Intolerance to criticism


So it came out in the news that the Church of Scientology published an issue of its Freedom magazine, dedicated to “expose” Anderson Cooper, certainly in response to Anderson Cooper’s earlier exposure of the Church of Scientology, in Scientology: A history of violence, which aired on CNN end of March, early April.

This was to be expected. In a policy letter (which is Scientology scripture) of February 1966, Hubbard wrote:

… Don’t ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way. You can get “reasonable about it” and lose. Sure we break no laws. Sure we have nothing to hide. BUT attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don’t use us. I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out.

As per its prophet Hubbard, this is the only way the Church of Scientology is allowed to react to exposure, regardless of the truth behind the allegations. Hubbard made it simply impossible for Scientology to reform, as long as all of his writings are held as incontrovertible and absolute truth.

This is why the Church of Scientology published an issue of Freedom magazine “exposing” the St. Petersburg Times, following the St. Petersburg Times‘ landmark series of 2009 exposing the Church of Scientology and its top leader, David Miscavige.

This is why the Church of Scientology published an issue of Freedom magazine “exposing” BBC’s Panorama, following its Scientology and me episode, which exposed the creepiness of the Church of Scientology.

So for those who keep a close watch on Scientology, the latest issue of Freedom magazine “exposing” Anderson Cooper is nothing to be surprised: It’s expected, since it’s mandated by Scientology scriptures.

But let’s go back even farther in time.

Australia, 1965: A thorough inquiry into Scientology resulted in a scathing report, possibly one of the best and most accurate when it comes to understand why Scientology is dangerous. This was the Anderson Report. In its prefatory notes, the Report stated:

Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially … Scientology is a grave threat to family and home life. As well as causing financial hardship, it engenders dissension, suspicion and mistrust amongst members of the family. Scientology has caused many family estrangements.

All of the above has always held true, nowadays included, and this shows the excellent quality of the analysis of Scientology by the Australian inquiry of 1965. Mike Rinder, one of the top officials who recently defected, is currently suffering from the same disconnection practices which were exposed by the Anderson Report, 45 years ago.

What was Hubbard’s response to the Anderson Report back then? Here is an excerpt:

The foundation of Victoria consists of the riff-raff of London’s slums … Robbers, murderers, prostitutes, fences, thieves. …

The insane attack on Scientology can best be understood if Victoria is seen for what it is—a very primitive community, somewhat barbaric, with a rudimentary knowledge of the physical sciences.

In fact, it is a scientific barbarism so bigoted that they know not and do not know they are ignorant …

[Ref.: Scientology: Sex, hypnotism and security checks | Sunday Mirror (UK) | 28 July 1968]

United Kingdom, July 1968, in the House of Commons: Regarding Scientology, Minister of Health Kenneth Robinson said:

The Government are satisfied, having reviewed all the available evidence, that scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from one another and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it. Its authoritarian principles and practices are a potential menace to the personality and well-being of those so deluded as to become its followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them. There is evidence that children are now being indoctrinated.

[Ref.: House of Commons // Official report // Parliamentary debates (Hansard)]

What was the Church of Scientology response? In the fall of 1968 published an issue of its Freedom magazine, with “extravagant allegations … which were of a gravely defamatory nature”:

Put shortly, it was alleged that Mr Robinson had instigated or approved of the creation of what were called “death camps”, likened to Belsen and Auschwitz, to which persons (including mental patients) could be forcibly abducted and there killed or maimed with impunity. It was further alleged that Mr Robinson had abused his position as a minister in relation to government grants made to the National Association of Mental Health.The broadsheets containing these grave allegations were each distributed to about 100,000 persons, including people in public life (such as MPs) and editors of newspapers and journals.

[Ref.: Church of Scientology to pay libel damages to former Minister | The Times (UK) | 6 June 1973]

Mr. Kenneth Robinson successfully sued the Church of Scientology for libel.

Just goes to show: Scientology today, just the same as Scientology 45 years ago.

Scientology: Sex, hypnotism and security checks

According to one of Marty Rathbun’s latest post, titled “Censorhip”:

censorship should have no place in a civilized society.  There is no purpose for it other than to attempt to control the flow of information amongst the minds of beings.  It is the supreme invalidation of the beings it targets. It implies they are not intelligent enough to evaluate information for its credibility and importance.  It has historically been used by dictators and tyrants attempting to suppress dissent and differing views.

Of course I wholeheartedly agree with such statement — it is what got me involved with exposing Scientology in the first place, with the Church of Scientology’s attempt at censorship when it tried to force Google to remove links to a site critical of Scientology from its search results, in 2002 (see “Google pulls anti-Scientology links,” CNet.) Now, keeping in mind that Marty Rathbun is still faithful to L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings, his post re. censorhip is rather surprising to say the least.

L. Ron Hubbard teachings permeate intolerance to dissent. It would be plain impossible to enumerate all instances that hint at intolerance to dissent in Hubbard teachings, but it’s easy to cite a few of the most obvious:

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 engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES.

[…]

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used 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 his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

[Ref. “THE SCIENTOLOGIST / A Manual on the Dissemination of Material,” L. Ron Hubbard, 1955]

And

People who attack Scientology are criminals.

[Ref. “Branch 5 Project, Project Squirrel,” L. Ron Hubbard, LRH ED 149 INT, 2 Dec 1966]

And

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.

[Ref. “CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY,” L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB of 5 November 1967]

And

Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized. Be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology. The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

[Ref.: L. Ron Hubbard, as quoted in the Reader’s Digest in 1980]

And so on.

Farther in his post, Marty Rathbun states states:

I have told many people that the greatest ability I ever attained in Scientology was the ability to disagree.  When I regained that faculty I considered myself no longer  a lemming following group think over the cliff.

The double-speak in there boggles the mind. Therefore I couldn’t resist commenting on this, twice. First:

This is what got me involved, “attempt to control the flow of information” by the Church of Scientology.

So, I gather this means I can talk freely about L Ron Hubbard’s policies re. the treatment of critics, like “noisy investigations,” (to which you were subjected in the U.K. as per your blog) with specific examples like Paulette Cooper, Jim Berry, etc.? You know, those on-topic posts, filled with specifics, I made on your blog in the past which you never allowed to be read by others — because you deemed them… let’s say… ‘enturbulating’ I suppose? Or is censorship not censorship when the rationale involves the subjective concept of ‘enturbulation’?

By the way, what happened to your Dec. 23 post titled “Brisbane Independent – Lise O’Kane,” which was the subject of a lot of criticism? I can’t see it here. I have a full copy of it if you wish to reinstate it here.

Second, in response to one of his comment:

Doesn’t strike you as ironic to justify the censorship of comments by referring to them as “full of generalities,” without anything more specific? (Since we can’t see these censored comments, you are asking people to trust entirely *your* interpretation — but with all due respect, I rather rely on my *own* interpretation.)

I ask, because the comments I made in the past, which you never allowed, had specifics in them, and yet somehow you decided against them. I would appreciate very much that you point out actually *specifically* where the problem(s) was(were) in those posts.

None of those comments were accepted for publication on his blog, and neither did he care to explain his contradictory statements/behavior.

I gather Marty Rathbun’s newfound ability to disagree doesn’t include disagreeing with the teachings of Scientology, which is not at all surprising, given that Scientology teachings call for the intolerance of dissent — as per Scientology self-serving teachings, Scientology doctrines do not allow doubt of Scientology teachings (Ref. “Keeping Scientology Working”)

On these words, here is a bit of Scientology history, pre-David Miscavige era, an excerpt from a news 1972 article (my emphasis):

Most important, perhaps, Cooper says that her case is typical of efforts by Scientologists to silence anyone who writes critically of the church. Her complaint alleges that Scientology has filed 100 libel suits in the last two years in the United States and Britain. Among those who have been sued in America, in addition to Tower and herself, are the American Medical Association and the National Education Association, Fairchild Publications (for an article in Women’s Wear Daily), The Washington Post and George Malko, along with Delacorte Press, for his book, Scientology—The Now Religion. The Scientologists have also sued Realist publisher Paul Krassner. And they’ve tried to block the publication of an Olympia Press book about the church by Robert Kaufman. They have also threatened to sue Life, the Rev. Lester Kinsolving of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and Parents’ Magazine, to name a few, according to Cooper.

Scientology has won none of these suits. The actions against Tower, Cooper, the AMA and NEA, Delacorte, Malko and Krassner are all in process, with no quick settlement in sight. The suits against Women’s Wear Daily and The Washington Post were dropped. And a hearing is to be held some time in May on the Kaufman book.

[Ref.: “Scientology fights back,” The Nation, May 22, 1972. Keep in mind that in 1972, the Scientology attempt to silence Paulette Cooper through Hubbard’s “Operation Freakout” had not been uncovered yet.]

(David Miscavige was around 12 year old at the time…)

There is an interesting article today from the Australian Associated Press (AAP). The most complete version is found in The Age: “Xenophon hits out at Scientology”. (For whatever reason, other versions of the same AAP article were truncated, leaving out key parts: example 1, example 2, etc.)

In short, an independent Australian senator questioned the religious status of the Church of Scientology after receiving many letters from people whose brush with Scientology has been less than positive (euphemism). Here is a key excerpt:

Paul David Schofield said his first daughter Lauren had died after she was allowed to wander one of the Church of Scientology’s Sydney buildings and fell down some stairs.

“My wife and I were actively discouraged from seeking compensation from the church,” he wrote.

“I was also encouraged by church executives to request no coronial enquiry (sic) into her death, something I stupidly agreed with at that time.”

Mr Schofield’s second daughter Kirsty also died, in this case after ingesting potassium chloride at the family home – a substance he said was used widely in the organisation’s “purification” programs.

In another letter, Aaron Saxton said as a member of the organisation he participated in the “forced confinement and torture” of others.

He wrote that Scientologists considered to be “underperforming” were placed on diets of beans and rice for up to two weeks at a time, and they were also not allowed to access medications or undergo procedures such as pap smears.

The Church of Scientology spokesperson true to form response was (my emphasis):

“Senator Xenophon is obviously being pressured by disgruntled former members who use hate speech and distorted accounts of their experiences in the church,” the organisation said in a statement to AAP.

“They are about as reliable as former spouses are when talking about their ex-partner.”

Of course, this is the kind of answer to expect from someone indoctrinated with the writings of L. Ron Hubbard – which teach followers that any exposure of wrongdoings by Scientologists is an “attack” on their religion.

My response to the Church of Scientology spokesperson:

Dear Church of Scientology spokesperson… Would you automatically deem as “unreliable” the accounts of spouses subjected to beatings by their former partner? Because that’s exactly what your answer above entails.

Side note: To further underline how the thick track record of intolerance to criticism with Scientology can be traced to the Scientology “scriptures,” even independent Scientologist Marty Rathbun still shows intolerance to criticism of Scientology, as seen in one of his recent post, in which he still associates criticism of Scientology teachings with “hate.” L. Ron Hubbard would approve:

NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers.

[…]

So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don’t use us.

I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out.

[Ref.: L. Ron Hubbard, “Attacks on Scientology,” 15 February 1966]

Addendum: See senator Nick Xenophon on Youtube for all the details – this is a must-see: Youtube Part 1, Youtube Part 2, Transcript PDF (1.13MB).

After listening to senator Xenophon, one sees that Australia’s Anderson Report of 1965 had it right, well, except that Scientology proved to be much worst (my emphasis):

Many scientology techniques, beyond the elementary stages, are essentially those of command or authoritative hypnosis, and are potentially dangerous to mental health.

[…]

The principles and practices of scientology are contrary to accepted principles and practices of medicine and science, and constitute a grave danger to the health, particularly the mental health, of the community. Expert opinion to this effect was fully confirmed by the considerable number of specific cases of damage to mental health of which the Board heard evidence.

[…]

In many cases, mental derangement and a loss of critical faculties have resulted from scientology processing and have continued long after the individuals concerned have ceased active association with scientology. In a number of instances the direct result of scientology processing has been to produce mental derangement which has required hospital treatment.

[…]

Financial hardship to the customer is the usual concomitant of processing.

[…]

Scientology is not, and does not claim to be, a religion. The general attitude of its founder is hostile to and disparaging of religion.

Scientology is a grave threat to family and home life. As well as causing financial hardship, it engenders dissension, suspicion and mistrust amongst members of the family. Scientology has caused many family estrangements.

The Board has been unable to find any worth-while redeeming feature in scientology. It constitutes a serious medical, moral and social threat to individuals and to the community generally.