Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Scientology is not a church or charity. It is, in fact, a cult
10:51am Thursday 24th May 2007
Comments (139) Have your say »
BBC reporter John Sweeney was last week seen losing his temper at the end of a sixmonth investigation into scientology. In 1994, The Argus published a damning exposé of the East Grinsteadbased "religion".
Former chief reporter Paul Bracchi, who secretly infiltrated the cult, remembers how its followers relentlessly threatened and pursued him in revenge for criticising their deceptive and manipulative methods. Here Mr Bracchi, who now lives in London, tells the chilling story of how he was stalked and intimidated for months afterwards, even receiving a bullet in the post at The Argus headquarters in Hollingbury.
The voice at the end of the line was trembling. "Is that Mr Bracchi?"
"Yes, it is," I replied. The caller could not have been more relieved. I was supposed to be dead. Someone had started a rumour that I had been killed in a fire.
The same people who had tried to obtain my ex-directory phone number, handed out pamphlets attacking me and dispatched an American private detective - an ex-Los Angeles police officer - to Britain to frighten and smear the source who had helped me expose their activities.
Almost daily threatening letters arrived by fax and post at The Argus where I used to work.
Messages were left on the answer machine at the home of the managing director. Strangers turned up in his village asking questions about him.
And the culprits behind this campaign of intimidation? Step forward the church of scientology.
The Guardian and The Mail have exposed disturbing apparent links between the "church" and the City of London Police.
Last week in a Panorama programme, reporter John Sweeney was seen losing his temper with a scientologist, claiming afterwards that he had been driven over the edge by a concerted campaign of harassment by the group.
I, more than anyone, could understand why.
Sweeney spent six months investigating this so-called religion. I had spent more than a year doing so when stories of my "unfortunate demise" began circulating. By the time you read this article, the church of scientology will no doubt be unleashing its attack dogs - sorry, officials from the Office of Special Affairs - on me again.
The founder of the "religion" - science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard - himself issued directives on how "to handle the Press", including tips on how to get a reporter "fired and discredited". Well, they have tried and failed with me once already.
My first report - The Secrets Of Saint Hill - was published more than ten years ago. Saint Hill is the castle in East Grinstead where the UK headquarters of scientology is based.
The backlash was swift. The first principle of scientology, you see, is "shoot the messenger".
Critics who had contributed to the articles were also targeted. Some of them found Eugene Ingram - who had been branded an "insidious individual" in a court case in the US - on their doorstep.
He "visited" the 77-year-old mother of one of my sources as well as his parents' former home in Staffordshire and his wife's family.
Ingram knew that the man's relatives would not "dish the dirt" on my source. That was not the point.
He just wanted to let me - and everyone else who had helped me - know he was in town. In the parlance of scientology, this is called a "noisy investigation". It has only one purpose - to intimidate.
The real victims of scientology, of course, are not journalists but the parents who have lost sons or daughters to these deluded fanatics.
Their harrowing stories - of which more below - help explain why, in Britain, scientology is recognised neither as a church nor a charity.
It is, in fact, a cult. Scientologists do not like that word so let me repeat it - CULT.
Hubbard, the man who created scientology in 1952, has an unusual CV for a religious and spiritual leader. As well as being a writer, he was a congenital liar. Quite simply a charlatan. That was the view of a High Court judge in 1984, who said Hubbard's theories were "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".
If nothing else, the movement's survival is proof that with money - scientology is worth billions worldwide - you can make some people, even intelligent people, believe almost anything.
Stars such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta have given scientology a profile and showbusiness gloss it simply does not deserve.
Indeed, those who are not familiar with its tactics and history regard scientologists - who are convinced we are all descended from a race of aliens called thetans - as weird, not wicked.
This ignorance has been ruthlessly exploited in Britain. In October, a £24 million scientology centre opened in the heart of London's Square Mile and is now one of 30 "missions" in the country.
Narconon, a scientology group which claims it can get people off drugs, has been invited into schools and colleges. How many teachers and parents know of Narconon's links to the cult?
"Community volunteers" from Saint Hill - could there be a more ironic name for the HQ of a cult? - have been enthusiastically lobbying politicians, police officers and businesses in the City.
The recruitment drive was part of Hubbard's "master plan".
It is spelled out in scientology documents - namely to infiltrate and convert key institutions in society.
The process, so the thinking goes, will eventually lead to a scientology government.
And the "church" has succeeded in cultivating contacts. Up to 20 officers in the City of London Police - from constables to superintendents - have accepted hospitality worth thousands from scientologists.
This included free invitations to a £500-a-head charity dinner where the guest of honour was Tom Cruise.
He is now reported to have bought a home near Saint Hill.
One senior police officer appeared in a church of scientology video and another, Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley, spoke at the opening of the new "mission" near St Paul's Cathedral, saying the cult was "raising the spiritual wealth of society".
Here's a question for Chief Superintendent Hurley. What kind of church, back in the Seventies, implemented a series of covert operations in America which culminated in the bugging of the US Justice Department?
His ringing endorsement was a triumph for the spin doctors of Saint Hill.
The "church's" cramped, old London base in Tottenham Court Road could not be more different from its magnificent new home in EC4. Could there be a better place to woo influential new friends?
Among them is Sebastien Sainsbury, one of the heirs to the Sainsbury dynasty and European executive director at Lakeshore Capital, which has almost one billion dollars under management.
Scientologists with brochures and leaflets have also descended on investment bank Bridgewell Group, law firms Eversheds, Dechert LLP, Shadbolt and Co and PR consultants Merlin.
The organisation is believed to have a huge expense account to wine and dine contacts but then it can afford to be generous.
Scientology is worth millions in Britain alone and much of its wealth is derived from members paying for courses.
The scientologists, it now emerges, secured relief of £281,344 on the full rates of £351,680 on their London base - a discount of 80 per cent.
The City of London Corporation said the group had been entitled to the huge reduction because it carried out "charitable works". A member of the corporation, Alderman Ian Luder, a partner with leading City accounting and consultancy firm Grant Thornton, spoke at the building's grand opening of the "effective"
help scientology provided for drug users.
In 2003 the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint by the Church of England over unsubstantiated claims that the scientologists' Narconon programme, a combination of vigorous exercise, vitamin therapy, counselling, and sauna sessions to sweat out toxins, had saved "250,000 people from drug abuse".
Scientology's promotional drive is said to be spearheaded by the group's Office of Special Affairs.
Officially, this department is responsible for public relations and legal matters. But OSA operatives are also, it is claimed, scientology's secret service.
Those who undermine the mores and beliefs of scientology - including journalists - must be ruthlessly dealt with.
Hubbard said they were "fair game" and could be "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed".
That policy, the cult claims, no longer exists. The following account reveals a different story.
A woman, who we shall call Sarah, claims she and her husband, who briefly joined the "church" a few years ago, received death threats after he was wrongly suspected of stealing scientology documents from Saint Hill.
She said: "One day two well-built men in dark suits from Saint Hill arrived at my door. I told them my husband wasn't in but they forced their way in and started rifling through the bookshelves. When my husband returned they bundled him into the car.
"Finally he came back shaking from head to toe. He told me they'd threatened to kill him if he didn't tell him the whereabouts of some stolen documents."
Later, a typed note arrived in the post branding him a "suppressive person" (an enemy of scientology) and informing him he was now fair game. Other notes followed.
Sarah said: "For months after, we had anonymous notes delivered in the post almost daily. They said, You bastard,' You're dead,' Nothing will save you.' It was terribly frightening.
After three months we moved and didn't tell anyone where we were going."
Where does the organisation get the money to hire these goons?
Well, organised religions can be very lucrative - as L Ron Hubbard himself recognised.
Giant photographs of Hubbard adorn the new London headquarters, and his many pronouncements - such as "Man is basically good and it is this basic goodness we want to set free" - are stencilled on walls.
A comment you won't find displayed, though, is the one Hubbard made to an authors' convention before he invented scientology.
"Writing for a penny a word," he said, "is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars he should start his own religion."
Basic introductory sessions for scientology cost up to £80. Then there is another course which costs £300, then another.
Indeed, passing all the stages to scientology "enlightenment" - the so-called Bridge To Total Freedom - can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and has left some people with inheritances frittered away, remortgaged homes and debt.
One elderly couple "lost" their daughter Emily when she married a scientologist in 2002.
Her father said: "My wife noticed it straight away but I tried to dismiss it.
But it became obvious she wasn't the loving, caring daughter we had nurtured.
"We sat her down and tried to discuss my findings and what I saw shocked me to the core. After a few minutes of talking rationally and reasonably to her, Emily erupted, How dare you question my religion?
What you have read is all lies. If you raise this issue one more time I will never contact you.' I think to say she had been brainwashed would be too simplistic.
"This was mind manipulation at the highest level. If she chooses to come back to us we would welcome her with open arms but I can't just live with it. I can't bear the thought of that happening to my beautiful daughter."
What was the phrase Chief Superintendent Hurley used to describe his new neighbours in the City? Ah yes, they were "raising the spiritual wealth of society".
For those, like me, who have faced the wrath of this cult, they are words which ring as hollow as the baloney on which the church of scientology itself is founded.
Do you think scientology is a harmless religion or a sinister cult? Have your say below.
Your Say YourThe Argus
chewyandbert, says...
12:55pm Thu 24 May 07
Chaz, Brighton says...
1:03pm Thu 24 May 07
I do not claim to have a vast depth of knowledge of the bible, but generally i have a good sense of what is right and what is wrong, and i'm a big believer in do unto others and you would do to yourself.
Both of the documentaires, the BBCs version of events and the scientologists version of events proove interesting viewing. Whilst i have the opinion of the BBC that some of their reporting is biased, dont get me started on politics, i do believe they try to show both sides of the story, more or less without bias.
I find it hard to disagree with the bbc on this matter however. My biggest bug bear about scientology is the fact that they charge its members to, for want of a better expression, cure them. Whereas with christianity theres one book, free to all who would choose to follow that religion.
I'm not saying it has all the right answers, but in essence it does good. Then i look at scientology.
Why does an organisation have to a) document everything by video/photo/notation
; b) employ security services around its buildings to question anyone who is standing outside (for example taking photos).
I'm starting to ramble so this post is going to end here, and i'm glad now i've written something on it because all this stuff has been running around in my head for a while now, but hopefully people will see the point i'm making.
maggie, usa says...
1:11pm Thu 24 May 07
I guess it's fair to ask why a religion needs so many lawyers, too. but Scn, Inc. wouldn't se that as fair, and would threaten those who ask with character assassination. It is Scientology's written view that anyone who opposes it for any reason MUST have "crimes" in their pasts, that need to be dug up and broadcast. The policy goes on to say that if there are no "crimes" to be found, it's ok to make them up.
Ad hominem attacks like that just distract from the issues, which they are carefully trained to never address.
I think Germany, the country that should recognize the kinds of dangers posed by Nazis better than anyone, got it right in its treating Scientology as a threat to democracy.
What happened to Sweeney and Bracchi are not isolated incidents; rather, these actions are church policy.
So it's not the religion that bugs me; its' the policy-driven abuses of people and the law.
Tom, says...
1:19pm Thu 24 May 07
1) petitions.pm.gov.uk/
-Scientology/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Refuse any application submitted by the Church of Scientology for recognition as a Religious Organisation.
2) http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/scientologyba
n/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to place a ban on recruitment centres for Scientology or any of its puppet organisations operating in this country.
Grace, London says...
1:32pm Thu 24 May 07
Apparently the scientologists have a saying that amounts to "what's true is true for you" or some such rubbish. To which I would point out -- if you're saying that in a self-help manner, as this Dianetics stuff was initially intended, okay. But it's been twisted into this belief that just by saying something (ie -- "there's no proof you got Fair Gamed by us"), it's true. Tom Cruise does not know the "history of psychiatry", Tommy Davis does not get to have his freedom of religion and then deny another's freedom of speech, and you can't invalidate someone's personal experience just because you don't like the way it makes your cult look.
The tech's been squirrelled, people. Before DM, but most obviously since the mid-80s too. Any Big Brotherish religion that requires you to pay for confession, makes you file something called a "Knowledge Report" on your peers, and then bars you from even discussing your religious experiences with anyone else per "Keeping Scientology Working"? Is a sick group. Blow while you still can.
walter, says...
1:45pm Thu 24 May 07
David, United States says...
1:49pm Thu 24 May 07
Grace, says...
2:00pm Thu 24 May 07
By the way, Scientology pays people to log in to websites like this and post supportive comments about itself. I bet our "Christian" is in reality a Scientologist.
Actually, it's apparently a volunteer group. They all get a round-robin email about news stories, then pile on and try to fill the first handful of slots with pro-scientology natter.
And I don't particularly blame the scientologists for this -- I know that a huuuge part of the cult is that they think they're saving the planet, and they're certainly not in it for the money (as they're the ones paying), so it's bound to attract positive people. But I'd hope that governments and news organizations start paying attention, because without truthful, comprehensive coverage, more good-hearted people will get sucked in without having been prewarned.
Does anyone know if that Scientologist Sitter software still gets installed on their computers, to screen out stuff like xenu.net? Because the number of people who've read the OTIII levels at this point alone should start causing scientologists to think twice -- I read them ages ago, for instance, and according to Hubbard I should be dead by now, having read them totally unprepared?
Scary, to see how easily critical thinking can get brainwashed right out of you.
arthur pewty, London says...
2:51pm Thu 24 May 07
Why would our government allow this US criminal organisation to take advantage of vulnerable people in our country?
Willa, Brighton says...
3:03pm Thu 24 May 07
Chaz, Brighton says...
4:06pm Thu 24 May 07
David wrote:Actually chief i'm a big believer in searching the net for what i like and am proud to support activities such as xenu.net who have some awesome, funny, yet disturbing people bandying around their cult!
By the way, Scientology pays people to log in to websites like this and post supportive comments about itself. I bet our "Christian" is in reality a Scientologist.
Chaz, Brighton says...
4:09pm Thu 24 May 07
Thomas Fletcher, Hove says...
4:32pm Thu 24 May 07
Any religion that prevents its message from reaching others by charging for it is simply not a religion.
It all seemed a pile of psuedo-science rubbish, but then the founder of this 'religion' was a sci-fi writer after all.
tran, US says...
7:53pm Thu 24 May 07
mark wrote:It seems like every scientologist responds like this to any article that states the truth about the cult. Anything that goes the opposite direction from sappy church propaganda is labeled as bigotry and "anti-religious extremism." I don't blame the lay people of scientology... their supposed religion is punishment enough. Blame L. Ron Hubbard for bringing this ridiculous cult into existence.
Found this article to be full of venom. I've been involved with Scientology for more than 10 years and I'm doing well. The above article reminds me of something that could have been said about minorities in Germany in the 1930's. Honestly I doubt the veracity of much of this rant. Many points can be easily proven incorrect. I feel the intention of this person is purely to incite hatred against a religious group by protraying them in a evil fashion.
andy d, brighotn says...
8:45pm Thu 24 May 07
any of it's believers are tricked into thinking they are helping humanity.Their best defence against critcs is to accuse us of being 'Nazis','Bigots' and even
baby rapers!Scientology creates it's own bad press with it's unethical treatment of it's critics and ex-members,as well as they way it treats it's own staff,particularly in the Sea Org and on the RPF.The celebrities in it get a very different view as they are pampered and protected at the Celebrity Centres.Scientology must never be acknowledged as a religion in this country-it is a manipulative,greedy mind control CULT!!
Andrew, SLC utah says...
9:04pm Thu 24 May 07
What is your crime???
All hail XENU!!!
Mary, USA says...
10:56pm Thu 24 May 07
Resident of the UK should sign the petition to prevent this cult with obtaining charity and religious status because here in the USA the citizenry has no say in the matter.
It's not a charitable organization and it's 'religious tenets' include mafia-like policies that grant members the right to do all the terrible things Paul Bracchi mentions, and then some. Scientology divides families and has a plan to take over large spheres society via approval by and or infiltration of governments in order to gain a position of international control over their perceived enemies. This group is hostile to the disabled, the mentallly ill, and protends to 'cure' homosexuality because Hubbard deemed it as and affliction. Hubbard was a pathological liar and his organization is no different. Sign the petition that another gave link to here earlier. Think of it as a vaccination against an preventable plague the USA lost it's grip on.
Jake, Manchester says...
11:02pm Thu 24 May 07
mark wrote:If you feel this article is so full of venom and inaccuracy then why not point some of it out? The fact is that Scientology is an insidious cult with a documented history of underhanded behaviour. More people like John Sweeny and Paul Bracchi need to come out and expose this unscientific nonsense for what it is. Excellent work.
Found this article to be full of venom. I\'ve been involved with Scientology for more than 10 years and I\'m doing well. The above article reminds me of something that could have been said about minorities in Germany in the 1930\'s. Honestly I doubt the veracity of much of this rant. Many points can be easily proven incorrect. I feel the intention of this person is purely to incite hatred against a religious group by protraying them in a evil fashion.
Go to www.xenu.net for more information about the cult of Scientology.
Touchstone, USA says...
11:49pm Thu 24 May 07
nly. I am greatly heartened by this shift, although I remain concerned for those poor souls still stuck in the cult, or at risk of being conned into joining.
mike, Canada says...
12:15am Fri 25 May 07
No I think it is Scientology that is brainwashing people. its the 1 person in the room full of thousands calling the rest stupid, then finding out where they live and phone them in the middle of the night.
So good luck, and work really hard for that cash to give away. I'll choose to go on a vacation somewhere warm. :)
Ivan, Tampa, FL says...
2:22am Fri 25 May 07
Edwardo, London says...
2:27am Fri 25 May 07
Terryeo, California, USA says...
2:32am Fri 25 May 07
Lisa, U.S.A. says...
2:32am Fri 25 May 07
Techno, says...
2:41am Fri 25 May 07
Alex Tsalolikhin, Sydney says...
3:30am Fri 25 May 07
John, USA says...
4:30am Fri 25 May 07
To those scientologists that believe this crap: You are wasting your life and your money, you will be remembered as a fool. I am all for freedom of religion, but not when that religion files frivilous lawsuits, plans and executes espionage, and harrasses all those that disagree with them.
John, USA says...
4:43am Fri 25 May 07
Techno wrote:On the contrary sir, it is scientology that forces it's beliefs on others.
"Cult" is simply hate speech for anyone whose chosen beliefs you disagree with. Judging by the sheer number of paid shills for the pharmaceutical industry posting to this board, I would say that that psychiatry and big pharma sure feel threatened. Yes, Scientology is not a harmless little religion. It is one with the guts to do something positive about the conidtions of the world, even in the face of the most disgusting opposition to world betterment. To those who wish to force their beliefs on us you will never be successful. We can think for ourselves and choose are own beliefs, and we choose Scientology. Get used to it.
Also, the term "cult" is not used because your religion is different than mine. It is called a cult because of people such as yourself. All those that disagree with scientology are "paid shills for the pharmaceutical industry" are you serious? And "psychiatry and big pharma sure feel threatened." is not an accurate statement at all. Psychiatry is afraid of a bunch of zealots that buy 100 or so copies of a psychiatry -bashing scientology book?
I know that it is pointless to argue with someone such as yourself, but I cannot help myself.
Jeremy, New York says...
4:44am Fri 25 May 07
are you convinced that all critical material are lies made up by the "Evil psychiatrists"? What is then, to happen, when a member of your family is abused by your "church" and you feel like speaking out about it... You will come to realize how truly wrong you were to not have listened to the critics before. I pray that you will be able to get out soon and when you do, I hope that you are able to do it with less hell than some former Scientologists have received...
Teresa, says...
4:50am Fri 25 May 07
Colloquially I'd say it's something along the lines of "shifty religion with negative aspects that are potentially harmful to the adherent".
I'd just add "cult" to the "Nazi/bigot/enemy" list of words scientologists twist out of all usability.
Mary, USA says...
6:11am Fri 25 May 07
"Scientologists believe that their religion is helping them." No one is denying that. I, myself, would not have stayed in scientology for as many years as I did if I had not thought it was helping me. The problem was that I thought wrong. My thoughts were not solely my own. My thoughts were what Hubbard wanted them to be and they were what Scientology management wanted them to be. And when it came down to being in a situation where I needed to think for myself, my thoughts had to be dictated by what my 'church' wanted them to be because if they were not what the church wanted, I would then have be at risk of losing all my scientology friends, family and work associates. All for just having a different point of view on something as simple as not wanting to give my savings over to the registrar. Or wantng to spend more time with my children instead of helping the org get student point stats up by going on course on a saturday.
Scientologists cannot even apply their own code of honor when it comes to being able to inspect the internet, because you will never be able to get answers from your 'church' for the many questions you have. Never. But once a scientologist begins to find out by a search of the internet that Hubbard was actually NOT all that he said he was, that, for example, he was not a nuclear physicist and that he actually FAILED physics in school, the mysteries begin to unravel and being true to oneself becomes more meaningful and less controlled by scienbtology. Your church does not want you reading these documents. Scientologists are not being told thge facts and truth. As long as scientologists keep the blinders on, the harder it is to remove them. I pity you because you prefer to keep the blinders on. Scientology is a con game: all smoke and mirrors. You'll never know that as long as you keep wearing the blinders and defending the indefensible.
PT, Australia says...
7:32am Fri 25 May 07
It's symtomatic of the Co$'s delusions that they seem to think they are above criticsism, yet retain the right to harrass, threaten and intimidate anyone who scrutinises them.
Scientology is all about duplicity. They say "think for yourself" when they really mean "think only as we do". They say they are the "most enthical group on the planet", yet employ cruel and unethical tactics to scam money out of members. They promise a "bridge to total freedom", but they actually seek to take control of your mind and (especially) your finances.
The sooner more media outlets investigate this evil, mendacious CULT, the better.
marcus, bangkok says...
7:36am Fri 25 May 07
mel, Brighton says...
7:37am Fri 25 May 07
Roger Gonnet, Lyon, France says...
7:54am Fri 25 May 07
Chaz, Brighton says...
9:30am Fri 25 May 07
Techno wrote:And i suppose its too much to ask for you to stop forcing your beliefs on unsuspecting members of the public in the form of a 'stress test'.
"Cult" is simply hate speech for anyone whose chosen beliefs you disagree with. Judging by the sheer number of paid shills for the pharmaceutical industry posting to this board, I would say that that psychiatry and big pharma sure feel threatened. Yes, Scientology is not a harmless little religion. It is one with the guts to do something positive about the conidtions of the world, even in the face of the most disgusting opposition to world betterment. To those who wish to force their beliefs on us you will never be successful. We can think for ourselves and choose are own beliefs, and we choose Scientology. Get used to it.
Also, what other religion (and i'm talking of the proper ones here - christianity, buhdism, islam, hindu) makes their members BUY 'self-betterment' books? None so far i can think of, i'm pretty sure i can go anywhere and pick up a bible without paying for it.
Tom Landon, paris, France says...
10:41am Fri 25 May 07
William, Brighton says...
11:32am Fri 25 May 07
Mike, London says...
11:46am Fri 25 May 07
Alex, Brighton says...
11:48am Fri 25 May 07
I understand that a lot of people need something to believe in, it keeps them going when life is tough but Scientology does not even have the positive, forgiving and understanding facade of age old religions! So again why??
They make no secret of the fact that they abuse people who simply have a adverse opinion!
Without even contemplating the BBC's position, the actions of the cult on Panorama were a disgrace. The crew were followed, harrased (criminal activity may I add) and not permitted to speak with out it being drowned out by Tommy Davis!
For this vile individual to be chosen to represent this organisation is frankly laughable, he seemed inable to complete an objective adult conversation. At one point when John Sweeny was interviewing someone, trusty old Mr Davis rolls up with this mans criminal record. This hypocrisy was unbelievable, so it is ok for Scientology to use criminal tactics when they are scared of a bit of negativity but this man must be completly discredited for his criminal activities. Well surely then Scientology has discredited itself??
'Fair Game' they say is no longer used...(of course it is) but for it to be there in the first place, does that not say anything??? Scientology is a complete joke and it has been ever since Mr Hubbards 'epiphany' for his fail safe to power, notoriety and money! Im sure he is having a good laugh at their expense up there on the mother planet!
Danny D, Philadelphia PA says...
1:16pm Fri 25 May 07
Jeremy, New York says...
1:26pm Fri 25 May 07
True or false.
- Does Scientology sometimes refers to non-scientologists as "raw meat" and "wogs"?
- Were 11 members of Scientology, including Hubbard's wife arrested for infiltrating the IRS in the USA?
- Does Scientology believe that psychiatry caused the rise of hitler?
- Does Scientology refer to journalists as "merchants of chaos"?
Jeremy, New York says...
1:31pm Fri 25 May 07
For the record, I am an atheist so you can shove off with the "dur, stoopid christians picking on Scientology" act.
Chaz, Brighton says...
1:49pm Fri 25 May 07
Roll on the floor laughing danny? Someones been watching Tom Cruise too much
Alex, Brighton says...
1:54pm Fri 25 May 07
Danny D wrote:I feel sorry for you, you cannot see whats right in front of your eyes! It is you that is brainwashed. No im not a christian nor do I belong to any other religion!
ROFL! Talk about "mine is the only true belief and if you don't believe in Jesus, you're doomed to eternal damnation." Brainwashed pathetic idiots.
I dont have a problem with religons though as they generally promote good kind considerate people. I am however deeply offended by cults such as Scientology, cults where it is acceptable to destroy family relationships and publicly abuse and harrass those with objective opinions to their faith! This I have seen with my own two eyes, not from the word of "merchants of chaos" as im sure you would describe them, so please dont blame bad press.
Im sure most Scientologists are good people searching for some sort of enlightenment. Unfortunatly they stumbled when they found Scientology!
Peter/Navy, Vierlingsbeek, Holland says...
4:00pm Fri 25 May 07
Techno wrote:May I ask whether you did some research about scientology before you joined? Or is all you know about this cult information by the cult itself?
\"Cult\" is simply hate speech for anyone whose chosen beliefs you disagree with. Judging by the sheer number of paid shills for the pharmaceutical industry posting to this board, I would say that that psychiatry and big pharma sure feel threatened. Yes, Scientology is not a harmless little religion. It is one with the guts to do something positive about the conidtions of the world, even in the face of the most disgusting opposition to world betterment. To those who wish to force their beliefs on us you will never be successful. We can think for ourselves and choose are own beliefs, and we choose Scientology. Get used to it.
You see, scientology is the only "church" convicted for crimes, and I mean as a "church", not crimes commited by individuals.
Did you ever hear the name Paulette Cooper? She wrote a book about scientology after she left the cult and found herself framed by the cult and woke up in jail. Luck for her the FBI raided the cult and found all the evidence about framing Paulette Cooper. It even has a name: "Operation Freak Out". Is this a religion, a church? No, scientology's behaviour makes it a CULT, in capitals. Not the critics, not reports in newspapers or on television, no, it is scientology itself that makes it a cult. Do you know the story of Raul Lopez? The cult took away millions, while the man was mentally disabled! Only a cult does that.
John, New Jersey, USA says...
4:16pm Fri 25 May 07
Happy, says...
5:09pm Fri 25 May 07
jez mcarthur, hove says...
8:16pm Fri 25 May 07
a friend of Xenu, Brighton says...
8:32pm Fri 25 May 07
Mike wrote:Mike is obviously a very low-grade Scientologist with only a glimmering of understanding of the cult he's involved in. Once he's spent, say, about £100,000 climbing the bridge a bit he'll one day realise he's been fed a crock of manure. He could find out now by going to xenu.net, except that he can't because his minders have insisted he install their nanny software on his computer to prevent him reaching any website critical of the cult. Don't attack him. Pity him.
As a Scientologist for almost 10 years I can categorically state that I have never experienced anything quite like what some people are describing here. I am a \'public\' Scientologist, an auditor and volunteer, and I am proud to support the CoS. The fantastic work they are doing in society rarely gets any publicity simply because the juicy bits involving some pesky aliens and <clap of thunder> the cost of courses (oh my GOD! they cost money!!???) sells far more papers.
p.s Mike, as a Scientologist you're not supposed to believe in God. He's just part of the 'misleading data' that Xenu programmed your mind with 75 million years ago. I guess they haven't sold you that bit yet.
BillyBodyThetan, USA says...
8:34pm Fri 25 May 07
and at Int Management for over 10 years.
Did you know that we would Photoshop out
of old photos anyone who had blown Scn or
were declared SPs (suppressive persons).
These were people like Herbie Parkhouse,
Kerry Gleason, and other ex-members who
had once been high ranking officials in
Scientology. I was also there when the
Photoshoping of people into empty seats
at Scn events was being done - artists
were Lisa Huber and Cynthia Coleman. We
even Photoshoped cigarettes out of
Hubbard's photographs because DM
considered it "out-PR" for the public
with growing cigarette concerns.
Scientology likes to rewrite facts and
it's own history. This is just another
example of why it is a cult.
a friend of Xenu, Brighton says...
8:46pm Fri 25 May 07
jez mcarthur wrote:Well, Scientology has obviously done YOU a lot of good. Way to go with the excellent 'com', buddy.
why do you print such rubbish about scientology same old thing every couple of years same story different reporter if the things you said were true scientology would have been closed down years ago if the argus believes theses stories take us to court but you will not because you know you would lose lies always lose truth always win take a look at history great things always get attack i wonder why invested intrests maybe
Jeremy, New York says...
9:03pm Fri 25 May 07
Here are some other questions for all the Scientologists here.
If a high profile psychiatrist is drowning in a lake, would you take the time to save him?
If you met someone who was "squirreling" the tech, would you report them to the RTC?
What do you feel about Freezoners?
steve, Canada says...
9:25pm Fri 25 May 07
The only ones able to really enjoy life and do all the Scientology they want are the celebrities or the rich ones. Us normal folks just can't make it.
They mean well, but it's just too expensive. Just like a trip around the world "Would be great to do", but I just don't have that money.
Jeremy, New York says...
9:28pm Fri 25 May 07
There are several "unpersons" in Scientology as you have pointed out...
Interestingly enough, L Ron Hubbard seemed to take more than a little liking to George Orwell's 1984.
"Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes,yes, that's wonderful. That would be--- could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence." - L. Ron Hubbard
barb, San Diego California says...
1:00am Sat 26 May 07
jez mcarthur wrote:"if the things you said were true scientology would have been closed down years ago"
why do you print such rubbish about scientology same old thing every couple of years same story different reporter if the things you said were true scientology would have been closed down years ago if the argus believes theses stories take us to court but you will not because you know you would lose lies always lose truth always win take a look at history great things always get attack i wonder why invested intrests maybe
This is such a stale defense, and one the culties trot out on a regular basis. Why hasn't Scientology been closed down? Good question. Scientology brought America's IRS to its knees with its tactics. And their first line of defense is a stable of lawyers backed up by billions of dollars. The Internal Revenue Service, crushed down by hundreds of Scientologist-launch
ed nuisance law suits, coupled with the unannounced appearance of David Miscavige at IRS headquarters.
So this logic is flawed. Apparently, anybody can say they're a religion and get away with fraud, murder, perjury and espionage and get away with it if they have enough money and cultivate gullible politicians.
Former Member & Grateful Reader, Earth says...
1:09am Sat 26 May 07
quoteMy first report - The Secrets Of Saint Hill - was published more than ten years ago. Saint Hill is the castle in East Grinstead where the UK headquarters of scientology is based.
The backlash was swift. The first principle of scientology, you see, is "shoot the messenger".
quote
Indeed but thank God for the internet and concerned journalists and former members!
I read that explosive article and you readers can too. Just go to Google and search for:
Secrets of St Hill
Xenu Body Thetan, Los Palmas (one of the volcanoes) says...
1:54am Sat 26 May 07
Ex Scientologist and happy!
pat luefan, Clearwater, FL says...
5:15am Sat 26 May 07
Pat Luefan
Scientlogist of 30 years.
Jeremy, New York says...
5:21am Sat 26 May 07
Terryeo, San Francisco, California says...
5:41pm Sat 26 May 07
Jeremy, New York says...
6:43pm Sat 26 May 07
How about just one if you are afraid of answering the others...
Terryeo, if a high profile psychiatrist that works with children was drowning in a lake, would you take the time to save him from drowning?
Tim, Brighton says...
8:24pm Sat 26 May 07
The 2001 census shows that there were only 1781 scientologists in the whole of England and Wales. Compare to wicca: 7227.
Roz South, Lewes, East Sussex, UK says...
8:50pm Sat 26 May 07
So while it'd be just lovely to believe statements of the type provided, above, from Pat Luefan, the facts just don't stack up. For sure, if one has the strength of mind to avoid the initial traps that Scientology sets for those they intend to lure into the cult then it is fair to say you will not be pressurised into taking courses. But repelling the advances of their recruiters takes some doing.
It'd also be very cheering to think that the Brighton Argus has such an enthusiastic readership worldwide. Unfortunately, anyone who gives their location as Clearwater, may as well sign their comment "L. Ron Hubbard" since those of us with an investigatory interest in this dodgiest of dodgy cults knows the significance of this small town in Florida!!!!
Juerg, Switzerland says...
1:43pm Sun 27 May 07
I can find in any organisation several people who have left it and are now all in hate about their former relation. Would you ask a husband who just divorced from his wife with hate to give an objective description of his former love?
Appears to happen here in these comments.
Merrill, US says...
2:26pm Sun 27 May 07
I've been a Scientologist for over 30 years, worked in Int'l Management, and donate reguarly to Church projects. Here are the answers to your questions:
1) Does Scientology sometimes refer to non-scientologists as "raw meat" or "Wogs"?
Yes. I don't recall the context for "raw meat", but I have read the phrase. "Wog", is an acronym for "Worthy Oriental Gentleman" and was meant as a way of referring to non-Scientologists. I have heard it used derogatorily. To me, I liken it to the use of the word "Goy" by Jews.
2) Yes, Mary Sue Hubbard and 10 or so other Scientologists were arrested for infiltrating U.S. Government offices in the late 1970's. All were found guilty and sentenced to jail terms. I do not approve of their behavior and don't know another Scientologist who does. I am aware of many individual actions taken in the name of Scientology that are correct. Just because one calls oneself a member of a group doesn't mean he or she adheres to the rules and morales of that group, or properly interpretes them.
3) Scientology believes that Psychiatry contributed to the rise of Hitler, not that it caused it. Hitler's rise was due to a convergence of many complex social, political and economic issues at the time. However, you should take a look at the book PSYCHIATRISTS: THE MEN BEHIND HITLER by Roeder & Kubillus.
4) Does Scientology refer to Journalists as "Merchants of Chaos"?
You're making this sound like Hubbard labeled ALL journalists this way. He refers to some journalists as Merchants of Chaos, those who sensationalize the news. At the time he wrote this (1963), our mass media had not yet degraded to the mass entertainment system it is today. Today, I believe journalists sensationalize in a misguided effort to make it entertaining and sell more papers or get more listeners. It 1963, this was less the motivation.
Hubbard wrote over 25 million words on the subject of Scientology. It's always interesting to me to hear his quotes used to try to discredit him and then go find the actual quote and context only to discover he actually said something very different.
Merrill, US says...
3:21pm Sun 27 May 07
More answers to your questions:
If a high profile psychiatrists is drowning in a lake, would you take the time to save him?
Of course I would. If I saw someone guilty of murder drowning in a lake I would still save his life.
2) If you met someone who was "squirreling" the tech, would you report them to the RTC?"
Yes I would, and I have, but not until I tried to correct it myself and found the person intractable. Why is this a questionable practise to you? I would assume that if you saw someone in your workplace blatantly violating company policy you would try to correct him and only when you found him continuing to violate your company's policies to the detriment of the company's health would you report him to his superior. Of course there are people who can't confront the idea of approaching the violator directly, and so resort to the easier path of merely reporing the violation. I think they are avoiding their responsibilities in that case.
Merrill, US says...
3:28pm Sun 27 May 07
I inadvertently skipped your last question...
What do you feel about FreeZoners?
For those of you on this thread unfamiliar with the term, a FreeZoner is someone who practises the teachings of Scientology outside the auspices of the office Church. They disagree with how the Church is managed and have formed their own loose alliance.
I regret that these individuals have felt it necessary to leave the official church. But I also respect that they are making an effort to practise Scientology in a pure form and avoid altering the technology.
In any religion, as it matures you will find disagreement in how it should be practised. Just look at the incredible offshoots of Christianity, all adhering to the same text yet interpreting it quite differently.
John, Seattle says...
5:15pm Sun 27 May 07
What is the Rehabiliation project force? Is it totally voluntary?
What is Fair Game, how do you classify people to be suppressive?
What is your personal opinion on Operation Freakout?
What does Clear the Planet mean?
What is in the vaults in New Mexico?
Can anyone be able to criticize Hubbard without being deemed a criminal?
If the Xenu story is not real why has the church sued for copyright infringment about Xenu?
Michael, Show Low, AZ, USA says...
1:39am Mon 28 May 07
John, Seattle says...
2:51am Mon 28 May 07
Merrill, says...
5:03am Mon 28 May 07
1) For a description of the RPF and the purpose it serves please see http://faq.scientolo
gy.org/rpf.htm
2) Fair game was a brief lived policy issued by Hubbard and then cancelled by him. Far from infallible, there have been many reversals in Hubbard's thinking through the years, policies and technical procedures he issued that he later revised or cancelled.
3) Individuals in our Church are classified as "Suppressive" for committing certain crimes, including trying to destroy the Church or pervert its technology. They are also classified as suppressive for secular crimes, such as murder.
4) Operation Freakout was an attempt by members of the Church to discredit a critic with extra ordinary means, beyond what I would consider proper for anyone.
5) Scientologists' desire to "Clear the Planet" refers to our efforts to end insanity, war and crime through assisting every individual in ridding themselves of their abberations (irrational behaviors). We believe individuals can do so by the practise of Dianetics to attain the state of "clear", and if that fails, the use of Scientology processes to assist in attaining this goal. Doctors wish to rid the world of disease, educators wish to rid the world of ignorance, Scientologists wish to rid the world of abberation.
6) To the best of my knowledge, the vaults in New Mexico contain copies of all of Hubbard's research and writings in Scientology, presevered in recordings and printed materials that do not degrade with time. We have protected these materials in vaults that, to the best of our ability, will survive most any catastrophe that may befall our planet.
7) I am not aware of anyone labeled a criminal by Scientology for merely critisizing or disagreeing with Hubbard.
8) I have read many different accounts regarding the Xenu story on the web. I will not comment here on any of them. People continually claim that this is the central tenent of Scientology, and that this is what is revealed on the upper levels of our religion. What is actually contained on the upper levels of Scientology (which I have done) is something I will not discuss with anyone outside my Church.
It is interesting to note that in the incredible volume of tapes and books available for anyone at a Scientology bookstore, Xenu is never mentioned. What is contained in these books and tapes is an incredible technology of how to be a better person, help others, and attains one's goals. It is rare to find an exScientologist who does not still agree with the ARC Triangle, the Communication Formula, study technology, the Dynamics and the myriad other fundamentals of this applied religious philosophy.
It is sad to me that due to the noise of the "controversies" detractors such as yourself harp on, people don't get the opportunity to benefit from the amazing tools that Scientology makes available for the price of a book or for free on the web. For anyone else who is interested in what Scientology really is, take a look at http://faq.scientolo
gy.org/contents.htm.
David, says...
1:26pm Mon 28 May 07
If you want to see a critical view of Scientology go to:
http://www.scientolo
gy-lies.com/
"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious...It is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit" Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London
If you want to see a critical view of Scientology go to
http://www.scientolo
gy-lies.com/
Bruce, says...
3:28pm Mon 28 May 07
I note though, and you'll have to forgive me, but the Zenu story is very important, that you did not deny it is part of the upper level courses.
Your current leader, David Miscavige did though on TV, if I recall correctly.
Merrill, us says...
4:04pm Mon 28 May 07
To me, saying what isn't in upper level courses is a slippery slope. I just won't discuss what may or may not be contained in those levels.
Scientology is SO much more than the OT levels. It's like saying that Judaism is all about the Kaballah. Many devout Jews have never read the Kaballah. I even know Jews who have read it and said "This is too far fetched for me." But that hasn't made them stop practising their religion.
Sam, Chicago says...
4:16pm Mon 28 May 07
"Oh there is no Xenu" to new recruits only to have them find out about Xenu after taking the OT3 course and passing Hubbard's Wall of Fire.
You probably can not even confirm or deny the mentions of the fifth invader force or the Marcarbian link to current psychiatrists in Hubbard's lectures.
Why can't Scientology just be honest?
Brian, says...
4:20pm Mon 28 May 07
Much of Scientology's material is copyrighted and a Scientologist has already refused to discuss the teachings of the church within these comments. Why secrecy? Some say it is because you need to pay for these teachings. Another reason might be that these teachings are so difficult to believe that it would harm the church if beginners saw them and decided to leave. This brings me to another worry. People are recruited in many different ways and many will not be aware that they are starting in the field of Scientology. How many open-minded, good people have walked through the doors of a Dianetics group? How many of those people would have done the same if the word "Scientology" was clearly visible? Perhaps all Scientology products should state that they are connected to the Church of Scientology. Scientologists should not be ashamed of their religion and so why do they try to conceal their origins?
After all of the above, it's really not so hard to believe the horror stories that abound from ex-Scientologists and family members of Scientologists. If you're in the church then of course you'll say that it's beneficial but are you proud to pay for noisy investigations and lawsuits? Are you proud of your secrecy and copyright? And where exactly did the science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard get his information?
Sam, Chicago says...
4:21pm Mon 28 May 07
"Assists" lecture. 3 October 1968. #10 in the confidential Class VIII series of lectures:
"Anyway, Everyman is then shown to have been crucified so don't think that it's an accident that this crucifixion, they found out that this applied. Somebody somewhere on this planet, back about 600 BC, found some pieces of R6, and I don't know how they found it, either by watching madmen or something, but since that time they have used it and it became what is known as Christianity. The man on the Cross. There was no Christ. But the man on the cross is shown as Everyman. So of course each person seeing a crucified man, has an immediate feeling of sympathy for this man. Therefore you get many PCs who says they are Christ. Now, there's two reasons for that, one is the Roman Empire was prone to crucify people, so a person can have been crucified, but in R6 he is shown as crucified."
http://www.xenu.net/
archive/media_vault/
Nochrist.ra
Therapy Section of Technique 80: Part I, Route to Infinity, 21 May 1952:
"Actually, have you ever noticed how a negro, in particular, down south, where they're pretty close to the soil, personifies MEST? The gate post and the wagon and the whip and anything around there. A hat -- they talk to 'em, you know. "Wassa madda wit you, hat?" . They imbue them, with personality."
http://www.xenu.net/
archive/media_vault/
Negro.ra
"Now, he could simply say, "I have action." A magician - the magic cults of the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth centuries in the Middle East were fascinating. The only modern work that has anything to do with them is a trifle wild in spots, but it's fascinating work in itself, and that's work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend. And he did himself a splendid piece of aesthetics built around those magic cults. It's very interesting reading to get hold of a copy of a book, quite rare, but it can be obtained. the Master Therion, T-h-e-r-i-o-n, The Master Therion by Aleister Crowley. He signs himself "The Beast"; "The Mark of the Beast, 666." Very, very something or other."
http://www.xenu.net/
archive/media_vault/
Crowley.ra
"They were imported. They were actually .. the trick was to shoot somebody, disable somebody, very often a needle into a lung and at the same time to hit him with frozen alcohol and glycol which preparation is guaranteed to pick up a Thetan. All they had to do was pick him up and put him in a refrigerator and they had him, boy. If he tried to exteriorize from the body, there he was, frozen.
And they threw 'em into collection points, boxed 'em up in boxes, threw 'em into space planes which were the exact copies of DC8's, the DC8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. And, no difference, except the DC8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't."
http://www.xenu.net/
archive/media_vault/
DC-8s.ra
Bruce, says...
5:05pm Mon 28 May 07
Be that as it may, and I am no bible-bashing Christian, or an ex-Scientologist with an axe to grind -merely a very interested bystander, you do have to consider that the wilder claims about Scientology are the ones that cause the most interest, and therefore it is puzzling indeed if these claims, from sources you may tell me are bogus, and may well be for all I know, are ignored.
Can I put it to you this way - the Christian churches all give out an extraordinary claim, that the man they see as their head, that is Jesus Christ, was the son of God of a virgin birth, who performed miracles and died on a cross and rose again three days later, then, well, vanished!
Yet these claims sustain their churches, simply because of them. Extraordinary (and unbelievable!) as they are, they are the central, fully admitted pillars of their faith. So what intrigues me, and honestly, I mean this, what intrigues me are the secrets of Scientology that are not published for all to listen to. You now must understand why even 'enquirers' as the Mormon's call such as me, are hesitant, if not dubious.
I would be grateful for your thoughts.
Merrill, US says...
5:48pm Mon 28 May 07
I certainly understand the draw of "secrets" or "mysteries". Except for the upper levels of Scientology, we make no secret of our beliefs and ideas, many of which our very outside the mainstream of western beliefs - but not so far afield of eastern religions and philosophies such as Buddism.
A central tenent to Scientology is our belief that you are not your body, but rather an immortal spiritual being. We don't use the word "soul", as this has been often defined as something, not yourself, that survives death. We believe that you, yourself, survive death and so coined a new word to differentiate this belief. We say you are a Thetan. I've seen several posts on the web that misinterprete this, saying Scientologists believe we are descended from a race of aliens, called Thetans. This couldn't be further from the truth. You are yourself, an immortal being.
Now, take this further and you can see some of the conclusions (all published material) that we make. We belive we, all of us, have existed for a very long time, certainly pre-dating civilization on this planet. We believe there were other civilations before this, on other planets across the galaxy and that many of them still exist today. In Scientology counselling (called "Auditing") you may or may not recall your prior experiences. Those of us who have find them remarkably similar to the descriptions Hubbard makes in many tapes and writings.
Now some critics may take what I've said above and say, "See, they think we're all aliens, they're talking to space creatures, etc."
Not true at all. This past stuff is just history, no more, no less. You can learn from history or ignore it, your choice.
A key tenent to all of this is the axiom, "It is only true if it is true for you."
We're not asking people to believe in Scientology. If you read a Scientology axiom and apply it and it works for you then you personally know it to be true. Just like if you study an engineering formula and apply it to a construct and find it holds up.
I know that many people cannot accept the idea of having lived before this life in another body, it violates other religious beliefs they may hold, or what they have observed themselves. I have no problem with that, they must maintain their personal integrity and I would have it no other way.
Dianetics, a technique developed before Scientology, does not require a belief in Thetans or prior lives, yet is remarkably effective in helping people overcome mental issues. It is in no way a belief system, and does not contain any "space opera". However, I have seen many people while practising Dianetics recall past lives and be very shocked by the memories they find to be their own, yet do not correlate to anything they experienced this lifetime.
It is important to note that whether or not one wishes to believe in past lives and spiritual immortality, a huge body of material in Scientology is still applicable to every day life regardless of this point. I only wish that people could avail themselves of this material. We have made huge efforts to secularize such information and we have created several organizations to promote that body of knowledge outside the Church, for the betterment of mankind: Narconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics, The Way To Happiness Foundation, etc. Yet our critics chase people away from these avenues of help, claiming they are only there to recruit Scientologists. Certainly we would like people to become Scientogists once they realize the effectiveness of the technology, but the help is there with no strings attached. It is no different than a Christian Church running a soup kitchen, hoping to save souls while feeding their bodies.
Bruce, says...
6:02pm Mon 28 May 07
A most illuminating response, and I thank you greatly for it.
Are you saying, and forgive my presumption if it is wrong, that we are above God? ie - we existed, therefore we are by dint of no external force. That is truly fascinating and, dare I say, seductive.
The soul in traditional views you see, is pre-owned, that is, in the Jewish-Christian tradition, God has total ownership of it, or rather, we can deny the ultimate creation of the soul as determined, created by God, or allow its destruction, and imperfect ownership, by the devil.
Are you saying that none apply? That is indeed a most fascinating, and revolutionary viewpoint.
Olaf, says...
6:52pm Mon 28 May 07
Merril please can you explain to me the religious sigificance of the the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard's activities during the late 60's early 70's.
"In 1967, L. Ron Hubbard further distanced himself from the controversy attached to Scientology by resigning as executive director of the church and appointing himself "Commodore" of a small fleet of Scientologist-crewed ships that spent the next eight years cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Here, Hubbard formed the religious order known as the "Sea Organization" or "Sea Org", with titles and uniforms. The Sea Org subsequently became the management group within Hubbard's Scientology empire.
He was attended by "Commodore's Messengers", teenaged girls dressed in white hot pants who waited on him hand and foot, bathing and dressing him and even catching the ash from his cigarettes. He had frequent screaming tantrums and instituted brutal punishments such as incarceration in the ship's filthy chain-locker for days or weeks at a time and "overboarding", in which errant crew members were blindfolded, bound and thrown overboard, dropping up to 40 ft. into the cold sea, hoping not to hit the side of the ship with its sharp barnacles on the way down. Some of these punishments, such as imprisonment in the chain-locker, were applied to children as well as to adults. He returned to the United States in the mid-1970s".
Merrill, USA says...
1:15pm Tue 29 May 07
The bottom line is Scientology does not define an individuals relationship with God, nor does it define God itself other than to acknowledge that someone or something exists there. It is up to the individual to determine his or her definition of God and ones relationship.
Merrill, US says...
1:36pm Tue 29 May 07
Your question is akin to Do you still beat your wife? It is fraught with foregone conclusions, distortions and innuendo.
I note that you don't even give a source for these off-the-wall accusations.
The very first line of your quote claims that Hubbards reason for resigning as Executive Director and starting the Sea Org was to distance himself from controversy, implying cowardice and shame. Quite the contrary. He himself gave his reasons for starting the Sea Org in Rons Journal 67. Your opening statement, with its gross assumption and blatantly false character attack shows the authors tone and purpose, and the rest of your quote continues in the same vein.
I knew many Commodores Messengers. These were intense young women who acted as personal secretaries and expeditors for Mr. Hubbard, in a business role.
In the years Mr. Hubbard was at Sea with the Sea Organization (approx. 1967 to 1975) he produced an enormous volume of work, expanding the subject of Scientology exponentially. Some of his most important advancements were developed in this period. The quantity of his work product was so significant that many found it hard to believe he could get this much work done in a 24 hour day.
Please produce evidence to these outrageous remarks. How about one person who was maimed by the barnacles when supposedly overboarded?
Bruce, says...
1:59pm Tue 29 May 07
On the subject of God, do I take it to mean that the Jewish-Christian tradition of a God called, for want of a better name, Jehovah, does not compare at all with the Scientologist's view?
If not, I am intrigued why your church uses a similar cross to the cross of Christ? I would be very interested to know what the Scientologist believes about Christ too. Do they see him as a figure of history or as the Messiah?
randomx, australia says...
2:12pm Tue 29 May 07
Amongst the many excellent articles he wrote is the cults full rundown on PR and handling the press.
Once you are familiar with these tactics, scio PR guys become very predictable.
It is worth your while to understand the methods used by the people who intend to control every aspect of your life in the very near future.
Merrill, US says...
3:03pm Tue 29 May 07
I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but Scientology really doesn't define God. That's left to the individual. Thus Jehovah, Christ, Krishna, Cosmic Consciousness, Life Force, etc. could all be acceptable views in the eyes of the individual.
I think any of these religious beliefs can be undermined with argument, but in the end one's belief in God is just that - a belief. None of us can prove OR disprove the existence of God. One's belief in a God is based on faith.
Sam, Chicago says...
3:28pm Tue 29 May 07
""Assists" lecture. 3 October 1968. #10 in the confidential Class VIII series of lectures:
"Anyway, Everyman is then shown to have been crucified so don't think that it's an accident that this crucifixion, they found out that this applied. Somebody somewhere on this planet, back about 600 BC, found some pieces of R6, and I don't know how they found it, either by watching madmen or something, but since that time they have used it and it became what is known as Christianity. The man on the Cross. There was no Christ. But the man on the cross is shown as Everyman. So of course each person seeing a crucified man, has an immediate feeling of sympathy for this man. Therefore you get many PCs who says they are Christ. Now, there's two reasons for that, one is the Roman Empire was prone to crucify people, so a person can have been crucified, but in R6 he is shown as crucified."
That looks to be a comment about Christ to me, what is the context in your own words?
Bruce, says...
4:39pm Tue 29 May 07
Would that be a fair assessment, at least from a Christian-tradition point of view?
Merrill, US says...
4:49pm Tue 29 May 07
Interesting quote. I've never done the Class VIII course so have not listened to the tapes. As you point out in your heading, this quote is from supposedly confidential materials, thus unverifiable.
The following is my opinion - NOT the stance of the Church of Scientology...
If you are NOT a Christian you don't believe the man Jesus was the Christ. If you are a Christian then by definition you do believe this. I know from other writings that Hubbard believe the man Jesus existed. I don't think Hubbard believed Jesus to be the son of God. That means Hubbard wasn't a Christian. Big surprise. Two-thirds of the world's population does not believe in Christ.
I've read a lot on the subject of Christianity, its origins and documents. The literature runs the gamut from proving that Jesus existed and was the Christ to proving that he didn't exist at all (see The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy, 1999). This is a prime example of requiring faith from an individual to follow a religion.
By the way, I know of nothing that says the R6 was implanted by a specific individual.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term R6, this refers to the "Reactive Mind", the collection of illogical, aberrative and destructive thoughts that Dianetics and Scientology processes eliminate. A person without an R6 is considered clear. Note that clearing occurs before the upper levels (OT Levels) of Scientology and can be accomplished with the use of Dianetics alone.
Merrill, us says...
4:58pm Tue 29 May 07
Yes, I would emphatically agree that Scientology is not a belief system based on faith. But you can be a Scientologist and have faith in your God I dont see a conflict there. Some folks are paleontologists and have faith in the Bible. This is a very personal decision.
Sam, Chicago says...
6:07pm Tue 29 May 07
http://www.xenu.net/
archive/media_vault/
Nochrist.ra
Sam, Chicago says...
6:08pm Tue 29 May 07
http://www.xenu.net/
archive/media_vault/
Nochrist.ra
Olaf, says...
6:19pm Tue 29 May 07
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.
- L. RON HUBBARD, HCO Policy Letter, The Responsibilities of Leaders,
February 12, 1967
Olaf, 318-783 says...
6:39pm Tue 29 May 07
http://en.wikipedia.
org/
wiki/
Bare-faced_Messiah
http://en.wikipedia.
org/
wiki/
A_Piece_of_Blue_Sky
Both these books are available for download in PDF format from links on the wikipedia pages.
I recommend them to anybody who is interested in Dianetics or Scientology.
PS Merrill you will find information concerning Hubbard's Mediterranean activities in both these books.
Olaf, says...
6:57pm Tue 29 May 07
I repost, as you seem only capable of deflecting important questions but not answering them.
Merril please can you explain to me the religious sigificance of the the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard's activities during the late 60's early 70's.
"In 1967, L. Ron Hubbard further distanced himself from the controversy attached to Scientology by resigning as executive director of the church and appointing himself "Commodore" of a small fleet of Scientologist-crewed ships that spent the next eight years cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Here, Hubbard formed the religious order known as the "Sea Organization" or "Sea Org", with titles and uniforms. The Sea Org subsequently became the management group within Hubbard's Scientology empire.
He was attended by "Commodore's Messengers", teenaged girls dressed in white hot pants who waited on him hand and foot, bathing and dressing him and even catching the ash from his cigarettes. He had frequent screaming tantrums and instituted brutal punishments such as incarceration in the ship's filthy chain-locker for days or weeks at a time and "overboarding", in which errant crew members were blindfolded, bound and thrown overboard, dropping up to 40 ft. into the cold sea, hoping not to hit the side of the ship with its sharp barnacles on the way down. Some of these punishments, such as imprisonment in the chain-locker, were applied to children as well as to adults. He returned to the United States in the mid-1970s".
Source Wikipedia entry for L. Ron Hubbard.
Merrill, US says...
7:02pm Tue 29 May 07
I believe I've answered your questions. Please re-read my post.
Merrill, US says...
7:23pm Tue 29 May 07
Hubbard's Policy Letter, The Responsibilities of Leaders, is a 5,000 plus word essay analyzing the mistakes of Simon Bolivar, a major political figure in South America in the early 19th century. It is a brilliant essay and should be read by anyone who wishes to assume a leadership position. If you wish to understand the quote you reference, please read the whole essay. You will see this is not some nefarious statement.
olaf, says...
7:24pm Tue 29 May 07
You avoided a major concern: namely the cruel and unusual punishments carried out on adults and children as referenced above.
Merrill, US says...
7:38pm Tue 29 May 07
I'm not trying to avoid any of your questions, and I apologize if it comes across that way. I am pleased that you feel only one of your points was unacknowledged as I felt from your comment that you believed me to have sidestepped all your issues.
My answer to the remarks in your quote on the cruel punishments supposedly inflicted was to please find anyone who has the scars from the barnacles of being overboarded. I've known many people who were on that ship in those days and have never heard of the abuses you claim: overboarding, locking people in filthy holding cells, locking up children. Perhaps your source is flawed?
olaf, says...
8:11pm Tue 29 May 07
Unfortunately from my viewpoint you have not answered anything satisfactorily.
For anybody who really is interested in information about L. Ron Hubbard's activities (with sources quoted) please as read books referenced in post 6:39pm 29 May 2007.
PS. Anyone ever mention scars from barnacles - no only Merrill. And for anyone who's been sailing like me, you know how sharp barnacles are!
Merrill, US says...
9:02pm Tue 29 May 07
As someone once said, you can't please everyone. I can only give you the answers I have, which I have done. Other readers can decide if these are "satisfactory".
Olaf, says...
2:53am Wed 30 May 07
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." William Kingdon Clifford - The Ethics of Belief (1879)
Roz South, says...
1:16pm Wed 30 May 07
...Except for the upper levels of Scientology, we make no secret of our beliefs and ideas...
But why is this information denied to lower level cult members? Or to put it bluntly, available ONLY to those prepared to pay a very great deal of money for the privilege of attaining the inner sanctum of knowledge?
Sam, Chicago says...
4:53pm Wed 30 May 07
""Ken Ogger was known as the author of analyses about
the Church of Scientology's mismanagement and author
of auditing manuals. After his own wife betrayed his
identity to the church, he suffered a breakdown and
soon afterwards went through a severe health crisis.
On 20th of May 2007 he reported back to his newsgroups
in his old dynamic way. He published a series of texts
in which he told about his physical recovery, about his
plans to become active as "Pilot" again, but also about
the Church of Scientology's attacks on his private life.
Nine days later he was dead."
Incredulousdfb, Shropshire, UK says...
8:42pm Wed 30 May 07
Bruce, says...
10:54am Thu 31 May 07
So the Scientologist view can only be, if one follows the line that the founder of Scientology is correct in what he says, that Christ was not the Son of God. This is fascinating to me.
I appreciate that you say the views you have are not the official views of Scientology itself, but is this not a little dis-ingenuous? Surely the views of your founder make your views and Scientology's? After all, the head of any religion, if that is what it is, should be infallable?
Christ made some errors in his life, of that there is no doubt, such as getting angry and turning the tables, but his teachings are revered as those of a man who his believers are convinced was the Son of God. That is a religion. The clear connection to a deity.
With Scientology I see no clear connection to a deity, quite the reverse. I see a belief system that relies on one man's teachings, that one man being L Ron Hubbard. No other source seems to be apparent. There is a faith here, a faith in Ron being the font of all wisdom and that his writings are somehow inspired. God seems nowhere in this system, certainly not central. What is central, as I read it, is that Man himself is his own God?
This is the difficulty many have Merrill, that Scientology displaces God and offers a system based on what are offered as 'scientific' means to achieve a higher status. This cannot be a religion, surely?
L Ron Hubbard, Hell says...
10:55am Thu 31 May 07
Merrill, USA says...
3:49pm Thu 31 May 07
Apologies for confusing you with Sam!
Wikepedia defines religion as A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Dictionary.com: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
While I agree that it is commonly expected that a religion defines ones relationship with a supreme being, such a relationship is not a requirement to be considered a religion.
As I said in an earlier post, I do not consider Hubbard to be infallible, and anyone who has studied the materials of Scientology in order must agree. Hubbard has reversed his position many times over his life. For example, he spent many years working on techniques called creative processes, applying them and training others to use them. He then reversed his position based on later research and said that creative processes should not be used. He developed a system of numbering his technical bulletins and policy letters to track revisions to these documents and highlight these revisions in italics so students could see the changes over the years.
Scientology does not consider Hubbard a saint. We do consider him a brilliant researcher and observer of the human condition. Id love to be able to say he was perfect, but that was far from the truth. Hubbard smoked cigarettes most of his life does that mean its okay for Scientologists to smoke? Of course not. Hubbard was married three times and divorced twice. Does that mean it is okay for Scientologists to do the same? Of course not. Even Jesus had his flaws. But in the end the techniques that Hubbard developed, when applied precisely, dramatically improve people.
Because of this one must differentiate the mans technical research and discoveries from his opinions and I will admit this is difficult to do at times due to the shear volume of his output.
Make no mistake, Hubbard is revered by Scientologists world-wide, myself included. What he accomplished in one life-time boggles the mind. His focus, work-ethic, powers of observation, refusal to compromise, intellect, output, and sheer determination were so incredible as to be unbelievable.
So why, you ask, is Scientology a religion? It is because it deals with the individual as a spiritual being, codifies a path to higher spiritual awareness, codifies a system of behavior and ethics, and helps the individual understand his/her relationship to others and the universe. If this is not the purview of religion, then where does it fit?
Olaf, says...
7:04pm Thu 31 May 07
Why do I get the impression you two know each other, or are indeed one and the same person.
L. Ron Hubbard was a deceitful conman who fabricated his past. Scientology's revisionist view of L. Ron Hubbard, as summarised so well by Merrill in the quote below, is just crass propaganda regurgitated.
Hubbard is revered by Scientologists world-wide, myself included. What he accomplished in one life-time boggles the mind. His focus, work-ethic, powers of observation, refusal to compromise, intellect, output, and sheer determination were so incredible as to be unbelievable.
The key part of the quote "so incredible as to be unbelievable" sums up the idiotic picture painted of L. Ron Hubbard by L. Ron Hubbard.
"Merrill & Bruce" and Bruce your pseudo rational discourse isn't working. Bruce you just aren't angry enough, I can tell by your tone.
As someone once said "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Merrill, USA says...
9:51pm Thu 31 May 07
Why do I get the impression you two know each other, or are indeed one and the same person.
Perhaps you are not used to seeing two people have a rational, level headed discussion where neither party attacks the other or flings generalized insults?
I cant prove to you that we are two different people in this venue , only to tell you that we are.
Ive been completely honest in my answers to Bruce and to you. Bruce has chosen to continue the conversation in a friendly and level-headed manner. You have not.
You obviously have an axe to grind. You hate Scientology. You hate L. Ron Hubbard. You gravitate to any comments you can use to attack these subjects and ignore anything of a positive nature.
I hope your attitude changes one day, but I doubt that it will.
Have a nice life.
AGALIAREPT, says...
3:07am Fri 1 Jun 07
Demagogy = Scientology
Bruce, Scotland says...
11:10pm Sun 3 Jun 07
Olaf, I can assure you I am not Merrill! Merrill is engaging in debate about his religion and that is a rare thing when it comes to Scietology and for that I appreciate his views and respect his position to hold them.
I was taught a long time ago that you cannot ever change a man's mind, or understand him, through anger, so why should I be angry with Merrill?
I am fascinated with the subject. I have my own views on L Ron Hubbard and Merrill wouldn't like them! But I am not going to attack Merrill for that sake, but seek to listen to him and pose the honest questions I have.
Merrill is at least being genuine in his answers, and I may disagree with him theologically on many points, and I may harbour deep, deep misgivings about Scientology and its very foundations, but I have no right to attack anyone in anger and will not do so. Apart from that, Merrill doesn't make me angry! :-)
For the record Olaf (and Merrill) I have little faith in any religions and do consider Scientology about the battiest yet. However, having said that, I also wish to understand how Merrill accepts his religion. And I think it only good grace that if I am to question his beliefs, I do so with as much respect for him, as a person, as possible.
Merrill, I may answer your post at some time, just now I have a lot on my mind with one thing and another and do not have the strength to fully respond.
Olaf, says...
5:44am Mon 4 Jun 07
Merrill and Bruce both please accept my apologies for mistakenly identifying you as the same person.
Bruce, I was not suggesting anger should be directed at Merrill.
Merrill, I not angry with you.
I do feel anger and frustration towards those who currently run Scientology. The leaders of Scientology need to be held to account for the practices expected of their followers which can and do cause suffering.
Scientology's stance on mental health issues and it active campaigning against Psychiatry is particularly distasteful and dangerous. Scientology claims the mind for itself. The outcomes can be dire for those with mental health problems involved in Scientology or dabbling with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics.
Finally, I find that Scientology's ruthless pursuit and harassment of critics totally unacceptable. There is no debate allowed within the Church of Scientology, so it is important that other views are allowed to be heard outside of it. People expressing an opposing point of view have every right to do so.
Fair Game? I think not!, UK says...
11:50am Thu 7 Jun 07
Bruce, Scotland says...
1:10pm Thu 7 Jun 07
The 'spiritual being' element of Scientology only came into play after dianetics if I am correct in my understanding. What Hubbard first proposed was an alternative to psychiatry, a self help system that the layman could use. He wrote a book that sold millions, so I understand it, and it took off as that, a manual for solving problems and becoming, as he claimed, a better, stronger, fitter, more intelligent human. In no way was it a spiritual book.
Now I don't know if it works, and am open minded about that. I guess in many ways it could do because one 'cleans out' one's sytem of bad thoughts and troubles. I don't know. My point is this, if Hubbard had simply stopped there and we all gave dianetics a go, we'd either find a self-help system that works, or not. End of story. We'd only have spent 'a couple of bucks' and it would chime well with Hubbard's line that its up to oneself to decide.
Now, my trouble is this. He got into some scrapes with dianetics, mainly because the authorities seen it being touted as medicine when he began doing sessions and setting up, for want of a better phrase, dianetic clubs/clinics after he got sacks of mail from folks wanting to know more. He knew he could make more on this than with the book alone. I don't think that is a pejorative statement, I think it's pretty clear from all accounts. Financial mismanagement and other troubles followed and in 1951 he was in deep trouble as he was accused of practicing medicine without a licence.
In 1952 he re-emerged with a new slant, and it was called Scientology, but it was only in 1953 that he explained it as anything spiritual and then the first church appeared.
I can think of no religion that starts off as a science then morphs into one, not off the top of my head anyway. It is beyond comprehension that one would start without a basic spiritual centre. Other religions will have systems and such grow around them, but not develop systems then say, three years later, oh by the way, we've just invented a religion. That's, to my mind, the crazy part.
What I think Merrill, and I don't wish to sound disrespectful, is that you find the dianetics-related part works for you. That's fine. But then your religion-part is largely based on a secret that none of us can fully know unless we spend thousands getting to the levels you achieved. That's wrong to me.
Christ gave his message, and batty is at all sounds about his beginnings, they are told up front. There are no secrets in Christian teachings (unless you count off-shoots such as the Masons - but that's not Christianity). I can pick up a bible anywhere and simply lead a Christian life if I so choose. With Scientology as a religion, let me repeat that, as a religion, one has to pick up dianetics, the book, just as cheaply, but for the deep core of the religious part, pay loads of dosh to find out what it is. And there's no guarantee you'll like the final message! One may even find it to be totally absurd. That's obviously not your view, but from an outsiders position, it does not look like a religion, but a series of steps towards a secret society.
When Hubbard died, David Miscavige summoned all your flock to various points, not to tell people Hubbard had died, but that he had chosen to throw away his current earthly body and was continuing his research in another one. Merrill, that's madness. If Hubbard had achieved all that he said he had achieved as an Operating Thetan, he wouldn't just throw away his body and go to another galaxy, he'd go into another one on this planet, and by now we would have Hubbard Mark II - surely, surely, if the work on this planet, to clear it, had not been achieved, he would not choose to go elsewhere but continue the work here until it was done.
So the higher beliefs of the religion don't stack up for me (a bit like Christ's ascencion dont either)
I do not mean to offend Merrill, I am sure you know this by now, I am just stating as clearly as I can the central concerns that us outsiders have, so you may understand that we are not simply being hateful and spiteful. (or 'suppresive'). I have every respect for your beliefs sir, similarly, scientologists need to respect our beliefs and concerns as genuine.
Bruce, Scotland says...
1:36pm Thu 7 Jun 07
I agree with you on the leaders of Scientology. Some will be like Merrill and believe everything they know is true, but there are some au fait with all the truths as is possible and are not being honest.
And yes, I am with you on Scientology's view of mental health and psychiatry. It is a deeply complicated matter and it is indeed dangerous to suggest that anyone with a mental health problem should shun their doctors or rely on Hubbard's processes.
(Having said that, I have no real knowledge of what dianetics can or cannot do)
Any church that is firm in its convictions should allow dialogue, between its members and between members and those outside. I know that the term 'suppresive' is used to label anyone with a disagreement with the official lines, and especially in Hubbard's time. That is not healthy, it is in fact very unhealthy and does not allow an individual to choose for him/her self.
That reminds me of the darkly oppressive days of the Christian church when no word could be raised without dire penalties. Yet since we have had the reformation and the church and splinter churches still survive, but their message is now open to all to choose whether or not they want to believe. Sure it does not have the hold on folks like it used to, and that may or many not be a good thing from a 'saving souls' perspective. But it is the only way any religion should operate - up front, honest of its aims and core beliefs, and let's each individual question and argue and disagree.
Otherwise, it is dictatorship.
Fair Game? I think not!, UK says...
1:48pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Merrill, if you're still reading this, for expressing criticism of scientology no stronger that any expressed here, I was labelled a criminal by a person calling himself a scientologist.
"7) I am not aware of anyone labeled a criminal by Scientology for merely critisizing or disagreeing with Hubbard. "
Google my nick if you don't believe me.
There are definitely some people in scientology who will do this sort of thing. Perhaps you know somebody to whom this abuse could be reported? It certainly gives your faith a bad name.
Bruce, Scotland says...
4:05pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Indeed it is refreshing to have a scientologist answer us. I hope Merrill comes back to us on the points we have raised.
It is difficult for Merrill. He sounds like a decent sort and I truly believe he is being honest with us. What I am trying to say to Merrill is that, as much as WE may be wrong (in his eyes) in having our doubts and suspicions, HE may be misguided by his religion, or rather, the materials he has to hand.
I am aghast at what you said was happening on the Washington Post forum. Can you give me a URL to have a look?
Fair Game? I think not!, UK says...
5:13pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Not sure how long links work here, but here goes:
http://blog.washingt
onpost.com/offbeat/2
007/05/bbc_v_sciento
logy_a_youtube_st_1.
html
Bruce, Scotland says...
8:59pm Thu 7 Jun 07
I spent a long time reading that - too long I think - that would drive you nuts!
Merrill, what do you think of these tactics? This is appalling!
There were times reading it I was saying 'Whoah, boy!' I must admit at some of your posts Fair Game, but in the main I think what you did was ask all the questions that cannot (or wont) be answered, and Merrill, this is what gets us outsiders puzzling over your religion.
I'd love for us three to have a chat, a sensible one, not that rabid like forum on the WS - that's just unbelievable. If I were Merrill (as Olaf accused me of being! :-)) I'd say these guys were fakes to discredit the CoS. But my senses say they went over the top and they ARE from CoS.
If so their behaviour is disgusting to say the least and no wonder people view the CoS with suspicion.( and fear! )
Fair Game, I don't know how you put up with it. I apologise for not posting in your support on the WS forum, but there is no way I am going to converse with such people. It would be a waste of time. I am sure other readers feel the same. Apart from that my health is not that strong to take that kind of bile.
Merrill, please tell us that sort of behaviour is out of order?
I am shocked indeed. Utterly shocked. In fact, I don't know what else to say.
Bruce, says...
9:09pm Thu 7 Jun 07
Fair Game? I think not!, UK says...
9:39pm Thu 7 Jun 07
I feel pretty silly re-reading the posts- it's like having a conversation with the cast of an evil version of the Muppet show, and then looking up and seeing the puppet master and realising you've fallen for a huge joke. I'm afraid I got a bit pompous at times, and was blushing re-reading some of it. I'm sure the troll was embarrassed at being caught out, but he seems to be back to his old tricks. Pity he can't vary his style a bit to make the sock puppets less obvious, and his typing idiosyncrasies are a bit too easy to spot!
I'd love to know if he's one of the OSA lot, or just happens to be a scientologist and a troll!
Bruce, Scotland says...
10:14pm Thu 7 Jun 07
I'd love to talk to you personally if you are truly interested in investigating this subject. I am on the edge if you know what I mean, and there are very deep questions I'd like to investigate, but don't always have the strength. FYI - I am very ill at the moment and find deep investigation difficult.
You seem to have the energy I once had! But to Merrill, please do not see this as me simply being anti - it's just that I really do want to know more and I think Fair Game and Merrill can help me make an informed decision.
Think Freedom, says...
2:07am Fri 8 Jun 07
Straight, curved, razor's or edge of the world, what is the difference Bruce?
Ask questions and wait for answers. It illustrates a certain emptiness on the part of Scientology: the great faith, no answers, no future.
I await the intervention of DM/C.O.B. but his impotence speaks volumes.
Fair Game? I think not!, UK says...
1:20pm Fri 8 Jun 07
I think I've done all the investigation into scientology I care to do. The conclusion I reached is that the organisation at least is morally corrupt, and that this corruption begins with the teachings of L.Ron: "Oppose scientology and we will expose your crimes", "Never defend, always attack", and "fair game", teachings which are based on a lie (not all critics are criminals) as well as being hateful, repugnant and wicked.
I came across this video recently of a documentary about scientology made by a sceptical film maker, who came away at the end still a sceptic but having found some good things to say about what he experienced, and with respect for the people he met. The enlightening thing is that he was turned away from the scientology organisation in the UK by men in dark glasses al la Tommy Davis, and had to make the documentary with the "reformed" organisation- Ron's Org- in Russia. Contrast this documentary with the Panorama one, and it's like comparing the Catholic church at the time of the Inquisition with the Church of England! Personally I don't think the scientology organisation will ever adopt this attitude of welcoming scepticism and trying to win over critics by showing themselves in a good light, and frankly, **** them.
http://video.google.
co.uk/videoplay?doci
d=178656875967421374
1
I am registering at the Clambake messageboard because there are a lot of people there I would like to thank for putting out so much revealing information about the cult, and for making a stand against them. I'll be happy to talk to you there if you also register. I know that the site owner is very pro free speech, but will not allow any sock puppet nonsense. I'm not willing to give out any contact information here, for reasons you will understand. I would love to say sod the b*st@rds and let them waste their cash on employing PI's to harass me, but I have other people to think about.
Fair Game? I think not!, UK says...
1:23pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Bruce, Scotland says...
1:32pm Fri 8 Jun 07
My last post was made during a particularly bad period of the day. I get that sometimes with my illness. Off to the doc later so I'll probably come back in a better frame of mind.
I think I was also utterly depressed reading the Washington Post forum. I usually maintain a hope that people can get along. Bitterness and anger get me down!
Yes I am very disappointed that many questions go unanswered, Think Freedom. I've seen it happen in other forums where one is left with the distinct impression that there is something to hide about Scientology and that the anti-scientologists aren't making things up.
I do try to play devil's advocate because I don't believe people are bad in what they believe, but am intrigued as to how they do, especially with Scientology. If the Xenu part of it is true, and so far I am not convinced it is not, it defies belief that anyone could accept it as part of a faith. It's as if Hubbard said to himself, right, go as wild as possible, so wild it could only be true!
Bruce, Scotland says...
7:35pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Look forward to conversing with you my friend. You take care.
Jack, Ireland says...
3:37pm Tue 26 Jun 07
Jo Brimmer, says...
2:30pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Ron Rusky, says...
2:52pm Sat 7 Jul 07
chewyandbert wrote:Yes, the PRO will have you watch the DVD produced by the Church to keep you from questioning why the Church still employs harassment and intimidation on critics who are only excercising free speech, a term the church is fond of using, especially in it's many legal cases. This is also a side stepping technique to keep you from seeing the Church's intention for it to hide from you what it gets up to when you are happily on course or cheerfully word clearing a new version of an LRH reference rewritten by RTC.
The intention of the author is to incite hatred and nothing else. It's not a news story. Look at the video/DVD produced by the Scientologists on Sweeneys actual activities and it'll explain alot.
John Sweeny was followed and spied upon at his own wedding by OSA and this is harassment again, also stalking; which is illegal. You can point out someone else's misdeeds to avoid detection and it will ork for a time but eventually people will ask why a so called religion uses such a level of venom and spite against it's critics....it is the fair game tactic we have heard about which is still putting people off the scientology organisation to this day.
LRH did say that scientology as a religion was just a front, but don't tell the IAS that. See reference:
Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter
(HCOPL) 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion":
"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization
basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the
usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for
accountants and solicitors."
Is there something being hidden from you?
Done any retreads lately? Did you really need to?
Fundamentals of Thought L. R. Hubbard
1956 1983 edition Bridge Publishing
********************
*****
Page 8
"The term Scientology is taken from the Latin word scio
(knowing in the fullest sense of the word) and logos
(study of).
Scientology, used by the untrained and the trained person,
improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill
and appearance of people.
It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact
sciences."
John Baid, says...
3:01pm Sat 7 Jul 07
jksfllsdhdfhojk, says...
3:07pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Chaz wrote:@
David wrote: By the way, Scientology pays people to log in to websites like this and post supportive comments about itself. I bet our \"Christian\" is in reality a Scientologist.Actually chief i\'m a big believer in searching the net for what i like and am proud to support activities such as xenu.net who have some awesome, funny, yet disturbing people bandying around their cult!
Dr.W.Eade, Hove says...
10:46pm Tue 23 Oct 07
TimH, England says...
11:55pm Sun 11 Nov 07
dubron, aberlour says...
3:43pm Tue 19 Feb 08
mark wrote:"Many points can be easily proven incorrect."
Found this article to be full of venom. I've been involved with Scientology for more than 10 years and I'm doing well. The above article reminds me of something that could have been said about minorities in Germany in the 1930's. Honestly I doubt the veracity of much of this rant. Many points can be easily proven incorrect. I feel the intention of this person is purely to incite hatred against a religious group by protraying them in a evil fashion.
...then why not do so?
Anonymous MacAnonymous, In a volcano. says...
3:59pm Tue 15 Apr 08
The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger
stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very
space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet,
178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to
be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the
principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones
were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to
Las Palmas and there "packaged".
His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading
data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants.
When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people)
captured him after six years of battle and put him in an
electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone.
The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length
and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never
recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc)
anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been
dispensed with by my tech development.
One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is
approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running
on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be
careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow
around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.
In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did
and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one
ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but
only that given here is needful.
One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or
to the body.
One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I.
It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing.
You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some
large, some small.
Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.
Good luck.
In this section
- Don't keep your savings at home
- 'Don't let having fun now ruin your life forever'
- Potential MPs could be put off public life
- Brighton council election could create 'electoral tsunami'
- The day dreams were shattered
- NHS owes a debt to work of Sussex hospices
- Will people power hold back Brighton and Hove?
- Why Eastbourne Pier is vital to Sussex's heritage
- Blossoming Brighton Greens full of confidence
- Grand veteran is worthy of a special award
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
mark, dublin says...
11:44am Thu 24 May 07