Interrogating a real suppressive person (Scientology Green Tapes)

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back

Have you ever met an SP?

A Suppressive person (SP) according to Scientology is someone who seeks to suppress any positive activity, group or belief. Hubbard called them "antisocial personalities" a few times and stated that these can be identified using the e-meter. The real world psychologists will speak of "Antisocial personality disorder", or sometimes use the somewhat antiquated terms psychopath/sociopath. We all heard of similar people - mass murderers, but also Jeffrey Epstein or Bernard Madoff.

Can you spot them using the meter? How does a scientology "cop" deal with and identify such people? What is it like to interrogate them?

Listen to find out.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
I recall an LRH tape where he mentions this aspect of sec-checking. He said, for something to read, the PC had to regard it as an overt.

The wolf doesn't regard killing as an overt. A distinguishing characteristic of the sociopath is he has a predator's mindset. He or she is a wolf in human form.

I've come across this on some books about the criminal mind, in the context of self-defense. The criminal does not regard what he did as "wrong". If he shoots someone who was slow in handing over his wallet, he will think about it as "Well, it's that guys own fault that he got shot. He should have handed it over quicker".
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I recall an LRH tape where he mentions this aspect of sec-checking. He said, for something to read, the PC had to regard it as an overt.
That's an amazingly good observation. Yeah, I think I remember that part now that you mention it.

But then he goes on to say that the SP can be detected with the meter and the rockslam nonsense etc. Perhaps Ron was taking both sides of the debate and making both opposite conclusions (he sometimes did that).
But more likely he just believed that an SP knows he is committing an overt, but does it anyway. Hubbard was very keen to stress the deliberate nature of SP actions.

I've come across this on some books about the criminal mind, in the context of self-defense. The criminal does not regard what he did as "wrong". If he shoots someone who was slow in handing over his wallet, he will think about it as "Well, it's that guys own fault that he got shot. He should have handed it over quicker".
Well, the people who I now believe were sociopaths probably saw all of us as suckers, shmucks and basically everyone else was to blame that they got fooled/were weak/got robbed etc.

But it all goes much deeper and visceral than just "I believe what I did was right/wrong". Its about fear and anxiety.

The meter actually does not detect overts (regardless if someone considers it an overt or not). What it really does is detect anxiety.

Thus a normal and perfectly innocent person who starts to fear that they will get unjustly punished (or is being put under increasing stress because the MAA is shouting, letting them know that they read their private PC folders or using all the other pressure techniques)... that person's anxiety will read on the meter.

A normal innocent person who is afraid of punishment will read just like a normal guilty person who is afraid. The meters sees just the fear, not the cause.

BUT here we come to the sociopath. The meter never picks up anxiety from them, regardless what you are asking and what sort of techniques you use. We at inv all were familiar with that sort of person. Doesn't flinch, cannot be intimidated. Can be made angry or offended, but never intimidated no matter what you do.
So at first glance you can easily mistake them for a "he's either very brave or very stupid" case. But actually, it is neither. They are just so self-confident and so brazen that fear is an alien concept to them. They don't experience it, so the meter has nothing to read.


So how did I tell the "brave or stupid" from the sociopath? The smile test that I mentioned. Let them think I'm being fooled, then watch out for "duping delight" (I did not of course know at that time that what I'm seeing was "duping delight". I guess I called it "smugness" or something).

When I was a newbie, that was fun and games. Later when I caught wind of what I am dealing with, I realized these are quite scary people.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
When I was a newbie, that was fun and games. Later when I caught wind of what I am dealing with, I realized these are quite scary people.
In my early days, I was a Guardian Activities Scientologist, a public doing odd assignments for the GO. In one assignment, I was interviewing some people in prison, I forget why, it might have been about doing something regarding unjustly imprisoned people. I interviewed one murderer who scared the hell out of me with his casual regard for killing.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
1. I believe that Hubbard became a suppressive person starting in his early adulthood.
2. Suppressive people do exist as a very tiny part of the population. But then Hubbard abused this notion.
3. On this topic, Hubbard was a hypocrite.
 

Helena Handbasket

Active member
I recall an LRH tape where he mentions this aspect of sec-checking. He said, for something to read, the PC had to regard it as an overt. ...
The meter reacts on the can holder's attempt to not think of something. This could be something he doesn't want the meter operator to find out about, or it could be something he's ashamed about and therefore doesn't want to be reminded of it.

The way to fool the meter is to think YES!! while calmly saying no, or some such.

And forget about the "12 characteristics". SP's read those lists too, and they know exactly what to say to deflect suspicion from themselves. When someone tries to decide which of two people is telling the truth, a skilled SP will be able to make the other guy look like the one at fault. This of course has nothing to do with who's right; this is just about making the right impression. A judge will often look at someone's emotions as a way of telling who's telling the truth, but this method quite frequently fails. An innocent someone who is not naturally emotional will lose again and again because of this discriminatory bias.

Helena
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
The meter reacts on the can holder's attempt to not think of something. This could be something he doesn't want the meter operator to find out about, or it could be something he's ashamed about and therefore doesn't want to be reminded of it.
The meter also reacts on the can holder thinking something. That thought might be: "Shit, I'm being framed and will be punished for a crime I did not commit!"

A fearful guilty person and a fearful innocent person will read the same way. The innocent is less likely to be afraid than the guilty, but it can easily happen. I saw it happen many times.
In fact, many times I made it happen on purpose.

As an investigator, you want to have people at least a bit anxious and unsure of what's going to happen. That way they will be more cooperative.

The way to fool the meter is to think YES!! while calmly saying no, or some such.
Or just bite your cheek at the correct moment. The machine itself is easy to fool and the quality of an ethics interrogation depends 95% on the experience and skill of the investigator. The machine itself is little more than a prop.

And forget about the "12 characteristics". SP's read those lists too, and they know exactly what to say to deflect suspicion from themselves.
Absolutely 100% true. (y)

When someone tries to decide which of two people is telling the truth, a skilled SP will be able to make the other guy look like the one at fault.
People who imho exhibited sociopathic symptoms are generally unable to accept any sort of blame and responsibility. Its always someone else's fault. Even if I have a video recording of the guy taking the money, he will still try to blame someone or something else.

A judge will often look at someone's emotions as a way of telling who's telling the truth, but this method quite frequently fails. An innocent someone who is not naturally emotional will lose again and again because of this discriminatory bias.
Yep, you nailed it. That's EXACTLY what we tried very hard not to do at inv. Emotions were used as tools to get to the truth, but they themselves were not evidence of truthfulness or guilt or innocence. If someone would make decisions based on just the meter readings, he/she would make a terrible investigator and I'd have them kicked out of the team asap.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
@Karen#1 - I'm sorry to bother you, but as you are the only person here who knew Hubbard face-to-face, I wanted to ask you this:
Did you ever witness Hubbard being really afraid of something? Or taking a very risk-averse "play-it-safe" decision?

The reason behind me asking is kind of a long story, I will explain it below:


Both narcissists and sociopaths share certain traits: Grandiosity, pathological lies, tendency to manipulate, low empathy, impulsiveness, failure to take responsibility for one's actions, sense of entitlement, glibness, inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others...

But there are a few elements that sociopaths have that narcissists would not have:
  • Shallow affect
  • Not feeling remorse or guilt
  • Tendency towards excessive risk taking, due to not experiencing fear/anxiety or experiencing abnormally little
I want to stress that last part.

For the longest time, I had classified Hubbard as someone falling squarely on the narcissist side of the fence rather than the psychopath/sociopath side. However, now I have decided to star questioning my own assumption here.

I've been looking at Elizabeth Holmes, who is extremely similar to Hubbard in a lot of ways. And it is clear that she has an extreme propensity for excessive risk taking - the the way she ran her company, in the way she declined plea bargains and went stright to a criminal trial she is very likely to lose...

And that made me wonder... was Hubbard 'normal' in this respect, or was he also an excessive risk-taker? I recalled the instance when he would drive his motorcycle in a reckless manner almost getting himself killed. Or the times he would order a green crew to sail his barely-seaworthy ship into dangerous weather, like Janis mentions.

Maybe I'm digging too deep here. But sometimes I like to see if I can prove myself wrong on some belief I held for ages.
 
Last edited:

onceuponatime

Well-known member
I recall an LRH tape where he mentions this aspect of sec-checking. He said, for something to read, the PC had to regard it as an overt.

The wolf doesn't regard killing as an overt. A distinguishing characteristic of the sociopath is he has a predator's mindset. He or she is a wolf in human form.

I've come across this on some books about the criminal mind, in the context of self-defense. The criminal does not regard what he did as "wrong". If he shoots someone who was slow in handing over his wallet, he will think about it as "Well, it's that guys own fault that he got shot. He should have handed it over quicker".
That's an amazingly good observation. Yeah, I think I remember that part now that you mention it.

But then he goes on to say that the SP can be detected with the meter and the rockslam nonsense etc. Perhaps Ron was taking both sides of the debate and making both opposite conclusions (he sometimes did that).
But more likely he just believed that an SP knows he is committing an overt, but does it anyway. Hubbard was very keen to stress the deliberate nature of SP actions.


Well, the people who I now believe were sociopaths probably saw all of us as suckers, shmucks and basically everyone else was to blame that they got fooled/were weak/got robbed etc.

But it all goes much deeper and visceral than just "I believe what I did was right/wrong". Its about fear and anxiety.

The meter actually does not detect overts (regardless if someone considers it an overt or not). What it really does is detect anxiety.

Thus a normal and perfectly innocent person who starts to fear that they will get unjustly punished (or is being put under increasing stress because the MAA is shouting, letting them know that they read their private PC folders or using all the other pressure techniques)... that person's anxiety will read on the meter.

A normal innocent person who is afraid of punishment will read just like a normal guilty person who is afraid. The meters sees just the fear, not the cause.

BUT here we come to the sociopath. The meter never picks up anxiety from them, regardless what you are asking and what sort of techniques you use. We at inv all were familiar with that sort of person. Doesn't flinch, cannot be intimidated. Can be made angry or offended, but never intimidated no matter what you do.
So at first glance you can easily mistake them for a "he's either very brave or very stupid" case. But actually, it is neither. They are just so self-confident and so brazen that fear is an alien concept to them. They don't experience it, so the meter has nothing to read.


So how did I tell the "brave or stupid" from the sociopath? The smile test that I mentioned. Let them think I'm being fooled, then watch out for "duping delight" (I did not of course know at that time that what I'm seeing was "duping delight". I guess I called it "smugness" or something).

When I was a newbie, that was fun and games. Later when I caught wind of what I am dealing with, I realized these are quite scary people.
The meter is not really that hard to beat. And like most things Scientology LRH has conflicting statements about it. Yes, he says you can detect SPs with their R/Ses etc. but there is also a policy where he explicitly says that criminals won't read on the meter, or something to that effect.

The reality is it doesn't work well on anyone. It is not a "lie detector" or any sort of guarantee of truth. The best C/Ses and MAAs I knew operated that way, they didn't care that you F/Ned the question, they were just going to ask 80 more until you got so fed up you confessed. Of course at that point why bother using it at all, but that's Scientology. Some Scientologists get hung up on this "but I F/Ned" yeah, no one who knows what they're doing cares that you F/Ned the question. Of course this is contrary to the LRH on the subject and what F/Ns are supposed to mean but that's par for the course with Scientology.
 

Bill

Well-known member

Have you ever met an SP?

A Suppressive person (SP) according to Scientology is someone who seeks to suppress any positive activity, group or belief. Hubbard called them "antisocial personalities" a few times and stated that these can be identified using the e-meter. The real world psychologists will speak of "Antisocial personality disorder", or sometimes use the somewhat antiquated terms psychopath/sociopath. We all heard of similar people - mass murderers, but also Jeffrey Epstein or Bernard Madoff.

Can you spot them using the meter? How does a scientology "cop" deal with and identify such people? What is it like to interrogate them?

Listen to find out.
The use of Scientology terms, such as "Suppressive Person" is naive, and inaccurate. Like all Scientology terms, Hubbard's definition and what they pretend the term means is NOT how it is used in reality.

Everybody pretends that a "Suppressive Person" is someone who exhibits those "12 Characteristics" (or what ever the number is). It isn't .

A "Suppressive Person" is someone who has attacked the Church of Scientology OR broken some church rules OR someone who pissed off an executive in the church. That's all. "12 Characteristics" has nothing to do with it.

People in Scientology who exhibit most or all those "12 Characteristics" are perfectly fine and are DEFINITELY NOT "Suppressive" as long as they keep paying -- or they are David Miscavige.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.

Have you ever met an SP?

A Suppressive person (SP) according to Scientology is someone who seeks to suppress any positive activity, group or belief. Hubbard called them "antisocial personalities" a few times and stated that these can be identified using the e-meter. The real world psychologists will speak of "Antisocial personality disorder", or sometimes use the somewhat antiquated terms psychopath/sociopath. We all heard of similar people - mass murderers, but also Jeffrey Epstein or Bernard Madoff.

Can you spot them using the meter? How does a scientology "cop" deal with and identify such people? What is it like to interrogate them?

Listen to find out.

I may be missing the point entirely but why would anyone (other than those paid to do it legally) want to know how to "interrogate" people with or without an e-meter?

:confused:
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
It's interesting that Hubbard became a suppressive person as he got older.
I think that was due to his Narcissistic personality disorder.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I may be missing the point entirely but why would anyone (other than those paid to do it legally) want to know how to "interrogate" people with or without an e-meter?

:confused:
Well, I was speaking about my ex-scn experience there. The "Green tapes" are about scientology and are aimed primarily at ex-scientologists or scientology-watchers. You might notice that I for example don't provide all the definitions for the Hubbardisms and scn words I use there. Diff target audience.

The "orange tapes" series is about scams and grift in "the big world" and the target audience is everyone in the general public. I don't use any scn words there and usually won't mention anything scn related in an orange tape.

The best C/Ses and MAAs I knew operated that way, they didn't care that you F/Ned the question, they were just going to ask 80 more until you got so fed up you confessed. Of course at that point why bother using it at all, but that's Scientology
Yep, that's exactly what we did. Ask 100+ more questions, then match it up with audio recordings, vid recordings, other people's testimony etc.
"Why bother using it at all?" is a great question. In many interrogations it was useless and nothing but a prop, I wasn't even looking at it. It was there because Hubbard said it should be and that was it.
The few times it was of any use it was either because:
  • The person believed that it works, so he/she was less likely to lie to me.
  • It was used as an excuse to lengthen or cut short the interrogation.
  • A few times I did want to use it as a crude anxiety detector, for example to see if perhaps I'm dealing with one of these "I experience no fear" people.
  • Sometimes you could use the meter as an anxiety-generating tool in itself. As I said, you wanted the person to be at least a bit unsure and afraid, because if someone was firmly in the "I'm high, mighty and untouchable" mindset it didn't make for a productive interview.
That's literally it. No other uses that I could think of. The "lie detector" part was nonsense.

The main point is where I thinnk we both agree: An effective MAA/EO/investigator/CS was someone who did NOT blindly follow policy. Instead they worked based on their experience and skill and ran counter to Hubbard's notions whenever they felt it would help the investigation.

The use of Scientology terms, such as "Suppressive Person" is naive, and inaccurate. Like all Scientology terms, Hubbard's definition and what they pretend the term means is NOT how it is used in reality.

Everybody pretends that a "Suppressive Person" is someone who exhibits those "12 Characteristics" (or what ever the number is).
Um... did you listen to the vid? In the vid I go on to explain exactly why Hubbard was wrong and why his ideas about SPs and interrogations fail to hold water. Then I go on to use a real "big world" term (sociopath) instead and explain how people who I believe were sociopaths behave when being interrogated and why it is not at all similar to Hubbard's ideas about SPs.
I didn't even mention the Hubbardian SP characteristics in the vid, because I consider them useless.

So I think you are trying to 'brake down an open door' here.
 
Last edited:

Karen#1

Well-known member
[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)][B]@Karen#1[/B][/COLOR][/COLOR] - I'm sorry to bother you, but as you are the only person here who knew Hubbard face-to-face, I wanted to ask you this:
Did you ever witness Hubbard being really afraid of something? Or taking a very risk-averse "play-it-safe" decision?

The reason behind me asking is kind of a long story, I will explain it below:
@Karakorum I am going to answer this piece-meal

# Hubbard FEAR.
YES. He was deathly afraid of being subpoened and having to show up in Court. This was the reason he was in hiding the last 4 years of his life.
Everyone was trained to LIE in greater or lesser degree (On the Apollo we lied or had "shore stories" that were a training vessel. OTC.
Hubbard fled and hid after the FBI raid. (Just Like David Miscavige dodges and hides from servers in present time)
Then he fled and escape when 2 trusted staff Kima Douglas (his medical officer) and Mike Douglas fled.

# He was afraid of List One R/Sers
This was a straight Hubbard invention. If the needle on the meter had a characteristic back and forth, it meant the person holding the cans had EVIL. Evil intentions.

This invaded the culture of the Sea org hysterically. At one point 375+ Los Angeles Sea Org members ~ a lot of Execs were in the RPF for an alleged R/S on the meter. (More than 50% of Staff in Los Angeles.)

More answers tomorrow.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I may be missing the point entirely but why would anyone (other than those paid to do it legally) want to know how to "interrogate" people with or without an e-meter?

:confused:
.

ANSWER: Three reasons. Bragging rights, stolen status & pretended altitude over others. Well, I guess that's all really just the same reason. Feigned superiority. It's a cult thing.

.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
.

ANSWER: Three reasons. Bragging rights, stolen status & pretended altitude over others. Well, I guess that's all really just the same reason. Feigned superiority. It's a cult thing.

.
I won't pretend that the same thought didn't enter my own head, at best it seemed a very unusual thing to want to discuss.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
--snipped--

The main point is where I thinnk we both agree: An effective MAA/EO/investigator/CS was someone who did NOT blindly follow policy.
.
.
You missed that one by about 100,000 light years.

PRO TIP: An "effective MAA/EO/Investigator" is actually someone who blew Scientology and is therefore no longer harming others by being an "MAA/EO/Investigator".

Human beings do not need to have Hubbard's ethics tech run on them because Hubbard is one of the most unethical persons to have ever lived in all of recorded human history.

Likewise, nobody in Scientology ever benefited by being "Investigated" Because Scientologists (despite all their delusional bragging) are utterly clueless how to investigate anything or anyone. The scientific proof of that is that if an "ethics investigator" knew anything at all about investigating they would have very quickly discovered that L. Ron Hubbard and his entire criminal organization is a rapacious hoax. And their so called "investigation" would have also discovered on the first day that L. Ron Hubbard and his management thugs are pathological liars and con men.


.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I won't pretend that the same thought didn't enter my own head, at best it seemed a very unusual thing to want to discuss.
Well there is the reason why you and I both need to be investigated and interrogated—so that our SPness can be published on goldenrod paper, in order to warn others that we are trying to sabotage Ron's investigators and interrogators and prevent them from saving mankind! LOL

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS PARADOX

Hubbard's trained Ethics Officers and
Ethics Investigators and Ethics Interrogators never
investigate the "SPs" creating/managing Scientology
like L. Ron Hubbard, Captain Bill Robertson, David Miscavige,
Marty Rathbun and other senior command channel thugs.
No, they only investigate and interrogate the hapless defrauded
marks who are paying to be in Scientology by donating
all their time (as staff drones) or all their cash—as paying PCs.

Imagine that! Hubbard's trained investigators and interrogators
are trained to never investigate or interrogate the actual "SPs"
within Scientology. They are only trained to investigate
and interrogate the paying customers
being victimized by the "SPs"


Any other questions about how Scientology ethics investigations/interrogations work?


.
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I won't pretend that the same thought didn't enter my own head, at best it seemed a very unusual thing to want to discuss.
Oh my god no, I'm being exposed!

But hey, HH is really a smart and funny guy. Maybe you should all listen to him and maybe I really am a fake and an OSA plug? Who knows? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Top