Clerk1

Caroline posted on Exscientologist Message Board:

At least some of the Aftermath people are still okay with the SP doctrine and declaring certain people “evil.” They just don’t want to be on the receiving end.

Gerry reached out to Leah Remini in February 2019 about the Aftermath’s support for Scientology’s SP doctrine. (Complete letter with images here.)

Poster “dchoiceisalwaysrs” posted in response:

Caroline. Without going through a whole lot here as I have been up for 17 hours reading all kinds of things and I am rather tired, I will just say that there is one key part that I disagree with Gerry. There are two Hubbardian methods of defining an SP and those are A) the 12 Characteristics and B) as Gerry essentially stated the Crimes/High Crimes itemized in the NOT ETHICS book but the conflated, ethics with SCN (in)-JUSTICE, book.
I do however see how in practice the Scientologist’s who adhere to method B as being the predominate and senior deciding method.

About the excerpted transcript of Leah talking about evil as suppressives…I will have to get back on that but it seems ‘out of place or out of context or I am just too tired to have made sense of it…although I think it might actually tie into Gerry’s omission of the 12 Characteristics…NO?

By the way, I was just thinking a couple of days ago that Gerry’s actions resulting in the Admissions are on the top rung in my mind for the greatest reveal of the malignancy of Scientology and their organizations. And please pass along my gratitude for Gerry’s integrity.

And before I pass out..lol, I do hope that Mike Rinder, who has stepped up quite nicely recently, will apologize in person to Gerry for what Mike did while acting as a truth suppressor et al and thus Gerry.

Caroline posted:

Yay! A disagreement!

Seriously, I appreciate you putting your mind to this topic. I’ve forwarded your post to Gerry and he’d like to respond. I’ll post it when he does.

Everyone will get two responses, as it turns out, because I’ll deal separately with “Hubbard’s Twelve Characteristics,” or “Hubbard’s Twelve Attitudes,” and whether they’ve been omitted or unconsidered in the literature treating the Scientologists’ SP doctrine. Other matters I’ll respond to here.¹

1. Thanks for your kind comment about Hubbard’s Admissions. For some time now I’ve used the term “Affirmations,” but “Admissions” is certainly acceptable, and certainly interchangeable. I recently posted a response to academic Scientology collaborator Massimo Introvigne, who challenged the Affirmations’ authenticity, denigrated my honesty, and disparaging their relevance for understanding Hubbard’s thought, even if they are authentic. ²
2. Thanks too for your comment about my integrity. You might not have known that my “integrity” was a button the Miscavige conspirators used on me to lure me into their operation. E.g., from an article I wrote last February, “Blowing the lid off the problem with Clearwater:”

What Rinder is doing with you regarding his knowledge of what he did and had done in Clearwater is very similar to the way he “handled” me in his “Loyalist Operation” conspiracy in the 1980’s. He ran OSA in the US at that time, and was responsible, under cult head Miscavige for the op. The major targets were to criminally entrap me and ultimately criminally frame me.

He and his co-conspirators, who called themselves the “Loyalists,” contacted me in 1984 with claims that they were “reformers” who wanted to “reform” their cult and wanted my help. This was a step in what is called the “Armstrong Operation,” which the Scientologists initiated as soon as I left the cult. The Armstrong Op’s goal is my obliteration.

The “Loyalists” knew, they said, that the cult’s leaders were criminal. This was no surprise, because I already knew it in spades. So did relevant agencies and officials in the US Federal Government, so did courts, and so did pretty well everyone else. The “Loyalists” claimed they wanted to end the Miscavige regime’s lies, abuses and criminality, and have Miscavige, the criminal usurper of all things wise and wonderful, criminally prosecuted. Rinder and his co-conspirators claimed to be dedicated to opposing, exposing and reforming the cult. They claimed they wanted my help because I had just prevailed in court against the criminal Scientology leadership and had integrity.³

E.g., from an article I wrote last December, “Suicide Note:”

In June 1984, following a lengthy trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, I had prevailed in the first lawsuit the Scientologists brought against me. Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. issued an important judgment that besides exonerating me, declared Scientology head Hubbard virtually a pathological liar, condemned the Scientologists’ practice of “culling” auditing folders, and confronted and articulated the functioning of the Suppressive Person doctrine and its criminal application, which Hubbard euphemized as “fair game.”

At the same time, Dan Sherman, an “old friend” from my Sea Org days, a writer, contacted me and said he was in touch with a group of “reformers” inside the cult, and communicated they wanted my help. He said they respected my “integrity” and what I had done, considered that Hubbard and his regime had somehow been usurped, and the usurping Scientologists were criminals. Sherman said the “reformers,” who called themselves “Loyalists,” wanted to get usurper head David Miscavige prosecuted, and intended to make the organization honest and decent.

I met with four Loyalist-connected persons perhaps a dozen times over a four month period, including twice with Rinder, whom I had known at that time for more than ten years. He was presented to me as the person in charge of the “Loyalists’” legal affairs. He pretended to be friendly and on my side against the Scientology “criminals,” and looked to me for a lawful way to take control and stop the criminal behavior. My lawyer drafted a “bare bones” complaint on behalf of the “Loyalists” to have the court put the organization into receivership.

Rinder and the rest of the claimed reform-seeking Loyalists were actually being directed by Miscavige, and were scheming and acting to set me up and destroy me. The Loyalists even took me to a lawyer Thomas Janeway who pretended to be on my side against Scientology, but was actually working for the Scientologists.⁴

And way back in a February 1994 declaration that was filed in Scientology v. Fishman and Geetrz:

4. During the 1984 trial of the organization’s case against me, Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court no. C420153 (“Armstrong I“), Sherman told me that one of these friends, whom he called “Joey,” had told him that there was an actual group inside the organization who were dedicated to reforming it because management had become suppressive. They called themselves the “Loyalists,” claiming to be “loyal” to the preservation of the ideals of Scientology, “what worked.” They also recognized that its leaders were criminal, crazy, dangerous, and not dedicated to those ideals but were acting to destroy them. The “Loyalists” wanted to take control in a well-planned, effective and peaceful action before some tragedy happened. They claimed to know of criminal activities and a key part of their plan was the documenting of these activities.

5. Sherman said they were 35 in number, or at least there were 35 who knew they were “Loyalists,” all smart, reasonable and not fanatics. Some of them were his old friends from B-1. Such persons tended to be smart, reasonable and often were not fanatics. The people whom I knew to be, including Hubbard, the organization leaders, prided themselves on their recognition of unreasonableness as a virtue, and maintained an abiding fanaticism to justify their abuses and keep their positions of power. Sherman was smart and gave every appearance of being reasonable and unfanatical. He said the Loyalists knew he was in communication with me and wanted to talk with me but were afraid for their lives. This was not surprising to me because I knew from my own experiences that the organization had a brutal side and its leaders were dangerous, armed and desperate. Thus the first communications with the Loyalists were a few messages relayed by Sherman. They said that I had a proven record against the organization, that my integrity had been unshakable and they wanted my help.⁵

Ironically it was Judge Breckenridge, who had presided over the Scientologists’ trial against me in LA Superior Court in the spring of 1984, who provided the conspirators with the integrity button:

However, just as the plaintiffs have First Amendment rights, the defendant has a Constitutional right to an attorney of his own choosing. In legal contemplation the fact that defendant selected Mr. Flynn rather than some other lawyer cannot by itself be tortious. In determining whether the defendant unreasonably invaded Mrs. Hubbard’s privacy, the court is satisfied the invasion was slight, and the reasons and justification for defendant’s conduct manifest. Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to “fair game.” The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer’s custody. He may have indulged in overkill, in the sense that he took voluminous materials, some of which appear only marginally relevant to his defense. But he was not a lawyer and cannot be held to that precise standard of judgment. Further, at the time that he was accumulating the material, he was terrified and undergoing severe emotional turmoil. The court is satisfied that he did not unreasonably intrude upon Mrs. Hubbard’s privacy under the circumstances by in effect simply making his knowledge that of his attorneys. It is, of course, rather ironic that the person who authorized G.O. order 121669 should complain about an invasion of privacy. The practice of culling supposedly confidential “P.C. folders or files” to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and or harassment is repugnant and outrageous. The Guardian’s Office, which plaintiff headed, was no respector of anyone’s civil rights, particularly that of privacy. Plaintiff Mary Sue Hubbard’s cause of action for conversion must fail for the same reason as plaintiff Church. The documents were all together in Omar Garrison’s possession. There was no rational way the defendant could make any distinction.

[…]

Appendix

Defendant Armstrong was involved with Scientology from 1969 through 1981, a period spanning 12 years. During that time he was a dedicated and devoted member who revered the founder, L. Ron Hubbard. There was little that Defendant Armstrong would not do for Hubbard or the Organization. He gave up formal education, one-third of his life, money and anything he could give in order to further the goals of Scientology, goals he believed were based upon the truth, honesty, integrity of Hubbard and the Organization.

[…]

During 1980 Defendant Armstrong remained convinced of Hubbard’s honesty and integrity and believed that the representations he had made about himself in various publications were truthful. Defendant Armstrong was devoted to Hubbard and was convinced that any information which he discovered to be unflattering of Hubbard or contradictory to what Hubbard has said about himself, was a lie being spread by Hubbard’s enemies. Even when Defendant Armstrong located documents in Hubbard’s Archives which indicated that representations made by Hubbard and the Organization were untrue, Defendant Armstrong would find some means to “explain away” the contradictory information.

Slowly, however, throughout 1981, Defendant Armstrong began to see that Hubbard and the Organization had continuously lied about Hubbard’s past, his credentials, and his accomplishments. Defendant Armstrong believed, in good faith, that the only means by which Scientology could succeed in what Defendant Armstrong believed was its goal of creating an ethical environment on earth, and the only way Hubbard could be free of his critics, would be for Hubbard and the Organization to discontinue the lies about Hubbard’s past, his credentials, and accomplishments. Defendant Armstrong resisted any public relations piece or announcement about Hubbard which the L. Ron Hubbard Public Relations Bureau proposed for publication which was not factual. Defendant Armstrong attempted to change and make accurate the various “about the author” sections in Scientology books, and further, Defendant rewrote or critiqued several of these and other publications for the L. Ron Hubbard Public Relations Bureau and various Scientology Organizations. Defendant Armstrong believed and desired that the Scientology Organization and its leader discontinue the perpetration of the massive fraud upon the innocent followers of Scientology, and the public at large.⁶

“Integrity,” and related compliments, can bring risibly gaslighty thoughts to mind. But thanks nevertheless.

3. Rinder has not stepped up. He has refused to step up. I have made it very clear for several years that he is being asked to step up. Throughout these years, he has run standard Scientology ignore tech on me, and kept his black PR working.

After OJ Simpson murdered his wife and Ronald Goldman, he made this public statement:

My first obligation is to my young children, who will be raised the way that Nicole and I had always planned. … But when things have settled a bit, I will pursue as my primary goal in life the killer or killers who slaughtered Nicole and Mr. Goldman. They are out there somewhere. Whatever it takes to identify them and bring them in, I will provide somehow. ⁷

As used here, “to step up” means “to accept a challenge or responsibility for something; to rise to the occasion.” It certainly sounds as if Simpson was stepping up, right? He sounded like he was rising to the occasion, taking responsibility for bringing the murderer or murderers to justice. But Simpson was doing anything but stepping up, anything but rising to the occasion, anything but taking responsibility.

The same is true, really, with Mike Rinder. If a person really was ignorant of what Rinder had actually and specifically done — his antisocial or criminal actions to silence or destroy real persons in the Suppressive Person religious class – it might look as if Rinder is stepping up, rising to the occasion, taking responsibility. And Rinder even has people preserving or increasing an image of him stepping up quite nicely. Like Simpson, however, despite appearances or PR, Rinder has not actually stepped up.

Just as Simpson never stepped up in the murder of Nicole and Goldman, Rinder has never stepped up in the long conspiracy and multiple programs to silence or destroy me. Simpson and Rinder have doubtlessly stepped up about other things, but in specific cases with real persons, where it really matters, they have not stepped up. Simpson could get an Emmy for making his goal the pursuit of the perpetrators, for providing whatever it takes to bring them in, for stepping up. And just as Simpson really did murder Nicole and Goldman, Rinder really did persecute me, really did conspire to destroy me.

4. Of course an apology from Rinder would be nice. Without him doing the right thing, however, without him stepping up, without him telling the truth that would assist or free his victims, without him repudiating the black PR he propagated, an apology would be heartless, and not an apology at all. I’ve explained this a number of times. ⁸

Notes

Caroline posted on Exscientologist Message Board:

At least some of the Aftermath people are still okay with the SP doctrine and declaring certain people “evil.” They just don’t want to be on the receiving end.

Gerry reached out to Leah Remini in February 2019 about the Aftermath’s support for Scientology’s SP doctrine. (Complete letter with images here.)

Poster “dchoiceisalwaysrs” posted in response:

I will just say that there is one key part that I disagree with Gerry. There are two Hubbardian methods of defining an SP and those are A) the 12 Characteristics and B) as Gerry essentially stated the Crimes/High Crimes itemized in the NOT ETHICS book but the conflated, ethics with SCN (in)-JUSTICE, book. I do however see how in practice the Scientologist’s who adhere to method B as being the predominate and senior deciding method.

About the excerpted transcript of Leah talking about evil as suppressives…I will have to get back on that but it seems ‘out of place or out of context or I am just too tired to have made sense of it…although I think it might actually tie into Gerry’s omission of the 12 Characteristics…NO?

“Hubbard’s Twelve Characteristics” or “Hubbard’s Twelve Attitudes,” are listed in his policy letter of September 27, 1966, “The Antisocial Personality [–] The Anti-Scientologist.”¹

As can be seen in the writings about the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine, I have not omitted these characteristics or attitudes at all, but have addressed them and how they relate to the doctrine. See, e.g., my June 29, 2013 article “SPDL: The SP Doctrine on Trial: Opening Statement by Gerry Armstrong,” a long relevant excerpt from which follows:

Mike Rinder, like Mr. Rathbun, a long time enforcer of the Suppressive Person doctrine for the Scientologists, stated on his blog earlier this month:

Suppressive Persons are denominated as those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of the anti-social personality.

This is false. It also contains a grammatical oddity. To denominate something means to name it. So, retaining his sentence elements, what Mr. Rinder meant was, and he should have written:

Those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of the anti-social personality are denominated “Suppressive Persons.”

This is false, however, because individuals denominated “Suppressive Persons” do not display the majority of the characteristics of antisocial personalities, or even any of these characteristics. What Mr. Rinder is saying is black PR.

Steve Hall, an “Independent” Scientology leader, as Mr. Rathbun has been, wrote, for example, on his blog in 2012, in an article he called “The Sociopath of Scientology,” referring to current cult head David Miscavige:

it is easy to see in LRH’s [Mr. Hubbard’s] writings when he had encountered the sociopath or “suppressive person” because he starts to describe the personality several times.

[…]

the clearest picture of the sociopathic, antisocial or suppressive personality.

Mr. Hall also asserts that mental health professionals have validated Mr. Hubbard’s work identifying the characteristics of antisocial personalities.

Martha Stout has greatly contributed to the work that LRH began — she has identified the SP using criteria that are truly original. Sociopaths (SPs) currently number 4% in the US as I mentioned which puts social personalities at 96%.

Martha Stout is a psychologist, and author of the widely-read and often-cited book The Sociopath Next Door, and she has done no such thing. She has not identified the SP or SPs, and she has provided no criteria for identifying them. She identified the sociopath, and it could be said that she provided criteria to do so. SPs are not, however, sociopaths, and the criteria for their respective identification are unrelated.

All criteria for identifying SPs are scientological and scriptural, provided by Mr. Hubbard. They are unalterable, as is all Scientology scripture, and may not be added to.

In 2009 the Tampa Bay Times recorded Amy Scobee saying:

And the description of a suppressive person, if anyone wants to look it up on the Internet or whatever, the perfect example is the description of — the profile of a sociopath.

Ms. Scobee might really have believed this at the time, even as an Exscientologist, but it is false. The profile of a sociopath does not describe a Suppressive Person. Mr. Hubbard described, even defined, the SP very exactly in Scientology scripture.

Lawrence Wright in his 2013 Scientology book Going Clear says:

Anyone who stands in the way of a thetan’s progress is a Suppressive Person (SP). This is a key concept in Scientology. Hubbard used the term to describe a sociopath.

Mr. Hubbard did not.

It is true that, more or less, anyone who stands in the way of a Scientologist’s progress in Scientology is a Suppressive Person or SP. That’s roughly per definition. It is true that this is a key concept in Scientology.

Mr. Hubbard did not, however, use the term Suppressive Person to describe a sociopath. He used the term sociopath, or really psychopath or antisocial personality, to describe a Suppressive Person. There is a difference.

The key scriptural policy letter for understanding the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine, and in which Mr. Hubbard defines SP quite clearly is Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter of March 1, 1965 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – the Fair Game Law.” In different contexts this policy letter is dated March 7, 1965.

He states:

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.

[…]

The terms “High Crimes” and “Suppressive Acts” were used interchangeably by Mr. Hubbard in Scientology scripture and by Scientologists in Scientology.

A long list of Suppressive Acts is included in Scientology’s book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and the same definitions are given for “SP,” “Suppressive Acts” and “PTS” as in the 1965 policy letter. The Ethics book I’m reading from is © 1998.

Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.

The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to suppressive persons or groups. [In the Ethics book, the Scientologists minusculized the “s” and the “p” of Suppressive Persons and the “g” of Groups.]

A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a preclear yet remains connected to a person or group that is a suppressive person or group.

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts. [The Scientologists minusculized the “s” and “a” of Suppressive Acts.]

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed here at length. [The original says, “which are listed at length in this policy letter.”]

On August 7, 1965 Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics of.” “Suppressive” as a noun, or “Suppressive Person” appears 5 times in this policy letter. “SP,” or “SPs,” referring to Suppressive Persons, appear 41 times. There is no mention of antisocial personalities, psychopaths or sociopaths.

The 16 “characteristics” of SPs that Mr. Hubbard lists in this policy letter are virtually all Scientology-specific. The “characteristics” concerned, for example, Scientology policy, dissemination of Scientology, orgs, Scientology staff, auditing, the “Examiner” post, and “restimulation,” which has a particular meaning in Scientology.²

On September 27,1966, a year and a half after issuing the “Suppressive Acts” policy letter, Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “The Antisocial Personality – The Anti-Scientologist.” He also issued this policy letter as a “technical bulletin.” The title is the only place in this approximately 3,000 word document where the word “Scientologist” appears. The word “Scientology” does not appear. The term “antisocial” appears 59 times. Of those, “antisocial personality” or “antisocial personalities” appear 43 times. “Characteristic” or “characteristics” appear 12 times. Mr. Hubbard also uses “attributes,” referring to “characteristics,” which is the term known throughout Scientology.

In this policy letter, Mr. Hubbard lists what he claims are the 12 characteristics of the antisocial personality, and the converse 12 characteristics of the “social personality.” Scientologists learn very early in their indoctrination about these “12 characteristics” of the antisocial personality, and these describe what SPs are.

He wrote:

Thus it is the twelve given characteristics alone which identify the anti-social personality. And these same twelve reversed are the sole criteria of the social personality if one wishes to be truthful about them.

This policy letter is what is being used to show that Mr. Hubbard described the antisocial personality. The fact of his description is being used to equate antisocial personalities with anti-scientologists, or “Suppressive Persons.” This equation is being validated or proven, Mr. Rathbun and others say, because mental health scientists’ descriptions of the antisocial personality in the 21^st century are in some ways or words similar to Mr. Hubbard’s 1966 description.

In a rewrite of the SP doctrine’s history, Steve Hall has altered the sequence in which Mr. Hubbard first published his Suppressive Acts or High Crimes list and his 12 characteristics of his antisocial personality.

For example, did you know that at one point LRH wrote in an HCOPL anyone who blows from course should be declared an SP? In other words, there are the 12 characteristics of an antisocial personality plus 12 characteristics of a social personality which together was at one time, “The Test.” Then later, there came a list of high crimes which apparently if you violated them, rendered the test irrelevant.

The High Crimes list was March 1965. “The Antisocial Personality, the Anti-Scientologist” with its 12 characteristics was September 1966. These “characteristics” were never the test, or a test, for identifying or declaring someone a Suppressive Person. SPs were identified by their commission of Suppressive Acts; that is, acts that might reduce Scientology’s influence or activities or the success of some Scientologist, such as L. Ron Hubbard. When SPs were identified, then the characteristics of antisocial personalities were ascribed to them, or smeared on them.

On 17 March 1965, Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “Fair Game Law — Organizational Suppressive Acts — The Source of the Fair Game Law,” which specifically added “blowing,” as Mr. Hall put it, to the March 1, 1965 policy letter “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law.”

Students or pcs who resign or leave courses or sessions and refuse to return despite normal efforts, become suppressive of that course or organization and cease to have the rights of its protection or assistance.

So the correct sequence, using Mr. Hall’s terminology and process:

at one point LRH wrote an HCOPL that contained a list of high crimes, which if you violated them got you declared SP. Later, the same month, he wrote in an HCOPL: anyone who blows from course should be declared an SP! 18 months later there are his 12 characteristics of an antisocial personality plus 12 characteristics of a social personality which together LRH presented as “The Test.”

Mr. Hubbard had to have been lying about his 12 characteristics being the test, or any test, in Scientology, for identifying and declaring SPs. His test, as he states it in his “Antisocial Personality – Anti-Scientologist” policy letter is actually infantile and antisocial. But it was never used; and he ran all of Scientology. What was used for identifying and declaring SPs was the commission of SP Acts that might reduce his or his organization’s influence or successes.³

See, e.g, my Suppressive Person Declare. Notice that there are no “characteristics” or “attitudes” of SPs identified or referred to. There are only what the Scientologists/Hubbard said are my actions.

See too, e.g., Caroline’s SP Declare. No mention of her violation of Hubbard’s twelve or sixteen “characteristics;” just her actions, which, the Scientologists claim, violate Hubbard’s some of Hubbard’s “Suppressive Acts.”

The Scientologists don’t give a flying fork, or any other tableware, whether people inside or outside Scientology have these characteristics or attitudes. And the Scientologists do not define an SP with these characteristics. In fact, many of these characteristics are compelled in Scientologists; although, naturally, they deny these characteristics in themselves and project them onto SPs, the persons who “threaten” Scientology.

In essence, you cannot be a Scientologist unless you project your antisocial characteristics onto the SP class. And, in essence,  SPs  are persons who tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists’ antisociality. This projection is, in fact, compelled by such policies as what is laid down in Scientology Policy Directive 28 of August 13, 1982, “Suppressive Act – Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person:”⁴

The clipped form of the SP doctrine asserts that people who threaten Scientology or Scientologists are “Suppressive Persons,” or “SPs;” or stated the other way around, SPs are persons who threaten Scientology or Scientologists. (That’s the definition.) For the most part, these are persons who tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology or Scientologists that the Scientologists don’t want told. (There is a mountain of such truth or truths.) Hubbard taught, and the Scientologists teach, that SPs are what are known in wog science as antisocial personalities, or sociopaths, or psychopaths. And Hubbard taught and Scientologists teach that SPs have certain antisocial or antiscientology characteristics. These characteristics are to be both adopted, and justified, by Scientologists in relation to the SP class, and are to be projected unexcused onto the subject SPs, the person telling the uncomfortable but vital truth.

Notes

Last November, I wrote the letter that follows to Chilliwack’s Mayor and Councillors, in large part to protest the city’s use of glyphosate for control of weeds downtown. I also suggested a healthy alternative. Mayor Ken Popove’s thanks, but no thanks letter back to me is also below.

A bit oracularly I’d written:

Even if in the future it turns out that glyphosate is somehow proven to be in no way harmful to humans, however, its use for cosmetic purposes in downtown Chilliwack will very likely become a public issue before that happens.

I just saw in The Chilliwack Progress that glyphosate has become that public issue:
https://www.theprogress.com/news/petition-to-ban-glyphosate-coming-to-chilliwack-this-fall/

Way to go Natalie Forstbauer!

Here’s the petition: https://www.change.org/p/chilliwack-school-district-chilliwack-keep-our-school-yards-green-and-safe-stop-using-roundup-and-glyphosate-56d8c5c3-44d7-45a4-89f6-3cb2511a2105

Happy BC Day!

Gerry & Caroline

 

November 17, 2018

His Worship Ken Popove
Mayor of Chilliwack
and City Councillors
8550 Young Road
Chilliwack, BC V2P 8A4

By Email and Canada Post

Dear Mayor Popove and Councillors:

For the past twelve years, my wife Caroline Letkeman and I have been living on the edge of downtown Chilliwack at Yale and Williams, fairly well known as the city’s “sorry corner.” Throughout the past eleven years, I have been cleaning sections of the downtown sidewalks, gutters and planters. I have only been dedicating a couple of hours on average per day to this task, because I have a different career and necessarily higher priorities than cleaning even the dirtiest of streets. I try to be on the street job each day around six a.m. and be done whatever I’m going to do before the downtown store or office people arrive.

The remainder of my work day, like right now for example, I devote to writing and research. In 2016, I wrote Mayor Sharon Gaetz and the then Councillors requesting — unsuccessfully so far — that the city pave a short, unpaved, potholed, but heavily-trafficked piece of alleyway from Rowat Avenue to Shandhar Hut Restaurant. Mayor Gaetz wrote back, so there must be a file. I was born in Chilliwack, went to Chilliwack Elementary, Junior High and Senior High, have been a resident for some years, use the address below around the world, and have my own websites with a bunch of biographical material, so there are all kinds of records of who and what I am.

In the process of cleaning sections of downtown Chilliwack’s streets over considerable time, through all the seasons, every kind of weather, different city governments and work crews, and from interactions with residents and visitors, I have observed a number of things and formed a few perhaps helpful ideas, some of which I will pass on to the Council in the near future. As everyone knows, there have been many discussions, plans and efforts over many years to beautify and revitalize Chilliwack’s downtown. My ideas dovetail with this purpose.

I have also taken a slew of photos of downtown conditions and curiosities to document my observations and efforts. Some of these things I will include in a book I’m assembling about my Chilliwack street cleaning experiences, which I have given the working title Wack Job. Right now I am writing you about a life or death matter. Death is represented by the glyphosates the city uses to kill vegetation — for supposedly cosmetic purposes. Life is represented by the common clover plant.

My crusade for cleaner streets and a cleaner planet started in earnest with picking up trash when I was out running in the Berkeley-Oakland hills in California in the 1980’s. I created a group concept, Runners Against Trash (RAT), and in 1995 Runner’s World gave me their “Golden Shoe Award.” http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/rat/runners-world-1995-02.html

I’ve picked up a lot of trash in a lot of places, and kept some miles on roads and trails litter-free for some time. I’ve done some “rat runs” with other rats, but mainly I have done it alone, with gloves and a ratbag. For people who are not runners, there is Citizens Against Trash (CAT). Our motto: “You can join for free and keep everything you can carry.” I have had a book full of offal adventures, and talked trash wherever I’ve sojourned, but only a few points from the Chilliwack period are relevant right now.

In early 2007, after a couple of years of relative isolation, I started picking up litter around Wayside Plaza, the strip mall where Caroline and I live. At the east end of the plaza was, and still is, a Subway. At the west end was, and still is, Plaza Liquor Store. North across Yale was, and is, even closer now, a 7-Eleven, and a little east of that is a Tim Hortons. I’m sure all of you are familiar with these fast-litter outlets, and know first-hand that just beyond Timmies are Chilliwack Middle and Secondary Schools. So the litter was, and still is, profound.

After I had the plaza’s surface litter taken care of, I started scraping and sweeping up the months or years of dirt and weeds that had built up along curbs, around parking stops and street poles, in sidewalk cracks, etc. I used a push broom I borrowed from my brother, and thought it was a good upper body workout that would help my trail running. It did; I won the 60+ age group that year in North Vancouver’s Grouse Grind Race.

After a few hours of pushing broom over some days, and the plaza parking lot and surrounding sidewalks never looking so spiffy, my landlord Alex Marks, who is a fellow mountain trail runner, caught me at work and offered to pay me to keep doing what I was doing. That developed into a daily routine where I get up early and pick up trash and sweep sections of Chilliwack’s sidewalks and streets for a couple of hours or so. My main human encounters are with the downtown’s canners, hookers, addicts scavenging for butts, the recently arrived host of homeless folks, and the odd early exerciser. I try to be home before kids are walking to school and stores and offices start opening, and before I have to do other things.

Alex and his associates own several properties along a half-mile or so stretch through downtown Chilliwack, between Wayside Plaza and the Royal Hotel, and down Mill Street to Victoria Avenue, and I pick up litter from these properties’ entranceways, sidewalks and gutters, and keep the deeper filth and weeds from settling in too comfortably. Obviously, much of what I do for Alex & Co. is technically the city’s responsibility. Because I’m often on foot between these properties, I also work as reasonable to pick up trash and sweep up the detritus along the way. Chilliwack’s downtown magnolias drop an unending ton of organic material, and so do other trees. Sand and dirt accumulate from the Fraser and farm land, and road and air hydrocarbons add grime. And oh the cigarette butts!

My tools are the lowest of tech: work gloves, a table knife, a bucket, a broom and a dustpan. I have a rake and pruners for dealing with planter issues, but generally just take care of basic delittering, and sweep when called for. Key to all of this is access to dumpsters, which Alex & Co. supply. They also have supplied me with gloves and brooms, all of which I admittedly wear out.

At first, there was no one dealing with the nasty masses of crud and growth that built up in curb corners the city’s street sweeper machine never reached. The gravel on the sidewalks after the winter road sanding and snow plowing mess wasn’t being swept up, and you had to feel for the folks pulling grocery carts or pushing walkers, of which the city has a whack. There appears to be no street parking plan or operation to facilitate machine sweeping, and there are increasing downtown stretches these days where cars park at all hours and the sweeper must bypass. Those areas have to be cleaned by hand, so please take a look at the gutters and drains in front of the Royal, where the machine sweeper hasn’t reached for ages.

There was, and is, famous Downtown Chilliwack Business Improvement Association employee Harold Zinke, who picked up sidewalk litter, and now there is also Sarena Myers, and they use somewhat more high tech litter grabbers. But there was a missing function, so I worked as I could a couple of hours a day to make the town a bit cleaner and a little more pleasant to be in. I call what I do “urban detailing,” and it is the best I can do without power equipment.

Mayor Popove has known for several years what I have been doing downtown, because I made a special effort to clean areas used by the annual Classic Car Show, which, until recently, he organized. The gutters become the showroom for these beautiful cars and clean areas make the experience nicer for the owners and the thousands of spectators. I also have made an effort to clean the downtown street locations film crews were setting up in, and to pick up any shoot litter after they leave.

About two years ago, Amber Price, owner of The Bookman on Wellington, who had seen me working around town, reached out and hired me to clean up in front of the bookstore, and thereafter to keep the front and back areas looking as nice as reasonable. There had been an ice storm that winter and quite heavy snow, and the city’s planters were little jungles of broken branches, crushed bushes and winter road debris. The downtown star magnolias have very brittle branches that break in any decent wind and need to be picked up afterward. City work crews, in my observation, tackle the downtown detritus more regularly and conscientiously than when I started dealing with it, and I am grateful for that. But there still is, I believe, a missing more daily function, between what the BIA does and the Operations Department does.

Every year, and multiple times, the city sprays the weeds that grow in sidewalk cracks, in the little spots of soil around power poles, and in many different locations downtown. The persons doing the spraying have told me at different times that they were using Touchdown Total and Roundup, both of which are the common herbicide “glyphosate.” For some years, there have been concerns around the world about the health and ecological risks of glyphosate, and there have been studies and legal cases linking its use to cancer and other serious health problems. See, e.g., https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45155788

The World Health Organization published a report concluding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Glyphosate has been implicated in the precipitous kill off of bees. https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/glyphosate-linked-to-bee-deaths
And its wide use has proliferated glyphosate-resistant weeds. https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/weed-mgmt-and-glyphosate-resis/

Certainly the agrochemical industry has pushed back against these concerns and warnings, and richly defended glyphosate use. Even if in the future it turns out that glyphosate is somehow proven to be in no way harmful to humans, however, its use for cosmetic purposes in downtown Chilliwack will very likely become a public issue before that happens. Moreover, even if glyphosate is ultimately shown to be totally harmless to humans, bees and life forms in between, its use in downtown Chilliwack does not for an instant achieve its users’ purposes. It does not beautify or revitalize the downtown. And it risks so much, including unnecessary bad public relations.

Although the evidence of glyphosate’s health risks is largely invisible, or discernible only with scientific technology, other problems with the city’s procedure are very visible. It leaves dead weeds, which catch more litter and detritus to create a junky appearance. Dead weeds also create a greater fire hazard than live weeds or no weeds. For me, the brown weeds create the feel of a dead zone, a place in which people would instinctually be uncomfortable. Dead zones are not places for visiting, shopping, taking children to and having a good time, as the city executives and planners hope. It could be that dead plants in the middle of the growing season communicate a subliminal message of danger or poison to humans.

Other cities in BC, I believe, have stopped cosmetic weed spraying, and I have read that other provinces, e.g., Ontario, have banned glyphosate for cosmetic purposes province-wide. Its continued use will then very likely cause people to avoid downtown Chilliwack, rather than attract people, which is what the spraying is now supposed to accomplish. Moreover, I believe that cosmetic spraying is not needed at all, because weeding can be accomplished the way it was before herbicides were invented – by hand or knife and fork. Please also see: https://www.care2.com/greenliving/12-ways-to-get-rid-of-aggressive-weeds-without-resorting-to-roundup.html

On the positive side of growing things, rather than killing them, please consider clover. Because of the horticultural component in this idea, I wrote Brian Minter much of this some time ago, and he provided an important insight. The city’s horticulturalists should feel free to critique my facts or add their own insights.

Clover has been in my life as long as I can remember, which is the early 1950’s here in the Wack. It started with 4-leaf clovers, certainly, probably the realization of how lucky they are. Even as a child, I found a lot of them. But to find a 4, you have to look over numberless 3-leafers. I read somewhere that the ratio is in the realm of 1 per 10,000.  That’s infinitesimal, or looked at from the other direction, astronomical; so I’ve looked over and loved a ton of clover – leaves, clumps, patches and fields.

Pretty well all the clovers I’ve ever plucked have been 4-or-more leafers. By mistake, I’ve definitely pulled out some 3’s. I’ve uprooted or destroyed whole clumps of 3’s as weeds, because clover-as-weeds weren’t wanted where they were growing. And I’ve mowed them down in the millions in lawns. But I’ve only ever looked for 4’s, either for plucking, or just for the search. It’s all the 3’s, of course, not the few 4’s, that make clover as nitrogen-enriching as it is to earth, as beautiful as it is to us humans, and as bountiful as it is to the bees. The 3’s also provide the background, foreground and playground for the 4’s, and so forth.

In my life, I’ve found thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of 4’s, hundreds of 5’s, dozens of 6’s, three 7’s and three 8’s. (When I wrote Brian Minter, I had only found two 7’s and two 8’s.) The last of the 8’s was in Chilliwack just this past summer.  I’ve found 4’s or more in three Canadian provinces, five US states and nine European countries. I found a 4 in October 2014 on Sakhalin Island, Russia,  right across the Pacific Ocean from us, and I found a 4 at the end of September last year in Salekhard, which is right on the Arctic Circle.

Although I’ve found 4-leaf clovers across the planet, I have always considered since my childhood that Chilliwack is the 4-Leaf Clover Capital of the Universe. Some people say it’s the Corn Capital, and it might be because there are tons of it here. But I think, aw shucks, if it is, Chilliwack is also the 4-Leaf Clover Capital.

It might seem that I’ve frittered away a lifetime looking over clover clumps, but I’m fairly fast at it, and at this late point I don’t feel that I’ve wasted even a minute. There are things, I think, which are not as good to spend time looking over than clover. Borrowing from Robert Frost, one could do worse than be a lover of clover.

In the spring in 2015, I bought some Dutch White Clover seed at Minter Country Garden and sowed and grew probably a half pound in some gravelly and otherwise weedy or barren spots around where Caroline and I live. We followed instructions, obviously hit good growing conditions, transcending our impoverished soil, and the clover flourished and prospered. These little clover patches produced everything I imagined: lush, deep green, long-stemmed, large-leafed beauties, and also lush, petite-leafed, shorter stemmed cuties. Through the year, I plucked about two hundred fifty 4’s, plus six 5’s and three 6’s, and these unassisted patches have continued to produce luckily to this day.

Almost all of the 4’s or more I pluck, I give away; so I try to have or find a water container for delivery and presentation to the lucky, and usually delighted, recipients. People seem to like them. The clovers last ten days or so, closing up at night or in the dark, and opening up in the light, like a flower. Some even root in a glass or a vase and will last for several weeks.

Parts of the clover patches I watered a bit during the long dry spells of their first summer. Some parts dried up, and some parts did well without watering. The patches sort of circled the clover wagons and withdrew toward the center or split up into clumps, which remained verdant. After any rain, they seemed to grow like crazy. Then their flourishing days were behind them, like right now, and they got ready for winter. They survive Chilliwack winters well, and I’ve found live and upright 4’s on cold Christmas and New Years Days. Along with this letter, I am delivering to the Mayor’s Office at City Hall a very splendid 4-leaf clover I found just today, November 17.

As you know, Chilliwack’s coat of arms and flag contain an emblemization of the city epithet, “The Green Heart of British Columbia.”
https://www.chilliwack.com/main/page.cfm?id=35 
The “green heart” in the emblem is formed by 4 green hearts, which also form a 4-leaf clover. A 4-leaf clover is also the 4-H logo, and Chilliwack has had a very long and strong relationship with the 4-H program.

My idea is, instead of spraying weeds and creating a dead zone, to seed some of those downtown weed spots with clover, and encourage its growth and greenness. The clover spots would still have to be weeded, but that is not difficult, and clover cover actually assists in controlling weeds. There might be a few days through a long dry summer when the clover clumps could use some watering, but that would not add much work because city crews already regularly water the downtown’s lovely hanging flower baskets.

Seeding clover around the downtown would certainly make it greener and feel more alive. A public relations campaign to announce that the Wack is cosmetic spraying-free, bee-friendly, and going greener than ever, it seems to me, would find no opposition, and could also be fun. Chilliwack could become known not only as the green heart of BC, but the 4-leaf clover capital of the universe ™. Cloverdale lost much of its claim to any such title or status when it was amalgamated into Surrey, so the Wack has no real competition.

The single, repeated complaint against clover as a weed is that it attracts bees. It seems to me, however, that this would not be a problem with little clumps or lines of clover around the downtown that would tend to get walked over. And giving bees some clover nectar and love might be a good thing in our planetary relationship with them right now. And they would pollinate our unsprayed clover plants to seed themselves.

I also have a vision of a “clover maze” on a plot of vacant city land downtown. Pathways of micro clover can be grown and mowed through strips of unmowed Dutch White. Children and responsible adults can walk on the lawn-like paths of microclover and search for 4-or-more leafers in the adjacent taller, larger clover. https://vancouversun.com/homes/gardening/brian-minter-make-your-lawn-more-eco-friendly-with-micro-clover

The “maze” could be planted and sculpted into the shape of a lot-sized clover, or any other shape some clever clover maze designer could come up with. That it’s a maze is funny, of course, because of how difficult it is for anyone but a pre-toddler to get lost in a field of clover. It could be fun. It could create video, media and PR opportunities. It evidences the city’s new ecologically-healthy direction. And it could not but attract people downtown.

Here is a simple design for an 80’ by 80’ lot:

<———————————-80’———————————————>

(Light green is mowed microclover. Dark green is unmowed Dutch White clover. Dark stripes are 4’ wide.)

I see on Chilliwack’s site, Mr. Mayor, that you are up for meeting with your constituents to discuss community issues, so please consider this such a request for such a meeting.

I wish you great success as mayor, and great success for all the councillors, and for Chilliwack.

Sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong
2-46298 Yale Road
Chilliwack, BC V2P 2P6
604-703-1373
gerryatgerryarmstrong.org

From:Mayor [mailto:mayoratchilliwack.com]
Sent: December 5, 2018 3:55 PM
To: ‘gerry@gerryarmstrong.org’
Subject: RE: Downtown beautification and revitalization

 

Hi Gerry,

Thank you for taking the time to send this email and for the four leaf clover you dropped off at my office. It sounds like you have a passion for gardening and I appreciate that.

When it comes to litter and sweeping streets, the City spends a considerable amount of resources and these duties have become more time consuming with the increased homeless population downtown and throughout the community. The City spends more than $200,000.00 annually on litter cleanup and homeless cleanup and another $400,000.00 on street and bike lane sweeping.

The City of Chilliwack Highway and Traffic Bylaw No.3023 – Section 21 does state that every owner or occupier adjacent to a boulevard, sidewalk or public footpath on a highway shall:

• Remove all snow and ice from the sidewalk or footpath as soon as practicable following a snowfall, icefall or frost within a reasonable time of its deposit, but in any case no later than noon on the day following its deposit; and
• Keep it clear of all litter, rubbish, debris and unsightly or overgrown vegetation.

Despite the previous bylaw provision, the City puts forth great effort, both in practice and reaction to litter and abandoned materials. The City actively conducts weed control throughout the community; the majority of this task is done mechanically (weed wacking) and approximately 25% of this task is done with the use of non-selective herbicide (glyphosate). The purpose is to control weed growth in expansion and control joints in sidewalks, curbs, gutters and around tree wells. Herbicide is used in urban standard areas where mechanical, steam or high pressure water methods pose a risk to injury of public or damage to private property.

The use of herbicides is controlled by the province and the City uses best management practices in the storage and application of all herbicides and reports the volume of product used and the square area treated on an annual basis. The Operations Department does not use herbicides within the groundwater protection zone over the Sardis/Vedder Aquifer. The Operations Director, Glen MacPherson, reports that all of the City’s greened areas are either natural turf (grass) or planted beds with bark mulch ground cover. There is plenty of clover in our turf areas as we do not use selective herbicides to prevent clover or broadleaf weeds from occurring in our grass. Our policy is “the best treatment of weeds is healthy grass” and we do this with good turf management practices such as automated irrigation and fertilization.

Gerry, your efforts are certainly appreciated in clearing and weeding. I hope you get enjoyment from it. You may not be aware that our downtown landscape will be changing soon with the Algra Bros redeveloping a big block which should bring about positive changes. If you have any questions specific to the items noted in this email, please feel free to contact Glen MacPherson at macphersonatchilliwack.com or 604.793.2810.

Sincerely,

 

Ken Popove | Mayor
P: 604.793.2900

E: mayoratchilliwack.com

City of Chilliwack
8550 Young Road

Chilliwack, BC
Canada V2P 8A4
chilliwack.com