Management by Punishment and humiliation

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
<snip>
Ron DeWolf hooked up with enemies of his father and ultimately ran off with them in November 1959 ( according to an HCO PL about it). His very noisy public attacks and refusal to reconcile with his dad ultimately got him disinherited. The FBI documents recovered by FOIA show that 'Nibs" had a hand in pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's and he piled up legal expenses in multiple failed lawsuits - especially the failed 1983 Hubbard Estate lawsuit.

The way I see it, this guy figuratively cut down a tree of lies, built his own bed out of it, and then had to sleep in it.
I think its is a bit of a stretch to say that he was behind every attack on the CoS, but I think in the end he fell into the same hole as his dad: He said some true things, but mixed it up with gross exaggerations and some outright lies. He reached a point where this became self-defeating and he was forced into more and more lies to cover up his previous ones.

My own take on it is: There are more than enough real, legitimate problems with the CoS and some of them are more than sensational and newsworthy. We don't need to invent anything in order to make our point.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
The Water Torture in the post above on Kurt Weiland discussed in depth here ~~
Start 7.09
When I was inside, I never heard about the hole or about forcing people to crawl on their hands and knees until they bleed. I was in continental management mind you, so if I did not know then no way in hell would regular Joe Shmoe public scientologists know anything.

However ...I did hear rumors about the air conditioning torture. The way it was told to me was that people were forced to strip and then stand for hours under the AC vent with the AC turned all the way down (I do not remember being told that there was water poured over them). This was supposedly being called "beach" or "sahara" punishment.
I also heard that people were forced to stand with their arms stretched above their heads for hours and on end until their muscles hurt like hell and they fainted.

At the time, I was under the impression (or maybe they told it to me that way) that this is happening on the rpf of the rpf. I never knew this was being done to people from RTC or int management. This must have bee... late 2006 or so.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
I think its is a bit of a stretch to say that he was behind every attack on the CoS,
Man, I really Hate Straw Men. Read what I actually wrote again. "Had a hand in.." is what I wrote.

Then I suggest studying the FOIA recovered FBI files.

DeWolf sent false reports to the FDA in 1963 FDA E-Meter attack - then recanted after legal action.

He sent false reports to the IRS in the 1968 Exempt Status revocation- then recanted after legal action.

He made False Reports to the all the major hit piece book authors - then recanted after legal actions

So, he either lied initially or lied to Judges in Courts of Law when he recanted - multiple times.

He compromised (in the Intelligence sense) himself. Nothing he ever said or wrote can be trusted as true fact without independent corroborating documentation.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
Man, I really Hate Straw Men. Read what I actually wrote again. "Had a hand in.." is what I wrote.

Then I suggest studying the FOIA recovered FBI files.

DeWolf sent false reports to the FDA in 1963 FDA E-Meter attack - then recanted after legal action.

He sent false reports to the IRS in the 1968 Exempt Status revocation- then recanted after legal action.

He made False Reports to the all the major hit piece book authors - then recanted after legal actions

So, he either lied initially or lied to Judges in Courts of Law when he recanted - multiple times.

He compromised (in the Intelligence sense) himself. Nothing he ever said or wrote can be trusted as true fact without independent corroborating documentation.
Apologies then.

I'd still doubt that he had a hand in every single one, as there have been a few independent investigations by news reporters in both UK and the US.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
I'd still doubt that he had a hand in every single one,
(sigh) I didn't say that, either. I wrote "pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's". The words "major" and "1960's" and the phrase "pretty much" all specify a very limited subset of the universe of "all attacks on Co$ or Hubbard", do they not ?

Perhaps I should have written "every major U.S. government attack in the 1960's", instead.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
(sigh) I didn't say that, either. I wrote "pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's". The words "major" and "1960's" and the phrase "pretty much" all specify a very limited subset of the universe of "all attacks on Co$ or Hubbard", do they not ?

Perhaps I should have written "every major U.S. government attack in the 1960's", instead.
Well, I don't want to fight over words. If you meant to say that Ron jr had a role in "some attacks in the 60s" or in "many attacks in the 60s", then I would agree.

But I'll still disagree with the phrasing "pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's".

The two most important 60s "attacks" on the CoS were:
- the 1965 Anderson report in Australia which led to a ban in Victoria and NSW.
- The 1968 UK ban on the entry of foreign scientologists wanting to go to Saint Hill.

Both had dramatic legal consequences for the CoS in both places. As far as I know, Ron jr had nothing to do with either of these two events.

Again: I respect your opinion, but I continue to have a different one on this. I don't think it is a very big issue though.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
The two most important 60s "attacks" on the CoS were:
- the 1965 Anderson report in Australia which led to a ban in Victoria and NSW.
- The 1968 UK ban on the entry of foreign scientologists wanting to go to Saint Hill.
Important from whose viewpoint ?

The 1963 FDA E-Meter attack nearly destroyed the subject entirely in the U.S.

The 1968 I.R.S. revocation of Income Tax Exemption nearly bankrupted all the U.S. Organizations paying off the tax liability that had not previously existed.

By comparison, the 1968 U.K. Entry Ban was resolved with ridiculous ease: Hubbard had his Sea Organization establish the American St. Hill Organization in Los Angeles practically overnight and those foreign (to the U.K.) students simply continued on their course checksheets for the St. Hill Special Briefing Course at the new facility under Hubbard trained SHSBC graduates after that.

The Australian ban resulted in a lot less harm to the CoS globally than you appear to imagine. Oh, yeah and both of those bans were PR coups for Scientology in the U.S.

You know our government is flat out forbidden from making official determination of whether any given religion is "valid" in our Constitution, right ? No banning a particular religion here.

The I.R.S. can't and doesn't refuse to grant Income Tax Exemption on the basis of religion, either. They look for violations of the United States Code statute 26 U.S. Code § 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. and any "organization formed for a religious purpose" found in violation is punished, up to and including revocation of their exempt status.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
You know our government is flat out forbidden from making official determination of whether any given religion is "valid" in our Constitution, right ? No banning a particular religion here.
The two of us are not under the same government no more. I ain't gonna come back stateside. I wasn't planning to do it 2 years ago and I sure as hell am not gonna come back now. Just sayin' :whistle:

Important from whose viewpoint ?
At this point it is a simple difference of opinion. You do not have the facts to convince me, I do not have the facts to convince you. I think that part of the discussion reached a moot point.

Did you encounter any "advanced punishment" techniques like the air conditioning torture in your days? Or at least, like me, heard rumors about it?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Important from whose viewpoint ?

The 1963 FDA E-Meter attack nearly destroyed the subject entirely in the U.S.

The 1968 I.R.S. revocation of Income Tax Exemption nearly bankrupted all the U.S. Organizations paying off the tax liability that had not previously existed.

By comparison, the 1968 U.K. Entry Ban was resolved with ridiculous ease: Hubbard had his Sea Organization establish the American St. Hill Organization in Los Angeles practically overnight and those foreign (to the U.K.) students simply continued on their course checksheets for the St. Hill Special Briefing Course at the new facility under Hubbard trained SHSBC graduates after that.

The Australian ban resulted in a lot less harm to the CoS globally than you appear to imagine. Oh, yeah and both of those bans were PR coups for Scientology in the U.S.

You know our government is flat out forbidden from making official determination of whether any given religion is "valid" in our Constitution, right ? No banning a particular religion here.

The I.R.S. can't and doesn't refuse to grant Income Tax Exemption on the basis of religion, either. They look for violations of the United States Code statute 26 U.S. Code § 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. and any "organization formed for a religious purpose" found in violation is punished, up to and including revocation of their exempt status.
I would agree with everything you have to say if it wasn't for the fact that no man has gone clear, OT, or returned from death to prove it.

So, prove to me so I can agree,

Mister Independent Scientologist & Former Sea Org Member.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
I would agree with everything you have to say if it wasn't for the fact that no man has gone clear, OT, or returned from death to prove it.

So, prove to me so I can agree,
I don't have to prove any claims I am not now making and never have made in any public venue since I first became involved in the Scientology Internet propaganda war back in 1993 or so.

However, that favorite anti-Scientologist "critic" propaganda talking point is entirely irrelevant to whether or not any of Ron DeWolf's many vicious calumnies against his father represent actual true facts or not.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I don't have to prove any claims I am not now making and never have made in any public venue since I first became involved in the Scientology Internet propaganda war back in 1993 or so.

However, that favorite anti-Scientologist "critic" propaganda talking point is entirely irrelevant to whether or not any of Ron DeWolf's many vicious calumnies against his father represent actual true facts or not.
well, why are you a independent scientologists?

I suppose that means you are no longer connected to Corporate scientology but still believe in scientology.

If you still believe in scientology, then don't you believe there is a Bridge to Total Freedom?

And if so, proving what I said would go along way in believing you. Don't you think?
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
And if so, proving what I said would go along way in believing you. Don't you think?
Like I said, mind your own business. My personal beliefs and Scientology activities or lack thereof are none of your fucking business. Also, they are completely irrelevant to the sub-topic under discussion: Ron DeWolf is a flip-flopper whose claims about his father Ron Hubbard cannot be trusted.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Like I said, mind your own business. My personal beliefs and Scientology activities or lack thereof are none of your fucking business. Also, they are completely irrelevant to the sub-topic under discussion: Ron DeWolf is a flip-flopper whose claims about his father Ron Hubbard cannot be trusted.
So, you won't answer my questions?

I guess your belief is lacking and has no proof. You ought to think about that, really, logically.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Like I said, mind your own business. My personal beliefs and Scientology activities or lack thereof are none of your fucking business. Also, they are completely irrelevant to the sub-topic under discussion: Ron DeWolf is a flip-flopper whose claims about his father Ron Hubbard cannot be trusted.
Your personal views about "the Tech", and the degree to which you may derive income from Tech-related activities, are very relevant to any discussion about motives.

This does not mean that I think DeWolf was entirely truthful in his accusations either.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Your personal views about "the Tech", and the degree to which you may derive income from Tech-related activities, are very relevant to any discussion about motives.
Appeal to Motive is also known as Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) and is a well known Fallacy of Argument .

A few so-called critics like to falsely assert motives and then use that particular fallacy. Since I get that one constantly from certain folks, it's pretty annoying. For example, the Co$ OSA likes to assert that enemy critics somehow make money from pointing out their many crimes and atrocities, as if that somehow "proves" those vile things did not happen.

The truth of any true fact is completely independent of the motive of the person stating it. Your completely baseless assertion that I somehow derive income from the practice of Scientology wasn't sly enough and I noticed.
 
Last edited:

The_Fixer

Well-known member
Man, I really Hate Straw Men. Read what I actually wrote again. "Had a hand in.." is what I wrote.

Then I suggest studying the FOIA recovered FBI files.

DeWolf sent false reports to the FDA in 1963 FDA E-Meter attack - then recanted after legal action.

He sent false reports to the IRS in the 1968 Exempt Status revocation- then recanted after legal action.

He made False Reports to the all the major hit piece book authors - then recanted after legal actions

So, he either lied initially or lied to Judges in Courts of Law when he recanted - multiple times.

He compromised (in the Intelligence sense) himself. Nothing he ever said or wrote can be trusted as true fact without independent corroborating documentation.
Just an observation here, but from your post there, everything is recanted after legal action.

Back in the day when Nibs was around, legal action from the cult carried some serious weight. Not so much the case these days. Which also begs the question that he may have had too much to lose if he didn't back down.

Don't take this as fact, just putting a thought out there. Some of Nibs claims do sound a little out there and I'm more inclined to take Janis Grady's word for things a little more.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Appeal to Motive is also known as Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) and is a well known Fallacy of Argument .
That a person may derive benefit from a position does not necessarily make his position false, you are correct.

But it does provide a reason to carefully examine the data he presents.

Your completely baseless assertion that I somehow derive income from the practice of Scientology wasn't sly enough and I noticed.
So you are hereby declaring that you derive no income or benefit from delivery of auditing, training, or any other aspect of Scientology "tech", directly or indirectly?

Thank you.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
That a person may derive benefit from a position does not necessarily make his position false, you are correct.

But it does provide a reason to carefully examine the data he presents.
One should always carefully examine the purported facts and the reasoning anyone presents. Carl Sagan tells us this in The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark.

So you are hereby declaring that you derive no income or benefit from delivery of auditing, training, or any other aspect of Scientology "tech", directly or indirectly?
Moving Goalpost Fallacy, buddy. Like I said before, you don't have a right to demand that particular information in a public venue. OSA fishes for that kind of information in order to target field practitioners for "Fair Game".

Nevertheless, I don't sell, trade or barter any sort Scientology services or materials whether Technical or Management and never have.

Any information concerning my practice of Scientology beyond that is none of your fucking business (unless I already have made a public statement about it, try searching ESMB in archive mode). I don't cotton to public interrogations about my personal life by Anonymous Cowards (the old school definition, not implying an association with Anonymous) hiding behind fake Internet identities, so you get nothing more.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
One should always carefully examine the purported facts and the reasoning anyone presents. Carl Sagan tells us this in The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark.



Moving Goalpost Fallacy, buddy. Like I said before, you don't have a right to demand that particular information in a public venue. OSA fishes for that kind of information in order to target field practitioners for "Fair Game".

Nevertheless, I don't sell, trade or barter any sort Scientology services or materials whether Technical or Management and never have.

Any information concerning my practice of Scientology beyond that is none of your fucking business (unless I already have made a public statement about it, try searching ESMB in archive mode). I don't cotton to public interrogations about my personal life by Anonymous Cowards (the old school definition, not implying an association with Anonymous) hiding behind fake Internet identities, so you get nothing more.
you stated:

"One should always carefully examine the purported facts and the reasoning anyone presents. Carl Sagan tells us this in The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark."

Hubbard stated one could go clear and OT, that's a fact. So why are you not examining nobody has gone clear or OT?

Shouldn't you be examining the purported facts and reasoning?

That's what I did, and determined nobody went clear or OT or returned from death to have full recall.

Are you going to reply with it's none of your fucking business?
 
Top