Things To Keep In Mind
(norsk oversettelse tilgjengelig her)
When you read newsgroups like alt.religion.scientology or many of the web pages, you will want to keep a few quotes from actual Scientology policy letters in mind. Slowly you will start to grasp how this cult operates.
I know: you might be thinking "Why does a church need to have such strict policies for, it's not a military organization!", but then again, this is not your typical church.
"Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members.'"
- Cynthia Kisser
We start out with two ways which Hubbard desired to control his subjects and others:
ENEMY SP Order.|
May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
Taking a look at this, does this mean that they have religious license to hurt others with impunity? Is this The Inquisition with David Miscavige as Torquemada all over again? Is this the same logic which drove Hitler, Göring, Göbbels and their cronies to exterminate the Jews, Gypsies and intellectuals? The same as the Pol Pot massacres in Cambodia?
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM.
You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them.
[An] individual is lying to you because he is trying to control you---because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you.
-L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
Lying to people? Oh, so that's what Hubbard was up to all these years. The bits about Xenu and clusters and the other stuff you read about in OT III are all lies. (Note to logicians: I know that does not follow from the above quoted policy letter!)
And this ...
The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.
A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.
-HCO PL March 1, 1965 "HCO (Division 1), Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law"
Hubbard was crafty enough to insure those who raise doubts like this are disposed of in any convenient manner. Look at the current court cases of Dennis Erlich, Keith Henson and Grady Ward. With the exception of using the United States Courts as an executant of their religious policy rather than using hitmen, it's not that much different from La Cosa Nostra.
Never let entheta pass unhandled. Prevention is better than cure. Handle fast, handle with live communication, handle with documentation, use PR technology including tone scale evaluation. Liaise with your senior and the other divisions/bureaux. Maintain ethics presence and see the matter through to a completion including the discrediting of the attacker.
If there will be a long-term threat, you are to immediately evaluate and originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized.
It is my specific intention that by the use of professional PR tactics any opposition be not only dulled but permanently eradicated. This takes data and planning before positive action can occur.
-L. Ron Hubbard, "Handling Hostile Contacts / Dead Agenting"
"Entheta" can be described as any discussion or writings critical of the Co$; "theta" is any positive discussion on such matters.
"Black PR" can be defined as any kind of character assassination campaign against an individual or group.
The phrase "dead agent" is most likely from Sun-tsu's classic The Art of War. (My translation uses the phrase "expendable spy" for the same concept.)
Expendable spies---are employed to spread disinformation
outside the state. Provide our expendable spies with false information and
have them leak it to enemy agents. (When the deceit is discovered, they are
murdered or executed.)
-Ralph D. Sawyer (translator), The Art of War. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1994, ISBN 1-56619-297-8, pp. 232-232.
The Co$ will engage in a typical disinformation campaign about their attacker, never acknowledging the attack on themselves in their attempt to get the attacker disinterested.
An overly simplistic example of such an attack may be as follows:
As you read a.r.s., you may notice how certain people are identified as spokespeople for the Co$, or "clambots" from the evasive way they attempt to answer questions. Many of the clambots we have seen here over the past two years or so have acted a lot like this. They will, most likely, continue to act like this because L. Ron Hubbard told them to act this way. Any attempt to deviate from the standard written ptocedures will bring harm upon them, from having to repeat a course (after paying for the course in full) to more severe measures.
Is this the kind of action the Founding Fathers of the United States had in mind when they put freedom of religion in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Are we willing to give a "church" like this the license to steal and commit crimes against infidels in the name of religion?
For lack of a better phrase, I would call much of following group of quotes "paranoia". Let's take a look at more of the paranoia associated with them...
WHOM TO SUSPECT
Suspect people who have the following:
If you simply swept all these out of every central organization you'd be a real winner.
-L. Ron Hubbard, Manual of Justice. Due to failure to renew the copyright, the document has fallen into the public domain. See New Era Publications Int'l v. Carol Pub. Group, 729 F. Supp. 992, 995 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1990).
As we look at this by item number, we have the following:
Scientology defines a "Suppressive Person" as:
-L. Ron Hubbard, either Dianetics and Technical Dictionary or Management and Marketing Dictionary.
Well, that confusing prattle is about as circular of a definition as one can get. I'll try to analyze this by definition.
Definition 1 is stating that suppressive persons help out "down statistics". Essentially these are people with disabilities and the like, meaning they are somehow "below average" in the All-Knowing Eyes of Hubbard.
Definitions 2 and 3 are filled with enough ambiguous words to confuse all but the dedicated Scientologist. Definition 2 appears to describe someone in a state of insanity. Hubbard seemed obsessed with the concept of insanity. Definition 3 seems to make no sense at all. If that nonsense of what an SP really is, then maybe the concept of an SP makes no sense at all.
Definitions 4 and 5 are ones I can translate, though. Definition 5 is the most troublesome to me. It can be intepreted as meaning any person who engages in critical discussion around other Scientologists, thus "supressing" their desire to blindly hand over cash or labor to continue getting those courses. In a group of believers of some philosophy, what impact would one doubter have in the group, especially with those who may be having slight doubts themselves?
If you start poking about in the matters of the Church too much and are effective, you might find yourself at the receiving end of attacks or an expensive lawsuit designed to bankrupt you, take money from your children's college education and otherwise destroy you.
NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers.
This is correct procedure:
Don't ever tamely admit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.
HCOPL 25 February 1966 "Attacks on Scientology"
When was the last time you saw a church blatantly want to attack investigators? Even other less mainstream churches and other religious groups will generally accept such a thing.
The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage
rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough
harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing
that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional
decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
"A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (first published in Ability, the Magazine of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY, 1955) Note: this paragraph has apparently been purged from later editions of the "Manual".
|If we do the above as our pattern, we will successfully
bring the following facts into public consciousness:
L Ron Hubbard, Executive Directive ED 149 INT 2 December 1966 "Branch 5 Project, Project Squirrel"
More reasons you don't hear the media talking about them too much:
Another frame of mind we would like to see the public
and register is that people attacking Scientologists have something wrong
with them ( and if you could meet any such people personally you would
see that this is no more than truth).
We are not interested in sensationalism personalities, or the complexity of Scientology methodology being discussed by the general public. At a subdivision of this, we do not want Scientology to be reported in the press, anywhere else than on the religious page of newspapers. It is destructive of word of mouth to permit the public presses to express their biased and badly reported sensationalism. Therefore we should be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology.
Scientologists should never let themselves be interviewed by the press. That's experience talking!
L. Ron Hubbard, attribution unknown
The Co$ has this nasty habit of attacking anything it doesn't like.
The goal of the department [of governmental affairs] is to
bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of
complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by a high
level ability to control and in its absence by a low level ability to
overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies.
--L. Ron Hubbard, evidence in Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., November 22, 1989.
Which leads me to my conclusion about the way the Church of Scientology attacks:
The Church of Scientology accuses critics of the things the Church does.
Original English edition was made by CRA. Ideas for this page came from a post to alt.religion.scientology posted by Cornelius Krasel and Mike O'Connor. A few other posts posted there were also used.