Has Miscavige Taken Steps to Curb Some Scientology Abuses?

Scientology AbusesNo way, right?

Ex-Scientologists Aaron Smith-Levin and Chris Shelton present information Chris gathered on his recent trip to Australia about supposed new ways that SO orgs are being run – the greatest sources of abuse in Scientology by far.

Chris doesn’t say where his information comes from but it’s interesting information to think about, nonetheless. Is it too good to be true?

I think that David Miscavige has some of the best legal counsel in the world. If he is cleaning up Scientology abuses, he’s doing it to shore up where he is legally vulnerable. If the legal pressure can be kept up, and some kind of ongoing tribunal set up that will last for years – such as a lingering, bureaucratic and Kafka-esque IRS Tax exemption review, he’ll have no choice but to change Scientology.

He’s certainly paying his attorneys enough. You would think he would eventually learn to take their advice.

Question:

If the RPF was really disbanded 3-4 years ago, why the hell are we just hearing about it now?

Leave a Reply

8 Comments on "Has Miscavige Taken Steps to Curb Some Scientology Abuses?"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest
Doloras LaPicho
Guest

The last thing certain Anti-Scientologists want is for Co$ to clean up its act. What would they yell about, get attention/donations for if Liddle Davey WASN’T committing crimes?

Gib
Guest

well, I’m a anti scientologist and also a exscientologist, and I’m glad they are, if they are, cleaning up their act, but more importantly, can they produce a “clear” and “OT”?

Per Hubbard, “the only thing you can be upbraided for is no results” and I’m upbraiding the so called religion of COS or Hubbardology.

statpush
Guest

Good point Doloras. Could it be that CoS has been cleaning up its act – FOR YEARS? Shock, horror.

By all indications, forced abortions were stopped many, many years ago. And now we find the RPF was disbanded four years (or more) ago.

But wait, Scn can NEVER change; Hubbard’s words are immutable. Yet, it appears that is exactly what is happening. Of course the church has to spin these changes (e.g. the RPF was a pilot) to save face. Otherwise, it would be like DM announcing, “I no longer beat my wife”.

On a side note, I seem to recall an FO written by LRH which authorizes someone in management (maybe Ron’s Tech Compilations), to alter his words if it brought the church or LRH disrepute.

Most of what is talked about by the ASC are things that happened a long time ago. That doesn’t mean it is invalid or any less important. And it does illustrate the dangerous Scn mindset and harmful practices. However, if they ceased these practices, where does that leave the ASC?

To be honest, it’s a bit embarrassing for the ASC that they are so out of touch with what has been happening within Scn. Very few within the ASC have pointed out that this information is just now coming to light – even though, over the years, members have left and have been interviewed. Is it possible this information has been known for much longer?

I think the church is struggling to remain relevant in today’s world. They’ve come to realize (with the help of the ASC) their policies and practices are antiquated in modern times. Its either change or die. They still have a long way to go, and may not successfully make that transition. But, you can’t fault them for trying.

marildi
Guest

“Question: If the RPF was really disbanded 3-4 years ago, why the hell are we just hearing about it now?”

I think this question boils down to – Why haven’t the staff who left the Sea Org sometime in the last 3-4 years not made this huge change known? It’s hard to imagine that they wouldn’t have talked about it to others, and the word would have spread fast.

Here’s my thinking on the subject. In the past decade or more, the church would get the leaving staff member to sign a non-disclosure agreement and give them $500 as a sorat of severance pay. But that hasn’t worked out very well for the church, obviously.

So maybe they got “smart” and now offer the person leaving some sort of periodic “retirement income” (or whatever they might call it) that would continue for as long as the non-disclosure agreement wasn’t violated in any way.

This doesn’t seem like it would be illegal. Do you know if anybody else has come up with it as a possibility?

marildi
Guest

The last 10 minutes of that video was excellent. Chris was making the point that he’s only concerned with the abuses and has no interest in putting an end to Scientology itself. He said their belief in Xenu and whatever isn’t any worse than other belief systems; it’s just that people should know what they’re getting into with regard to the abusive environment.

This would especially include being informed of what to expect when joining the S.O. with its harsh conditions – which are actually no harsher than the life of some monks, for example, but at least the monks know what they’re getting into. Basically, there should be informed consent so people aren’t fooled or conned. (He then added that being in the S.O. “causes damage to you on a long term,” but I’m not sure how much truth there is to that.) He summed it up by saying he wouldn’t have a problem with the S.O. going about “clearing the planet” if they did it in a kinder, gentler way.

At that point Aaron pointed out that people will say, but auditing is “a destructive mental process” so why should it be allowed to happen even in a reformed organization. Chris’s response was that Aaron was “getting into some decent points there” – to which Aaron replied that he himself didn’t feel that way about auditing. Chris said, yeah some people are too black and white about it – some say auditing abused them, others say it didn’t – and Aaron agreed.

Did Tony Ortega post this vid on his blog? I don’t think the part about auditing would have been radical enough for him!

Overall, I had to like both of these guys in this video, on top of what they had to say. They were being pretty true to themselves, I felt.

Gimpy
Guest

I’d be interested in seeing what would happen to scientology if they truly reformed it, eg proper days off and vacations for staff and sea org members, no more hard sell, no ridiculous expectation for students to make up time that they take off when they are already there most of the time. Something you were free to come and go from would have a much nicer feel to it.

PeaceMaker
Guest

Alanzo, I’ve been meaning to say, I don’t understand why you’ve been making a fuss about the amount of time it has taken for outsiders to figure out that the CofS may have made some changes to the RPF.

I see trying to figure out what is going on inside the CofS, as being similar to old-time Kremlinology, or attempts to fathom what is going on inside North Korea. Often analysis depends on the accumulated absence of observations (such as someone no longer being seen at public events), as much as it does on the slow dribble of information from defectors and informants, and the occasional real revelation. With the internal compartmentalization of information, even one defector’s reports may not give reliable insights into the overall state of affairs, and so it takes an accumulated weight of evidence over time, to be able to conclude with reasonable certainty what is going on.

So I don’t think it’s surprising that it took the emergence of several defectors over time, who could confirm that the RPF in its previously known form was no longer in operation in the different areas of the CofS with which they were familiar, to be able to conclude that an organization-wide change had been made. And it’s still entirely possible that we’ll find that the observations and analysis led to somewhat premature conclusions, and that, for instance, in addition to the replacement of local RPFs with assignments to the EPF or Estates, perhaps a smaller, more centralized RPF still exists in one or more remote locations for special cases.

wpDiscuz

Created by Alanzo

Clicky