Query about Scientology leader(s)

12 Nov 2001

Human Rights Defense (ShyDavid) asked:

This is a recurring thought I've had for a few years, of which I have tried to determine an answer to but have had little success. My question is, are the leader(s) of Scientology aware they are engaged in evil, criminal practices, or do they believe they are "doing good" by their criminal activities?

"Fluffygirl" answered:

Dear David,

I suspect it's a combination of both. Yes, I know that sounds contradictory but I would compare modern-day (and to some extent Hubbard, even, regarding some things) CofS management to various Puritan leaders, Taliban leaders and high ranking medieval RCC clergy, especially the Dominican high level clergy during the Inquisition.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Puritan leaders who trumped up the witchhunts really believed in Puritanism. (I have heard that almost everyone hanged as a witch during the Salem Witch Trials either hadn't supported to installation of the current Minister - or their family hadn't- or their land was in a certain area. There's an idea that someone wanted that land.No religion mentioned there, huh!!) I have no doubt that the Taliban heads really worship Allah. Or that the medieval RCC clergy who supported the Inquisition, the selling of indulgences and other outrages really believed in Catholicism.

They did things that were very very bad. So does CofS management. The old time Ministers and Bishops and Popes who did so were convinced that they set the rules. So when they set the rules (church and state not being separate) they called the shots. And they set the rules with their own self interest in mind. And they persuaded themselves this wasn't so. It's called "rationalization". People do this. Certain corrupt CEOs have done that, too.

Well, CofS would like to have a theocracy. They aren't enamoured of the democratic process, this can be seen in Hubbard's writings and also the practices of CofS. They want to be the only authority, the sole arbiter of what's right and what's legal. This is remarked on here on an almost daily basis.

Well, then you have no checks and balances like you do in American, Candian, European and many other governments. You don't with any kind of monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship. One's totally at the mercy of the dictator or head Clerical thingie guy.

Good men go bad in those situations. And if the men weren't so good to start with (which is probably more likely to be the case vis a vis David Miscavige. I say this because he was acting this way in 1980 from all accounts. Read about the Missionholder's conference- as I'm sure you have- and you'll see what I mean.) well, then their rules will be redolent with corruption and self interest.

But all the while they'll be rationalizing that they're really right. Just as others have done, so does Miscavige, Starkey and others do.

They AREN'T right. They AREN'T ethical. But they won't face up to that fact.

I spoke to someone who used to be a prison guard. He said all the prisoners in there were innocent. He meant they all SAID they were. Nobody would admit they were guilty. It's a given that in most prisons, almost everybody there did the thing for which they were convicted. There're some exceptions, sure, but most are guilty. Yet NONE would admit this.

People rationalize.

If Miscavige really admitted- even privately- to these things, the illegality, the bad, the erroneous, the stupidity,the cupidity, any of that, he'd have to face up to his role.

He's just not likely to want to do that. And the longer it goes on- and it's been 20 years already- the more he'll rationalize and compartmentalize.

I'm not condoning anything, I'm just saying how I think it works.

Ya know what I mean?