Ed Bryan: Scientology spy, messenger of hate

In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, offensive letters or email (hate mail).

	Ed Bryan

If you’ve been reading the comments in Marty’s blog, you know that at 7:15 pm, Wednesday, June 8, 2011, Michael Fairman (the well-known actor) was seated at his computer quietly reading Marty’s blog when the doorbell rang.

At the door were three “Squirrel Busters” and a camera. “Michael, I’d like to speak to you” one of the busters asked, rather pleasantly. Not having a camera in hand, Michael replied, “No, get outta here — I’m calling the cops!” and shut the door in their faces.

Two policemen arrived minutes later. They were given a brief history of the “Squirrel Busters” and grasped the situation immediately. They understood the Church of Scientology was engaging in a hate crime in retaliation against whistle blowers.

The police provided the tools and communication lines to deal with the CoS agents. They said to report the incident as an intentional HATE CRIME using visceral epithet “squirrel” and visiting for purpose of harassment. Calling an Independent Scientologist a “squirrel” falls into the same category as racial slurs.

The event was filed as an incident with the Van Nuys Police Department. The officers were also made aware of what had happened in Santa Monica last Tuesday, that the Church of Scientology was also behind those hate crimes, and that video evidence exists.

Michael went on to brief the Senior Lead Officer at the Van Nuys Police station so that all police stations in the San Fernando Valley will be apprised of what occurred. Should there be another visit or series of visits, the record will show the original filing so that legal steps can be taken. The police explained that the laws which apply to the paparazzi also apply to the aforementioned events.

Right on schedule, the very next day, about 7 pm, three people rang Karen de la Carriere’s doorbell on OSA’s behalf asking to see her. They said, “We are making a documentary.”

Because she knew in advance they were coming, she had a reception committee on hand to welcome them. The Church agents arrived in a black Acura SUV, California license plate 6EYN337. The license plate allegedly revealed the owner to as Ed Bryan, an OT VIII who owns Bryan Exhaust Hood Cleaning, 2808 North Naomi Street, Burbank, CA 91504. Attached to the back driver's side of the car was a magnetic sign that read "Squirrel Busters Productions."

Like Michael, Karen got in her report to the LAPD.

Additionally, once Marty saw the photo that Karen's PI friend turned up, Marty recognized Ed Bryan as having covertly eavesdropped on his conversation on him while in California. "This is the guy who was in the booth behind us at the restaurant," Marty added in an email. "He was with a woman I did not recognize. I asked others at our table if they had ever seen this guy, because his face looked familiar. So, Karen, that reptilian loser spied on our dinner at P. F. Chang's in Santa Monica a couple weeks back. These people are damaged; very damaged."

Thoughtful

Any Scientologist who was around during the 1970s will fondly remember the old HQS Course.

It cost $75, took forever to do and cost orgs and missions the earth to deliver. It was the all-time loss leader, and if organizations had been allowed to deliver no other services they would have gone broke in no time.

But there was great wisdom in that HQS Course and great results: nearly everyone who did it became a Scientologist and considered themselves firmly on the Bridge and went on to other auditing and training services. That course made Scientologists by the thousands and had far fewer drop outs than the Div 6 TRs Course that usually preceded it.

In the 1980s, the course was revised in its entirety based on no evaluation and no review of the tremendous results of the 1970s course. The new course contained much less co-auditing, cost many times more and was not piloted to any extent, certainly not enough to determine how it would affect the lineup of Div 6 services for people newly interested in Scientology. In that regard the new HQS Course was a disaster.

As the RTRC compiler of that 1987 pile of crap* I am helping to right that wrong now with a new--well, actually old--HQS Course for use in the Independent field. The successful 1970s HQS was compiled by perhaps the most successful, visionary Div 6 Scientologist of all besides LRH himself, his daughter, Diana. For years, Diana was Commodore’s Staff over Div 6 and developed several big think strategies for the field. She compiled the HQS Course in 1972 and this is the basis of the course we are making available again today. The 1972 course contained a survey of Scientology basics and included training on TRs and lots of co-auditing on Objective Processes as well as Self Analysis Lists which made brand new Scientologists into experienced co-auditors. All this has been resurrected on this new course. Her 1972 course had a section at the end that oriented the student to Scientology organizations and we have broadened that in this new version to orient the student to life as a Scientologist.

The basic principles presented on the course and the incredible co-auditing that a student gives and receives, definitely enable anyone to make up his or her mind about Scientology. If a person only did this course and no other, they would know for certain either a) that Scientology is something that is beneficial in their life or else b) that it isn’t, and can move on knowing they had invested enough of their effort and time to have made an honest assessment.

From my experience, though, nearly everybody concludes the former.

Best of luck to everyone who downloads and avails themselves of the new Independent Hubbard Qualified Scientologist Course.

Click here to download Dan's new IHQS Checksheet.

Dan Koon
John Aaron Williams

*Note: While Dan compiled the 1987 version of Diana’s original course from the 1970s, what actually happened was this: David Miscavige (who else?) “knew best” and decided the original HQS Course took too long. So, Miscavige ordered the old course be replaced and the dirty work fell to Dan. — Thoughtful

Inside skinny

Tagged as NOI

• New people are supposed to buy and read books.
• Book buyers are encouraged to get auditing.
• PCs are encouraged to get onto training.
• Auditors are encouraged to become Field Staff Members or field auditors or start groups or join staff.

Miscavige brand VIP treatment

I received the following letter yesterday from James R. Lewis, a religious scholar who has written several papers on the Church of Scientology. I am publishing his article in full without alteration. - Thoughtful

18 January 2011

An Open Letter to:

Scientologists, Ex-Scientologists, and Critics of the Church of Scientology

James R. Lewis

[This letter may be re-posted, as long as it is reproduced in full, without alteration. JRL]

I am an academician and a specialist in the field of new religious movements. Particularly during my early career, much of my research focused on the alternative religions that have been labeled “cults,” and on the controversies in which they have been involved. Though I have sometimes been criticized as a “cult apologist,” in point of fact my views on such groups are nuanced and often critical (in this regard, refer, for example, to my online essay, “Safe Sects?” http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm). It should especially be noted that my views on these matters generally conform to the consensus views of mainstream scholars of new religions (i.e., my views are not unique to me). As an academician, my primary audience has been other academicians. Thus, over the years, I have ignored the often ad hominem criticisms that have been leveled against me online by individuals involved in the cult controversy.

However, two things have happened in recent years that have prompted me to address these matters – particularly as they involve the Church of Scientology (CoS) – in a more personal way: (1) My edited collection on Scientology, published by Oxford University Press in 2009, had the effect of raising my profile in the cult controversy. (2) As the result of the defection of large numbers of upper level Scientologists, the Church of Scientology has received increasing media attention – which has had the effect of calling further attention to my Scientology anthology. Thus it seems that circumstances have been pushing me to set forth some of my views on CoS – both academic and personal – in a public way. Hence the current “open letter,” which I hope will be widely distributed (and not quoted out of context).

I should preface my remarks by noting that academicians are ill-suited to participate directly in public controversies, in part because, as a group, we do not think in sound bites. Also, in almost any controversy, all sides of the conflict tend to boil issues down to black-and-white, good-vs.-evil terms, and sometimes adopt a belligerent attitude of “you’re either for us or against us.” I anticipated this reaction when, in the introduction to the Scientology anthology, I asserted that “This volume will...likely end up pleasing no one engaged in the Scientology/anti-Scientology conflict....”

Predictably, critics trashed the book as a public relations exercise, “obviously” paid for by the Church of Scientology. However – as any informed observer could easily have anticipated – CoS hated the collection, particularly the Xenu chapter, which one of my former contacts in the Church characterized as “blasphemy.” Another chapter described CoS’s attempts to suppress scholarship that the Church viewed as presenting Scientology in a negative light. And there were other critical evaluations peppered throughout the text. But, because the book as a whole was not a negative exposé, many anti-Scientologists dismissed the whole collection as a “whitewash.” For its part, the Church of Scientology soon stopped communicating with me altogether, meaning that I have probably been re-categorized as an SP as a direct result of my book.

In this Open Letter, I will not rehearse the social-scientific analysis of the cult controversy that is the consensus view of mainstream new religion researchers. Rather, I will focus the discussion on my evolving understanding of the Church of Scientology.

Neither I nor the great majority of new religions specialists view ourselves as defenders of groups like Scientology. Rather, we are interested in understanding social-psychological processes and the dynamics of social conflict. The fact that many of our analyses undermine the more simplistic accusations leveled against controversial new religions makes it appear to critics caught up in black-and-white thinking that we have made a conscious choice to defend “cults.” However, to the extent that we have chosen to defend anything, we understand ourselves as defending good science against bad science, and, in some cases, as defending religious liberty against the threat to religious liberty posed by the least sophisticated forms of anti-cultism.

My orientation to the study of new religions is informed by the fact that, for three years in my early twenties, I was a member of a controversial new religion, Yogi Bhajan’s 3HO (I have recently described my defection from 3HO in an online article, “Autobiography of a Schism” http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2010/articles/lewis_2010.pdf). Though I held certain negative feelings toward my former organization after my exit, these feelings were on par with the feelings one might have about one’s ex-spouse following a divorce (i.e., bad, but not extraordinary). Additionally, I had a number of positive experiences during my term of membership in 3HO that served to balance out my negative experiences.

When I first became interested in the cult controversy as a subject of academic inquiry in the mid 1980s, I was struck by the uniformly negative picture painted by “deprogrammed” ex-members of controversial groups – a picture that contrasted sharply with the mixed evaluation I had formed of 3HO. I suspected these negative evaluations were shaped, at least in part, by the deprogramming experience itself. So I surveyed former members – both deprogrammed and non-deprogrammed – and found that the data strongly supported my hypothesis. (In this regard, refer, for example, to my “Apostates and the Legitimation of Repression,” Sociological Analysis 49:4. 1989, and my “Reconstructing the ‘Cult’ Experience,” Sociological Analysis 42:2. 1986. Parts of these papers reappeared in my Legitimating New Religions. 2003.)

I first made contact with the Church of Scientology during this period for the purpose of locating former Scientologists to whom I could send questionnaires (this never worked out because of CoS’s ill-conceived policy of disconnecting itself from ex-members). A few years later, the Scientology organization became enthusiastic about the conclusions I had reached, and later referred to my research in some of its legal cases – in large part due to the fact that this research called into question the hostile testimony of deprogrammed former Scientologists.

CoS subsequently decided that I was an ‘ally’ (a quasi-technical term within the universe of exotic Church jargon). From that point forward, I was sometimes (but not frequently) asked to write letters of support, usually in response to specific conflicts. I was also once asked to testify as an expert witness in a Scientology court case (to which I agreed, though I never did testify). Additionally, during the years I lived in Santa Barbara, California, I attended various Church events, particularly events at the Hollywood Celebrity Center. Finally, during the ten years I lived in the Midwest, I regularly invited Scientologists from the Chicago Org to speak in my university classes. (As part of my approach to teaching courses on new religions, I invited representatives of many different groups to speak in my classes – not just Scientologists.)

I was, of course, aware of CoS’s unpleasant history, particularly its often vicious attacks on perceived enemies. But, as I got to know Scientologists on a personal basis, I was informed – and came to believe – that the illegal and truly onerous attacks had been discontinued following the dissolution of the Guardian’s Office in 1983. (Unfortunately, the systematic harassment of high-profile ex-members and other critics has become de rigueur in recent years.) And while I disliked certain aspects of Scientology – particularly certain aspects of the Scientology organization – my personal experiences with Scientologists over the course of the past two dozen years have been generally quite positive. As a result of my recent book and as a result of this letter, they may never speak to me again, but I still like and respect almost everyone I knew within the Church.

One aspect of the organization that particularly impressed me was the Church’s social outreach activities, such as the Literacy Crusade and Criminon. Though often dismissed by critics as “front groups,” or as elaborate PR exercises, it is clear that, at Source, these activities are serious enterprises. At several junctures over the years of my acquaintance with CoS, I even requested support for undertaking an academic study of these enterprises. These requests were always denied (for which, in hindsight, I am exceedingly grateful).

I was not prompted to re-think my basic evaluation of the Church of Scientology until relatively recently. This came about as a consequence of several different factors:

(1) The defection of large numbers of long-time, high-ranking Scientologists, who reported intensive abuse at the highest levels of the Church. I am aware that CoS’s position on this has been to deny everything, and to accuse these ex-members of conspiring to concoct a negative picture of events. I find the official response unconvincing.

(2) The sacking of Heber Jentzsch. I knew Heber from when I first began to communicate with CoS in the mid 1980s. I respected him and came to regard him as someone I could trust. Retrospectively, I can now see that my evaluation of Heber significantly shaped my evaluation of the Church. So when he was taken off the front lines and consigned to some dungeon (figuratively speaking) in Gilman Hot Springs, it served to confirm, to my mind, what the high-ranking defectors were saying.

(3) The marketing of “new editions” of L. Ron Hubbard’s basic works. New, slightly “corrected” editions of Hubbard’s basic books have been issued, and Scientologists have been asked to purchase as many sets of volumes as possible so that complete sets can be donated to libraries across the globe. This has been done in the name of the utopian ideal of “clearing the planet.” But placing books in libraries seems an ill-conceived strategy for spreading any sort of message in a digital age. I was a guest at a Scientology workshop not too many years ago where I observed the very hard-sell tactics used to unload these multi-volume sets. It was transparent that this was a fund-raising ploy rather than an effective strategy for disseminating the message. Though I know Scientology has regularly been accused of using unethical methods for raising money, I felt that this was a particularly disingenuous tactic – and yet another symptom of the dysfunctionality of the Church’s top leadership.

This Open Letter is not an apology for anything I have written in the past on Scientology or on the cult controversy. I stand by, and am quite happy with, my body of work up to this point. Rather, in light of new information I have been receiving on the Church of Scientology, there are certain aspects of my scholarship that I would like to clarify and supplement as they bear on the current controversy.

In the first place, I should say that the only article-length paper I have ever written on CoS is my chapter on the growth of the Church in the Scientology anthology. In that piece, I criticized the claim that Scientology was the “fastest growing religion in the world,” but I also painted a picture of an expanding organization enjoying healthy growth. Though the statistics I collected (from the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) did not go beyond 2001, more recent data from the 2006 New Zealand and Australian censuses have continued to support this picture.

However, current events have completely overturned my evaluation of the CoS as a rapidly expanding religion. The relatively recent defection of large numbers of long-time, high-level Scientologists – some of the organization’s most experienced administrators and others with expertise in delivering the highest levels of Scientology technology – bodes poorly for the future of the Church. In particular, the pattern of solid growth I analyzed just a few years ago seems suddenly to have ground to a halt.

According to the pseudonymous ‘Plockton,’ who claims to have contacted ARIS (American Religious Identification Survey) researchers directly, the ARIS estimate for the number of Scientologists in the U.S. for 2008 was 25,000. (I referred to ARIS data in my chapter on the growth of Scientology.) This contrasts sharply with the 55,000 figure from the 2001 ARIS survey. (“2008 ARIS Study on Scientology Membership in US – Important Data.” Posted March 28, 2009 at: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=30372.) The drop in total numbers was likely less dramatic than these figures indicate (due to sampling issues discussed by Plockton in his posting).

In 2011, there will be new national censuses in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, all of which will produce figures for total numbers of self-identified Scientologists. So by 2012, it will be relatively simple to contrast these numbers with prior census data. The figures derived from these comparisons will indicate whether membership in the Church of Scientology is growing or declining. Assuming the latter, these statistics should decisively refute David Miscavige’s claim that, under his leadership, CoS has become “the fastest growing religion in the world.”

Secondly, I have seen my research on former members of controversial new religions misrepresented. To clarify what should already have been transparent: The central point of comparison in my several articles on new religion apostates was between deprogrammed ex-members and other ex-members who left their respective movements on their own, without outside intervention. As mentioned earlier, I found a highly significant difference in the post-involvement attitudes of these two sets of apostates, a difference that called into question the veracity of statements made by deprogrammed ex-members about the religious groups to which they had belonged. My questionnaire data had nothing to say about individuals who defected without this kind of an intervention, except that they were likely more objective about their membership period than their deprogrammed counterparts. So, to be perfectly clear: anyone who cites my conclusions about deprogrammees as a way of dismissing the testimony of voluntary defectors – including the testimony of individuals who left the Church of Scientology – is either consciously misrepresenting my work or stupid.

Finally, another criticism leveled against the Scientology anthology was that it should have included a chapter on ex-Scientologists, and perhaps another chapter on the Freezone. I think this is an appropriate critique. I will therefore be undertaking systematic research on former Scientologists and on the Freezone – research that will be reported in future publications. If any ex-CoS members reading this Open Letter think they might be interested in participating in this project, please contact me at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

James R. Lewis