This is a blog post by one of our regular posters, Mike Westen (MWesten), entitled The War of the Hubbards. He asked me if I would like to share it here. I think it’s a thought-provoking piece, with English spelling and all. You can see the full article at his blog by clicking on the link above. I have excerpted the part that focuses on scientology (he draws analogies to islam in his longer piece — I prefer to just focus on scientology here).
A question for scientologists: what do you actually stand for?
Scientologists are by no means unique when cherry-picking their most favoured scriptures. Practically all religions have scriptural dictates civilisations eventually outgrow. And religions that evolve, reform and modernise arguably remain a valuable addition to the marketplace of ideas, providing comfort and solace in a seemingly chaotic world.
Those that are unable or unwilling to evolve remain largely in the headlines, where the actions of the extreme instill fear, terror and hatred in the minds of the masses.
Per “Suppressives and GAEs”, Hubbard claimed to be impervious to criticism.
Per the “Manual of Justice”, he never forgets and always evens the score.
Per KSW, criticism of scientology stems from no results or bad results.
Per “Critics of Scientology”, a critic is a criminal with a sordid, sinister past.
Per “What is Greatness”, the church should respond to critics with nothing but love.
Per “Counter Attack Tactics”, critics must be fired from their jobs and prevented from speaking further.
Per TWTH, the Code of a Scientologist and numerous policy letters, the church should be setting a good example of the efficacy of its product.
Per “Intelligence Principles”, they must create false rumours and lies to smear and discredit those who criticise it.
Per “Kindness”, the only time the church ever really suffers is when it isn’t nice and/or kind enough.
Per “A Manual on the Dissemination of Material”, critics should be ruined utterly.
This is the topsy-turvy world of the cognitively dissonant scientologist.
It is time scientologists confront this dichotomy, once and for all.
It is time for scientologists to take a stand.
Scientologists must own their religion and take responsibility for its future. Failure to do so will arguably be their undoing. Which version of Hubbard reigns supreme is up to the individual. The kind, loving, father figure? Or the cantankerous, vengeful, old shit?
They cannot have it both ways. Ignorance and denial lets the outpoint persist. It is the ultimate not-is.
As Hubbard himself said, clearly in a happier, wiser frame of mind, communication is the universal solvent.
It would be lovely to see scientologists screaming this from the rooftops.
I long for the day they actually start to believe it.