Daily Archives: September 27, 2010

Why Independents (might) think the Church and Anonymous are aligned

Marty and other Independents often accuse Anonymous and other Scientology protesters of being in league with David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology. This may seem totally ridiculous to your average protester, but to the Scientology faithful, it makes perfect sense.

Here’s the deal: To the indies, the protest movement is out to destroy Scientology. Argue over the wording if you like, but that’s more or less true.

But the way they see it, David Miscavige, leader of the Church of Scientology, is also out to destroy Scientology. You’ll notice that Marty and the Independents use phrases like “Black Dianetics” and “Reverse Scientology”. They believe that David Miscavige has intentionally altered LRH’s tech so as to ensure that Scientologists not only do not get gains, but will become mindless robots who do his bidding without question. Sounds pretty far out, right? LRH explains in an article he wrote in 1952, dramatically titled “Danger: Black Dianetics!”:

Death, insanity, or merely a slavish obedience can be efficiently effected by the use of Black Dianetics… A person on whom Black Dianetics has been employed seldom retains the sanity or will to make a complaint, or does not know he has been victimized.” — LRH

To the Independents, this explains why Church members don’t see the light, and why Marty and his Kool-Aid drinkers think of Church members as Kool-Aid drinkers. David Miscavige has enslaved them, and they don’t even realize they are victims. (Oddly enough, Church-going Scientologists could use this same argument against Marty and his flock.) (UPDATE: That’s exactly what they did.)

According to the Indie viewpoint, LRH even explains why David Miscavige hasn’t gone to jail for his well-documented crimes:

“Persons claiming such offenses against their persons are commonly catalogued by doctors as suffering from delusion. Thus the employer of Black Dianetics can escape unpunished under existing legal procedures.” — LRH

Incidentally, if you read the whole article (available in the Wikileaks policy pack), you’ll notice that LRH doesn’t define “Black Dianetics” too specifically, and his recommended remedy is to learn more about Dianetics. Why was he so vague? Because the article was written for Ability magazine. LRH intended magazines to be used for promoting Scientology services. That’s right… the preceeding “Black Dianetics” article is basically a glorified advertisement.

So, according to the Independents, we have two groups out to destroy Scientology, us and the Church. Remember that in Scientology that when it comes to allegiances, there is no gray, only black or white. You’re either a member of the group or you’re not. It’s as simple as that. If someone has doubts, they’re not simply a group member with doubts – according to Hubbard, they are instantly not a member of the group but are pretending to be a member of the group (which may well be worse than not being in the group at all).

And so we, the protesters, are seen by independent Scientologists as being in the same group as the Church. We are trying to destroy Scientology by spreading information; DM is trying to destroy Scientology by misapplication of L. Ron Hubbard’s “tech.” Same shit, different source.

The former is true; the latter is preposterous bullshit, but not to those who believe it. It is, to them, a perfectly reasonable* way to explain why Scientology did not deliver the gains promised to them by L. Ron Hubbard – DM is actively trying to prevent them from getting those gains. And not only has he done so, but he’s brainwashed Church followers into not seeing it. Only Marty, Mike and the other Independents can really see what’s going on. (Does that sound like cult behavior to you?)

Of course, there is an alternative, which is that Scientology itself is bullshit. But that’s a very painful and difficult conclusion to which to come.

It’s easier to insist that Anons and the Church must be aligned.


* When I say “reasonable,” I mean the real definition, not LRH’s redefinition (which essentially is coming up with reasons why something that is not OK, is OK. To Scientologists, being reasonable is a bad thing).