Monday, January 08, 2007


I have discussed this before, but it bears repeating.

We have a far worse enemy that walks amongst us. Their modus operandi is 'attack, take no criticism'. They use every legal ploy possible to squelch dissent, or the hard word, instituting frivolous lawsuits.

Here's a great point-counterpoint -Arnie Lema, former Scientologist (who was with them for a decade) who now speaks out against the cult. Their alleged 'Religious Freedom Watch' of course slanders him as an anti-Semite and a Nazi extremist. Scienmythology cams have shot videos of their inner teachings, which were broadcast on Youtube, but have since been taken off.

Read this: "A policy letter by L. Ron Hubbard, distributed in early 1966, admonishes:

This is correct procedure:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way."

Read Hubbard's 'Fair Game policy' here:

"Fair Game was a status assigned to those whom the Church of Scientology had officially declared to be Suppressive Persons or SPs. "Suppressive Persons" are those whose actions are deemed to "suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist." Often, this means they have been overtly critical of the church. The term "Fair Game" has also often been used to refer to a set of tactics used against perceived enemies of Scientology."

They also have their fingers in the proverbial pie, vis-a-vis anti-psychiatry:

"Scientology and psychiatry have often come into conflict since the foundation of Scientology in 1952. Scientology is publicly, and often vehemently, opposed to both psychiatry and psychology. It offers itself as an alternative to psychiatry, which Scientologists believe to be a barbaric and corrupt profession. [1] . According to the Church of Scientology, this opposition is focused on psychiatry's practices:

What the Church opposes are brutal, inhumane psychiatric treatments. It does so for three principal reasons: 1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II. [2]

They abuse the legal system:

  • "Alleged copyright infringements. Scientology’s religious documents are copyrighted, and many are available only to members who pay for higher levels of courses and auditing.
  • Claims of religious discrimination. The church has brought several cases before the European Court of Human Rights challenging refusals to recognize local Scientology groups as religious organizations[1]. "

As with most cults, they fight tooth and nail, claiming their way is the only true way. And fear is their club: they thrive on argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad hominem. They've been know to accuse a critic of foul crimes, such as pedophilia (which, in our culture, is tantamount to ruin).

And they have these Hollyweird dweebs backing their play:

"In 2005, Elfman appeared at the Church of Scientology's controversial "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" Museum, which puts forth a conspiracy theory connecting Adolf Hitler to the psychiatric profession. [1] In June 2006, Elfman and Bodhi Elfman reportedly approached independent film director John Roecker on a street in Los Feliz, California because of a shirt Roecker was wearing that ridiculed Scientology and Scientologists Tom Cruise and John Travolta (The front of the shirt had a picture of Tom Cruise. The caption read "Scientology Is Gay." The back of the shirt had a picture of John Travolta. The caption on the back read "Very Gay.") Jenna Elfman loudly asked Roecker what crimes he had committed and was so agitated that she continued, "Have you raped a baby?" [2]. This is a well-known scientology tactic, of confronting critics with demands that they confess whatever crimes the scientologist insists they have committed."

Female or not, I'd be hard put not to slug someone for an accusation like that. These freakshows are more than just the occasional tinfoil hat conspirators: they have a whole millinery shop that assembles New Age madness from the wreckage of old tired memes. That clueless conman Hubbard simply substituted Xenu instead of Satan, with a piss-poor tale of an evil alien emperor whose character is more suited to a farcical burlesque villain, and a plotline that a ten-year-old could cobble up. Read his biography on answers.com - it's readily apparent, to anyone with a lick of sense that this clown was not only a liar, but a poor one at that.

So again, I tell you all: search these people out. Tell them their epistemology is null and void. I am no advocate of suppression: but this cult pushes the envelope. It cannot stand under criticism. It is, like any other religion, a house of cards. Like any other religion, it deserves scant respect. All are entitled to their beliefs: but no one is entitled to an exemption from criticism.

So go forth, my children, be judgmental, and multiply the critiques, deluge them with condemnation, trounce them with the truth, derail them with details: they, as anyone else, are entitled to believe whatever hogwash. But no more mollycoddling madness.

Here is a good starting point.

It's time to hold the 'clam' to the fire - it's time to 'roast' some shellfish.

In the meantime, here's a video for your viewing pleasure.

Till the next post, then.

Stumble Upon Toolbar


karen said...

I like Jenna Elfman. She a scientologist, eh? How disappointing.

Sorry, my brain needs some Drano. That's the best I can come up with right now.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Hey karen, I used to like her too. 'Dharma & Greg', all that.
The aphorisms about books & covers pops into mind.

karen said...

Hey KA
I took the time to load the video today. What fun! I especially liked the ending; I played it back several times, just the last couple of seconds. LOL. Worth the wait!

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen: yeah, so I guess we're all descended from clams, huh? Funny part is, there's NO PROOF.
Whadda surprise, hmmmm?

karen said...

What! No PROOF?
You mean that representation of a clam transforming into a human isn't based on hard evidence or at least someone's 2000 year old word on it?
You mean I shouldn't believe everything I read or see?


Uh...you wouldn't be interested in buying a slightly used bridge, wouldja?