Cults and Cons re Scientology and Critics of Scientology

Recently Marty Rathbun in his submission and service to David Miscavige has taken to the propaganda tactic of projection. He calls Scientology critics of all kinds a cult.

That's fine. There are well established descriptions and criteria that can be used for critical analysis of any group to establish if it is or isn't a cult or to what degree it is a cult.

The best known lists  are probably the three by Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan.

Lifton in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism created the eight criteria for thought reform. It's been used for many decades to examine and understand exactly how cults control and harm people.

I compared Scientology to the eight criteria for months when I left Scientology about two and a half years ago and found that it fully demonstrated all eight criteria.

I recently examined the Underground Bunker commenting community and the site itself against the eight criteria.

Here's a qoute describing the eight criteria:

Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform

1. Milieu Control.  This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
2. Mystical Manipulation.  There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes. 
3. Demand for Purity.  The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection.  The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here. 
4. Confession.  Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group.  There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders. 
5. Sacred Science.  The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute.  Truth is not to be found outside the group.  The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism. 
6. Loading the Language.  The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand.  This jargon consists of thought-terminating cliches, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking. 
7. Doctrine over person.  Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group. 
8. Dispensing of existence.  The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not.  This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology.  If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the  members.  Thus, the outside world loses all credibility.  In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.  (Lifton, 1989)

Okay. Let's look at each point one by one.

1. Milieu Control.  This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

In the Underground Bunker people are free to communicate with anyone in the group or not and have unrestricted internet access. That's a no.

2.Mystical Manipulation.  There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes. 

No reinterpretation of alleged mystical experience occurs here. Another no. An individual Scientologist or Bunker commenter may have an anecdote but that is extremely rare and less than one percent of Bunker content. So another no. 

3.Demand for Purity.  The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection.  The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

The world is seen from many different views and described as extraordinarily complex and not fully understood. Many different ideas and opinions on this are exchanged and explored, practically daily.  There's some banter but hardly the guilt induction in cults. 

Bunkeroos can be jokers or not, serious researchers or not, recovery pursuing ex Scientologists, or not. No striving for perfection required, no single uniform ideology exists. People accept that different opinions exist. I have different opinions from some Bunkeroos on some topics and they can disagree on virtually anything. 

Some of us see no good in Scientology, some see a little, some are undecided. Some hate all Scientologists, some have mixed feelings and some are not sure how to feel.

ALL are accepted here. None get banned for these opinions. None. This is another no. 

4.Confession.  Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group.  There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders. 

No confession required. Ever. No formal leader requires confessions. To my knowledge Tony Ortega doesn't betray confidences. He has always been professional and trustworthy in my experience. Another no. 

5.Sacred Science.  The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute.  Truth is not to be found outside the group.  The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism. 

There's no formal doctrine or ideology. Most Bunkeroos share certain ideas and don't like David Miscavige and Ron Hubbard. Most don't like Scientology and wish it would end. 

But that's not required or rigidly enforced. Or portrayed as beyond question. It gets disputed almost every day. 

Another no. 

6.Loading the Language.  The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand.  This jargon consists of thought-terminating cliches, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking. 

The Bunkeroos have a few phrases but mostly ridicule quotes from Scientology. The outside world can easily understand the entire thing with a pamphlet. It's not enough to restrict thought in the way Lifton describes. 

A few slang terms doesn't make cult indoctrination. I rate this another no. 

7.Doctrine over person.  Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group. 

Our experiences are not described in extensive terms by Tony Ortega and occasionally others like Jon Atack share their opinion but it's not treated like sacred science. 

I also give my opinions but others can and do disagree. Like psychologists we are unlikely to ever agree completely. This in my opinion is because critical analysis requires interpretation through your own education, experience and language. We all have somewhat different experiences, education and even language.

We don't have a doctrine to make sacred. We have individual perspectives that are accepted and expressed. I for example believe a thorough examination of hypnosis and cognitive dissonance theory and psychological defense mechanisms and double binds and many other subjects is needed to accurately dissect Scientology. I include rhetoric, logical fallacies, the categories of psychological defense mechanisms and abusive relationships along with narcissism and sociopathic behavior. Trauma bonding and PTSD and CPTSD too. 

Some people just want to address Scientology as a criminal organization or a psychopolitical terrorist operation. Some just see it as a con for foolish dupes. Or narcissistic rich people and celebrities. 

No doctrine over person here. 

8.Dispensing of existence.  The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not.  This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology.  If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the  members.  Thus, the outside world loses all credibility.  In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.  

Here's our final criterion. The outside world is our world. It's not perfect by any means. We can love it, hate it, be liberal or conservative. 

We have Bernie Sanders' supporters here, Hillary Clinton's supporters and even Donald Trump's supporters. We have people that are indifferent to politics and others that are passionate. 

The outside world is where we live. We can associate with people outside the Bunker and actually celebrate when people reconnect with family and friends. 

We have very different opinions on how to deal with Scientologists but don't advocate destroying them. A rare commenter might disagree but the vast majority don't want Scientologists destroyed or even arrested. 

I rate this another no. 

So, what does Marty Rathbun or his master David Miscavige have to justify their claims ? To support the statements in any way ? 

Nothing. Nothing now, Nothing yesterday and nothing tomorrow. But we are used to someone offering nothing of value. Scientology has been doing it for decades.