Eve:
Hi. Yes, the hacking and Google-bombing might be crossing the line. But the street protesting and civil online protesting is quite warranted. Of course scientology will play it up as religious prosecution, but the point of the protesting is to show that Scientology is not a religion, but a corporation that will go to great lengths to supress criticism and deter member defection. It is apparently willing to lie to, trick, alienate, steal from, spy on, threaten, lie about, frame, and in some cases do anything it can get away with to destroy those who would defect from and/or criticize them. It will encourage people to sever connections from those who think ill of the organization.
A friend of a friend was at the Toronto protest. A Scientologist masqueraded as a protestor and protested with this friend of a friend. After the protest a group of the protestors and the imposter went to a bar. My friend told me that while at the bar the imposter grabbed and ran of with the photos of the event. I’m assuming that this means that they stole the camera. However, this is hearsay. But I have no reason to believe that it was made up.
they had the police come to my house all because i jept telling them to leave me alone…how gay is that?
[...] great to be watched 24 hours a day. It must be happening to many people.I think the scientologists are used for this. They cannot be above the state. They might be above th… And may each and everyone of them be blessed. But it sure brings a lot of sadness to the world. And [...]
Morris writes:
‘If you changed the word scientology for any of the intelligence agencies, would we bat an eyelid?’
Yes, and loosen our bowels too. Scientology has an intelligence agency constantly on the move. It’s targets are easy ones to determine: anyone critical of their firm. Millions have and are being spent to gather information, to infiltrate centres of information, to prevent attacks and to make them. Next to making money this is the major line of activity.
About Eve, another poster from above. Nowhere does she assess the legitimacy of, or examine the stated reasons for Anonymous attacks on Scientology. Nor does she comment directly on the theme of LRon Browns piece.
Using the typical style of Scientology blog comment writers she denies having anything to do with the organisation and attempts to turn readers attention away from the questions Brown is asking, or examining the sources of Brown’s information.
She continues:
“Censorship is wrong, particularly religious censorship. It legitimizes and gives publicity to theses types of pseudo religious cults and organizations…”
Briefly, this is wrong. Censorship has it’s necessary functions. When it is being abused it is wrong. The second sentence is nonsense as most generalisations are. But the point for it being there is just to distract us further. She appears to put Scientology within the brackets of ‘pseudo religious cults’ – but not quite for the experienced Scientology watcher.
It is a firm and set policy of Hubbard’s that Scientologists should never to engage in proper and meaningful debate. Eve is practicing that part of Fair Game which is to mislead and distract us. If you bother to post comments it is primarily to express your interest in the designated theme. Whether you agree or not is besides the point but the theme must be adequately addressed, otherwise you are wasted your, and everybody else’s time. Her final statement: “But unfortunately, in the battle between The Anonymous and The Church of Scientology the only ones who look like terrorists are The Anonymous.” ignores the fact that Anonymous are only a part of the forces engaged against Scientology. And no critic of that firm uses the term ‘church’ without putting it in inverted commas.
It is useless to answer her question at the end of her comments because that which is glaringly absent shows her lack of serious intent. To answer Brown’s question’s is, after research and analyse into the workings of Scientology, very necessary. My answer to both of them as appear in the heading is a resounding yes.
Scientology didn’t discontinue its ‘fair game’ tactics of harassing critics. The order that is quoted as proof of the discontinuance only discontinues use of the TERM because it is ‘bad PR’ but goes on to say actual practices should not be changed. In fact, in the court case of Lawrence Wollersheim, long after the supposed cancellation, a Scientology official tried to use the excuse that fair-gaming was a ‘core’ religious practice.
The decking out of Scientology, which is a pyramid self-help scheme with dubious practices including hypnosis without consent, as a ‘religion’ was an entirely cynical scheme to avoid taxes and investigations. The recent affidavit of Lawrence Brennan goes over this in chilling–and quite damning–detail. In the fourth paragraph he makes it quite plain that he expects attempts to be made on his life for these revelations.
February 24, 2008 at 5:20 am
Dangerous cult? Yes.
Terrorist organisation? Probably not.
Money making scam? Certainly.