Original Fair Game Law before it was modified for legal and public relations reasons

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
I had heard or read somewhere that a big reason for the rollout of some of the
heavier ethics of that time was because a number of the "first clears" were making
noise about not getting all the promised results. That is, many of the hyperbolic gains
and capabilities Ron kept yammering about were just not there. Ron had to put a lid
on any possible revolts in the field, while he thought about his next steps or strategies.

Again, this is what I'd heard from an old timer. Makes sense, if you think about it.

I had written about it here in April too.

Be interested in other's opinions.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
I had heard or read somewhere that a big reason for the rollout of some of the
heavier ethics of that time was because a number of the "first clears" were making
noise about not getting all the promised results. That is, many of the hyperbolic gains
and capabilities Ron kept yammering about were just not there. Ron had to put a lid
on any possible revolts in the field, while he thought about his next steps or strategies.
LRH was always in a position where he could not afford to have a critical mass of people saying "The Emperor has no clothes". The only way to prevent that was to create an environment where "nattering" was ruthlessly suppressed.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Was there some point in time when "Fair Game" was altered to require an SP declare?
(I don't remember the HCO PL on this.)
 

Veda

Well-known member
Was there some point in time when "Fair Game" was altered to require an SP declare?
(I don't remember the HCO PL on this.)
Fair Game existed long before policy existed. It's a philosophy, of sort, the idea of which was first expressed in 1951, was explained further in 1955, then in 1959, and 1960, and in 1965, and beyond.

There is internal Scientology and external. An SP (who was or has been a member) can be designated, internally, as an SP, and someone who was never a member, can , externally, be designated an SP or an enemy.

Anyone Hubbard said was Fair Game became Fair Game, and it is so with Miscavige.

However, at local org levels, for members, an SP Declare were usually required to be made Fair Game.

But for outside enemies, there was no such formality.

While "policy" is used, there are layers of policy, including confidential policy and PR (faux) policy.

Ultimately, per Hubbard's instructions, Scientology is operated as a"tight conspiracy" much like organized crime.

The (secret) "tight conspiracy" overrides the known to the rank-and-file "policy."

This is one reason there is so much yelling in Orgs.


Edit: Added link to the Lightness of Organization thread.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
I had heard or read somewhere that a big reason for the rollout of some of the
heavier ethics of that time was because a number of the "first clears" were making
noise about not getting all the promised results. That is, many of the hyperbolic gains
and capabilities Ron kept yammering about were just not there. Ron had to put a lid
on any possible revolts in the field, while he thought about his next steps or strategies.

Again, this is what I'd heard from an old timer. Makes sense, if you think about it.

I had written about it here in April too.

Be interested in other's opinions.
Heavy "Ethics" began in early 1965, and the Clearing Course, although announced in 1965, did not appear until 1966.

1965 was the year that Hubbard, with gusto, began to implement his plan to assert and maintain dominion over thoughts and loyalties, primarily through mental healing, but also through other methods.

There are lots if ideas as to why 1965 was the year when Hubbard's dictatorial system reached fruition, although there was more to come.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
The (secret) "tight conspiracy" overrides the known to the rank-and-file "policy."
I'll just add that beside the "topdown conspiracy" you mentioned, there is also "horizontal secrecy". By that I mean departments competing with one another and various organizations inside scientology eliberatly not sharing information with one another. OSA and Inv case in point.
 

La La Lou Lou

Well-known member
I'll just add that beside the "topdown conspiracy" you mentioned, there is also "horizontal secrecy". By that I mean departments competing with one another and various organizations inside scientology eliberatly not sharing information with one another. OSA and Inv case in point.
I saw something like this, working in CF. Someone marched in from the Guardian's office and demanded to take the file of someone. He said that we were not allowed to write letters ever again to this person, but didn't even name the person. I suppose the person was threatening something. I said ''Oh OK I'll put something where the file should be, to send any correspondence straight to the Guardian's office'' (so that if any of the huge pile of backlog comes up I wouldn't make a new file for this terrible person), I just got looked at sternly and told No, in uncertain terms, nothing must be kept for this person. I presume that a file was made when backlogged filing was found, and that person got further awful letters from us. I wish I knew who this person was, it could have been a mass murderer who had been in the cult, it could have been someone suing the Church. It wasn't just once things like that happened. Secrets and dumbness going hand in hand.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
While "policy" is used, there are layers of policy, including confidential policy and PR (faux) policy.

Ultimately, per Hubbard's instructions, Scientology is operated as a"tight conspiracy" much like organized crime.
And, like organized crime, "policy" doesn't really matter.

What matters is who controls the people who can do unpleasant things to you if you annoy them.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
And, like organized crime, "policy" doesn't really matter.
Policy doesn't matter as long as you are "producing". You can brake all sorts of rules as long as you keep getting the job done.
The second your stats go down, THEN ALL OF A FUCKING SUDDEN people remember that you have not been following policy for months.

Especially in management. If you want high stats, you need to ignore policy because the admin tech sucks and the green vols are just full of useless crap that will waste your time and prevent you from getting the actual tasks done.

But here is the conundrum: If you want high stats, you need to be off-source. But then if after many months of high stats you get one lousy week, that will be blamed on you being off-source.
Now the guys who always follow policy (and their stats suck all the time)? That will get blamed on O&W and overall being horrible people who actively sabotage scientology.

Either way, you can never win. The only way to win a "game of scientology management" is not to play!
 
Last edited:
Top