Scientology versus Democracy Redux

Scientology versus Democracy Redux Scientology

From: bob@minton.org (Robert S. Minton)
Subject: Scientology versus Democracy Redux
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:50:57 GMT
Message-ID: <35cace3c.2768564@news.tiac.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The sad thing about the Scientologists is that they really don't have the slightest idea what they have invited into their lives.

They think Scientology is sweet and cute, like a puppy or a kitten. The reality is very different. Think of the creatures in the movie _Aliens_. Now if those aliens could dress themselves up to look cute and sweet and full of wisdom and kindness, there you'd have it -- a near perfect metaphor for Scientology. What the poor Scientologist don't understand is that Scientology is a cloaked religion. It's cloaked in goodness. There's the cloak, and then there's what the cloak hides. Scientologists can see the cloak with crystal clarity, but that's all they see.

Virtually all of them have been completely blinded to what's underneath.

Evil, as I have defined it, doesn't look bad. It looks good. If a source of evil knows what he's doing then his product will look really, really good. But underneath appearances lurks something very, very bad. I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll have to say it again and again before the Scientologists begin to recognize what they have been purposefully blinded to.

The trouble with evil is that you don't know what your getting involved with. It's designed to trick you. You thought you were getting into something good, but you were wrong. It looks good, but as it turns out, it's not. Not at all.

The professional sources of evil -- as I have defined it -- can be found in just one field: the Arts. To construct a cloaking device, you've got to be able to see things in ways that most people do not. You've got to have a certain specialized, very esoteric knowledge. This is not scientific knowledge. This knowledge is more suitably categorized as part of the Arts, not the Sciences. The Artist, not the Scientist, is the one who's most qualified to create evil. Of course, as a group, artists do not intend anyone harm. Overall, they're some of the most interesting people you'd care to meet. They're certainly not evil and very, very few would ever create it intentionally. It's just that some of them possess the knowledge that would allow them to create it, were that their intent. Some artists know how to construct and use what you might call a "cloaking device".

The term may sound familiar, but I'm not talking about the science fiction, technological version of the cloaking device in _Star Trek_. I'm talking about the real world version. In the real world, cloaking devices are created and used by artists.

The actual nature of the religion Scientology has been purposefully concealed through the use of many, many artful cloaking devices.

Just as there have been "mad scientists", there also have been "mad" artists. Does that make any sense? What exactly is a "mad artist", anyway? For that matter, what's a mad scientist? At first thought, you might get an image of someone secreted away in a lab somewhere, dressed in a white coat, working to create something frightening or destructive, or perhaps something which should never have been created at all. Frankenstein and his monster might come to mind. But hold on a moment. Dr.

Frankenstein was a character in a story, as was his monster.

These characters were the products of an artist.

What about the real world?

In real life we have the inventors of chemical or atomic weapons. These things are certainly frightening and destructive and many people wish they had never been created at all. Perhaps their creators are the "mad" scientists? Let's take a closer look. If you examine the lives of these scientists, most of them turn out not to be "mad" at all. Most weren't intending harm.

They were just curious and happened to stumble upon a process or a molecule that they thought would give their side an advantage in a conflict. Most were like young boys who put rocks on railroad tracks just to see what will happen when the train comes along. They're not really intending to derail a train, and if it actually happened they'd regret it. Most are just curious.

Robert J. Oppenheimer, one of the key researchers in the Manhattan Project (which resulted in bombs that demolished two Japanese cities,) felt tremendous remorse over the harm that had come to others as a consequence of his work.

But if not the inventors of atomic weapons, then who? Who qualifies as "mad"? Well, what about the scientists who seek to increase their understanding with the heartless destruction of the lives of their fellow creatures? I would think that some of the Nazi doctors who gathered information about human anatomy and behavior through the dissection of live Jewish subjects could certainly be candidates for the "mad scientist" moniker.

As are the scientists that poison or otherwise torture and destroy innocent animals just to record what happens. They already know what's going to happen. The animal will suffer horribly. Then it will die. Finally it will be unceremoniously discarded. They know exactly what they are doing. They do it over and over, as if one isn't enough. Is this madness? I think it is. They're unable to recognize what they are doing as wrong.

Maybe I'm a little off base here, but there's something about doing harm to the innocent that really bothers me. I don't like to see it happen. Perhaps it's this -- knowingly, wantonly, sadistically harming beautiful creatures that separates the "mad" scientist from his brethren. He's committing a heinous crime, yet he doesn't feel that way. Perhaps he even feels good about it. He's unable to empathize with his victims. Something is very wrong with his ability to distinguish right from wrong.

It's disconcerting to know that there are people out there in a supposedly civilized society that feel good about doing things that we consider abhorrent. I feel a sense of sadness thinking about what the mad scientists have done to some of their innocent fellow creatures. Cruelty and heartlessness, all in the name of Science.

Well, what about the mad Artist?

Naturally he'd share many of the traits of the mad scientist except that he'd use artforms such as storytelling rather than the objective tools of Science. No doubt he would be heartless and he would be cruel. He intend harm to other innocent creatures that hadn't done a thing to harm him. He'd feel happy when his victims yielded to his malevolent intent. He would be completely without remorse. And he'd continue to abuse hapless innocents until someone came along to stop him. If he were really bad, he might even set up a system to train his victims to do it to themselves, and they would train others, and it would keep on going, in perpetuity. With his artful talents, he'd make his victims think they were freeing themselves from malevolent people and hurtful things like himself, all while they were actually working themselves deeper and deeper into his trap... but this is a worst-case scenario.

A skeptic might say, "What could an artist possibly do to people that could be so bad?? I thought Art was about entertainment?

When I think of art I think of museums, paintings, movies...

books... you know, that sort of thing. What could possibly be wrong with that? I don't see where evil comes into it?"

That's right. You're not supposed to see. When the mad artist is successful, you only see the cloak, not what it covers.

Remember, on the outside, the evil products of a mad artist look very good, not bad. That's more true now than ever before. These days, the evil artist has become much more sophisticated than in times past. People have been deceived before. They've learned how to look beyond appearances. They know how to read meaning out of a situation by implication. But the successful evil artist of contemporary times is already well aware of these things. He knows what he's up against. And so he wraps his monstrous creation in cloak after cloak of the trappings of goodness. Without putting your sanity at risk, the only way to know what's really inside is to see through the cloak. But you need a specialized understanding of human nature and the tricks of the mad artist to do that. And the mad artist will be working to stop you.

The way to keep someone from looking for something is to make them think they already have it. If the key to the door is a specialized understanding of human nature and the tricks of the mad artist, guess what? -- the mad artist will attempt to make you think you already know all there is to know about these things. He'll play the role of teacher and carefully instruct you about how others have used and abused people with trickery.

He'll imply he can teach you all there is to know about human nature and the mind. This is how he prevents you from looking further. You think you already have the "tech" to free people from traps. But you don't. You have an ersatz look-alike. With it, you feel good. You feel arrogant. And your arrogance helps keep you in the trap. But this was the mad artist's plan all along.

How about some examples from history?

Adolph Hitler was a mad artist. Sounds kinda strange, doesn't it? People don't commonly think of Hitler as an "artist". That's because his work was discredited. In his day, however, he was very much an artist, a writer and an actor both. He was unusual among artists in that he offered appealing solutions to widespread, otherwise unsolvable problems. At one time, a large majority of the population of an entire nation were enthralled with his solutions. But being an artist, he was only offering mainly artistic solutions. What was appealing was the possibility of what could be, not what actually was. In a very small subset of the Arts community, Hitler has been known for quite some time as an "artful solution provider". (A certain joker I know of has abbreviated this term to an "SP". If you're a Scientologist you won't laugh. It's an inside joke.)

Back in the 1930s, the Germans were definitely facing some widespread, seemingly unsolvable problems. For one thing, their nation had gone down to an ignominious defeat in what was then known as "the Great War", and there were aftereffects to contend with. Poverty, shame, guilt, despair, hopelessness... that sort of thing. As if the loss wasn't enough, Germans also had to pay war reparations to the victors. And this, with a country that had lost a whole generation of workers. They felt like failures.

They felt like victims. They rightly felt like the underclass of Europe.

The rise of Hitler changed all that. Hitler gave the German people a new vision of what was possible. He let them imagine a world without the things and people that seemed to be at the root of their failure. He gave them something to blame, and then he told them what they could do about it. What Hitler suggested agreed with natural human instinct. When the cause of a problem has been found, the desire is always to cut it out and get rid of it. Once he had given them the cause and told them what they could do to get rid of it, Hitler let them go ahead and do it without restraint, all while reminding them where they were going. At the time, the German people felt pretty good. Back in the 1940's many Germans thought they were fighting for a unified world without war, without criminals, without the insane, and without anyone else that would suppress their native abilities.

With Hitler's help, they envisioned a world where the strong, the smart, the able and the beautiful lived in peace and harmony with each other. Germans longed for a world where the ignominious defeat of the recentpast would never, ever be allowed to happen again. All they had to do to make the vision come true was to follow Hitler's rules with exact precision and work as hard and as fast as they could, never doubting, never losing their certainty. At this, the Germans excelled.

Isn't it interesting how things actually worked out? It didn't matter how hard they worked or how closely, precisely or exactly they stuck to the rules. You see, Hitler was a mad artist, and the world that would come after his "solution", merely an enticing illusion.

I don't believe Hitler was using a guidebook, but if he had one, it probably would have contained something like this:

---- >p> "To convert an otherwise civilized person in your audience into a slave who will obey your every command, just follow these simple steps:

1. Find out what is lacking in the lives of your audience.

2. Tell your audience what life could be like if the lack were remedied. They already know, but elaborate. These are their fondest dreams. Expand on them and clarify what they already know. Let them feel it.

3. Find someone or something to blame for the lack. This becomes "the villain" of the story. The villain damns himself by showing up somewhere near, and sometime before, the lack was recognized.

The villain is a believable suspect, and they don't have a credible excuse.

4. Discredit the villain's potential excuses. To eliminate the possibility of the villain coming up with a reasonable excuse, preemptively discredit it by telling your audience something like, "One of the characteristics of our enemies is that they try to justify what they have done. They have no responsibility.

They're sneaky and slimy and try to hide their crimes. They lie.

They mistrust people to the point of terror. This is how to recognize those who would stop us..." Elaborate. In this way, when a supposed villain is accused, they'll confirm their guilt for your followers just by responding naturally to the situation.

5. Tell your audience that there exists a way to handle the villain. If you've gotten them to believe the villain is really a genuine villain who cannot justify his actions, the way to handle it (or him) should really get their interest. Provide success stories about how others just like them have achieved just what they wanted in life after they got rid of the villain.

6. Show them what they can do about the villain to terminatedley handle it. This behavior strategy must be viewed as the final solution, after which, the villain and all the problems that have been attributed to him will be gone - forevermore. The behavior you offer to teach them simply needs to be a behavior they believe could work. Not a behavior that actually will work.

It simply has to look like it could work. It must agree with natural instinct. It needs to make sense to them as a potentially workable possibility. If nothing they have tried has worked in the past, what you offer must be a behavior they won't recognize. The word "workable" will be of use here. Tell them the behavior you are offering really does "work". The primary qualifications for the advised behavior is that your audience not be able to rule out the possibility of success - but only if they get busy and apply your final solution.

7. Provide the audience with a way they can know your solution is "working". Your audience needs to be directed to find indicators whose meaning says they are right to be following your every command. These indicators will become like milestones along what they suppose to be a path to success. However these indicators should be things that would be experienced by anyone who was naively and hopefully applying the supposed "final solution". Two such indicators: 1) "Feeling happy" or 2) "Having a pleasant realization". Revise the meaning of these experiences so they tell your audience they are traveling on the correct path and coming ever closer to what they want. All that's necessary is that the audience believes the good indicators are indicating, or pointing to, a world where the final solution has been standardly and effectively applied, a world where the problems the "villain" has supposedly caused are vanquished forever.

8. After they have gotten four or more of the indicators with meanings you have effectively revised, they will willingly submit to your every whim. If you want them to do something for you, you can now ask them to do anything. Just tell them what you're asking is absolutely indispensable to the workability of the final solution. If you maintain their belief in the future that's supposed to follow a successful application of the final solution (repeat step 2), they'll do anything for you, absolutely anything..."

=====

There's much more to it of course. The above eight steps comprise a very short and very incomplete outline. Nonetheless, do you notice a familiar pattern? Hitler's villain was any member of the Jewish tribe. His audience was the so-called "Arian" tribe. His solution appealed to the audience because it paralleled their natural instincts. They were angry and frustrated and they wanted to destroy whatever it was that was holding them back. When the cause of the frustration had been identified, naturally their desire was to cut it out and be rid of it for good.

If there's one thing the mad artist knows about, it is natural instinct. He's a master when it comes to the subject of human nature. And if there was ever a field that was tailor made for the artful solution provider with evil inclinations, it's got to be the field of mental healing. Of all the disagreements people have with their minds, the biggest and most common is how it makes them feel. If they feel bad, it's a problem. Feeling good seems to be the solution. Gathering from the eight steps above, the mad artist's greatest tool is knowing how to make people feel very good. This is his most indispensable knowledge. One day an artist had to come along who would see the opportunity.

On one hand we have a mad artist who knows how to make people feel good. On the other we have people in society who are suffering. Voila! We have a match!

The name of the artist who came along was "L. Ron Hubbard". He was a storyteller. Storytellers are a type of artist. You know that don't you? I hope so. Hubbard was unique among his peers in that he understood human nature and the recognition process in ways that that very few other writers do. The only other widely known writer whose work is on par with Hubbard's -- in terms of its solid grounding in a keen understanding of human nature -- is William Shakespeare. There's apparently something about telling stories that helps to reveal what it is that makes people tick. What's unfortunate is that Hubbard, unlike Shakespeare, succumbed to his temptations and used his esoteric knowledge to create what will eventually go down in history as the most consciously malevolent, premeditated deception in human history.

Now, if you're a Scientologist, naturally you'll be feeling like denying everything that's being said here. You'll be struggling to label me in a way that allows you to discredit what I'm saying. That's your Scientology value implant going into operation. I'm pushing its buttons. It's recognized a threat and it's trying to defend itself. Watch it as it pushes you around.

The buttons and the values that form it were implanted there by - guess who? -- L. Ron Hubbard, the supremely evil, utterly mad artist. The Scientology implant is like a script, except that you don't read it -- it reads itself and then runs you around like a puppet. It controls your behavior. It controls how you think. It controls where you look. It controls what you want to do. It was slipped in while you thought you were learning what you needed to know to get rid of the "engrams" and the other nasty things that you don't want to be part of you. In other words, the script that you thought you needed to free you, has actually enslaved you. And it vigilantly keeps you from undoing what has already been done. Pretty tricky, eh?

Let's take a brief step into the world of crime. I'm sorry to have to lead you in this direction but if you want to learn about the real L. Ron Hubbard underneath the artful cloak, this is where we have to go.

Criminals take what they want from the rest of us and leave us with nothing of value in exchange. Imagine, for purposes of understanding, our world from a thief's perspective. We have what they want and they have no qualms about snatching it away from us for themselves. Imagine for a moment that you are one of them. You rob banks. However, you don't own a gun. Instead, you are a hacker. You're a computer security expert who secretly breaks into the virtual world of bank computers and redirects funds to your own personal accounts. Every thief wants to avoid getting caught. It's a criminal's biggest potential problem. How do you solve it? One alternative is to shift your true identity into the realm of the non-known and unexpected. You do that with a behavioral disguise. Start by applying for a job at a national investigation agency. In the 'States you might apply for work at the FBI. In time, secure a position as the head of white collar bank fraud investigations. Track down other computer criminals and put them behind bars. Rail with outrage against the devious sneakiness of the white collar criminal. Refer to lawbreakers with insulting, degrading terms. Turn your apparent job into a passion, not just employment. All the while, complain periodically about how taxes are eating you up. Ask co-workers for short term loans. Pay them back a bit late, with sincere apologies. Feel and demonstrate a sense of gratitude that contains hints of desperation. Drive an older used car. In time, retire early for stress related reasons. Tell everyone you inherited some money and you're finally going to "take a vacation." If you can add enough characteristics to yourself that people expect are incompatible with a white collar criminal, no one will ever suspect who you really are.

It's kind of discomfiting, isn't it?

Welcome to the dark side of Art.

If you can stomach them, here are a few more examples:

+ "If you don't want people to recognize that you're a predator intent on possessing everything they have as your own, put on a kindly voice, make them laugh at things that have given them trouble, flatter them, and offer them help in removing whatever is blocking them from living a life of greater abundance."

+ "If you don't want people to recognize their true vulnerability to outside influences (like you), tell them that in reality they are completely separable from any aspects of themselves that they consider vulnerable. Tell them that their essential nature is both non-material and "static" - which implies that they can't really be affected by anything. Weave tales that speak of their immortality. When they finally accept the idea that underneath appearances, nothing can affect them, they won't be able to recognize the fact that you are affecting the essential core of their awareness in ways they never even suspected."

+ "If you want people to be unable to recognize the fact that you're taking control of their behavior, tell them that the only way they can be controlled is via factors in their midst that you want to help them be rid of. Go to great lengths to demonstrate that you are trying as best you can to free them from things that might control them against their will or against their best interests. If the act is convincing, it will be a long while before they finally suspect what you're actually doing."

+ "If you don't want people to realize they are becoming the effect of your will, tell them that your goal is to place them back into their rightful position as cause over their own environment. Tell them that your only interest is in seeing to it that they reach a state of greater freedom and power."

+ "If you don't want people to recognize how little they know about the structures and functions that grant them awareness, make a list of all the common assumptions about the mind, put them all together into one big package, embellish it with some "new discoveries" and teach the subject like a university professor would teach physics. Periodically mention that anyone who completely understands the subject you are teaching, is without doubt, an expert in the field of the mind. Your audience won't bother searching for additional answers because they think they already have all of them in their possession."

+ "If you don't want people to recognize you as someone they can't trust, preach the value of ethical behavior to them.

Punish those around you for what you have defined as unethical behavior. Reward ethical people for their sanctioned works."

The artful predator's rule of thumb is this: if you don't want your prey to recognize what you are doing to them, do and say things that they would never expect to see or hear from a predator.

People recognize by first expecting infinite possibility. Then they use clues in the environment to rule out what ISN'T. This becomes not-known. Whatever's left is what IS. What's left has been "recognized". Not-knowing is a vital component of recognition. A mad artist is quite aware of these things. He uses performance and literary art to rule out the bad that is really there, thereby ruling in the good that isn't. With art, he shifts the bad into the "not-know" realm. He makes the bad invisible by saying and doing things that rule out the possibility of finding it. And all he's really doing to people is getting them to "look". By looking in one direction, they don't look in another. In practice, this all gets very complex, but here, in a nutshell, you have the essential character of the mad artist's cloaking device.

========

Not long ago, I received a reply to my post on Scientology and Democracy. It was written by a Scientologist who calls himself "RonsAmigo". Naturally, as he read my post, his implanted Scientology buttons and values took over and he ended up recognizing me as a member of a class of people that a certain mad artist (L. Ron Hubbard) has labeled "PTS". According to Ron and RonsAmigo, "PTS" people are supposedly under the influence of someone who's terribly evil. This evil type of person allegedly causes all kinds of untoward effects in the people that are under their influence.

RonsAmigo, I'd like to thank you. Very apropos. You've introduced a perfect example of the mad artist's cloaking device at work.

Imagine this scene. It's 1940. The Germans have met one success after another on the battlefield. Adulation of Hitler is running at an all time high in the German homeland. Now, what do you think would happen if someone came along and began to persuade a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi loyalist that all their happiness, all their optimism about the future, and all their "wins" were actually going to lead to a repetition of the aftermath of World War One, except this time it was going to be even more horrific and many of their largest cities would lie in ruins? Of course they'd try to deny it. But if you talked sensibly and they really started to listen, don't you think some of their happiness and optimism would disappear? If they knew of another possible outcome of what they were doing, don't you think they would tend to shift back and forth between the two possibilities, believing in one outcome, then the other, causing them to roller-coaster emotionally up and down between hope and regret? Don't you think the shock of having everything they thought was so right suddenly become so wrong would stun them so that they would behave in a crippled manner in their Nazi/Third Reich functions -- failing, not succeeding? Don't you think they might appear cowed and disappointed, or even fall ill and have a poor convalescence? If the Nazi loyalist considered that his former happy emotional state was a "gain" that he had obtained through blind obedience to Hitler, don't you think he'd feel as if his "gains" had all but disappeared?

The Scientologists have a name for this state. They call it "PTS". As I said earlier, PTS standsfor "potential trouble source." Using the example of the Nazi loyalist,according to Scientology, any German who realized their nation was headed forruinous disaster must be labeled a "PTS" and should properly "disconnect" from whoever, or whatever it is that might suggest such a terrible thing could actually come true. In fact, according to the Scientologist's "technology" of the mind, the Americans, the British, and all the people and soldiers on the allied side were all "suppressive persons" because they were causing the loyal Germans to lose their certainty about the sublime future that the artful solution provider Hitler was promising them!

Can you believe it?

Now do you see why it is the Germans who have been wise enough to see Scientol- ogy for what it really is? They've already been through this before! For- tunately for us, they're smart enought enough not to want repeat the mistake. The world should be thankful that at least one nation on this Earth has learned to recognize the artful solution provider (an "SP") when it sees one.

=======

Consider this:

A mad artist has given his audience something that looks good but is actually leading them somewhere very, very bad. Let's say he's teaching them to build what they believe will be a magic house where they will be teleported into a realm where they will be totally free from emotional pain and suffering. In this new realm they won't have to experience anything they don't want to.

Here, they will be cause over their own experience, rather than the effect of the rest of the universe. But, in fact, take away the artful cloak and you see that what they are actually building is a prison where they will spend the rest of their lives as abject slaves to the mad artist. If after a certain point they realize...brick by brick, they've been tricked into building their own prison, too bad --they're out of luck. After a certain point, they may not be able to get completely out.

Why? Because this "magic house" is inside their mind and wherever they go the "house" that they helped build is sure to follow.

Now. If you were the mad artist that had crafted this deception, what would you do about the people that somehow saw through your artful cloak? What if occasionally one or two members of your audience suddenly realized they were building a prison, not just for themselves, but for others as well? -- all while blithely believing they were building a magic house that would teleport them to a realm of sheer bliss? What if they found out? What if they realized what you were really doing?

I know what I would do. I'd simply create yet another cloak by changing the meaning of the symptoms that I knew someone that had seen through the deception would exhibit.

So how do you change the meaning of something? Think about the example of the Nazi loyalist that had been told of the fate they were really headed towards. The Nazi loyalist exhibited certain symptoms. Roller-coaster emotions, falling ill, loss of former happiness and optimism, et cetera. Normally what this could mean to another Nazi loyalist is that maybe, just maybe, the fate they're all fighting for isn't as great as their leader has led them to believe. Just maybe, it might mean that Hitler is really just a fraud and that his orders not only shouldn't be obeyed, they should rightly and justly be "ripped to shreds".

There's one bulletin that L. Ron Hubbard wrote that changes meanings like you wouldn't believe. In particular it changes the meaning of the symptoms that a Scientologist will encounter if they see through the cloak and try to escape from their trap.

This bulletin is a masterwork of what must be the most covertly hateful, most despicable artist I have yet to encounter. It is titled "The Anti-Social Personality. The Anti-Scientologist".

Notice that the title itself associates society and Scientologists. It seems to put Scientology on the same side with society, opposed to a common foe. Nothing could be further from the truth. With this single bulletin the mad artist Hubbard very adroitly and very effectively transforms the meaning of the symptoms of disillusionment to the symptoms of being connected to someone evil other than L. Ron Hubbard himself. With this, Hubbard persuades his followers to look for evil everywhere but where they actually can find it. With it, Hubbard wraps himself in yet another deceptive cloak of goodness.

The bulletin does a whole lot more, to boot. What the Scientologists don't realize is that it contains a covert, disguised moral code. When they read the bulletin, and believe what it says, the moral code is "implanted" into them. It's designed to control their thinking and behavior in such a way that it keeps them from seeing through Hubbard's other deceptive cloaks. It makes them try to prevent others from seeing as well.

The shocking fact is, while the Scientologists think they are "going free", they're actually installing implants into each other. The implants consist of values and buttons that control their behavior. And, like most of Scientology, these implants really work. The poor Scientologist doesn't even remotely grasp the meaning of a Hubbardian phrase containing the verb "to work". Yes Scientology works, not to free people, but to turn them into abject slaves who mistakenly believe they are going free. In this role, Scientology is indeed frighteningly effective.

Unfortunately for civilized society, the paramount mad artist of the contemporary era has reached a new plateau of sophistication. I sometimes find myself shocked by the extremity of it. L. Ron Hubbard wasn't fooling around. He was going for the prize. Hitler and the Third Reich go down and in comes L.

Ron Hubbard, smarter and more devious than anyone that had come before. He realized Hitler had failed with objective means.

"Force" isn't effective because people don't like to feel like they're being led around by the nose. Force is answered with force, and in a world filled with nuclear weapons, the use of force ultimately becomes stupid and self destructive. If you wanted to take over the world, a crude use of "force" certainly isn't the way to do it. Hubbard knew this. He decided on a different path. He changed the mixture. Much more Art. Much less force.

To date, Scientology still hasn't yet formally executed anyone.

At least not that we have been able to prove in a court of law.

Nor have they put their enemies into gas chambers and burned their bodies into ash. No, so far, they've faithfully stuck to a path consisting primarily of artful trickery.

It's true - there's no question that Hubbard has reached a new level of sophistication. His poor benighted followers don't have the slightest idea who or what he really is. Therefore, those that would attempt to stop him must match, or even exceed his level of sophistication. The required sophistication isn't technological in nature. It's artistic. While Nazi Germany could be stopped with an objective use of force, Scientology cannot.

Scientology must be razed in the same way it was built -- with Art.

Here and now, in this ARS post, you have a few hints about just how the deceptions of Scientology will be unraveled. Here, in our midst, we have the first significant religion that will soon be drawn to the brink of implosion with artful means alone. No swords. No guns. No anger. No force. Just good Art. Just exciting entertainment.

Sound good? It will be.

=======

As a final note, let me remind all the Scientologists out there that when I speak of a Scientology that is the antithesis of Democracy, of course I'm speaking of the Scientology behind the invisible cloak. I'm speaking of the Scientology that the Scientologists can't see. Why can I see it? you might ask --- Because I'm acquainted with people in the Art and Scientific communities who know as much or more about human nature than Hubbard ever did. These people have grown awfully tired of seeing the smug faces of professional actors who have fallen for Hubbard's deception. It's their firm belief that if some of these actors have found popular success, it certainly isn't because they possess a broad understanding of the Arts. As it is, having swallowed Hubbard's lures has made them an embarrassment to the Arts community. My friends believe these ignorant actors need to be properly educated. It's painfully apparent that they lack a full understanding of their own profession. We know exactly what the monster Hubbard was up to when he created Scientology. With quasi-successful professional actors now falling into his grasp, it's clear that his mischief has gone just a bit too far. His brand of trickery is simply not going to be tolerated, at least not for much longer. It's true that all the poor Scientologist sees is the artful cloaks that seem to wrap Scientology in goodness. But soon, in the coming years, they are going to see a whole lot more.

"He's not talking about Scientology," the Scientologists will say, half nervously. "He's talking about some other group, probably on the past track. He's out of present time. He doesn't even know who he's attacking."

"He's probably PTS," another will whisper. "We should give him some auditing. If he gets some wins he'll be on our side as quick as you can say 'L. Ron Hubbard'." Snicker. Snicker.

All I can say in reply is, "No. I don't think so. I've seen through the mask of a monster and there's no way I can forget what I saw. And there's no way a Scientologist could discredit it. If anything, the best you can do is confirm it. The only one that will soon be changing sides, is you."

Taking a quote from a message posted by RonsAmigo: "If Scientology were even mildly as you describe it, I and all Scientologists would join you in attempting to tear it to pieces, for what we share with you is the conviction that people should be free to write and live their own "scripts", and like you we believe that those who would overtly or covertly seek to impose any forms of mental or spiritual tyranny on people are our enemies."

The sooner you snap out of it, the better, R.A. The sooner the better. For your own sake, for the sake of your friends, and everyone else you care about.

Bob Minton