(Section 21 of Part 4 – Why I Left the Church)
Here is what LRH says a Dead Agent handling is:
“The technique of proving utterances false is called “DEAD AGENTING”. It’s in the first book of Chinese espionage. When the enemy agent gives false data, those who believed him but now find it false, kill him – or at least cease to believe him.
“So the PR slang for it is ‘dead agenting’.
“This consists of disproving utterly the false statement with documents or demonstration or display.” (HCO PL 21 Nov 72, PR Series 18 How to Handle Black Propaganda [can be found in one of the three Management Series volumes and the PTS / SP pack])
Okay, so during our handling, the DSA and the HAS (not always together at the same time) would show documentation attempting to prove that what Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Jeff Hawkins, Amy Scobee, Steve Hall, Dan Koon, etc, were all saying about David Miscavige was untrue — that all those claims (beating his staff, destroying the management structure of Scientology, running a tyrannical dictatorship on a complete bypass throughout all of the church with out-tech and off-policy arbitraries, forcing married couples to get divorced, coercing pregnant women to get abortions, sentencing people on his whim to years of the RPF under horribly squalid, degraded conditions, etc, etc.) were completely and utterly false.
Then I, having seen how they are all liars, would never be able to believe anything that they say ever again. That’s what a Dead Agent handling is supposed to do per the above definition.
I was shown packets of information about each one of the people listed above (as I had told the DSA and HAS that they were sources of data for me in my research). Each one of these sources of information had an individual pack of papers written about them, stapled together. In other words there was one packet for Marty Rathbun, one for Mike Rinder, one for Jeff Hawkins, and so on. I read a couple of them. The information that was given in these packets were details of how bad these people were. It gave accounts of bad things that they are said to have done while they were in the Sea Org. There were lists of commissions of out-tech; accounts of things that supposedly caused dev-t requiring others to bypass to correct their goofs; statements of how they were stalled cases or couldn’t make case gain; specific overts that the person supposedly had admitted to doing — overts which seemed pretty shocking and horrendous.
At first, this “dead agent” material upset me. It painted these people in a very bad light. The stable data that I had recently acquired, about the corruption of the church, was shaken. Up to about two weeks before that, my stable datum was that COB, RTC and Int Management had our best interests at heart and could be trusted. Then, two weeks before this “dead agent” handling, I had just gone through the confusion of having this long-standing stable datum shaken. Now I was having my new stable datum shaken again. I didn’t know what to think! I was not having a good time.
During the next few days I decided to really do an honest assessment and bypass all the emotion and confusion I was currently going through, to really try to take an honest look at what I honestly felt. I sat down with myself and sorted out all my thoughts and worked through all the emotions on it. Part of what I came up with, you’ve already read (if you’ve read everything up to here). But in regards to this “dead-agent” handling, there’s something else I want you to understand.
About 95% of this so-called “dead-agent” material was character assassinations about the people who were making the claims against David Miscavige and what it was like to be at Int Management. Nothing, or very little at best, was written in the “dead agent” material about WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, just about the people themselves.
This is NOT a dead agent handling, it is another in a list of actions that opened my eyes to the squirreling that goes on widespread in the church. The so-called “Dead Agent” handling was also squirrel.
Let me re-quote LRH’s reference defining a dead-agent handling:
“This consists of disproving utterly the false statement with documents or demonstration or display.”
Here’s another one:
“The ‘dead agent caper’ was used to disprove the lies. This consisted of counter-documenting any areas where the lies were circulated. The lie ‘they were…’ is countered by a document showing ‘they were not.’ This causes the source of the lie and any other statements from that source to be discarded.” (LRH – HCO PL 11 May 71 Black PR)
This is not what was done. Neither of these references say that the way to “dead agent” a source of information is to point out all the bad things they’ve done. They do not say that a “dead agent” handling consists of discrediting the character of the source of the data.
In an attempt to counter what I am saying here, you can say: “Yea, but there are other references by LRH that say that the way to handle critics of Scientology is to expose their crimes because everyone who is critical of Scientology has crimes. For example, I know that HCOB 5 Nov 67 Critics of Scientology, says: ‘Now get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. Over and over we prove this.”
Here’s the thing. Aside from the fact that LRH wrote that at an earlier time, before the major corruption in the church (that I am now writing about) would have occurred, the people who I had gotten my data from were not criticizing Scientology. You can read or observe anything that I read or observed, said by Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Amy Scobee, Steve Hall, Dan Koon, Mary Jo Leavitt, “Plain Old Thetan”, “Friends of LRH”, “The Truth Rundown” or anything else that influenced my decision to leave the church and not one word of it was a criticism of Scientology. You need to differentiate here. These were accounts of whistleblowers who wanted to expose crimes that they were claiming to have been committed by David Miscavige, crimes of both the civil and criminal codes of our society and the Ethics and Justice Codes of Scientology. Even if these all would have been lies, they were not about Scientology, they were about actions that were being done within the management of the Church of Scientology.
And even though there are people who do criticize the actual tech of Scientology, I didn’t leave the church because of criticisms of actual Scientology and no disagreements that anyone would have had about the tech itself, even if I would have had some of the same disagreements, would have had anything to do with my decision.
The references about critics of Scientology does not apply to this situation. Before someone could have gotten me to think that those references applied to my situation, they would have had to convince me that these people were criticizing Scientology, which they obviously were not. They were criticizing a squirrel and they were criticizing crimes against humanity.
In this composition up to this point, I have pointed out many many gross violations of actual Scientology and NOTHING in this squirrel “dead agent” handling did anything to effectively prove that these things were not true. In fact, hardly any attempt at such proof was made. All they tried to do was vilify the people who were saying them. So, the logical conclusion was that they had no proof with which to counter these allegations and so resorted to character assassination.
In regard to their attempt to get me to disbelieve these people by discrediting their character, I realized after going over what the “dead agent” material said (note my continued use of quotation marks when I use that term), that the wrongdoings were of the same magnitude of overts that one could find in any pc folder (of any pc who has gotten any amount of auditing to amount to much, or anyone who has been on staff or in the Sea Org for any considerable length of time).
I’ve been an auditor and an FESer for a long time. I’ve read data in hundreds of folders. I was a Life Orientation Course Sup for nine years and I’ve read so many people’s O/Ws I couldn’t even begin to tell you how much. I’ve seen overts written that could shock a person who wasn’t used to it and who didn’t understand the benefit of getting off one’s overts. These were good people who were trying to make themselves better by getting off their overts. They feel bad about these overts and, when the tech is applied correctly and they feel safe in telling or writing them, they get great relief and it helps them undo barriers that they have set up for themselves.
I’ve gotten off tons of overts since I started out in Scientology. Almost all of those were volunteered on my own free will because I felt it would help me do my post better. I would say that for me in my individual case, over 90% of my gains in Scientology came from getting off overts.
There was nothing that I read in any of these character assassinations (which was supposed to convince me that all these people were complete liars who never amounted to anything) that was any worse than overts that I had gotten off myself or than any of the hundreds upon thousands of overts I had seen that other people had gotten off. I realized this after some time had passed since the initial shock I had from reading what these people were said to have done.
None of them were even close to the magnitude or quantity of what I have observed, having opened my eyes, of the crimes against LRH and Scientology, by COB, that I could see, now that I had taken the blinders off. None were as gross as the violations of the laws of the land and the crimes against humanity by David Miscavige, which I could not see for myself but which I was now coming to believe, based on what I actually could see for myself.
One of the methods in these “dead agent” packs was to quote things that some of the people said themselves that would apparently, at first glance, be self-incriminating. For example, it might have said something like, “I had counter-intentions to ________”. So you can read the statement and think, “Well, this person is even admitting how bad he is.”
Well, I realized that I myself, in getting off overts and withholds in the past, would sometimes have a cognition about something. Having gotten off the overts of dramatizing the counter-intention, I often would realize that I had counter-intentions. One of the main reasons for voluntarily getting one’s overts off in the first place was to expose to myself my own counter-intentions to things I really did want to accomplish but was holding myself back from because of the overts. By seeing for myself what my counter-intentions were, I would no longer have them. So I might write up a success story or something that would say something like, “I realized that I had counter-intentions to _________.”
So statements like that in the “dead agent” handling, I realized, did nothing to prove how “bad” this person was and were being used to twist the truth to get me to disbelieve whatever that person had to say about David Miscavige’s crimes.
I also realized that it would be very easy for someone to go through some of my pc and ethics folders, gather up the overts that I had gotten off in all my time in Scientology, take some of the ones that seem the worst or that could most impress someone as being “bad”, put them all together in one writing, stating them one after the other, utterly ignoring everything else about my character and my accomplishments, and show them to someone. Then someone could read that and consequently think that I am the most despicable, out-ethics, perverted criminal that they have ever known or heard of.
That is something that I call mind manipulation. This so-called “dead agent” material was an attempt to manipulate me into continuing my unfounded support of David Miscavige and to ignore the claims of his crimes against human rights and his destruction of anything good that exists in Scientology.
Harsh words but I sincerely have taken a look at this from every angle I can and that is my conclusion.
And that is backed up by the fact that these overts that I read, I am certain, were gotten from people’s pc folders or ethics folders and now they were actually being revealed to me by someone from the church in order to discredit the person!!!!! I even read something in the “dead agent” pack on one of these people, something in this person’s own handwriting that was a few pages long. I said to the HAS and DSA that it was this person’s O/W write-up that I was being shown, and they disagreed with me but I maintain that it was an O/W write-up though not standardly written. In any case, it was not something that should have been divulged to me and was written by the person with a trust that it would be kept confidential. In every one of those other packs of info on each person, I don’t see how most of the information in them could have been gotten, other than from the person’s pc or ethics folder.
This is a totally disgusting abomination of the sacred trust that a pc has not only in his auditor to not reveal the pc’s overts to others for punishment or personal gain, but also his trust in the whole Scientology organizational structure. No longer could the sanctity of the confessional be trusted.
NOBODY HAS ANY BUSINESS REVEALING OTHERS’ OVERTS GOTTEN OFF IN SESSION OR AN O/W WRITE-UP OR AN ETHICS HANDLING OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE PERSON IMPROVE HIMSELF BY GETTING OFF THOSE OVERTS, IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE SOMEONE’S OPINION OF THAT PERSON. EVER. IT IS A HIGH CRIME OF THE WORST SORT IN MY BOOK OR IN THE VIEW OF ANY PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT THE WELFARE OF HIS FELLOW MAN.
And in this case it wasn’t just David Miscavige perpetrating this crime. It was the whole portion of the structure of the church that had anything to do with creating or presenting this suppressive version of a “dead agent” handling, including OSA and HCO, both locally and uplines.
This in itself was enough for me to leave the church. If it would have been the only outpoint I knew of, then it still would have been the end of my support of this organization.
I could NEVER receive auditing in the church anymore, knowing that this is something that could happen. I would not feel safe in session ever again and I would never be interested in my case and willing to talk to the auditor, and would never be able to make gains. I would always have too much attention on the possibility that what I say in session could be used against me later, whenever I speak up against outnesses and injustices that I observe.
And in auditing others or helping them get off their overts I could never confidently assure them that it is safe to get them off because I would always know that these overts could at some point in the future be used to punish them or to publicly humiliate them.