The Leader of a Destructive Group can never be blamed….

“My fingers are shaking as I write this. Everyone is now turning their backs on Adolph (Hitler). No one was ever a supporter?…. Everyone was a supporter and no one denounced anyone else — And what about me? I was there. I breathed what was in the air, it infected all of us.” From the journal of an unknown Nazi woman.

I have read analysis and evaluations about situations in Scientology since 1970. Today’s evaluations in the Independent field and Freezone are much the same. Even though Independents have the right to say, “L. Ron Hubbard is the Who*,” they hardly ever do. Did Hubbard and other cult leaders do everything wrong? — of course not, otherwise smart dedicated people would not have followed them.
LRH put together a workable parapsychology. However, some departments that he created are decried even by those who tend to deify him: the Office of Special Affairs (the recycled Guardian’s Office), RTC, the RPF, etc. Yet in listing outpoints in the independent field, it is always David Miscavige who is blamed for almost everything, Hubbard never gets any causation; pretty unfair to him as source and creator of the subject. This is the blindness and compartmentalizing of mind control at work. It is as if nothing was wrong with Scientology before 1982. Tormenting defectors and detractors, spying, virtual slave labor, trafficking, disconnection, breaking up families, and humiliation all occurred prior to Miscavige. Hailing the leader as infallible and inerrant goes hand in glove with any destructive cult and the true believer’s thought process; the leader is never wrong. (*The “Who” is Scientology lingo for the source of a major situation.)
I recently posted, “Does Scientology own the State of Clear?” (http:// Apparently it stirred up a hornet’s nest amongst some narrow-minded independent Scientologists. One of my fellow Flag auditors from the Apollo more or less disconnected from me because I dared to say anything negative about LRH. Yet, her family has disconnected from her and her ex-husband is in a Scientology prison called the “hole.” Another friend got a firm slap on the wrist from the administrators of another site for posting my article, and one blogger called my post “toxic.” This was because I dared to prove that attainments that Hubbard declared solely Scientology’s domain could be achieved in other belief systems.

One of my purposes is to help people think freely. There is no freedom in a group if the leader cannot be in error. It is unfair to the leader and very unfair to the followers. For the leader it is lethal; the justifications, blame, and mental dissonance a destructive leader goes through to be an inerrant “messiah” often results in illness, germinates his/her psychosis, and leaves the leader dying usually only accompanied by hypocrisy. Once the messianic facade is shattered and the pretender’s grandiose promises fail, all that is left is an empty shell. Suicide is often the answer; witness David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, and Adolph Hitler.

Blind faith isn’t solely the fault of the destructive leader; it is also the fault of the true believer. However, once fear permeates the group from the wrath and power of the leader, all freedom of thought and to some degree freedom of one’s own life is gone. This was evident in Nazi Germany where there was no freedom of speech; only death if you spoke out against the regime. A destructive cult is not exactly a Nazi Germany, but many of the principles laid out in the rise of the Third Reich are evident in any destructive group. It is worth comparison.

The Rise of the Third Reich, the factors:
1. Hypnotic and charismatic power of the leader.
2. Democracy abolished, unquestioned despotic rule.
3. Militaristic culture.
4. Clearly defined goals and dreams.
5. Clearly defined enemies.
6. Secret police and agencies responsible to the leader only.
7. Dissenters purged loudly and often.
8. Chaos created whether real or imagined.
9. Apocalyptic visions to create urgency and sacrifice.
10. Bold lies.
11. Discrimination.
12. Eliminate belief in God and religions.
13. Right to sovereignty.
14. Martyrdom to inspire loyalty through emotions.
15. Oath taking, especially in the young.
16. Determined and effective schooling of the young.
17. Group above family and individual.
18. Mimicry.
19. Taught to fight and revolt.
20. Ceremony, rallies, and pomp.
21. Undeterred by losses and setbacks.
22. Steadfast reports, true or false, about the enemy’s activities to instill group
23. Followers overlook evil, vile and inhumane behavior.
24. As in 13., overcome divisions and individual rights by preaching
the “greater good.”
25.Tap phones, break-ins, spying, reporting on others, arrests, beatings and
26. Acts of violence against humanity.
27. Justification.
28. False image created and staged for outsiders.
29. Films, media, celebration of art and celebrities.

If you review your association with a destructive group or leader you may find a majority of these factors have influenced you. It is my hope that you get relief by examining how they may have affected your life and your thinking. For instance, if you were not someone who normally screamed and yelled, yet when you joined the group, you saw it and became like that – it was due to mimicry. Reviewing these facets to see how you might have compromised and compartmentalized your thoughts to overlook abuse can help you regain your own individuality, self-esteem, and respect.

In the next post I will list the factors that resulted in the demise of the Third Reich. The intent of that is to help one see if the destructive leader and group you have allegiance to is on its way to its own demise.


  1. //

    You are dead right in this Glenn.
    Miscavige may have his own sociopathic personality issues and rose to the top only because he was ruthlessly willing to do to others what no one else would. Those who have also endured at the top like Starkey are also of maluable minds and lacking their own ethical compass.
    But the foundation for Miscavige’s actions were put firmly in place from Hubbard, and no one else. He created the policies, attitudes and practices that others followed with an iron hand, including such desructive practices as Disconnection and Fair Game and Harsh Ethics, the RPF and so on.
    Although Hubbard possed a level of creativity and ability to manifest that is clearly beyond Miscavige.
    The problem for Scientologists is that the subject itself is a mixture of both negative and positive aspects, both truth and fiction.
    It was always marketed as an absolute truth, not to be questioned, in the tradition of other religions such as the Catholic Church.
    Yet our own personal ability to live by our own ethical standards regardless of external pressures is a basic component of our spiritual development.
    If we are unable to do this we are spiriitually still children- doing what our parent figures tell us- whether it is the Pope, Adolph Hitler or LRon Hubbard.
    So some of those who have experienced gains from Scientology stay locked in the mental box of the True Believer – and say illogical things such as: “it is the organization that is at fault- the tech is pure.” And view Hubbard as a saint – while never getting too close in their examination of who he really was, a complex character of talent but also enormous egotism and self delusion, paranoria, selfishness and deception. And there is voluminous information of this available for those who didn’t have their own experiences to disiillusion them.
    The truth is that Hubbard stole from many sources of valid modalities, while claiming to be source of them himself which he was not: magick, psychology, Buddhism, Hinduism and on. He was a talented organiser of all kinds of techniques.
    But for anyone who has been involved in the cult, in the face of the mountain of negative statments and documented stories, to refuse to investigate for themselves is simply intellectual cowardice and laziness.
    They need to examine the subject and sort out the wheat from the chaff – what in their experience has been positive and workable, what is negative and destructive.
    No spiritual practice or religion is, nor should ever be, beyond the scope of our questioning and full examination for truth, logic, efficacy, fairness, and positive or negative effect.
    The businesss of religion of spirituality should always be the experience of: kindness, compassion, nurturing, forgiveness, responsiblity, integrity, love and awareness.
    Anything that does not fall within these parameters does not deserve the name or our support.

    1. //

      Yes, it just didn’t have to be so mean, did it?
      When you and I first started, there was love and the A in ARC was still around.
      When I interview clients for the first time I ask about compassion. One for one they realize that Scientology, the way it came to be run, made them compassionless. Sad, but true.
      One client actually had a complete shift in this area and ended up helping another get cousneling who had a nervous breakdown from gestapo like interrogations directed by Miscavige. His heart changed, just by realizing he lost his “loving feeling” in Scientology from the interview.
      Getting people to realize that they lost their ability to love due to the way the organization was run is important part of what I try to do.


  2. //

    Sorry, Glenn.

    It isn’t that I can’t say “LRH is the who” it is that it is not correct and won’t lead to a resolution of the problem.

    I’m not even sure what you consider the problem to be. Even if the COS bears some simliaritues to the third reich, (and indeed I left because I didn’t want to be part of a totalitarian government)
    one can hardly blame LRH. Each person makes his own decisions, and each is repsonsible for his own condition.

    LRH wrote tech, which I adore, and wrote policy to resolve situations with the intention to keep the assembly line in the COS running smoothly. What he did in his personal life I could care less. What he did in this lifetime probably pales against what any of us have done at one time or another on the whole track.

    Critics are abundant and have pointed out probably every little thing that could ruin Hubbard’s reputation. You don’t need to help them do it. If a person destroys a man’s credibility it tends to destroy his work.

    I know you know the tech works; I don’t understand why you would want to put so much attention on the negativity, teaching others about the Third Reich as an example. Do you think there is someone who doesn’t realize and recognize some, or even most, of those traits in the Sea Org?

    I really don’t care what Ron did. If he created a frankenstein monster, well so be it. He left us the tech, the distilled juice, the elixir of Scientology, the pearls of wisdom, and I am so, so, happy he came into my life via first book to lead the way out of this puzzle called life.

    We are not narrow minded. We can see the whole picture, and we don’t choose to denigrate LRH.

    1. //

      Yes, if I did denigrate him. In the article I wrote, “L. Ron Hubbard, for real..” I told stories that happened, not opinions. In order to think freely, you have to think clearly about who wrote it and the intent behind things. Is the intent of study tech to make you understand so you can think critically about Scientology or was it to make you believe everything LRH wrote was 100% true?
      That’s my point, what was the intention behind it?

      You weren’t in the Sea Org and knew LRH during a more benevolent time period. Separating the man from the tech and examining the tech for what it is and what it isn’t- is key. Hopefully you have done that as an independent, and hopefully an independent thinker. Glenn

  3. //

    It’s been actually funny watching some KSW freaks celebrate their old friend’s speaking out and then their falling out when you kept the line of free thinking. 😀 Sorry, can’t help expressing a bit of gloat.

  4. //

    As it is well known, last universe shift mechanism has as main-line the following:

    ‘only one will survive’ – ‘to be the one who survives you must be superior to all others’

    ’30. ONE PEOPLE, ELITE AND SUPERIOR’ is not a coinsidence

  5. //

    Wow. From an outsider’s view, I think the article is spot on.

    I first started studying cult phenomenon years ago, before I there was a “COB” (DM). When I came back to look at the subject during the Anonymous Movement, I learned the CoS seemed far worse than before in it’s destructive ability toward individuals and society. Journalists were afraid to even report on the subject. But then I remember that Operation Snow White was before DM, where “fair game” was at fever pitch.

    However, it was the Free Zone that showed me very different aspects of Scientology and even LRH that were very different from the cold, historical facts. I learned that a lot of good has and could come from Scientology. There were many views (a sign of freedom) on LRH and the tech. Some think LRH lost it later in life; some praise him for being Machiavellian, justifying his darker side. One person even defended locking up children in the chain locker of the Apollo as “they must have done something really bad” …

    Some — like the article suggests — clearly use DM as the replacement scapegoat, as deserving as he probably is. It’s very hard to “unlove” such a leader, and a common trait to mockup the leader themself as the betrayed when the organization is corrupt. (And the same Mary Sue that went to prison is beloved by some, reminding me of the archetypal role of the Theotokos — I don’t have an opinion of her, just observing others.)

    Maybe the RPF wasn’t as bad under Hubbard, or Fair Game was justified at the time, or Disconnection was done more sensibly. Or maybe the past tends to be romanticized. You guys know better than I do from experience, but there’s an understandable bias, too, I think. They were issues of concern from the start for some. These things at the very least came out of a totalistic culture instituted in detail by Hubbard. The question for me has always been if he intended it to be the way it turned out — was he really trying to start a blatant cult or did it just evolve into it naturally (or by the hijacking of an SP)? Maybe there’s no black-and-white answer.

    Having learned very different perspectives and data from non-cult Scientologists, I am clearly of two minds and don’t claim to ever be able to know who LRH really was. I can only see Scientology as a complex, real, human endeavor — and LRH as one of us imperfect humans — criticizing what is bad while giving credit to that which is good.

    1. //

      Very sensitive and in depth comments. To answer your question: did he deliberately start a cult?
      Per Jon Atack’s book, “A Piece of Blue Sky,” and other reports the answer is yes. Also he wrote an in depth book about brainwashing, so it appears he knew exactly what he was doing. Did he care? Yes, at times. But as a child of the great depression, he cared more about money in my opinion. In Dianetics which is systemized from Freud’s meanderings he made a contribution which I have used successfully for years, and also the repetitive processes in Scientology help as well. As you say, not a simple man. My main point is to keep it real, this and other articles, like the one I wrote, “L. Ron Hubbard, for real…..” is he did good things, was brilliant at times, but in the end the people who adored him the most were betrayed. Especially the Sea Org members. were paid prison wages, sent to the RPF at his whim, even some when pregnant, got abortions to work closely to him, etc….so along with the goodness of the therapy came the short stick.
      And yes, David Miscavige took the worst points LRH started and has made the organization horrendous while amassing a hundred times more money than Hubbard did. He is considered a fiend by a lot of people who have left recently, he plays on the apocalyptic nature of Scientology to control and create a destructive culture.

  6. //

    Great article. And mind control via political means is a proven cultish structure.

    My greatest moment of self discovery came from reading the book, “The Nazi Doctors” where I learned how good, competent, ethical, medical professionals were twisted into becoming cogs for the Nazi death machine. I was amazed at how clearly Lifton (an expert in mind control dynamics) reveals their coping mechanisms of how they disavowed ethical blame for their actions afterward.

    Their denial accounts are staggering.

    After reading that book I was DEEPLY disturbed for a month or more. Why? After reading in painstaking, documented detail how the death machine was constructed in jus a few years, the harshest of truths came to me. . .

    The Nazi monster isn’t the monocled, scar-faced, sneering character in movies that holds his cigarettes with an upward faced palm …

    It me.

    It’s also the sweet nurse next door. You know her. The one you spot one day happily saving a cricket that she found in her laundry room by placing it in the street. That Janey would NEVER think to harm a harmless cricket.

    But she was a latent Nazi monster – just like me. And maybe just like you.

    One way to circumvent the “monstering” process is to know how the process works. For then you can catch yourself and others being molded. And if you have trained well enough, and have created enough character by learning from the 1% of people that say “no” to such “monsterfication,” you be your best self in the worst of times.

    Free to work to stop the monster-making meme machines. True enough to face a noose with full awareness. Brave enough to confront a pyre while scared shitless from the terror raging through your body.

    And if you are particularly adept, then while the flames lick your legs, you can be like Padmasambhava who according to legend liked being burned at the stake in his incarnations. Why?

    Because nothing melts ignorance like a burning Bodhisattva.

  7. //

    “Our discontent begins by finding false villians we can accuse of deceiving us. Next we find false heroes whom we expect to liberate us. The hardest, most discomforting discovery is that each of us must emancipate himself.”
    Daniel J. Boorstin

    1. //

      Perfect, I will use this to open up the next post.

  8. //

    I believe there is no need to expose Scientology or Hubbard to get people out of the Church. There is no need to make them realize how wrong the Church is, Hubbard was and they themselves are through supporting that wrong church. Here is why:

    1) People in the church you care so much about will leave it and join you when you start producing using Scientology – so get busy making clears and promote your product.

    2) Pointing the fingers and making others wrong is not a Scientology game, it is a DM game. We don’t have to continue and perpetuate that evil and destructive activity. Destructive, because it creates more harm negatively affecting the new public then good (if any) reaching your addressees.

    3) When auditing a pc from a low tone up, would you get angry at him when he was passing the 1.1 and was making nasty comments about you and others? would you make him realize how wrong it was to do? would you argue with him at any tone below 2.0? My guess is you would not.
    You would keep up tone, as high as needed to confront that low toned pc, and you will continue helping him TO LOOK with a Scientology process, you would not evaluate for him what he had supposed to see or explain him, what is or was there that he missed and didn’t recognize. It would not be a Scientology then, so why doing it to church public and staff?

    I suggest you get rid of this website, even it is a very nice looking one. Unfortunately the nicer it looks and the smarter it sounds – the more harmful it becomes. And get a website at the Independent Scientology Community, like one of these: where introduce yourself as an auditor, name the services you offer and promote your products by publishing the Success Stories of your PC-s at

    1. //

      Maybe Glenn is not interested in keeping people into a cult as much as he is interested in freeing them from any cult.

      Anyone who hides the dark side of LRH because “it’s not good for business” is low in personal integrity.

      What works in Scientology can work without LRH name stamped at the beginning, in the middle and in the end of it. LRH is in fact the biggest Scientology aberration because a search for truth should not tied to the personality and shortcomings of a single man.

      Similarly, if you need to hide and rewrite history and create a personality myth to promote what is supposed to be a self-evident “science of life”, methinks that there is something quite sinister/cultish with that supposed “science”.

      People who keep up the myth of LRH as the only “Source” of anything worth, and forward his purpose to “smash his name into history”, and demonize and call derogatorily “squirrels” anyone attempting to review and advance the subject, are the very people that make of Scientology a cult and doom Scientology as a subject.

  9. //

    If you evaluate all the psychotic dictators of the past, you find ONE key item:
    They make a cult about themselve. An extreme button of self importance.
    Pol Pot (Cambodia)
    Kim Jong IL (North Korea)

    You got it. All of them have been mass murders.


  10. //

    My dear Glenn, This article sure does resonate with me. Thank you for all you’ve done and shared with all of us by shining a light on some subjects, thoughts, ideas that need examination through a newer and freer lens. I appreciate too, how fearless you are in doing so.
    Your old and current friend, Marcy Pearlman Sorensen

  11. //

    Glenn I really enjoyed reading your article and the responses. As we have discussed, it is quite amazing to me how many of the “independent Scientologist” continue to follow Hubbards teachings blindly. LRH is taken out of the evaluation of the WHO. I love the ones who justify following Hubbard mindlessly by saying “I dont care if Hubbard was this or that” the tech works. Who cares what the man behind it might be. I have heard this justifier many times. Well I am sorry to say but the man behind something does make a difference on what there aim is and how they are looking at things. I personally love most of the auditing tech and found Hubbard did want to better man. On the other hand as I have written before the dicotomy of his ethics tech, as Hubbard would have said is quite suppressive to man. It was designed to control just like in an Orwellian society or Hitlerish society or any cult and people like Miscavige have found they could use this very effectively. I have written in detail about this before. The Independents still disconnect if they don’t like something you say like Karen disconnecting from you. Or if they dont like you or someone than your a “suppressive person”. See Hubbard was even smart enough to attack anyone who didnt like his ethics tech. Than you must “be reasonable” have a “low confront on evil”, be SP yourself, “be DB” or whatever. Some of the posts here I find to be quite brilliant and others just showing that same “don’t look”, just be a good little Scientologist. “Praise Hubbard”. Yes praise Hubbard when he deserves it and you make case gain from his brilliance. Whether or not he “stole some ideas” does makes little difference when you feel a whole lot better. But look for yourself at some of his ideas “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”. Sounds lovely but justifies you or other people doing harm (committing overts). Can you see that? This is what a Miscavige uses. There are other writings that make more sense “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. Really if you want to be a dedicated Scientologist or Independent Scientologists it is OK with me, I will still like you. Just don’t use that same mindset to than disconnect from me, Glenn or anyone else because you don’t like our ideas. That is just so “Miscavige”.

    1. //

      Thanks a lot.
      Fighting blindness is one of my aims.
      Yes unfortunatley disconnection is alive and well in the “independent” field.
      One “Anonymous” guy who was not a Scientologist but pickets was asked why he does so. He told the OSA guy, “disconnection, if you would quit that practise, I won’ t picket anymore.”
      As far as Karen, she didn’t officially disconnect, but more or less cut off the relationship because I don’t feel the same way she does about LRH and also didn’t like that I called out Rathbun for posting that old AAC auditors, etc. were “squirrels” and dividing the field instead of unifying it.

Leave a Reply