There were more assaults on his work than I know of and what I know would fill a book.
Doesn't LRH assure us that we have the rights to comment upon the work of others (from the UN Charter that is mostly reproduced in WTH booklets)? If someone else doesn't like what LRH wrote, they can use logic and reason to counter his arguments. And people have. To me, your use of the word "assault" implies violence, or at least a law-breaking level of attack on his work (or that you think writing so many opposing viewpoints is somehow unfair). Writing opposing words is not an assault. It is an honest debate.
Many have written words opposing the Bible -- people have the right to do so, and they are not "assaulting" it.
Do you believe LRH's work stands as unscathed as the Bible, his ideas as triumphant? Do I detect a note of frustration on your part (your use of the word "assault") that people on this board don't share your high opinion of LRH?
(It is strange how non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia are not even supposed to TOUCH the Qur'an [read "Paramedic to the Prince" by Patrick/Tom Notestine], as if the dead-tree pages are sacred, when it is really the ideas that are sacred.)
There is only written opposition to LRH's work. Nobody has tried to burn all his books and torture Scientologists like the Spanish Inquisition. There are no "assaults" (except by that little runt DM).
The "cruelty" you mention all comes from The Apollo and by all accounts Ron appears to have changed about the time (1968) he produced The Wall of Fire material and set sail to form the elite cadre of the church.
First, according to whose accounts? And second, by setting sail and founding the Sea Org, it looks to me like he just continued the cruelty, but at sea, where he could take his punishments out on a more captive audience. Away from any government, he could intensify and perfect his sadism. Putting people in chain lockers, and overboarding? I know I'm a never-in, but from what I read, his sadism never wavered or ceased.
....Hubbard's work was of very significant value in producing the dissolution of the USSR because I was deeply involved in the diplomacy which produced this result....
I thought the USSR failed because nobody in a Communist state had any incentive to produce good products or services, since they would get paid anyway (remember comedian Yakov Smirnoff quoting the old USSR adage "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work")? And only people who spouted the correct communist dogma would get promoted in industry, regardless of whether they were competent engineers, doctors, managers etc. Also, information wants to be free. People behind the Iron Curtain knew our standard of living was higher in the West ("Dallas", "Dynasty", etc), and their system could only produce that lifestyle for the party elite who lived in "Volvograd" (and the ordinary people DID intend that as snarky).
If you were a diplomat, whom did you work for? (easy question) And is your diplomacy as specious as Hubbard's war record? Whom did you work for? What was the name of the organization you were with? Did it produce any meeting minutes or position papers, or other paper trail that could document where you were in all of this? Dox or you weren't there, pal.
