This is an essay contributed by Brian Lambert. An interesting topic for sure, and one of the things hammered in by Miscavige.
If you have never read Hubbard’s writing of this title, there is a link at the bottom of the article. I suggest you read the document as this essay will not make a lot of sense without reading what Hubbard wrote.
Also, it is important to note that the other thing hammered in by Miscavige along with Responsibility of Leaders is “Keeping Scientology Working” — the demand that Hubbard’s words, and his alone, be followed to the letter. While some will try to excuse the Responsibility of Leaders as allegory, to scientologists there really is no such thing. If L. Ron Hubbard said it, it becomes truth. If he writes Bolivar failed because he didn’t blackmail his political enemies, then blackmail is acceptable if it is for “the greatest good” (ie will help scientology, Hubbard, or today Miscavige). Had Hubbard wanted this to be understood as mere musings on a subject, it would not have been issued as a POLICY of the organization, to be studied as part of numerous courses on how to “run” scientology and how to deal with “ethics.”
Brian’s views are more black and white than I would be willing to offer on this single writing being the cause of so much. But it is an interesting perspective and one that certainly has merit. He may well be right on the money. I shall be interested in others thoughts on this subject.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADERS
The L Ron Hubbard doctrine on power; an instruction on violence to protect and keep power; the basic basic doctrine that educated David Miscavige on the virtues of leadership thuggery. (link to full text is at the end of this essay)
These seem to be never ending questions:
How did Scientologists end up being so inhumane and heartless?
How can David Miscavige live with himself?
How can Scientologists not see that what they are doing is just wrong, indecent and evil?
This essay seeks to give at least some sort of answer to those questions.
These inhumane traits are no accident. They were acquired through Scientology training. Just as The GE is a Family Man denigrates the family unit, The Responsibility of Leaders numbs and occludes our innate sense of right and wrong; conscience. The result is inhumanity as a style of Scientology leadership; for the “greater good.”
My purpose in writing this essay is to connect the dots between L. Ron Hubbard’s writing The Responsibility of Leaders and David Miscavige’s character development from a young, angry, naive boy; into a tyrant devoid of conscience and common standards of decency. It is my belief that David Miscavige was, to a very large degree, created by L. Ron Hubbard’s writings. Once The Responsibility of Leaders became internalized, accepted as true, and applied by David, the violence trickled down into the organization; as a “religious” responsibility. The destruction and violence against critics, common citizens, fellow Sea Org members, and the family unit, then became an essential religious rite designed to save the universe by protecting the god father of the Scientology regime; through violence. The political philosophy of The Responsibility of Leaders became David Miscavige’s instruction manual for leadership in the Church of Scientology. It is an accurate reflection of his personality and answers the question, ”how did he get like this?”
The writings in Scientology are an instruction manual that implants (just had to use the word 😉 world views and behaviors. When A happens, then apply B for the desired outcome. This is what the Scientologist means when they use the word “tech” or “Scientology Technology.” You read it, accept it as true, because Ron says so, and then do it; without question! David Miscavige’s behavior comes from Ron’s instructions. Those instructions come in the form of policy letters, HCOBs (Hubbard Communication Office Bulletins) and various other Hubbard media.
“If it is not in writing, it is not true.” L Ron Hubbard
This L Ron Hubbard quote, is a basic rule, that ALL Scientologists know and obediently follow literally. It IS understood by Scientologists to mean that all of Ron’s writings are true. Altering the meaning of his words is a Scientology mortal sin which can be met with punishment, reprograming and excommunication. The above Ron’s quote is the very definition of the word fundamentalism. Ron was taken very literally. It was demanded.
It is my thesis that David Miscavige took The Responsibility of Leaders very literally because he assumed power and now had an instruction manual for leadership and an instruction manual for the responsibilities of subordinates.
The Responsibility of Leaders was not just an important Scientological text for Miscavige, but was and is, his ideological blueprint that gave instructional inspiration for his reign of violence and terror.
FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS
On Tony Ortega’s indispensable site http://tonyortega.org/2013/11/21/the-ethics-of-political-power-scientologys-worship-of-ruthlessness/ Jefferson Hawkins gives this account of David Miscavige’s devotion to the importance of The Responsibility of Leaders:
“I’m not joking. He had everyone on the Base read it and word clear it many, many times. If you disrespected him in any way you got crammed (intense study) on it. If you failed to comply with his orders you got crammed on it. And one year, he even sent specially bound copies to all of the top celebrities so they would know what was expected of them.”
Mike Rinder said something similar:
“Miscavige considered the Bolivar PL (policy letter) to be enormously important for everyone around him to understand.
“He and his minions repeatedly demanded those at international management level read, re-read, M9 (M9 is a method of studying and defining the words being studied) checkout (checkout is a testing that you know what you read) on this PL.
“It was his intention to get everyone to understand that he needed to be supported. That it was HIS power on which everyone else lived. And he didn’t have to insist on it for himself, he could use LRH to do it for him. With no LRH around to “flow power to”, Miscavige was “Bolivar”…”
Other former executives have confirmed that The Responsibility of Leaders was the blueprint for David Miscavige’s violent take over in the early 80s.
THE POWER OF WORDS — LRH’s rhetorical teaching method using violence
Simon Bolivar was a Venezuelan military and political leader who played a leading role in the establishment of Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Panama as sovereign states, independent of Spanish rule, born July 24 1783 and died December 17 1830. Bolivar and his consort Manuela died penniless after a life of political power and prestige.
Ron wrote the story of Bolivar as a warning to those in power; that to keep power, we must be able to do despicable acts, when necessary, and overcome any repulsion of committing those acts and expect that those who serve under you commit these acts as well. All in the name of successful leadership.
That IS the imagery Ron uses to teach with.
L Ron Hubbard wrote The Responsibility of Leaders as an analogy of how not to fail in leadership and how those who support leaders fail in that support. Ron uses the real life of Simon Bolivar and his consort Manuela to make his point. The Responsibility of Leaders is broken down by Ron into two parts: first the story of Bolivar and Manuela and second Ron’s recap and advice of what the couple should have done, but failed to do, to be successful. But he is really instructing Scientologists on how to protect Ron. Who else is reading this? Ron did not wake up one morning and decide to give a history lesson.
These are just some ideas that Ron came up with as advice that should, or could be used to secure power:
– murder (“pink legs sticking out”….. Remember this line. You’ll get to it below.)
– assault and battery
– bribery
– brutal violence against children
RON QUOTES FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADERS
“He (Bolivar) never began to recognize a Suppressive and never considered anyone needed killing except on a battlefield” (murder)
“It is a frightening level of bravery to use men you know can be cruel, vicious and incompetent.” (maybe that’s what LRH saw in Miscavige)
“Yet never did she (Manuela) promise some young officer a nice night or a handful of gold to do it (kill) in a day when dueling was in fashion.” (having sex with someone with the exchange that he kill )
“She (Manuela) never used a penny to buy a quick knife or even a solid piece of evidence.” (murder)
“She (Manuela) never bought a plank or a rope.” (murder)
“She (Manuela) was not ruthless enough to make up for his (Bolivar’s) lack of ruthlessness………….” (ruthlessness as a desirable virtue for successful leadership; sound familiar? And I just realized that is the name of the book David’s dad wrote about his kid; Ruthless)
“She (Manuela) never handed over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to Negro troops and then said, “Which oververbal family is next?” (child abuse and possibly child rape and murder. This was in Ron’s head as a viable option!!!!!!!!!!!)
“Life bleeds. It suffers. It hungers. And it has to have the right to shoot its enemies until such time as comes a golden age.” (murder)
“When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police.” (sounds like a successful mafia boss giving advice, not a prophet of the Buddha)
This last quote is an instruction for those who serve a leader. It instructs them to commit assault and battery and murder, but don’t bother the person in charge with the details.
“He (the person in power) doesn’t have to know all the bad news and if he’s a power really, he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?” And if you are clever, you never let it be thought he killed them—that weakens you and also hurts the power source. “Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.” “Well,” he’ll say if he really is a power, “why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you did it. Where’s my blue ink?” Or “Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along soon with your cook, Dober, and they’ll want to tell you he beat up Simson.” “Who’s Simson?” “He’s a clerk in the enemy office downtown.” “Good. When they’ve done it, take Dober down to the dispensary for any treatment he needs. Oh yes. Raise his pay.” Or “Sir, could I have the power to sign divisional orders?” “Sure.” ( this is LRH instructing the GO/OSA/Sea Org and devoted disciples in the proper etiquette of crime around a leader)
CONNECTING THE DOTS
I am not attempting to lessen David Miscavige’s responsibility with his inhumane acts. I am trying to connect the dots between the doctrinal ideology that entered his mind as a young naive boy. And having entered his mind, now becomes action; an application of a philosophy.
In the post World War Two Nuremberg trials, many nazis said, ”we were just following orders.” There are two things in play here: 1) the ideology of Adolf Hitler and 2) the agreement and activation of that ideology by willing subordinates.
The Responsibility of Leaders is the doctrine that became an obsession for David Miscavige. It became his character. It became his leadership style. It gave him the blueprint for taking over the church by justified, Ron sanctioned brutality. And anyone that got in his way was ruthlessly dealt with. After all, L Ron Hubbard said,
“She (Manuela) was not ruthless enough to make up for his (Bolivar’s) lack of ruthlessness………….”
L Ron Hubbard right here, with these words, is instructing to not be a pussy, a panty waist dilettante, and to develop ruthlessness as a trait of successful leadership.
ruthless adj: ruthless killers: merciless, pitiless, cruel, heartless, hard-hearted, cold-hearted, cold-blooded, harsh, callous, unmerciful, unforgiving, uncaring, unsympathetic, uncharitable; remorseless, unbending, inflexible, implacable; brutal, inhuman, inhumane, barbarous, barbaric, savage, sadistic, vicious. ANTONYMS merciful.
So tell me — who comes to mind when reading this definition?
Imagine David Miscavige studying, word clearing and clay demoing this sentence on Bolivar’s lack of ruthlessness. Connect those dots. Ron’s words are meant to be applied. Ron’s words are the source of David Miscavige’s character development.
“It is a frightening level of bravery to use men you know can be cruel, vicious and incompetent.”
This idea is the stuff of mafia. Ron here is equating the virtue of bravery with using cruel and vicious people to serve under you. And that to be brave, you have to overcome fear of using vicious people. I say it is not fear that needs to be overcome;
It is one’s innate, spiritual, natural sense of conscience, natural sense of right and wrong that gets denied, numbed and overcome. And that is what happened to David Miscavige. These instructions, studied and applied, created a ruthless madman devoid of conscience and decency.
THE DEATH OF CONSCIENCE
conscience n. 1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one’s conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide. 2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation’s conscience. 3. Conformity to one’s own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience. 4. The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one’s actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration.
David Miscavige was a youth when he met Ron. He met Ron during his angry, looney, rage fits phase while filming those tech films. So here is the king of the universe, the prophet of the Buddha, the savior of mankind acting like an asshole. Conclusion: powerful messiahs need to punish and yell to get things done.
Add to all of this Ron’s doctrines on the evils of critics, Bolivar and actively seeking to destroy people and you have; the death of conscience.
Could it be that David Miscavige is also a victim of Scientology? And his belief in Ron’s unique messiahship? Of following blindly the advice in Bolivar?
Could it be that David Miscavige had issues, personal and emotional issues, as a young boy, that were made diabolically worse by the insane brutality that inhabited L Ron Hubbard’s thoughts?
The advice in The Responsibility of Leaders leads faithfully and most assuredly to a demoralizing corruption of the soul and the death of conscience.
LINK TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADERS
Thank you for your time,
David Miscaviage was just a character in a science fiction novel.
He’s simply playing the role of Brown Limper Stafford.
That is, if you’re a diehard.
If anyone is seriously interested in this topic (leadership, power, and saving the planet) – I highly recommend you go to barnes and noble and order the book, ‘ The Great Turning. From empire to earth community.’
Some messy comments on the excellent article and following posts:
I agree it was a two part play. DM started out with a bent towards bullying add an abusive childhood. Then jumped into CoS with LRON as influence. The mans own paranoia and bullying and grandiosity reinforced what was already there. It was a fatal mixture. Why would DM turn out any other way, and what else could he be now? In any other arena, if he hit an employee he’d be arrested. There are no checks and balances for ill behavior in Scientology and no desire to tone down his bullying nature. If anything, DM is the worst parts of Hubbard 2.0. DM may have absorbed the tech and teachings, but he does not hold them sacrosanct as he has been altering them for a while now. I think in some ways DM regards himself as a better, thinner, dentally attractive version of LRH. I think he is in a very sad place. He has to hold it all together. What the hell else could he do in life? What would he want to do? He is in a position of power where all his needs are met, and he is treated as a superior being. Something a narcissist desperately needs. What ever he “started out being” I doubt there is much left of. Like anyone, he is more complex than just a arm chair psychological analysis, but so much about him, who he was and who he has become fits hand in glove with Scientology. They are hand in glove now. And both are the worse for it. DM has squeezed the humanity out of the CoS and turned it into an angry, soul less Ponzi scheme. And Scientology has taken an angry, scared young man and helped him establish himself as an all powerful, unapproachable tyrant. If it really bothered him, he’d do something about it. But like people have said. He doesn’t know anything else. And he has hurt so very many people… Maybe it would be better not to know. Run it to the wall and let the dead human parts just shrivel up and fall off. Start thinking about those glorious revered images of ME for after I’m gone… I bet he will be looking for some legal means to forward his ideas into perpetuity as well. Control for ever more. Control and power. presumed, assumed, intoned, attuned, demanded. He was wrong on that, in many cases power is given. If he had had five people and up and say No, I will not do this, and punch him in the face a long long time ago. We would not be having the discussion. Not blame. But DM and who he is is both he actions and the reactions and lack of actions on others parts. Enough people have to agree with him to get anything done. He sets the tone, they follow. It was LRH game but DM playbook. This is a case where there is an I in team. I say, you do.
I wonder about the Freezone Scientologists? How much do they blame DM for hijacking their religion and do they thing they can get it back? And how long would it take to un-weave the bits of DM from it? Some people say the source is broken and some just think it has been toggled too much… I guess time will tell. It is sad so many people had their lives broken stolen damaged ended because of some proliferate egomaniac with a science fiction bent Christ complex.
Great comment Jen. Very thoughtful.
Love your ‘dentally challenged’, Jen.
LRH parlayed himself into SOURCE. SOURCE (a.k.a. ‘god’) proved over and over and over that he knew best. And SOURCE’S wrath was mighty! You DID NOT want to stand before the ‘almighty’ and receive his fury.
When I was attempting to run his household unit, I didn’t see SOURCE (‘god’), I saw a man. A man with a LOT of physical and emotional issues. That’s when I knew he was a fake and my idol worship of him was just wrong.
He led using fear which is the way despots rule. DM is merely aping him.
Hubbard loved thugs and thuggery so much! He even incorporated hazing rituals into his supposed “advanced civilization bringing” organization. I can just see John McMaster now, “Uh, Ron, don’t you think that throwing people overboard is better suited to a south china sea pirate ship than among students who are trying to create a better world?”
To me, if you are trying to make a better world and advanced civilization, as Hubbard said he was, you stomp out abuse, are tolerant, and you try to teach the barbarians to be civilized. Instead, Hubbard liked to put the barbarians in power so they could hurt the staff and he abused the civilized ones like McMaster. He hardly even mentioned the barbarian problem. Instead of blaming the barbarians, he blamed the fall of past civilizations on letting women out of the kitchen. That is because Hubbard had a strong barbarian streak himself and seems to have really liked that trait in his underlings too.
The real responsibility of a leader of a toxic organization, as CofS clearly is, is to STEP DOWN and let someone sane take over.
He knew our strengths and weaknesses (he was C/S’ing our folders for a while). He knew about control. He knew who was more easily controlled and used it. He knew who could stand up and fight and intimidate…and he used them, too. He wasn’t interested in eliminating abuse. Abuse was his power. Same with DM. And aboard the ship, many of us aped his tactics….the contagion of aberration, indeed.
Hi Gene! . . . You’ve captured the inconsistency of Hubbard when you wrote, “. . . , you stomp out abuse, are tolerant, . . .” You see? This perfectly captures the problem with creating the perfect egalitarian society. Every philosopher has fought with this one. Carried to its limit, I do not know how it can be solved using humans. Hubbard’s solution was to make that perfect society using “Clears.” But only ants, bees, and other hive societies have accomplished this and individually, their members seem to be ego-less. “Clearing” seems not to decrease ego, but rather to increase it. Love your thoughts and posts… ~Chris Thompson
Extremely well said 👍 🙏 😎
If the recruiting pitch for the Sea Org is, help us clear the planet/ save the planet, help us help people, then one would think the appeal is to those with altruistic values. Yet everything in this document (“Responsibility of Leaders”) is the opposite of altruism.
Brings to mind a story sometimes shared in evangelical churches:
“Charlie Peace was a criminal. Laws of God or man curbed him not. Finally the law caught up with him, and he was condemned to death. On the fatal morning in Armley Jail, Leeds, England, he was taken on the death-walk. Before him went the prison chaplain, routinely and sleepily reading some Bible verses. The criminal touched the preacher and asked what he was reading. “The Consolation of Religion,” was the reply. Charlie Peace was shocked at the way he professionally read about hell. Could a man be so unmoved under the very shadow of the scaffold as to lead a fellow-human there and yet, dry-eyed, read of a pit that has no bottom into which this fellow must fall? Could this preacher believe the words that there is an eternal fire that never consumes its victims, and yet slide over the phrase without a tremor? Is a man human at all who can say with no tears, “You will be eternally dying and yet never know the relief that death brings”? All this was too much for Charlie Peace. So he preached. Listen to this on-the-eve-of-hell sermon. ‘Sir,’ addressing the preacher, ‘if I believed what you and the church of God say that you believe, even if England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would walk over it, if need be, on hands and knees and think it worth while living, just to save one soul from an eternal hell like that!’ ”
That story is intended to “shame the faithful” into taking action, rather than ignore the perils of their fellow man. Far from considering them wogs/infidels to be despised, the perspective here is that their neighbors are in great danger, and that compassion is far better than despising the “unsaved.” While you could certainly make the case that most churches / fellowships in America don’t pursue evangelism in such an intense way, there are certainly many who do take that approach.
So many comments and interviews by ex-scientologists makes it clear that many, if not most, began their time in SeaOrg with a desire to help. But it looks like the ethics conditions drive that out of them.
“If the recruiting pitch for the Sea Org is, help us clear the planet/ save the planet, help us help people, then one would think the appeal is to those with altruistic values. Yet everything in this document (“Responsibility of Leaders”) is the opposite of altruism.”
Much of CofS IS an appeal to the altruistic. It appears that the real reason for that however is because, being altruistic, they can easily be taken advantage of. The person at the top doesn’t even have to think about their well-being and can take all the money and not have to share.
CofS appears designed to attract “do gooders”, then entrap and enslave them and turn them into people who will do the most revolting and cold hearted things without even blinking.
The altruistic impulses of the individuals attracted are slowly bent towards believing that the organization (and its leader) are the only hope, and need to be protected at all costs; and that any means are justified to protect the organization (and its leader), and to further their plans and goals. So as the process of indoctrination and though reform proceeds, in a gradual way that the individual doesn’t recognize, they will come to believe that the altruistic goal requires them to do the sort of things in The Responsibility of Leaders as necessary.
If you could get an individual to really step back and look at the contradiction that has arisen they might recognize it. But when they are in the midst of it they lack that perspective, and various techniques including those that discourage or punish critical though, pressure cooker working environments and lack of sleep, serve to help prevent anyone from really reflecting on what they are doing.
Several books on the general subject provide of high control groups and cults, undue influence and thought control, contain a more detailed and in depth explanation of this process and the dynamics involved.
Something that popped into my mind here:
What kind of character would LRH be in an LRH novel? You know, the cheesy pulp sci-fi novels pounded out for cheap on a typewriter? I think the answer is clear when you think about it.
A visionary finds a new technique that will overthrow all conventional wisdom on science and society. It is a sensation with the public, but the “authorities” condemn him. He curses them and takes to seclusion, developing his work in secrecy and being paranoid of the authorities coming to get him. He attracts devoted followers, and makes sacrifices to achieve his dream. As he faces death, he finds that he cannot control what he has created, and his sacrifice, his life has been for naught. He dies alone, his theories never vindicated, his creations cut loose on the world.
El Ron was a Mad Scientist! I’m sure he even shook his fist at psychiatrists claiming he’d show them all.
hubbard wrote his own novel, it’s dianetics and scientology, his self promoted and expression of what he wanted us to see & believe (ie mankinds greatest friend, and the image of LRH is #1), but behind the scenes is another story.
There was a movie made about him, it’s called “A Face in the Crowd”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGUm9e_BLU
I completely agree with what you’ve written, Brian.
Just like the mean drunk was mean before he sat down at the bar, Miscavige was mean before he read Responsibility of Leaders. And just like whiskey provides the “license” for the drunk’s angry behavior, LRH’s doctrines provided the rationalization for Miscavige’s criminal behavior.
Exactly!
He sat at the feet of the master and learned well.
This sounds much like the CIA or any other organization that’s based on secrecy and bullshit promotions. With enforcers to keep everyone in line etc. Age old story. Based on the study of human nature and needs. Great to have this being exposed because it will have world wide ripples on any organization based on these wicked principles. Be it cults, military, religions or government. Even just stupid peer pressure dynamics are being exposed by this work. Thanks to all involved in spreading this awareness and information.
Mike R: “‘If it is not in writing, it is not true.’” This L Ron Hubbard quote, is a basic rule, that ALL Scientologists know and obediently follow literally. It IS understood by Scientologists to mean that all of Ron’s writings are true.”
It may be true that many Scientologists understand the quote that way, but per the context it states that if an ORDER is not in writing it isn’t true. This is one of the best examples of how and why things went downhill in Scientology – and were blamed on LRH.
The idea that the quote above applies to all writings contributed to the literal interpretation of all of them – even though LRH basically pointed out that one could misunderstand something by not grasping its “status” or “concept.” In the bulletin that lists out the ways a word or symbol can be misunderstood (“The Misunderstood Word Defined,” LRH writes that there are other ways besides words and symbols that could create a misunderstanding, including “status” and “concept.”
p.s. I’ll add that I never interpreted “Responsibilities of Leaders” in a literal way. And I don’t know of any instance where LRH advocated murder or any of the other exremem tactics in that issue – at least not literally.
Well, Paulette Cooper and Gabe Cazares come pretty close. So too the “Amprinistics” issue — and that one is actually written by L. Ron Hubbard (if you actually believe Hubbard did not know about Guardian Office operations, you don’t really know how he operated). Here is an excerpt from the Amprinistics “HCO Exec Letter:
Treatment — They are each fair game, can be sued or harassed.
Horner can be barred out of any Commonwealth Country or England as he was the subject of a deportation order from England and his file has come alive again in the Home Secretary’s Office. Harry Thompson’s wives and victims are always looking for him to have him arrested. Watson is a set-up for arrest as a homosexual. Any meeting held by them should be torn up. The names of any persons attending should be collected and they should be labelled SP as they have left Scientology. These people are SP because they are seeking to avoid auditing and retain their withholds. Once labelled, these persons will not then be covered by amnesty and will never be admitted to further training or processing. Persons messing themselves up with Amprinistic self audit and restim should be refused any assistance. If these persons move into your area act through any agency you can to have them deported or arrested on whatever grounds. England is currently too hot for them so they may tour about. Horner’s UK deportation order, Thompson’s police record and Watson’s homosexuality make them very vulnerable to deportation or arrest.
Wow!
I do believe Hubbard knew about Guardian Office operations, but I also can believe there were actions taken by individual overzealous GO members that he did not know about, much less order or even condone. As for the Amprinistics HCO Exec Letter, things like “can be sued or harassed” or “any meeting held by them should be torn up,” “labelled SP, as they have left Scientology,” etc. – all fall far short of the Simon Bolivar issue if interpreted literally.
Anyway, I don’t mean to downplay the outpoints – they’re bad enough. I just don’t think it’s right to worsen them to murder and such.
Miraldi, regarding those Sea Org or GO doing stuff behind Ron’s back; he instructed them in Bolivar to do just that.
Do criminal/violent things and don’t bother the power.
It’s Ron’s alibi. It also his instruction to GO/Sea Org to hurt the enemy.
Brian exactly. I remember one time in a WDC meeting one of the members was going to describe how he was going to deal with someone and Marc Y. just put his fingers in in ears and said, to the guy, “Pink legs!”.
Of course Hubbard knew about the GO. And Mary Sue had obviously read and adopted Manuela’s views, actions and philosophy. Jane Kember (GO Worldwide) was an astute student of this as well. Not a good person to cross!
I was in GO. LRH knew a lot more than we were allowed to say he knew.
That’s quite a back down from “trained to kill or die.” Careless statements like that get repeated by those who have a taste for sensationalism – or an ax to grind. And then it becomes “common knowledge.”
That’s one persons view. Have a little manners Marildi. Valerie said she did not see this as a good forum for this discussion . I respected her for her wish.
Have some manners. Be nice.?
Marlidli, I knew an auditor at AO who audited GO. She told me one of their pcs confessed to this crime.
Of course this is not proof. But it is one more piece of circumstantial eveidence that supports that Scientology is a thug organization.
I was very close to someone who was a public pc, whose folders were sent to the GO for CSing. She was run on processes to drive her insane.
Later in years her brother in law, who was an auditor got her folders to do an action, we were out of the church at that time so we were not afraid of retribution.
This guy showed me her folders with GO writings and CSing. This auditor told me she was run on reverse processes to drive her insane.
Paulette Cooper said that when she was super depressed a mole Scientologist, working for Ron, took her up to the roof and Paulette says she really felt this guy wanted tear to jump.
I will not be surprised if one day we find out that there has been a Scientology killing.
Because Ron teaches his thugs to do criminal activity and do not bother him, it may not have been known or ordered by Execs.
Ron advised murder and assault and battery to be committed to protect the “Skipper”. He advised also to commit these acts and do not tell him.
It is very reasonable to conclude that some poor mindless cul zombie did just that.
BTW, LRH never qualified this doctrine by saying please do not kill or assault, this is just an analogy.
I think you have a misunderstood here and mistake the author of this quote?
This what I actually said:
While some will try to excuse the Responsibility of Leaders as allegory, to scientologists there really is no such thing. If L. Ron Hubbard said it, it becomes truth. If he writes Bolivar failed because he didn’t blackmail his political enemies, then blackmail is acceptable if it is for “the greatest good” (ie will help scientology, Hubbard, or today Miscavige). Had Hubbard wanted this to be understood as mere musings on a subject, it would not have been issued as a POLICY of the organization, to be studied as part of numerous courses on how to “run” scientology and how to deal with “ethics.”
You are right, Mike – my comment should have been directed to Brian. I guess I still had in mind what you had written, which you quoted above: “While some will try to excuse the Responsibility of Leaders as allegory, to scientologists there really is no such thing.” I took that to mean nothing could be interpreted figuratively – only literally – and this was what I disagreed with for the reasons given.
You also say: “Had Hubbard wanted this to be understood as mere musings on a subject, it would not have been issued as a POLICY of the organization, to be studied as part of numerous courses on how to ‘run’ scientology and how to deal with ‘ethics.’”
Unless I’m mistaken, that “policy” was not issued when Hubbard wrote it in 1976. Miscavige issued it as a policy letter after Hubbard’s death. It was just an Executive Order, and as such had temporary validity when LRH issued it in 1976. It seems obvious that Miscavige had ulterior motives in issuing it as a PL, in order to give it permanent validity.
Typo: 1976 should be 1967.
No, it’s been a policy since 1967. But even if it wasn’t, do you actually think an “executive order” written by L. Ron Hubbard expired? Seriously? Like LRHED 339R that has been the operating basis of all orgs since 1983?
I remember that some types of issues, the ones that would stale date, do expire. But I can’t find the reference. Anyway, I see now that the Simon Bolivar issue was originally a PL, so I stand corrected on that.
You are dead wrong marildi. It was issued as an HCO PL in the 70’s. ALSO, LRH ordered that LRH ED’s would no longer expire after one year but were permanent.
Marildi, this below post is from Valerie. I am reposting it. It is posted at the end of this blog. Maybe you did not interpret Bolivar that way. But Ron’s family did.
This Valerie quote refutes any argument that Bolivar was not meant to be taken literally.
“Miscavige was not the only one who insisted in adherence to Bolivar. For anyone who worked under Mary Sue, Bolivar was our bible. Case in point, she took the rap rather than let Ron take it. We were trained by both Mary Sue and Diana to kill or die for Hubbard.” Valerie
And if Mary Sue and Diana were training people to overcome their “fear” of killing and dying for Ron; I consider it totally impossible that Ron did not approve.
Is this an outrageous claim by me. Sure. It’s all outrageous. But because L Ron Hubbard crossed the line of decency so many times, it is my opinion that he was approving of violence. After all, he commanded Miscavige to punch people in the face and spit in their face!
He once put on a SP declare to use R2-45 on that person when found.
Oh, what a kidder that Ron!
Even after Ron gives his advice to Bolivar and Manuela, Ron brings up how subordinates should operate around a “power” and not tell him about their crimes.
Ron uses the name of “Skipper” as the power. He did not go into an explanation of how an office worker in the Sea Org is to act, connecting the Bolivar story to actual practical matters. He still uses the imagery of hurting people to get the job done.
Ron uses the name Skipper. Well-who pray tell could that be. And in these descriptions Ron uses murder and assault and battery.
His own wife and daughter knew what he meant.
Marildi, Ron had no aversion to physically harming people. He pistol whipped Sara. His instruction in Bolivar is clear: use violence when necessary to protect power.
Marildi, what kind of man uses an example of abucting a young girl from her mother and handing her over to Negro troops!!!!!!
IN A POLICY LETTER ON ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP SKILLS!!
GEEZE LOUISE!!
I believe that L Ron Hubbard wrote Bolivar with the intention of making violence against critics church policy.
I also believe he knew he was going against the inborn conscience of his students.
The Bolivar doctrine was meant to make less of “wog morality” and replace it with a guarantee that LRH would be protected by starry eyed, mindless cult thugs.
It is the result. So it must have been the intention.
Ron was a genius manipulator of human values. In Bolivar he elevated violence to a church sacrament for the greater good.
If there are any old GO members out there please chime in on Bolivar and how it was used.
Brian true. Also remember that violence against SPs was already sanctioned in Fair Game PLs. “Also, NEVER fear to HURT another in a just cause”
Brian: As I noted above, both Mary Sue and Jane Kember were perfect duplicates of Manuela, both rigid, demanding and expecting total subservience. Both of them took the axe for Hubbard. As an aside, I’ve always wondered how Hubbard managed to avoid that axe and only became an “unindicted co-conspiritor”. Any ideas on that, Mike?
“We were trained by both Mary Sue and Diana to kill or die for Hubbard.”
Kill or die? I should know by now that you would buy that, Brian. You are so eager to believe the worst, and to interpret everything in the worst possible way – like insisting that the Simon Bolivar issue was meant literally.
Even Mike and Marty, who both had years of experience in OSA (the GO renamed), have not reported anything to the effect of “kill or die” – and I think they would know.
Marildi, Valerie did not say she or anyone actually killed. She said that she was trained to.
In my opinion, I would never be surprised if someone actually did though. There has never been any proof of that. But it would not be a surprise if it did.
You say I want to see the worst about Ron. I say I simply know what he wrote and actually did, and come to conclusion based on that.
I say it is difficult for you you cognize these things about Ron because you are in denial about Ron.
When criticism occurs about Ron you jump to his defense and somehow justify his actions, justify his writings.
Marildi, why didn’t you post anything on Mike’s post:
How Scientology Deals With Critics:L Ron Hubbard’s Play Book?
Brian: “Marildi, why didn’t you post anything on Mike’s post: How Scientology Deals With Critics:L Ron Hubbard’s Play Book?”
Why do you ask? Are you planning to start a witch hunt?
witch hunt: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witch%20hunt
Curiosity and looking is free and easy. It’s all the rage out here in WogLand.
Questions are not tyranny. Fear of scrutinizing can be. Avoiding questions can be evidence of fear.
Lest some Ronbot suggest that this was not REALLY a serious article by Hubbard here is something he wrote for staff to implement in the 1950’s. It is equally bizarre material to be used in running a Church.
It was a confidential document meant for only the “Elite” Corps of church staff. It was titled, The HCO Manual of Justice. Here it is in HTML form: http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/man_just.htm
I hate to start a comment off with, “Wow” but there’s no choice. That HCO Manual of Justice is the equivalent of looking right into the mind of L. Ron Hubbard. It sounds like the rantings of a mad genius. Mad and heartless. This sort Machiavellian perspective would appeal to angry sadistic people. Anybody who asserts David Miscavige is a practitioner of Hubbard’s dark arts has this Manual to make his case.
rogerHornaday, if you will focus on the Investigations section you will see where DM is following TO THE F’ING LETTER LRH’s order on sparing no expense to hire Private Investigators to harass, intimidate, run out of town, etc., anyone who attacks the church.
“Let him die” DM is simply following LRH’s orders. All these RonBot’s are COMPLETELY clueless about Hubbard. To the point of almost criminality themselves.
Yeeooww! Mike, that one was lodged waaaaayyy back in my brain. It is so weird to read this stuff now.
That one was a doozy.
So far I have read 4 books about former Scientology members..it seems like each one is scarier than the one before..
DM brings to mind the actions of the Manson Family in the late 60s…Charles Manson was a charismatic figure ..using disallusioned teenagers to do his bidding..first pretty innocently becoming increasing violent..he used LSD to break down their inhibitions..to ultimately start a Race War that only he and his followers would survive…in some ways similar to DM but still delusional thinking..in the end many of his followers feared for their lives..and justly so.
and Manson studied Scientology in prison…
Ooooooh…
Wow. Really. I read the book Helter Skelter recently but forgot about that part. !
I read “Simon Bolivar” as a student on the Life Orientation Course in 1991. I thought Hubbard’s opinions were hyperbole and not to be taken literally. I didn’t think he would do as he said Bolivar and Manuela should have done. ( I’m currently reading Bare Faced Messiah and realize just how wrong I was.)
David Miscavige could not have happened by himself. He “duplicated” Hubbard perfectly.
Remember that Davey lives in a bubble. People like Tom Cruise are always telling him how great he is.
Hopefully Mike can make a post about Leah Remini’s recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast show.
Episode #908 available on YouTube, published 1/30/2017
THere’s nothing to post really. Just listen to the podcast. It is brilliant.
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/leah-remini
Cool… I didn’t realize you could post links here. Here’s the video of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ0-VeWMr-A
Here’s a discussion of it: reddit.com/r/scientology/comments/5r4wsx/leah_remini_on_the_joe_rogan_experience/
This where Hubbard shows the true colors of scientology. I’m not referring to the ruthlessness though, I’m referring to the materialism. Hubbard takes the examples of two once powerful people and discusses the lessons he drew from their stories.
It’s all about how they failed to remain powerful leaders not about how they succeeded or failed to find peace in an uncertain world or how they did or did not achieve wisdom.
To Hubbard, spiritual enlightenment is about having enhanced abilities to cause the universe to cough up the objects of your desires so that your hankerings may always and quickly be satisfied. Hankerings for power and influence and wealth for instance. To play a BIG game. Of course the turd must be polished by making it also about saving mankind.
Yes, I know we are spiritual thetans with no location in time/space blah blah blah, but the purpose of our spiritual existence per Hubbard is to achieve self-aggrandizement. It’s about getting lots of MEST and manipulating the outward circumstances of our life, not about discovering the incorruptible truth that lies within us as our timeless, unblemished identity. It’s about getting junk, all kinds of shiny, attractive junk. Like acquiring new “abilities” so we can do bullshit better.
Hubbard’s poor followers think that’s what spirituality is. The Buddha doesn’t talk about how to be a leader. He talks about how to be a human being. I know somebody has to be in charge but the only leader of me is I.
Roger, I feel your views are not completely accurate and you only see a part of Hubbard, but most of what you wrote was really good. Nice piece of writing.
Thank you marildi, that’s good enough for me.
Actually, Roger, I think your comments were spot on. Everything that scio has become derived precisely from the leadership of LRH, now continued by the copycat replacement for Hubbard, taking things out to the max. While I got a lot out of scio, as I’ve mentioned here numerous times, it was from my own looking, my own awareness and the realization that yes, I really am responsible for my condition. If not me, who? Scio was one of the many steps I’ve taken in this lifetime and when one day I knew I’d “graduated”, I simply stopped. (He *did* talk about graduating from even scio.)
Something to consider. This is a fairly accurate manual on how to be a dictator. If you asked Castro, Saddam, or any successful president for life, they would agree with it. In as far as you seek to maintain power via fear and control, it is great.
There are other options to maintain power: popular / democratic legitmacy (the people love you), tradtional/religious devotion (you follow the tradition and are thus the rightful ruler), success-driven leadership (people love a winner), etc. Hubbard wrote about all of these to some degree, especially devotion to Tech and stats-based leadership. To some extent, every leader uses these strategies to maintain a hold on power. Hubbard’s leadership was a strange blend of religious guru (he did seem to actually believe and sue his stuff), CEO (STATS STATS STATS), and el Presidente (Fair Game, this, etc.)
David Miscavidge dropped most of the religious leadership aspects, and dialed up the evil CEO and dictatorial leadership. Davey is everything bad about Hubbard distilled into a smaller form. What’s ironic is that he’s not that good at it. People are escaping. The word is getting out. And there are fewer and fewer customers. He’s going to end up like Bolivar, if there is any justice in the world.
Great insights.
I’m finding it useful to look at the timeline of Hubbard’s life.
The Responsibility of Leaders dates to 1967. This is the year after he had left England after problems there, and gone to Rhodesia to try to create some sort of new Scientology base, but then been kicked out of that country for his clumsy political machinations. And it is the year that Hubbard went to sea and created the Sea Org, arguably as the result of his troubles in getting along with civil governments – and he would never again be able to live openly on land.
Also, the basis for Responsibility is the book The four seasons of Manuela : the love story of Manuela Sáenz and Simón Bolívar by Victor Wolfgang Von Hagen, originally published in 1952. Hubbard would seem to have known it well enough to have read it, though he often seems to have picked up a passing familiarity with works either by skimming them or by learning about them from others.
EDIT: I’m finding it useful to look at things in the context of where they fall on the timeline of Hubbard’s life.
I want to add what that suggests to me in this case, that since Responsibilities was written after Hubbard was kicked out of Rhodesia, I think that puts it at a point when his long-held aspirations for Scientology (and presumably himself) to rise to become a political power had been thwarted. It appears to me that he then became more obviously bitter, cynical, and focused inwardly on ruling his own organizations. I wonder how much he might actually have changed, versus how much he just felt it was time to be more overt about his methods and plans.
Ron Hubbard was quite a complex personnality. This paragraph is enough to save and set the pace of the whole essay : “The freeing of things is the reverse unstated dramatization (the opposite side of the coin) to the slavery enjoined by the mechanisms of the mind. Unless there is something to free men into, the act of freeing is simply a protest of slavery. And as no humanoid is free while aberrated in the body cycle, it is of course a gesture to free him politically as it frees him only into the anarchy of dramatizing his aberrations with NO control whatever and without something to fight exterior; and with no exteriorization of his interest, he simply goes mad noisily or quietly.”
This message can be read in all religions, AND give you some links to current situations, name ir Miscavige, Trump and Co.
Or, had the election gone the other way, Clinton and Co. Again.
That’s probably true if Ken Wilber has it right. His theory is that in the course of evolution, we’re in a phase where chaos will create a necessity to come away from the current, widespread belief that there is no truth other than relative “truth” – i.e. this is a “post-truth” era. Here’s a description of his new book titled *Trump and a Post-Truth World*:
“The election of Donald Trump is an evolutionary self-correction that has been decades in the making — a backlash against the failure of the leading edge of consciousness (postmodernism and pluralism) to acknowledge the lie underlying the progress they’ve pursued: it’s not equal, it’s not consistent, and it doesn’t make room for everyone. But a new integral force is emerging that can move beyond the narcissism and nihilism of political correctness to offer genuine leadership and move towards a developmental-based wisdom of greater wholeness.”
https://integrallife.com/trump-post-truth-world/
You can download or read it free at the above site.
“Ron Hubbard was quite a complex personnality. This paragraph is enough to save and set the pace of the whole essay…”
Li Po, great comment! Very insightful.
RoL serves to illustrate how delusional Hubbard really was. It’s a bizarre mix of Hubbard seeking to be wise or profound, and some kind of B movie from a Saturday matinee. Unfortunately, for Scnists, its a masterpiece, a precious historical analysis; never stopping to think about what he is actually saying.
And how irresponsible of Hubbard, who knew full well, that his sycophants would unquestioningly adopt it as their own.
This is an extremely well-written essay that cuts to the dark heart of what $cn has become and provides a succinct explanation of how and why that came about.
If you had to choose just one word to describe the cult’s all-powerful current leader, lil davey the despicable, it would “ruthless,” which is exactly the word his own father used as the title of the book that he wrote as a biographical expose on his life in the cult under the sadistic thumb of his son.
Lil davey, the tiny terrible tyrant, read and duplicated Elron’s core philosophy on leadership contained in the infamous Bolivar PL better than anyone else in $cn and followed it to the letter in his own rise to power within the organization and in all of his subsequent efforts to maintain absolute dictatorial control over all of $cn.
Lil davey is a poorly educated, semi-literate and temperamentally explosive individual whose improbable rise to power can only be fully comprehended by reading Elron’s Bolivar PL and understanding that it provided whoever that was willing to be the most ruthless with a road map to acquire and maintain power within the organization after the founder was gone. In effect, the Bolivar PL provides the moral legitimization of ruthlessness (“any means are justified by the end”) as a virtue within $cn…it’s not an allegorical tale meant to be historically insightful; it’s a direct road map and operating manual on how to acquire and maintain absolute power.
And although Elron’s sights were set only on the maintenance of his own position of power at the time that he wrote it, the more general applicability of it as a historical cautionary tale to all who seek absolute power and control of any group was abundantly clear. The fact that lil davey the diabolical seized upon it and the philosophy of sociopathic ruthlessness that it details is evidenced by how much he emphasized it to his underlings and made sure that they read it and re-read it, so they’d fully get it as he had.
To read the Bolivar PL is to understand exactly the basis of legitimacy of lil davey’s claim to power in $cn, which is nothing more than the clear and undisguised embrace of total ruthlessness – a willingness to do anything, no matter how criminal or morally abhorrent to stay in power. Not only is he not pretending to be anything other than who he is, but lil davey the sadistic completely believes that absolute ruthlessness is a virtue.
But lil davey, “the kid,” didn’t just learn that lesson from reading; he was apprenticed to Elron himself and learned it through direct example while he was still a young and impressionable youth. Lois Reisdorf and others’ accounts of “the kid” describe the developmental arc of his rise to power and embrace of violence, threat, coercion and betrayal as a leadership style that was modeled for him by Elron himself as he screamed and berated his film unit underlings for their errors and incompetencies.
On this view, lil davey understood the core tenets of Elron’s leadership philosophy better than anyone else around him and had the good fortune to be in a position to exploit that knowledge at the most crucial of moments.
Elron couched his own personal philosophy of power and control in this quasi-historical account, in part, to give it some sort of depth and wider relevance, while distancing himself from it at the same time. But when you put that fable-like tale aside and seek to understand the true source of inspiration for his conscienceless embrace of ruthlessness, there’s a much earlier foundation upon which it had been built that can be viewed: During his early Sex Magik period in the company of Jack Parsons, and under the tutelage of Aleister Crowley himself, Elron adopted a much more naked and revealing prime directive as his guiding personal philosophy: “Do what thou will”. Indeed, every bit of what Elron began, and what lil davey continues to this day, can be seen as being based on exactly that keystone of personal belief. The direct corollaary to that guiding philosophy is: You can do whatever you like until someone stops you. The true tragedy of $cn then and now is that no one HAS stopped either of these two sadistic sociopaths, despite the absolute ruthlessness of their motives being so completely undisguised and on full view.
No one was more ruthless within $cn than Elron while he was still alive, and there is no one now that is as ruthless as lil davey. And once you realize that the word “ruthless” is merely a synonym for “evil” you begin to understand exactly what the ultimate foundation of $cn actually rests on and how completely lil davey’s malign and sadistic leadership is in alignment with it.
It is, however, quite clear that Davey Dimwit was psychologically tilted in that direction in the first place. Hubbard did not “turn” him into anything. He simply provided the pathway to be followed.
Responsibility of Leaders is a type of writing called “Mirrors for Princes”. Famous examples are
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and Xenophon’s “Cyropaedia” about the education of Cyrus the Great of Persia. They purport to teach how to obtain and use power in ruling.
Machiavelli was the very picture of an uncaring sociopathic ruler. In particular he was fond of the idea that “the end justifies the means”, which also permeates CofS. His amoral pursuit of power as it’s own end seems to have influenced Hubbard and DM.
I used to think that “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” was actually not a bad way to evaluate things, but that easily becomes “the greatest good for the greatest number of the leader’s dynamics” which in turn easily becomes “the end justifies the means”, especially in the hands of sociopaths.
For instance, in CofS it is considered the “greatest good” to force women to have abortions they don’t want so that the leader can avoid paying childcare costs, when the actual “greatest good” would be a solution that allowed production AND good care babies.
Leaders are frequently sociopaths, who have no conscience (though they claim to have empathy for people) and are narcissistic. That explains Miscavige.
Scientology is the science of thuggery
Lois and I knew David from when he first arrived at INT at about 17 years old until he was 22 years old when he kicked us out in 1982. In the beginning David came across as a nice guy and we always considered him to be a friend. Once in a while we would do things like go out to a Denny’s or Sandy’s after work and get a snack, French fries or maybe even a beer. We were friends.
I have been told by messengers that worked with David that at one point he ended up in the hospital with severe asthma. When he came out he described his big cognition he had that “power was assumed”. Apparently, this was the start of his aggressive power grab. I get the feeling that David was bored in the hospital and probably read this Bolivar policy for hours. Shortly thereafter he removed my one sister, DeDe from CO CMO and following that violently removed my other sister Gale. The insane thing is that he was removing them when, from my understanding, he was in a junior position or at minimum on an equal footing with them. He then busted all of us to Clearwater – and for the umpteenth time, Thank you very much David for busting us, I have loved life ever since! But, David was being the good subordinate in “killing” the “bad players that were harming LRH’s cause”. They were the pink legs.
All SO members have read The Responsibility of Leaders policy. When I read it, I viewed it as more of a historical or an informational policy and not meant to be taken literally whatsoever. In fact I was quite interested in the story and have always wanted to read the book that LRH references as it sounded quite interesting.
It takes a special, sociopathic mind to drive this policy down the throats of SO members like DM did. I believe it became his core policy in running (ruining?) Scientology. Following this policy to the letter makes snitching on your family and friends, Fair Game, forced abortions, disconnection, The Hole, beating people up etc., totally acceptable and in fact encouraged.
CPO,
You might do well to read “Twelve Against the Gods’ , by William Bolitho (Ryall). I believe Ron recommended this book on one of the PDC lectures. I gleaned that Ron viewed himself as going up against the gods, and also put himself in the company of those 12 rebels. So self-centered.
Ruthless, amoral, and narcissist pretty much covers most of the 12: Alexander the Great, Casanova, Christopher Columbus, Mahomat, Lola Montez, Caglioatro, Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon 1, Lucius Catiline, Napoleon III, Isadora Duncan, and Woodrow Wilson. I disagree about Wilson being ruthless, but he did go against world powers at the end of WWI to try to peacefully unify Europe.
Brian, I thinks you nailed it with Miscavige.
I’ll have to check that book out. When I get time as I’m still catching up on all of the Anti-SCN books that came out in the last 20 years or so.
CPO,
Today (2/1/2017) on Tony Ortega’ site the very subject, “Twelve Against the Gods’ came up. Ortega and Jon Atack covered the book, and especially the introduction of the book, far better than I could.
The Flag library had a copy of most if not all books that Hubbard mentioned, including “The Four Seasons of Manuela”. I somehow managed to read it even while already studying day and night. Not sure how. I think I read one of the Crowley books too. I thought “Manuela” was a really well written and engaging book, very well worth seeking out.
Trivia: the Flag Librarian was one of Lisa McPherson’s watchers.
Wow. Trying to read the “Executive Course”……made my synapses stop firing in my brain. It’s more like the “WTF Course”. Granted…..I didn’t have my Webster Dictionary handy to clear my words….but How did ANYONE ever slog thru this? And understand it?
I see how the tenet of Scientology…..It’s all your fault…you pulled it in….something is wrong with you…you’re out-ethics….blah blah blah…immediately comes into play….reading that made me feel like a complete and stupid idiot. Now I feel like I need auditing.
I would get off-loaded in five seconds. ??
Brian – a well written essay. I agree with you on many points but (probably like many here) I believe that DM would have turned out just as evil without Ron and scientology. With his take over and using the “tech” it just made him more vicious and he can get away with it.
There’s 15 or so years of the Sea Org prior to Miscavige where there were a lot of SO management “leading” in much the same way.
Martin Samuels was the Mission Holder for the Church of Scientology Missions of Davis (Cosmod). He left in the early eighties, at the beginning of DM taking the helm. Samuels’ missions were amongst Scn most productive. Samuels here talks of Miscavige’s early days as the top dog, but he’s saying that it was that way before Miscavige took power as well. Most all of the Commodore’s Staff Captains and Exec Dirs Int, from what I understand, were good and capable people, then given the top spot, groomed to be despots and validated by the Old Man, and then shot at Ron’s directions later on for political reasons.
I knew these people not at all or only a little bit before, during or after their positions at the top, but, from what I understand, once they were relieved from the mantle of being the head of the whole show, they went back to being very decent people again.
I have always thought that Scientology could have run very well on smart discipline and high ARC, but the Sea Org just was not set up that way. From all the conversations I have had with people who were execs in Samuels missions, they were set up on high ARC without punishment-pain-drive systems in place. Although I know there was an era of “Responsibilities of Leaders” in that camp as well, I am pretty sure that this was enforced in by Scientology and pretty much marked the end of their affluences.
But here is what Samuels said of how Ron went about grooming his leaders:
From a 1986 interview of Martin Samuels, former top Mission Holder, and founder of the Delphian School, from the ‘Reflections’ chapter of the book, ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?’ http://www.amazon.com/reader/0942637…ref_=sib_dp_pt:
***
Hubbard operated according to a couple of key patterns.
The first pattern involved basically decent well intentioned people… no one was able to rise in the organization to a point of any real proximity to him, without being attacked and vilified…
And of course the next person thinks he or she is immune…
The next pattern: It’s reap and rape. Hubbard would let the reins loose. He’d let people believe they really could get on with it… He’d let people believe they really could prosper to the full extent of their own ability, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And, with that kind of freedom, prosperity does occur, Inevitably, though, he’d come along and rape and pillage and rip off and take what had been produced. The most dramatic example of this was ’82, ’83, when he ‘raped’ his most decent people in management along with the mission holders, and looted the entire mission network.
And look at this pattern… He surrounded himself with absolute hooligans as ‘managers’; guys who beat the shit out of people. This man, who ‘is this OT, the author of Science of Survival, completely able to predict human behavior’, surrounded himself with ruthless people – like Miscavige – who got there because they emulated Hubbard’s savagery. They emulated his total willingness to completely break, use, and discard another person.
And then after their hands were so bloody – and the only reason their hands were bloody was that they were doing what Hubbard wanted – when it finally started to get to the point where it couldn’t be tolerated by people anymore, Hubbard wiped them out. Then he said. ‘My God! I didn’t know!’ Scapegoat. He even did that to his own wife, who went to jail in his place…
But the thing that’s amazing, and to me terrifying, is the characteristic of the mind, my mind, your mind, and apparently many other people’s minds, where I could buy this horseshit, where I could participate in it.
***
edit to add: https://www.amazon.com/reader/0942637577?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pt
I made my cult career debut in Martin Samuels’ mission in Sacramento in the later 70’s and was fortunate enough to be shut of the cult before all hell broke loose in the wake of the Mission Holders Massacre. Some of my still-in friends would tell me all about how much of a money-grubbing, scam-ridden, cult-like scene that it had all become and I remember feeling lucky that I’d gotten out while the gettin’ was still good.
Interesting that I left just as it was happening. I’d decided that I’d gotten what I wanted and decided to “graduate” myself. So I missed out on all the pain, confusion and outright thuggery.
“And look at this pattern… He surrounded himself with absolute hooligans as ‘managers’; guys who beat the shit out of people. This man, who ‘is this OT, the author of Science of Survival, completely able to predict human behavior’, surrounded himself with ruthless people – like Miscavige – who got there because they emulated Hubbard’s savagery.”
Read the Criminal Minds HCOB – crims surround themselves with others of the same ilk. A fairly obvious observation. The “reasonable” response to these crazies at the time, was that Ron was so OT he could handle them.
The whole “my way or the highway” “power is assumed” “She (Manuela) was not ruthless enough to make up for his (Bolivar’s) lack of ruthlessness………….” all point to life as a conscienceless sociopath lives it.
I don’t see Miscavage doing the HCOB in clay or whatever. He had the cog and a switch turned on in his mind. and the rest is history. Let me explain:
You make it seem like a learned studied decision. I once had a key-in drilling R3R with made up dates (before they started using fruits for dates) and I keyed in a track incident and popped into an SP valence. Thankfully it keyed out after a few days but in that viewpoint – the SP knows who he has to get and who is of no consequence. There is a inherent coldness in that viewpoint. Ruthless is a good description of it.
Miscavage had the “cog” and blossomed into a full blown sociopath. The seeds were already there, and they burst into life. Don’t forget – he punched his PC at SH ( or something like that) way before he was SO staff. The mean streak was already there. It became unrestrained.
If you haven’t read it yet, read the Sociopath next door.
So said, from my lofty armchair in my ivory tower based on never having set eyes on the man in person. 😉
Mimsey
Good stuff, Brian.
When you’re 19 years old and reading Hubbard’s insane instructions about blackmail, murder and your right and necessary involvement in these affairs in the support of your leader, it is an unreal experience. By the time I read it, I had learned never to question anything Hubbard had written. But I sure had questions about it, especially how it could possibly apply to my particular organization, the Delphian School, an expensive boarding school staffed by members of and run according to the principles of Scientology.
I was a Supervisor at Delphi and one Wednesday afternoon one of my students was so sick I sent her to the nurse and then to bed, even though she was scheduled for a major completion the following day. Of course, the school was playing a productivity game and of course I was the reason another division won the game that week. I was placed into Liability (even though it was really a condition of mere Emergency) and I had to cram that stupid Bolivar policy because I had failed the Dean (which would be the Tech Sec at an Org).
What was I supposed to do? Force a sick child to continue studying? Whack the other division head? I really had no idea what the point of that policy was except to let me know my place, which apparently was very low on the totem pole. I was so irritated I actually told the Dean she should have the girl’s parents read “The Responsibility of Leaders” and have them explain it to their daughter. (Oh, wait, now I remember that this was what got me assigned a condition of Liability!) Shortly after that I was demoted to Word Clearer.
If regular Scientologists are like me, then the real meaning of Hubbard’s psychotic rant about Simon Bolivar was lost to them. It takes a real sociopath like David Miscaviage to understand what Hubbard really meant.
Theoretically, it begs the question that if Bolivar could ever take Hubbard’s advice, would Manuela be the first to go?
There’s something wrong with this analysis, as much as there’s something wrong with Hubbard’s Responsibility of Leaders. Hubbard trusted no one (as evidenced by KSW1), neither does Miscavige. Why give advice to another to trust someone so closely or expect that sort of underhanded devotion without the advising on the strong possibility that the target of your trust will turn around and pull the same sort of stuff on you. Shelly got ‘disappeared’ for a reason (the creation of the RPF and the Hole is not an organisational or ethical choice but a power play), and Hubbard and Mary Sue parted ways as soon as the shit hit the fan. Gold fever is a real phenomenon, but it doesn’t manifest itself until the gold is real and available, up to that time there are little or no symptoms. Fear of being caught is similar. All the tough talk in the world can disappear in an instant when a policeman actually pulls his gun on you. Insanity can play a big part in what happens next.
To me this is all the over analysis of an asshole. I too was made to M9 that crap. Life doesn’t work like that, to some sort of blueprint. Over time certain traits can be averaged out percentage wise but the use of suppressive type power traits follows the line of personality of the leader or it works out that’s the easiest and the only way it will work dealing with those particular circumstances, and the scene is right type for that type of opportunist to step up to the plate. Saddam Hussein methods are a prime example, sure he was an asshole but he didn’t have a great many options not to be one. He did what he did to maintain power or some other asshole would have put a bullet in his head for breakfast. Like Hubbard and now Miscavige, a formula presented itself and to their surprise put them on top of the pile, just like the boom/bust cycle of any risky enterprise. Hubbard had just about as much luck with the 3rd Dynamic as Richard Nixon did. All the way to the top and then…
Evil is what evil does, but when it finds its way to the top or becomes a viable option due to its work-ability at that time within that system, God help us!
Having Mein Kampf, Responsibility of Leaders, the Bible or the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy as reference, a true psychotic asshole will manipulate it, use and abuse it to get what they want. But life is fluid and it takes a lot of circumstances to fall into place. Not having a conscience and being prepared to hurt people sure seems to help their ambitions though.
If fishing was easy they’d call it catching.
“Not having a conscience and being prepared to hurt people sure seems to help their ambitions though.”
THIS
Dave,
A “severe reality adjustment” (your words, not Hubbard’s) is headed your way.
Thanks for an interesting article Brian. 🙂
A wonderful essay. I feel the same way about Miscavige. Having lived with a Borderline for 12 years, I see many of the traits in both Hubbard and Miscavige. I think he had the Borderline Personality Disorder from birth, that made him difficult to deal with. Hubbard’s malignant tech and his position of utter authority have made him a monster.
I haven’t read Hubbard’s essay on power in years and am reminded that he ended up dying in the very state of which he warns at the end of his essay. Lying in a motorhome, helpless from strokes, drugged up, left to die by the viper he clasped briefly to his breast.
Power was assumed.
N.B. for new people:
This “essay” is sacred church material. It is in fact part of the training one gets to obtain the condition Hubbard called Power. The highest “Ethics condition” obtainable. The examples therein are there to train a person how to reach that lofty ethical position. Power over other humans!
For those people new studying the whole scientology cult:
Per Hubbard’s policies, to say this essay should NOT be applied or isn’t REALLY Church policy is a “suppressive act” for which one can get kicked out of the church and be attacked by other Scientologists. It is consider a crime comparable to murder or arson.
So, if you see any scientologist claiming otherwise on this thread they are either ignorant of what LRH wrote or, they are intentionally lying to cover up for LRH’s criminal insanity.
Another lost lesson. If anyone actually READ this screed, the lesson is in the opening section, of how Bolivar was a lousy leader, succumbing to the vanities of ego, and NOT observing things as they were.
The rest is tripe. Don’t get stuck in the end of the incident. Really grok the beginning…
for me, that is where the value was…
I know some folks think that power and wealth can turn a person into an arrogant asshole, but I feel it’s much deeper (and perhaps even simpler) than that. People can tend to think of a “wealthy/powerful person” as probably being a jerk and that the cause of that is money and/or power, because we remember people who act like maniacal jerks more than the quiet ones.
However, I don’t believe that money and/or power necessarily changes the core being of a person, it only intensifies the characteristics of that person’s existing personality. For example, if you’re a kind, caring, and generous person when you have little or no money, you are likely to be an even kinder, more caring, and more generous person if you attain power or wealth. On the other hand, if you’re basically an asshole when you’re broke and powerless, you’re going to be an even bigger asshole when you come into money and/or power. This quote from Brian’s article:
“David Miscavige’s character development from a young, angry, naive boy; into a tyrant devoid of conscience and common standards of decency.”
…..seems to confirm that theory. According to Ron Miscavige’s book Ruthless, this came across to me as being the case with his son David. DM was already a bit of a hot-head as a kid, so now that he’s acquired not just power, but absolute power, within this organization, as well as access to vast sums of money that he “justifies” using for his lavish lifestyle, this power and money only intensified who he was before he acquired those things.
Add that to how LRH indoctrinated him, when DM was much younger and naive, into how things should be “handled”, which likely made him even more of an arrogant jerk who believed himself better than others before he took over, and it makes perfect sense why he became the textbook definition of a narcissistic, psychopathic, and maniacal tyrant and sociopath who has zero empathy for anyone other than himself (including his own wife, father, brother, and niece, at the very least).
Can DM ever be “saved” from this way of thinking? Unfortunately, he might be “too far gone” for that to be even a remotely realistic possibility. I hope against hope that I’m wrong about that and that even DM himself “wakes up” one day and realizes this. I don’t think it would be wise to hold my breath on that though…..
I agree with you wholeheartedly Mick. While I do believe Miscavige has followed the rule of “Don’t be Bolivar.” I also believe he recognized, at a young age, that Hubbard had what he ( Miscavige ) wanted. Absolute power. Although I think Brian has defended his theory well I remain unconvinced that Mad Midget is only the follower. He’s forged a path all his own.
Mick, you are so right. I know a very wealthy man here in town. He is very soft spoken and never demands “his due”, nor does he “dress the part”. If you ran into him on the street, you would think he was a broken down rancher.
For example, I was in a doctor’s office and he was waiting to see the doctor, I was talking to him and found out he was having chest pains and he was just sitting there patiently waiting for his turn. I found that out just as the doctor called me back, I asked them to give that man my spot. It was good, because he was having a heart attack.
Not every wealthy man feels as though money is his sword. Most people are genuinely good. However I am convinced small amounts of money will cause a person otherwise prone to act arrogant to act even worse.
From what I have come to understand is that David also learned certain behaviors also from his dad. (I could be wrong but I often go by my intuition or various cues my brain seems to pick up). And it makes sense. I’ve picked certain learned traits from my parents and my upbringing. The same will occur here. I’m sure there are many things at play that contributed to Miscavige personality and his, what I like to think of, as a hostile takeover of Scientology. In the end I feel bad for him too. He’s a product of the culture and environment he was raised in. Certain personality types and/or behavioral disorders may be more prone to develop into a narcissistic sociopath when placed under certain conditions. This doesn’t excuse his behaviors but may provide insight into how a human being develops into the person they have become. We, however, can all speculate till the cows come home. We just may never fully know why. I do hope that his and Scientology’s days are soon to be over. And people can begin to live their lives free from the burden of Scientology.
Good comment, Jen.
That’s a very important point to consider when trying to understand what developmental influences most affected lil davey (besides always being pocket-sized) and led him to become the sadistic bully that he now is.
Dad was a brute who regularly abused the wife and kids, so that has to have been the earliest, if not the most formative, personal experiences of violent rage that molded him. Leaving home for The Circus at such a young age, then meeting up with Elron who continued to model rage and bullying for him, just reinforced what he’d already learned from dad…and now you’ve got what you’ve got: a man so lost to himself that he thinks being ruthless is somehow a moral virtue.
Abuse at a young age can really affect someone. I could see David looking up to Hubbard from that experience, and in a way, Hubbard raised him. As people have stated, Scientology becomes your parent. I see both paternal figures as highly influential in how DM turned out.
Without a doubt our environment plays a huge part in our personalities. And Brian’s article does a great job explaining some of the environment he was in, and no doubt it was made worse by the indoctrination he endured.
His father might have had something to do with it (he acknowledges he and DM’s mother would fight constantly in front of them), but from what I’ve heard about his brother (albeit from the book of his daughter, Jenna Miscavige Hill, so it could be a bit understandably biased), he seemed like a decent enough guy.
Perhaps David was also dealing with demons from his childhood (like getting picked on for his asthma, his height, etc.) that contributed to his thirst for control. LRH gave him that final push over the edge. But like Brian said, it certainly doesn’t excuse his behavior. With his unchallenged power, he has the ability to make a positive difference in people’s lives, therefore, he also has the responsibility.
Brian Lambert you are so right….. I used to think that our evil cult was a result of the evil Miscavige. He is certainly a source of the problem. He is batshit nuts and a psychopath that loves to hurt people (which evil has nothing to do with Scientology). But, the playbook Miscavige is using is pure LRH.
Whatever good LRH did or intended to do in his life will be all but destroyed by Miscavige. That will be Miscavige’s legacy: He killed Scientology with LRH’s admin policies. A sad story……
This is (The Responsibility of Leadership) a manual on suppressive control and the justification for being an SP! It is the ravings of a sick mind to be followed by sick minds for sure! It definitely explains DM’s actions.
Miscavige was not the only one who insisted in adherence to Bolivar. For anyone who worked under Mary Sue, Bolivar was our bible. Case in point, she took the rap rather than let Ron take it. We were trained by both Mary Sue and Diana to kill or die for Hubbard.
Thank you Valerie. I thought so. This was never intended to be an analogy. I have also thought that Ron wrote the part about subordinates not revealing these acts to Ron because in a deposition or court interrogation Ron could say he did not know and be telling the truth.
He was crazy like a fox.
Valerie, what you have just stated here is quite terrifying.
Plausible deniability is exactly what Elron was after. The crazy old coot was a true master of fucking things up beyond all hope of restoration, then blaming others for his massive fuck ups and getting away with it over and over and over throughout his life. Part of his success there was due to being constantly on the run from the mid-sixties on which made physically leaving his mishaps and mess ups a whole lot easier.
If anyone still had a warm spot in their hearts for Elron – the crazy old uncle version – before the whole Snow White debacle put an end to the GO and to Mary Sue’s career as a ranking $ea Orgy $cilon, then the way he threw her under the bus to save his own mangy hide should have been the end of that for you. It’s just not possible to reconcile his cowardly sacrifice of his own wife to prison with any kind of charitable view of him as a decent human, let alone and enlightened Master.
Well said