The Anatomy of a LRH Apologist: Steve Hall of Scientology-cult.com

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
You would think that anyone who started up a website called "Scientology-cult.com" would be able to look a little deeper than David Miscavige for the causes of Scientology's existence as a cult.

But I guess not.

Steve's latest post called "Black Propaganda" contains some pretty complex footwork that deftly tap-dances around LRH as the cause of anything negative in Scientology today.

His argument goes like this:

1. " For many decades, LRH and the Church of Scientology were attacked relentlessly through black propaganda campaigns. …Many dirty tricks were played on Church leaders. But through “constant alertness and willingness to fight back,” the Church persevered. And eventually LRH learned the attacker’s plan and launched an organization to beat them at their own game: the Guardian’s Office, headed by Mary Sue."

2.
"The Scientologists fought back. They fought hard. They fought rough. And eventually, they began to fight dirty. And that was the beginning of the end. Once they began to violate their own principles and ethical codes, they corrupted the subject and planted seeds of ruin."

3. "
[FONT=&quot]For in destroying the integrity of Scientology, the Church became the enemy it once fought. As LRH said, what you resist, you become. Material originally intended to handle genuine high-level enemies, are now used against ordinary Scientologists, whistleblowers and virtually anyone that David Miscavige sees as a threat."

So this is the cause of Scientology becoming a cult, per Steve.

So let's question some of the assumptions that underly Steve arguments:

Assumption #1: Large organizations sought to destroy L Ron Hubbard and Scientology and this justified the creation of the Guardian's Office and all the tactics they employed.

Assumption #2: "Scientologists" violated their own principles in employing these tactics and L Ron Hubbard had nothing to do with that. This led to their downfall as a Church.

Assumption #3: David Miscavige, as a person of "profound evil", uses these tactics in ways they were never intended to be used. That's why Scientology is now a cult.

Assumption #4: Scientology was never a cult when LRH was on the lines and running things, even with these tactics, because these tactics were necessary to take down the "high-level" organizations that were trying to destroy both LRH and Scientology.

Are these assumptions true?

Were there really large, high-level organizations which sought to destroy Scientology and LRH? Who were they, exactly? What did they do, exactly?

If we are talking about the FDA, was L Ron Hubbard claiming cures for arthritis, cancer, and everything else in his pitches to sell Scientology - as the FDA claimed in their case against Scientology?

Did L Ron Hubbard ever violate the original principles of Scientology, and cause other Scientologists to do so as well, through policies and programs that he himself wrote and enforced?

Exactly how were the tactics that LRH developed for the GO used by him in his day? Were these tactics ever used on
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Scientologists, whistleblowers and virtually anyone that L Ron Hubbard saw as a threat[/FONT][FONT=&quot]?

Is David Miscavige really using GO and OSA tactics in ways that they were never meant to be used? Or were they always meant to be used in the ways that he is using them now?

Did Scientology behave as a cult when LRH was running things?

Steve, and many of the newly out "Independents" cling to these beliefs about LRH and Scientology and constantly preach them to their flock on their blogs.

Are the newly out Independents allowed to question these beliefs?

If so, what are some of the answers they have come up with, and why don't we ever see discussions of these answers on their blogs?

Some very good things about Steve Hall: He's out and he's writing. That process is his, and all of our, salvation from the Cult of Scientology.

This thread is intended to keep that process moving along.

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

The Great Zorg

Gold Meritorious Patron
Disandat

You would think that anyone who started up a website called "Scientology-cult.com" would be able to look a little deeper into the causes of Scientology's existence as a cult than David Miscavige.
(snip)

Scientology was a cult right from the get-go. It was designed that way, either by accident at first or by the greedy and evil aspirations of hubbard, whether he was conscious of these motives or not. It all really started with Dianetics, the Modern Method of Indoctrination (DMMI). :confused2:

Actually, I think I'll work on that acronym, DMMI is too far off as an acronym but right on target for the beginner's guide to a self-inflicted mental straight jacket. :confused2:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Scientology was a cult right from the get-go. It was designed that way, either by accident at first or by the greedy and evil aspirations of hubbard, whether he was conscious of these motives or not. It all really started with Dianetics, the Modern Method of Indoctrination (DMMI).

Actually, I think I'll work on that acronym, DMMI is too far off as an acronym but right on target for the beginner's guide to a self-inflicted mental straight jacket.

Well it was in 1955 in Science of Survival that LRH wrote:

The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
So he wasn't all love and flowers for everyone, that is for sure.

David Miscavige uses lawsuits to harass critics, just as L Ron Hubbard taught him in Scientology A Manual of Dissemination, (1955):

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that then you will lose every battle you are ever in engaged in...
It was Miscavige who deleted L Ron Hubbard's words from the original in 1991:

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than 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 professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
Isn't this evidence that it was L Ron Hubbard who taught Dave to be so litigious and ruthless, and causing peoples "professional decease", and if possible, ruining people utterly?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The Int Base Escapees

The Int Base Escapees is a term I will use from now on to refer to those former members who were part of the International Management of the Church of Scientology, and who have come out recently to write books, set up blogs, and decry how evil David Miscavige is.

They are Amy Scobee, Jeff Hawkins, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Steve Hall and others who, generally hold differing views but never challenge each other publicly. They are united in one thing: making David Miscavige look as bad as possible.

They are also united in another thing: Never saying anything that would show a negative light on L Ron Hubbard.

I believe that many of them, privately, have a lot of negative things to say about L Ron Hubbard. But they seem to have all agreed to never air these views publicly. They seem to all agree that David Miscavige is the problem with Scientology, and the target is ALWAYS DAVID MISCAVIGE.

I don't think this is very honest, or respectable. I think this pre-arranged PR front from these guys hinders a person's recovery from an abusive brainwashing cult.

I used to call these people "Int Base Psychos". That came from being a mission staff member of 7.5 years, working for free, and having these guys as my ultimate seniors. The idea that I worked for a group for so many years for free that was actively engaged in beating each other up, and so much more insane crap: whether doing the beating themselves, witnessing it and doing nothing, or simply being beaten and doing nothing - is pretty upsetting. That behavior is psycho behavior and unbelievably unethical.

No other organization in Scientology regularly beat people up - only these people from Int Management did. Sometimes, as Bea Kiddo writes about here on ESMB, an Int Base psycho would come to CC and slap someone. But for the most part this psycho behavior contained itself to the Int Base - the Ecclesiastical Leaders of the Scientology Religion.

It tells me that these people, even as Sea Org Staff, created an environment different than most. It tells me that they went WAY more psycho than the rest of us, while pretending the "ethics presence" to tell me and other staff members like me what to do, how to think, how to be "ethical" and "upstat" and who I could talk to, what I could read, write and say, where I could work and how much money I could make.

I'm sorry for feeling this way. But I just do not have respect for this kind of thing. And neither do they, obviously. They are out and writing about it and this is all good.

But they are no kind of leaders of anything, in my opinion.

Sorry. But that's how I see it.

And the fact that they have all gotten together to decide upon a unified PR front is not making me respect them more, or see them as any kind of leader of anything still: It is not ethical to continue the Scientology brainwashing, or to create an environment where that brainwashing keeps a hold of a person's psyche.

I understand what they are doing. They are trying to be as effective as they possibly can in making David Miscavige look as bad as possible. And that is good.

But the PR front is not right. It is not helpful.

And it is not ethical to the people who look to them for help.

Nonetheless, I am not going to call them "Int Base Psychos" any more. To me, they are now the "Int Base Escapees". And they have as much work to do as any of us in coming out of the brainwashing cult of the Church of Scientology, probably more.

This is not to say that the books and the articles and everything else have not been helpful.

They have been.

But the continued allowance of the indoctrination of Scientologists is not right.

And in my opinion, it needs to cease.
 
Last edited:

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, C.E., Ph.D., a nuclear physicist ..." --- HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 14 APRIL 1961

All the people who pointed out at Hubbard's lies were running "black propaganda campaigns"?

This is the advantage that Hubbard had over every other person on the planet – he was always right. :eyeroll:

So, if someone pointed out inaccuracies or publicly questioned his motives, they must be an SP who was really trying to stop him, even if they didn’t know it themselves. They were using the SP’s old trick of using ‘facts’ to stop.

Therefore, by a simple redefinition of terms, Hubbard and his cult felt they were perfectly justified in saying that they were being “attacked relentlessly”.

Always being right is a very comforting thing, but it inevitably leads to cultdom and paranoia. The more you assert you are right, the more people will disagree with you, thus fuelling the isolation and the need to assert one’s rightness.

Axiom142
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
When I was in the Sea Org, a common theme was the concept of ‘plants’ and sabotage.

I don’t think I ever saw a definition for a plant, but my understanding was that it was a person who had been inserted into an organization in order to cause problems and make it fail. If you believed the stories there must have been hundreds of people who had worked in Scientology orgs, all with ulterior motives. Clearly this is not very likely. I mean, who would work a 100 hour week for no pay under horrendous conditions for year after year (sometimes decades) just to cause a few problems in a stupid tin-pot cult?

Whenever someone f**ked up and made a mess of their job, inevitably they were accused of ‘sabotage’. The reality was that the whole situation was almost always caused by habitual lack of training, overwork and putting people into positions of authority that they are not fit for. Working day after day with less than 5 hours sleep and under huge pressure is enough to cause anyone to make mistakes.

But of course that couldn’t be given as the reason, as it would make the organization and the whole operating basis wrong. So, an individual scapegoat had to be found. And the worst part was that after enough punishments, the person on the receiving end would start to think that they were really an SP and deserved it.

Scientologist might like to think otherwise, but this thinking came directly from Hubbard.

In his ‘journal’, RJ38, he said: “So I retired from all management in order to devote my time to research. So certain people infiltrated the legal department [Guardians Office] and set it up to lose left and right and get people in trouble.”

Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? Hubbard was doing research vital to the future of all sentient beings in the universe and wasn’t involved in the running of the church and so SPs infiltrated and got the ‘church’ into trouble, resulting in several executives being sent to prison.

Except when you examine this in more detail, you find that one of the masterminds behind the whole affair was Hubbard’s own wife, Mary Sue. Was he really trying to make out that an SP had managed to insinuate herself into his life, bear him four children, work closely with him at every turn and he never realised that she was an SP? :ohmy:

Many of the people who were involved in the illegal activities of the GO or the top-level management who were expelled in the purges of the early 80s, were appointed by Hubbard. And in any case, according to first-hand accounts of several who were privy to Hubbard’s activities at the time, he was still involved in managing the affairs of the CoS, albeit clandestinely through the use of ‘advices’.

I have no doubt that the majority of ‘attacks’ and setbacks that the CoS and Hubbard allegedly suffered, were simply valid disagreements or the result of incompetence by staff.

Axiom142
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Little steps.

The Int Base Escapees is a term I will use from now on to refer to those former members who were part of the International Management of the Church of Scientology, and who have come out recently to write books, set up blogs, and decry how evil David Miscavige is.

They are Amy Scobee, Jeff Hawkins, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Steve Hall and others who, generally hold differing views but never challenge each other publicly. They are united in one thing: making David Miscavige look as bad as possible.

They are also united in another thing: Never saying anything that would show a negative light on L Ron Hubbard.

The people you have mentioned have done a tremendous job of reaching those still in the CoS who would probably not have listened to anything that your or I would have said.

If they publicly criticise Hubbard unduly, then they will most likely lose their target audience.

I'm sorry for feeling this way. But I just do not have respect for this kind of thing. And neither do they, obviously. They are out and writing about it and this is all good.

But they are no kind of leaders of anything, in my opinion.

Sorry. But that's how I see it.

And the fact that they have all gotten together to decide upon a unified PR front is not making me respect them more, or see them as any kind of leader of anything still: It is not ethical to continue the Scientology brainwashing, or to create an environment where that brainwashing keeps a hold of a person's psyche.

I don’t see how you can claim this as a ‘fact’. I haven’t seen any proof that they are colluding on this. Please don’t confuse supposition with facts.

You don’t have to apologize for feeling a certain way, you are entitled to your emotions.

I understand what they are doing. They are trying to be as effective as they possibly can in making David Miscavige look as bad as possible. And that is good.

But the PR front is not right. It is not helpful.

And it is not ethical to the people who look to them for help.

Nonetheless, I am not going to call them "Int Base Psychos" any more. To me, they are now the "Int Base Escapees". And they have as much work to do as any of us in coming out of the brainwashing cult of the Church of Scientology, probably more.

This is not to say that the books and the articles and everything else have not been helpful.

They have been.

But the continued allowance of the indoctrination of Scientologists is not right.

And in my opinion, it needs to cease.

Let’s not forget that the people you are talking about were in the Sea Org for decades each. Being in this environment is bound to have a profound effect on the way that people think and the way that they view the world. I was in the Sea Org for just 18 months, but it took me years to shake off the effects.

The people that they are speaking to would probably just switch off and refuse to listen if they were too critical of Hubbard or Scientology. Far better to communicate in terms that are understandable and acceptable. Most Scns, if they really look can see that the CoS is in a mess. Hubbard says that this is due to an SP. So, show them the SP. This might be acceptable for them.

For me, it was different. What really broke my belief in Scientology was finding out that Hubbard was a liar, conman, philanderer and hypocrite. After that realisation, I couldn’t believe in Scientology any more.

I firmly believe that once people get out of the mindset “all criticism is the products of SPs” and start to look at sources that are not approved by the CoS, then there is no going back for most.

Yes, there will be the fanatics who refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with Hubbard or the subject of Scientology, but if you get them to really look, most will wake up. And if they don’t, well we’ve done what we can and that’s their lookout isn’t it?

Axiom142
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Ax -

Not allowing questioning of L Ron Hubbard isn't even ethical per the Creed of the Church - the document that was presented to every Scientologist as "What We of the Church Believe."

Remember?

But questioning LRH is still not allowed on Marty's or Steve's blogs.

A little of it is allowed on Jeff's blog - but not too much. I believe that Jeff would feel that he was going "out-pr" and being disrespectful to his friends if he did. So Jeff posts tech on brainwashing techniques and lets everyone come to their own conclusions without "eval" of who he is really talking about.

This approach is way better than Marty and Steve's, and certainly better than nothing. But it is not fully honest. And to the degree that anyone misses the idea that he is talking about the Source of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, and not just David Miscavige, I believe is a disservice to those people.

He should come out and say it.

The Int Base Escapees "united front" on their messaging may not be an established fact with the minutes from their meetings published on Wikileaks, but the pattern is very much there. David Miscavige BAD, LRH GOOD (or don't say anything at all)

It's just more Scientology regulation of your freedom of speech, and I don't know how Jeff or Amy can stand it.

But they seem to.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
---snipped---
Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? Hubbard was doing research vital to the future of all sentient beings in the universe and wasn’t involved in the running of the church and so SPs infiltrated and got the ‘church’ into trouble, resulting in several executives being sent to prison. Except when you examine this in more detail, you find that one of the masterminds behind the whole affair was Hubbard’s own wife, Mary Sue. Was he really trying to make out that an SP had managed to insinuate herself into his life, bear him four children, work closely with him at every turn and he never realised that she was an SP?

Liars and Plants and Prisoners, oh my! (wringing hands) Whatever shall we conclude?

Alas! I have cognited...

Ron's tech works!

He didn't go to prison. So that means he has the freedom tech!

By contrast....

MSH's tech does not work.
And, likewise...

(fill in name of any other Scientologist in the world)'s tech does not work either.

We shall not speculate here why Ron's tech came to rise above my, yours and everyone else's tech.

Ron says we shouldn't speculate about such matters so we don't ruin our eternities. That's good enough for me.

(FN VGI's) My space feels calm. Bye.
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron


The Int Base Escapees "united front" on their messaging may not be an established fact with the minutes from their meetings published on Wikileaks, but the pattern is very much there. David Miscavige BAD, LRH GOOD (or don't say anything at all)

It's just more Scientology regulation of your freedom of speech, and I don't know how Jeff or Amy can stand it.

But they do.

I don’t disagree with you Al – ‘DM BAD, LRH GOOD’ is just plain daft and indicates an inability or unwillingness to look at the facts. But there will always be people who feel that way. Best not to get hung up on those that cannot face the truth and focus instead on those that can. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, even if I think it is best for them.

I don’t feel like my freedom of speech is being regulated. I have plenty of places where I can air my views. If a particular person chooses not to allow comments on their own blog or website that upset them or others, then that is their right. Isn’t it?

If you don’t mind a bit of personal advice – learn to let some things go. By all means have your say and present your arguments, but if someone chooses not to listen or admit that you were right, then so be it.

It’s OK for people to disagree. :yes:

Axiom142
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I don’t disagree with you Al – ‘DM BAD, LRH GOOD’ is just plain daft and indicates an inability or unwillingness to look at the facts. But there will always be people who feel that way. Best not to get hung up on those that cannot face the truth and focus instead on those that can. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, even if I think it is best for them.

I don’t feel like my freedom of speech is being regulated. I have plenty of places where I can air my views. If a particular person chooses not to allow comments on their own blog or website that upset them or others, then that is their right. Isn’t it?

If you don’t mind a bit of personal advice – learn to let some things go. By all means have your say and present your arguments, but if someone chooses not to listen or admit that you were right, then so be it.

It’s OK for people to disagree. :yes:

I'm not following you here.

Could you please expand a little bit on this?

My point was that it is not ethical to create an environment for the Scientology brainwashing to continue by discouraging questioning of LRH.

This has prompted you to give me your bit of personal advice above.

How are these related?
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
...

Ron's tech works!

He didn't go to prison. So that means he has the freedom tech!

By contrast....

MSH's tech does not work.
And, likewise...

(fill in name of any other Scientologist in the world)'s tech does not work either.

We shall not speculate here why Ron's tech came to rise above my, yours and everyone else's tech.

Ron says we shouldn't speculate about such matters so we don't ruin our eternities. That's good enough for me.

(FN VGI's) My space feels calm. Bye.

Thank you HH for that (as always) insightful analysis of the situation.

Of course, if I were to slip into my nattering, carping SP valence, I might comment that given the parlous state of the ‘church' of Scientology, the universally bad public relations enjoyed by the CoS, inability of those trained in the ‘most powerful management technology in the universe (ever)’ to spot and correct the most basic and obvious outpoints infesting every level of the Scientology machine and complete lack of OTs displaying OT superpowerz, Hubbard’s ‘Tech’ doesn’t seem to be working very well either.

If he was so bleeding OT, how come he didn’t see this and puts steps in place to prevent it, or once it had happened, nip back from his cosmic holiday and fix it with one wave of his magic super-OT wand?

Oh dear, I appear to have come over all SPish. :melodramatic:

I’ll go and have a lie-down. :tobed:

Ax
 
Last edited:

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm not following you here.

Could you please expand a little bit on this?

My point was that it is not ethical to create an environment for the Scientology brainwashing to continue by discouraging questioning of LRH.

This has prompted you to give me your bit of personal advice above.

How are these related?

Do I have to explain everything? :melodramatic:

I agreed with you – some attitudes displayed by some Scns are weird.

You said “It's just more Scientology regulation of your freedom of speech” and I attempted to communicate to you that it wasn’t a big deal because there are plenty of places for us to communicate from.

If someone chooses to censor what is being said on their own website - no biggie.

As for the personal advice – don’t worry, I’m not going to charge you. :coolwink:

I just think that sometimes you feel that certain things are much more important than they really are. I could be wrong about this, but it seems like you get a bit hot under the collar unnecessarily.

If you don’t like what I say – that’s OK, you can ignore it.

(But we’ll both know I was right)

Just kidding! :)

Axiom142
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
Allen, it's NOT OK!

You judge too much (about other people).

Look at yourself first! (Why weren't you smart enough to ever get into Scn?)

Stop going abouts judgements. Have your own clue, and leave it at that.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Vadim: Thank you for your judgment of me.

Ax - There would never be a crusade ever - anywhere - if someone didn't take something more important than it really was.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Question: [FONT=&quot]Exactly how were the tactics that LRH developed for the GO used by him in his day?

Ironcially, Steve himself provided some previously confidential GO writings of LRH's that he found on WikiLeaks as well as here as examples of the tech LRH developed to go after those "high-level" enemies of Scientology.

Here is a part of what Steve put into his post:

[/FONT]HCO PL 16 Feb 1969, Confidential, TARGETS, DEFENSE:

The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:

1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.

2. Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.

3. Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.

4. Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shifting them to a less precarious finance standard.

5. Generally revitalizing the societies in which we are operating.

6. Winning overwhelming public support.

7. Use all other similar groups as allies.
Take a look at Number 1 above. That was written by LRH. Isn't David Miscavige applying that exactly as written by L Ron Hubbard?

Anyway, back to the question:

In the beginning of 1969, when this confidential HCOPL was written by LRH, there had been two official inquries into Scientology in Ireland and in Australia, and the FDA had brought legal suits against LRH and the Church for selling Scientology based on false medical claims, and Fair Game had been conceived and put into practice by LRH for three years.

HERE's the wikipedia article on Fair Game, as written and applied by LRH.

And from 1965, there's the original Suppressive Acts HCOPL, written by L Ron Hubbard which included Fair Game, and labeling people "Fair Game". LRH never mentioned that this policy was only supposed to be applied to "high-level attackers".

Were there any whistleblowers who had these tactics used against them, or were they all part of the "high-level" attackers as Steve claims?

In 1968 Paulette Cooper wrote an article called "The Scandal of Scientology" in "Queen" magazine and later in 1971 came out with a book by the same name.

Operation Freakout was waged against Paulette Cooper at that time - by L Ron Hubbard.

Here's the question: Was Paulette Cooper a member of the "high-level attackers" or just a whistleblower?[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Here is a part of what Steve put into his post:

The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:

1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.

2. Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.

3. Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.

4. Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shifting them to a less precarious finance standard.

5. Generally revitalizing the societies in which we are operating.

6. Winning overwhelming public support.

7. Use all other similar groups as allies.
Take a look at Number 1 above. That was written by LRH. Isn't David Miscavige applying that exactly as written by L Ron Hubbard?

Regarding #1, DM is only succeeding at depopularizing Scientology to a point of total obliteration. As for the rest, for all the influence the CofS has there might as well have been a pre-requisite target of

0. Switch the orbits of Mars and Venus.

Paul
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Alanzo;Many dirty tricks were played on Church leaders. But through [B said:
“constant alertness and willingness to fight back,”[/B] the Church persevered. And eventually LRH learned the attacker’s plan and launched an organization to beat them at their own game: the Guardian’s Office, headed by Mary Sue."

In early days the AMA attached scn/dn. A pattern they have used often.

There is data on this out there. Not being a critic, or for that matter
super organised, can't quote much on URLs I read. Here is one anyway.

http://scientologyexposed.50megs.com/paranoia.html
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
Vadim: Thank you for your judgment of me.

Bullshit! I didn't judge you!

Here is my judgement: DO something.

You talk much, and do nothing.

You spoke about Marty & Mike a lot. - Have YOU put your own chest under CoS bullets?

You speak about Steve Hall's failures now? - How long ago did you say your true name (to speak of anything)?

This IS my judgement. Allen! Come on! Get it straight! Those guys make WAY more than you do here (talking and pointing)
 
Top