Censorship of open dialogue restricts the application of flexible intelligence.

 Flexible intelligence is limited by the scope of information it has to work with. With incomplete or inaccurate data, one's intelligence can easily arrive at conclusions that are not very good reflections of reality. This is compounded when certain areas of thought are considered to be not open to question.

There are many restrictions against community members discussing thinking that is outside the bounds of current "consensus". This has resulted is an incestual evolution of theory and policy that reinforces inherent distresses and limitations. Can highly controversial policies (such as the recent GLB policies) be considered "consensus" when most of the community was not consulted?

Harvey and some other leaders I talked with exhibit an amazing lack of flexible thinking when it comes to even the hint of dissent. It is my contention that they have not been able to "counsel their way out" because anyone with the clarity to see through the distress is expelled. It is insidious.

RC theory attempts to offer a complete explanation of the world, the causes of oppression and the means for liberation. It is seen as humanity's best attempt to date to do so. To keep the theory "pure" and free of "distress", the guidelines impose various restrictions on counselors openly discussing non-"consensus" thinking or adding non RC approved practices into counseling sessions.

 The combination of seeing RC as a more or less complete theory and practice and the restrictions upon bringing in outside thinking has created a rigid mindset amongst leadership and very involved co-counselors.

The fear of "attack" has been used to repress alternative viewpoints and cover-up allegations of harassment and abuse.

 Any open disagreement with RC guidelines, theory or leadership is considered as an attack. A good chunk of the guidelines work to silence alternative viewpoints and keep control firmly in the hands of upper leadership. The fear of chaos is used to justify the authoritarian power structure and censorship of dissenting ideas.
 There is also evidence that the "attack" policy has been used to shield leaders from facing up to abusive actions they've taken. This policy protects leader's patterns and puts community members at risk.

Concentration of power in the hands of leadership manifests in coercive behavior.

 Some leaders use the threat of withholding access to community resources to coerce desired behavior. Power in IRCC is authoritarian and undemocratic. I was told by a local leader that even if every community member disagreed with him/her, the leader's viewpoint would take precedence. Should leadership's viewpoint take precedence over that of the rest of the community?

There is a dichotomy between RC thinking as it applies to the individual in relation to the world in general and as it applies to the individual in relation to the RC community.

 To the world in general, individuals are directed to think-decide-act-discharge on the basis of their own best thinking. Even when this puts them in conflict with the "powers that be" and even if this goes against accepted rules or norms. Each individual is encouraged to follow and organize around their thinking. Those without official power are encouraged to empower themselves and organize to push for the changes that they envision.

 What I've noticed is that these wonderful principles are forsaken within RC when it comes to thinking that runs counter to the thinking of leadership.
 Instead of being encouraged to follow one's thinking in relation to RC theory, guidelines or leadership people are told:

 "That's already been thought about"
 "There is already a consensus on this"
 "That would be organizing around your disappointment"
 "Take more fundamentals classes and then you'll understand"
 "I don't understand why you aren't willing to do things our way" etc.....
 The following seems to be the actual thinking

 1. Use flexible thinking only within the current bounds of theory and guidelines. Do not apply flexible thinking to theory, guidelines or leadership themselves.

 2. If your thinking runs counter to theory, guidelines or leadership it must be due to either distress or ignorance. Distress can be worked on through sessioning. Ignorance can be taken care of by attending classes and workshops.

 3. Since dissenting ideas are assumed to be distress based, sharing one's thinking about such matters must be distress based as well and so must not be allowed.

 4. Consensus means doing the work it takes to agree with leadership

- This dichotomy rests partially upon RC's Marxist roots.

 There is a marked contradiction between RC theory and practice on re-emergence as it applies to the individual, and the IRCC as a Marxist modeled vehicle for ending all oppression.

 In a letter to me, Harvey referred "The Communist Manifesto" as an RC source document. IRCC leadership is kin to the "party" in Marxist ideology. Power is concentrated in the hands of leadership and exerted in an authoritarian manner until liberation is achieved. So basically, for the good of liberation, we are asked to submit to the "party line" even if that means not acting on our best personal thinking. The "Project" (as directed by the non-democratically selected leadership) takes precedence over the "Person".

 IRCC thinking attempts to get around this by saying that there is no contradiction between what is good for the person and what is good for the project. In practice, this is not true.

Leaders can not be good counselors on these issues because they can be so personally impacted by the actions of dissenting clients.

 Part of the effectiveness of the co-counseling relationship is that the counselor has little or no personal stake in the material or actions of the client. From my own hard experience, it is very difficult to be a good counselor for someone whose material or thinking threatens to disrupt the counselor's life. The counselor's only concern should be to assist the client in discharging distress for the purpose of dismantling patterns and re-emergence. If anything else, especially restimulated feelings and pseudo-reality, emerge in the counselors consciousness, there is little hope of effective counseling.

The guidelines are set up to protect leaders from the distress of community members. How can we protect the community from the distress of leadership? Do the guidelines, in practice, protect the distress of leadership, guidelines or theory by making it so hard to openly discuss problems?

 I offer the following proposals.

1. An end to the authoritarian system of governance within IRCC.All leadership positions should rotate on a yearly basis to insure that there will be no "ruling class" within the communities.

2. The elimination of the "attack" policy. This policy protects leader's patterns and puts the community at risk. Allegations of misconduct should be evaluated by a council of community members rather than the next rung "up" of leadership. Leaders who abuse their power should be removed from their positions until they have discharged the underlying patterns enough to refrain from acting them out.

3. The rethinking of the "blue page" restrictions. These restrictions keep the authoritarian power structure in place by keeping co-counselors from forming relationships between each other that are stronger than their relationships to IRCC.

4. The prohibition of sexual relations between non-peers within RC. This includes teacher/student, workshop leader/participant, ARP/Community member. There is an immense body of research that shows that such relationships are inherently oppressive and often abusive. People expose their most tender vulnerabilities during sessions and can easily be taken advantage of by those acting out oppressor patterns.