Re. “Russia bans books by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard”

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Materials on Scientology by Ron Hubbard have been found extremist and will be banned from distribution in Russia,” the Russian prosecutor general’s office said in a statement.

About the first part of the sentence:

Materials on Scientology by Ron Hubbard have been found extremist

Fine.

Hubbard’s “suppressive person” doctrine is a cancer on individuals, family, communities and even society as a whole. In case you don’t know yet, in Scientology, a “suppressive person” is anybody antagonistic to Scientology teachings, or anybody impeding Scientology’s (silly) “ideal scene” of a whole planet run according to Scientology principles.

You don’t like Scientology’s policy of “disconnection” and say so? You’re a “suppressive person.” You don’t like Scientology’s policy of lying and deceiving in order to further Scientology goals (which include getting as much money as possible from people)? You’re a “suppressive person.” You found out the Scientologists are misrepresenting themselves and expose it? You’re a “suppressive.” Etc.

Now, the second part of the sentence:

and will be banned from distribution in Russia

Fail.

The Russian prosecutor general’s office should have stuck to express its opinion regarding Hubbard’s writings, and explain succinctly how they came about to this opinion.

However to go so far as banning is so wrong.

Actually, so utterly wrong that the Scientologists are going to run with this one, I can see the Church of Scientology spotlighting their strawman arguments that critics want Hubbard books burned, while its rather the opposite.

I want all of Hubbard’s writings to be freely available, confidential policies and upper levels included, without having to go through expensive “required” levels, so all can make an informed decision before jumping in.

It’s about full disclosure, censoring more on top of Scientology teachings and its built-in censorship is so fail.

Censoring materials from an organization built on doctrines of censorship is the wrong way to go.

Suppose I summarily described life in Scientology’s compound of Gilman Hot Spring, Hemet, with the following excerpts:

… part insane asylum, part forced labor camp … paint a picture of a … man in absolute control of the people around him; a man who is given to violent outbursts and eccentric behavior … real egocentric … severe temper tantrums … always swearing …very moody, and had a temper like a volcano. He would yell at anybody … screaming … “You are trying to kill me!” … had everyone convinced his … two dogs were “Scientology clears” who could tell if someone was dishonest or disloyal to him … In rebuttal … I have always found [him] warm and considerate … Punishment ranges from shouting repeated insults at the offender to making them run laps around … ordered a young woman to clean out a septic tank pool for three days straight … Dozens of workers, mostly young Scientologists, were brought in last spring to remodel the mansion … concerned solely with making money … If the sales figures dropped below a certain level, [he] became furious … went in to a fit, saying the church wasn’t making enough money and it was all my fault … was stripped of her duties as marketing secretary and assigned to “Rehabilitation Project Force,” … was “forced to do slave labor” planting trees and weeding the golf course in temperature reaching 120 degrees … were locked up for days at a time inside their rooms … were locked inside a shed which had no electricity, water or toilets … Before I got very far, the guards sent a truck for me. I was ordered to get in …

Sounds familiar?

It sure look as a description of current life at Gilman Hot Springs, as reported by the numerous recent whistle-blowers who came forward to speak up about their life in Scientology at Gilman Hot Springs. With passages such as…

  • “guards sent a truck for me”, which sounds very much like Marc Headley’s dramatic escape from Scientology compound;
  • “man in absolute control of the people around him”, “always swearing” and “very moody”, which sounds like how David Miscavige has been described by many recent whistle-blowers;
  • “dogs … who could tell if someone was dishonest or disloyal to him”, sounds like Amy Scobee’s account of David Miscavige using his beagle to spot “out-ethics” people; [ref]
  • “always found … warm and considerate”, which sounds like Tommy Davis describing David Miscavige;
  • “clean out a septic tank pool for three days straight”, which sounds like Mike Rinder or Amy Scobee describing their treatment under David Miscavige. [ref]

Sure sounds like life in Scientology under the tyrannical ruling of David Miscavige, as described by the current flock of whistle-blowers, doesn’t?

The fact is, the above excerpts are from an article published in the Riverside Press-Enterprise 30 years ago: “Defector describes Scientology // Scientology at Gilman”, dated April 14, 1980.

Since this article from historical archives is about L. Ron Hubbard, are the facts reported in it less reprehensible than if the article was describing David Miscavige?

Suppose one take all occurrences of Hubbard in the above article, and replace with Miscavige, does this suddenly make the reported facts more reprehensible?

Suppose one take all the occurrences of Miscavige in the recent media exposing his abuses of people, and replace each occurrence with Hubbard, does this suddenly make the reported facts less reprehensible?

Of course, these questions I direct to those who, despite having left the “Scientology, Inc.”, still defend L. Ron Hubbard and his “teachings” as benevolent.

Confide: to show confidence by imparting secrets. [ref]

Apparently, Mike Rinder won’t talk to Gerry Armstrong, hence Gerry Armstrong’s open letter to Mike Rinder.

According to a post by Mike Rinder on April 4th, entitled “WHERE IS HEBER?”, and published on Marty Rathbun’s blog, Mike Rinder decided to quit the Church of Scientology because of him “having to lie to the BBC about Miscavige beating people.” (In relation to the May 14th, 2007, BBC Panorama’s special report on Scientology.)

As per Mike Rinder, him “having to lie to the BBC about Miscavige beating people” was the “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

Gerry Armstrong has been exposing the lies of the Church of Scientology and that of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, for nearly three decades now. He was key in exposing L. Ron Hubbard’s lies to the world. Scientology, as designed by Hubbard, mandates lying, in order to further the goal of his founder (to convert everybody to Scientology, and eventually dispose quietly and without sorrow those who just won’t accept Hubbard’s worldview.)

As of now, it looks as if Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder are only interested in exposing David Miscavige’s lies. L. Ron Hubbard’s lies, or the Scientology doctrines of using lies to further Scientology seem to be of little interest to them. But then, they still see themselves as faithful Scientologists.

In asserting that lies are only an intrinsic trait of Church of Scientology leader David Miscavige, and not an intrinsic trait of Scientology teachings, Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder are, unfortunately, first and foremost, lying to themselves.

In my opinion, the Church of Scientology pre-Miscavige era was even more lying to its members and to the outside world, as it was more easy to do so and get away with it back then, because information about the Church of Scientology was not as easy to find as it is nowadays. It is easier to get away with lies when the information is more compartmentalized, which was the case in the pre-internet era.

I have little doubt that Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder wish to “reform” the current Church of Scientology. But I really question the result of such “reform” if the only lesson they got from their experience in the church is that Scientology is benevolent, and only David Miscavige is to be blamed.

The problem is that David Miscavige hasn’t always be at the helm of Scientology, and there was always of culture of lies in the Church of Scientology.

Now, why would it make sense for Mike Rinder to talk to Gerry Armstrong, among all exes out there?

More than 25 years ago, Gerry Armstrong and Mike Rinder were talking to each other.

While Gerry Armstrong was out, and Mike Rinder was in the Church of Scientology, they were talking to each other about reforming the Church of Scientology.

More than 25 years ago, Gerry Armstrong said to Mike Rinder, “I think both of us want the organization to be transformed into something decent . . . I put my whole life into [Scientology] . . . I have a higher commitment to truth than I do to some label.” [Ref. “Court hears final Scientology tape”, The Oregonian, April 17, 1985]

Today, Mike Rinder is out, and as per his own words, unwilling to lie anymore (for David Miscavige at least), and really wishes to see the Church of Scientology reformed, just like Gerry Armstrong expressly wished over 25 years ago.

Back then, Mike Rinder was lying to Gerry Armstrong when he convinced Gerry Armstrong of his good faith in trying to reform the Church of Scientology. He was talking to Gerry.

Now, Mike Rinder is likely not lying when he expresses the wish to reform the Church of Scientology. However, he won’t talk to Gerry Armstrong.

Go figure.

It’s unfortunate, as I am pretty sure Mike Rinder (and Marty Rathbun) could provide useful information re. the Church of Scientology’s nearly 30-year “war” against Gerry. Incidentally, Gerry and Caroline also did suffer from Scientology’s doctrine of “disconnection”, just like Mike Rinder does today.

Something for Mike Rinder to ponder: Nearly 30 years ago, Gerry Armstrong found himself not willing to go along the lies. You decided the same three years ago. What else did Gerry Armstrong understand way before you did?

Stacy Brooks did talk to Gerry after she left the Church of Scientology. As an example of the useful information she provided, here is an excerpt from Stacy Brooks’ “A classic example of the fair game policy at work” (1998), my emphasis:

[David Miscavige] ordered an intelligence sting operation against Gerry [Armstrong]. Gene Ingram got an LAPD officer, Phillip Rodriguez, to sign off on a bogus authorization to wiretap or videotape Gerry secretly. It was not actually authorized by the LAPD and Rodriguez later got in trouble for it. Then Mike Rinder and Dave Kluge (one of OSA’s intelligence operatives at the time) both set up meetings with Gerry Armstrong, pretending to be disaffected Scientologists who were considering going to the authorities with incriminating information about the church. Mike’s role was important because he was a high-level management staff member whom Gerry knew very well. He met with Gerry and basically said he was extremely dissatisfied with the way the church was being run and wondered if Gerry could hook him up with anyone in the IRS or FBI. Gerry had, in fact, been contacted by investigators from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, because at that time the IRS was seriously investigating LRH and Scientology for criminal fraud. So Gerry gave Mike the names of the agents he had spoken to.

But DM wanted more than this. DM wanted evidence that Gerry was a paid informant of the IRS, because this would show the judge that Gerry’s testimony was tainted. The only problem was, Gerry wasn’t a paid informant. So no matter how Rinder and Kluge asked their questions, they couldn’t get Gerry on videotape saying he was being paid to attack the church. Rinder and Kluge asked him all kinds of leading questions, trying in every way possible to get Gerry to say what they had been ordered to get him to say. But to no avail.

So DM called me in and ordered me to edit the transcripts of the videotapes to make it look like Gerry was admitting to being a paid informant, even though he never had admitted any such thing. I was to edit out Rinder’s and Kluge’s leading questions so it looked like Gerry was volunteering information, when in fact all he was really doing was answering a hypothetical question that had been posed to him.

I went through the transcripts and pulled the “best” parts I could find, doing my best to comply with DM’s orders to make Gerry look like a paid informant. Privately I thought it was obvious, even after the editing, that Gerry was being set up, but I dutifully turned in my doctored transcript to DM, who then turned it over to Ted Horner, a Gold staff member in charge of film editing, to use my edited transcript to do the final edit on the videotapes.

Then I went back to editing FREEDOM Magazine and my other normal duties and thought no more about it.

One night about a month later I was called over to the OSA Int conference room along with several other key OSA US staff. DM and Norman were both there, looking extremely morose. DM told us that they had taken the videotape into court and demanded to show it to the judge, saying it would prove conclusively that Gerry Armstrong was a paid liar. The judge agreed to see the videotape in camera (meaning in his chambers, not in open court). But the judge did not have the reaction DM and the others had expected. After seeing the videotape, the judge was enraged and told the Scientologists, “I have heard about these dirty tactics that you use against your perceived enemies, but now that I have seen it for myself I think you are much, much worse than I had ever imagined!” And kicked them out of his chambers.

On March 12, 2010, an excellent article was published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, titled “Scientology insider’s nightmare childhood”.

Toward the end of the article, the article quotes Scientology spokesperson Cyrus Brooks regarding financial compensation of Sea Org members. Excerpt:

Mr Brooks says the Sea Org’s 5,000 members, who are now on dry land, do not get paid.

“We don’t expect a wage and we don’t do it for a wage. We know this before we join and it is a major decision to do so,” he said.

“We understand that we are going to be working almost full time – including a work day, along then with religious studies and practice daily.”

Cyrus Brooks statement raises questions:

Why did David Miscavige, highest ranking Sea Organization officer,  earn $60,065 in 1989, $74,070 in 1990, $62,684 in 1991 and $34,779 in 1992? (Not counting his private residence at Scientology’s Gilman Hot Springs compound, and other perks not otherwise available to other Sea Org members.)

Why are Scientology Registrars (Scientology professional salesmen) paid a commission between 10% and 15% on materials/services/courses sold, in addition to their “regular wages”?

Aren’t they supposed to not be doing it for money, as Cyrus Brooks suggests?

I believe Cyrus Brooks just wanted to take opportunity to impinge the idea in the media that Sea Org members “don’t do it for a wage”, given Marc and Claire Headley‘s lawsuits in the United States regarding slave labor wages while in the employ of the Church of Scientology (the Headleys were minor when they were recruited in the Sea Org).

I am not a lawyer, but those who are seem to think the Headleys have an excellent case against the Church, see Scott Pilutik’s analysis in “Marc Headley v. Church of Scientology International” and “Claire Headley v. CSI, RTC”.

In closing, I will quote a 1983 report from the Ontario Provincial Police:

The greatest asset that SCIENTOLOGY orgs have on a worldwide basis, allowing them to expand, is, with exceptions, the use of largely unqualified and poorly paid staff, a situation akin to slave labor with little or no compensation for employment in a harsh environment. It is the informant’s belief that it is this seldom properly compensated work force which assists SCIENTOLOGY to reap high profits.

[Ref.: Detective Sergeant A. Campini in “INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT”]

References:

“On Source”: Meaning to follow Scientology teachings exactly as L. Ron Hubbard intended it.

Exactly 27 years ago, the St. Petersburg Times published an article titled “A ‘new breed’ reported taking over Scientology,” relating the takeover of the Church of Scientology by a handful of young believers, whose stated rationale was to bring Scientology back “on Source” (following the “Operation Snow White” mess.)

Given the ongoing events surrounding Scientology, and the new breed of defectors who wish to bring back Scientology “on Source,” I thought it was an appropriate time to transcribe this old article here.

A ‘new breed’ reported taking over Scientology

By Robert Lindsey
January 7, 1983
© New York Times

Defections by older members and publicity given a legal battle over control of hundreds of millions of dollars are believed to be cutting into the membership of the Church of Scientology.

The church, which has a headquarters in Clearwater, is described by its leaders as a religion and by its critics as a highly profitable business with cult-like overtones.

The church claims a worldwide membership of 6-million, although former officials say the number of adherents is probably fewer than 700,000.

According to dissident members, former Scientology officials and allegations in court documents, the church is currently controlled by a cadre of former servants of the organization’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, whose 1950 book Dianetics became the cornerstone of its program. The takeover by these members, who are in their 20s, has led to the expulsion or resignation of more than 150 senior members in the past year.

FACED WITH the loss of millions of dollars in income, the expelled operators of several regional Scientology franchises have set up their own organizations based on Hubbard’s teachings.

Meanwhile, the oldest son of Hubbard, Ronald E. DeWolf, has contended in a lawsuit that his father is either dead or being held captive by the former servants. He is suing to gain control of his father’s estate, which he says is worth more than $100-million.

In interviews and affidavits, some former church officials and other dissident members have contended the church is a lucrative business enterprise that systematically suppresses dissent. And more than 20 suits have been brought against the church by former members, represented by Michael Flynn, a Boston lawyer.

Spokesmen for the church have denied the accusations, including assertions of fraud and contentions that the church does not represent a bona fide religion.

“It’s a con — it was a fraud from the beginning,” Gerald Armstrong, formerly a close aide to Hubbard and the church’s archivist, said of the organization. He said he left the church a year ago after gaining access to records that he asserted indicated a long pattern of deception and fraud.

ACCORDING TO estimates by some former church officials, the organization, much of whose income is tax-exempt. has assets of more than $300-million around the world, much of it in bank accounts in Switzerland and the Caribbean. And each week, the former members said, it takes in more than $2-million at more than 100 branches in this country and abroad.

Former officials estimate that the Clearwater facility alone takes in upwards of $1-million a week.

Much of the current strife in the organization, former members say, began in the spring of 1980, when, without warning, a number of new people appeared in the church’s upper echelons and began demanding more money and less independence from the regional franchise owners.

The majority of them were members of a group called the “Commodore Messenger Organization” This designation stemmed from a period in the 1970s when Hubbard ran the church from a 300-foot yacht, the Apollo, and referred to himself as the “Commodore.” Some Scientologists took their children to live with them on the ship, and older children were designated personal aides to hubbard.

ON THE SHIP, and later, when Hubbard moved the headquarters to a 500-acre resort called Gilman Hot Springs that the church bought in the desert near Palm Springs, Calif., the status of the teen-agers was raised.

According to the dissidents, they were taught to obey Hubbard explicitly, to mimic his voice and to inform on members who criticized him. Not long after moving to the desert facility, former church members say, Hubbard retreated increasingly into seclusion and usually saw only members of the messenger corps, who were granted the right to discipline adult church members.

Many of the former messengers are said to wear the naval uniform of an elite church branch called the “Sea Organization.” The dissident members say that a half-dozen or so of them appear to be controlling the church and its assets through the Religious Technology Center, a corporation established in January 1982.

“It’s like the Lord of the Flies,” said a former franchise holder who spoke with the understanding that he not be identified. “The children have taken over.”

THE CENTRAL figure in the corporation is David Miscavige, 22, who has told franchise holders that Hubbard had granted the corporation exclusive rights to the Scientology trademarks and the copyrights of his books.

According to the former officials, the new leadership group has demanded that franchise owners send their clients to the church-owned counseling centers rather than continuing to profit from them at the missions.

At an Oct. 17 meeting at the San Francisco Hilton, members of the new leadership group informed the franchise owners that the church had been reorganized “to make the whole structure impregnable, especially in regards to the IRS.”

According to a transcript of that meetings, one of the former messengers said, “The fact of the matter is you have a new breed of management in the church. They’re tough, they’re ruthless, they are on Source.” The term “Source” refers to the teachings of Hubbard.

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…)

In an article published today in the Australian, titled “Police take up Scientology complaints,” I spotted this passage (my emphasis):

“I [Kevin MacKey] know of several people who were coerced into giving up inheritances and pushed to the point of bankruptcy from these actions.”

Then two cases involving inheritance popped in my mind.

First, in 1986, in a Forbes article titled “The prophet and profits of Scientology”:

“In 1983,” says Larson, “I manipulated a half-million-dollar inheritance out of Bob B… He was naive as hell. D.M. (David Miscavige) called me up in the middle of the night [about Bob B…] He wanted the money. “What’s all this got to do with religion?” Larson muses. “I can’t believe the things I did.”

Isn’t this something? According to Larson, the current Church of Scientology boss, David Miscavige, told him to go after someone else’s inheritance. “He wanted the money”…

Second, circa 1985, in CBC’s “The Fifth Estate”, the mother of a Scientologist recount when the Scientologists came in to milk her:

[…] And her explanation was that she wanted to become ‘clear,’ and really at this point I still didn’t know what she was in, and when I refused her the fact that there is no way I would give her $15,000, this fella immediately said ‘Well if you haven’t got the $15,000, would you take a mortgage out on your home?’ and I said ‘Definitely not!’ And I said my ‘Well my husband would become worried sick if I ever thought of giving her that much money and having to take a mortgage out. And when we refused, they immediately said ‘Well can she have her inheritance?’ My Heavens! I’m not dead yet! It was unreal.

L. Ron Hubbard would approve:

It will be found that those who will pay more were the most able to begin with and have the greatest value to others. Their worth as persons is greater.

[Ref.: L. Ron Hubbard, 9 May 1965, “Auditing Fees”]

The latest accounts add on top of a thick pile more evidences that “Hard Sell” is a core Scientology practice.

I will conclude with this quote from a former member:

Our job as Scientologists is to suck every dime we can from a person. We convince them that they are saving not just this world but the entire universe!

[Former scientologist, “‘Management Seminar’ Harrowing Experience,” Dec. 12, 1990, Cherokee County Herald]

Addendum Nov. 19, 2009: How can one argue about this Scientological pattern of extracting as much money as possible from people? To add to the above nearly 20 years old article, here is a quote from an article published today in the Australian:

Detheridge describes an “inhuman, cold-hearted and money-fixated culture” within the church.

“I have witnessed, and participated in, concerted efforts to extract as much money as possible from parishoners with absolutely no regard for the financial security of the individual or [their] family,” he wrote.

[“Science or fiction?,” Nov. 20, 2009, The Australian]

Addendum Feb. 2, 2010: One more story of Church of Scientology going after the inheritance of a member:

He was living at home with his parents in 2001 and making $7 an hour when he inherited cash and stocks with a total value of $25,000, Durni said.

Soon after telling a Scientologist official of his inheritance, she said, his family’s house began receiving mail with new credit card accounts for Fred, including expensive charges to the Church.

[“Outside Critics Are Unacceptable,” Feb. 2, 2005, Buffalo News]

Outside Critics Are Unacceptable