I assume that anything negative published about scientology that is still available in the public domain is true; if it wasn’t the ‘church’ would surely have successfully sued and harrassed the author and their publishers into obscurity.  It simply stands to reason: Anyone brave enough to publish the truth about such an aggressively litigious organisation would have to make sure their facts were 100% correct, cross referenced and legally watertight.  Fortunately there’s now extensive information published, so why not read it; make your own mind up about scientology, while you’ve still got one.

I’m sick of this shit!
Body: I’m tired of being carfeul and being nice. The church of scientology is more fucked up, ruthless and dangerous than anyone seems to realize and I’ve fucking had it! The following information was scanned during the 1977 raids on Scientology. I know this to be true because this is exactly what was done to me in 2005 and again in 2006. It’s from some sort of training manual or guide for scientology operations officers. I am a “Who” or a “Target”. The reason I am a target is because I have criticized the hell out of these people for the last six years, including on stage at the world famous “comedy store.” I was even writing a screenplay about a character based on Tom Cruise. They knew this because my phones were type and my computer/AOL Account was repeatedly invaded. I’ll post the bit of dialogue that got me into trouble in the next bulletin.

OPERATIONS OFFICER

Successful:

(1) Allowing outer Org B1s to develop their own Ops ideas to submit for
approval—and demanding such.

(2) Allowing outer Org B1s to run approved Ops based on first hand data
as long as it’s kept within the framework of the Op.

(3) Providing a believable source of an operation, thereby filling the
vacuum, so that Scn. isn’t dubbed in as source.

(4) When planning an Op, mentally following it all the way through
looking for areas which need to be taken into account; and taking
the
enemy’s viewpoint of the Op for the same purpose.

(5) Full and correct use of target series for each Op. Targets simply
stated and specific as possible. (Helps in debugging and to hat
inexperienced persons)

(6) The major target of the Op is based on a *real*, current situation.

(7) When hitting a group or individual, hitting their finance and comm
lines.

(8) Getting an enemy to attack another enemy.

(9) Working off of programmes which align Ops actions to other Br 1
sections and other Bureaus and which contain command intention from
LRH on down. (Admin scale and priorities aligned)

(10) Working for VFPs and having such reflected in the statistics, rather
than a lot of sub-products.

(11) Exposure of real, documented enemy crimes and material of a
scandalous nature.

(12) Utilizing current events and trends (and finding the right buttons)
for exploitation in Ops channels.

(13) Keeping plans bright and simple and on target.

(14) Finding real buttons.

(15) Keeping up persistent pressure until the product is achieved.

(16) Establishing some type of feedback line so that exact effects are
known.

(17) Mini-hatting by giving examples of successful Ops.

Unsuccessful:

(1) Ops on random attackers instead of WHOs, just to be doing Ops for Ops
sake.

(2) Dubbing in buttons.

(3) Trying to do everything on an Op by yourself from a management or
senior executive level, and therefore not allowing origination or
juniors to wear their hats.

(4) A one shot approach, rather than persistent pressure and several
channels to a product.

(5) Harassment actions.

(6) Not planning or providing for a believable source of the Op so that
a vacuum is left allowing the recipients to dub in Scn amongst
others.

(7) When planning not considering all the effects as the Op runs it’s
full course, and not taking the enemy’s viewpoint, leaving critical
holes in the plan which will later backfire on you, make your
scramble on an emergency basis to handle or make the Op less
effective.

(8) No use of, or misuse of, target series. (too few, unspecific
targets; many unaligned, hard to understand targets).

(9) An Op or major target based on revenge or out-of-PT situation.

(10) Producing, and stats aligned with, many sub-products as opposed to
VFPs.

(11) Manufacturing documented enemy crimes (there are rare exceptions to
this)

(12) Long involved and overly complex operations with many conditionals
which if any or any one of several aren’t done exactly would cancel
out the effectiveness of the Op. (There are rare exceptions)

(13) No feedback line; results of Ops not really known or dubbed in.

.. .. .. .. ..

DATA NEEDED BY OPS ON EACH LOCATED WHO

1. Standard ODC with time track and a brief, summarized, well-rounded
picture of a terminal. (Following ..2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are the key areas
data is needed)

2. Criminal background of terminal.

3. Financial involvements (inflow & outflow of money)

4. Legal involvements (summary of actions)

5. Terminal’s main interests, personal habits, fears, vices and any
other items of interest.

6. Friends and enemies on the terminal’s 1st Dynamic
Friends and enemies on the terminal’s 2nd Dynamic
Groups that the terminal belongs to and any groups or terminals, who
are enemies of that group.

7. What the terminal considers valuable & is protecting

8. Simple org board the terminal is on, clearly noting his position and
his seniors and noteworthy juniors.

9. What persons have the power to fire terminal from the position he
holds.

10. Any rules or regulations that if broken would cause the terminal to
lose his job/position.

11. Any regulations concerning licenses that the terminal holds that
would cause him to lose his license if violated (i.e. law, medical,
contractor, etc.)

12. Scandals, conflicts, disputes directly or indirectly connected to
terminal.

13. Documents that show criminality of terminal (i.e. cheating on income
tax, discrediting data in personal letters, use of drugs, etc.)

14.

15.

Ops Planning

Ops planning goes over all the data on the WHO that Ops research has
compiled and with all the data available on the WHO, plans out channels of
attack on the WHO that will effectively remove/restrain the WHO from his
position of power. Ops planning on a WHO is done using the data series,
target series, all Scientology tech applicable, and intelligence tech.
The following points should be followed in doing an operation:

1. Initially plan out at least 3 channels of attack with the data you
have at hand. Do not wait forever to getall data collected, but
also do not run Ops that would be dangerous without essential data.
Basically a brighter idea is needed with less data available. 3
channels being done instead of less is because there is a higher
percentage of getting results and also this will tend to confuse and
spin the WHO as there are 3 attacks instead of just one.

2. Continue to plan Ops utilizing feedback from completed Ops so that
the WHO has persistent attack on him and continual pressure. Do
this
consistent attack until the WHO is obliterated.

3. Stay away from harassment actions that are only for the sake of doing
channels or revenge. ie: Sending pizzas from every Pizza delivery
restaurant. These basically have been unsuccessful as they do not
achieve any real effective result, except for letting the WHO know
that he is under attack. There may be times when 50 pizzas every
day
being sent to a WHO would be effective, but this would be in such a
case where the WHO was restimulated heavily by seeing pizzas,
smelling pepperoni or seeing pizza delivery boys, etc.

4. Always include a way of getting feedback in an operation, so you know
what type of result you are getting and for further planning of
channels in those areas that give good results.

5. Ensure proper security is planned in an operation, ie: use of an
untraceable typewriter, paper without fingerprints, proper covers by
FSM’s, etc. (See security write-up and security section data in hat
materials of Ops US hat checksheet)

6. Use the target series exactly to programme out an operation on a WHO.
Ensure the major target is based on a *real*, current situation and
is an achievable purpose.

7. Find out what the exact resources are for the area the Op will be
implemented in and what the capabilities are of your terminals
implementing the Op.

8. Keep the targets in an operation simple, yet complete.

9. Analyze properly the actual situation with the WHO and what the best
line of attack should be done by the GO as a whole. It may be
necessary to suggest that PR or Legal do some specific action as a
finishing off of the WHO. Never wait for another bureau to handle a
WHO, as Ops is responsible and has the capabilities to handle WHO’s
totally without the other Bureaus in the GO. Liaison though is very
important with the various GO bureaus, specifically the Legal Branch
2 (attack area of Legal) and PR Branch 1 (attack area of PR).

10. A believable source must be provided in an operation, thereby
“filling the vacuum,” so that Scientology isn’t dubbed in as source
of the attack. A1 Ops are planned in such a way that they in no way
could be traced back to the Church.

11. Channels should be various and ever changing types of channel of
attack, rather than sticking to one type of Op, such as an anonymous
flyer that 3-P’s a WHO.

12. Mentally follow-thru your plan and ensure all factors concerning
security and workability are taken into account. It is a good idea
to also take the enemy’s viewpoint when working out your strategy in
the operation.

Once the plan is fully targeted out, CSW with full complete data your
operation to the Dir Br1 US. When it is approved, then the Ops plan and
the applicable data is flowed to Ops execution part of the Ops section.

Ops Execution

Ops execution implements the targeted-out approved operation. If an AGI
in the field is to receive the targeted plan or orders to do a part of the
operation then this is routed in the following manner:

Branch 1 Director US
DG I US
Ops mail line
AGI _______
_________________
OPS OFF US

The “Ops mail line” is a point where the Ops targets are mailed
directly on a confidential line directly to the Ops terminal in the
field. (See the attached Ops Write-up 1R and the attached write-up
of the US Ops Com-Lines)

Flexibility is important when doing a targeted out plan. An operation
should not be done robotically, as at times an Operation can be found to
be unworkable for any number of different reasons. As execution observes
the PT scenes of the Op and obtains feedback, it may be more applicable to
re-CSW new actions or alter targets because of threat of exposure of the
Op, etc.

Execution gets the Operation implemented and acts as Ops programmes
officer, 8-Cing Ops units to get the necessary targets done and debugging
bogged targets. Execution works very close to planning in that the
necessary PT scene of the Op with feedback of the results is immediately
infoed to Ops planning, so new channels can be drawn up or revised as
necessary.

Ops execution ensures that the stat and report lines are in from his Ops
units implementing the operation. (Ops Write-up 2R and 3 attached)

Echidna, it sounds like you do know a little bit about Scientology but as they say, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Please don’t waste your time and money on it before visiting a critical website. I recommend xenu.net though there are many good ones. And if you must invest in Scientology, buy “Dianetics” and write down all the claims Hubbard makes. Then ask the people down at the cult offices for proof.

Well ... guys ... I do not know too much about Scientology myself, but what I do know is already enough to tell that most of you have absolutely no idea what really is going on there.
While I can see people go in there with study issues, and come out without; or go in with serious communication problems, and come out without; or go in with an IQ126 and come out with IQ145 in a day (etc), I say these people know something. Of course, you will tear every letter I wrote apart - that’s your right; but I suggest: at night in bed in the dark, turned to the wall when nobody can see you, when you do not need to be cool as it is going to be you alone with yourself, have an honest little think about the possibilty of people actually gaining out of their connection to Scientology. Maybe secretly you would like to have those gains too, but you feel you had thrown too much shit on them already, and there is no way back, so the only way is to push forward even more bitterly? There is always hope, matey.

Number of Scientologists:
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_4.htm
Worldwide, perhaps 100,000. In the USA, 55,000 according to a 2001 survey.

The article wasn’t one of the best, the recent one in Rolling Stone and last year’s ‘undercover’ in the Daily Mirror were better researched. However if it causes a few more people to think twice and do some research of their own before having anything to do with the Church of Scientology, fine.

Concerning comment #7528, there is considerable disagreement from various sources about how many Scientologists there are. One non-Scientology website, ‘adherents.com,’ claims there are more than half a million worldwide. The most recent Scientology figure for membership, which I saw in our local newspaper in the religion section, says there are 15 million Scientologists worldwide. I suspect 15 million is a ridiculous lowball figure, actually.  A CBS poll indicated that that possibly 23 million people in the US were favorable towards Scientology; how many of those were actual Scientologists? I really makes me wonder…

Could it be that this sudden onslaught on Scientology is because Cruise was critical of the Pharmaceutical Industry?

Food for thought indeed!

I am an atheist and have nothing to gain with this comment. I only want to say, eh! wait a minute here!

Greg’s comment is the usual tripe that the cult/con game’s OSA (secret service) does to discredit their critics.  It’s become a broken record that defends an indefensible cult.

The article doesn’t cover much new ground, but does validate everything we already know about the cult/con game.  It all comes down to money for these goons and they’ll knock your soul to get to it.

CAN was not put out of business by its “victims” and that assertion is laughable at best.  The cult’s army of lawyers sued them out of existence and now use it as one of their innocuous looking front groups to lure people in.

Greg actually had the guts to bring up the cult/con game’s “charitable” work even though he knows they only pretend to help people so they can get their hands on “fresh meat” (cult term) that are in an emotionally and/or physically weakened state that they can prey on.

The article only reported what the author saw and Greg discredits her as a journalist as the cult has a deep fear and paranoia of journalists because most of them actually tell the truth.

He immediately discounts her fear of what she sees around her because she is bias.  One would think after years of using the same old ploy to discredit ands intimidate their critics, the cult would come up with a new ploy.  Like the fascist, satanic group they are, they just continue to move forward with the same old policies even though their cult is imploding from within.  Their ship is sinking and the internet is primarily the cause of this.  I hope that no one else on this planet falls victim to this group that treats their members worse than any other cult in the modern era.

Scientology is a most frightening cult. From what I have heard from many ex-scientologists is that it is nothing more than a sham to take people’s money and they get nothing tangible in return.Plus if you run out of money and/or credit you are either thrown to the curbside or enslaved in a section of it they call the Sea Org where you work long hours, for almost no money (20 quid a month I’ve heard).

If your family or friends complain or ask too many questions then you are expected to either disconnect from them permanantly or else they have a special place for you called “RPF” that is no more than a prison of hard labor and intense reindoctrination.

They slowly try to strip you of all of your normal beliefs in favor of theirs i.e. A poorly written space opera is the truth, All other religions are false. To top it off they also strip you of independant thought so that you are paranoid and can’t function without the cult so that you will blindly follow them.

They are an insideous cult. If you don’t believe me try sny search engine and type in XENU.

This UK reporter was a brave person trying to shed light on something that has gone on way too long.

BRAVO

If anyone wants to know more of the truth about scientology and its criminal abuses then simply google “scientology” because in 2nd place under scientology.org you’ll find http://www.xenu.net where you can read the gruesome facts and secrets that scientology does not want you to know.
The scientologist who posted above has one good point - don’t just take a reporters word for it. Neither should we take a scientologist’s sugar-coated opinion. Join the xenu.net message board and actually talk to long time ex-scientologists about their awful and very real experiences of being deep in this cult. You can also watch video of scientologists at their best on xenutv.com. Make your own minds up.

I am not! Wait, were you talking about me?

Greg doesn’t mention that CAN (Cult Awareness Network) went bankrupt as a result of Scientology’s frivolous lawsuits and then Scientology went on to buy the name and 800 number. So if you call Cult awareness Network, guess what? You’re calling Scientologists. Scary.

It is all true!

Sara Lawrence’s whole article is ridiculous. First of all, she didn’t “infiltrate” anything. ANYONE can walk into a Church of Scientology and see what she saw, find out anything they wish and get their questions answered.

Her statement is as ludicrous as saying one has “infiltrated” Disneyland.

Secondly, she describes her state of mind (paranoid to the extreme, distrustful, fearful, cynical) and not one IOTA of evidence to match that state of mind. She describes people tending to the garden as if this was evil, she tells of youths getting off drugs as if this was a horrible thing. She sees people studying, reading books, and that is somehow scary.

The whole article is a sham.

Sara does not interview one single Scientology parishioner. She quotes rabidly anti-Scientology sources who have been discredited ages ago. Cynthia Kisser, for example, was the head of CAN (cult awareness network), a group that used to make a living forcibly kidnapping people. The group went bankrupt when it was sued by victims.

Sara does not mention any of Scientology’s charitable work, its exemplary volunteering efforts (http://www.volunteerministers.org), its literacy programs or anything positive.

She went in with a closed, cynical mind. She came out the same. She’s a prime example of “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”

I ran into a couple such people while volunteering in Indonesia last year (after the tsunami.) They saw us working in hospitals, they saw us woking together with muslim clerics. They saw us succoring victims. And then they write crap and vile.

It’s a real shame we call such people “reporters.”

Sincerely,
Greg Churilov
A Scientologist
http://www.liveandgrow.org

Your article is pretty much as I remember it when I was a member, making the biggest mistake of my life. There is one glaring error though: “eight million followers”. That’s what THEY say. Fifty thousand seems much more likely.

You are truly paranoid.