Case study: Kathleen Wilson
Bernie
As you know, I have been rambling on alt.religion.scientology
about the anti-cult fallacious theory of mind-control, and how
its natural consequence is the justification of coercive
restrain, the reaping apart of families, overreaction from
authorities, etc.
I have been told by anti-cult proponents that the cases I
presented are old, that although kidnapping happened in the past
"we don't do it anymore", and is not true that the mind-control
theory means that the person is not responsible for his/her
action and therefore does not mean that he/she has to be saved
against his/her will.
So lets have a look at a case that was judged in 1995 and
happened end of 1992. What follows is my analysis of the case of
Kathleen Wilson. The source of it is to be found at
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/media95.html
Kathleen Wilson, originally from Boosbeck, Clevelant, UK, was
the only child of elderly parents, Raymond and Margaret Wilson.
She left the family early to live with a friend, Lorna Bowden,
and with Lorna's boyfriend, Stephen Cooper. The three of them
lived in a small flat in Bognor Regis and Kathleen worked in a
garden center until she found a job as sales assistant in a shoe
shop in Chichester and moved there.
Kathleen, apparently of a quiet, rather shy, nature, didn't seem
in such good terms with her apparently dominant mother. "I tried
to get along with her - but everything I did she would
criticize. We had this big piano. I tried to learn. All she said
was: 'You're doing it all wrong.' ' Her father, a bricklayer,
had left home when she was 11. 'She used to control everything -
the clothes, everything. Even my money. But everybody has to
have something. 'I didn't want to argue I told her I would move.
I went when I was 19. I went with my friend, Lorna. I packed a
suitcase and went to Bognor Regis."
Obviously, her work in the shoe shop didn't enthrall her, and as
many young, she was looking for a meaningful and useful life:
"In the shoe shop, I was doing the same thing - day in, day out.
I wasn't happy with the job. I wanted to do more in life."
One day, she is handed down a Scn fliers, which said that we
"only use 10 per cent of our mental potential". She sent it off,
got the Dianetic book, and started to get involved. A year
later, she moved in the nearby Saint Hill Castle in East
Grinstead and started to study, live, and work there.
Obviously, the relationship with her mother didn't improve with
her involvement with the COS. It is rather obvious that her
mother was also fed with the anti-cult "information",
information that demonizes all cults and present their members
as brainwashed zombies. She believed that Kathleen "will be
brainwashed and live as a slave for the rest of her life." She
even wrote her daughter out of her will when she became involved
with the Church of Scientology. A clause in the will said that
Kathleen must have given up the sect within five years or the
money goes elsewhere (she will now leave her money to animal
charities).
Her mother claims that when she phoned Kathleen they just put
the receiver down on her. This is atypical, and is probably just
the demonized version of the fact that Kathleen tried to
politely say to her mother that she shouldn't try to
frenetically convince her that she isn't there of her own free
choice and to tell her that she should leave.
We can clearly see the deepening of the gap created by the
demonized information and the mistrust generated by the
mind-control theory, worsening an already bad situation and
being used as a cover up for the mother to impose her own will
to her adult child for a choice with which she didn't agree
with.
14 months after she joined, Kathleen, now 21, rang her mother to
tell that she was going off to Los Angeles. Her mother
interpreted this move in an extremely unlikely scenario, most
certainly through the distorted pictures gotten from the
demonizing mind-control theory. She rang to Kathleen's friends
(Lorna and Stephen) to say she was worried. "Kathleen had rung
her," writes The Observer of 19 March 1995, "to say she was
going to America but did not really want to. They were forcing
her." When Kathleen rang her friends to meet and say goodbye,
they in turn interpreted this through the filter her mother had
just provided them, and through the previous anti-cult type of
information they must have received as well.
Follows a paranoiac description of the meeting that took place
in the evening of the 6th of November 1992, in which
undoubtedly, Lorna and Stephen tried to convince Kathleen that
she was brainwashed and that she should leave with them.
"They arranged to see her at Saint Hill Castle, where Ms Wilson
was ushered in by a security guard. 'I was shocked and
frightened. Kathleen was dressed in a blue uniform like an army
officer and showed no emotion towards me at all. There was
another woman there who started making small talk. Every time I
asked Kathleen a question, she would answer for her."
"After a few minutes, the guard tapped his watch and Ms Wilson
got up to leave, but whispered to Ms Bowden that she would be
catching a bus to the station at 10.30pm. Convinced this was a
cry for help, the couple decided Mr Cooper should return to try
to 'get her into a position where she could make up her own mind
what she wanted to do'"
Three hours later as Kathleen went for a walk through the castle
grounds, Cooper and another man jumped out at her shouting 'Get
her' and 'Grab her'. Fellow Scientologist Austin Lenniston,
despite being threatened with a knife and a rottweiler dog, came
to her aid, grabbing her around to stop her from being dragged
away and bundled her on to a staff bus. Lenniston suffered a
minor knife wound in the struggle.
When he was arrested, Cooper told police that Kathleen had been
subjected to hypnosis by the sect and no longer had a mind of
her own. He was indicted of attempted kidnap and affray.
The case was pleaded in front of a jury at the Lewes Crown Court
in March 1995.
"To prove attempted kidnap," writes the Daily Telegraph of 15
March 1995, "[Prosecutor Richard Cherrill] had to establish four
elements - an attempt to remove her, that it was by force, that
it was without lawful excuse and that she did not consent."
"The first two elements were not challenged - Mr Cooper admitted
to police he went to snatch her, 'probably against her will',
after being contacted by her mother - and the judge [Mr Justice
Hidden] ruled he could not offer a defense of lawful excuse
because that would require a belief that she faced physical
danger. But the judge ruled that there could be a possible
defense on the grounds of consent, even though Miss Wilson
testified that she did not consent."
"This enabled Mr [John] Tanzer [Cooper's counsel] to tell the
jury some of the evidence suggested a regime in which she was
effectively enslaved and robbed of her free will."
Thereby started what we often witnessed in these type of suits
in the US: the victim, not those who resorted to unlawful acts,
is put on trial, and the whole battery of anti-cult arguments is
used against the member and the group. This battery has been
used in the early times of anti-cult heyday too, quite
successfully. The judges and jury did not usually have all the
information on the whole cult/anti-cultl issue, and felt for the
sensationalism and superstition of the mind-control theory.
An other reason why juries have had a reluctance do convict
family members who abducted their adult child is that kidnapping
is a serious offence, that often incurs serious penalties.
Juries have a problem agreeing to such harsh penalties to be
applied on parents. Anti-cult proponents know of this situation
and play on the emotion of the jury, probably parents
themselves.
For example, Cooper said he was not a "malign kidnapper using
unwarranted force to take away a damsel manifestly not in
distress." Rather, he wanted to "put her in a position" to make
her own free choice. "I was only interested in the welfare of
Kathleen."
Cooper's counsel, John Tanzer, added "Our case is simply
Kathleen Wilson was a victim. That she was deprived of her own
free will and that Mr Cooper sought to rescue her."
Tanzer argued that, even though she claimed in court she did not
consent to removal, it was possible her free will had been
removed by the processes she had undergone in the cult and she
did not have "sufficient intelligence and understanding" to
decide if she consented. "Kathleen Wilson was a victim. She was
deprived of her own free will and Stephen Cooper sought to
rescue her. She never said she wanted to be rescued but we say,
simply, that is because she couldn't. If a member of our society
is turned into a robot, turned into a slave, is that person
consenting? A robot is programmed as to what to say. The person
underneath has been suppressed and enslaved."
At the end of the week-long trial, Cooper was cleared of the
charge by a jury which retired at 12.53pm, began their lunch at
1pm and returned with unanimous verdicts at 2pm.
Cooper achieved the status of a near hero. As Wayne Sage would
say, the media, always interested in a kidnapping or a
brainwashing story and ecstatic over one with both, spread the
word of Cooper exploit. We know that Cooper only went there with
another guy and with a rottweiler dog, and that a single
Scientologist defeated them. Yet, Cooper is now supposed of
having taken on "an army of uniformed guards" (The Observer 19
March 1995).
Of course, as usual, the only result this attempted kidnap and
violence achieved was a broken family. More tears, more
despairs, more misunderstandings.
Kathleen now claims she is afraid to visit her mother in
Boosbeck in case she was the victim of a second kidnap attempt.
Her mother has pleaded with her to come home - even for a brief
visit - but holds out little hope. "The cult has altered her
mind. It is heartbreaking to think I may never see her again."
OTOH, Kathleen is now left on her own as well, without loving
support that could help her out from the cult. "It's horrible
not having your family," she says. "My mother won't accept what
I'm doing. She thinks I'm being kept prisoner. I miss her. I
don't like not being able to speak to her or see her."
The anti-cult mind-control theory does indeed separate families.
Furthermore, the inescapable consequence of the theory is that
the person must be removed by force if he/she can't be convinced
otherwise. It is not true that the theory can be dissociate with
coercive means, as proclaimed by its proponents. The natural
consequence of this theory is forceful intervention, either by
kidnapping or by State laws under the guise of "reality inducing
therapies." It is a prejudicial theory that have the effect of
dismissing whatever the person incriminated has to say. It
effectively puts the victim on trial and opens dangerous
exception to the most basic civil and human rights there is.
Bernie
Ceon Ramon
In article <344824e7....@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
[...]
>So lets have a look at a case that was judged in 1995 and
>happened end of 1992. What follows is my analysis of the case of
>Kathleen Wilson. The source of it is to be found at
>http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/media95.html
>her involvement with the COS. It is rather obvious that her
>mother was also fed with the anti-cult "information",
>information that demonizes all cults and present their members
>as brainwashed zombies.
[...]
>We can clearly see the deepening of the gap created by the
>demonized information and the mistrust generated by the
>mind-control theory,
>her." When Kathleen rang her friends to meet and say goodbye,
>they in turn interpreted this through the filter her mother had
>just provided them, and through the previous anti-cult type of
>information they must have received as well.
Hey, Bernie? I know you said this was your analysis and all, but aren't
you making a lot of assumptions in these references? What makes you think
that Kathleen's mother and Kathleen's friends got their information and
formed their attitudes about her involvement with the CoS from "anti-cult
forces"? Scientology doesn't have a very good reputation, you know.
There's a lot of perfectly valid information about the shabby side of the
organization that's freely available without any conspiracies being
involved. Maybe somebody read the "Time" article.
Sad story.
--Barbara
Bernie
ind...@aol.com (Inducto) wrote in article
<19970719051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>To begin with, don't lump together those of us who have a bone to pick
>with "cults" and highly controlling groups. I think there's some value in
>the less extreme theories of mind control, but I'm against coercive
>"deprogramming" on both ethical and practical grounds: it's wrong in a
>free society, and all too often leads to just the sort of results you
>documented.
I agree with you 100%. I too am also thinking that there is some
value in the less extreme theories of mind control, just like I
think there is some value in less extreme theories advanced by
some cults. However, just like for cults, people use whatever
truth that may lay there to bundles unrelated things together
and unwittingly or not encourage highly reprehensible practices.
That's the problem I have with the concept of mind-control. If
its proponents were able to use it in a context that clearly
dissociate themselves with these consequences, I would have an
entirely different approach to it. That's not what they do,
though. They may say "we are against coercion of any kind" but
then they advance the very same theory used to justify it.
That's like Neo-Nazi advancing the rhetoric Nazi used to justify
their crimes, all the while saying "of course we are against any
coercion to be used against inferior races". It's either
hypocrisy or unawareness.
>Part of the problem in the Odran Fortune case may be that the
>Fortune family used "deprogrammers" rather than "exit counselors". And
>yes, I think most exit counselors are people who do things in an entirely
>different way, not deprogrammers who've changed their title.
Yes, I think so too. Some exit-counselors do an excellent job at
it. Like with anything, a job well done is an art and a science.
However, others keep using the same theory that has brought
about gross abuses without making any amendment or
self-criticism other than a loose opposition to forcible
deprogramming, and they are the ones I question. That's what
Hassan, Monica, or Dennis do, for example. They may be sincere
individuals and their position may be a step in the right
direction, but it's far from enough in my eyes. They are still
responsible for effectively supporting the Nazi-like theory of
mind-control, no matter what they proclaim their intentions to
be.
>I have an honest question that I'd like an answer to myself, not just a
>piece of pro-deprogrammer apologism: How typical or common is the
>deprogramming case you mention?
Since I am certainly not a pro-deprogrammer apologist, I think
it would give a certain amount of credibility if I myself say
that, to my knowledge, forcible deprogramming isn't, nowadays,
typical or common. However, my contention is that this situation
is because it had suffered serious set back in recent past, and
not because of any revision of their proponents' theoretical
background, not speaking of any apology for the crimes they have
been guilty of. I still haven't seen posted, BTW, the so-called
disclaimer from the ex-CAN, in its own context. Their demise was
entirely justified.
I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
approved sanction, just like they currently support abuses of
civil rights perpetrate in Germany against individual
Scientologists. That makes them considerable more dangerous than
cults. The cults own brand of totalitarianism is still remote
from actuality. The mind-control proponents one is one that sits
right there at the door, that already have been successful in
the past at passing some stages of the legislative process, and
that is still successful in justifying current abuses of civil
and human rights.
>Obviously there some old-fashioned
>deprogrammers around, people who will employ them, and people who don't
>know what deprogramming even really is but take the comparatively obvious
>action of dealing forcefully with someone they think has been taken from
>them by a mind-controlling group. I hope to god it's not common, and is
>being eliminated entirely by the people who work in the field.
Yes, but as I said, I don't think it has been eliminated by the
people who work in the field. I think that they have been forced
to restrain themselves from what is an obvious consequence
stepping out from their theory, just like Neo-Nazi or
Scientologists are being restrained to implement their own brand
of an "healthy" society.
>Sadly, I
>think that there will always be amateurs or rogue professionals who will
>do it for desperate or disfunctional families, and I think that both such
>deprogrammers as well as groups that use high-control tactics should be
>legally restrained.
Agreed. Of course, this is not what happened in the case I
presented. The would-be deprogrammer has been cleared of all
charge on the ground that his action was justified by the
victim's state of "mind-control". This didn't happen 20 years
ago, just 2 years ago. It is wrong and dangerous.
>But if there's no such thing as mind control, why would anyone object to
>"reality inducing therapies", much less demonstrate the near hysteria that
>some do?
I do not object to any therapy at all, as long as they do not
use coercive restrain. The "reality inducing therapy" I am
referring to, is the one anti-cultist tried to pass in the 80s
as law in the States of Kansas and New York, amongst other. This
involved coercive restrain, aided by State law enforcement
forces, for reasons of "mind-control".
>Such practices wouldn't exist unless they succeeded in at least
>some cases in changing individuals perspectives about a group they
>belonged to. It seems to me to object to such "therapies", is to admit
>that at least the people administering them can control and change the
>subjects' minds against their will and better judgement!
It is not clear to me whether you object or not to coercion
(even if State approved) being used as part of the therapy.
Bernie
Michael Voytinsky
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote in article
<33ddcc0b...@news.ping.be>...
> I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
> the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
> support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
> approved sanction,
Well, lets take another look at this. Someone who believes in something
that is patently false - eg. the Xenu story - clearly is suffering from a
psychopathology - much like someone believing himself to be Napoleon
(unless of course that individual is in fact Napoleon) is suffering from a
psychopathology. The next question should be if they are a hazard to
themselves or others. While this particular delusion does not inherently
make an individual a hazard to himself or others, there are elements in
Scientology belief system that can potentially make an invididual a hazard
to himself or others. For example, it may be argued that someone
submitting to the Purification Rundown is a hazard to himself.
> just like they currently support abuses of
> civil rights perpetrate in Germany against individual
> Scientologists.
Scientologists have a history of (among other things) stealing government
documents in the USA and in Canada. It is hardly unreasonable for the
German government to take proactive action, rather then to wait for their
own documents to be stolen.
Cheers
Bernie
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote in article
<33d70653....@news.concentric.net>:
>be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) brewed up the following, and served it to
>the group:
>>I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
>>the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
>>support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
>>approved sanction, just like they currently support abuses of
>>civil rights perpetrate in Germany against individual
>>Scientologists. That makes them considerable more dangerous than
>>cults. The cults own brand of totalitarianism is still remote
>>from actuality. The mind-control proponents one is one that sits
>>right there at the door, that already have been successful in
>>the past at passing some stages of the legislative process, and
>>that is still successful in justifying current abuses of civil
>>and human rights.
>Bernie, go back to square one and read what's been posted. Quit
>putting words in people's mouths (or on their keyboards).
>What part of "I don't condone forcible deprogramming" is unclear to
>you? I don't support it, regardless of WHOSE idea it is. I *
>certainly* don't like the idea of giving a government that much
>power.
So what's your take on the German issue? Do you agree with
prospective candidate to civil service job to fill up a
questionnaire requesting disclosure as to whether they are
Scientologist or not?
And what do you make of the verdict in the case of Kathleen
Wilson I presented? Do you agree with it?
Bernie
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:
<snip>
>>What part of "I don't condone forcible deprogramming" is unclear
to
>>you? I don't support it, regardless of WHOSE idea it is. I *
>>certainly* don't like the idea of giving a government that much
>>power.
>
>So what's your take on the German issue? Do you agree with
>prospective candidate to civil service job to fill up a
>questionnaire requesting disclosure as to whether they are
>Scientologist or not?
My take on the German issue is that it is not relevant to the
subject of forcible deprogramming. The German government will fill
their civil service positions in their own fashion, with or without
any guidance from me. I can certainly understand why they wouldn't
want $cientologist$ in the jobs--given what I've seen of the
"efficacy" of Elrong's management tech (bs).
>And what do you make of the verdict in the case of Kathleen
>Wilson I presented? Do you agree with it?
The "case" of Kathleen Wilson as you presented it is one of the most
obviously slanted, pro-Co$-biased pieces of writing I've seen in a
long time. Any family breakup is tragic, IMHO. Please see my
quoted comment above for my opinion of forcible deprogramming.
Again.
I'd like to see the court records of this case, and more information
directly from the people actually involved, such as the unanimous
jury. Your retelling of it is rife with "anti-cult" rhetoric, and
so heavily dripping with "emotions" which don't quite ring true to
me that I find it rather hard to swallow. But then that's purely a
personal reaction on my part. I have checked the URL you supplied,
and read the sources--which were all newspaper stories. Given the
standard media propensity for hyperbole, it would seem to me that
you are analyzing an analysis of (possibly exaggerated) second-hand
information, Bernie. I'd like something a little more direct. The
stories on Martin's page do give what is probably a better view of
the situation than your "analysis" did, though.
The "anti-cult mind control theory" does not break up families,
Bernie. It is, in fact, an observation of what the "church" of
$cientology does to break up families. Something that the "church"
is pretty damned good at. It is an observation of what $cientology
does to its members. Like I was, Bernie. Like you were. Remember?
Try this one on for size: Why do you think Kathleen Wilson's
mother is so concerned? (Bernie's probable answer: "The evil anti-
cult!!! They did it!!!" No? Give me another answer then, Bernie.
Quit spouting Hubbardspew (bs) and start thinking for yourself.)
Once again, in case you missed it the first dozen times I said it--
the fact that I believe the Co$ practices mind control *ABSOLUTELY*
DOES*NOT* mean that I condone kidnapping and forcibly deprogramming
a person. The presumption that belief in mind control leads
inexorably to performing forcible deprogramming is *NOT* a logical
progression; at least, I have not seen any logic yet presented which
makes an even remote case supporting the presumption. If you'd
spend a little less time putting up straw men to demonize, and a
little more time understanding the issues at hand, maybe you'd get a
clue of what's going on, Bernie. I (and others) are OPPOSED to
mindfucks. Whoever's doing them. Dig?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM9Z166n8flYc1m/ZAQHR9gf/QRhWQQ5u9YxfD1qklYVot5pnw8AWDSvU
/RM851qQt+vHUfXKqEgZvFnftNsMbmdKbJhwgayyjgAKtlxe4v2+R+eAlFxqRU0O
8yIizwoal21f1qqU2kgauidVYIKCpE9kMx1J1qTP6+UgjP8doZkIZ5nGvi7YOF2x
yx9X/Dam+dLvshZheOv9+hC3o5ykV951LVEuSrzT+XeXyX/nXN4THlImE407eyGv
08oKGCpn+ATXJ2A3Y8c0GNS4XLiiTiDxRUBiU4BdRXDRToY6btH+9cD7gFyE/Iia
JqjOZ5DA78X4a6OnUYwUUFR3sa4CgGTsz36CPE69KnEacObBSrXrXA==
=hwW6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"Only an object can be objective."
--bc
the above e-mail address remains fictional...
the real one is bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <344824e7....@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
wrote:
Bernie, you're able to read Dutch, aren't you? Please read this De
Standaard article of 21.12.1996 http://www.vum.be/dsifsct1.html
In short (not verbatim translations), it's the story of Luc Hens. For 16
years he tries to get his daughter out of the cult. "The name 'Church" is
a cover-up for commercial business. Scientology is a Church without God"
he says. Hens is father of 6 children by the way. His daughter traveled to
Amsterdam, Copenhagen, LA and Clearwater. She also stayed for a short
while on cult-ship the Freewinds. Hens tries to stay in contact and
traveled to those places. Then he tells: "In Clearwater in 1990 I did
confronted her. Until she was kidnapped by members of the sect on public
road."
The article continues, "In Clearwater Hens found out how powerful
Scientology is. During his stay of 3 weeks he got permission to see
his daughter for some days/evenings after persistent requests."
"2 years later, in 1992, he did again travel to Clearwater, this time in
the companion of a camera crew of the RTBF [France part of the Belgian
broadcasting corp, I think]... He met ex-mayor of Clearwater Gabe
Casares,"
He also met Margery Wakefield, she gave him the advice of staying in touch
with his girl.
Hens: ,,She is and will for ever by my beloved daughter. Lots of people
have said: give it up, she is an adult, she will do what she likes. But
that's not the way it works. No parent could accept that."
"Above that, I don't concede with that reasoning. It's a cheap excuse to
escape your responsibility. Look what happened to members of the Solar
Temple, and with victims of other sects. Is it just because they are
adults, you should leave them to themselves?"
Hens further makes the comparison between sexual abuse of children and
cult membership. He says that the first is rape of a body, the second rape
of the mind. While the first you can visibly prove, the last one not. In
both cases it's injustice. Why would we close our eyes for one, and not
for the other injustice, he asks.
[btw] I think that he is the same Hens who was heard by the Belgian
"sect-commission". Reference:
-313 /7 -95 /96 - pg 16 - http://www.dekamer.be/documents/313/7.pdf
-313 /8 -95 /96 - pg 99 - http://www.dekamer.be/documents/313/8.pdf
Which - for a person who's so concerned with this topic - you've surely
read, or at least skimmed trough I assume.
Mike
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:
<snip>
>I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
>the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
>support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
>approved sanction, just like they currently support abuses of
>civil rights perpetrate in Germany against individual
>Scientologists. That makes them considerable more dangerous than
>cults. The cults own brand of totalitarianism is still remote
>from actuality. The mind-control proponents one is one that sits
>right there at the door, that already have been successful in
>the past at passing some stages of the legislative process, and
>that is still successful in justifying current abuses of civil
>and human rights.
Bernie, go back to square one and read what's been posted. Quit
putting words in people's mouths (or on their keyboards).
What part of "I don't condone forcible deprogramming" is unclear to
you? I don't support it, regardless of WHOSE idea it is. I *
certainly* don't like the idea of giving a government that much
power.
Whose civil rights are being violated? Are not the people whose
homes and belongings are ransacked by tainted court order
experiencing egregious civil rights violations? Are not the people
being harassed by lawsuit experiencing egregious civil rights
violations?
Does the person whose mind is manipulated, controlled, and warped
not experience the most basic civil rights violation? The cults you
so vociferously defend are committing the crimes you lay at the feet
of the non-existent "anti-cult cult", Bernie.
You paint with much too broad a stroke, Bernie. Stop preaching for
a moment and try to listen and understand.
Ah, what's the use? I'm talking to a brick wall.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM9YIrqn8flYc1m/ZAQFvEgf/T/KEc4BgnSgtKa0rbU1aK5+RLvpnwtjv
ATympA5QCWb9B3bXpaxZ9kVSwZ0yZEHcJSBbfVBwDAx/GYEN/5nzT6DGv+FZujkX
EZDDVNiSZwUyqse/Q6Oz21cPL9vkcV3U7qXKnRt6MWl9puOxQ+vlNzrVJunLsu0T
SVaoWBNwZoFzUK/bKvX2Rw5mNeRE/MvtiGKLG+GoPVf5mPpNR+FHvIfMk6gaZegr
LWAzYNRwVUF2p1EhLBS0Tj3NwsZru1Z2FO86oBUaEATLL1skXMvYm2aplegnJEv7
Nt71RO9SSesT2PChL07rWfE4kIAljLhe66VbmWAK/LgFQQxHLt9GuQ==
=1mpq
Ceon Ramon
In article <01bc96e3$11128420$8bf0cfcd@michael>,
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net> wrote:
>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote in article
><33ddcc0b...@news.ping.be>...
>> I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
>> the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
>> support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
>> approved sanction,
>
>Well, lets take another look at this. Someone who believes in something
>that is patently false - eg. the Xenu story -
People who believe in it don't agree that it's "patently false." People
who believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead don't believe the story
is "patently" false. People who believe that God spoke to Moses through
the medium of a burning bush don't believe that this story is "patently"
false.
clearly is suffering from a
>psychopathology - much like someone believing himself to be Napoleon
>(unless of course that individual is in fact Napoleon) is suffering from a
>psychopathology. The next question should be if they are a hazard to
>themselves or others. While this particular delusion does not inherently
>make an individual a hazard to himself or others, there are elements in
>Scientology belief system that can potentially make an invididual a hazard
>to himself or others. For example, it may be argued that someone
>submitting to the Purification Rundown is a hazard to himself.
Sure; but adults have the right to make such decisions about their own
lives and well-being. I might think someone is nuts to have chemotherapy
considering the statistical probabilities in her particular case of
remission vs. rapid deterioration and diminishment of life during the
final months; I might question someone's decision to take mega-doses of
vitamins and lengthy saunas in the effort to achieve some questionable
"religious" benefit, but just so long as the person gives no evidence of
being a disruptive force to the social order, or pursuing a path that will
clearly result in death, neither you nor I have any right to forbid or
prevent the individual from pursuit of what he considers to be in his own
best interests.
People think I'm crazy to smoke cigarettes. Do I want anyone
"intervening" on my behalf? Like hell.
I get kind of edgy when anti-scientologists begin to offer arguments like
this. It suggest the writer believes that controlling and bullying other
people is a good idea in pursuit of a Better World.
Education and information is the best route; not prohibition.
-Barbara
William O. West
Bernie wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <33D75C...@worldnet.att.net>:
> >Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
> >> I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
> >> the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
> >> support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
> >> approved sanction,
>
> >You're wrong there, where I'm concerned and also where
> >others such as Steve Hassan are concerned.
However, I would approve of a temporary conservatorship
of the person, in certain circumstances.
I would not approve of it in the case of most $cientologists
as, despite Monica's statements about her own experience, I
am not convinced that $cientologists are "programmed" as
blatantly as adherents of the Alamo Christian Foundation or
commune resident adherents of Divine Light Mission ca 1973.
"Programming" is really a good word for the Alamo and DLM
situations. Behavioral psychologists would have a problem
with it, since they don't deal with mental processes as such,
but the individual is conditioned to engage incessantly in a
process which deprives him or her of his or her ability to
think about anything uncomfortable, such as the fact that he
or she is being conned.
If anyone out there is sincerely seeking the truth about this,
you would do well to read "Knots" by R.D. Laing. It's a book
of poems based on Laing's experience as a psychotherapist. He
had one with arrows going in a circle, following an access
point to the circle. It went something like (a) my mother said
I was worthless (b) therefore, I have no self-esteem, (c) therefore,
I'm worthless, [go to (b)].
.
That one's an unconscious process. The "knots" in people's minds
around Maharaji and the Alamos were put there on purpose, and are
partly conscious. It's absolutely amazing that it's so easy to do
that to someone.
> Do you think that the Bavarian State is right in requesting
> prospective applicants to civil service jobs to disclose whether
> they are Scientologists or not, and whether they use LRH tech or
> not?
I'd say that, if Bavaria were part of the United States, they
would be on questionable ground, there. $cientology has yet to
be designated as a Racket-Influenced Corrupt Organization, in
the United States, unfortunately. It certainly isn't a public-
benefit charity.
> Do you think that the jury in the case of Kathleen Wilson took
> the correct decision?
Was that the English $cientology thing? Of course they did. There
was no evidence of any intent to hold the woman for ransom or of
any similar criminal intent. I'm sure she retains her right to
file a civil suit inasmuch as her mother et al deprived her,
briefly, of her right to be a $cientologist, but, in my opinion,
if the jury were able to award a judgment with absolute justice,
they would have her paying her mother for that little glimpse of
possible freedom.
> "[In forcible deprogramming], the person and the cult is
> ridiculed by deprogrammers. He is told that he is a victim,
> duped and brainwashed into the cult. All positive cult
> experience are denied. The person is broken down until he
> 'snaps'. This kind of depersonalization under stress causes a
> great deal of trauma and psychological problems for the person
> later. Just because this approach works in helping some people
> get free of cult influence doesn't mean that it is the best
> way".
I seem to be in a third category, here. I was not disenchanted
with Guru Maharaj Ji and did not ask to be deprogrammed. On the
other hand, I was neither abducted nor physically restrained in
any way. I was hardly ridiculed at all: Ted Patrick saved most of
that for the Guru: "You think HE'S God? He can't be God. He's too
fat and ugly to be God." He said that while pointing to the gatefold
photo in the guru's magazine. Then he read the quotation from the
guru's mother: "all my son wants is your fickle human mind." He
said "there it is right there. You don't have a mind to think for
yourself because you done give that to the guru." This whole thing
was a very short conversation. Then came the assertion "you have
been brainwashed and hypnotized without your knowledge or consent.
Stop meditating. [pause] Can you stop meditating?" To borrow the
term from Conway and Siegelman, at that point, something "snapped."
I had that experience once on the way into the cult, and once on
the way out. At the point of the "snapping," I regained my freedom
to choose, and chose to stop meditating to evaluate the situation.
Once I started to stop, all of the information I had been repressing
with the meditation began rushing into my awareness, and I finished
deprogramming myself by evaluating that information and checking
things out in the external world.
> As you can see, he doesn't object to the coercion itself, more
> to the method that is being used.
> I have argued in the past that the use of the term
> "deprogramming" in anti-cult circles is ambiguous.
No, it isn't.
> It can sometimes mean forcible deprogramming
> and sometimes voluntary deprogramming.
In the case of real programming, both terms are nonsensical.
.
Deprogramming is a conversation. Period. If a person is
abducted, restrained and deprogrammed, then he is abducted,
restrained and deprogrammed. The context is not relevant to
the result or to the method.
> This is because coercion or no coercion isn't very important
> for anti-cultists convinced that cult-members are being
> brainwashed against their will.
I don't think anyone would put it that way. The cult members
who are programmed by their cults are programmed without first
obtaining their informed consent. Once they are so programmed,
they are normally incapable of evaluating their situation so
as to make an informed decision to stay or to leave. They think,
for example, that they are controlling their own minds, but are
not aware of the environment in which they are practicing their
methodology. The environment is one in which information and the
available interpretations of that information are controlled and
in which the controllers have a system of punishments and rewards
available for use on the cult members.
>From my limited exposure to information about $cientology, it does
not appear that $cientologists are "programmed" in the same way as
members of the Alamo Christian Foundation or Divine Light Mission.
Therefore, I would not approve of legal or illegal imprisonment of
a $cientologist for this purpose. You would wind up brainwashing
them yourself! They may be brainwashed or they may be intermittantly
hypnotized, but they aren't "programmed."
> In an annex to the very
> same paper in which Hassan speaks against forcible
> deprogramming, this position is reflected: "Deprogramming is a
> conversation; the conditions and circumstances by which an
> individual enters the encounter are a separate issue".
I think I just said, essentially, the same thing.
> >If the statistics from people
> >who do them are accurate, their success rate is lower than voluntary,
> >non-forcible interventions.
I think that the more relevant question, statistically, concerns
the particular cult involved. A $cientologist seems to be more
socialized than programmed. An Alamo adherent is certainly more
programmed than socialized. The Alamo adherent can likely just
be "snapped" out of it. With the $cientologist, you would wind
up brainwashing him yourself. It may be a pseudo-religion engaged
in fraud and medical quackery in the guise of religion, but to the
extent that a person freely chooses to associate with it, he
should have the freedom to do so.
> You have argued at length that the cults use hypnosis and that
> the member isn't in it of his own free will. How will he then
> decide to leave of his own free will?
I certainly didn't decide to leave of my own free will as long
as I was self-hypnotized. It wasn't possible to do that. Once
I was persuaded to "stop meditating," I decided to leave myself.
> Is free will defined by the decision to leave the group, and
> absence of free will defined by the decision to stay in the group?
No. Free will is defined by the ability to use your mind to
make such a decision after the effects of cognitive dissonance
are neutralized. A $cientologist has a much higher degree of
free will than an Alamo or Divine Light Mission adherent.
Before the term "deprogramming" came into being, a psychiatrist
I knew talked a young woman out of the Self Realization Fellowship.
She subsequently suicided because, he said, she had nothing left to
believe in. Some people need something to believe in, for whatever
reason. Perhaps the belief in "not $cientology" is good enough for
some, but perhaps a more positive belief would be better for some.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <33D75C...@worldnet.att.net>,
Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>
>> I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
>> the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
>> support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
>> approved sanction,
>
>passed in the first place and in the very unlikely event that it did get
>passed I would still refuse to do forcibles. It's a moral/ethical
>issue, not a political one. It is wrong to use the same tactics as the
>cults and besides, forcibles do not work. If the statistics from people
>who do them are accurate, their success rate is lower than voluntary,
>forcibly pretends to go along with it and then goes back to the group.
How do you count the figures? What might well happen is that
with some people you succeed, and with others they (a) leave if they
can or (b) run away afterwards if they can't. Plus to some extent
forcible detention will piss them off and make them hostile anyway.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Monica Pignotti
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
> I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
> the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
> support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
> approved sanction,
You're wrong there, where I'm concerned and also where others such as
Steve Hassan are concerned. I would fight such a law from getting
passed in the first place and in the very unlikely event that it did get
passed I would still refuse to do forcibles. It's a moral/ethical
issue, not a political one. It is wrong to use the same tactics as the
cults and besides, forcibles do not work. If the statistics from people
who do them are accurate, their success rate is lower than voluntary,
non-forcible interventions. What often happens is the person being held
forcibly pretends to go along with it and then goes back to the group.
People who think forcibles are superior to nonforcibles are misinformed
and need to read about what can be accomplished by nonforcibles where
the person is presented with information about the group and decides to
leave of their own free will.
Monica Pignotti
Cisar
Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
> Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>
> > I am quite confident that many who presently claim to support
> > the mind-control theory but not forcible deprogramming, would
> > support forcible deprogramming accomplished as part of a State
> > approved sanction,
>
> Steve Hassan are concerned. I would fight such a law from getting
> passed in the first place and in the very unlikely event that it did get
> passed I would still refuse to do forcibles. It's a moral/ethical
> issue, not a political one. It is wrong to use the same tactics as the
> cults and besides, forcibles do not work.
> Monica Pignotti
I support a type of mind-control theory. But here in the 90's nothing
can beat education about cults. De-programming is a 60's style tactic
from before the time that people knew the power of the media, such as TV
and the internet.
Joe Cisar
Ceon Ramon
In article <33de3615...@news.dds.nl>,
As far as I'm concerned all of us have the right to go to hell in our own
way, providing we doesn't take unwilling hostages with us (vide: the
warring spouses who kill their children and partners as well as themselves
as part of their Big Pout) and even if it means causing pain and grief to
one's parents. By the same token, parents and friends have the right to
pursue what they consider their obligations and continue to intervene in
another adult's life, providing they don't physically interfer (e.g.,
kidnap, force the person into "recanting").
Bernie
Cisar <joec...@innernet.net> wrote in article
<33D76B...@innernet.net>:
>I support a type of mind-control theory. But here in the 90's nothing
>can beat education about cults.
Education, yes. I agree. But even now in the 90's, abuses of
civil rights in the name of fight against the cult are still
being perpetrated and supported. I think about the German issue,
for example. The Wilson case I presented was also well into the
90's. Despite of this, the fallacious anti-cult rhetoric had its
way in blaming the victim rather than give a red flag to any
would-be deprogrammers.
>De-programming is a 60's style tactic
Not quite. The first deprogrammings occurred in 1971 and went on
well into the 80's, up to the 90's. It isn't that far, and the
rhetoric behind these practices hasn't changed a bit. There
isn't any feedback consideration or questions on how these
abuses came to be, nor any change in the theoretical background
to prevent these from occurring again.
Those who overlook the possible consequences of such a rhetoric,
and who do not question the said rhetoric on the basis of what
it proved capable of, underestimate the potential drift a
society based on false assumptions can get into, nor are they
aware of the mechanisms (at work in cults and mistakenly labeled
mind-control) through which one may be brought into actions that
he would never think able to make in the first place.
The point it that you don't immediately advocate violence and
obvious abuses of civil rights. These come "naturally" as a
result of a gradual drift in the "acceptance" level of the
target population. Bring them to accept exceptions to
inalienable rights, or bring them to make a faith leap on the
basis of an apparently logical yet illogical argument, and you
are well on your way. One acceptation leads to another until you
end up behaving like the worst criminal on earth while still
being persuaded to provide the greatest service to Humanity.
That's why any true civil libertarian worth his soul would be
able to see through the outcome of these exceptions and
steadfastly refuse to endorse them. A true civil libertarian
would say *no* to the present civil rights abuses perpetrated in
Germany against individual Scientologists, even if these abuses
seem insignificant, and he would certainly not clap his hands
and launch in lengthy arguments trying to justify these, like
many in this newsgroup do.
>from before the time that people knew the power of the media, such as TV
>and the internet.
I would agree for the internet, but the power of the media and
TV was already well established back then.
The advent of the internet certainly is a most interesting and
powerful factor in the cultural and inter-cultural landscape. I
think that, even though it initially may work as an incentive to
intolerance and a mean to promote extreme views, in the long
term, it is a positive factor in that extreme opinions get
offset by thoughtful and substantiated posts, and the truth will
out through the overall picture.
Bernie
Tilman Hausherr
In <33d9fef6...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
>individuals involved. He diagnosed one cult member as a paranoid
>schizophrenic and had him involuntarily hospitalized in a mental
>institution without ever meeting the guy. Clark's explanation for his
>actions? He claimed that membership in a cult was *proof* that an
>individual was mentally ill. There was no need to examine that
>patient -- mere membership in a cult was enough to deny an individual
>his freedom.
Dr. Clark points out that the Board investigated the complaint and took
no further action.
[Religion Inc, p. 117]
Diane Richardson
Dr. Clark didn't lose his license to practice medicine, if that's what
you mean. However, in its findings on the complaint, the
Massachusetts Board of Registration and Discipline made the following
statement:
There is no recognized diagnostic category of mental illness
of thought reform and mind control. . . . Moreover the basis
on which this diagnosis was made seems inadequate, as mere
membership[ in a religious organization can never, standing
alone, be sufficient basis for a diagnosis of mental illness.
There seems no factual basis either for the conclusion that
Mr. Shapiro was mentall ill, or that he was a danger to
himself. Again, this invites the concern that the judgments
were entirely based on the subject's religion.
I doubt if Lamont bothered putting this in his book.
How would you feel if someone you never met could decide you were
mentally ill and have you involuntarily committed to a mental
institution without even meeting you or speaking with you? How would
you feel if the decision you were mentally ill was based solely on
your beliefs or membership in a nonconventional organization? Doesn't
this sound strikingly like Soviet use of mental hospitals to punish
dissidents? It sounds that way to me.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:35:42 -0700, Monica Pignotti
<Pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>> >What often happens is the person being held
>> >forcibly pretends to go along with it and then goes back to the group.
>>
>> Yeah, but he wouldn't really be able to do that in the
>> conditions proposed by your anti-cult friends to the legislative
>> bodies of Kansas and New York.
>
>You're talking about events that occurred in the 70s. It's a dead issue
>now. It's not going to happen.
I should point out that involuntary conservatorship laws are a dead
issue *in spite of* Monica Pignotti's anticult friends, not *because*
of them. It was only because of the widespread outcry against the
passage of such laws by civil rights (ACLU) and religious liberty
groups (NCC) that these laws were not passed.
Both Margaret Singer and John G. Clark testified many times in court
to have individuals' civil rights violated by placing them in
involuntary conservatorships. Dr. Clark was actually disciplined by
the Massachusetts medical licensing board for diagnosing cult members
as mentally ill without ever SEEING, let alone examining, the
individuals involved. He diagnosed one cult member as a paranoid
schizophrenic and had him involuntarily hospitalized in a mental
institution without ever meeting the guy. Clark's explanation for his
actions? He claimed that membership in a cult was *proof* that an
individual was mentally ill. There was no need to examine that
patient -- mere membership in a cult was enough to deny an individual
his freedom.
John G. Clark and his ilk at the AFF were at the forefront of the
efforts to have involuntary conservatorship laws passed in state
legislatures. They only changed their "moral and ethical stance"
after they realized the tide of public opinion was against them. To
turn around and try to present these people as some sort of advocates
for civil liberties is historical revisionism of the worst sort.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 00:03:05 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>How would you feel if someone you never met could decide you were
>>mentally ill and have you involuntarily committed to a mental
>>institution without even meeting you or speaking with you?
>
> Been there, done that. (RPF's RPF)
RPF's RPF is not a mental institution, Dennis.
>>How would
>>you feel if the decision you were mentally ill was based solely on
>>your beliefs or membership in a nonconventional organization? Doesn't
>>this sound strikingly like Soviet use of mental hospitals to punish
>>dissidents? It sounds that way to me.
>
> Me too! (if that's really what happened)
Hardly. You're a legend in your own mind, Dennis.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Bernie
>Bernie wrote:
>> Do you think that the jury in the case of Kathleen Wilson took
>> the correct decision?
>I missed your original post because I hadn't looked at the newsgroup in
>several days. What was the decision?
Here is the post, Monica.
---------------------------- start of repost -------------------
Path: news2.Belgium.EU.net!news0.Belgium.EU.net!news
From: be...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult,alt.religion.unification,alt.meditation.transcendental
Subject: Case study: Kathleen Wilson
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:27:06 GMT
Organization: None!
Lines: 221
Message-ID: <344824e7....@news.ping.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: idialup067.brussels2.eunet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390
Xref: news2.Belgium.EU.net alt.religion.scientology:338124
alt.support.ex-cult:18403 alt.religion.unification:15987
alt.meditation.transcendental:26756
As you know, I have been rambling on alt.religion.scientology
about the anti-cult fallacious theory of mind-control, and how
its natural consequence is the justification of coercive
restrain, the reaping apart of families, overreaction from
authorities, etc.
I have been told by anti-cult proponents that the cases I
presented are old, that although kidnapping happened in the past
"we don't do it anymore", and is not true that the mind-control
theory means that the person is not responsible for his/her
action and therefore does not mean that he/she has to be saved
against his/her will.
So lets have a look at a case that was judged in 1995 and
happened end of 1992. What follows is my analysis of the case of
Kathleen Wilson. The source of it is to be found at
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/media95.html
Kathleen Wilson, originally from Boosbeck, Clevelant, UK, was
her involvement with the COS. It is rather obvious that her
mother was also fed with the anti-cult "information",
information that demonizes all cults and present their members
as brainwashed zombies. She believed that Kathleen "will be
brainwashed and live as a slave for the rest of her life." She
even wrote her daughter out of her will when she became involved
with the Church of Scientology. A clause in the will said that
Kathleen must have given up the sect within five years or the
money goes elsewhere (she will now leave her money to animal
charities).
Her mother claims that when she phoned Kathleen they just put
the receiver down on her. This is atypical, and is probably just
the demonized version of the fact that Kathleen tried to
politely say to her mother that she shouldn't try to
frenetically convince her that she isn't there of her own free
choice and to tell her that she should leave.
We can clearly see the deepening of the gap created by the
demonized information and the mistrust generated by the
mind-control theory, worsening an already bad situation and
being used as a cover up for the mother to impose her own will
to her adult child for a choice with which she didn't agree
with.
14 months after she joined, Kathleen, now 21, rang her mother to
tell that she was going off to Los Angeles. Her mother
interpreted this move in an extremely unlikely scenario, most
certainly through the distorted pictures gotten from the
demonizing mind-control theory. She rang to Kathleen's friends
(Lorna and Stephen) to say she was worried. "Kathleen had rung
her," writes The Observer of 19 March 1995, "to say she was
going to America but did not really want to. They were forcing
her." When Kathleen rang her friends to meet and say goodbye,
they in turn interpreted this through the filter her mother had
just provided them, and through the previous anti-cult type of
information they must have received as well.
Follows a paranoiac description of the meeting that took place
Bernie
>Bernie wrote:
>> You already said so, and it does reflect positively on you. The
>> circumstances in which you make this statement, however, may be
>> very different than the ones you may be faced with. You also
>> promote the theory saying that the member is not in the group
>> out of his own free will. This can be fairly easily extended, in
>> the right circumstances, into approval of forcible treatments in
>> a State approved context.
>Not if I have my own personal set of moral values that forbids the use
>of physical force against a person. This is based on my values, not
>anything the state might say. There are plenty of things that are legal
>but are unethical, and I would consider this one of them in the very
>unlikely event such a law was to be passed.
Fine. At this point, any discussion about what you *would* do
can only be speculation. I can only say that your statement is
made in the present circumstances, in which the problem doesn't
present itself, yet. That's the reason why I raised a few cult
related current civil rights issues. I cannot say that you
scored on them well so far (see below), which doesn't lead me to
speculate positively on the matter above.
>The difference here is that Scientologists put the ethics and values of
>Scientology over their own personal code of ethics if there is a
>conflict.
I don't know about that.
>The ones who are unable to do this are the ones who end up
>leaving when such a conflict arises.
So you weren't speaking about all Scientologist when you said
"Scientologists".
I wonder when you yourself will end up leaving the mind-control
cult because you are unable to conciliate what you claim your
personal values are and the abuses that are the natural outcome
of the mind-control theory. Till now, you did a remarkable job
to rationalize this incongruity.
>The ones that don't end up being
>the ones who comply and create cases like Lisa McPherson.
Well done. You complied with the current mandatory ARSCC rule.
You mentioned Lisa McPherson.
>> Lets see, for example, how you score on current issues, not
>> hypothetical ones.
>> Do you think that the Bavarian State is right in requesting
>> prospective applicants to civil service jobs to disclose whether
>> they are Scientologists or not, and whether they use LRH tech or
>> not?
>This is a totally different issue from sanctioning the kidnapping of
>someone.
It relates to sanctioning the forcible treatment in a state
approved context. It relates to the rights of the state to
intervene in question of personal beliefs. It has to do with the
general cult related civil rights issue.
>I do not believe that taxpayers should be forced to fund the
>application of Scientology tech and so if a civil servant were using
>such tech on their job, that shouldn't be allowed and they are right to
>be concerned about this possibility given Scientology's goals of
>clearing the planet.
The problem isn't whether they would allow someone to use LRH
tech on his job. The problem is that they require civil service
job applicants to disclose whether they are Scientologists or
whether they are using LRH tech. Their answer may have a bearing
on the decision to hire them or not. It's a case of
discrimination based on personal belief and of interference of
the state in personal beliefs. Do you think the state has such a
right? Do you think that what the Bavarian state is doing is
correct?
>What they are doing in their person lives is their
>business and the state has no place to regulate that, however.
The state is interfering in what the individual personally
believes by requiring them to disclose their personal conviction
upon applying for a civil service job. Do you think they have a
right to do so?
>> Do you think that the jury in the case of Kathleen Wilson took
>> the correct decision?
>I missed your original post because I hadn't looked at the newsgroup in
>several days. What was the decision?
OK. I repost it here under as a separate post.
>> "[In forcible deprogramming], the person and the cult is
>> ridiculed by deprogrammers. He is told that he is a victim,
>> duped and brainwashed into the cult. All positive cult
>> experience are denied. The person is broken down until he
>> 'snaps'. This kind of depersonalization under stress causes a
>> great deal of trauma and psychological problems for the person
>> later. Just because this approach works in helping some people
>> get free of cult influence doesn't mean that it is the best
>> way".
>> As you can see, he doesn't object to the coercion itself, more
>> to the method that is being used.
>Sure he does. He is saying that the coercion and being held prisoner
>itself creates this kind of depersonalization, stress and trauma. It's
>all part of the method being used.
I don't see in his statement where he says that it's the
incarceration itself that is creating the depersonalization,
stress and trauma. It's the deprogrammers and their method.
Of course, the incarceration makes abusive behavior possible,
but his statement doesn't say anything about a case where
non-abusive methods would be used in the framework of a similar
incarceration.
From other statements Hassan made, I do believe that he actually
oppose physical coercion in the present context, though. I just
don't know whether he would in a context of a state sanctioned
coercion. Again that's pure speculation. I have my doubts. It
certainly doesn't transpose from the above statement when you
give to it more than a superficial look.
>> I have argued in the past that the use of the term
>> "deprogramming" in anti-cult circles is ambiguous. It can
>> sometimes mean forcible deprogramming and sometimes voluntary
>> deprogramming. This is because coercion or no coercion isn't
>> very important for anti-cultists convinced that cult-members are
>> being brainwashed against their will.
>That's a big generalization.
I found the source of the annex I extracted the quote from. It
was sent to me, attached to Hassan's paper, by the CFF in 1984.
It's the result of a meeting held on the 18th of December 1980
between Gary Scharff, Galen Kelly, Liz (?), Vanessa (?), and
Ulrich (?). It is called "Guidelines for Deprogramming".
Is the quote I extracted from this paper a "big generalization"?
The document is an official CFF paper, resulting from an
official CFF meeting, officially sent to all official CFF
members (that I was back then).
Deprogramming is extensively referred to in the paper, yet
*nowhere* does it mention if they refer to coercive
deprogramming or not, except the sentence I quoted:
"Deprogramming is a conversation; the conditions and
circumstances by which an individual enters the encounter are a
separate issue".
This has been confirmed in this very thread by William O. West,
deprogrammed by Patrick, and outspoken anti-cult member:
"Deprogramming is a conversation. Period. If a person is
abducted, restrained and deprogrammed, then he is abducted,
restrained and deprogrammed. The context is not relevant to the
result or to the method." Message-ID:
<33D845...@pacbell.net>
Besides, there is a list of "current deprogrammers" on the very
same annex, which may suggest that they would implicitly endorse
the paper. Here they are: Galen Kelly, Gary Scharff, Joe
Alexander Jr., Joe Alexander Sr., Kathy Mills, Ted Patrick,
Erica Heftman, Steve Hassan, Ken Connors, L. Streiker [probably
Lowell Streiker], Paul Engel, Mike Treman, Judy Powell, Martin
Faiers, Jim Knoblock, Dave Grossehme, Evelyn Einstein.
If my statement is a "generalization", then it's certainly not a
"big" one, and seems to be shared by an amazing number of
anti-cult representatives. It also is my personal experience,
through direct interaction with anti-cult members, that the term
deprogramming indifferently refers to forcible or voluntary
deprogramming. The coercive aspect isn't a real issue for most
of them them. The cult-member doesn't have a free will of his
own anyway.
>Here's one generalization about so-called
>"anti-cultists" that I believe is safe to make. The "anti-cultists" I
>have known disagree with one another on all sorts of issues and
>certainly do not all think alike.
Maybe they disagree on all sort of issues, but on the
mind-control one, I see an unified field. What you, Martin, bc,
William, Dennis, Gregg, Singer, Hassan, Patrick, etc, assert is
basically the same thing: the cult member is not in the group
out of his own free will. He has been hypnotized and is under
mind-control.
That's what I call the cult of mind-control. Mind-control is the
common (fallacious) belief of this cult, a belief that
originated with Ted Patrick, and that has been expanded and
refined by Singer, Hassan, and others, without any change in its
fundamental premises. This assumption was what gave Patrick the
justification to go ahead and kidnap cult member and enforce his
viewpoint on them. He and his clique have been stopped by a
society of rights, and since then we see anti-cult members
"objecting" to the use of force. What a coincidence.
How can we know it is true when they keep spewing the very same
theory that lead to these abuses? How can we know it is true
when they approve and encourage abuses of civil rights in
Germany? How can we know it is true when they advocate the
coercive use of hard drugs against jailed cult-member as part of
their anti-mind-control "treatment" (William), when they declare
they are ready to smash down doors to forcefully retrieve
cult-members (Martin), or when they openly admit to be in favor
of state-sanctioned involuntary conservatorship served on
cult-members (Dennis)?
Maybe *you* wouldn't approve of a mind-control conservatorship
law, which remains to be seen, but the theory you advance does.
The way you deal with this contradiction is your business, but
based on the theory you promote, hundreds, thousands of people
may readily agree with coercion in such a context.
When Michael Trauscht ran his conservatorship business, he
received 50 calls a day from parents wishing to use his
services. Such is the strength of a fallacious and superstitious
theory that an ignorant crowd is ready to endorse, and which you
promote, all the while saying you do not support what is a
direct consequence of such a theory.
That's the main reason CAN had to close boutique, not so much
because of the action of their representative, but because their
literature and mind-control doctrine have been found to have
encouraged the coercive restrain.
>This was very evident at the recent
>AFF conference, where there was a whole variety of points of views being
>expressed on different issues regarding cults.
What about the mind-control theory? Did anyone challenged and
debunked it? What were their points of divergence? Did it focus
on any important and central issues rather than cosmetic ones?
>>In an annex to the very
>> same paper in which Hassan speaks against forcible
>> deprogramming, this position is reflected: "Deprogramming is a
>> conversation; the conditions and circumstances by which an
>> individual enters the encounter are a separate issue". It is not
>> clear, however, from the document I have in my possession,
>> whether these are actually the words of Hassan or not (it could
>> be an unrelated annex), but it certainly reflects what I know
>> the position of anti-cult proponents were at the time, and, IMO,
>> are still shared by many.
>What paper/document are you quoting from? Is it a paper Hassan wrote or
>one from which he was quoted?
The papers are called "The Non-Coercive Approach", "Setting up a
Non-Coercive Intervention", and "The Non-Coercive Intervention".
No date, but I received them through CFF on the 1st of March
1984.
>> Hassan, however, certainly wrote the following in presenting the
>> advantage of his new approach:
>> "Cults are expending great effort to train their members how to
>> react during a deprogramming, which has caused a drop in the
>> success rate nationwide. They have made it clear that they will
>> vigorously prosecute parents and professionals who try to
>> forcibly extricate a cult member. It is clear that the
>> approaches we have used in the past will not suffice in the
>> years to come. The risks and burdens (legal, financial, and
>> psychological) of coercive intervention are too great to bear -
>> for the family and for the national organization. Yet, what are
>> the alternatives? CONSERVATORSHIPS GRANTED NATIONALLY ARE AT
>> LEAST 5-10 YEARS FROM HAPPENING, IF EVER (emphasis mine)."
>I don't see this as a sanction of conservatorships at all. When was the
>paper written? If this is from the paper I think it's from, it was
>written in the early 80s and he was addressing a group of people who
>believed in passing laws about conservatorships.
I would think that it's this paper.
>He was arguing that
>they are most likely not going to happen in the near future, whether
>they like the idea or not. This doesn't mean that he approves of it.
Mmm. I think it could be argued that it doesn't mean he approves
it, indeed.
>> This is written in his own words, in the very same paper in
>> which he speaks against forcible deprogramming and promotes his
>> new method. It shows again that the coercive aspect of the
>> intervention is not so much the issue, but rather the fact that
>> the risks (legal, etc) are too great for the family and the
>> organization (what about the cult member himself???).
>He has also said repeatedly that the stress and trauma of a forcible is
>not good for the cult member. The coercive aspect is very much the
>issue.
That may be. I have no reason to believe it isn't true.
>>On the
>> contrary, Hassan clearly approves of a legal "conservatorship
>> granted nationally", something that he hopes would be some day
>> possible.
>Where does he state that he "hopes" for this?
That's what I read from his statement.
>I don't see that at all
>in what you quoted above. He's saying it's not going to happen in the
>near future, if at all. That's a far cry from saying he hopes it will
>happen.
You are probably right in that. It can't be inferred from this
statement.
>> >I would fight such a law from getting
>> >passed in the first place and in the very unlikely event that it did get
>> >passed I would still refuse to do forcibles. It's a moral/ethical
>> >issue, not a political one.
>> If this is a moral/ethical issue, do you agree with Paulette
>> Cooper trying to induce Nan McLean to perjure herself in order
>> to protect Ted Patrick?
>> See? When it comes to real terms dimension, things are not as
>> simple as you may like them to be. What is your position on this
>> actual example?
>I have already stated my views on this topic. I would never work with
>Ted Patrick or anyone who has ever done forcibles so that's not
>something that would ever be an issue for me.
Er... that wasn't the question, you know.
>As for Nan & Paulette,
>they are two very courageous women that I very much respect regardless
>of any difference of opinion on any particular issue I might have with
>either of them.
OK, but the question wasn't whether they are courageous or not.
>Nan obviously feels the same way, since she & Paulette
>have long since resolved their conflict and are good friends.
That may be, but I still don't know from what you write here
whether you agree with Paulette's action in this case, and
whether you think that Nan should have perjured herself to
protect Patrick.
>> >If the statistics from people
>> >who do them are accurate, their success rate is lower than voluntary,
>> >non-forcible interventions.
>> Interesting that you should use the present indicative form. I
>> thought forcible intervention "didn't occur anymore". Which
>> statistics are that, Monica? Can you post them?
>I never said that they didn't occur anymore. I said that they are much
>more rare and non-forcibles are being done more.
How interesting. I should remember to quote you next time the
less informed anti-cult apologists claim forcible deprogramming
is a thing from the past.
>I have stated in my
>response to David Bird where I got the numbers from.
With respect, I don't read every posts from you, you know, and
whenever I encounter a Bird's post on a wire I watch, I usually
only scan it through very quickly , just to check if by any
chance he is starting to make sense. A post-id would be a help,
if you don't want to reproduce here what you said.
>They are from
>statements by Patrick himself and statements from the exit counsellors
>themselves.
You used the present indicative form. I suppose that these
statistics are recent. As far as I can remember, Patrick,
Alexander, et all, always claimed to have deprogrammed a great
amount of cult-members and to have an impressively high success
rate. In addition, what are the criteria used to determine that
the intervention was successful?
Here is an excerpt of an article I posted not long time ago,
entitled "The War on the Cults", by Wayne Sage. Note that the
article dates October 76, that Patrick started his
deprogrammings in 71, and that Alexander started much later.
'Like Patrick, Alexander claims a high success rate -
600 deprogrammings with only six returning to the cult.
The failures he attributes to lax security.
Deprogrammers rule out failures by definition.
Alexander explains that a deprogramming is successful
"once they have admitted they have been deceived by
their leaders and the group," which, with sufficient
coercion, can invariably be accomplished.'
Message-ID: <33c03691...@news.Belgium.EU.net>
>> Yeah, but he wouldn't really be able to do that in the
>> conditions proposed by your anti-cult friends to the legislative
>> bodies of Kansas and New York.
>You're talking about events that occurred in the 70s.
No, well into the 80s.
>It's a dead issue now. It's not going to happen.
Maybe not, but it proves that it did happen. I am not auguring
whether it's going to happen or not. When I see people clapping
their hands at the German abuses rather than objecting to them,
I think anything can happen. When I see people still supporting
the mind-control theory despite the fact that it has been
debunked at the legal and academic level, and when I read some
of the statement made right here in this newsgroup, I don't see
any reasons why anti-cultist would oppose it, or that they won't
support and promote it with the same enthusiasm they do for the
current German abuses. On the contrary, I see many indication of
the reverse. Check this post from Roland, for example:
------------------------- Start quote ------------------------
In fact, logically, if anyone has ever signed up for Scientology
or Dianetic services then they have recognised in themselves
their mental inadequacies and failings. As such they have
effectively agreed that they should be committed to a lunatic
asylum.
What needs to be done is that all the Dianetics centres and Co$s
be closed down and the scienos given mandatory help. There is
counselling, deprogramming, anti-depressant drugs and ECT, all
of which should improve their mental states. If none of that
works then we are left with people who are too feeble minded to
ever enjoy life properly or be of value to society. As for
Germany, Germans are clever people and I am sure they will come
up with some sort of permanent cure for this.
<000056ef...@msn.com>
--------------------------- end quote --------------------------
This is straight out the keyboard of one of your ARS and
anti-cult buddy, Monica.
>> You have argued at length that the cults use hypnosis and that
>> the member isn't in it of his own free will. How will he then
>> decide to leave of his own free will? Is free will defined by
>> the decision to leave the group, and absence of free will
>> defined by the decision to stay in the group?
>Not necessarily. Each person would have to be looked at on an
>individual basis.
Based on what? Who will determine if they are under mind-control
or not? On what basis?
You may not realize it, but this is the very same rhetoric used
in the proposed laws of the 80s, something you claim won't
happen again: each person would have to be looked at on an
individual basis to determine whether they are under
mind-control or not, and, according to the finding of the
"experts", will be served with a state-sanctionned involuntary
conservatorship or not.
Here you are, claiming, that state-sanctionned involuntary
conservatorship law for reason of mind-control won't happen
again, and here you are spouting the very same lines of
justification that are contained in such laws!
>I have said this before, that there are some people
>who are in Scientology of their own free will
Now I am confused. Which ones are on their own free will and
which aren't? How do you decide they are in the group of their
own free will or not? How will you ever get those who have been
supposedly deprived of their free will to agree to speak with
you in the first place? Is exit-counseling only for those who
are in on their own free will? In this case, it isn't a very
effective tool to counter mind-control, is it?
>and if such a person were
>to spend 3-5 days with exit counsellors listening to videotapes and
>looking at documents and then still wants to go back, that is their
>choice.
Of course, that is the basic premises of a non-coercive
approach, if it means anything.
>In a small percentage of cases this can happen. If the person
>refuses to even look at the information and instead robotically spouts
>Scientology doctrine, which is often the case in failed interventions,
>then that is an indication that they are under mind control.
So, mind-control is now defined by a refusal to look at
information and spouting Scientology doctrine? Is that the two
mandatory conditions, or is one of them enough? Does it mean
that RonAmigo and other Scientologists who read this newsgroup
aren't under mind-control after all? What about those who
refused to read documents posted by Diane about Paulette Cooper
and kept spouting ad hominem and outrageous attacks against her?
Were they under mind-control as well?
Your new criteria don't wash, Monica.
Your statement that some members are in the group out of their
own free will and some not is contradictory with the theory you
support. It is an highly convenient way to explain and
rationalize the contradictions and cognitive dissonance between
your theory and its natural outcome. Your position opposing the
use of force is in contradiction with this theory as well.
Something is wrong, Monica, it's either your position or the
theory you support. They are not compatible with each other.
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <33DA0E...@worldnet.att.net>,
Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>
>> How do you count the figures? What might well happen is that
>> with some people you succeed, and with others they (a) leave if they
>> can or (b) run away afterwards if they can't. Plus to some extent
>> forcible detention will piss them off and make them hostile anyway.
>
>which I admit, might not be totally accurate since there is no way to
>verify. I read that Ted Patrick himself reported only a two-thirds
>success rate, while most good non-forcible exit counsellors report a 90%
>success rate. And yes, that's exactly what happens.
Precisely. The figure reported might as well be "90% of people who
willingly stay to the end of the counselling will be successfully
recovered from the cult." Then there are another 23% who insist they
wish to leave; they are failures whether you let them leave or not.
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[posted/mailed]
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><33DA19...@worldnet.att.net>:
>>I do not believe that taxpayers should be forced to fund the
>>application of Scientology tech and so if a civil servant were
using
>>such tech on their job, that shouldn't be allowed and they are
right to
>>be concerned about this possibility given Scientology's goals of
>>clearing the planet.
>The problem isn't whether they would allow someone to use LRH
>tech on his job. The problem is that they require civil service
>job applicants to disclose whether they are Scientologists or
>whether they are using LRH tech. Their answer may have a bearing
>on the decision to hire them or not. It's a case of
>discrimination based on personal belief and of interference of
>the state in personal beliefs. Do you think the state has such a
>right? Do you think that what the Bavarian state is doing is
>correct?
Here's the dilemma as I see it: to the German Govt.
Scientologist=someone who wants to take over the Government and
replace it with a Scientology institution, by any means necessary.
Germany bases their opinions of all Scientologists on the
totalitarian overtones present in some of Scientology's teachings and
on the criminal convictions of some high-level Scientologists in
other countries.
The problem with this is that I think it's a horrendously overbroad
generalisation. I think a significant proportion of Scientologists
don't hold this revolutionary view. It takes a certain amount of
study of Scientology scripture before someone can "cog" that
"clearing the planet" is so important that it's perfectly "ethical"
to use any means necessary to further this goal. I don't know how
many Scientologists even realise that such a view is held and
encouraged by the top brass of the Co$. They don't go looking for it
the way critics do.
It _might_ be okay if the focus of this disclosure was solely the
branch of OSA responsible for infiltration and other fun and illegal
activities. Including everyone who's so much as used LRH technology
is going way overboard IMHO. It assumes anyone who's so much as come
into contact with Dianetics wants to subvert the Government.
>Besides, there is a list of "current deprogrammers" on the very
>same annex, which may suggest that they would implicitly endorse
>the paper. Here they are: Galen Kelly, Gary Scharff,
Eh? Could you please check the spelling on that last one?
>Joe
>Alexander Jr., Joe Alexander Sr., Kathy Mills, Ted Patrick,
>Erica Heftman, Steve Hassan, Ken Connors, L. Streiker [probably
>Lowell Streiker], Paul Engel, Mike Treman, Judy Powell, Martin
>Faiers, Jim Knoblock, Dave Grossehme, Evelyn Einstein.
>>Here's one generalization about so-called
>>"anti-cultists" that I believe is safe to make. The
"anti-cultists" I
>>have known disagree with one another on all sorts of issues and
>>certainly do not all think alike.
>Maybe they disagree on all sort of issues, but on the
>mind-control one, I see an unified field. What you, Martin, bc,
>William, Dennis, Gregg, Singer, Hassan, Patrick, etc, assert is
>basically the same thing: the cult member is not in the group
>out of his own free will. He has been hypnotized and is under
>mind-control.
Careful. There's plenty of room for variation of what someone can
believe about "mind control". Even if it is "fallacious"(are you sure
that's the right word? It has a different meaning to the words
"false" and "inaccurate"), not all theories are the same. I think Ted
Patrick asserted that cult brainwashing was irresistable. Hassan
doesn't. bc bases his opinion on his own subjective experience with
the TRs. William Barwell considers Milgram's experiment on obedience
to authority the basis of mind control. Monica and Dennis had a
fairly large disagreement on the issue of personal responsibility in
joining a cult.
Precision in criticism is very important.
>Maybe *you* wouldn't approve of a mind-control conservatorship
>law, which remains to be seen, but the theory you advance does.
>The way you deal with this contradiction is your business, but
>based on the theory you promote, hundreds, thousands of people
>may readily agree with coercion in such a context.
Oh, I can rationalise that in seconds. Clearly the methods used to
pry someone away from a mindcontrolling cult should be the least
restrictive available as we don't want to use the same methods of our
enemies. Conservatorshps further restrict the rights of an individual
when our goal should be to _return_ the right to free thought that
was stolen by the cult. Exit counselling and education on which
groups practise thought reform techniques will be able to achieve
those goals.
Does that sound like plausible reasoning to you?
>When Michael Trauscht ran his conservatorship business, he
>received 50 calls a day from parents wishing to use his
>services. Such is the strength of a fallacious and superstitious
>theory that an ignorant crowd is ready to endorse, and which you
>promote, all the while saying you do not support what is a
>direct consequence of such a theory.
You're wandering into dangerous ground here. I dislike the idea that
a theory should be condemned because of the more extreme conclusions
that can be drawn from it. That's what prompted Germany to get tough
on individual Scientologists. I find your (grudging?) acceptance that
Steve Hassan didn't clearly approve of legal conservatorships
interesting. Do I detect an initial, automatic assumption of guilt?
Zed
Xenu Remailer for a.r.s.:
http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBM9zgWisxIzhyTOOxAQFhFwf/WlFezGFJJ69PmaAlW3Hmuk712bE0jkSO
OtrCGb2l2sXC7vmTir0TrMeDg4/aeHfYNHWPq3k/6TMkNlft4uVMd9YTknhcoU5g
9uT4ABlSAPj9ZCF6QbJinQ+kSP4SuI5s7jQ0zNKI8naL8CR4ksHTHOTUhkaOgJto
0w2f/v1UZZ8DdHqalLnMU8hL48Rg1BrJSy51oeCz92WvbdWpigvO11IW8PMOeXQv
m1b7KwJDRUdi+u1HeuTugcW066gIlp0MjXyB1BtCvSl71WnK+QgPfgubjXrTZUCP
AEUYyQEoD3DQrL88zKSeCi9G5npVWOoIMGyhCXBFQt/9ZSkRi0YuYA==
=66m6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter McDermott
In article <5rhhg2$8ep$2...@snews2.magna.com.au>,
z...@magna.com.au (Zed) wrote:
>>The problem isn't whether they would allow someone to use LRH
>>tech on his job. The problem is that they require civil service
>>job applicants to disclose whether they are Scientologists or
>>whether they are using LRH tech. Their answer may have a bearing
>>on the decision to hire them or not. It's a case of
>>discrimination based on personal belief and of interference of
>>the state in personal beliefs. Do you think the state has such a
>>right? Do you think that what the Bavarian state is doing is
>>correct?
>
>Here's the dilemma as I see it: to the German Govt.
>Scientologist=someone who wants to take over the Government and
>replace it with a Scientology institution, by any means necessary.
>Germany bases their opinions of all Scientologists on the
>totalitarian overtones present in some of Scientology's teachings and
>on the criminal convictions of some high-level Scientologists in
>other countries.
I'm not at all sure that this is unreasonable. After all, it's
not *that* long ago that applications for visitors visas to
the USA asked whether the applicant was or ever had been a
member of the Communist Party. The assumption was the same -
that Communists were planning on undermining the US govt in
some way.
>The problem with this is that I think it's a horrendously overbroad
>generalisation. I think a significant proportion of Scientologists
>don't hold this revolutionary view.
Perhaps not, but in an organization as rigidly totalitarian as
Scientology, they would have to be aware that the cult is more
than capable of insisting that it's members do whatever is asked
of them in the name of 'clearing the planet', and if that means
putting the interests of their "religion" before their employer,
particularly when their employer is the state - well, there have
been more than enough of them quite happy to do it in the past.
More than enough to justify concern over the issue.
>It _might_ be okay if the focus of this disclosure was solely the
>branch of OSA responsible for infiltration and other fun and illegal
>activities. Including everyone who's so much as used LRH technology
>is going way overboard IMHO. It assumes anyone who's so much as come
>into contact with Dianetics wants to subvert the Government.
I disagree. I think there's more than enough reason to assume
that OSA can put pressure on any actively practicing scientologist
to get information - and has a sufficiently coercive lever to
induce many, perhaps most, to produce the sort of information
that they need. So while it's unlikely that all Scientologists
will be attempting to undermine the state at any given time,
when the organization needs information, they have ways of
getting it directly, via zealous devotion - and if that doesn't
work, blackmail.
Consequently, I think its perfectly reasonable for them to be
asked if they are members. It shouldn't stop them getting jobs,
but it *should* alert employers to the potential risks that
they present and make them think twice about where they actually
locate them.
leny
In article <5rhhg2$8ep$2...@snews2.magna.com.au>, Zed <z...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>
>Here's the dilemma as I see it: to the German Govt.
>Scientologist=someone who wants to take over the Government and
>replace it with a Scientology institution, by any means necessary.
>Germany bases their opinions of all Scientologists on the
>totalitarian overtones present in some of Scientology's teachings and
>on the criminal convictions of some high-level Scientologists in
>other countries.
Funny you bring this up. The COS never went in trying to "take over"
Germany. They just wanted to go about their business of saving the
world :-)
Enter CCHR. Their business is finding and exposing psychiatric
abuses and frauds. A few years ago CCHR they investigated, reported,
lobbied and eventually stopped the "Deep Sleep" thereapy in Chelmsford
Australia (New Zealand?). OK, the psych hospital got closed down, big
investigation by the govt. and the head shrink blew his brains out.
This kind of stuff happens a lot. There was a lot of shit from the
Italian govt. a few years ago and guess what? CCHR was working on
exposing and closing dismal psych hospitals there too.
A couple years ago, according to COS, the FBI solicited CCHRs help in
getting information on National Medical Enterprises (NME) psychiatric
hospitals. The Feds raided NMEs offices and confiscated thousands of
documents as evidence of insurance fraud on psychiatric cases. Bottom
line, NME paid at least $150 Million in fines and eventually divested
itself of psychiatric profit centers.
Enough of the examples, here's the point: The COS is making enemies
with a very rich profession, PSYCHIATRY.
Where did psychiatry originate? Germany? I wonder what CCHR is doing
to investigate German psychiatry. I wonder how close they are getting
to the truth? I wonder how many people there are scared? What
skeletons are in the closet? It's funny, the more CCHR nails psych
abuses, the more they expose govt. and psych corruption, the stronger
the attacks that appear from "other areas".
I remember in 1977, the COS's Freedom Magazine came out with a big
front page story about how the U.S. Army experimented with
halucinogenic (sp?) drugs on their own personel, in the early 50's.
Shortly after that they were raided by the FBI in Los Angeles, for
stealing documents. Coincidence? Maybe. BTW, since the documents
were obtained via the Freedom of Information act AND they used their
own paper they were conviced of stealing electricity (copier). And
since it was more than two persons it was a _conspiracy_ to steal
electricity.
It's amazing how violent the reaction can be when you expose the
truth. Just look how organized all this hate is against the COS. The
church is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but come
on...organized protests, elaborate web sites, large scale distribution
of confidential material? Anti Scientology measures in German
government?
There is more at work here than just a bunch of disgruntled ex-cult
members. Remember Jim Jones and the Cool Aid 900? How about those
suicide comet space men with no balls? Ya don't hear much about them
anymore and neither of those two groups got nearly the bad mouthing
that Scientology is getting.
Scientology is stepping on some powerful toes. Toes of men who wish
to control more of the world than they already do. Men who control
the ingredients of your food, those who decide which drugs you can
receive, those who control the idiocy level of mindless TV programing,
those who control just what you are taught and not taught from grade
school to college, those who control just what is broadcast on the
evening news, those who decide which 3rd world country gets what arms
shipment, and yes, those who desire to control the world population by
controling the opinions and thinking; and use psychiatry as the means
of doing so.
Think about this, the next time you hear some bad stuff about
Scientology, "I wonder who is _really_ behind this campaign."
Later folks
Leny
Joe Harrington
leny wrote:
> In article <5rhhg2$8ep$2...@snews2.magna.com.au>, Zed <z...@magna.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >Here's the dilemma as I see it: to the German Govt.
> >Scientologist=someone who wants to take over the Government and
> >replace it with a Scientology institution, by any means necessary.
> >Germany bases their opinions of all Scientologists on the
> >totalitarian overtones present in some of Scientology's teachings and
> >on the criminal convictions of some high-level Scientologists in
> >other countries.
Welcome back Leny, you've not posted anything for quite awhile. You came
into Scn thru Narconon, or was it CCHR? I'm assuming this is the same
"Leny" that was active for Scn here a few years back?
> Funny you bring this up. The COS never went in trying to "take over"
> Germany. They just wanted to go about their business of saving the
> world :-)
Hubbard certainly had something special in mind as regards control of
Germany. And the OSA documents about it were seized during the German
raid in the 80's.
> Enter CCHR. Their business is finding and exposing psychiatric
> abuses and frauds. A few years ago CCHR they investigated, reported,
> lobbied and eventually stopped the "Deep Sleep" thereapy in Chelmsford
> Australia (New Zealand?). OK, the psych hospital got closed down, big
> investigation by the govt. and the head shrink blew his brains out.
Dream on again. CCHR is just a front group for bashing psychs. I should
know, I helped set up the DC chapter in the late 60's. They have no real
concern about abuses or reforms, or the plight of the mentally will.
Hubbard thought if he bashed the mental health community enough he might
be able to shake down the govt and get govt money for his "tech".
> This kind of stuff happens a lot. There was a lot of shit from the
> Italian govt. a few years ago and guess what? CCHR was working on
> exposing and closing dismal psych hospitals there too.
Do you have some other source for that claim, other than your Freedom
rag?
> A couple years ago, according to COS, the FBI solicited CCHRs help in
> getting information on National Medical Enterprises (NME) psychiatric
> hospitals. The Feds raided NMEs offices and confiscated thousands of
> documents as evidence of insurance fraud on psychiatric cases. Bottom
> line, NME paid at least $150 Million in fines and eventually divested
> itself of psychiatric profit centers.
More hype. Do you have some government documentation of this CCHR/FBI
task force victory? Since the case is over, you should not have any
difficulty documenting this claim and obtaining the files to
substantiate it. I think you are simply huffing.
> Enough of the examples, here's the point: The COS is making enemies
> with a very rich profession, PSYCHIATRY.
Scientology is making a lot of enemies with many groups and individuals,
rich and poor alike. They are really professionals in that regard.
> Where did psychiatry originate? Germany? I wonder what CCHR is doing
> to investigate German psychiatry. I wonder how close they are getting
> to the truth? I wonder how many people there are scared? What
> skeletons are in the closet? It's funny, the more CCHR nails psych
> abuses, the more they expose govt. and psych corruption, the stronger
> the attacks that appear from "other areas".
Going on Hubbard's maxim that Scientology thrives when it is under
attack, that certainly does not appear to be the case in Germany, does
it?
> I remember in 1977, the COS's Freedom Magazine came out with a big
> front page story about how the U.S. Army experimented with
> halucinogenic (sp?) drugs on their own personel, in the early 50's.
Nothing new about that and Scientology certainly did not have any
"exclusive" on that information. Hubbard did a lot of
self-experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs in the 50's. Now THAT
would be a great story for the Freedom tabloid.
> Shortly after that they were raided by the FBI in Los Angeles, for
> stealing documents. Coincidence? Maybe. BTW, since the documents
> were obtained via the Freedom of Information act AND they used their
> own paper they were conviced of stealing electricity (copier). And
> since it was more than two persons it was a _conspiracy_ to steal
> electricity.
The documents that the GO stole were investigative files on Scientology
and were NOT obtained via the FOIA. There were dozens of GO agents
involved in this criminal activity and Scn lawyers acknowledged, in the
stipulation, that at all times Hubbard was in control of the GO. He only
managed to skip being indicted because of the extreme measures Scn took
to hide him from government agents, and getting his wife to take the rap
for him.
> It's amazing how violent the reaction can be when you expose the
> truth. Just look how organized all this hate is against the COS. The
> church is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but come
> on...organized protests, elaborate web sites, large scale distribution
> of confidential material? Anti Scientology measures in German
> government?
Your naivety and ignorance comes as no great shock. You've been
indoctrinated quite effectively.
> There is more at work here than just a bunch of disgruntled ex-cult
> members. Remember Jim Jones and the Cool Aid 900? How about those
> suicide comet space men with no balls? Ya don't hear much about them
> anymore and neither of those two groups got nearly the bad mouthing
> that Scientology is getting.
OSA's final valuable products are the continued growth of organizational
paranoia and the creation of enemies to fight. Their stats are really
soaring.
> Scientology is stepping on some powerful toes. Toes of men who wish
> to control more of the world than they already do. Men who control
> the ingredients of your food, those who decide which drugs you can
> receive, those who control the idiocy level of mindless TV programing,
> those who control just what you are taught and not taught from grade
> school to college, those who control just what is broadcast on the
> evening news, those who decide which 3rd world country gets what arms
> shipment, and yes, those who desire to control the world population by
> controling the opinions and thinking; and use psychiatry as the means
> of doing so.
Yes, Leny. And pretty soon the unmarked black helicopters will be
landing at Gold, to round up at the execs and take them into custody for
ECT and psychosurgery, and reverse processing on Hubbard's secret tech.
Watch your back and be careful about strangers who offer you food or
snacks.
Give it up now. The conspiracy against Hubbard and his org is just too
big to resist.
Joe
P.Fitz
[snip of some "different" perspectives]
> There is more at work here than just a bunch of disgruntled ex-cult
> members. Remember Jim Jones and the Cool Aid 900? How about those
> suicide comet space men with no balls? Ya don't hear much about them
> anymore and neither of those two groups got nearly the bad mouthing
> that Scientology is getting.
Let's see, Jim Jones and his cult are no longer here. Applewhite and his
cult are no longer here. Jim Jones was a singular event that appealed to
poverty striken people and those from "minority" races. Applewhite
appealed to those that were willing to believe that there was this
biblical spaceship waiting to take them away. Bad mouthing? Well,
obviously you don't hang out too much on a.r.s. because I recall
recently that there were a few threads going about Jones and the
surrounding hoopla (political and otherwise). Applewhite's group is just
too damn uncomfortable for anyone to talk about. Those people were very
normal before they got involved. And that there was just a few of them
their bio's were easy to dig up and publish. Nothing spectacular there
at all. Rather difficult to bad mouth people that didn't have a mean
bone in their bodies, weren't following any organizations orders to
supress information or to silence critics. Although Jones made a good
attempt to do so...but that all ended with Jones being gone. I find your
"spin" on what you think is happening with Co$ to be amusing. Kinda
reminds me of when all the hoopla was going on about Werner...and how
Werner Erhard "accused" Co$ of "doing him in" and I recall that there is
some meantion of a "death threat" or two that was publicized. You
wouldn't know anything about that though would you? And for you
information -- if it wasn't for a psychiatrist my daughter would not be
getting the help that she needs and no damn dictionary in a Co$
classroom would help her with what is going on. Unless the Co$ has a
magic cure for dyslexia...or is it more ignore the condition like I've
been hearing for the past six months? It's all in your head...it's not
really happening...you can wish this all away...if that was so, Co$
wouldn't exist. I would have wished them and a few other groups away...
[snip]
> Think about this, the next time you hear some bad stuff about
> Scientology, "I wonder who is _really_ behind this campaign."
right. Say it enough times you might actually get someone to believe you
somewhere...great tactic although it is starting to wear a bit on the
thin side around here with me. And I can't wait for someone to tell you
to "publish" these facts of yours...since we have to do this most of the
time I expect that the same people will demand this out of you. -pam
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
> Shortly after that they were raided by the FBI in Los Angeles, for
> stealing documents. Coincidence? Maybe. BTW, since the documents
> were obtained via the Freedom of Information act AND they used their
> own paper they were conviced of stealing electricity (copier). And
> since it was more than two persons it was a _conspiracy_ to steal
> electricity.
Read the "stipulation of evidence". That way you would sound less...
shall we say, uninformed? Entering government offices after office-time
using tools plus placing microphones and using false government IDs surely
mounts to more than "stealing electricity"?
I know, i know.. that what you utter is the cult-line, and you even make
a mess out of that, too! Jon Atack was told that the GO people -
including Hubbard's third wive (scientology can help you with that!) -
were convicted for "theft of photocopy paper." The same said a dutch
scientologist one or two years ago. So if you've to spread the cult-line,
do it proper please.
Think the "stipulation" is on: http://superlink.net/user/mgarde/
If not I'll mail it to you.
Blessed are the ignorant - Mike
Gary Stevason
Rev. Dennis Erlich (inF...@super.zippo.com) wrote:
[...]
: Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
: <inF...@super.zippo.com>
: <inF...@primenet.com>
Mr. Erlich, I find your signature referring to yourself as a Reverend to
be very offensive. Are you in denial or do you need this phony title to
boost your ego .... likely why you became an Alpha-bot anyway? If you no
longer accept the Alpha-way then why cling to the silly title? Most will
assume it is a Christian designation, and be most alarmed by your antics.
Perhaps if you could develop some faith in real religion, you would not be
so susceptible to faith scams, and not treat the title 'Reverend' with such
whimsy.
Pope Gary
--
The BATMAN . . . . Gary Stevason ..... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." - God, Bhagavad-gita
Zane Thomas
leny,
Who are Scientology's enemies?
Anyone who despises corrupt totalitarian institutions, a number of
other people for various reasons, and of course competing totalitarian
institutions.
That's a lot of enemies. Bye, bye Co$.
zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
*** spammer busters ***
Roland
Of course it hasn't dawned on you yet that Scientology practises
psychiatry itself and has a worse record for extortion. And it is
crackpot psychiatry - saying you are full of little space-alien demons
that you have to pay them vast sums of money to have exorcised.
Roland
--
A The Xemu Leaflet: http://home.sn.no/~aheldall/leaflet/
/ \ OT PoWeRz !!!!: http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/
/ P \ Scientology compatible with Christianity? Oh Yea?
R --- C http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~rolandrb/nochrist.ra
"Somewhere between deciding to take the Comm Course and yelling at an
ashtray with delusions of Godhood, something happened that I would
describe as mind control" - Perry Scott
David Gerard
On 28 Jul 1997 19:09:29 -0700,
leny <le...@skat.usc.edu> wrote:
: Enter CCHR. Their business is finding and exposing psychiatric
:abuses and frauds. A few years ago CCHR they investigated, reported,
:lobbied and eventually stopped the "Deep Sleep" thereapy in Chelmsford
:Australia (New Zealand?). OK, the psych hospital got closed down, big
:investigation by the govt. and the head shrink blew his brains out.
Blew his brains out? Um, no. Do you have a source on this other than
CCHR?
AFAIK they didn't even get prosecuted in the end. But aren't practicing
psychiatrists now.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror)
http://www.prysm.net/~cuthulu/fun/ (US mirror - fast!)
Kwantem Mekanik
In article <EE28AI.4M...@torfree.net>, cait...@torfree.net (Gary
Stevason) wrote:
>Rev. Dennis Erlich (inF...@super.zippo.com) wrote:
>[...]
>: Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
>: <inF...@super.zippo.com>
>: <inF...@primenet.com>
>
>
>Mr. Erlich, I find your signature referring to yourself as a Reverend to
>be very offensive. Are you in denial or do you need this phony title to
>boost your ego .... likely why you became an Alpha-bot anyway? If you no
>longer accept the Alpha-way then why cling to the silly title? Most will
>assume it is a Christian designation, and be most alarmed by your antics.
>
>Perhaps if you could develop some faith in real religion, you would not be
>so susceptible to faith scams, and not treat the title 'Reverend' with such
>whimsy.
>
>Pope Gary
>--
If you don't like it, then why the heck are you referring to yourself as
"Pope?" Trying to get the Catholics pissed at you??
**********************************************
* The language of truth *
* is unadorned and always simple. *
* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
* http://members.aol.com/kwantem/kwantem.htm *
Mike O'Connor
Hi! Are you the person who posted this in 1991?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: lfre...@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Leny Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: journal article on scientology
Message-ID: <34...@usc.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 91 04:24:51 GMT
Sender: ne...@usc.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
This is for those of you who are sincerly interested in finding out about
Scientology. I downloaded this abstract from the National Library of
Medicine's MEDLINE database. I hope it's legal to post this since it's
copyrighted but I'm sick of reading all the ignorant misinformed flames
which comprise most of the postings so far.
BTW, I've been a scientologist for 18 years and it's been my observation
that it works for me as well as many others. Here it is.
---------cut here--------
Psychological Abstracts (PsycINFO) 1984-Present
Copyright 1990 American Psychological Association, all rights reserved.
Title: Effects of membership in Scientology on personality: An
exploratory study.
Author: Ross-Michael-W.
Address: Flinders U of South Australia, Medical School, Bedford Park,
Australia
Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1988 Dec Vol
27(4) 630-636.
Type: 10. journal article
Language: eng
Abstract No.: 8925706.
Abstract: Administered a series of personality measures, including the
Adjective Checklist, the Purpose in Life Test, and the Barron
Ego-Strength Scale, to 48 members of Scientology (aged 16-72
yrs). Semantic differentials seeking responses on the S's
situation prior to joining Scientology and demographic data
were also administered. Results of correlations (partialled
for age) between personality measures and time in the
movement suggest that there was a significant increase in
social ease and in effectiveness of goal-directed behavior.
Data also indicate that members were unlikely to have been
unhappy or unstable prior to joining. Findings suggest that
the negative aspects reported by some authors of membership
in Scientology are not apparent in this sample and that there
may be some benefits for long-term members.
Key Phrase: long term involvement in Scientology, personality, 16-72 yr
olds
Descriptors: CULTURE-AND-ETHNOLOGY-AND-RELIGION. RELIGIOUS-AFFILIATION.
PERSONALITY-CHANGE. AGED. ADOLESCENCE. ADULTHOOD.
***** End of Citation *****
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is that you? Have you been a Scientologist for twenty-four years? How far
have you gotten? How much did it cost? What is your name? Thanks! -Mike
Eric Rapp
leny wrote:
> There is more at work here than just a bunch of disgruntled ex-cult
> members. Remember Jim Jones and the Cool Aid 900? How about those
> suicide comet space men with no balls? Ya don't hear much about them
> anymore and neither of those two groups got nearly the bad mouthing
> that Scientology is getting.
Well, all the people in those cults were wacky, no doubt about it. But,
uh, in case you haven't noticed, they're all dead. Sorta hard to fight
a cult that doesn't exist anymore. Meanwhile Scientology, while ailing,
is still very much with us. And, unlike Jim Jones and Marshall
Applewhite, Scientology doesn't want its' members to commit suicide - at
least, not until they've drained all possible money and work out of
them.
> Scientology is stepping on some powerful toes. Toes of men who wish
> to control more of the world than they already do. Men who control
> the ingredients of your food, those who decide which drugs you can
> receive, those who control the idiocy level of mindless TV programing,
> those who control just what you are taught and not taught from grade
> school to college, those who control just what is broadcast on the
> evening news, those who decide which 3rd world country gets what arms
> shipment, and yes, those who desire to control the world population by
> controling the opinions and thinking; and use psychiatry as the means
> of doing so.
Oooooookay then. Yup, it's probably the Illuminati at it again, eh? Or
wait, it might be the Trilateral Commission. Wait...I had it, but then
I forgot. Damn, I forgot to wear my anti-psych aluminum foil hat! I
probably wouldn't have forgotten, though, if I hadn't been blissed out
from all the Prozac that's being dumped into the water supply by...oh
damn, I forgot AGAIN!
> Think about this, the next time you hear some bad stuff about
> Scientology, "I wonder who is _really_ behind this campaign."
Well actually, I know who is behind it. It's me. I want to control the
world, and what's more, I not only care about what every single person
thinks, eats, and watches, I actually want to control it. Now I will
use my GNarlEE Psych PowerZ to make all of you forget that you ever read
this. Tonight you will eat Campbell's Cream of Broccoli soup and watch
"Seinfeld" reruns.
eric
SP2
Mike O'Connor
[...]
> Shortly after that they were raided by the FBI in Los Angeles, for
> stealing documents. Coincidence? Maybe. BTW, since the documents
> were obtained via the Freedom of Information act AND they used their
> own paper they were conviced of stealing electricity (copier). And
> since it was more than two persons it was a _conspiracy_ to steal
> electricity.
Here are a dew excerpt from the 280-page stipulation of evidence the cult
agreed to.
THESE ARE ACTS THE THRIVING CULT OF GREED AND POWER ADMITS THEY DID.
Did the cult infiltrate government agencies? They say yes, they did. Did
the cult break in to government buildings, bug meetings and photocopy
government documents? THEFT OF DOCUMENTS? The cult says yes, they did it.
Did they conspire to obstruct justice? Obstruct an investigation? Hide a
fugitive? Did they break into government offices and make false government
ID cards? The cult says yes, that is what the cult did.
Let's start with the table of contents, showing some things the cult says
that the cult did:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. Criminal No. 78-401
MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al.
S T I P U L A T I O N O F E V I D E N C E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. The Witness Michael J. Meisner 1
II. Organizational Structure of the Guardian's Office 6
111. The Conspiracy to Intercept Oral Communications, 12
Burglarize and Steal, and the Substantive Acts
Committed Pursuant Thereto
A. The Order to infiltrate the Internal Revenue
Service in Washington, D,C. 17
B. The Bugging of the IRS Chief Counsel's
Conference Room on November 1, 1974 22
C. The First Infiltration of the IRS in the
District of Columbia Pursuant to GO 1361 32
D. Infiltration of the Tax Division of the
United States Department of Justice 57
E. The Guardian's Office Awards its GO 1361 Workers 79
F. The Theft of IRS Documents Exempted from
Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act 81
G. The Guardian Program Order Instituting An "Early
Warning System" to Detect Possible Legal Actions
Against L. Ron Hubbard and Ilary Sue Hubbard 90
H. The Los Angeles Guardian's Office Sends Help to
the District of Columbia @Quardian's Office 100
I. The Guardian's Office Orders Mr. Meisner to
Los Angeles for Debriefing and Auditing 106
J. Mr. Meisner Returns to the District of Columbia 112
K. The Entry Into the IRS identification Room and
the Making of Counterfeit Identification Cards 119
L. Guardian Program Order 302 and the Theft of
Documents Withheld by the United States Under
the FOIA 123
M. Burglaries of the Suite of Offices of the
Deputy Attorney General of the United States 127
N. Burglaries of the Office of International
Operations of the Internal Revenue Service
and Theft of Documents Therefrcm 133
O. Burglaries and Thefts or Documents Fro-.n the
Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. 139
1. Office of Paul Figley 139
2. Interpol Liaison Office at the Department
of Justice 142
Offices of Special Assistant to Assistant
Attorney General ror Administration
John F. Shaw
P. Burglaries and Thefts or Docu-.ients from Assistant
United States Attorney Nathan Dodellt-- Office,
Located in the United States Courthouse for the
District of Columbia 155
IV. The Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, to Obstruct
an Investigation, to Harbor a Fugitive and to
Make False Declarations Before the Grand Jury 176
A. The Preparation or the Cover-up Story 176
B. The Defendant Gerald Bennett Wolfe is Arrested
in Washington, D.C., by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation 190
C. The United States Case Against the Defendant
Gerald Bennett Wolfe is Referred to the Grand
Jury, and an Arrest Warran*- is Issued for
Michael Meisner 196
D. The Guardian's Office Harbors and Conceals
Fugitive From Justice Michael Me@isner 198
E. The Guardian's Office Gives the FBI and the
Grand Jury False Handwriting Exemplars 209
F. The Guardian's Office Refines its Cover-up Plans 214
G. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation in the
District of Columbia Continues 225
H. The Guardian's Office Cover-up Moves Into
its Final Phase 232
1, The Guardian's Office Restrains and Guards
Michael Meisner 238
J. Michael Meisner's First Escape from His Guards 248
K. The Defendant Wolfe's Sentencing and Subsequent
Testimony Before the Grand Jury in the District
of Columbia 252
L. The Defendant Wolfe is Debriered by the Guardian's
Office After his Grand Jury Appearance 265
M. Michael Meisner Surrenders to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation 268
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In a
clinical setting, Mr. Meisner also learned to conduct covert
investigations, surveillances "suitable guise" investiga-
tions, 3/ the recruiting and supervising of covert agents,
the placing of these agents in organizations that were to he
infiltrated, the theft of documents, and other overt and
covert intelligence gathering techniques. The defendant
Gregory Willardson, among others, supervised him in the
these areas. For a three-week period Mr. Meisner also cross-
filed memoranda and other [sic] covertly and overtly obtained
documents of interest to Scientology. He thereby became
intimately familiar with the sophisticated filing system
maintained by the Guardian's Office and its Information
Bureau.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ll/ A "Guardian Order" (later called "Guardian Program
Order") is an official order directing the implementation of
a program, outlining it's purpose, the "ideal scene" which its
implementation is to create, and the various targets which
have to be put into effect. It also designates the official
and bureau responsible for carrying out, the particular target(s).
Only L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard and Jane Kember have
authority to issue Guardian Orders. While such orders may
be drafted and proposed by other high officials, they may be
issued only by one of the above-mentioned three individuals.
These targets were as follows:
10. Immediately get an agent into DC
IRS to obtain files on LRH.
Scientology, etc. in the Chief
Council's [sic] office, the Special
Services staff, the intelligence
division, Audit Division, and any
other areas.
16. Collect data on the Justice Dept.
Tax Division for the org board, the
current terminals, and the people
handling Scicntology.
17. When the correct areas are isolated,
infiltrate and get the files.
The entry at the end of each target, and connected to it by a
straight line, refers to the bureau and official whose task it
is to achieve that particular target. Guardian Order 1361
(generally known as GO 1361) also called for the placing of
"an agent, trustworthy and well grooved in, to infiltrate
the IRS LA office" (target 2). That "agent" was "to obtain
any files on LRH, Scientology", etc. from both the Intelligence
Division (target 3) and the Audit Division (target 4) of the Los
Angeles IRS Office. It also called for the location (target 20)
and infiltration (target 22) of the IRS London Office in
order to "obtain all documents" (target 22). 12/ Guardian
Order 1361 directed that once documents had been obtained
clandestinely, the designated bureau and official would
create "suitable cover" to disguise the manner in which "the
data was obtained" so that they may be released to "PR [Public
Relations] for dead agenting," that is, for possible use in
impeaching those perceived as enemies of Scientology.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The defendant Cindy Raymond repeatedly discussed GO 1361
and its various targets with Mr. Meisner over a period of two
years. Indeed, defendants Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Richard
Weigand, Gregory Willardson, Mitchell Hermann, and Gerald
Bennett Wolfe also discussed on many occasions with Mr.
Meisner the actual implementation of GO 1361. in the District
of Columbia. These conversations occurred both in person, in
writing and by telephone. Those in person took place in
Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California, and are dis-
cussed at length infra. At all times these seven defendants
expressed their agreement with, and total understanding of,
the targets within GO 1361, a number of which involved the
infiltration of Government offices and the theft of government
documents and photocopies thereof as called for by targets
10, 16 and 17.
B. The Bugging of the IRS Cheif Counsel's
Conference Room on November 1, 1974
A few days before November 1, 1974, Don Alverzo, who held
the position or Deputy Information Branch I Director US tele-
phoned Mr. Meisner from Los Angeles, California, to inform
him that he was coming to the District of Columbia to place
an electronic bugging device in the Chief Counsel's
conference room at the Internal Revenue Service where a major
meeting concerning Scientology was to be held. On October
30, 1974, Mr. Meisner met Mr. Alverzo at the Guardian's Office
located at 2125 S Street, Northwest, in the District of
Columbia. Also present at this meeting were the defendants
Mitchell Hermann and Bruce Ullman who held the position of
Information Branch II Director in the District of Columbia.
Alverzo showed Meisner the bugging device which he had
brought with him from Los Angeles. One of the items Alverzo
had was a multiple electric outlet containing a transmitting
device. In the late afternoon of October 30 Mr. Meisner
and the defendant Mitchell Hermann entered the main IRS build-
ing located at 1111 Constitution Avenue, northwest, for the
purpose of locating the conference room of the Chief Counsel's
office where the meeting was to be held on November 1, 1974 13/
On November 1, 1974, because of other pressing business
Mr. Meisner did not accompany Mr. Alverzo during the IRS
bugging. However, on the evening of November 1, 1974
subsequent to the IRS conference, Mesiner met with the
defendant Mitchell Hermann who described to him what had
taken place. The defendant Hermann told Mr. Meisner that ha
had entered the main IRS building on the morning of November
1, 1974, gone to the conference room, where the meeting was
to be held and placed the bugging device in a wall socket
in that room. The room was located on the fourth floor of
the Internal Revenue Service main building in Washington
D.C. and faced the driveway of the Smithsonian Institution
Museum of History and Technology on Constitution Avenue
Northwest. 14/ Thereafter, Hermann left the building and
waited in a car in the driveway of the mueseum with Don Alverzo
and Carla Moxon (the Assistant Guardian Communicator (Secretary)
in the District of Columbia) and overheard and taped the
entire meeting over the FM radio of the car. Following the
conclusion of the meeting, the defendant Hermann creentered
the IRS building, removed the bugging equipment from the
conference room and took various papers, including the agenda
for the meeting, which had been left by the participants.
He showed these items to Mr. Meisner. Soon afterwards Alverzo
returned to Los Angeles. He took with him the bugging device,
and the tape recording of the meeting. 15/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In late May 1975, the defendant Gregory Willardson directed
Mr. Meisner to implement "Project Horn" which Willardson, him
self, authored. "Project Horn" appended to Government Exhibit
No. 14 28/ was issued in order to "provide a cover for PR
[Public Relations] and legal for the way they obtained IRS
docs." The project further implemented Guardian Order 1361,
Target 6, which had already provided for the creation or a
"suitable cover" to disguise the true manner in which stolen
documents had been obtained from tho IRS so that the Public
Relations Bureau could use them without fear of being connected
to the thefts.Towards this end, defendant Gregory Willardson
assigned to Mr. Meisner, as the Assistant Guardian for Informa-
tion in the District of Collumbia, the task of stealing IRS
documents concerning organizations other than Scientology.
Thus, whenever any stolen IRS documens were later released,
those other organizations would also be perceived as having
received them and their publications would, thereby, not point
to the Church of Scientology alone. Additionally, the project
ordered the thcft of IRS stationery so it might be used by
members of the Guardian's Office to draft false letters from
a fictitious IRS employee disgruntled with the organization.
The stolen documents would then be attached to the letters which
would be sent to private orgzanizations such as Scientology.
Government Exhibit No. 14 (at page 1) is a 9 April, 1975
letter from the defendant Willardson to Jane Kember and Mo
Budlong stating that he had complied with GO 1361 target 6
by devising the "Project Horn" which he appended to that
letter. 29/ In a letter dated 9 April 75 found at page six of
Government Exhibit, No. 14 the defendant Willardson writes to
the Deputy Guardian of Public Relations for the United States,
Arthur "Artie" Maren, informing him that "the majority of
documents called for in this eval [GO 1361] have been obtain-
ed." He then invited Mr. Maren to come to the Information
Bureau offices to view the documents "since the quantity of
data is so extensive." 30/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
K. The Entry into the IRS Identification
Room and the Making of Counterfeit
Identification Cards
In the early part of March 1976, the defendant Mitchell
Hermann directed Mr. Meisner to obtain IRS identification
cards for himself, which he could use to enter the IRS building,
as well as in other operations pursuant to that directive,
on or about March 15, 1976, the defendant Wolfe and Mr.
Meisner entered the IRS building at 1111 Constitution Avenue,
Northwest, using the defendant Wolfe's IRS identification
card. They proceeded to the IRS identification room which
was located on the first floor of that building, where Mr.
Wolfe had been two weeks earlier in order to obtain a legitimate
identification card for himself. Mr. Meisner and the defendant
Wolfe forced the door open by using a metal sheet device, and
then entered the darkened room using a small flashlight.
Once inside, Mr. Meisner located a booklet giving instrucions
on the use of the photographing equipment. Mr. Wolfe took
blank identification cards and typed in two fictitious names
for himnelf, an well as two fictitious names for Mr. Meisner
The defendant Wolfe typed the name "Thomas Blake" on one of
his identification card blanks and the name "John M. Foster"
on one of Mr. Meisner's identification card blanks. Mr.
Meisner then placed the defendant Wolfe's false identification
card blanks into the photographing Equipment and took photo-
graphs of the defendant Wolfe. Then Wolfe placed the Meisner
cards into the photographing machine and took photographs of
Mr. Meisner. Mr. Meisner obtained the badge number which was
placed on the identification card blanhs from a book which
was maintained by the IRS identification room and which listed
all cards which were issued by them. Mr. Meisner selected
those numbers from numbers which had previously been issued
by the internal Revenue Service. On the "Foster," identifi-
cation card of Mr. Meisner, was typed the date of issue
"3-15-76", (See Government Exhibit No. 61), and on the "Blake"
identification card of the defendant Wolfe "3-17-76" was typed
as the date of issue. 8?1/ Mr. Meisner and the defendant
Wolfe then left the IRS buildinr, taking with them the false
and fraudulent IRS cards which they had made.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, the cult not only did all these things that they say they did, but
they stole electricity too? -Mike
Rob Clark
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:59:05 GMT, cait...@torfree.net (Gary Stevason)
wrote:
>Rev. Dennis Erlich (inF...@super.zippo.com) wrote:
>[...]
>: Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
>: <inF...@super.zippo.com>
>: <inF...@primenet.com>
>Mr. Erlich, I find your signature referring to yourself as a Reverend to
>be very offensive. Are you in denial or do you need this phony title to
>boost your ego .... likely why you became an Alpha-bot anyway? If you no
>longer accept the Alpha-way then why cling to the silly title? Most will
>assume it is a Christian designation, and be most alarmed by your antics.
reverend erlich is both a reverend of the church of subG, a title
presented to him by ivan stang himself.
further, he runs "inFormer ministries" which is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3)
religious ministry. beyond that, he was and is a reverend of
scientology.
the first is legally enough to call himself a reverend, the second is
morally enough to call himself a reverend, and the third is an amusing
irony.
>Perhaps if you could develop some faith in real religion, you would not be
>so susceptible to faith scams, and not treat the title 'Reverend' with such
>whimsy.
>Pope Gary
i have trouble taking this seriously from someone who signs himself
off as "pope." i certainly hope this is some kind of irony.
rob
G Moore
On 28 Jul 1997 19:09:29 -0700, le...@skat.usc.edu (leny) wrote:
>In article <5rhhg2$8ep$2...@snews2.magna.com.au>, Zed <z...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>Shortly after that they were raided by the FBI in Los Angeles, for
>stealing documents. Coincidence? Maybe. BTW, since the documents
>were obtained via the Freedom of Information act AND they used their
>own paper they were conviced of stealing electricity (copier). And
>since it was more than two persons it was a _conspiracy_ to steal
>electricity.
what? they couldn't afford their own copier? a multimillion dollar
business could not afford it's own copier? it had to take from the
government trough to make copies of information *against* the
government. i don't know about you, but if someone used my equipment,
i would be sure it wasn't used to make me look bad. sure, the populace
has a right for grievances, but NOT by public funds, and NOT when they
are already tax-free....
>It's amazing how violent the reaction can be when you expose the
>truth. Just look how organized all this hate is against the COS. The
>church is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but come
>on...organized protests, elaborate web sites, large scale distribution
>of confidential material?
lots of confidential material is distributed over the internet. see
alt.warez.ibm-pc
furthermore, if one has been a client of a business, and the business
screws them over, the client can use resources to state exactly what
happened. if it is not true, it's liabel. since these experiences
*are* true, though, the CoS has no redress, unless they refund the
money in full.
>There is more at work here than just a bunch of disgruntled ex-cult
>members. Remember Jim Jones and the Cool Aid 900? How about those
>suicide comet space men with no balls? Ya don't hear much about them
>anymore and neither of those two groups got nearly the bad mouthing
>that Scientology is getting.
that's because heavens gate is dead, and so is jones. the CoS still
has plenty money and plenty officials left to point their finger at.
>Scientology is stepping on some powerful toes. Toes of men who wish
>to control more of the world than they already do. Men who control
>the ingredients of your food, those who decide which drugs you can
oh great. a government conspiracist. do you understand it is
impossible to disprove this?
>receive, those who control the idiocy level of mindless TV programing,
>those who control just what you are taught and not taught from grade
>school to college, those who control just what is broadcast on the
>evening news, those who decide which 3rd world country gets what arms
>shipment, and yes, those who desire to control the world population by
>controling the opinions and thinking; and use psychiatry as the means
>of doing so.
jealous?
>Think about this, the next time you hear some bad stuff about
>Scientology, "I wonder who is _really_ behind this campaign."
well, it's obvious that you don't even *know* who's behind the
campaign, because you have not pointed out any names. you are just
spinning paranoia claims...
are you some type of damage control for the CoS? How much are you
getting paid for these stories? Personally, I can get better
conspiracy stories from the Enquirer and Weekly World News. and
alt.politics.libertarian thinks the government is out to get them too.
you know who's out to get me? the CoS. the people in the head
administration are all controlling the press and uhh, anything else
you can think of. and any proof to the contrary is only more proof how
good they are at disinformation....
hehehe
do you know how dumb the CoS is? it was written by an bad science
fiction writer. Scienve fiction writers don't know shit about
psychology. They can't even pass psychology. If they could, he'd have
a degree instead of inventing his own church. you know how easy it is
to pass psychology? only a true dumbfuck like the heads of CoS
couldn't make the cut. the CoS is so dumb they think that an F on a
test is a multiple choice answer....
William O. West
That's where the government got its hands on
the $cientologists' internal documentation for
Operation Snow White: the little scan where they
stole Paulette Cooper's stationary and mailed
themselves a bomb threat! Gee, those wonderful
freedom-loving Co$ volks almost got Paulette
jailed for years just for telling the truth,
didn't they?
.
Garry Scarff
Zane Thomas <za...@die.spammers.mabry.com> wrote in article
<33dd6398...@snews.zippo.com>...
> leny,
>
> Who are Scientology's enemies?
>
> Anyone who despises corrupt totalitarian institutions, a number of
> other people for various reasons, and of course competing totalitarian
> institutions.
>
> That's a lot of enemies. Bye, bye Co$.
>
>
>
>
> zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
>
> They certainly don't see you a threat shithead! You're just fodder for
when they want to kick some bad jokes around (NOW THIS IS WHERE YOU TELL ME
OFF WITH ALL KINDS OF CHILDISH CUSSING!) Bye Bye Zanie!!
>
>
Zane Thomas
Garry,
> They certainly don't see you a threat shithead! ...
>NOW THIS IS WHERE YOU TELL ME OFF WITH ALL KINDS OF CHILDISH CUSSING!
ROFLMAO!
Do the words pot, kettle, black ring a bell? You've made such an
utter fool of yourself it's a wonder you still bother posting ...
looks like besides Mother Margaret no one here gives a damn about your
pathetic rants.
Keith
From: "William O. West" <wow...@pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: I remember the FBI raid on $cientology!
<<That's where the government got its hands on
the $cientologists' internal documentation for
Operation Snow White: the little scan where they
stole Paulette Cooper's stationary and mailed
themselves a bomb threat!>>
No, that was operation Freakout. It happened many years earlier than Snow
White.
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------
! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt !
! PO Box 18357 Salem, OR 97305 503-373-4696 !
! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers !
----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hunt
In article <3476521b....@snews.zippo.com>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article
><B007E4959...@0.0.0.0>:
>>So it isn't true that these people are discriminated against.
>>The truth is that their continued involvement in the cult
>>shows that they are either conscious of these crimes and
>>therefore corrupt, or unconscious of them, and therefore
>>stupid. Either quality is enough to reasonably debar someone
>>from such employment.
>
>Do you really think that every members are willfully
>participating in the corrupt actions of the COS? Is it your
>experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What
>about ex-Scn? Do think Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt, Monica
>Pignotti, Joe Harrington, are stupid people?
Bernie, you clueless asshole, there was no "continued
involvement" on my part. I left. Why don't this morons
who have *seen* the facts leave, also? I'll put my vote
on massive stupidity or wilful ignorance. They've been
*told* what Hubbard's grades in school were, and they
still quack quack quack on about how wonderful "Study
tech" is. They've *read* BFM, some of them, and they're
*still* in the fucking cult!
I call that fucking clueless! Stupid! Moronic! If reading
Atack's book and Miller's book and all the documents on the
web about overboarding, Hubbard' rampant drug use, Lisa's
death, and a million other things doesn't crack their
mind, there's nothing there to crack.
My plea was never related to intelligence; it was related
to ignorance. They fucking lied to me about every little
thing, and it was stupid of me not to see though their
lies as easily as I see through yours and Diane's and the
other assholes here who can't see the forest for the trees,
but it is *infinitely* more stupid of these cultists to
stay in the fucking cult after *learning* the truth, *seeing*
it everywhere, and *still* not getting a fucking clue.
Please quit misusing my name in this manner to oppose
Peter; I've had it out with him long before you were here,
and settled it in a lengthy and intelligent and honest debate...
something which does not happen on this newsgroup any more
with stupid little fucks like you crawling about all over
it. Why don't you get your shit together, Bernie? You're fucked
in the head by Scientology right now, today, this instant.
Why don't you kick that shit out of your head? Aren't you
able to or what? Scientology is bullshit, Bernie; pure
fucking bullshit. It's hollow, empty, soulless crap. People
who cling to it become hollow, shallow, empty and meaningless,
so chuck it the fuck out of your brain, or be fucked.
Incredibly sincerely,
martin.
***
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote in article
<343332b7....@snews.zippo.com>:
>I can understand why Diane would be upset at Rob. His behavior
>in the Cooper thread was nothing but disgusting, and as far as I
>am concerned, his credibility since then, in my eyes, has been
>down to zero. Even if he did apologize (seems so to me), it's
>Diane's right not to accept it out of hand and I don't see why
>she should necessarily embrace him just because he may be
>getting to his sense. I think that he still needs to demonstrate
>that this is anything else than a temporary realization and a
>just few words.
And now that my supper zip caught the original post, I can see
clearly that the wrath of Diane wasn't due to the Cooper thread
only, but by a direct provocation from Rob who failed in his
first opportunity to apply his newfound realization. He probably
isn't still out of his floating phase.
Jeesh. What a different picture one gets when he can access the
original information rather than having to get it digested by
Margaret, Martin, Erlich and the likes and having to guess it
through what they vomit.
Bernie
--
Dianedroids. Tashbackolyte. Invisible party line buster.
Anti-anti-cultist. Skripted scienobot. Cult rah-rah.
Following-up to yourself, you little puke? *Bad* sign. Bernie,
take your vomit and your abuse of my name and shove it *deep*
up your asshole, where it belongs, you sick little fuckwit.
Digest this: <one-finger salute> And, please, don't forget to
FOAD, asswipe.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc"
in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
Bernie
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote in article
<TKv4zMdl...@islandnet.com>:
>In article <3476521b....@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article <B007E4959...@0.0.0.0>:
>>>So it isn't true that these people are discriminated against.
>>>The truth is that their continued involvement in the cult
>>>shows that they are either conscious of these crimes and
>>>therefore corrupt, or unconscious of them, and therefore
>>>stupid. Either quality is enough to reasonably debar someone
>>>from such employment.
>>Do you really think that every members are willfully
>>participating in the corrupt actions of the COS? Is it your
>>experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What
>>about ex-Scn? Do think Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt, Monica
>>Pignotti, Joe Harrington, are stupid people?
>Bernie, you clueless asshole, there was no "continued
>involvement" on my part.
The Bavarian measure doesn't speak about "continued
involvement", only whether one is or not a Scientologist, or
using LRH tech.
>I left. Why don't this morons
>who have *seen* the facts leave, also? I'll put my vote
>on massive stupidity or wilful ignorance. They've been
>*told* what Hubbard's grades in school were, and they
>still quack quack quack on about how wonderful "Study
>tech" is. They've *read* BFM, some of them, and they're
>*still* in the fucking cult!
They have other reasons, other interpretations and other
circumstances than yours or mine. This doesn't make them more or
less stupid.
>I call that fucking clueless! Stupid! Moronic! If reading
>Atack's book and Miller's book and all the documents on the
>web about overboarding, Hubbard' rampant drug use, Lisa's
>death, and a million other things doesn't crack their
>mind, there's nothing there to crack.
Most of these are so full of distorted information and so full
of irrational reactions, such as the one you display in this
post, that it does not have any credibility in their eyes.
>My plea was never related to intelligence; it was related
>to ignorance.
You can be ignorant while intelligent. Actually, I consider that
the highest form of intelligence is to be aware of one's
ignorance, something you are obviously far to achieve. You are
so full of your many absolute certainties that it often makes
you sound stupid, something which I don't think you are.
>They fucking lied to me about every little
>thing, and it was stupid of me not to see though their
>lies as easily as I see through yours and Diane's and the
>other assholes here
Which is a good illustration of the mistaken way you assess your
experience with the cult. Your arguments against Diane have been
amongst the most silly ones (apart those from the GluGlu Bird) I
was given to read. And as far as I go, can you quote a single
lie I made? Or is it just one of your many generalizations and
near insane rantings fit?
>who can't see the forest for the trees,
>but it is *infinitely* more stupid of these cultists to
>stay in the fucking cult after *learning* the truth, *seeing*
>it everywhere, and *still* not getting a fucking clue.
They don't see "the truth", Martin. That's cultists who believe
they have *the* truth and that everyone else who don't think
along their way are stupid, mean, or deluded. Scieno just have a
different interpretations than those outside the group. But this
doesn't mean that it's a fixed and permanent viewpoint (unlike
many of the anti-cultists).
>Please quit misusing my name in this manner to oppose
>Peter;
I suggested that, as an ex-member currently posting, you may not
be stupid. Is that "misusing" your name? Oh, I am sorry.
And you really have a gall to complain about "abuses" of your
name, you who have no rest in constantly bringing Diane's name
through the mud of your delerious and childish depiction of her
and your numerous low level sexually based verbal abuses? Didn't
you ever have a good look at what *you* do? Or are you so
deluded that you are completely unaware of it?
>I've had it out with him long before you were here,
>and settled it in a lengthy and intelligent and honest debate...
This post doesn't leave place for an inch of doubt about that.
>something which does not happen on this newsgroup any more
>with stupid little fucks like you crawling about all over
>it.
Yea, people you can't easily dismiss or intimidate, who actually
argue with others and take issue on anti-cult member's
exaggerations, distortions and overall cultic behavior.
Annoying, eh? I understand how this must be a real frustration
for you and the likes of Erlich.
>Why don't you get your shit together, Bernie? You're fucked
>in the head by Scientology right now, today, this instant.
Really? On what are you basing yourself? Can you quote anything
I said that will demonstrate that? Or is it just some more
gratuitous assertions and wishful thinking of yours? No doubt a
most convincing illustration of "*learning* the truth, *seeing*
it everywhere". I am crushed.
>Why don't you kick that shit out of your head? Aren't you
>able to or what?
My head is considerably clearer than yours, Martin.
>Scientology is bullshit, Bernie; pure
>fucking bullshit. It's hollow, empty, soulless crap.
Oh, thank you, Martin. *Now* I understand.
>People who cling to it become hollow, shallow, empty and meaningless,
So you say.
>so chuck it the fuck out of your brain, or be fucked.
Don't I have an option?
>Incredibly sincerely,
>martin.
Sincerely, Martin. To step back an reflect somewhat on your many
sloppy beliefs and quick statements would do you an awful good,
and may even bring your credibility scale a bit higher in this
newsgroup. I am convinced you can do better than that.
>Following-up to yourself, you little puke? *Bad* sign. Bernie,
>take your vomit and your abuse of my name and shove it *deep*
>up your asshole, where it belongs, you sick little fuckwit.
>Digest this: <one-finger salute> And, please, don't forget to
>FOAD, asswipe.
LOL! Thanks, Martin. You really are my funny clown. I like you.
Bernie
--
Dianedroids. Tashbackolyte. Invisible party line buster.
Anti-anti-cultist. ARS critic's critic. Skripted scienobot. Cult
rah-rah.
William Barwell
In article <33DD63...@worldnet.att.net>,
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>leny wrote:
>
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>> Funny you bring this up. The COS never went in trying to "take over"
>> Germany. They just wanted to go about their business of saving the
>> world :-)
>
>Hubbard certainly had something special in mind as regards control of
>Germany. And the OSA documents about it were seized during the German
>raid in the 80's.
>
these documents now? Anybody in Germany game to try to see if copies can
be obtained from the German authorities for websites?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Joe Harrington
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <33DD63...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >leny wrote:
> >
> ****************** Deleted ******************
> >
> >> Germany. They just wanted to go about their business of saving the
> >> world :-)
> >
> >Hubbard certainly had something special in mind as regards control of
> >Germany. And the OSA documents about it were seized during the German
> >raid in the 80's.
> >
>
> these documents now? Anybody in Germany game to try to see if copies can
> be obtained from the German authorities for websites?
>
> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> Slack!
Perhaps Tilman can provide more info on that, and summarize Vaughan
Young's public remarks about Hubbard's comments on Germany, when Young
was in Germany.
Joe
Tilman Hausherr
In <33E37D...@worldnet.att.net>, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
RVY wrote about it in his SPIEGEL article.
(...)
Hubbard felt that he was being persecuted by communists,
pschychaiatrists, and government officials. He manifestly suffered
from the delusion that psychaiatrists and pschychologists wanted to
murder him because he had shown their science to be a fraud. At the
end, he came up with the idea that the core of the anti-Hubbard
conspiracy was located in Germany, and it came from the same roots
of Nazism which had brought Hitler to power.
Hubbard became a German hater. He preached that the roots of
psychology could be traced back to "Professor Wundt, who was forced
by Bismark in 1879 to develop a psychology which could turn
soldiers into killing machines".
"From this", said Hubbard, "we can clearly define psychology as
a military system which would be used to program men for
war." It was not Hitler who later commissioned the destruction of
the Jews; rather, it was a secret society of German
psycharitrists: "They built the death chambers, and they -- not
Hitler -- ordered the extermination of the Jews."
This conspiracy of pschychaiatrists has survived the Second World
War. A small clique of pschychaiatrists and old-nazis now control
the world drug market; all drug companies in the world were "either
German or connected to Germany", according to Hubbard. This group
also has great influence upon the world financial system. Hubbard
says: "Germany posesses today the largest portion of all Gold
reserves, or at least a lot of it."
With Hubbard's wive Mary Sue as head, the US-Guardians office began
to collect more and more information against Germany. Soon, Hubbard
had enough material for another whacked-out theory: The Federal
German Nazi-conspiracy uses the information channels of Interpol to
fight scientology world-wide.
I discovered unknown material about the history of Interpol.
Documents and photos showed that the international police
organization was actually dominated by SS leaders like Reinhard
Heydrich and Ernst Kaltenbrunner during the Third Reich, and was
used to hunt down Jews and political opponents. Even the
Interpol head Paul Dickopf -- who was in office until 1972 -- had
been in the SS.
Hubbard ordered that the conspiracy against him should be
destroyed world wide. The plan of action developed to do
this received the code name "Snow White".
"Snow White" contains nick names out of the fairy tales to signify
the countries in which scientology was active. Germany, the Evil
Empire, received the name of the dwarf Grumpy from the Walt Disney
cartoon of Snow White. Other countries, which supposedly took part
in the nazi conspiracy were called Sneezy (Holland), Doc (Sweden),
or Happy (Denmark). The US section of scientology was called Hunter.
I became US leader of the propaganda section of "Snow White", and
accordingly received access to all the important papers of the
campaign.
In Germany, the Austrian Kurt Weiland took this job. According to
the plan, his duty was to first "get materials related to all
running lawsuits" in which scientology was involved. In particular,
he was supposed to collect "files from the police and Interpol,
inasmuch as they could support the 'Snow White' program."
Weilands Office was supposed to find the source of all attacks
against Hubbard. Simultaneously, he was supposed to defame Interpol
through scandals and legal accusations, and find attack points for
our law department and PR section. The law department was supposed
to make one suit after another in order to get files about
scientology opponents which could then be forwarded to scientology's
secret service.
The program ran well in the USA. I was able to testify about
Interpol's nazi past before a subcommittee of Congress. I was all
over the country on TV shows and radio, and our stories about
Interpol were heard world wide.
But in Germany "Snow White" did not function as planned. Nobody was
particularly interested in our nazi stories. Therefore, I was sent
to Munich, Bonn, and Wiesbaden on January 17th, 1977, disguised as a
member of an organization which we called the "National Committee for
Law and Social Justice".
In this way Wieland and I tried to get the German media interested
again. We talked with many journalists from e.g. die Welt, die
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, and
gave them information about the involvement of the nazis in the
police and Interpol.
However, we had no sucess. No reporter was interested, and almost
nobody trusted Wieland and I.
A few months later, in July 1977, the FBI got onto our trail in the
USA. A few members of the Guardians Office had gotten scientology
documents from the authorities.
Dozens of FBI agents searched the sect's headquarters in Los Angles
and Washington. They found parts of the "Snow White" plans. Eleven
high-ranking co-workers of Hubbard's, including his wife Mary Sue,
went to prison.
With this our reputation was ruined. Therefore we produced a new
strategy: Whoever was there is gone. Scientology is reformed, the
criminals are behind bars. "Snow White" went into the safe, but it
didn't disappear.
William O. West
Bernie ACTUALLY said:
" You can be ignorant while intelligent. Actually,
I consider that the highest form of intelligence
is to be aware of one's ignorance, something you
are obviously far to achieve. You are so full of
your many absolute certainties that it often makes
you sound stupid, something which I don't think you are."
who feels compelled to rewrite the life story of every
ex-cult member whose experience differs from Bernie's
theories.
It is permissable to look for evidence of Bernie's
intelligence, at this point, and he does spell English
words rather well. He certainly spells better than Tilman
Hausherr, although I haven't seen such an obvious English
grammatical error out of Tilman as the one above.
Bernie
"William O. West" <wow...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<33E417...@pacbell.net>:
>Bernie ACTUALLY said:
>" You can be ignorant while intelligent. Actually,
> I consider that the highest form of intelligence
> is to be aware of one's ignorance, something you
> are obviously far to achieve. You are so full of
> your many absolute certainties that it often makes
> you sound stupid, something which I don't think you are."
>Yes! Bernie actually said that - the self-same Bernie
>who feels compelled to rewrite the life story of every
>ex-cult member whose experience differs from Bernie's
>theories.
>It is permissable
Permissable? I don't think that's English.
>to look for evidence of Bernie's intelligence, at this point,
You stepped on it.
>and he does spell English words rather well.
Oh, thank you. I think that it is permissable for you to say so.
>He certainly spells better than Tilman Hausherr,
That's a great compliment, indeed. Thanks. Hear that, Tilman?
Gna gna gna!
>although I haven't seen such an obvious English
>grammatical error out of Tilman as the one above.
Huh? Obvious grammatical error? Where is it? Where is it?
Jack Craver
>In article <5rhhg2$8ep$2...@snews2.magna.com.au>,
>z...@magna.com.au (Zed) wrote:
>
>>>The problem isn't whether they would allow someone to use LRH
>>>tech on his job. The problem is that they require civil service
>>>job applicants to disclose whether they are Scientologists or
>>>whether they are using LRH tech. Their answer may have a bearing
>>>on the decision to hire them or not. It's a case of
>>>discrimination based on personal belief and of interference of
>>>the state in personal beliefs. Do you think the state has such a
>>>right? Do you think that what the Bavarian state is doing is
>>>correct?
>>
>>Here's the dilemma as I see it: to the German Govt.
>>Scientologist=someone who wants to take over the Government and
>>replace it with a Scientology institution, by any means necessary.
>>Germany bases their opinions of all Scientologists on the
>>totalitarian overtones present in some of Scientology's teachings and
>>on the criminal convictions of some high-level Scientologists in
>>other countries.
>
>I'm not at all sure that this is unreasonable. After all, it's
>not *that* long ago that applications for visitors visas to
>the USA asked whether the applicant was or ever had been a
>member of the Communist Party. The assumption was the same -
>that Communists were planning on undermining the US govt in
>some way.
>
>>The problem with this is that I think it's a horrendously overbroad
>>generalisation. I think a significant proportion of Scientologists
>>don't hold this revolutionary view.
>
>Perhaps not, but in an organization as rigidly totalitarian as
>Scientology, they would have to be aware that the cult is more
>than capable of insisting that it's members do whatever is asked
>of them in the name of 'clearing the planet', and if that means
>putting the interests of their "religion" before their employer,
>particularly when their employer is the state - well, there have
>been more than enough of them quite happy to do it in the past.
>More than enough to justify concern over the issue.
>
Excuse me for jumping in here, but at one time in the US, the same
mentality was employed to identify "enemies of the state". This
menatlity is now called MacCarthyism, named after the senator that led
the battle in the late 40's and early 50's. Scientology was not the
target then, it was those terrible commies, but the reasoning behind
the creation of the House Commitee on Un-American Activities and the
tragedies that ensued were nearly exactly what you are stating in your
post. One could easily draw a parallel with what is happening in
Germany and the early years of the MacCarthy era
Jack.
A candle in the darkness.