Skip to content

Scientologists vs. David Miscavige

November 11, 2010

I just read an amazing letter from an OT VIII, which I am linking to here:

Letter to COB

It is probably the best summary I have read of the case against David Miscavige, from a Scientologist point of view. It is intelligent, well researched, concise and lucid. It cites all of the main Scientology references that Miscavige is violating.

If your friends or family who are still in Scientology read one thing, it should be this document.

As I see it, Scientologists who are still in the Church and who want to continue practicing Scientology have three choices.

1. Keep your head firmly in the sand, refuse to read the internet, refuse to talk to anyone who has left, do everything the Church asks of you, keep your head down, and hope, just hope, that someday you’ll manage to “get up the Bridge.”

2. Somehow get David Miscavige to step down and then work actively to reform your Church.

3. Leave the Church and continue to practice Scientology with other Independent Scientologists, on your own terms and without interference from David Miscavige’s fascist cult.

Option #1 isn’t really practical, as most people are finding out. David Miscavige’s police state now reaches into every Org, every mission. Sure, years ago you could hunker down in a local org or mission and try to ignore the insanity coming from the Sea Org and Management. You can’t ignore it any more. And as for “going up the Bridge”? Well, read Marty’s recent posts about the state of tech at the FSO and FSSO, and see if you really want to do that.

Option #2 doesn’t really work either. Because the minute David Miscavige’s fascist security network gets wind that you are even thinking about getting him to step down, you’ll be declared and jettisoned from the Church.

Which really leaves you with #3.

And you can say, “but what about my family? My friends? I don’t want to be disconnected from them.”

Well then, you could all do Option #1 as a group, put all of your heads firmly in the sand and try to ignore the storm raging around you.

Or you could wise them up, get them to open their eyes and look, and leave – as a group. Doesn’t that sound like a saner solution?

Anyway, read Luis’ letter, it is brilliant.

  1. November 11, 2010 6:32 am

    I read Luis’s letter yesterday and I too thought it was concise and well written. I particularly like the last line at the end. And well, miscavige will be paying, for all eternity for his crimes.

  2. November 11, 2010 6:47 am

    I agree Jeff. Luis’ Letter is a Magnum Opus. Well written and very concise.

    Damn I wish I’d written it!!!!!

    It’s okay I’ll get over my initial writer’s envy.

    Luis’ a thumbs up and VWD if you’re reading Jeff’s blog.

    You rock dude!

    Also I agree with you Jeff option one is not an option.

    I’ve tried 2 and ended up at option 3 by default 🙂

    Anyway if any of you “Churchies” are lurking here I suggest you read Luis’ letter to His Satanic Majesty it’ll blow your mind and hopefully you might decide to get the f*ck outta Dodge and stop feeding the monster.

  3. Firebreathing Frog permalink
    November 11, 2010 7:03 am

    Probably the most important post and letter I have ever read about the actual Scene.
    I also just ordered your book, looking forward to reading it.
    Best regards

  4. November 11, 2010 7:38 am

    This is a cussing AWESOME summary. This is pretty much what I would have written. Excellent work -thanks for posting it.

  5. Freetothink permalink
    November 11, 2010 7:55 am

    Fantastic letter! Thanks for sharing it Jeff. Will we have a chance to meet Luis on your blog?


  6. Lise permalink
    November 11, 2010 9:28 am

    Jeff, for some reason when I click on the Luis’s letter my computer shuts the whole page down. Can I access it anywhere else?

  7. November 11, 2010 11:33 am

    A friend of mine sent this letter to me this morning and I couldn’t stop reading and just managed not to be late for an appointment. Me too I wished I wrote it myself. Glad it is written and public. It’s brilliant.

  8. Martin permalink
    November 11, 2010 11:54 am

    This letter is right up there with Mary Jo’s now legendary KRs. It will have MAJOR impact in the field. The LRH references are spot on, and there can be absolutely no recourse to “I wasn’t aware…” etc. by any onlines public. Ignorance is no excuse in the law, and should be equally or even more true in scientology. The outpoints aren’t just “a bit visible” any more – they are screaming bright red howling monsters. Wakey wakey public – your Church is going down the swanny.

    • Fidelio permalink
      November 12, 2010 11:21 am

      Yeah, Martin, this letter is in the same league as Mary Jo’s legendary KRs – thanks for the reminder!!

  9. Marta permalink
    November 11, 2010 1:29 pm

    That is one kick-ass masterpiece, Luis!

    Thanks for posting it here, Jeff. I agree that it will likely be a very effective piece for education and awakening.


  10. Fidelio permalink
    November 11, 2010 3:15 pm


    time and again I ADMIRE your gentle approach how you go about to make people wake up!!!

    While studying ancient eastern wisdom on enlightenment (especially OSHO) I realize that unless we fully understand one day what SCN REALLY does to the mind and human existence, how Hubbard worked at it and what exactly he DID and MISSED over all those years, he “developped” that subject, it will be hard to evaluate it properly.

    It seems to me that even the highest trained auditors are not aware of what they are dealing with and I believe Hubbard himself had very little understanding of the true stages of enlightenment. He just knew he had “no time”, that he wanted to abbreviate the path, he just went for a “one fits all” highway without any consideration of the starting point of the individual and his particularities. “Executive C/Sing” what is so much lamented on is the deep rooted hallmark of this approach violently grouping up inconsistent tech pieces into “Standard Tech” allegedly being “the only way to spiritual freedom”.

    Well, the overall outcome so far is quite the opposite of any freedom.

    It is like in the case of asbestos or amalgam, used over decades in best trust it would benefit, when the huge variety of the real and long term dammages will come into full view. Wide spread understanding on what enlightenment actually means most probably will be necessary for that realizations. (Sorry for the crude comparison but you get the point.)

    One thing is however clearly established: It is all about waking up.

    • Cinnamon permalink
      November 13, 2010 6:20 pm

      Fidelio –

      That sounds interesting, about enlightenment. Do you have any links that explain specifically about the stages of enlightenment which you are referring to? It seems like everyone I talk to has different ideas of how to become enlightened, and what it means. I would like to know what the Eastern philosophy has to say about it.

      (Jeff – if you think this goes too far off-topic, and don’t want to post it, I will understand. But I really am interested in what Fidelio has to say. I believe in some of Scientology, but not necessarily all of it. For me, one way to “de-program” myself from some of my fixed Scientology beliefs is to look at other points of view, and then try to decide for myself. It allows me to better fit my Scientology beliefs into the overall spectrum of possibilities and ideas.)

      • Fidelio permalink
        November 13, 2010 8:55 pm


        just let me give you a quick link where you find a wealth of discourses and free e-books from Osho. I selected a page where he speaks of his own past lives:

        for a starter 😉 , and then you can search that site from there. Youtube provides hours of discourses, too. (More would certainly blast the frame of that blog.) Good hunting!

        Thank you for your interest.

  11. freespirit permalink
    November 11, 2010 5:00 pm

    Luis did an outstanding job at defining the issues which are at the core of so much prevelent quiet dissention amonst Scientologists. I find it appalling that under the rule of DM the radical Church has deterioriated to using “Number of dirt particles removed during film resotration” as a sign of “unprecendented expansion”. (Pity the poor souls that have to keep track of that!).

    What type of management commits its staff to such phenomenal stress as that seen in the Orange County org and the increased taxes it will have to assume? We know how that story will play out – more reason to deny them their pay so they can make ends meet. (But darn, make sure they are dressed well!)

    These stats (and I am sure there are other ludicrous ones as well) shift away from producing the real products of Scientology and the joy of helping others. They solidify the extent of criminality rampant in the “Church”: the something-for-nothing concept of criminal exchange: give us your money – all of it – and in turn we will produce a bunch of phoney smoke screens for you, and if you dare challenge us we will do all we can to introvert you into your own flaws so that you stop criticizing our con game and stop you from being effective in getting others aware of it as well. An entire machine has been created to do just this.

    A friend of mine pointed out that DM may yet be the greatest cult leader that ever existed. I think he may be right about that. I’ve never seen a slicker con man then he. He is a master at the art of deception.

    Luis – you are fiercely sharp, observant, and eloquent. My hat off to you.

  12. Aeolus permalink
    November 11, 2010 5:34 pm

    That’s the most spot-on, kick-ass letter of resignation from the Church that I’ve ever seen. Hey, Tommy Davis – Is there anything in there you can deny?

  13. Michael permalink
    November 11, 2010 6:55 pm

    I left Scientology a long time ago, there was something wrong. While reading Luis’s letter I had that “Wow” moment. Every Scientologist should read this. Amazing! Thank You!

  14. Cool Observer permalink
    November 11, 2010 7:42 pm

    Thia letter is a meticulous masterpiece, and it’s quite unfortunate that it won’t even register on the radar of those who remain in ostrich mode. I would add a fourth option: Visit “Ask the Scientologist” and read the blog post “The Wrong Why” (both parts) to evaluate the most essential question: Is it even possible to fix Scientology? The preferred approach should be “Think for yourself” instead of “Truth is what’s true for you”.

    • Fidelio permalink
      November 12, 2010 12:02 pm

      Cool Observer,

      thanks to the construction plans of animals, only the eyes can be blinded by ostrich mode.

      The noise of that letter will nevertheless be heard since its sounds are the tones and melodies of the SCN scriptures themselves.

      What is amazing to me now – after eleven months of the continous opening process of my eyes which started too with ear-deafening noise from our local idle org – even the letter itself contains already the screeches and dissonances pointing to the RTS (the Real Trouble Source) of what we are witnessing.

  15. Sinar permalink
    November 11, 2010 8:01 pm

    Jeff – Thanks for another fantastic blog post.

    Luis – Very incredible letter cutting through the smoke, mirrors and illusions – to a well researched, fully complete coverage which is clear, logical, factual. It does stick to the truth of the matter, omitting inappropriate additives. As such, it will help many sitting on the wall and walking the tightrope as I’m sure it will spread through cyberspace and word of mouth.

  16. Tony DePhillips permalink
    November 11, 2010 11:06 pm

    Louis that letter is a friggin masterpiece. I hope I get a chance to shake your hand someday.
    Tony Dephillips

  17. Cowboy Poet permalink
    November 12, 2010 1:09 am

    A magnificant letter Luis.
    And thanks for posting it, Jeff.

  18. Jeff permalink*
    November 12, 2010 2:42 am

    By the way, a word of wisdom to the OSA lackey who wants to come on here and defend David Miscavige and his cult: Read my book. Realize who you are dealing with – a man who was physically beaten by Miscavige on five occasions and who lived for years in that hellhole you call the Int Base. You want to defend all that? Go post on your Church failblogs.

    You think that’s unfair? Good, I’ll make you a deal. I’ll let you post here when you let me post on your Church sites. Deal? I thought not.

    • November 12, 2010 5:46 am


      You mean one of those OSA AssClowns tried to defend the indefensible.

      I know I know keep it clean kids 🙂

      But just for fun Jeff.

      You should have a humor section on your blog for posts like that.

      Just a suggestion.

    • Tony DePhillips permalink
      November 12, 2010 6:05 am

      Yes Sir!! You are damn right!!

    • Tony DePhillips permalink
      November 12, 2010 6:06 am

      I would say that letter must have impinged???

    • DLTaggart permalink
      November 12, 2010 6:27 pm

      Damn, I would have loved to have seen how and with what ammunition this person was defending DM. Care to share a few high…..errrr..lowlights?

  19. Scooter permalink
    November 12, 2010 3:34 am

    Great letter that – read it yesterday and I’m still in awe of it. Thanks for putting it up here, Jeff.

    BTW – The OSA trolls are working overtime at the moment so your last comment about them trolling your blog amused me no end – I’ve had more than my fair share of them these last few weeks.

    As usual, they just show how much Co$ actually does for a person. In trying to act “normal,” they show just how twisted their viewpoint really is and how enclosed in the cult cuckoon they are.

    To use a good aussie expression, they stick out like ram’s balls on a Fox Terrier.

  20. RenegadeX permalink
    November 12, 2010 10:29 pm

    Incredible letter! Thank you Luis Garcia!

  21. brendon permalink
    November 13, 2010 3:48 pm

    For those who hold LRH in the highest esteem, I can’t imagine a better, more comprehensive, more compelling argument as to why DM is the problem.

    Luis mentions on Marty’s blog that it was emailed to about 2,500 people (once you subtract the bounces). That’s a pretty amazing dissemination and doesn’t account for forwardings after that. And since it uses LRH quotes to make the argument, how can it be ignored?

    At this point, it is essentially impossible for any Scientologist to be ignorant of what is going on, save for those held incommunicado or who have a wall of staff surrounding them (i.e. TC).

  22. Cinnamon permalink
    November 13, 2010 4:34 pm

    Jeff –

    I am not trying to troll you. I just want to get something straight. I don’t understand something about your Choice #3.

    I’ve been out for a long time, so I don’t know that much about how it works, but I can’t imagine that you would lose your family and friends simply over something like that!

    Isn’t there some sort of middle ground? For example, can’t a person continue to remain in the CoS, and still get outside auditing from an Independent Scientologist? Or would that get them declared?

    Have things changed that much these days? Would you be declared an SP, and get dis-connected? I can’t believe they would do that – it sounds ridiculous.

    • Jeff permalink*
      November 14, 2010 2:06 am

      No, if you go to an Independent, someone not affiliated with the Church, it would be considered by the Church that you were going to a “squirrel.” That label has nothing to do with the quality of the auditor’s tech, it simply means, these days, anyone not part of the Church, either auditing on staff or a Field Auditor who is a member of IHELP and tithing to IHELP.

      • Cinnamon permalink
        November 15, 2010 11:20 pm

        OK, I assume you are saying there is no middle ground, that they do not allow you to “mix practices”, or something. That sounds adequately reasonable, I suppose. And it is unfortunate that they lie, or wrongly imply that the Independent auditor has no proper qualifications.

        If a person nevertheless goes to an Independent, does the church do anything more than simply warn him that it is inadvisable? Does it actually lead to disconnection?

  23. marco permalink
    November 13, 2010 5:09 pm

    I’m a public scientologist. Right now I’m still with
    CoS, but I need to be convinced before to change my mind.
    Luis Garcia’s letter seems to be concise and lucid, but
    from my personal point of view, I see some inconsistency
    in it.
    Too many paradoxes in it.
    For example he often quotes LRH written policy out of
    context in my opinion.
    He claims that “some” orgs are left empty because Flag is
    getting all scientologists on its services, and then he post
    LRH’s quote: “”It has been found that the whole reason for
    any lack of prosperity of an org is INTERNAL.
    The surrounding area of the public has very little to do with
    whether stats are up or down.”
    HCO PL 7 March 1972R

    Yet Luis is blaming an external reason such as Flag for “his”
    org with no one doing TRs & Objctv.
    Luis also wrote: “we were, for the first time since the
    development of the meter, led to the understanding that
    a real F/N must swing at leastthree times. This definition
    does not occur anywhere in LRH materials.”
    And right after that, he quotes LRH statement:” “A floating
    needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of
    the needle. That’s what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.”

    Well, when I clear and demo the meaning of terms : “rhythmic”
    “sweep” and “even” I can see why “three times’ is necessary
    to a needle to be called a real F/N, exactly as LRH stated.

    I’m not here to offend or defend someone, what I really wish
    is really understanding Luis’ letter.
    Any help would be appreciated .

    • Jeff permalink*
      November 13, 2010 8:05 pm


      The only paradoxes I saw were between what LRH says in Policy and what Miscavige is doing.

      You say he is quoting LRH out of context. Please feel free to supply the context where you think it is missing. It seems to me that he is accurately quoting LRH, at some length. I studied Policy extensively while a Scientologist and I don’t see where he has taken anything out of context. LRH said what he said.

      You may not know this, but local OT Committes have been given instructions to FSM people not to their local Org but to Flag. This is in obvious violation of Bridge flow and takes business away from the local Orgs. Flag is cannibalizing the local orgs as they are running out of people.

      As to your e-meter point, I’m sure some of the auditors will chime in on that one.

    • November 13, 2010 8:32 pm


      There is no HCOB ever written by the Ol’man that says a needle must swing back and forth three times for it to be considered an F/N.


      I’ve done the Briefing Course and I’ve never seen such an animal.

      This is verbal tech plain and simple.

      You should apply the Checklist given in the HCOB ‘How to Defeat Verbal Tech’ to this datum.

      Also are you away of the fact that this datum is one of the key factors that is destroying the Organization?

      I suggest you also read the HCOPL ‘Tech Recovery’ to see that would be and stop being so damn “reasonable” (and I use it in the context of rationalizing out points)!

      Also what Jeff says about policy is sooth.

      If there is one individual that knows marketing tech it is Jeff.

      Also Flag is not an external entity like the IRS, CIA, Bureau of Land Managment or whatever. It is an entity that exists within the current organizational structure and it is ripping off PCs from lower orgs.

      Flag is supposed to exist to resolve tough cases.

      Yet from personal experience from auditing in the Field. Flag now only takes cases that don’t give them trouble and turns these tough unsolvable cases to over Field Auditors and audits nothing but pianola and cadilac cases!

      Not only that they are auditing cases that should be audited by lower orgs.

      This is completely backwards!

    • Elcapital permalink
      November 14, 2010 3:45 am

      “…a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle.”

      It says “a” rhythmic sweep, not “three” rhythmic sweeps.

      Me thinks “…a slow, even pace…” helps describe how one sweep can be “rhythmic”.
      The pace of something can be viewed as “rhythmic” even if it doesn’t change directions 3 times.

      Results would be another indicator of accuracy in calling FNs. Which interpretation gets the best results on PCs?


      • Tony DePhillips permalink
        November 14, 2010 5:52 am

        Great point Elcapital.
        If the emeter is to be used as a device to get results then wouldn’t the result be an index of the correct usage of an explanation?

      • November 14, 2010 9:52 am

        a. A wide curving motion: a sweep of the arm.
        is that the right definition ?

    • Tony DePhillips permalink
      November 14, 2010 3:55 am

      Hi Marco,
      You seem to be trying to do some kind of an evaluation on Luis’s letter. You are spotting (or trying to )the out-points. My comment on one of the out points you mention about the apparent contradiction of internal cause of Orgs and blaming it on Flag. First of all isn’t the upper Org’s responsibility to see that the outer Orgs are surviving well? If they were applying sanity and good management you would get thriving Orgs. You don’t have thriving Orgs so therefore the first thing you know is that Upper management is not doing there job. This has been going on FOR YEARS!!! What does it take to get you to stop being reasonable with the out-points??

      Another question for you is -Do you have anything in your bin 3? If so what is it?

      So now we can get onto the plus-points of Luis’s letter. You have tried to spot out-points in it. So to be fair, what about the letter seems to be approaching the Ideal Scene to you?
      I would be intersted in hearing you answers.

    • November 14, 2010 4:32 am

      to marco,

      what is true for you, is true. you will have to walk your own path, have your own journey and apply tech. the fact that you want to understand Luis’s letter, is an outpoint in itself. or you are an osa dude trying to infiltrate.

      we are not here, let me repeat myself, we are not here to convince you to do anything. we are simply communicating and not allowing the church to cut our comm. what we are communicating is not pr, but stats, actions, and products that current church management has gotten. if the current scene is ok with you, then continue doing what you are doing.

      if you disagree with luis’s letter, ok, disagree all you want, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true and it didn’t happen.

      Luis is not blaming anyone, he is simply pointing out, outpoints. that’s all. there is no blame, shame & regret to it nor is he nattering. He is simply stating facts.

      If the facts to you don’t make sense, then they don’t make sense. You can m-9 and clay demo it all you want. You will need to apply conditions. And make up your own mind.

    • Barney Rubble permalink
      November 14, 2010 6:35 am

      I can personally attest I have known Luis Garcia since 1992 or thereabouts.

      And, if you cannot acknowledge at least 2 of his points on his letter to DM, than you my friend are either an OSA BOT or you ARE NOT WITH THE PROGRAM brother.

      Luis’s letter is a proven point, but if you still need to dig your head deeper in the sand. May god be with you.

      I myself made the same horrible mistake, and I am suffering to this day because of it.


  24. Karen#1 permalink
    November 14, 2010 2:21 am

    Jeff said:

    Realize who you are dealing with – a man who was physically beaten by Miscavige on five occasions and who lived for years in that hellhole you call the Int Base.

    Does Miscavige think he is above the law ?
    Is he oblivious to the fact that beating, punching, assaulting is physical abuse and is ILLEGAL

    Their fabricated tabloid hate sites are the ultimate in hypocrisy.
    Their Suppressive Person declares are manufactured LIES.
    What “Religion” is in the business of DECEPTION, LIES, VIOLENCE, KIDNAP, RAPE of $$$ from Parishioners ?

    Mike Rinder recently posted ~
    Keenan did the same thing in the UK. Dear Leader ordered him to have me, Guillaume, Heber and Yager woken up at 6am, escorted to the lake and thrown in (November — it was rather chilly). This was done daily for about 10 days.

    Miscavige could make the Guinness Book of Records of being THE most VIOLENT and ABUSIVE thug of a “Religious” leader of a CHURCH wanting respect as a RELIGION.
    Each decade goes from BAD to WORSE.

  25. Soderqvist:1 permalink
    November 14, 2010 10:51 am

    Marco: Luis also wrote: “we were, for the first time since the development of the meter, led to the understanding that a real F/N must swing at least three times. This definition does not occur anywhere in LRH materials.”And right after that, he quotes LRH statement:” “A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle. That’s what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.” Well, when I clear and demo the meaning of terms: “rhythmic” “sweep” and “even” I can see why “three times’ is necessary to a needle to be called a real F/N, exactly as LRH stated.

    Soderqvist1: Rhythmic means periodic, or invariant, or regular!
    A clock is periodic because the minute hand travel at a constant speed, in example; the hand travels 1 centimeter between the number 1, and 2 in 5 minutes, and it repeat that pattern between number 2, and 3, and so on. A needle is rhythmic if it repeats something, in example; if it travels at the same speed, and it is an F/N if it is slow and even as such, and if this is going on and on; it is called a persistent F/N. Compare that with its opposite a rock slam?

    ROCK SLAM, 1. the following is the only valid definition of an R/S: The crazy, irregular left-right slashing motion of the needle on the E-Meter dial. R/Ses repeat left and right slashes unevenly and savagely, faster than the eye easily follows. The needle is frantic. The width of an R/S depends largely on sensitivity setting. It goes from one-fourth inch to whole dial. But it slams back and forth.

  26. marco permalink
    November 14, 2010 3:13 pm

    Alright, what is true for you is true for you.
    I’m not here to convince anybody to my point of view.
    I just wish to see where my point of view is different
    from some other’s like Luis.
    Don’t worry I’m not OSA. I will not “attack’ any of
    your response, I just need to see whether I have something
    missed up or else. Any help would be appreciated.

    About the point of an F/N definition, I know that a swing
    to be a swing by definition is a motion from A to B and back
    to A. (just like the curve of an oscillation),
    To be a rhythmic (adjective) swing it must to a motion of
    A to B to A (+) to B and back to A again. As I can see the needle
    has to fluctuate 3 times on the dial.
    I mean if someone is pointing out that those “three times” is
    what is destroying SCN, I take that assumption seriously.

    About the point of LRH quote: “It has been found that
    the whole reason for any lack of prosperity of an org is INTERNAL”
    It’s obvious to me that that means “internal” in the org, not in SCN.
    as a whole. We don’t have to forget that LRH was also one of the
    bigger promoter of Flag.

    Now, DM ( I’m not defending him) being a “brutal” leader?
    Well, you should have seen LRH how he handled “incompetence”!
    But I believe that many of you already know that.
    After all we are not talking about wog’s law, right?

    There are many points in Luis’s letter that in my personal
    point of view are also wrong.
    I’m not…and I repeat, I’m not here to prove anything to you,
    It’s a personal thing and I sincerely wish to confront two different
    faces of the same medal, that’s all.
    Any comments would be appreciated.
    I have to recognize that Jeff is allowing me to discuss things here,
    something that CoS forums don’t . And that is a good point indeed.

    • Jeff permalink*
      November 14, 2010 8:38 pm

      Marco, nothing justifies Miscavige’s behavior. He “manages” by constant threat, constant abuse, constant degradation of others, sadistic “games.” Read the recent books that have come out – Marc’s, Amy’s, mine – if you want to get some reality on what he is like. He is a textbook sociopath and sadist.

      He is not above the law. I noted your dismissal of the rules of law as “wog” law. While you may believe that Scientologists are above the law, they are not.

      Whether or not LRH behaved the “same way” is no justification. In my experience (and I actually worked with both Hubbard and Miscavige), Hubbard was no sociopath or sadist. He certainly had his faults, but, in my observation, never got pleasure out of being abusive to others, as Miscavige does.

    • November 14, 2010 9:36 pm

      “Well, you should have seen LRH how he handled “incompetence”!”

      A yes Miscavige’s catch all justification for anything he does.

      The only problem.

      Unlike Davy, Ron doesn’t have numerous former execs claiming that they’ve been beaten by him or thrown into a frigid pond in the middle of winter by his direct order.

      (Oh by the way “overboarding” was the punishment determined by the original Class VIIIs themselves for gross violations of tech and it was conducted in a warm water port.


      Also the person was allowed to dry off and change their cloths.

      Not parade around in them in freezing weather and then be forced to sleep in them!)

      But even if Ron supposedly did these things.

      It doesn’t justify Miscavige doing them!

      They are criminal acts no matter who is doing them or did them!

      So what you’ve done instead of given Miscavige any stature is character assassinate the Ol’man which is pretty much par for the course of someone who secretly hates him and obviously hates his family or his friends by running survelliance ops against them or by declaring them “suppressive”.

      • Jeff permalink*
        November 14, 2010 9:52 pm

        RJ, Apollo overboardings were also done on Apollo crew as a punishment – wasn’t limited to the VIIIs. And while it was done in warm water ports, the water in those Mediterranean and North African ports was 0ften filthy – oil slicks, dead rats, fecal matter… six of one, half dozen of the other to my mind.

      • November 14, 2010 10:21 pm



        Well I guess it beats being thrown in the cess pool at Int.

        Not by much 🙂

        A good friend of mine who was the original VIII didn’t consider it all that bad once you got used to it.

        And it beat in her opinion doing a lengthy ethics handling.

        Also she said she never made the same mistake again in session.

        So it did have some facility.

        Another one considered it an expedient under the circumstances (ie having only 6 weeks to complete the course 3xs through the checksheet) and other pressures from the environment.

        How long was it done for?

        Because another friend of mine who was on the original ExDn course said he ended up cleaning the air vents as his form of punishment for screwing up in session.

        This as you know was around ’74.

        Also I had friends who did Flag internships on the Apollo just before they landed in Daytona who were never overboarded.

        However one things for sure there was never any order or directive that I know of that gave the procedure for a “standard” overboading.

        Unless you know of one Jeff?

        And it seems the practice by those later examples was abandoned.

        Anyway maybe Miscavige may not have noticed this but the Sea Org moved from International Waters or open port facilities to land were the current laws apply and to some no matter how “expedient” the practice may have been in a different time and place. It would be considered illegal here as “cruel and unusual punishment”.

        As far as I’m concerned it is applicable now as disconnection is.

        Which means not.

        So here’s a message to you Dave and your little psychotic friends.


    • AnonAuditor permalink
      November 15, 2010 3:51 am

      No to put you down Marco, but I bet you are not a trained auditor. But if you are, I know that you have less than 100 hours in the chair on a pc. Otherwise you would not have this over wrought and over thought definition of an F/N.

  27. Tony DePhillips permalink
    November 14, 2010 8:56 pm

    A swing can be one motion also. Example: He swung from the branch onto the roof.
    Also there must be s certain characteristic with the needle that id observable, otherwise how could you note the first swing of an f/n as part of the f/n? If you can are that quality on the first swing why would you have to wait two more swings?
    I also find it as a huge outpoint that LRH never filmed examples of f/ns. I would like to hear from people directly trained under Ron for their views.

    • November 14, 2010 9:45 pm


      Ron did films of what an F/N looked like.

      It just so happens that the new regime that took over “updated” these films with meter “reads” acquired from the the training “aid” known as the “Hubbard” Emeter Simulator.

      The reads on in the original Tech Film on meter reads were actual reads obtained from live people while the ones in the later (out) Tech Film are produced by a computer.

      You will also notice if you are fortunate enough to see the original films that the actual reads are instant while the ones on the later film are all prior reads.

      • Tony DePhillips permalink
        November 15, 2010 8:18 am

        Thanks RJ.
        To be perfectly honest, I find this whole f/n controversy a bit weird. If the f/n is SO important to auditing then why did LRH leave it so wide open to misinterpretation? The fact is that the three swiing definition has worsened the stat of tech results in my opinion so it has to be wrong. I just find it very odd that LRH seemingly left this gaping hole in the tech. Especially on a point that is so vital.
        Also RJ did LRH ever show an example of an f/n being less than three swings? I would be curious if there are any LRH trained people who went over this point with LRH and what the result was. What is true to me currently is that you don’t need three swings as it patently causes problems in auditing at least it did in mine.

      • Fidelio permalink
        November 16, 2010 10:34 am


        well, you put the finger right in the middle of the gapping wound.

        Since an F/N (sometimes along with other phenomena) is always the sign to end a specific action which is otherwise detrimental to the mind when continued (hallmark: overrun!), it is really some major outpoint ( a huge inaccuracy, to say the least) that LRH left that crucial piece of the tech wide open to the range of misinterpretation and erringly roving discussion. In my book, he muddled it up in generous ( and arrogant?) neglect.


      • November 16, 2010 9:40 pm

        Gee Fido,

        I know it must be nice to catch the Ol’man out on something.

        But the fact is that what an F/N is is not open to interpretation if you’ve really studied the tech and had practice applying it.

        Unless you’re an untrained or poorly trained moron.

        Like say……

        David Miscavige

      • Fidelio permalink
        November 17, 2010 11:15 am

        yeah, yeah, Robin…. see all these “untrained or poorly trained” Class IXs these days…. yawn.

        And ditto to your comment from yesterday to some Vic c/o Marty’s – I just connect the dots.

  28. Tony DePhillips permalink
    November 14, 2010 9:02 pm

    I mean real life , in session examples, not the phoney contrived ones you see in the tech film.

  29. Toby Jugg permalink
    November 15, 2010 6:37 am

    Maybe I can give my personal opinion which may help clear up some of the angst about the 3 swing F/N thing.

    There is (1) the situation in session wherein the pc’s needle is floating , however it doesn’t need indicating. Maybe the auditor hasn’t gotten cracking with the process yet or maybe the F/N has already been indicated and the needle is continuing to float.

    There is (2) the situation wherein the needle floats and needs indicating to the pc. For example, when the pc goes to the examiner and needs to get an F/N so he can go and have his tea and crumpets.

    In the former situation one has plenty of time to peripherally admire the rhythmic swings. In the latter the indication needs to be done sharpish lest protest at the comm lag on the acknowledgment buggers up and stops the previously floating needle.

    • Tony DePhillips permalink
      November 15, 2010 7:15 pm

      Thanks but that doesn’t help me with what I encountered unless I am not tracking with you.

      When I would solo audit I would need to get an f/n before doing the next step. I could feel like I was f/ning but I would HAVE to see a three swinger for me to call it to myself. I would get anxiety on waiting for the three swings and it would contribute to not getting three swings. If the definition could be interpreted so I could have called the first swing of the f/n then I would have felt much calmer about the whole thing and my auditing would have gone smoother.

      If I called and f/n that swung twoand a half times then it would be an ethics matter and lower condition so this contributed to the anxiety.

      I got to the point where I would write f/n 90% or f/n 85% to solve this problem. I felt I was f/ning but didn’t want to “false report” so this is how I solved it without getting into ethics trouble. It didn’t help to create a safe space to audit in.

      • Toby Jugg permalink
        November 15, 2010 11:29 pm

        That makes good sense, Tony. I hadn’t thought about it from the viewpoint of a solo auditor.

  30. idle org permalink
    November 15, 2010 9:32 pm

    On the count of three, everybody see Miscavige in an orange prison suit with his hands cuffed and some very large police officers surrounding him.

    One, two, three………..

    • November 17, 2010 1:23 am

      Now that would definitely be a three swing F/N moment probably more like an unkillable persistent F/N that would probably last weeks or months.

      In fact I know I’m getting an F/N right now just thinking about it.

      See they’re not that hard to spot 🙂


  1. Tweets that mention Scientologists vs. David Miscavige « Leaving Scientology --
  2. Scientologists vs. David Miscavige (via Leaving Scientology) « My LRH
  3. Scientologists vs. David Miscavige « Leaving Scientology

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: