I was listening to the Art Bell radio program for a while tonight. He had the Amzing Kreskin on. Kreskin had predicted that the largest number of witnesses to a UFO event ever would happen in Las Vegas last night. I had heard him the nights before on Art's show seriously explaining that he just felt this would happen, and since he's a mentalist (some people think he's a psychic), Art and I'm sure the audience took this seriously.

Well, nothing really happened last night except a big crowd showed up and some of the people who came thousands of miles for this were kinda pissed. Art was pissed tonight too and was severely scolding Kreskin for faking him and his audience out. Kreskin sort of tried to have it both ways, claiming that he was really giving an example of what we should watch out for because some terrorist or something could send out similar disinformation and cause widespread panic (thus Kreskin was doing us all a favor by educating us with his charade), and yet he also claimed that at 11:04pm thousands of people actually did see some kind of ufo.

Anyway, Art has permanently banned Kreskin from his radio show because Kreskin deceived Art and his audience. Art apparently feels that even though Kreskin at least claims he deceived everybody for our good (to warn us that some unscrupulous person could pull the same kind of stunt), that deception was wrong.

I give this story to show that the ends don't necessarily justify the means. Fighting fire with fire isn't always the way to go. In the struggle with Scientology, I'm pretty sure we would agree that we are against this organization because they lie, cheat, steal, harm people.

Now if WE lie or cheat or steal and then claim we did that for the Good of All or for the Cause, then we are no different than what we claim we are fighting. We've muddied the waters so no one can tell which are the good people and which are the bad people. If you are fighting to prevent something because it is bad, then you shouldn't do that bad thing yourself, no matter how beneficial it may seem to be.

It's bad, it's what you're fighting against.

Scientology claims its goal is a world without criminals or insanity or war or crime. Yet we know they've committed crimes. There's evidence they've caused mental problems for people (Wollersheim just got his $ for proving that in court). Their goal is good, but the means to get there are not.

Gandhi Tech partially requires that the contrast between the critics and the Scientologists be clear - say the critics are passive, law abiding, respectful. Say the Scientologists are deceptive, in attack mode, cruel. If that contrast is there, the message that the critics are trying to convey becomes more clear. If that contrast is not there, if the critics are pretty much acting like the Scientologists, there is no clear message and in fact the message is it looks like a bunch of creepy people yelling at each other and no thanks I'll just move along. That's why Gandhi Tech doesn't work on nice groups. Say we picket the Boy Scouts. You know what will happen? They'll come out and give us water and cookies and be nice to us. You know what's happened when I've picketed Scientology? I've had gum stuck on my camera lens, been pushed, yelled at, hounded for hours, followed, had people block my sign, had people grab flyers from people I just gave one to.

This should be preaching to the choir anyway, but recent events have indicated that many critics seem to believe that the end does justify the means. I don't. If you take the time to try to inform the public about something you see as wrong, then your behavior and actions are a huge part of your message so you'd better consider that.

On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 23:18:37 -0700, Jeff Jacobsen <cultxpt@primenet.com> wrote:

(Saved to disk: please see original at <2q63guc0l4bt32b5a97j5cdfrbtru6sn7q@4ax.com>)

One could say that the people who believed Kreskin's claim merely "got what they deserved" because people "should know" that flying saucers from space are not visiting Earth, and that "psychics"

are either conning others or conning themselves. This is the Age of Information, and in my opinion people "should" know better.

Kreskin was once an entertaining mentalist who "went over to The Dark Side" by allowing people to believe he has magical abilities. He therefore deserves contempt instead of people paying attention to him.

Of those 1,000 people who went to Las Vegas expecting to see space ships from outer space, how many knew they wouldn't see them, but went "just in case?" 80%? 90%? With just a little education, they could have known better! The Government has been mandated with providing every citizen of the USA an education:

the Government has failed to do so.

As for Ghandi Tech, the Jews tried this for the past 440 years, and suffered mass slaughter three times, and minor slaughter a dozen other times throughout Europe. Ghandi Tech only works when the suffering of the victims at the hands of tyrany (such as Scientology Inc.) is widly advertised and widly condemned. That is not happening with the victims of Scientology Inc.

The Scientology Mob consider themselves in a war against people who oppose their criminal and abusive behavior. Ghandi Tech does not work when the tyrants wish one's utter submission to tyranny.

Nor does the defensive position defeat tyranny; no one can stop a war, let alone win a war, when one is always defensive. Offense stops wars and preserves lives; defense merely slows down the process of destruction due to attrition, and is a losing strategy. The Scientology Mob knows this.

You wrote "This should be preaching to the choir anyway, but recent events have indicated that many critics seem to believe that the end does justify the means." Have you some examples?

My activities against Scientology's crimes and human rights abuses have lately been offensive and covert. My target is the Mob's sourse of funds, which is always the correct target against criminal enterprises. Those funds come from the Mob's front groups. One does not slay a monsterous evil dragon with one thrust of a sword; it takes a thousand tiny cuts.

----
"The litigants and their lawyers are supposed to want justice, but, in reality, there is no such thing as justice, either in or out of court. In fact, the word can not be defined... In the last analysis, most jury trials are contests between the rich and the poor. Criminal cases, however, practically always have the poor on trial." --- Clarence Seward Darrow

Go Back