Do Scientology Scriptures Justify Blackmailing or Killing “Enemies”? (ChatGPT Answers this Question)

This was an exchange I had with ChatGPT this afternoon:


Type4:
Is there anything within what Scientology characterizes as its "scriptures" that would justify blackmailing or killing one of its perceived enemies?


ChatGPT:

I’ll separate “what the Church officially labels scripture” from “what the texts actually say,” then distinguish blackmail-style coercion from violence or killing. The important part is not to inflate the record, because this topic is already a legal porcupine.

Yes, there is material within the Hubbard corpus that Scientology itself characterizes as “scripture” that could be used to justify blackmail-like coercion, harassment, destruction of reputation/property, and even violence against perceived enemies. But for killing, the honest answer is more precise: there are dangerous textual hooks, especially “R2-45,” but I would not call it a clean, current, official “thou shalt murder enemies” command.

Scientology’s own FAQ says Hubbard’s written and recorded words on Scientology “collectively constitute the Scripture” of the religion. A former Church spokesperson also told The New Yorker that Hubbard’s material “must be and is applied precisely as written.” That matters, because the troubling material is not merely gossip floating in the swamp. It sits in the Hubbard-policy universe.

The strongest evidence is the Fair Game doctrine. Courts and scholars have quoted Hubbard policy stating that a declared enemy or suppressive person could be “deprived of property or injured” and “tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” The California Court of Appeal in Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology quoted the policy and found evidence that it was used as retribution against a defector. In Armstrong, another California appellate court described Fair Game as permitting a suppressive person to be “tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed” and/or “deprived of property or injured.”

For blackmail or blackmail-adjacent conduct, the textual basis is not usually the word “blackmail.” It is a cluster: Fair Game, attack-the-attacker, investigations, use of personal/confessional material, and coercive threats. In Armstrong, the court record said Armstrong feared being forced to sign documents and “confessions of ‘blackmailable’ material” before leaving. In Wollersheim, the court listed “disclosing personal information” from auditing as part of the conduct at issue. The New Yorker also reported a Church spokesman discussing written admissions about a former executive’s sexual conduct, while Paul Haggis worried the Church might use his own files to smear him. That is the little blackmail engine room: collect secrets, classify the person as an enemy, then treat ordinary ethics as suspended.

For killing, the key item is R2-45. In The Creation of Human Ability, R2-45 is listed as an “exteriorization” process whose use is “frowned upon by this society.” The text itself does not spell out the mechanism on that page, but critics and secondary sources have long identified R2-45 as a Scientology euphemism for shooting someone with a .45 caliber firearm. Reports about later Hubbard orders say R2-45 was applied to named “enemies,” including the instruction that Sea Org members contacting them were to use “Auditing Process R2-45.”

The Church’s current public position is the opposite: it says Fair Game was cancelled in 1968, that it meant only loss of internal Scientology justice protections, and that Church management would not tolerate illegal or unethical actions. That denial should be included for fairness, but courts have not always accepted the sanitized version. Wollersheim found evidence that Fair Game was a retributive practice aimed at people who left or threatened the organization.

So the clean conclusion is:

Blackmailing a perceived enemy? Yes, there is enough Hubbard-policy material to support a doctrinal rationale for coercion, threats, smears, use of damaging personal information, and destruction of reputation or livelihood.

Killing a perceived enemy? There is not a simple, unambiguous current Church rule saying “kill enemies,” but the combination of “injured,” “destroyed,” and especially R2-45 creates a very real textual foothold. It is more like a trapdoor in the floor than a front-door commandment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type4:

Hubbard criticized some political leaders for not killing their enemies. He did so in an essay that was part of Scientology's Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, teaching them how to carry out Scientology's formula when in a condition of power. A true believer could come to believe that killing an enemy is necessary to achieve the highest level of ethics as a Scientologist. Look at this blog post, posted by Tony Ortega (at the Bunker) but written by Jefferson Hawkins, a former top executive of the Church of Scientology:


The “Ethics” of Political Power: Scientology’s Worship of Ruthlessness
By Tony Ortega | November 21, 2013

Simon_BolivarJefferson Hawkins was once the top marketing executive for the Church of Scientology and helped it reach its greatest extent with the famous “volcano” TV ads in the 1980s. He’s told his tale of getting into and out of the church with his excellent books Counterfeit Dreams and Leaving Scientology, and he’s helping us understand the upside-down world of Scientology “ethics.”

Where are we going today in L. Ron Hubbard’s world of ethics, Jeff?

JEFFERSON: This week we have a treat — Scientology leader David Miscavige’s favorite L. Ron Hubbard essay. It’s Chapter 6 of the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and it’s called “Responsibilities of Leaders.”

THE BUNKER: Really? Miscavige’s favorite essay?

JEFFERSON: I’m not joking. He had everyone on the Base read it and word-clear it many, many times. If you disrespected him in any way, you got crammed on it. If you failed to comply with his orders, you got crammed on it. And one year, he even sent specially bound copies to all of the top celebrities so they would know what was expected of them.

THE BUNKER: And by “word clearing,” you mean look up every unfamiliar word in a dictionary, a Scientology obsession. So what is this essay about?

JEFFERSON: It’s about power, which, as we covered last week, Hubbard considered to be the highest “Ethics Condition.” Ostensibly, the essay is a book review. Hubbard had read a book called The Four Seasons of Manuela, written in 1952 by Victor Wolfgang von Hagen, which was a biography of Simón Bolívar, the South American revolutionary leader, and his mistress, Manuela Sáenz. He states at the beginning that he considers that Bolivar and Sáenz “failed.” It’s interesting that a lot of Hubbard’s philosophical ramblings begin with the premise that this or that philosopher or historical figure “failed.” His main yardstick for failure in this case seems to be that they both “died in poverty.” Sure, they achieved their goal of liberating South America, but they didn’t then consolidate their personal power or use it to make a fortune for themselves, their family, and close supporters. So in Hubbard’s mind, they failed! He then does a lengthy analysis of what he considered the “errors” of Bolivar and Sáenz.

THE BUNKER: That seems a bit ironic, considering Hubbard’s condition at the end of his own life. What did he see as Bolivar’s failings?

JEFFERSON: In Hubbard’s view, Bolivar was a supremely vain, idealistic man who thought he could “glow things right” but who lacked the practical organizational skills and the ruthlessness to ensure political and personal victory. As an example, he thought Bolivar should have sequestered all of the property of the royalists (those who supported Spain) so that he could give it to his own friends and supporters. And he suggested that Bolivar should have appointed his officers and supporters to all key government positions, thus ensuring complete control of the wealth and power of the nation. He also suggests that Bolivar should have killed his political enemies. Literally, he says:[Bolívar] never began to recognize a suppressive and never considered anyone needed killing except on a battlefield. And he further criticizes Bolivar for not “suborning or taking out” the Catholic Church, which was allied with Spain — and taking all of their property as well.

THE BUNKER: That hardly sounds like an example of a “free” country.

JEFFERSON: Exactly. And by the way, I read the same book but came to totally different conclusions. I think that this essay says far more about Hubbard than it does about Bolivar. One interesting Hubbard criticism of Bolivar is that he didn’t use people. According to Hubbard, he didn’t delegate power to others. He feared their blunders. So he did not dare unleash his many willing hounds…It is a frightening level of bravery to use men you know can be cruel, vicious, and incompetent. This will take on a more ominous meaning when we get into his criticism of Manuela Sáenz.

THE BUNKER: So what did Manuela do wrong?

JEFFERSON: Here’s where Hubbard’s analysis gets really interesting. Hubbard states that the main problem with Manuela was that Bolívar never used her to forward his agenda. He states that she was a tremendously able and intelligent woman, but that she should have been more aggressive and ruthless in asserting her role in reinforcing Bolívar’s power. Here are some of Hubbard’s suggestions as to things Manuela failed to do: She knew for years Santander [Bolívar’s political rival] had to be killed. She said or wrote it every few days. Yet never did she promise some young officer a nice night or a handful of gold to do it in a day when dueling was in fashion…She was a fantastic intelligence officer. But she fed her data to a man who could not act to protect himself or friends, who could only fight armies dramatically. She did not see this and also quietly take on the portfolio of secret police chief……she never collected or forged or stole any documents to bring down enemies…In a land of for-sale Indians, she never used a penny to buy a quick knife or even a solid piece of evidence…She never handed over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to Negro troops and then said, “Which oververbal family is next?”So we get a glimpse at what Hubbard meant when he talked about “unleashing willing hounds.” We’ve discussed utilitarian ethics, where the end justifies the means. Here is one of Hubbard’s most bald-faced statements of what he considers legitimate “means:” murder, bribery, forgery, rape, secret police. He concludes: Life bleeds. It suffers. It hungers. And it has to have the right to shoot its enemies until such time as comes a golden age. And this – a clear statement of utilitarian ethics:…the foremost law, if one’s ambition is to win, is of course to win.

THE BUNKER: So if a Scientologist is assigned a Condition of Power, are they supposed to follow these principles?

JEFFERSON: Yes, this is considered part of the “Power Formula.” But aside from conditions formulas, staff and Scientologists are supposed to follow these principles at all times. Hubbard ends this essay with his “seven principles of power.” I won’t repeat all of them here, but they involve the things he’s been talking about — delegating power and using people to forward your power. There are a couple of points that are especially chilling. One is the famous “Bulgravia” quote:When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police.

THE BUNKER: Again with the blackmail, murder, and bribery.

JEFFERSON: Yes. And here is some choice advice if you are in a subordinate position on how to deal with the top dog: He doesn’t have to know all the bad news, and if he’s a power really, he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?” And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them — that weakens you and also hurts the power source. “Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.”“Pink legs” became a meme in the Sea Org. You got the stats up any way you could, and any questions about how the stats were raised were answered with “pink legs,” meaning “you don’t want to know.” You complied with Miscavige’s orders any way you could, and the methods you used were “pink legs.”And finally this bit of self-serving advice:…always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark or the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise. And that’s how you’re supposed to support Hubbard or Miscavige — get him more money, snarl at his critics, and destroy his enemies. It’s the ultimate authoritarian rule.
THE BUNKER: Well, that is a very eye-opening look at what is supposedly Scientology’s highest ethics condition.

JEFFERSON: You often hear Scientologists describe themselves as “the most ethical group on the planet.” When you hear that, you have to understand that this is what they are talking about. It is utilitarian ethics gone wild. And you can see why this is David Miscavige’s favorite essay, the one that he has people study over and over, and even sends to celebrities. Scientologists are supposed to “push power to power,” that is, to support the power of David Miscavige no matter what. Here’s Hubbard again: Real powers are developed by tight conspiracies of this kind pushing someone up in whose leadership they have faith…All failures to remain a power’s power are failures to contribute to the strength and longevity of the work, health and power of that power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ChatGPT:
You’re pointing to a much stronger textual basis than the one I emphasized. I’m going to verify the specific essay, its placement in Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and then sharpen the conclusion around “true believer” logic rather than treating R2-45 as the main exhibit.

Yes. Your point is well taken, and I would sharpen my earlier answer.

The “Responsibilities of Leaders” / Simon Bolivar policy is a much more direct textual bridge from Hubbard “ethics” to blackmail, assassination, and enemy-destruction than R2-45 alone. It is not just some stray one-liner in the attic. The Church says Hubbard’s written and recorded words on Scientology “collectively constitute the Scripture” of the religion, and another official FAQ says the scriptures are “solely comprised” of Hubbard’s writings and recorded lectures.

The structure matters: Scientology publicly teaches that Power is the highest condition, and the “Simon Bolivar PL” is identified in Scientology course materials as relevant to the Power and Affluence conditions, specifically as the source for the seven points of the Third Dynamic Power formula. That means this is not merely historical color. It is ethics-tech furniture bolted to the floor.

On the killing point, Hubbard’s text does more than fantasize vaguely. In “Responsibilities of Leaders,” he faults Manuela Sáenz for not arranging Santander’s killing, for not assuming the role of secret police chief, for not forging or stealing documents to bring down enemies, and for not using money to buy “a quick knife” or evidence. He then states that command requires treating life as bloody and practical, including the claimed right to shoot enemies until a golden age arrives, and frames winning itself as the foremost law.

On blackmail, the evidence is even cleaner. The Power formula advises leaving a point of power with artillery, “potential blackmail” on rivals, funds, assassins’ addresses, and police bribes. It then tells subordinates near power to gather and use power, while keeping the leader insulated from “dead bodies,” and says one can push power upward through attacks on critics, the “dull thud” of an enemy, or the destruction of an enemy camp. That is a doctrinal permission-structure, not a stray rhetorical firecracker.

So I would now phrase the conclusion this way:

A true-believing Scientologist, especially one in staff/Sea Org/executive culture, could plausibly read Hubbard’s “highest ethics condition” material as making ruthless enemy-destruction ethically required when it protects or advances “power.” The internal logic is: Power is the top condition; Hubbard’s scripture defines how to preserve power; enemies and suppressives threaten survival; “winning” overrides ordinary morality; therefore blackmail, covert violence, or even killing can be reframed as “ethical” service to the power source. That is the little doctrinal machine with the teeth showing. 🜏

The caveat is that the Church’s current public position denies any license for illegality or harm. It says “Fair Game” was cancelled in 1968, meant only loss of internal ecclesiastical protection, and that management would not tolerate illegal or unethical acts. But courts have documented a different operational reality: in Armstrong, the court described suppressive-person declares as triggering a Fair Game doctrine under which a person could be tricked, sued, lied to, destroyed, deprived of property, or injured; the same opinion also references “blackmailable” confessional material from personal files.

So yes: the “Responsibilities of Leaders” material supports your argument that Scientology scripture contains a rationale by which blackmailing or killing perceived enemies could be justified by a zealous adherent as ethics, not crime. It is stronger than saying “there are textual hooks.” It is a corridor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type 4:
Did Scientology really cancel Fair Game back in 1968? Or did it cancel the use of the term "Fair Game" while continuing to treat its perceived enemies (called suppressive persons or SPs) in the exact same way?

ChatGPT:
Yes. Scientology did formally cancel the use of the term “Fair Game” in 1968, but the cancellation itself expressly did not cancel the treatment or handling of Suppressive Persons. In plain English: it removed the label from the shop window, not the machinery in the back room.

The key 1968 HCO Policy Letter reportedly said:

“The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.”

Click to expand...

That is quoted in the UK Foster Report, which also notes that the earlier Fair Game penalty allowed an enemy to be “deprived of property or injured,” “tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

So the Church can say, technically, “we cancelled Fair Game” because Hubbard cancelled the practice of declaring people by that phrase and barred the words “Fair Game” from ethics orders. But the same cancellation says the reason was bad public relations, not moral correction, and that SP handling policy remained intact.

Scientology’s current public position is that Fair Game was cancelled in 1968 because it was “susceptible to misinterpretation and misuse,” and that it merely meant expelled members could no longer use Scientology’s internal justice procedures. The Church also says the term has not appeared in Scientology scripture since 1968.

But courts have repeatedly treated the “cancellation” story with skepticism. In Allard v. Church of Scientology, involving events after 1968, the California Court of Appeal said Scientology policy allowed enemies to be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed, and held that the jury could infer the Church was carrying out its Fair Game policy against Allard. The court also noted that Scientology had nearly the whole trial to produce evidence the policy had been repealed and failed to do so.

In Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, the California Court of Appeal described Scientology as engaging in retribution and threatened retribution, “often called ‘fair game,’” against members who left or posed a threat to the organization.

And in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, involving events in the early 1980s, the court said Armstrong’s SP declares subjected him to the Church’s Fair Game Doctrine, under which a suppressive person could be tricked, sued, lied to, destroyed, deprived of property, or injured. The same opinion described fears about “blackmailable” confessional material and harassment by investigators.

There is also the Guardian’s Office criminal record after the alleged cancellation. A federal sentencing memorandum said Guardian’s Office leaders ordered “brazen, systematic and persistent burglaries” of U.S. government offices from 1973 to 1976 to obtain documents, protect Hubbard, and secure Scientology’s tax position. That does not by itself prove every later anti-critic action was “Fair Game,” but it strongly supports the idea that the post-1968 organization continued covert, aggressive enemy-handling operations.

So the most accurate answer is:

Scientology cancelled the words “Fair Game” as a formal declaration. It did not clearly cancel the underlying SP/enemy-handling doctrine. The best evidence says the public-facing term was retired because it caused bad PR, while the treatment of perceived enemies continued under other language and channels.

I would avoid saying “exact same way” in every circumstance, because practices changed across time, personnel, and legal pressure. But substantively? Yes, the record supports the conclusion that Fair Game was rebranded more than renounced.

Type4:
What do people have to do for Scientology to see them as enemies? List anything that a person could do that might get them seen as an enemy.


ChatGPT:
I’ll frame this as “what Hubbard/Scientology policy could classify as suppressive or enemy-like,” not what an ordinary person would consider hostile. I’ll include both formal suppressive acts and real-world behaviors critics, ex-members, courts, and reports describe as triggering enemy treatment.

Yes. In Scientology’s own vocabulary, a person can become an “enemy” by being classified as a Suppressive Person/SP or being connected to one as a Potential Trouble Source/PTS. The Church’s public FAQ says an SP is someone who seeks to suppress others, and that a person may be declared for serious offenses, including “publicly renouncing the faith.” Its disconnection FAQ also says a Scientologist may have to “handle or disconnect” from someone who is suppressive or antagonistic to Scientology.

Here is the broad menu of things that could get someone seen as an enemy, based on Hubbard policy language and documented practice. It is an ideological dragnet, not a normal definition of “enemy.”

Things that could get a person treated as an SP/enemy​

1. Publicly leaving Scientology.
   Public departure or renunciation can be treated as a suppressive act. The Church itself acknowledges “publicly renouncing the faith” as a suppressive act that can lead to expulsion.
2. Publicly criticizing Scientology.
   Hubbard policy lists “public statements against Scientology or Scientologists” as suppressive acts.
3. Writing anti-Scientology letters, articles, posts, or comments.
   The policy specifically includes writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology information to the press.
4. Talking to journalists.
   Giving negative information about Scientology or Scientologists to media could fall under the anti-Scientology press language.
5. Going on TV, podcasts, YouTube, blogs, forums, or social media to criticize Scientology.
   Modern platforms are the new printing presses. Under the policy logic, public criticism is public criticism, whether it appears in a newspaper or on ESMB, YouTube, Reddit, Substack, or X.
6. Testifying against Scientology before a public or government inquiry.
   Hubbard policy lists hostile testimony before state or public inquiries into Scientology as suppressive.
7. Reporting Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities.
   The policy lists reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities, when framed as suppressing Scientology, as a suppressive act.
8. Reporting alleged crimes by Scientologists to police or prosecutors.
   The policy also condemns “delivering up” a Scientologist to civil or criminal law without “justifiable defense or lawful protest.”
9. Suing Scientology or a Scientologist.
   Bringing a civil suit against a Scientology organization or Scientologist without first going through the International Justice Chief is listed as suppressive.
10. Joining or supporting a lawsuit against Scientology.
    In practice, ex-members and critics involved in litigation have often been treated as enemies. Stephen Kent’s expert statement says litigation, public media statements, and criticism made Dennis Erlich suppressive according to Scientology policy.
11. Demanding refunds.
    Demanding return of fees paid for training or processing is listed as a suppressive act, though the policy parenthetically says the fees must be refunded.
12. Supporting legislation, regulation, or government action against Scientology.
    Hubbard policy lists proposing, advising, or voting for laws or rules directed toward the suppression of Scientology.
13. Pronouncing Scientologists guilty for practicing Scientology.
    The policy lists pronouncing Scientologists guilty of practicing “standard Scientology” as suppressive.
14. Helping authorities investigate Scientology.
    Giving hostile testimony, reporting Scientology to authorities, or delivering Scientologists to civil/criminal law can all fit the suppressive-act net.
15. Exposing internal abuses.
    Public claims about abuse, fraud, coercion, labor exploitation, disconnection, harassment, or other misconduct can be treated as public attacks or anti-Scientology data.
16. Publishing confidential Scientology materials.
    Holding, copying, printing, or publishing confidential Dianetics or Scientology materials without permission is listed as suppressive.
17. Using Scientology trademarks without permission.
    Unauthorized use of Dianetics or Scientology trademarks/service marks is listed.
18. Starting an independent Scientology group.
    Organizing splinter groups, using Scientology data outside authorized channels, or calling it Scientology or something else is listed as suppressive.
19. Practicing “squirrel” Scientology.
    Developing or using unauthorized processes, altered checksheets, altered tech, or “squirrel” materials is listed as suppressive.
20. Continuing membership in a divergent group.
    The policy lists continued membership in a divergent group as suppressive.
21. Associating with a declared SP.
    Continued adherence to a person or group declared suppressive by HCO is listed.
22. Refusing to disconnect from an SP.
    Failure to handle, disavow, or disconnect from someone guilty of suppressive acts is listed.
23. Being antagonistic enough that a Scientologist is told to “handle or disconnect.”
    Scientology’s public FAQ says antagonism can interfere with a Scientologist’s spiritual progress and may require disconnection if it cannot be handled.
24. Working for anti-Scientology people or groups.
    Being “at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons” is listed.
25. Receiving money, favors, or encouragement to suppress Scientology.
    This is also listed as suppressive.
26. Organizing staff, field auditors, or public Scientologists outside authorized channels.
    Calling meetings to “deliver Scientology” into unauthorized hands or to persons who will alter/suppress it is listed.
27. Infiltrating a Scientology group to stir up protest or discontent.
    The policy explicitly lists infiltration to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces.
28. Mutiny.
    Listed directly.
29. Trying to split off part of Scientology from central authority.
    Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny constituted authority is listed.
30. Questioning or attacking senior leadership.
    “Malicious rumormongering” to destroy the authority or reputation of higher officers or leading names of Scientology is listed.
31. Damaging the reputation of Hubbard, Miscavige, top executives, orgs, or Scientology celebrities.
    This could be characterized as public statements against Scientology/Scientologists or rumor-mongering against leading names.
32. Falsifying records.
    Listed as suppressive.
33. Giving allegedly false testimony or data against Scientology.
    Testifying or giving data against Scientology “falsely or in generalities” is listed.
34. Providing Scientology files or lists to outsiders.
    Providing preclear folders, ethics files, student files, account files, central files, or mailing lists to unauthorized persons or groups is listed.
35. Using Scientology mailing lists or communication lines for personal gain.
    Using mailing lists, org lines, or positions for personal profit in ways that disrupt the organization is listed.
36. Creating a private practice that diverts students, preclears, or staff from official org lines.
    Listed as suppressive.
37. Breaching fiduciary or executive duties in a way that harms Scientology.
    Severe breach of ecclesiastical or fiduciary duty by an executive/corporate official, resulting in harm, loss, or disrepute, is listed.
38. Employing org staff to the detriment of Scientology production.
    Listed as suppressive.
39. Misusing Scientology materials in a way that brings disrepute on Scientology.
    Harmful use of Scientology or altered “tech” in a way that brings disrepute to an org, group, or Scientology itself is listed.
40. Blackmailing Scientologists or Scientology organizations.
    Listed as suppressive. Interestingly, Hubbard policy also discusses blackmail as something to possess against enemies in the “Responsibilities of Leaders” material, which is part of why the ethics system is such a doctrinal snake-knot.
41. Committing serious crimes against Scientologists or Scientology property.
    The policy lists felonies such as murder or arson against person or property.
42. Being a psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health critic, or aligned with psychiatry.
    This varies by context, but Scientology has long treated psychiatry and psychiatric-aligned institutions as core enemies. The SP/Fair Game framework has historically been aimed not only at ex-members but also perceived external enemies such as psychiatrists, journalists, hostile lawyers, judges, and government agencies.
43. Being a hostile lawyer.
    Lawyers suing, investigating, or successfully challenging Scientology can be treated as enemies. The Los Angeles Times reported allegations of fair-game measures against attorneys involved in Scientology litigation, including an alleged blackmail plot, which the Church denied.
44. Being a judge or official seen as obstructing Scientology.
    Historically, Scientology rhetoric and operations have treated certain officials and institutions as hostile when they threaten the organization’s goals.
45. Being a journalist investigating Scientology.
    Journalists who publish critical investigations can be treated as suppressive or enemy figures under the “anti-Scientology data to the press” logic.
46. Being a family member who criticizes Scientology.
    A parent, spouse, sibling, or child who is “antagonistic” may become the person a Scientologist is pressured to handle or disconnect from.
47. Trying to persuade someone to leave Scientology.
    That can be viewed as suppressing Scientology or interfering with a Scientologist’s progress.
48. Helping someone escape the Sea Org or staff.
    Scientology could frame that as interference, suppression, or aiding a blow.
49. Harboring or supporting a blown staff member or Sea Org member.
    Again, this can be cast as helping someone evade Scientology authority.
50. Publishing leaked internal documents, ethics orders, SP declares, or policies.
    This can be framed as unauthorized publication of materials, anti-Scientology publicity, or aiding hostile groups.
51. Running an anti-Scientology website, archive, forum, channel, or campaign.
    That likely falls under public statements, anti-Scientology data, hostile group activity, or being “at the hire” or service of anti-Scientology persons/groups.
52. Funding anti-Scientology activity.
    Financially supporting litigation, activism, media, protests, or advocacy against Scientology could be characterized as encouragement to suppress Scientology.
53. Protesting outside an org, event, or celebrity center.
    This could be framed as impeding Scientology or stirring up protest.
54. Calling for revocation of Scientology’s tax exemption.
    That could be treated as legislation/government action or suppression directed at Scientology.
55. Seeking government investigation of Scientology’s tax, labor, immigration, child welfare, or criminal conduct.
    That sits squarely in the report-to-authorities / hostile inquiry / suppression bucket.
56. Calling Scientology a cult, scam, fraud, criminal enterprise, abusive group, or dangerous organization.
    This is classic “public statement against Scientology” territory.
57. Encouraging Scientologists to read critical material.
    Scientology could frame this as entheta, suppression, or an attempt to impede spiritual progress.
58. Challenging Hubbard’s authority or source status.
    Altering, invalidating, or replacing LRH “source” is heavily punishable in Scientology ideology.
59. Promoting independent research that contradicts Hubbard or Church claims.
    Especially if public, this can become “public statements against Scientology,” “squirrel” activity, or “invalidating” Scientology.
60. Refusing to accept Scientology’s internal justice system as the proper channel.
    Suing, reporting, going public, or appealing to outside law rather than the International Justice Chief can itself be treated as suppressive under the policy language.

The short version: Scientology can see someone as an enemy not only for attacking it, but for leaving publicly, criticizing it, suing it, reporting it, regulating it, exposing it, refusing to disconnect from its critics, practicing outside official control, or helping others escape its control.

That is why the SP system is so powerful. It turns normal democratic behavior, journalism, family concern, whistleblowing, lawsuits, refund demands, and conscience-driven departure into “suppression.” A person does not have to be an enemy in any ordinary moral sense. They only have to become inconvenient to the machine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type4:
If a Scientologist commits a serious crime (like what Danny Masterson did) and the victim reports him to the police and/or sues him, does that make the victim now an enemy of Scientology?


ChatGPT:

I’ll answer this as a policy-and-practice question, not as a claim about any one victim’s private status unless there is public evidence. The key issue is whether Scientology’s rules punish reporting a Scientologist externally, even when the underlying allegation is serious.

Yes, under Scientology’s own policy logic, the victim could be treated as an enemy/SP for reporting the Scientologist to police or suing him, even if the underlying allegation is a serious crime. Not morally, legally, or rationally. But inside the Hubbard ethics machinery, yes, the victim can become the “attacker.”

The core reason is that Hubbard policy defines suppressive acts to include reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in a way framed as suppressing Scientology, and bringing a civil suit against a Scientology organization or Scientologist outside Scientology’s internal justice channels. Stephen Kent’s expert declaration quotes the policy language on reporting Scientologists to civil authorities, and Leah Remini’s 2024 complaint quotes similar suppressive-act language, including civil suits and reporting crimes by Scientology members to civil authorities.

So in a case like Danny Masterson, the danger is this inversion:

Scientologist commits alleged crime → victim reports it externally → Scientology reframes the external report as an attack on Scientology or a Scientologist → victim becomes “suppressive” or enemy-like.

That is exactly the cultic trapdoor. The original harm gets displaced by the supposed “crime” of going outside the group.

In the Masterson matter, this was not just theoretical. One accuser testified that she initially withheld information from LAPD because she wanted to protect the Church and believed she might “get in trouble” for going to police. The Los Angeles Times reported testimony that a woman described Scientology officials trying to silence her after she reported an alleged rape internally; the Church denied the claim and spokesperson Karin Pouw said there is no Scientology policy prohibiting crime reports to law enforcement and that the woman had not been labeled suppressive.

The civil side reinforces the same pattern. Four women sued Masterson and Scientology-related defendants alleging stalking, intimidation, and harassment after reporting sexual assault allegations to police; both Masterson and the Church denied the allegations. Masterson was later convicted of raping two women and sentenced to 30 years to life, while Scientology-related civil litigation over alleged harassment continued afterward.

So the clean answer is:

Yes, a victim who reports a Scientologist to police or sues him can be treated by Scientology as an enemy, especially if the report or lawsuit threatens Scientology’s reputation, authority, finances, or a protected Scientologist. The Church publicly denies that it forbids reporting crimes, so I would avoid saying “automatic” unless there is a specific SP declare or written order. But Hubbard policy gives the organization a doctrinal route to recast the victim as the suppressive party.

That is one of the most disturbing features of the system: the victim’s appeal to outside law can itself become the “suppressive act.”

The answer to that query is a very emphatic "yes", particularly for those trained (indoctrinated) as agents of OSA, and its predecessor, the Guardian's Office. Those materials may not be within that ChatGPT can source from. I've seen a few examples of ex-OSA people who have gone on forever ingrained to believe in and rail against "vast insidious evil pervasive conspiracies to enslave us all", and are driven to connect imaginary and/or unrelated "dots" that "make the truth obvious to anyone whose eyes are open" with an obsessive misplaced zeal that makes them off-putting in their obsession and insistence.

I M Dex said:

The answer to that query is a very emphatic "yes", particularly for those trained (indoctrinated) as agents of OSA, and its predecessor, the Guardian's Office. Those materials may not be within that ChatGPT can source from. I've seen a few examples of ex-OSA people who have gone on forever ingrained to believe in and rail against "vast insidious evil pervasive conspiracies to enslave us all", and are driven to connect imaginary and/or unrelated "dots" that "make the truth obvious to anyone whose eyes are open" with an obsessive misplaced zeal that makes them off-putting in their obsession and insistence.

Click to expand...

I emphatically agree.

Anyone is welcome to post in the thread, but it is primarily intended for non-members who are unfamiliar with the Scientology "scriptures".

ChatGPT does have limited access to Guardian Office & OSA files that are publicly accessible. I did ask it:
"Have you already been trained on any of the documents that the FBI confiscated?"
If anyone is interested, the exchange is within the spoiler.

Anyone who has those types of files can upload them to ChatGPT within their personal account, and ChatGPT will do whatever you want with the files.
And there is a chance that OpenAI will use them as training data to further train ChatGPT.

Regarding “not reporting to police”, I, for example, know of a case where a staff member raped a child, and all that was done was he was quietly declared and sent away. This was decades ago.

The objective was to not have “bad PR” involving the org as the most important thing.

In an old Sea Org Flag Order I read, I forget which course pack it was in, originally SO members were supposed to get “judo and weapons training”. That dropped out.

Scn prefers to have any “unpleasantness” be handled by non-Scn “private investigators”, so it is more deniable.