Monthly Archives: February 2011

Another attempt to whitewash Hubbard

Marty’s latest blog post talks about something I’ve already discussed here – the Pro-Church Marty H8r site‘s take on the New Yorker article. Marty pull-quotes the following passage from this post:

As a sure indication that there are skeletons he’d rather hide, Haggis tried to head off possible revelations of what he’s really been doing, saying that he expected a ‘scandal’ about him to be the result of his attack on the Church. Methinks he knows he deserves to be exposed…hmmmmm….

Hell, he admitted to early criminal acts he withheld, and you can be sure that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Clarification: That’s a Church member talking, not Marty.

Marty goes on to say:

This latest passage I can intrepret [sic] no other way than as a threat. It is a threat to unlawfully use confessional data among other things. For Miscavige to direct such thuggery… publicly is testament to his complete loss of sanity, in my opinion.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute there, Mr. Rathbun. Don’t go saying that Miscavige is doing this because he’s insane. The fact is that the Church is doing exactly what Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard ordered. There is ample written evidence that all involved are following Scientology policy.

The concept that anyone who attacks the Church has criminal acts that must be exposed was originated by Hubbard; he repeated it again and again in the “scriptures” that Scientologists hold up as truth. A few examples:

“Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts.” [Emphasis in original] — LRH, HCOB 5 November 1967, CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY

“A person, to be a critic, must first have assumed that he could not create anything.” — LRH, MARITAL SCIENTOLOGY, Journal of Scientology issue 13-G

“As far as public attacks upon individual auditors, the HASI* or LRH are concerned, it has been discovered that all those who have attacked… are criminally liable for other things… Behind every one of these attacks… has rested a criminal record of one kind or another.” — LRH, THE SCIENTOLOGIST, Ability Magazine issue 1

* HASI: Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, predecessor of the present-day IAS. More on HASI/IAS similarities here.

“Supressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology [and] public statements against Scientology… The real motives of Suppressive Persons have been traced to quite sordid hidden desires.” — LRH, HCO PL 23 December 1965, ETHICS SUPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW

“People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score.” — LRH, MANUAL OF JUSTICE

These are just a few examples. As any Scientologist, past or present, active or ex, will tell you, the Tech is rife with the concept that anyone who criticizes Scientology must have hidden crimes. Remember, in Scientology, you cannot cherry-pick the Tech; per Keeping Scientology Working, all LRH “tech” is valid and true unless LRH says otherwise.

Let me be perfectly clear, lest Marty and crew attempt to dismiss me as an OSA agent: Digging up dirt in order to silence critics is WRONG. It was WRONG when Hubbard came up with the concept, it was WRONG when it was done by Scientology’s Guardian’s Office under Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue, and it is WRONG now when it is being continued by David Miscavige and current Church management.

But to present this as evidence that David Miscavige has somehow derailed Scientology, without even acknowledging that the concept comes from L. Ron Hubbard – that too is WRONG, Marty, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

Just because something is true for you, Marty, that doesn’t make it true. Not even if you really, really, want it to be true. Here’s one true datum you won’t find in Hubbard’s tech: Sooner or later, the real truth always comes out.

ML,
Caliwog

The “Dead Agent Caper” in action (sort of)

Here’s what Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard had to say about the “Dead Agent” PR technique:

“The technique of proving utterances false is called ‘DEAD AGENTING.’ It’s in the first book of Chinese espionage. When the enemy agent gives false data, those who believed him but now find it false kill him-or at least cease to believe him.

“So the PR slang for it is ‘dead agenting.’

“This consists of disproving utterly the false statement with documents or demonstration or display.” — LRH, HCO PL 21 November 1972, HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPOGANDA

(Ask yourself: How many legitimate religions have stuff like this in their scriptures?)

Now here’s an example of the Dead Agent technique in action, in a comment from Marty Rathbun on his own site:

I’ll add to my last comment that I know for a fact OSA has been working on a program for eighteen months which has the objective of trying to make me look as arbitrary and ruthless as Miscavige. It calls for flooding my blog with trolls, being very 1.1, inviting me to out them and ban them. That is to be followed by a hue and cry about Marty being no different than Miscavige, paranoia and all. So, with that context, all the “oh, whoa to me” business is sort of suspicious too.

See what Marty did there? He’s setting up anyone who says Marty is similar to Miscavige (which, by the way, he is) as an OSA agent (a member of the Church’s secret police). Marty’s followers don’t trust OSA, so Marty is conditioning his followers not to listen to legitimate criticism. Oh, Marty, Ron would be so proud of you! You’re doing a great job of isolating your Scientologists from the outside world.

But there’s a problem: Hubbard did say that proper dead-agenting required documented proof. I’m sure many of the people haranguing Marty do work for OSA, but many, including me, don’t. Proof that I work for OSA would be impossible to find, because it doesn’t exist. But according to Hubbard, that’s OK, because truth can be massaged to agree with your audience:

“Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don’t have to tell everything you know… Agreement with one’s message is what PR is seeking to achieve.

So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth – and which will attain the desirable result.” — LRH, HCO PL 13 August 1970, THE MISSING INGREDIENT

And if the truth isn’t on your side, Hubbard says, then change the subject:

“You only challenge statements you can prove are false and in any conversation let the rest slide.” — LRH, HCO PL 21 November 1972, HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPOGANDA

“If there’s no chance of obtaining a desirable result and the truth would injure then talk about something else.” — LRH, HCO PL 13 August 1970, THE MISSING INGREDIENT

By the way, anyone with a clear view can tell I don’t work for the Church; I’d be declared in a second for saying what I think about Hubbard (which, for the record, is that he was a lying cheating money-grubbing narcissistic power-obsessed abusive evil sociopathic tub of shit).

But simple logic like that isn’t enough to stop the Indies from labeling anyone who speaks out against them as OSA. They’ve gone so far as to say that OSA is intentionally talking smack about Hubbard to make themselves sound like legitimate Anons. Now, anyone who has deal with Scientologists knows that’s about as likely as a born-again Christian saying Jesus had sex with young boys*. But logic doesn’t enter into the equation here.

* Which is allegedly what Hubbard said about Jesus.

To be fair, Marty may be Dead Agenting without even realizing it. The us vs. them mentality is so deeply ingrained in Scientology that most Scientologists do it without thinking. According to Hubbard, people don’t criticize something simply because see it as bad and want to speak out for the good of the community. No, according to Hubbard, if they criticize, they must have crimes*. Marty’s twist is that they work for OSA, which he sees as a crime (and I suppose he’s got a point).

* This, despite the fact that Hubbard pointed out that everyone has crimes:

“No person, company or nation has totally clean hands… in childhood, one stole a few apples, broke a window or two, dented a fender, went joy-riding in a “borrowed” vehicle or took pennies or candy bars that weren’t his own. […] One… commits various large and small sins of which society disapproves. Any of these things tend to make one vulnerable to attack.” — LRH, HCO PL 21 November 1972, HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPOGANDA

Incidentally, if you really do think the Independents are all that different from Church-going Scientologists, compare this comment chain with this video of Scientologists harranguing Mark Bunker (first video, the fun starts at 2:03). Bully bully, invalidate invalidate, and whatever you do, don’t even consider an alternate viewpoint.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go report to my boss David Miscavige. He gets so impatient when reports are late, and the last thing I need today is a right hook to the kneecap.

ML,
Caliwog

Hubbard’s lies: A Scientological perspective

The following was originally posted as a comment on Jeff Hawkins’ Leaving Scientology blog, from a user named Idle Org:

“It is admittedly hard for me to separate LRH the individual from his tech, but I’m trying.

“If he indeed made up (lied about) many of his adventures, then the man was sitting on withholds permanently. Per his own tech, wouldn’t that bar him from making much case gain? Wouldn’t it prevent him from as-ising things? Wouldn’t it keep his IQ lower? Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration. His time, place, form and event would have to be pretty screwed up if he not only verbally lied to his ‘friends’ but then allowed it to be included in his legacy, his lectures, the LRH life exhibit, various future publications on him, etc.

“In other words, his lies carry through to all VIP’s, actors, artists, political figures, religious figures, children who study his legacy at delphi [a Scientology school], etc, forever.

“That is a continuous overt on a world-wide scale. How can that not affect his ability to research and locate truth? We already know about an earlier book called ‘Scientologie’, by another author.

“We just learned from Marty Rathbun that LRH had considered dropping the OT3 level all together. I speculate this is because even LRH finally cognited he had really outdone himself on that particular piece of space opera. But then, I’m not OT so no offense to anyone with a different view. I can only work with what I have to hand which unfortunately leads to much speculation.

“And ‘speculation’ seems to be rampant these days, even amongst OT’s arguing with one another in various blog comment sections as to what’s true or not.

“Paul Haggis now claims he has experienced relief from seeking a non-Scn therapist. So there may well be cogs one can experience from many forms of two-way comm. The real question is, did LRH create amazing tech or did he just get people into a modern (at the time) therapy technique, gleaned from other’s prior work?

“Hard to say what’s true…

“Hard not to judge the efficacy of the work of a potential pathological liar.

“Hard to confront the world-wide joke that LRH and Scn most definitely are in the eyes of humanity. Sounds like a generality but just Google both subjects for a few good hours and be prepared to weep. I believe the integrity of a man can be judged by how his legacy is viewed by the world at large. In LRH’s case, it’s very negative.” — Idle Org

Thanks, Idle Org, for giving me permission to re-post your comment here.

ML,
Caliwog

Churchies on the New Yorker article: You don’t need to read that

We’re still waiting on the official Church of Scientology response to the New Yorker article, but one pro-Church anti-Marty site has already weighed in, telling it’s readers they needn’t bother to read the article.

Says author “Joe”:

I don’t recommend anyone read the article. It’s a waste of time for anyone who has ever been genuinely helped by Scientology, and who has seen the same old tired attack points put forth before.

It just so happens that it’s not the same old points, although the theme that L. Ron Hubbard was a con man and full of crap is fairly consistent throughout most Scientology criticism. But that’s neither here nor there.

What does LRH say?

I’m sure there are Independent Scientologists who would characterize this as typical of modern-day Church leader David Miscavige. To his credit, Marty did encourage his flock to read the New Yorker article, despite the anti-LRH content within. But as “Joe” points out, the idea of ignoring criticism is not a new one – it comes from LRH. He’s even kind enough to provide an LRH reference, a technical bulletin that LRH originally wrote as an article in Scientology’s Ability magazine, and which became part of Church scripture in 1987. Here’s LRH:

“Those who are not Scientologists are left in complete ignorance of the motives of the dishonest. And they have no chance of personal immortality.

(Get that? We wogs don’t know anything about what’s really going on; only Scientologists get it. Sorry for interrupting.)

“Those who criticize one for being a Scientologist or make snide remarks cannot stand a personal survey of past actions or motive. This happens to be a fortunate fact for us. The criminal abhors daylight. And we are the daylight.

“Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. [Emphasis in original]

“Criminals hate anything that helps anyone, instinctively.

“There is no good reason to oppose Scientology.

“And we have this technical fact—those who oppose us have crimes to hide. It’s perhaps merely lucky that this is true.

“Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do.” — LRH, HCOB 5 November 1967, CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY

Read the full bulletin here.

Kill the messenger

This is LRH’s famous “dead agent” technique: Instead of addressing the facts, kill the writer’s credibility. To be fair, LRH doesn’t outright say to ignore the New Yorker article (at least, not in this policy). But he makes it clear that Paul Haggis and Lawrence Wright are criminals. They must be, because they criticize Scientology. And why listen to a critic?

Besides, Scientologists are taught to avoid “entheta” (bad news, anti-Scientology statements, etc.) at all costs. Entheta isn’t just an annoyance – it can cause problems with your spiritual progress which have to be corrected. And at up to $1,000 or more per hour for Scientology auditing, who wants to risk that?

No wonder Scientologists will happily take Joe’s advice to skip the article, and if they don’t, they will happily take LRH’s advice that these are just criminals desperately putting up a smoke screen so that their own crimes won’t be discovered. (There’s something to that. I don’t write this blog because I want to help people avoid Scientology – I do it because I’m a serial car thief. Every time my neighbors see a new Mercedes parked in my driveway, they say “Oh, good – a new Caliwog blog post tomorrow!”)

But what about “Look, don’t listen”?

Some Scientologists have argued that LRH did not tell people to ignore criticism. They quote LRH as saying “Look, don’t listen.”

LRH did indeed write those words – it was the title of a policy letter, as a matter of fact (HCO PL 16 March 1972 Issue I). But “LOOK DON’T LISTEN” doesn’t talk about evaluating criticism. It’s a policy about being an Esto, or Establishment Officer, the person who’s job it is to make sure that an organization does business briskly. And what the policy says is not to take into account extenuating circumstances. Look at production, and if it’s low, don’t listen to why; just go in and blindly kick some ass.

Back to my point: What “Joe” is saying is correct. If you are a Scientologist, and if you believe that what LRH said was true, then Haggis is a criminal, as is Wright – of course, Hubbard also says that reporters are simply tools who are paid to write bad stories. (More on that here.)

Either way, if you’re a Scientologist, you’re free to ignore the fact that Scientology is a scam, Hubbard was a con man and a liar, and David Miscavige is a thug. Just keep getting processing. You’re not the one being fooled – the rest of the world is!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go pass some bad checks in order to get ready for my next critical article…

ML,
Caliwog

P. S. My favorite part of LRH’s CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY is the second paragraph

“If the wife was stepping out with your best friend behind your back, and one day she found you had thoughts of joining a group that taught you people’s motives and reactions and made you understand them, she would throw a mad-dog fit to prevent your progress.” — LRH

Um, no, dumbass, she’d encourage you to join and go to lots of meetings so she could spend more time boffing your best friend. Geez, Ron, no wonder you got caught when you cheated on Polly!

Hello, Kettle? This is pot…

This weekend, Marty posted blog entry entitled Scientoligy Inc’s Mafia-like Censorship. I always laugh when Marty complains about censorship, since he engages in censorship himself. But reading the blog entry, I think I’ve discovered the root of the problem. (Or, as LRH might put it, “After careful investigation, I have discovered the real cause. I am the first and only person in 86,302,000,000,000,004 years to do so, and you must follow my instructions EXACTLY to avoid getting deathly ill, so get out your checkbook and follow me!”)

Sorry.

Anyway, I’ve discovered the problem: Marty has a misunderstood word*. Censorship.

(*According to Scientology, misunderstood words are the root of countless problems, which is funny considering how many words Hubbard re-defined. Scientologists are big on dictionary definitions, although Hubbardian definitions take priority.)

Webster’s dictionary defines “censor” as “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also, to suppress or delete as objectionable.” Wikipedia defines “censorship” as “suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.”

Marty’s example of censorship: WordPress cut off his posting access because they received complaints that he was sending out spam emails. They shut him down for a day, sent him a reprimand email, and turned his account back on.

Assuming the accusations were false, that’s not censorship. It’s harassment.

Webster’s Dictionary definition of harass: “to annoy persistently; to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct; to worry and impede by repeated raids.”)

As for “mafia-style,” the only form of censorship practiced by the mafia is execution. “Mafia-style” censorship is a lot more permanent than what happened to Marty.

Now, I’m going to take Marty’s word that he wasn’t sending out spam emails (although the Admin Tech’s policy on marketing does essentially condone spamming**). Assuming the complaints were malicious — and we’re dealing with the Church of Scientology, so they probably were — I’m sure this was intentional harassment.

So why does Marty call this censorship? Perhaps he’s applying LRH’s “Positioning” tech (a bastardized form of Trout & Reis’ marketing classic). Here’s Hubbard:

“Positioning takes advantage of a fact that one can compare the thing he is trying to get the other person to understand with desirable or undesirable objects… by comparing something he wants people to detest to an undesirable thing, he can achieve a rapid communication and comparison.

“We know people loathe psychiatry, so we communicate something as being loathsome as saying it is below (worse than) psychiatry. We could also make people think something was good by saying it was against psychiatry, bad because it would bring them to psychiatry, or awful because it used psychiatrists (like the tax people).” — LRH, HCO PL 30 January 1979, POSITIONING, PHILOSOPHIC THEORY

If Marty does actually know what censorship means, and he knows that the public loathes censorship, he could be trying to position the Church’s actions as censorship to make them seem more detestable.

The problem with this theory is that a) the public loathes harassment, too, and b) his readers already loathe the Church. So maybe Marty really doesn’t understand the concept of censorship. No one ever accused Scientology education and training of turning out rocket scientists. (Or nuclear physicists.)

What makes this ironic is that Marty himself practice censorship. He deletes comments that he considers objectionable.

This, of course, is his right. But to Marty, “objectionable content” includes factual evidence that the crimes he accuses DM of committing are based in LRH policy. In other words, Marty won’t print the truth if it’s inconvenient to his cause.

When your philosophy is basically wrong, censorship is the last line of defense. Marty isn’t just censoring in the name of good taste; he is deliberately misleading and misdirecting his readers.

Just like his idol L. Ron Hubbard.

And his arch-nemesis David Miscavige.

“Hello, Kettle? This is pot…”

ML,
Caliwog

(** An interesting side note: Alhough LRH’s management system (the Admin Tech) does not mention spamming per se, following the admin tech requires sending unsolicited communications in ever-increasing numbers in order to increase statistics. I don’t think Marty has enough followers to constitute spamming, and most would probably agree to receive email, but a spam complaint isn’t outside the realm of belief.)

Scientology and homosexuality

Jim Logan, this one’s for you.

Marty posted his own response to the excellent New Yorker Magazine article. The first comment, posted by Marty himself, is a commercial for his auditing services, but a little further down the page was something that caught my eye – this moving comment from Jim Logan about the death of his brother, a victim of AIDS. Reading it, one can understand how Scientology gives comfort to the bereaved; like many religions, Scientology says that death enables the spirit to be freed from the body’s infirmaries.

(A quick primer on death: Scientology believes in reincarnation – specifically that death occurs when spirit (“Thetan”) leaves the body, returns to an interstellar “implant station” for a new round of brainwashing, and then attaches to another body just before birth. Once you become an Operating Thetan, you can drop your old body and pick out a new one at will.)

Jim said that his brother asked if he would have to be gay in his next life, and that at his brother’s funeral, several family members asked about Scientology’s view on homosexuality.

“I told them, sincerely, my own understanding,” writes Jim, “that there is no stance on this in the subject other than any person obsessed, heterosexually, or any other sexually, and ill at ease on the area, is subject to the influence of things that can be understood and they can be happier in their lives if they find they aren’t.”

Got that? According to Jim, Scientology takes no stand on homosexuality, except that people will be happier if they aren’t obsessed with sex.

This shows that Scientologists (like any other humans) only see what they want to see.

So, Jim, if you’re reading, I’d like to show you what Scientology’s stance on homosexuality actually is.

To this day, Dianetics – the book that you, Jim, described to Paul Haggis as an owner’s manual to the mind – is very clear on the subject, saying that homosexuality is a perversion, and perversion is dangerous. Here’s Hubbard:

“The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic Two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc…) is actually quite ill physically… the pervert is always a very ill person… he is… far from normal and… extremely dangerous to society.” — LRH, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH

Hubbard goes on to say that such perversion is the result of engrams (bad memories), and implies that, as such, it can be cured with Dianetics.

Some Hubbard apologists have dismissed this viewpoint on homosexuality as typical of the time Dianetics was written (1950), but the verbiage I quoted appears in my 2002 paperback printing of Dianetics (page 152) as well as the 2007 version available online in PDF form (page 125).

In the 2007 edition of Handbook for Preclears, LRH says:

“Homosexuality is about 1.1 on the Tone Scale.” — LRH

1.1 is Covert Hostility, about which LRH says:

“The person may claim to love others and to have the good of others as his foremost interest. Yet at the same moment, he works (unconsciously or otherwise) to injure or destroy the lives and reputations of people and to also destroy property.” — LRH, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL

Calling someone “1.1” is about the worst insult a Scientologist can hurl. Marty and his flock often accuse Church leader David Miscavige of being 1.1, and the Church-going Marty h8rs say the same thing about him and Mike Rinder.

You got that, Jim? Hubbard called your brother a 1.1. In print, no less.

One of the questions to be asked on the Johannesburg Security Check (HCO PL 7 April 1961) – and this is from the 1961 version of the policy written by Hubbard – is “Have you ever practiced Homosexuality?” To put that in context, the questions just before and immediately following ask if the subject has “raped anyone,” “committed adultery,” “had intercourse with a member of your family,” “been sexually unfaithful,” “consistently made a practice of sexual perversion,” “slept with a member of a race of another colour,” “bombed anything” and “murdered anyone”.

In HCO Bulletin 7 September 1971, PROGRAMMING CASES BACKWARDS, Hubbard cited some examples he allegedly saw of Scientology not being properly applied, with incorrect results that he liked to “a gardener digging holes with the lawn mower and cutting grass with a spade.” Among them:

“After 200 or more hours of no change in his personality graph (Oxford Capacity Analysis) the [subject] came up with the withhold that he was a homosexual and also that he did not know what ‘Scientology’ meant. About 2 years of auditing had been wasted.” — LRH

So, Jim, now you know some more of what Hubbard and Scientology say about homosexuality. I’d hardly call it “no stance.” But don’t take my word for it. What’s true for you is true, right? I’ve included the policy references so you can look them up yourself.

Are you willing to look, Jim?

Incidentally, I have several friends who are HIV positive, and all are living normal, healthy lives. It’s hard to believe that just 15 years ago, an AIDS diagnosis was pretty much a guaranteed death sentence. We have many people to thank for this, including dedicated members of the pharmaceutical industry – a group that Scientologists vehemently oppose.

For those who are willing to look, I recommend the Wikipedia article LGBT Topics and Scientology.

ML,
Caliwog

Caliwog’s take on the New Yorker article: :) :) :)

By now, you’ve probably seen the New Yorker magazine article, The Apostate: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology, by Lawrence Wright — and if you haven’t, you should. It’s long, but worth it. (That’s what she said!)

This is an outstanding article that tells the story of Paul Haggis’ very public departure from the Church of Scientology, prompted by the Church’s refusal to make a public statement after a San Diego staffer listed the Church as a sponsor of California’s Propositon 8, which banned gay marriage. Haggis objected to the Church’s stand and made a very public departure. I particularly like this article because it talks fairly about the Church in both the Hubbard and Miscavige eras.

New Yorker says Hubbard is full of shit; Tommy digs himself deeper

The New Yorker did their own investigation into the discrepancies in Hubbard’s war record, and guess what they found? Yep, more discrepancies. This is important, because Hubbard says that the techniques he used to cure himself of his claimed wartime injuries (including blindness) formed the basics of Dianetics.

The New Yorker investigation, like others before, found no evidence that Hubbard had any severe injuries, or that he even saw combat service at all. Which, of course, would indicate that his Dianetic “cures” and “powers” were bullshit.

The New Yorker also gave Tommy Davis a chance to defend these allegations, and his replies are as thin as a gnat’s eyelash. Tommy also told a whopper of a lie about LRH tech not being altered – anyone with an Internet connection can see that’s not true. (Hell, just check out my previous post about the A to E steps.) And his backpedaling on the Church’s anti-gay “scripture” is classic. Who wants to bet Tommy is doing his Liability condition formula right now?

Truth 1, Indies 0

I’m really happy with this article. Not only is it a factual, well-written analysis of Scientology, but the Independents failed to hijack it. I don’t know if Marty, Mike or their flock ever got a chance to try to convince Lawrence Wright that Scientology is a harmless religion being twisted into something evil by David Miscavige, but if he did, Wright didn’t buy it. And why would he? All it takes is an unprejudiced mind and a few LRH policies for anyone to see the truth.

So what happens next?

You can bet your copy of Dianetics that the Church is working on a rebuttal. The slave laborers will be working overtime, and it won’t be long before we see a copy of Freedom Magazine and a video similar to the way they responded to John Sweeney and Anderson Cooper.

Independents may try to blame this on David Miscavige’s desperation, but the truth is that such a response is mandated by several of L. Ron Hubbard policies. Among them:

These people who attack [Scientology] have secrets. And hidden crimes. […] And when we investigate, all this recoils on the attacker. He withdraws too hurriedly to be orderly. […] I can count several heavy attacks which folded up by our noisily beginning an investigation of the attacker. — LRH, HCO PL 15 Febuary 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY

“Only attacks resolve threats. […] If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone… always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. […] Don’t ever defend. Always attack.” — LRH, HCO PL 15 August 1960, DEPT OF GOVT AFFAIRS

Now, a “wog” (outsider) PR professional might advise the Church to lay low and let the bad publicity blow over. There might even be folks inside the Church with an inkling to do the same. But they can’t. Remember, according to Scientologists, Scientology means doing exactly what Hubbard said to do, exactly the way he said to do it. Their hands are tied. LRH said to investigate and attack, so that’s what they’ll do, and they’ll make themselves look like even bigger fools as a result.

Will Scientologists listen? Probably not…

Will the New Yorker article convince Scientologists to leave either the Church or the Independent movement? I hope so, but I’m not holding my breath. Scientologists have been trained to hear selectively. I’ll leave you with LRH’s assessment of reporters:

“The reporter who comes to you, all smiles and withholds, ‘wanting a story’, has an AMA [American Medical Association] instigated release in his pocket. He is there to trick you into supporting his pre-conceived story.

“The story he will write has already been outlined by a sub-editor from old clippings and AMA releases.

“He probably knows as well as you do that you are decent and effective.

“He has no power whatever to alter the pre-conceived story he has been ordered to write. If he were audited or otherwise totally convinced of the great value of Scientology he would still write the same critical story. If he didn’t he would probably get sacked. So the time you spend trying to convince him of your decency and
effectiveness is wasted time.

“If he publishes outright lies sue his paper for libel if you like, but don’t be afraid of what he will write. Central organization income usually rises during bad press campaigns. So he can’t really harm you whatever he does or says.” — LRH, HCO PL 15 August AD13 (1963), SCIENTOLOGY FIVE PRESS POLICIES

Update: Here come the Feds!

In a related note, today’s Saint Petersburg Times ran a story saying the FBI has been conducting an investigation into Scientology’s punitive practices, which may violate laws on human trafficking. They’ve been talking to five ex-Scientology managers — and guess which Independent blogger, who claims to have evidence that will send David Miscavige to jail*, isn’t among them?

ML,
Caliwog

* If it turns out I’m wrong, and this person really does have court-admissible evidence that puts David Miscavige behind words, I will happily make a public apology and eat my words. Meanwhile, I’m not skipping any meals, if you catch my drift.