Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Friday, March 28, 2008

The Third Option

The Church of Scientology is forbidden from "defending" itself by Hubbard. Hubbard said "Attack, never defend!"

Now, everyone knows what the church does to critics. It used to be called "Fair Game". Now I guess we have to call it "The abusive tactic previously known as Fair Game."

The church believes that anything destructive can and should be done to someone "declared Suppressive" -- both legal and illegal.

Recently it was Gregg from Boston. He is an active critic who, for some reason, the church singled out for attack (by TATPKAFG - "The abusive tactic..."). Apparently, after trying many things they finally got some minor complaint to stick.

Is this what an honest organization would do?

It is and has been much worse. Search for "Scientology Fair Game" for many examples. Google "Paulette Cooper". Or just see any recent news article about what the Church of Scientology is doing. The church is following Hubbard's orders to "attack, never defend".

But is that what an innocent organization would do?

The church calls in their lawyers and tries just about any legal action against critics, as with Gregg of Boston, as with the recent attempts in Clearwater. These actions are mostly not successful, but they do waste a critic's money and time, and they may sully the critic's reputation.

But is this what an decent organization would do?

The church dredges up past negative information on critics, even old, known-to-be-false information. The church creates negative information about critics, such as bomb threats. Any positive information is, of course, buried. Any negative information is magnified. Often it is just false accusations, but because the church usually does this anonymously (ironic, that) the accusations cannot be easily refuted or stopped.

But is this what an honest organization would do?

There are stories about critics being stalked by menacing men, intimidating people claiming to be "process servers" showing up at critics' doors, critics' property being damaged, even critics' pets being poisoned. These things are believed to be the handiwork of the Church of Scientology. Sometimes a critic is scared into silence, but such stories only increase the number and dedication of critics in general.

No honest, decent, innocent organization would do these kinds of things!

The church claims that all the accusations are false-false-false, but it does not react as an innocent organization would react. What it does do is try to cover up evidence and silence or "discredit" critics. What it does not do is answer the questions raised.

The actions of the Church of Scientology are not the actions of an honest organization!

What is lost, I believe, in all this battling is an idea of what this whole fight would look like if the Church of Scientology were an honest and decent organization.

Here's an example of what an honest and decent response to the reports of crimes, abuses and fraud would look like. This is what a basically good church would say.
"We are very concerned about these reports. We welcome an open, independent and thorough investigation into any and all reports. We will assist any such investigation to our fullest ability. We want to clear our good name. If any crimes are uncovered, we will do everything we can to see that those responsible within the church are brought to justice."
But, of course, just saying that is not enough. The ethical, moral and honest thing to do next is to then encourage and support an independent (not Scientology-linked) investigation of everything. Open the church's compounds, shine the light into every corner. Let everyone within the church talk freely without supervision or punishment. Purge the criminals, stop the abuse, see that it never happens again. Let all who are held against their will go free. Let families be reunited. Stop all attempts to "fair game" people. Continue these actions until it is clear that all criminals in the church have been located and brought to justice and that crimes and abuses are no longer being committed or tolerated by anyone in the church.

But just compare that with what the Church of Scientology has said; What it has done.

You see, the church believes that there are only two possible courses of action, defend or attack, but they are forbidden by Hubbard the option of defending themselves. They believe they must, therefore, attack, even when they are guilty.

I suggest that there is a third option:
Be open and honest


  1. Hi Bill;
    Yours is a well-written article. There's nothing wrong with the logic you follow; however, there are some things wrong with the original data you start from.

    First off, you have a misunderstanding of "never defend, always attack." By attack, it is not meant to harrass or do illegal acts. By attack, in dialectics and in debate, it is meant to go on the offensive. To ask tough questions of the opponent, to challenge why they're attacking you, what their motives are.

    Secondly, "Fair Game" was a tactic used by the Guardian's Office, an arm of the Church in the Seventies that started acting like a James Bond operation, was censured by Mr. Hubbard himself for it, and was completely disbanded in 1981, many of its executives fired and kicked out from the Church (ironically, its some of these people that now are attacking the Church.)

    Thirdly, the "open and honest" approach you describe is sensible in an atmosphere of justice and equanimity. In its 50 years of history, Scientology has experienced not a shred of justice. Challenging a trillion-dollar psych industry with its activism (see, the Church upsets people with deep pockets. Keep in mind that Bush Sr. sits on the Board of the largest of these drug companies.
    We've been infiltrated, attacked, harrassed, falsely imprisoned, wire-tapped, and all sorts of dirty tricks.
    In 1978 we suffered an FBI raid. No wrong-doing was found.
    In 1985 a joint FDA/FBI operation sought to plant false documents in our Churches. We have that on tape.
    The list goes on an on.

    As a consequence, while the Church does clean up its messes internally and while the Church does conducts itself in an ethical, lawful manner, it has no interest in inviting the participation of vested interests who would like to destroy it.

    It is noteworthy, too, how little is reported of the millions of volunteer hours we put in around the World, of our literacy centers, or our drug rehab centers, etc. It's only the dirt that people seem to want.

    Scientologist and proud of it

  2. Thanks Greg. I appreciate your comments in response to my article. I always like to hear from Scientologists.

    First off, I was in Scientology for over 30 years. I was on staff and in the Sea Org for many, many years. I actually do not have a misunderstanding of Hubbard's "never defend, always attack." I've seen it in action. There is no misunderstanding. Hubbard truly meant attack, by any means possible, fair or foul. It is codified in his policy letters. He did not want his followers to be gentle with his critics.

    If you wish to debate that point further, you will have to come up with some examples where the Church of Scientology engaged in "dialectics and debate" instead of what everyone else sees. I actually want to hear from you. Everyone sees the church engaging in bombast and diatribe. You see dialectics and debate. Where does this debate take place?

    Secondly, about "fair game" and the Guardian's Office, I understand that this is the "shore story" that Scientology gives out. Big purge. "We don't do that anymore." Then, please tell me: What is the Office of Special Affairs? They were created out of the ashes of the Guardian's Office. They follow the same policies. They execute the same "dirty tricks". If the church had truly reformed, they would not need OSA. But there it is.

    Hubbard canceled the use of the term "fair game" but, in the same policy, he explicitly approved the actions carried out under fair game.

    Is it that you really don't know about your church? Or do you just hope others don't know about it?

    You see, I am friends with people who operated within OSA. They have spilled the beans. The "G.O." never went away, it was just renamed.

    Thirdly, there is this myth within the Church of Scientology that there is this incredibly powerful, vast, evil conspiracy that is aligned against Scientology. Hell, I believed it.

    But it just isn't true. I have looked. I was a true believer in that myth. Psychiatrists? Don't seem to think about Scientology at all. Newspapers? They give Scientology good press more often than not. I hate to ruin a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't exist.

    But while looking, have found something very, very interesting. Every single, solitary critic of the Church of Scientology was created by the church itself!

    The church abuses someone, there's a critic.
    The church attacks someone who "asked the wrong questions", there's a critic.
    The church murders someone, more critics.
    The church tries to suppress evidence of their crimes, a boatload of critics are born.
    The church forces families to disconnect, lots of critics.
    A web site just prints a bit of news about a Scientology celebrity and is viciously attacked by the church, now there's another critical site.

    The "open and honest" approach only works for honest organizations, but it does work well for them.

    You write: "In 1978 we suffered an FBI raid. No wrong-doing was found."

    Whoa! Please tell me how "Operation Freakout" uncovered in that raid was not wrong-doing. Please tell me how all the Guardian's Office crimes, uncovered in that raid, for which top Scientology executives went to prison where not wrong-doing.

    You mention the various Scientology volunteer activities. Do you know that the Church of Scientology doesn't do any of that? Yes, Scientologists do that. Good people. I like them. But the church doesn't spend one thin dime on any of those "good works". Why should it get any credit for them?

    You write: "As a consequence, while the Church does clean up its messes internally and while the Church does conducts itself in an ethical, lawful manner, it has no interest in inviting the participation of vested interests who would like to destroy it."

    Sorry, all lies. I hope you simply have been lied to and are not one of those tasked with spreading these lies.

    The church does not clean up its messes. The church does not conduct itself in an ethical and especially not a lawful manner. If it truly did that, there would never be a complaint against them. I am sorry for all Scientologists. They have been told, and believe, that their church can do no wrong. The truth is coming out and it is getting harder and harder to hold onto that faith.

    You are told by church management that church management is good. You have no evidence of that. You have no proof of that. You believe that management is good because, well, management told you so. Every person who has been abused, lied to, unfairly attacked, is declared suppressive by management so you can't hear their stories. Scientology management tells you that any bad stories about them are lies. And you completely believe them.

    When did you become so gullible?



Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.