I think this post is spot on, over at Mike Rinder blog: http://www.mikerindersblog.org/twisted-policy/#comments "ThetaclearsaysJune 18, 2017 at 12:51 am This apparent “conflict” as to whether or not LRH was evil or if he knew was he was doing, etc, etc, etc; can be easily solved and understood with one simple sentence: “The man was DELUSIONAL”; that’s ALL there is to it. Any other analysis is just the result of our own basic goodness trying to confront insanity. Humans – most of them at least – are noble creatures who have a VERY difficult time understanding the very simple truth that some people are just crazy. Sometimes it takes someone with a dark side, or who can at least tune-in to the “dark side” (like me, for example), to understand insanity. Here is all we need to understand about LRH : http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html Pretty simple, isn’t it? Now, delusional people can be stupid (like DM), or they can be quite smart, like LRH was. What makes it a delusion is not their stupidity or intelligence, but their FIXATION on a concept or idea that they believe to be true with an absolute “certainty” with an unwillingness to inspect any other possibilities. If the person is stupid, then not too many people believe him. If the person is quite smart, then he can come up with very “convincing” ways to sell his ideas to others that are on a weakened state of mind or spirit due to losses, painful experiences, low self-esteem, etc, etc. Most of us came to Scn not in search of “enlightenment”, but to handle something that had been troubling us for a long time. And we were met with someone who could possess a great charisma (at least PUBLICLY so, like on his writings and speeces ) when he wanted to, who was quite smart, had the talent for communication, and thus could sound quite convincing. I am afraid that it is as simple as that. The most basic trait of any cult leader is DELUSION. So, there you have it, dear Terra Cognita. Anything that opposes that absolute belief is attacked and considered “evil” to others, and thus, it is completely justified (the “Greatest good”) to so attack it. LRH believed in what he was doing, make no mistake about it. All delusional ones believe so. So it is not really a question of “Did he know?”, or “Was he being intentionally malicious?” when he wrote those policies. He had a delusion called “Scientology”. He had a delusion that he was meant to be the “savior of humanity”. The delusion that ONLY he had all the answers, and that he was smarter than anybody else. He had the delusion that Scientology was man’s ONLY route to salvation, and thus anyone attacking Scientology was attacking humanity itself, so the means (“Fair-gaming”, “Disconnection”, “Attack the critics”, etc) justifed the end (the “salvation of humanity”). I don’t think that he was in for the money, though he DID wanted to make LOTS of it. But I think it was more directed at having the resources to “defend” himself and Scn against the “evil” government, and to make Scn expand. It wasn’t for personal profit at such, IMHO. At the end he realized that he had failed, and just gave up and died. When we see it from that perspective – that he was just a sick man – I feel more pity for him than I feel any anger. Who were the ones that let themselves to be fooled, dear friends? We were. Humans fall prey of their OWN naiveness, and then they seek to misplace the blame, instead of taking responsibility for their OWN errors in judgment. When I was FINALLY able to say to myself : “Listen you dickhead, you were a naive fool who abandoned your own power of choice over data, and who blindly put your whole faith in ONE man; don’t come now and blame a delusional man of your OWN foolishness”, I was THEN able to let go of Scn and any adverse effects that it had had in myself as if it were a piece of hot coal in my hand." -------------- I might add he Hubbard got us to be delusional thru his power of speech, didn't work on everybody, but worked enough to create a empire. And I might add, I think Hubbard is evil for doing such as he did. I don't agree with having pity for Hubbard nor do I agree with it was our fault.