Between the dotted lines below is a discussion document sent to FACTNet anonymously:

---------------

Scientology tactics against critics remind us of the British army's "thin red line". Which was relegated to the garbage dump of history as soon as the Colonized as individuals, and as small groups, got serious about their refusal to be victims.

Doomsayers tend to see large corporations as immovable objects. And fail to see the lessons learnt from large religious organizations that have been made accountable recently like the Catholic Church and ISKON (Hare Krishna's). They also fail to recognize the role of the individual in illuminating bad practices in large corporations that have fallen by the wayside recently. They also fail to recognize the role of the individual in debunking the myths surrounding the preparedness of the CIA and FBI in the period leading up to 9-11.

One could wax lyrical about people who are brave enough to stand up as individuals and take the heat. These are people who are willing to be led by nothing more than their common-sense understanding of morality and justice.

The great failure of corporations that that have a top-down hierarchical structure is that they see the world in their own image. This is their Achilles heel. Because they are authoritarian and, often, "cults of personality" they cannot conceive of the notion that people and small groups can work independently of each other and yet have similar goals.

They are also underestimate the strength of this dispensation that arises spontaneously when something is wrong with the status quo.

In particular, many people who have been critics of Scientology have been raised to the status of "leader" by the powers-that-be inside Scientology. A status that neither the persons involved or their allies wished for.

The only purpose served by this nonsense is so that Scientology can claim that the critics are "organized" and "have a leader". This agenda has been supported by journalistic headlines such as "Scientology foes bitterly split" and "Scientology foes continue rancor".

(It is also interesting to note that the St Petersburg Times refers to Jesse Prince and others as "critics" but reserves the word "foe" for articles relating to Robert Minton. This is of no small import.

From: http://www.m-w.com/

Main Entry: 1crit·ic
Pronunciation: 'kri-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to
discern or judge, from krinein
Date: 1588

1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances

2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment

Main Entry: foe
Pronunciation: 'fO
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fo, from Old English fAh, from fAh, adjective,
hostile; akin to Old High German gifEh hostile
Date: before 12th century

1 : one who has personal enmity for another

2 a : an enemy in war b : ADVERSARY, OPPONENT

3 : one who opposes on principle <a foe of needless expenditures>

4 : something prejudicial or injurious

...The distinction is acute and, we believe, not accidental.)

History is replete with governments and organizations that have set up "opposition" individuals as bogie-men to be shot down. There are many reasons for this. The simplest explanation is that it offers the aggressor a simple means of explaining complex ideas to the populace. The world can now be interpreted like an old Western movie with a showdown between a leader with a white hat versus the "bad guy" wearing a black hat.

It might make for great newspaper headlines but is strategic suicide because it paints one into a corner. Simply put: there is no one person responsible for Scientology's ills and there is no white knight who controls, or is going to save, the critics.

The solution might well not be found in the adage "the fish rots from the head" but might well be systemic reform. This implies that the systems inside the organization need to be reformed. It also implies that the systems outside of the organization, that support the internal malaise of the organization, need to be reformed.

To this cause, many skills are needed. Everyone has a role to play.

The advantage that the disparate critics have is that their focus is one entity. Scientology does not have this benefit. In the long run Scientology (as it is administered today) cannot prevail.

In a sense, Scientology is fighting itself. The critics are a product, directly or indirectly, of what Scientology is. To survive, Scientology needs to reform.

There are some broadly accepted ideas that are shaping the future of enlightened organizations. Listed below are two documents that are assisting those that wish to reform (there are many more):

*Code of Ethics for Spiritual Guides http://www.csp.org/development/code.html *Maverick! By Ricardo Semler http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712678867/factnet-20/ (An antidote to secretive, inward-looking and paranoid organizations)

---------------

IOHO
The FACTNet Staff

F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.
PO Box 3135
Boulder, CO 80307-3135 USA

* Web site http://www.factnet.org/
* Discussion Board http://www.factnet.org/discus/
* E-mail mailto:factnet@factnet.org
* Donations http://www.factnet.org/donation.htm
* Donations by PayPal. Account = manage@factnet.org
* Subscriptions to Newsletters http://www.factnet.org/Subscribe.html

F.A.C.T.Net is a non-profit 501(c)(3) news source, referral service, and archive protecting freedom of mind from harms caused by psychological coercion.

Go Back