Mental Training Workgroup

 Protesting the Scientology Abuses?

 

Hubbard's explanation of "Protest-PR"

Alleged Scientology paper about how to deal with opponents

History of harassment activities of Heidrun Beer (chairman of this workgroup)

Maybe you want to think twice before you open your mouth (or write on the internet) to protest the Scientology abuses. There are so many stories of people who have been harassed and whose life has been messed up after they have faced the Church of Scientology and tried to do something against their social misbehaviour, that you might want to consider staying out of this scene in order to protect your family and business career.

The following text about how to deal with opponents has been posted to the internet in 1999 on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. Whether it is authentic or not, we cannot tell; but it is so full of Scientology terms and abbreviations, that it is very probable that we look at an authentic text.

History has shown so far that the Church of Scientology does not make a difference between genuine opponents - people who are opposed to spiritual betterment in general and specifically to the application of Scientology methods - and the large scene of "Human Rights" activists who publicly object to the morally corrupted methods of the church. The latter group of people is mentioned by L. Ron Hubbard in his PR-Series 7:

 Hubbard's explanation of "Protest-PR" (quote from PR-Series 7):

Outright protest PR, based on facts, is a legitimate method of attempting to right wrongs.

It has to be kept overt. It has to be true.

Protest PR can include demonstrations, hard news stories and any PR mechanism.

Minorities have learned that only protest PR can get attention from politicians or lofty institutions or negligent or arrogant bosses.

Where protest PR is felt to be a necessity, neglect has already occurred on the issues.

Hubbard's administrative work (the "Organization Executive Course" or "green volumes") is full with instructions how to correct organizational errors and how to represent Scientology in the proper way. The current wave of "Protest PR" indicates that - as Hubbard states in the quote above - the organization is in neglect of these instructions. It can only be hoped that the church will realize these facts soon enough to avoid the total deterioration of their activity.

 Alleged Scientology paper about how to deal with opponents:

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.guitar,alt.flame,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics,alt.2600
From: dm@rtc.org
Subject: XEMU:Scientologys_KGB_1
Message-ID: <F73BFz.Bx8@news.alcatel.es>
Sender: nobody@news.alcatel.es
Organization: Alcanet International Spain
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:19:11 GMT
Lines: 157
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news.tvd.be!news.belnet.be!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!purple.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!masternews.telia.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newsfeed.mad.ttd.net!alcatel.es!nobody
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:574532 alt.guitar:276471 alt.flame:571246 alt.conspiracy:14862 alt.politics:3505 alt.2600:12306


The following is a confidential Scientology document describing how to conduct a covert operation against an "opponent"

Some of you reading this will probably get to experience this "tech" first hand, so here is a preview of what to expect.

[from the '77 FBI raids]

 

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.

Note that the numbering continues after the end of the text. It might be that the text is incomplete.

 

 History of harassment activities of Heidrun Beer (chairman of this workgroup)

Compared with other people whose harassment and lawsuit stories are documented on the internet, the history of activities performed against Heidrun Beer is rather short and pretty tame. This might have to do with the fact that Scientology is poorly manned and financially weak in Austria. You would be well advised not to count on a similarly tame treatment.

Fall 1998:

The church hears about a TV-production where Ms. Beer will be interviewed. Several visits in the TV-studio and threats of lawsuits follow, especially as it becomes known that a clay-demonstration of the NOTs technology will be shown.

October 1998:

SP-Declare for Heidrun Beer.

January 1999:

The TV-production goes on air. No lawsuit follows.

February 1999:

Ms. Beer, who works as a computer programmer, receives a letter from Microsoft where she is told that she is being accused of selling pirate copies of Microsoft Access. Fortunately she can easily prove that this accusation is a lie. A full research of this story is still pending.

June 1999:

Ms. Beer receives a call from her tax agency which informs her that she has been accused of receiving payments for spiritual consulting for which she doesn't pay income tax. In the following meeting she is shown an anonymous paper which contains ONLY invented "data" (only the address which is given for Ms. Beer is correct).

The false accusations are told as a first-hand account of a person who claims to have been consulted by Ms. Beer. The main points of his accusations follow here (comments in italics):

• That he paid her ATS 35.000,- for 10 hours of consulting, and that she didn't give him a receipt (ATS 35.000,- for 10 hours have never been taken, as the workgroup's guideline for one-to-one-consulting is ATS 1000,- per hour - also for every payment a receipt is always given)
• That he met other clients in her house and that one of them paid ATS 130.000,- for a "treatment" of 3 weeks, and he too had no receipt to prove it (such a client doesn't exist as well as the described "treatment" doesn't exist, and a payment of ATS 130.000,- has never been made)
• That Ms. Beer's sexual habits are loose, as she lived together with Mr. Hilton, yet she had "seduced" this second client who paid ATS 130.000,- (Ms. Beer never lived together with Ralph Hilton, who had a separate apartment in the same house until he moved to Vienna in the end of 1997 - and of course she cannot have seduced a client who doesn't exist in the first place)
• That she doesn't write invoices and therefore probably doesn't pay taxes (actually the workgroup is a registered non-profit association and does not have to pay taxes, although of course receipts are written in every event of a money transfer - and no honorary payments have been made to Ms. Beer up to this date)

The writeup sent to the tax agency consists of lies to 100%. Isn't it interesting that Ms. Beer's numerous statements about the errors in the Scientology organization never haven been discussed by the church, but instead they try to smear her reputation with a bunch of lies?

- or return for more information to our

This page last changed on: 22. Dez 09