Is Scientology a dangerous cult? Perhaps a terrorist organization?
February 24, 2008 — L. Ron BrownFirst of all, what I really wanted to title this article was “Scientology IS a dangerous cult”, but I’ve been too nervous to. I’ve sat here fearing that doing so could get me followed, harrassed, threatened, and personally investigated, as this appears to be a standard operating procedure in Scientology for dealing with critics. And this is when it hit me: could the supposed Church of Scientology be a terrorist organization? As many ex-members have said, they operate by instilling fear in ex-members and critics. They have been caught on a number of occasions following, spying on and intimidating those who investigate or criticize them. They are apparently ever-ready to threaten legal action. A number of ex-members have stated that they go to great lengths to dig up dirt on critics to use as blackmail against those who would speak ill of them. They are clearly not above using dishonesty to tarnish the credibility or ruin the lives of critics. In perhaps the most dramatic case, they attempted to frame a critic who had written a book critical of Scientology of making bomb threats to the “Church”, which resulted in her being arrested and enmeshed in 8 months of legal procedings which cost her $19,000. During this process she became so depressed that her weight fell to 83 pounds. But this wasn’t all the “Church” did to her. They also tried to have her placed in a mental institution (I wonder if this mental institution might have had PSYCHIATRISTS….that must have been a hefty conflict of interests on their part).
What do we call those who seek to supress dissenters through fear, and who are apparently willing to throw all considerations of honesty and respect for one’s fellow person out the window? Terrorists.
Now, does this mean that all Scientologists are terrorists? No, of course not. Similarly, the portion of the global Islamic population that participates in terrorism does not justify the inference that all Muslims are terrorists. But it appears to quite clearly be the case that terrorism is being done in the name of Islam and Scientology. And in the case of Scientology, it is being put into motion by the recognized “Church” officials. It was also once official policy of the “Church” to condone or even encourage the trickery, harrassment, suing and destruction of those who oppose it. Until this policy leaked out and started generating bad publicity, L. Ron Hubbard himself stood by his written endorsement of what amounts quite clearly to terrorism.
Follow this link (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LYnu5Q6ONbo#) to see ex-members speak about their experiences with Scientology. Included among the commentors are the author who was framed for bomb threats and attempted to have put in a mental institution, and a former Scientologist Internal Security officer who spent 4 years spying on, intimidating, threatening, and attempting to ruin the lives of those who would criticize the “Church”. In this video, ex-members accuse the organization of mind control techniques, totalitarianism, manipulation, and various forms of terrorism (though they never used this word themselves).
For more posts on Scientology, click here.
February 24, 2008 at 5:20 am
Dangerous cult? Yes.
Terrorist organisation? Probably not.
Money making scam? Certainly.
February 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Matt:
How are they not a terrorist organization? They work to coerce those who would speak critically of them into silence by generating fear in them and by actualizing that fear by going right out and trying to ruin the person.
February 24, 2008 at 3:06 pm
When I was 15 I was approached by a Scientologist and offered a personality test. I declined. I was offered a copy of a book which I also declined. For the last 20 years I have not been approached by them, read any of their literature or had any dealings with them. In fact if it wasn’t for Tom Cruise I would hardly know that they exist. I think if you ask the majority of people they would say something similar.
Until this http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2208236/web-users-declare-war
Suddenly you can’t go anywhere without a reference of some sort to them.
Censorship is wrong, particularly religious censorship. It legitimizes and gives publicity to theses types of pseudo religious cults and organizations. But unfortunately, in the battle between The Anonymous and The Church of Scientology the only ones who look like terrorists are The Anonymous. What do you think?
February 24, 2008 at 3:42 pm
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.
March 6, 2008 at 11:24 am
they had the police come to my house all because i jept telling them to leave me alone…how gay is that?
March 6, 2008 at 11:29 am
LoBo:
Are you serious?! Are you comfortable going into more detail on this? I would love to hear more.
May 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm
If you changed the word scientology for any of the intelligence agencies, would we bat an eyelid?
Maybe they are somehow the same thing?
May 25, 2008 at 5:46 pm
[...] 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 [...]
May 27, 2008 at 4:14 am
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.