 years. Tom Welch took over 6 years and he’s a veteran. Never saw him the entire time while at the CLO.

      Also a group of hardcore former Execs from Int were sent to the CLO and Chris Beeney was one of them. Apparently he was later sent to the ANZO RPF to do it twice again or something. This is off the wall, LRH gave people second and more chances but let them go fast if they couldn’t cut it. Chris was dying to prove that he was good and could make it, I worked with him a tiny bit on things and also sent his telexes when he was on CF mission and we’d talk a bit, he deserved another chance. DM isn’t just wasting talent with declares, there’s a whole layer of experience and willingness within the SO who are only allowed MEST work, most of whom aren’t screw-ups even if they did screw up, they just can’t reconcile Product clearing and Admin scaling their post with reality because the goals are so twisted right now.

      This makes them tired and apathetic and mistake prone.

  28. July 26, 2010 4:20 pm

    Hello, it’s me again: People who are registrars and able to make money, I have rarely seen on the RPF, they usually get lower level punishments. I could be wrong in these days of big donations, But yes, having to ability to send another person to the RPF camp is or can be a sort of sick pleasure. And the threat of it, does keep people in line…nancy

    • It's me again permalink
      July 27, 2010 3:53 am

      Thanks Boyd H. and Nancy.

      Being only a public person I am don’t know who the people are in Boyd H. comment but it is a very interesting story…thank you Boyd!

      Again, I am deeply sorry that my donations enabled a program like to happen. As an auditor and a person, I am heart broken that this is going on and the damage it has done to the very people who have worked hard to make sure I was serviced.

      Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions Nancy. My best to you.

      • July 27, 2010 8:17 pm

        thanks for your comments. I understand how you may feel somewhat responsible for the egrigious lack of humanity. Believe me it was kept well hidden from you and many other donators. In fact most people I speak wtih think I am making it up. The thing you can do now, now that you know of it, is to speak out against it. Add your voice to the chorus of people called for the end to mental and physical abuse. Best of luck.

  29. August 18, 2010 12:21 pm

    Sociopath and Psychopath. DM, he’s got it all.

    Those Canadians sure produce some excellent documentaries. This is part 6 (of 23) from the doc, The Corporation. I know. It sounds non sequitur but…


  1. Snakes in Suits - Why We Protest | Activism Forum
  2. Miscavige and Goebbels : a quick comparison. - Why We Protest | Activism Forum

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: