By Joe "Zinjifar" Lynn more
11 July 2006
Let's say for the moment that 'Everything' should be
considered. Part of the disadvantage to the incredible growth in
public awareness is that this inevitably means that the
'Critical Community', such as it is, has also grown faster than
its organic ability to educate new critics in some very
Scientology Critical considerations.
Because, almost everything has been considered in the
tactical arena, and, although
Keith and his family, and some dozens of others possibly,
are examples of why heros are still needed, the generally
accepted tactics are working; just not as fast as we
So, without claiming any 'leadership' function in the
or any other 'organization' or non-organization, here are my
views on what we have learned about valuable tactics in
exposing and hopefully completely defanging or dismantling the
'Church' of Scientology and any of its offshoots/fronts.
First off, Scientology criticism is not like almost any other
form of 'public protest' or social activism. Because of the huge
amounts of defrauded cash available to the 'Church' and its
completely unscrupulous disregard of sane economies of scale,
opposition to Scientology will never be an even playing
field. Scientology has both the will and the means to spend
millions on a $2 attack. The only limiting factor is the
shreds of sanity which keep it from openly murdering any and all
of its perceived 'enemies', because of the potential 'PR Flap'
It certainly could do so; it has the means, in money
and unscrupulous agents, and the Scientology 'philosophy' quite
clearly not only recommends such action, but mandates it,
if they think they can get away with it.
So, if the Scientology moloch is looking kind of toothless
and impotent lately, it'd be wise to realize that it's not
because it's grown any more benign, or is 'running out of
money', because I think that's not only wishful thinking, but
dangerous wishful thinking.
Certainly public criticism has reached the point where
income is being severly reduced, but, income is not
the same as wealth, and the Cult has accumulated enough wealth
to spend a million dollars apiece on destroying or 'ruining
utterly' literally hundreds of its 'enemies' if it thought it
could get away with it.
Yes, the 'Church' hates to spend its hoarded wealth, and
would far prefer to finance its pogroms from income, but,
an unwary critic, suffering under the delusion that the 'Church'
is on its 'last legs' is very likely in for a rude awakening.
The limiting factor isn't money, it's visibility. The
internet is not only the downfall of the 'Church' in making
information about the 'Church' and
Xenu and Hubbard
yadda yadda available, it's also the witness to every outrage
and rabid excess and barratrous lawsuit or false police report.
Tease the monster in front of cameras and you will almost
certainly 'get away with it'. Do so when nobody's watching and
you're in for a surprise.
Why aren't there more of the traditional Scientology 'Lawsuit
Attacks'? I doubt it's lack of money, but the past 10 years have
been instructional even to the 'Church' that such public
executions are public, and inevitably result in even
more information about the 'Church' getting out.
But, the 'Church' will gladly spend the unspent warchest on
playing the martyr and hijacking the police and public
prosecutors if a 'critic' gives them a chance. Frame-ups,
corruption and perjury are far more to its taste anyway, if it
can 'criminalize' criticism, thus 'validating' L. Ron Hubbard's
Which leads to my thoughts on 'picketing' in general, or
other public 'action'.
Scientology criticism is not the same as 'union
demonstrations', anti-war demonstrations, political
All of those operate from a fairly large base of wide (even
if minority) public support. Scientology Criticism is a small
group of aware citizens opposing a tiny but practically
infinitely 'wealthy' (for all practical purposes) and completely
unscrupulous psychopaths, who have spent literally decades
buying influence in society in general, and government in
There's often a lot of talk around here about 'Ghandi
Tech' as if it were some overriding moral imperative, which
it may be for some.
But for others, pacifism isn't the be-all and end-all of
protest, and the continual harping on the 'moral high ground'
may sound 'Uncle Tommish' and overly meek.
So, let me put it this way; 'Ghandi Tech' isn't the best
tactic because its inherently the 'higher moral ground', but
because it's the only tactic which holds any promise.
It's the only tactic that the 'Church' can't exploit
to position itself as the 'poor widdle persecuted religion'.
It's the only tactic that has any hope of demonstrating to the
public at large (and to the police who may or may not be
present) the essentially vicious and repugnant nature of the
'Church' and its methods.
The worst mistake a Scientology Critic can make is that he's
operating on some kind of 'level playing field' and will get a
'fair shake' from authorities or the 'public' if he 'stands up
for his rights'.
If you can't take a couple of shots without feeling the need
to 'protect your manhood' (whether man or woman) then you have
no business being involved in Scientology Criticism. Someone who
'answers in kind' to Scientology Assault is worse than useless;
he's a liability, because every such incident become s a
'net gain' for the 'Church'; no matter how unfair that may be.
The 'Church' won't just go after you; it will go after your
family, your friends, your children your employers and neighbors.
It's what they do.
The trick is to get them to do it in front of witnesses,
while offering as little vulnerability of your own as possible.
Even done perfectly, the 'Church' can manufacture
'incidents', but, 'Ghandi Tech' is the best thing we've got, and
no amount of bravado can replace it.
It's not Scientology Critics who will shut down
Scientology, but Scientology itself, when it slips too often and
shows the foaming at the mouth true nature of the beast enough
that actual prosecutors and police agencies can no longer afford
to ignore it.
There is one eternal truth about Scientology: It's always
worse than you think. This is a recursive phenomenon. It's even
worse than I think; and worse than I think I think it is.