Let's play the hypothetical game once more. Let's say you are real (I hope you accept that I got no way of validating that you are) and that you are good at singling out OSA plants. You just told OSA how to use you. Make a real OSA plant, that you have revealed, support a real critic. That could make you believe this critic is OSA and (assuming that had a negative effect on his or her work) actually help the cult instead of the fight against them.

Should it really be that simple for OSA? Do you see why I don't get why you do it?

Let me try to explain how I try to work. Being aware of how OSA operates and their tactics for infiltration and sow suspicion and conflicts among their critics I try to act in a way that I can not be used. I don't go screaming "OSA AGENT" or "CULT CHILL" because this only alienates and makes me predictable. I truly do not care who are false and who are real, I focus on what I do and try to do that as good as I can. I may suspect a lot, but what is the gain in debating it? I'm not here to salvage cult chills, it takes a lot more than being outed as OSA to change their ways. Will it somehow harm the cult? Of course not, they got good plants and bad plants, and the bad ones that (to you) is obvious could only be there to cover for the good ones (which of course just as well could be me). And if your strategy had any gain, OSA would just have to create another agent that did what you did but accused other names of the same. Not only is what you do, IMHO, pointless, but it is also far too easy to target.

Imagine this scenario: CoS has failed infiltrating many times because their plants is too obvious. What is the point in 50 plants that act like OSA plant? Did they at one point give up and say this is the best we can do? Of course not, Hubbard had no policy on giving up. They saw new critics popping up everywhere, each one more efficient in new ways than the previous. Wouldn't take much imagination to figure out that in time there would be some critical Internet sites that would be singled out as more popular than the rest and therefore attract more people who were about to blow or reveal new cult secrets (it's a fact that many trust me and send a lot of this to me without me asking for it). So if they expect that this will come anyway, isn't it better to get their own people to do it? Let him or her be dormant and live 100 % as a critic for, let's say 10 years, let this plant go further than any other critic. By then this person will have gained the trust of most other critics and the cult would be in an unique position. We know they have survived a stormy night before and probably believe firmly they will do so again. What's 10 earth years to an eternity anyway? And especially if it could put them in the middle of their imagined conspiracy and then crack it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cult had some sort of long term plan similar to this. If I could figure this out then I bet they did something similar long before I got involved.

What I am trying to say is that hunting OSA agents is a dead end street. We don't know how many flip flops they will do in their delusioned minds to infiltrate. But I suspect they will try many different approaches and have different levels of infiltration. So identifying one does not mean all look like that. Both the best and the worst critic could be OSA.

I was pretty paranoid in the beginning, had absolutely no idea who to trust. When I came to the admission that if I just imagined enough scenarios anybody could theoretically be an OSA agent I finally knew how I could be effective. To me that was by doing everything in the open and let my actions speak. I don't want to be involved in any secret operation against CoS or be organized in a group that could become a target for the cult. I don't allow donations, I am all alone and I don't seek positions of influence. I also have made a lot of efforts to assure that OC will survive whatever happens to me. This includes making sure there would be no gain for the cult to close me down or buy my silence. Imagine if I tomorrow announced on ARS that I closed down Operation Clambake or suddenly stopped criticizing CoS. People would immediately suspect foul play and copies of OC would pop up everywhere. Ten other critics with ten times more talent and resources than I would take over the stick. At least this was my goal, to not seek a position that an OSA plant would seek and to set the operation up in a way that CoS would have no gain from closing me down. If they offered me 1 billion USD I might take it and spend it on food for starving children, but there would not be any gain for the cult in making any such offer to me. It is not me who is their true enemy, it is they themselves. With freedom of speech secured by networks like Internet there is no way they will win back what they had 20-50 years ago.

I use ARS to find inspiration, get updated on the situation worldwide and get help to realize my ideas. I strive to be focused and keep in mind all the time why I got involved in the first place. Like now, when I try to explain this to you and whoever else might be reading it. I don't care if you call me OSA, I believe I can be just as good a critic whatever others think about me personally. So this is not an attempt to convince you I'm not, and some would probably be more convinced I am because I almost made them believe I wasn't. This is why I got curious when I read your posts to ARS. I couldn't to the best of my efforts figure out what good you though listing claimed OSA agents would do. Since you try to present yourself as a somewhat reasonable individual with sane and valid case, I asked you to explain to me what I obviously had missed (seeing it from your point of view).

Like I tried to see your suspicion about me from your point of view, try to see how you come out to the rest of the people here. What have your critics missed, is it just their fault (or must all be OSA) or might it be the way you have presented your case? Are you any more trustworthy than all the ones you accuse of being OSA?

Many shake their head because I even bother to reply to you. I must admit I find it fascinating in a way. I know how most here respond to name calling and accusations, but I don't find the emotions behind that worth much though. Maybe some attempts to calm things down if I think it will help, but that's all. What is really interesting is how people respond to being taken seriously. I've never gained anything with anger, but that might be because I don't look very dangerous. But a honest and friendly smile has done miracles. I try to always remind myself of that all the time. To me you could be the invention of a genuine critic with a well intended plan to discredit the cult or to create a rumor about the cult. You could also be part of some strange plan by the cult to create friction and conflict in the newsgroup, maybe what you really came for hasn't even started yet. Or you could be neither, just a prankster having fun on our behalf. Does it matter? I don't think so. My goal is clear to me, I'm here to warn others about CoS. I will talk to and include anybody who comes along - no matter their true motives. Just as everybody should take advantage of whatever harm Operation Clambake does to the cult as long as it does so. Nobody should be treated differently. An OSA shill can survive a war, but if you sit down and reason I believe the good side will win. It is also a much better way of revealing their true colors.

In the end, when both you and I are forgotten history on ARS, it is our legacy that will be remembered.

Any thoughts on all of this, do you understand a little better how your contribution is perceived and are you willing to explain how this might be wrong or maybe change your strategy?

Go Back