Title: Re: "Sect" politics - Dynamic Components

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, GSNews wrote:

> This is the Swiss National Assembly's recommendation to
> the Swiss Federal Assembly. The National Assembly is
> the larger of the two, and the number of its members is
> proportionate to the population of the cantons.
> (Switzerland is a confederation of cantons.) The smaller
> assembly has two representatives from each canton, or
> one from each "half-canton." Deadline for review and
> recommendations of action is September, 2000.
>              National Assembly's
>        Business Review Commission (GPK)
>                "Sects" or 
>       Assimilative Movements in
>                Switzerland
>     The Need for State Involvement or:
>      Route to Federal "Sect" Politics
>                          Report of the Business Review Commission
>                          of the National Assembly of July 1, 1999
>                                             Original text: German
> Do not remove this Translation Note: This is an unofficial
> translation of a publicly available Swiss government document.
> That means that the Swiss government makes no guarantee about
> the accuracy of this English translation. This translation is for
> non-commercial use only. The original Swiss document is
> available at http://www.parlament.ch/Poly/Framesets/E/Frame-E.HTM 
> as a pdf file. "Vereinnahmende Bewegung" is translated here as
> "Assimilative Movement." 
> ---------------------------


4.2 A Glance at Structures and Characteristics

4.2.1. Dynamic Components

The phenomenon of "sects is not specifically Christian in
nature but occurs inside and out of large religions.

From the sociological perspective the term contains the
meaning of a "dissenting minority," and is characterized by
attitudes like intolerance and aggressive proselytizing
(importunate recruitment for a belief or philosophy). Such
characteristics are not restricted to "sects" as special
religious communities, but can also be found in traditional
religions, churches, political parties, associations, etc - in
short: ultimately any community which overestimates
itself [is] potentially a sect: any 'upper village' is better
than a 'lower village' ... The self-perception of the
special group grows to the point of having a unique
value and meaning." These characteristics are not to be
understood in the static sense, but are indicative of the
dynamic components and the vertical dimensions in
conversion to sectarian behavior (and - seldom recorded -
the departure from it): there is just as much tendency
towards a stronger sectarianism as there is towards
development of openness and a readiness to have
dialogue. In this connection, Prof. Georg Schmid has
developed a model used by the Commission in the form of
a "sect thermometer" which graphically presents the stages
of sectarianism:

Stage 1: The feeling of being something special is
normal for any human community, for state churches,
political parties, sport associations, etc. 

Stage 2: Man and wife a not only something special,
but better than the others - that is also normal: but if I
were to find that my state church or political party
were not better than the others, I would no longer be a
part of them. The others also belong to a community
which they believe to be better than the others. 

Stage 3: I belong to the best group of all which all
others should emulate: there is a sense of mission and
a missionary pressure towards recruitment for one's
own group. Not the state churches as organizations,
but probably the currents within them could be
counted as part of this: the non-denominational
churches demonstrate extensive recruitment operation
and emphasize membership in step 3, for instance with
their Christ testimonials, in that everybody should
believe in Christ the way they do. 

Stage 4: (Fundamentalism step): one has sole
salvation and has divine truth (even if not exclusive).
The teaching is perfect and comes from heaven. He
who teaches and believes as I do also stands in the
truth - he who teaches or believes differently is being
ruined by his own or demonic thoughts. He who does
not cooperate "is lost." Fundamentalists worship their
teachings; fully developed sects have even deified the
group itself. [...] The state churches are no longer in
this category, but once were (large communities can
also deviate into the high sect stages). Sect step 4 is
reached by many people, including psychological
groups. [...] 


Stage 5: "We alone can make people happy and are
the only ones in heaven": Other people are objects of
missionary work or thoroughly worthy of damnation;
people who do not believe are to be avoided. Their
non-belief is demonic. 

Stage 6: The group tries to ban non-believers from
their field of vision - it begins with the separation from
the world: only the sect has the right to life on earth
(key word: persecution complex); not everybody has a
right to it, for those people destruction is certain: they
will burn anyway - so why not help them along a little
bit? The "divorce" from other people manifests an
inquisitional manner of thinking in the form of psychic
inquisition. [...] Anybody who leaves a group which is
in this stage is seen (even by relatives) as non existent
- the people in the village look the other way when
they pass him by. 

Stage 7: The delusions of the sect turn into persecution
complex when operating externally and, at the same
time, into megalomania internally ("If I think a thing
is, then it is"). [...] Without criticism, megalomania
develops almost automatically. Anyone who takes note
of the delusion becomes (thanks to the persecution
complex) an arch enemy. The persecution complex
develops from the ever-growing unawareness of the
outside world. The sect begins to demonize any
criticism from the outside world; the consequence is 

Stage 8: A trigger leads to a catastrophe by which the
group, but not the world, perishes. Megalomania and
persecution complex meet and collectively run amok. 

Central criteria for the tendency to go in the direction of
the dynamic are internal discussion and open debates:
these are guaranteed and stay with the group in the lower
stages; if they are eradicated, it drives the group upward.
The connection between the possibility of having internal
discussion and the the degree of sectarianism is easily

Unofficial translation in progress of the above report can be viewed at

Title: OSA: Methods & Tactics
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 07:09:02 -0400

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, GSNews wrote:

> <"Note: text in this type of bracket is not a literal word-for-word quote
> since it was translated from English to German back to English.">

4. Tactics and Methods of the OSA

Since the legal proceedings in the USA in 1979 which
seriously damaged the image of Scientology and similar
processes - such as the transient arrest of 71 leading
Scientologists in Spain in 1988 - the SO has become more
careful. It has - as shown - revamped and refined its
methods of operation. Although Scientology denies the
existence of the former GO's "Information Bureau," OSA's
"Section for Investigations" has taken over most of its
functions on both the local as well as the international level.
Since the only offices of the GO which were raided were
those in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Toronto, it
can be assumed that the rest of the network built by the
GO in the 1960's and 1970's has remained largely intact.
According to a statement by Jon ATACK, eye witnesses
and court files in the USA prove that intelligence units
continue to be active in London, Boston, Clearwater and
Las Vegas. HUBBARD's writings on infiltration and
subversion continue to be obeyed. 

Unlike the GO, the OSA today often has their sensitive,
high-risk operations performed by professionals - private
detectives, as a rule -, who officially have no association to
the organization. The professionals work under the
direction of attorney's offices which also - officially - have
nothing to do with the OSA or the SO, but actually, at
least in theory, are allied with the OSA's "Legal Section."
Since private detectives whose names are known are
suited for overt investigation or shadowing, but not for
"covert operations," they, in turn, are assigned to recruit
other personnel by the OSA intelligence department. By
using this organizational structure, it is very difficult, or
even impossible, to legally prove OSA's control. 

The increased cooperation with attorney's and their key
functions in the collection of information has, according to
Robert Vaughn YOUNG, tactical grounds. The SO has
taken precautions so that a raid, such as the one carried
out against the GO in 1977, will not be successful. At that
time all information was stored in the intelligence centers;
today, however, the majority of the explosive information
is kept by Scientology lawyers. Their files are protected
by law, and cannot be confiscated without taking special
measures. In the USA, it is possible to take action against
attorneys only if solid proof of crimes can be presented. In
most cases, this is extremely difficult or even impossible.
Because of the special confidential relationship between
attorney and client, the attorney's staff are also protected
by a right to refuse to testify. 

The cooperation between the SO and private detectives
has also been known in Germany since the spying
operation against the CSU politician, Peter
GAUWEILER, in 1983. Since the founding of the OSA in
1983, the use of private detectives and other external
personnel has been growing steadily. According to
statements by a former SO member, Scientology engages
quite a few firms in the USA. 

Although Scientology has gotten more cautious, the
preferred method of attacks against SO opponents,
including those in Germany, remains the same: abusive
articles in the Scientology press, "information letters" to
people in public life, overt and covert collection of
information on critics (shadowing, telephone calls
pretending to be legitimate, "surveys," etc.), broadcast of
letters with false accusations to employers, et al., of SO
opponents, slander, threats, spying by private detectives,
placement of Scientology agents in critics' organizations
and establishments, intimidation by threatening to sue,
criminal accusations using contrived charges, temporary
restraining orders, civil complaints, et al. The OSA, report
former insiders, continues to maintain "black lists" of their
opponents as they always have. 

In contrast to the USA - so far as is visible - cases of
open violence are not yet known in Germany.
Circumstances in the USA where Scientology is far
stronger show, however, that the organization is willing
and is in the position to employ means of pressure in
accordance with the "Fair Game" doctrine, as long as it is
of use to Scientology and if there is little risk that they will
be held to account. Today, however, the SO starts its
heaviest attacks with its attorneys. They are said to cost
Scientology $20 million per year. Scientology lawyers
liberally blanket critics and enemies, and in the USA even
judges, with lawsuits in accordance with HUBBARD's
guideline: one sues more to harass and discourage rather
than to win. In the 1980's for example, the SO succeeded
in indirectly forcing a judge to withdraw from a suit against
Scientology after he had been lured by private detectives
working for OSA into a trap with a prostitute. 

These perfidious tactics and the misuse of the legal system
has not remained hidden from the American courts: in
1996 the California Court of Appeal expressly
reprimanded the SO for using legal disputes to force its
opponents give up. The Federal Court of Appeal in San
Francisco, in the same year, accused Scientology of
abusing the legal system and required $2.9 million in
punitive damages from it. 

Other indications of intelligence operations in Germany
were contained in an internal document of March 12,
1984. In this post description (Hat Write Up), the
theoretical fundamentals of Scientology's intelligence
tactics and methods of operation were stated in detail.
This intelligence document was written in German and
originated - as explicitly stated on it - from a time when the
OSA was officially in existence. It is extensively based on
GO training material from the "Intelligence Course" of
September, 1974. Apparently to conceal that it was an
actual operating directive from an intelligence department
which actually existed in Germany, it is sporadically written
in the past tense and uses generalized terms ("... data
which one needs ..."). Generally, references to the GO
intelligence department, the "Information Bureau," were
made and explained, in that the former "Branch I" had
been sub-divided into two sections. The first section was
responsible for all forms of data collection (ODC, CDC),
the second, the operations section, had taken over covert
operations (CO). These operations were meant for the
direct handling of an opponent or an opposing project.
The operation of "Branch I" was directed at the area
outside of Scientology; "Branch II" was directed inwards
and was concerned with internal security. 

Point 1 of the intelligence document dealt with the
"construction of the network." This included the use of
indices for potential fields of operation and available
operators. In order to glean a selection of mission qualified
personnel, all Scientology missions and churches would
first be queried with prepared questionnaires which
covered the following points: profession, connections with:
politics, medicine, pharmacies, psychiatry, press, etc. The
responses would be rated with regard to the potential
recruitment of personnel. 

The next stage is the three step "security clearance" for the
mission personnel. The proposed staff member is
investigated to a degree dictated by the sensitivity of the
operation (ODC, CDC, CO). 

In the "C" clearance for ODC, a person is only
investigated to see that he is not a "Potential Trouble
Source" (PTS) and that he is on good terms with
Scientology. In addition to the investigation, a
"non-disclosure bond" in the amount of 5,000 DM
(Deutsch Marks) is required to be signed. Apparently
Scientology uses this as insurance against possible

For a "B" clearance, a "security check" is required which
includes the question, "Are you here for a reason other
than you say?" Besides that, the approval of the ethics
officer and the person's case supervisor (supervises the
person's auditing) is obtained. The amount for the
"non-disclosure bond" goes up to 30,000 DM. 

The highest security standard is the "A" clearance, which,
in addition to the "B" clearance, requires that the person's
life be checked on the E-meter, presumably to detect any
potential cover stories. 

An important point throughout is the motivation of the
agent. He is not supposed to be motivated by money or
by his own advantage, but as much as possible by a sense
of duty to establish the goals of Scientology in this area.
Attention is also supposed to be given that people are
recruited from those whom one has contacted himself, and
not from those referred by the detective agency to "help
out," that means no voluntary agents. People who have
had psychiatric treatment, have taken drugs or have had
alcohol problems are generally refused. People deep in
debt are regarded as easily blackmailed, and therefore not
mission capable. 

The basic training of the agent includes the study of
relevant HCO Policy Letters and Bulletins as well as other
mission specific writings by HUBBARD, as well as
professional literature, such as the book by Christopher
FELIX, "The Spy and his Masters." Under point 2,
"running the independent staff member," several ground
rules of conspiratorial agent handling are laid out: 

    "People who are assigned to confidential or
    secret projects will use internal code names
    such as "Andy" or "Otto" so that they cannot
    exchange information among themselves. It is
    recommended that external meets be
    arranged for people who should not be
    recognized because of a connection to the
    Church or a connection to Dept. 20." 

Point 3 deals with the forms of collection and evaluation of
information from publicly accessible sources (state and
university libraries, public archives, newspaper archives,
association registers, trade registers, etc.) Overt data
collection also includes "noisy investigations," i.e. loud
investigations against alleged Scientology critics in order to
discredit them and to obtain further information about the
person which can be used against them. Personal contact
with "natural enemies," according to the intelligence
guidelines, is most rewarding. 

In covert data collection (point 4), it must first be stated
which camouflage or "suitable guise" is best suited to get
the information desired. Individual tactics are described
which can be used to anonymously approach the target
person professionally or personally, or to place oneself in
his environment. The appropriate chapter on the "Art of
Camouflage" from the above mentioned book by
Christopher FELIX is recommended for this task. 

Strategy set by policy for the insertion of agents in use not
many years prior stated interestingly that this had been
"little used previously (sic!)" since the agent often was
subject to a requirement for confidentiality and would also
be subject to punishment if he broke this requirement.
However, Scientology used only selected information. On
the topic of "Insertion in government positions," it states: 

    "NO WAY. It is never, and may never be,
    nor be envisioned illegal. The path to viewing
    files in connection with legal processes will
    remain open." 

As already detailed above, the SO has learned from
experience and modified some of its methods of
procedure. However, since its intentions and goals have
remained the same, its asseverations are still not trusted.
For instance, a policy remains in effect which states that
the SO wants to bring all documents which concern it into
its own possession, even those documents whose
existence has not been officially acknowledged. As a
result, there is no legal way for the SO to gain access to

The description of the "Dust Bin Collection" (DBC)
operating method is informative. By this is meant scouring
trash cans belonging to targets in the search for paper
trash which can be used. So far, this form of data
collection has been used only on hostile groups, but it has
proved very successful! The collected documents and
information had not been able to be utilized in raw form,
but extremely valuable references were gathered as a
result. However, the author then warns: 

    "In the BRD ["Bundesrepublik Deutschland" :
    Federal Republic of Germany] it is not yet
    known that this form of data collection is
    being used; it should be dealt with very
    confidentially, even the fact that something
    like this is possible. In the USA, DBC has
    already been the subject of a court case
    which was won, and it has now been
    determined that the material collected can be
    used as legal evidence." 

In 1984 there were already indications that DBC was also
being practiced in Germany. A confidential report on the
meeting of German Scientologists with a Munich private
detective in 1983 who was assigned to spy on SO critics
explicitly mentioned under the section "recommendations": 

    "The Project 'Dustbin Data' on ... should also
    be started since there could be good
    evidence there." 

In 1993, former SO member Larry WOLLERSHEIM
succeeded in retrieving from a private detective an
envelope which had been addressed to him, which clearly
proved that his trash had been searched. In the 1990's,
according to Jon ATACK, there were a series of similar
incidents. Robert Vaughn YOUNG also reported of
having his trash "stolen" (see below). 

Point 6 of the post description deals with so-called
"predictions" and "estimations." The "predictions" relate to
tactical events, such as a meeting of Scientology critics
which will be visited. The SO tries to use all
"communications lines" possible to obtain data for
"predictions", i.e., to learn which activities against
Scientology are currently in process. The investigation
results are usually put together with CDC information into
a "Data Report." These investigations are to aid in the
prevention of surprise attacks from opponents; one wants
to be one step ahead of them: 

    "As the network (comment: at the time of the
    GO) was still well built, the opponent was
    regularly checked out ... the opponent made
    surprise attacks only in rare cases." 

The so-called "estimations" correspond to site description
and analysis. Namely, the SO tries to analyze the layout of
the material collected and evaluated in regards to
presumed plans and strategies of the opponent (e.g., legal
proceedings), in order to make long-term assessments and
to be able to develop counter-strategies. 

The "operations" listed under point 7 consist of
Investigation "Branch I" operations, PR operations (such
as press releases, production of press articles, lobby
operations) and legal operations, unless Scientology itself
has placed the charge or must defend itself in legal

From the content of this intelligence document, it can only
be concluded that nothing has changed fundamentally in
the tactics of the Scientology intelligence service. Prior
findings and those which follow substantiate the suspicion
that the OSA goes about its intelligence operations with
the same energy and single-mindedness as the GO once
did. Similar in ambiguity to the alleged cancellation of the
"Fair Game" order, another policy from HUBBARD is
worded, <"no activity may be ordered which subjects an
investigator to criminal pursuit."> The proceedings of the
1970's have shown how this instruction is to be
understood: attention should be given to prevent the SO
from being held directly accountable for crimes by
intelligence agents. 

An actual case in point is that of Robert Vaughn YOUNG
and Stacy BROOKS YOUNG, to whom the "Fair Game"
law and methods for fighting "suppressive persons" were
applied in the 1990's. In his testimony of January 11,
1995, Robert Vaughn YOUNG first indicated that all
HUBBARD policies founded upon the "fair game"
practice and the hate campaigns of the SO, including the
GO issues, continued to be valid because they could not
be cancelled or modified in content. He and his wife had
personally had to experience the proof of this assertion: 

    <"My wife and I have been "fair game"
    targets. Our house has twice been broken
    into (in which our office was the only goal),
    our trash has been stolen, bugs were planted
    in our house, our families have received
    nerve-wracking anonymous calls, we have
    been pursued, and we have been secretly
    photographed. Friends who have visited us
    were followed, their vehicles were tailed, and
    then they were visited with the intention of
    harassing them. Also covert agents or spies
    of different types supported either by
    INGRAM (comment: private detective of the
    SO) or the OSA have been used on us....
    Since we stated that we were ready to have
    a meeting with the German "Focus"
    magazine, the Scientology attacks have
    increased. ... The purpose of the Scientology
    attacks against my wife and me is to cause us
    to stop ... For a period of time they
    described me as a "pornography publisher."
    The basis for that was a pack of
    pornographic material which was sent to me.
    They fished it out of my trash can and
    (falsely) claimed that I was the "publisher" of
    the material while the only thing I did with it
    was pitch it out. Since I have been clearly
    expressing my opinion on the tactics in
    Germany, they have described me as a
    neo-Nazi and photographed me in front of a
    restaurant with somebody whom they called
    a neo-Nazi."> 

Some of these attacks against YOUNG could be verified
by the State Office for Constitutional Security of
Hamburg. On February 3, 1995, Hamburg Scientologists
distributed a flyer entitled "Does CABERTA cooperate
with neo-Nazis?", in which YOUNG, who was visiting in
Hamburg at the time with groups including the Work
Group on Scientology ["Arbeitsgruppe Scientology"
(AGS)], was described as "collaborator of the American
anti-Semitic movement." The flyer included a photograph
of YOUNG together with Willis CARTO, the founder of
the American "Institute for Historical Review" (IHR),
known in right extremist groups worldwide as a revisionist
and neo-Nazi establishment for historical research.
YOUNG, said the accompanying write-up, also had
connections with right-extremist camps. The cooperation
of YOUNG with the Director of the AGS, Ursula
CABERTA, was said to be further proof that she was
seeking "help from the criminal element in her endeavor to
exterminate a religious congregation." The flyer also
repeated an assertion previously mentioned, that
YOUNG, after his departure from Scientology, had tried
his hand as a purveyor of "pornographic writings." 

At least one point could be substantiated in regards to
Scientology knowingly spreading untruth: from documents
available to the State Office for Constitutional Security
Hamburg, it was evident that it was not YOUNG, but the
SO who had maintained close connections with the IHR!
Since October, 1993, Scientologist Tom MARCELLUS
has been director of the IHR, and presumably was one of
those who took part in a plot against YOUNG. The
meeting with the former director, Willis CARTO, in
February 1994, YOUNG credibly stated, had taken place
under duress, since CARTO had wanted to know why the
SO was interested in the IHR. The meeting had been
observed and photographed by a SO private detective in
order to discredit YOUNG. YOUNG's case is a model
sample of the unscrupulous "Black Propaganda" tactics of
the SO still in use in recent times. 

The persecution practices and machinations of the OSA
described by YOUNG and other former members and
critics has been verified by others, including former OSA
agent Garry SCARFF, who left the organization in
September 1992. In an approximately 240 page sworn
testimony, SCARFF admitted to committing criminal acts
on behalf of the OSA office in Los Angeles. For example,
his duties included the theft of court documents which
concerned Scientology. In the early 1980's, SCARFF had
professional access to a nationwide police computer
system. He said he was instructed to systematically make
inquiries from a prepared list of names of Scientology
opponents in order to see if any had crimes recorded. The
stated intention of the organization is, according to
SCARFF, to completely exterminate its various opponents
using every available means. He said that the organization
would not even stop at murder. In October, 1991, he said
he received the assignment to kill the former director of the
Cult Awareness Network (CAN), Cynthia KISSER, by
means of a staged automobile accident. If this attempt
should fail, he was assured of legal support from the
BOWLES & MOXON, attorneys dedicated to
Scientology, whose office is located in the same building
directly above the OSA offices. In December, 1991, he
received his second assignment. This time the murder
attempt - again using an automobile - was directed against
attorney Ford GREENE, who represented former
Scientologists, including Gerald ARMSTRONG, in court. 

SCARFF did not carry out this assignment, however,
because of a conflict of conscience. Instead, he went to
the police in Portland, Oregon. Previously, SCARFF said,
he had been warned that he would be killed in case he
ever decided to leave and cause trouble for the SO or
BOWLES & MOXON. In case he could not be caught,
his parents would be killed. On April 2, 1997, WDR
broadcast a documentary on Scientology with the title of
"The Dark Side of Scientology," in which SCARFF
repeated his accusations. Visibly shaken, he stated he
feared something would happen to his parents because of
his statement. 

SCARFF did not hold up under this pressure for long.
Only three months later a statement by him was distributed
on the internet in which he admitted to an allegedly
voluntary agreement with the SO. In it he asserted that
many of his statements in the sworn testimony were lies
and that he was not a credible witness. As part of the
agreement with the SO, SCARFF threatened the WDR
with legal measures if it re-broadcast the show of April 2,
1997, since he no longer supported his "libelous"
accusations. A short time later, however, he went back to
his attorney, Graham E. BERRY, and reported that he had
been held by the SO and put under duress. He said the
retraction of his testimony had been coerced. BERRY,
who is one of the few attorneys in the USA that will
appear in court against the SO, believed this to be a
typical OSA practice: the OSA was using the instability of
its exploited agent; in case illegal activities were revealed
he would be further manipulated in order to harm his

In his testimony, SCARFF stated unmistakably how he
rated the SO: 

    <"All you have to look at is the history of the
    Church of Scientology. You only need to
    look at the documented facts and evidence
    that we have against BOWLES & MOXON
    and the Church of Scientology and you know
    that there is no doubt that the Church of
    Scientology is a criminal organization, inside
    and out, and all the functionaries and
    attorneys inside the Church of Scientology ...
    are components of this criminal organization,
    and they all belong behind bars."> 

BERRY was skeptical over the prospect of convicting the
organization in regard to the criminal conduct it was
accused of despite the abundance of witness testimony
and evidence. The criminal investigative authorities in Los
Angeles made it clear to him that they were not in the
position, because of personnel, organization and - in view
of the enormously high costs - also because of financial
grounds, to successfully conduct an extensive criminal
investigation against the SO. This statement amounted to
an admission of having to yield to the power of

There is no need to fear a similar development will occur
in Germany at this time. Much indicates, however, that the
relationship would not be any different, essentially, if the
SO had, or could bring about, the same development
potential here. Even if German Scientologists have - so far
as is known - not been caught in criminal acts comparable
to those committed in the USA, the present findings and
suspicions of the Munich State Attorney's Office that the
SO operates in the gray areas of illegality and will not stop
at criminal actions continues to provide reason for attentive
observation of the activities of the OSA in Germany. 


The above is an excerpt from an unofficial translation of "The
Scientology Intelligence Service" published by the Hamburg [Germany]
Constitutional Security Agency and has a link on: 



                             German Scientology News
     Unofficial translations from German-speaking countries
  Index/link to over 600 articles - http://cisar.org/trnmenu.htm
Informational publications - http://members.tripod.com/German_Scn_News
For non-commercial use only                            Have a nice day