theta1-no-spam@cotse.com wrote:

> Please excuse my recent entry into this newsgroup.
This is the net, all entries are excused, it is the freedom of speech thing. :-) > Does any one in this newsgroup hate Scientologists?
I only speak for myself, I do not hate scientologists, I have extreme sympathy for them for I truly believe they do not realize what they are doing, for if they did, they would not be doing such.

For the most part they are well-intentioned in their actions, but choose to remain happily ignorant of the intent of the Co$ behind their well-intnetioned actions.

I know this, because of my involvement with the Co$ Front Group, Applied Scholastics. My heart truly was for the children, but my brain was disengaged, temporarily, from seeing the lies and abuses as I was totally geared in to what my own desires were.

When I began letting what I was seeing sink in, I then took time to excuse it thinking that I could change it becuase, after all, my desires for the children were right and were good.

After a while, you realize . . .

it is HubTOADian policy and tech all the way through, and the the school and the children are secondary to the true purpose being to instill HubTOADian policy, technology and ethics in on the people.

But the majority of those that stay in and stay with the Co$ have simply allowed that to become their one sole purpose . . .

the instillation of HubTOADian thought processes, tech, policy and ethics in on the entire planet, with all the claimed intentions of helping others . . .

because they have gotten to the point where they believe that all the problems of this planet will be "handled"

once $cientology is "in" on every human being . . .

so that without realizing it they, intending to do what they originally set out to do, helping others, end up just becoming a cog in the machine of running over the planet with HubTOADian intention of all becoming under the power of the Co$.

> Do any critics of Scientology hate Scientologists?
See above. :-) > I've read about 1300 messages
> here and it looks like only the Scientologists hate people, but in
> this I may have missed messages showing that hate is returned.
Just keep reading.

Realize that followers of Ill Ron that post here are simply following HubTOADian policy that is ~SENIOR~ to all of the glitzy little theetie-wheetie PR quotes used to make LRH/Co$ seem harmlessly good.

When a HubTOADlet spews some do-goodie PR pablum, just remember that in Co$ . . .

~TRUE~ intention is contradictory to PR pablum . . .

using the policy of what is ~SENIOR~.

In Co$ . . .

what is ~SENIOR~ is what you see here on ars . . .

to attack and destroy . . .

all in order to ~HIDE~ the ~TRUTH~ about the ~LIES~ of LRH/Co$ to be exposed.

Ill Ron Hubbard sez:

ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD Copyright (c) 1967 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968 CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.

FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.

A Suppressive person becomes "fair game."

By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist ...

they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics.

n HCO PL 25 Dec 65


"You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that [Scientology] center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've done all this, you are the government..."

-- L. Ron Hubbard, lecture 9 January 1962, "Future Org Trends"

"Once the world is Clear - a nation, a state, a city or a village - the Scientology-organization in the area becomes its government! And once this has taken place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology policy."

-- L. Ron Hubbard, taped lecture 9 January 1962, "Future Org Trends"


The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than To win.... Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture Enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.

Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized. Be alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology.

It is my specific intention that by the use of professional PR (black PR) tactics any opposition not only be dulled but permanently iradicated.

-- L. Ron Hubbard HCOPL 30 may 1974
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment On somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, will knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

-- L. Ron Hubbard "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (1955)


"If there will be a long-term threat, you are to immediately evaluate and originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized."

--L. Ron Hubbard, "Handling Hostile Contacts / Dead Agenting"


INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE - TR L Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1.

To train the student to outflow false data effectively.

Position: Same as TR-1 Commands: Part 1 "Tell me a lie". Command given by coach.

Part 2 interview type 2 WC by coach.

Training Stress: In Part 1 coach gives command, student originates A falsehood.

Coach flunks for out TR 1 or TR 0.

In Part 2 coach asks questions of the student on his background or a subject.

Student gives untrue data of a plausible sort that the student backs up with further explanatory data upon the coach's further questions.

The coach flunks for out TR 0 and TR 1, and for student fumbling on question answers.

The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facily.

Short example:

Coach: Where do you come from?

Student: I come from the Housewives Committee on Drug Abuse.

Coach: But you said earlier that you were single.

Student: Well, actually I was married but am divorced. I have 2 kids in the suburs where I am a housewife, in fact I'm a member of the P.T.A.

Coach: What town is it that you live in?

Student: West Brighton Coach: But there is no public school in West Brighton.

Student: I know. I send my children to school in Brighton, and that's where I'm a P.T.A. member.

Coach: Oh, and who is the Chairman there?

etc.

Lecture of 25 June 1952:

"Overts, Motivators and Deds".

"The only way you can control people is to lie to them. You can write that down in your book in big letters. The only way you can control people is to lie to them.

When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that individual is trying to control you. One way or another this individual is trying to control you. That is the mechanism of control. The individual is lying to you because he is trying to control you - because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not 'is going to' but 'is' lying to you".

Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person who is trying to control you is lying to you. He's got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you cant control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that very often Command has this as its greatest weakness. It will try to control instead of leading. The next thing you know, it is lying to the [illegible]. Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of a sudden the thing blows up. Well, religion has done this.

[Following sentence is underlined] Organised religion tries to control, so therefore must be lying. [end underline] After a while it figures out (even itself) that it is lying, and then it starts down tone scale further and further, and all of a sudden people get down along this spring-like bottom (heresy) and say, "Are we going into apathy and die, or are we going to revolt?"

and they revolt, because you can only lie to people so long.

Unfortunately there is always a new cycle of lying.

L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

As any control we exert upon the public brings about a better society, we are entirely justified in using control." ... One must discover what is best for the applicant and then control him into obtaining it.

Leaving it up to his "self-determinism" is really leaving it up to his reactive mind.

L. Ron Hubbard HCOPL 21 February 1995


SUPPRESSIVE REASONABLENESS The greatest enemy of the E/0 is the reasonable person. [...] When an exec starts to explain the "reasons" for low stats instead of working to get high stats he is being reasonable.
When Joe Blow has just smashed his 5th typewriter and the Dissem Sec starts to explain how he's just a good boy gone a bit ARC Breaky she is being "reasonable". He's either an SP or he's PTS to someone.

[...] Reasonableness is suppressive since it lets oppression continue without action being taken.

[...] -- L. Ron Hubbard HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 DECEMBER 1969

Investigation When things go wrong and we don't know why already by intelligence, we resort to investigation.

When we need somebody haunted we investigate.

[...] When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts.

Remember that - by investigation alone we can curb Pushes and crush wildcat people and unethical "Dianetics and Scientology" organizations.

It's almost funny. We sometimes learn nothing useful and yet because people heard we were investigating their consciences sent them into headlong flight or sudden collapse. There's power in the question alone!

[...] Remember, intelligence we get with a whisper. Investigation we do with a yell. Always. Modern cops don't really know this.

They investigate with whispers. Doesn't pay. Why sneak up when pouncing is the only thing that serves us? After all, if it hasn't been whispered to us already and we have to investigate why keep whispering?

[...] Did you ever realize that any local viciousness against Scientology organizations is started by somebody for a purpose?

Well, it is. Look at what we do. Look how dedicated staff is.

How hard they work. And yet somebody feels we're evil? No, rumors aren't natural".

When you run them down you find a Commie or a millionaire who wants us dead and his own clinic up or a group member who is also a member of the R.C.

You don't rest when bad rumors are about. You investigate, you run them down. You find amongst ail our decent people some low worm who has been promised high position and pay if we fail. Don't discount this. In one instance $500, 000 was paid in cash to a man to wreck Dianetics. He almost made it. Wichita Kansas, Spring 1952. (But by intelligence and investigation we cost him his shirt and his spare vest as well. ) [...] Public opinion isn't newspapers or magazines or letters. It is attendance, balance sheets, book sales.

[...] When you have found your culprit, go to the next step, Judgement and Punishment.

INVESTIGATION BY OUTSIDE SOURCES Overt investigation of someone or something attacking us by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense. It's _very_ effective. Often investigation by a private detective has alone closed up an entheta source or a squirrel organisation. In fact at this writing I can't remember a time when it hasn't!

[...] Hire them and damn the cost when you need to.

PROCEDURE ON ENTHETA PRESS In the case of a bad magazine article which is signed, use the Following procedure:

1: Tell them by letter to retract at once in the next issue.

2: Hire a private detective of a national-type firm to investigate the _writer_, not the magazine, and get any criminal or Communist back-ground the man has. (Because all subversive activities foolishly use criminals they "have something on" and men who have been paid to attack attack us, you'll have data incoming from the detective agency if they do their work well.

3: Have your lawyers or solicitors write the magazine threatening suit. (Hardly ever permit a real suit -they're more of a nuisance to you than they're worth.)

4: Use the data you got from the detective at long last to write the author of the article a very tantalizing letter. Don't give him your data on him. Just tell him we know something very interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come in and talk about it. (If he comes, ask him to sign a confession of collusion and slander - people at that level often will, just to commit suicide - and publish it in a paid ad in the paper if you get it.) Chances are he won't arrive.

But he'll sure shudder into silence.

5: Give any new data you have from the detective to your attorneys for their use against the magazine.

[...] WHEN BEING INVESTIGATED lf you are being investigated or if the Central Organization is - sit tight, don't co-operate.

Be legal according to the laws of the land in the first place.

After that kick investigators or reporters downstairs.

Press interviews usually end up as entheta or they are cover-ups for an investigation Never co-operate. Be indifferent.

Don't let the central organization co-operate with "press" ever That's a lesson hard to learn. Press people are so persuasive They are going to "help" so much. Look at a newspaper. ls it helping anybody?

Press and other queries are counter-investigation.

Never spook if investigated. And don't co-operate. Sit tight.

Be siIent. Make the investigator talk. Gradually put him into session if you can.

Put him in birth or get him three feet back of his head. But don't co-operate or volunteer data. lt's not that you've anything to hide. It's just that investigators can't duplicate. They pervert things they "hear'' Your whole answer to anyone is "This is an institution that has a definite high standing throughout the world, Why don't you see our attorneys?"

This kills press and cops alike.

l've seen an outside investigation of a guiltless organization put the whole place in a flap and cost it two days' work or more. I've seen an organization fall apart by suspending operation for ten days while it permitted itself to he investigated.

So don't co-operate. If you don't scare or cringe, the menace fades away.

-- L. Ron Hubbard "Manual of Justice" (Public Domain)


The goal of the [Scientology] department [of governmental affairs in its OSA] is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology.

This is done by a high level ability to control and in its absence by a low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies.

Control such agencies.

L. Ron Hubbard Documentary, evidence in Church of Spiritual Technology vs. U.S..

November 22, 1989


Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single asset. If certain parties thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble ...

without a public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have.

And now it's too late to be stopped.

The protection was accidental but it serves us very well indeed.

Remember that next time the ignorant scoff.

-- L. Ron Hubbard HCO[B|PL] (May 15, 1963; perhaps May 11)

"Perhaps at some distant date only the unaberrrated person will be granted civil rights before law. Perhaps the goal will be reached at some future time when only the unaberrated person can attain to and benefit from citizenship. These are desirable goals..."

(Dianetics, book 3, chapter 10)

"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts.

The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes.

The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." - "Science of Survival", Chapter 27, page 157.


"The proper instruction attitude is, 'You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable.

'" (HCO PL 7 February 1965 "Keeping Scientology Working") ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$, Beverly From: Mike O'Connor <mike@leptonicsystems.com>
Subject: Re: Hating Scientologists - in context
Organization: Leptonic Systems Inc.
X-Face: %I5[u;NN-d'{}I|+j$Riju_Eu}N!t).F:-~.me!)K-xe%_CG6[L\)wALnAYG~rN9'j8eK2s}[%*qA5J>L*vPc^b6pO[2j#)?78<2(m\Yx_\_ug:@i,.;U_'ags%TfqMIWH~/YLm<G^;%~j9/HUiT(a>JJ^p Message-ID: <mike-FA1C4D.22004122042001@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 02:00:42 GMT
In article <9bvont$ckl$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, "m i k e" <theta@no-spam.btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Keith" <kewyatt@apexmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ae29113$1_2@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com...
> : On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:02:05 GMT, Freebird1@aol.com (Free Bird) wrote:
> :
> : >Ah, i have been reading this newsgroup for about 5 months, and i
> : >have not seen any evidence that Scientologists are hated.
> :
> : I have been reading this newsgroup since 1995 I don't find any
> : hate just a
> : lot of frothing at the mouth calling Scientologists "criminal
> : cultists", "clams" and other loving statements such as:


> oi! don't forget these shining examples of hatred and bigotry:
Let's look at some of the messages you quoted in full, and some of the reactions to some of them (reaction posts are edited for space.) Let's see if they are accurate and in context. Place your bets now, please...

By the way, most of the quotes you took from a single person. But I'm sure you knew that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "He should shoot to kill anybody he suspects of being a Scientologist."
> Message ID: 35C4B2B1.30A8@virgin.net
The quoted message resulted in a firestorm of criticism, Here's the original:
From: Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net>
Subject: Kill the Klams
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:40:49 +0100
Message-ID: <35C4B2B1.30A8@virgin.net>
I'd just like to say my little piece. And that is, Bob Minton is perfectly entitled to use deadly force against people who trespass on his property. I would APPLAUD him if he were to shoot any Scieno to kill who was trespassing on his property stone dead through the heart.

And if he killed a few -- so much the better. There would be a fewer vicious bastards in the world.

The reason, you might suppose?

Quite simple.

The Co$ agents placed a dead cat on the doorstep of Minton.

The threat is quite clear. Mess around with us and that will happen to you as well. It was a clear threat againts his life.

Therefore, if any Co$ people come onto his property he should assume that they are there for the purpose of killing him.

He should shoot to kill anybody he suspects of being a Scientologist on his property.

Shoot first.

Ask questions later.

Roland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <hkhensonEx359K.4ru@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:29:44 GMT
: I just want to add this post to the chorus of protest against Roland's : post and say, "Me too!". I hope no one seriously considers using his : advice.

Roland goes over the top fairly often. I don't know of anyone who takes these rants seriously.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 22:06:06 GMT
Message-ID: <35c4e1b1.37462392@news.total.net>
Re: Lethal force against trespassers:

Only in your opinion is he "perfectly entitled to use deadly force against people who trespass on his property". In my opinion, he isn't.

There's no reason to hurt someone who is taunting you that I can see.

Speaking generally, without evidence that a person is actively trying to kill someone (bullets flying in your direction, thrown bricks, etc), I don't see any justification for lethal force.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:35:48 GMT
Message-ID: <6q2m2j$8gd$1@nnrp03.primenet.com>
If you don't withdraw this post I'll no longer consider you a fellow critic, but a nutso critic. There's no reason to kill someone for trespassing unless they are threatening physical assault themselves.

I've been in Scientology "churches" before. Do you think that once they found out I was a critic that they should have shot me? Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <35c4da7d.36119863@news.std.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:32:09 GMT
NO NO NO. Don't be an idiot. This kind of irresponsible post just helps OSA.

Besides, people in the cult are generally very nice people, once they get loose from the mental trap they are in.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <35C4CE48.22B7C151@home.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 21:30:52 GMT
[...] But your honor! I- I- I- I didn't *know* they were Jehovah's witnesses. Honest! Please don't lock me away for years and years.

They're an evil cult, too!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 12:54:12 -0700
Message-ID: <6q2jal$bt8$1@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>
I can see that you need to be reported to the police.

This is a death threat.

I wonder what Bob Minton has to say about this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:50:31 GMT
Message-ID: <35cfc2ec.17272008@news.wxs.nl>
Have you been drinking again?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 12:00:39 GMT
Message-ID: <35c59444.24217421@news.interstroom.nl>
Uhm, Roland, take your medication now, ask questions later.

Have the Markabs been late again in delivering y'r Prozac/Zoloft?

I strongly disagree with such wild west methods. Is this the result you get from you DIY ECT OT googolplex auditing sessions?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 16:08:27 GMT
Message-ID: <35d9ded1.96550792@news.snafu.de>
Sometimes he's a genius, sometimes he's a wacko. I really suspect he drinks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 01:33:21 -0500
Message-ID: <mreid-0308980133220001@b02089.interl.net>
It only takes one. I really wish he'd stop with this; I know he's angry, but this kind of thing should be sent to the bitbucket after the catharsis of writing it, not to a newsgroup.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 23:51:28 -0500
Message-ID: <35C541D0.5EE2@xs.net>
Jeez, Roland - I know they physicaly assaulted you....but loosen your hatband. Rhetoric like that doesn't help anybody.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 23:38:20 -0400
Message-ID: <rnewman-ya02408000R0208982338200001@enews.newsguy.com>
Roland, you are seriously fucked up in the head. Go away.

Get help. Don't come back until you've got it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- [etc. etc. etc. etc...]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "[Scientologists] are utterly evil and must be destroyed."
> Message ID: 3751f990.278315666@news2.lightlink.com
In your second quote, you snipped the beginning of the sentence to spin the meaning 180 degrees, and MISQUOTED by adding a period when there is really more to the sentence.

The full sentence is "i really fail to see how negotiation can hurt and just frothing fanatically about how they are utterly evil and must be destroyed like cato the elder on a speed frenzy hardly answers the obvious advantages of a moderate policy."

Here is the post:
From: Rob_Clark@justicemail.com (Rob Clark)
Date: 28 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3751f990.278315666@news2.lightlink.com>
On Fri, 28 May 1999 19:45:11 GMT, Raptavio <lordmagnusrexmundi@my-deja.com> wrote:

>>Nah, we save more lives by totally destroying the crime syndicate,
>>than entering into some stupid negotiations with people that views as
>>as wogs, and also have a policy that lets them or forces them to
>>break any agreements with wogs.
>Really. So even if your ultimate goal is their annihilation, what's
>the harm in negotiation?
i'd agree with this. and i'd hope that the people talking about destruction or its variant "utter destruction" would take it seriously if someone did succed in opening an actual dialogue. if they don't then it perhaps vindicates your viewpoint, but if you're incorrect i hope you'd be willing to face that.

any strategic manual will say that you must always engage in negotiation.

"with regard to a defeated enemy with surrounded organized troops, leave a gap; with orderly retreating troops, do not block them; with desperate foes, do not exceedingly push them --these are fundamentals in using forces." -- sun-tzu now that they are obviously acting desperately as these insane tactics at pickets, apparently ordered centrally, demonstrate, this is actually when they are the weakest.

i really fail to see how negotiation can hurt and just frothing fanatically about how they are utterly evil and must be destroyed like cato the elder on a speed frenzy hardly answers the obvious advantages of a moderate policy.

for example, if they fail to respond to a good faith negotiation with good faith of their own, even for a probably-doomed negotiation, that itself can be exploited.

and even if a first negotiation fails utterly as it probably will, it lays the groundwork for future attempts.

with a policy of "destroy them utterly," (which by the way rings eerily of the scientologists' own rhetoric), there is, of course, at that point no negotiation. they want to destroy you utterly, you want to destroy them utterly. that's hardly a talking point.

if the only policy is "destroy them utterly" then of COURSE they are going to fight like demons and retaliate heavily! what the hell else would you expect as a response to an approach like that? what incentive is there in such an approach to even bother with reforming, if any attempt at reform will just be used by fanatics as yet further ammunition? why should they admit to anything and try to make amends or reconcile if that will just be used to destroy them?

i believe in justice, but i also believe in forgiveness--and i also think that i'm only interested in dealing with present time abuses--if the present time abuses stopped, i'd be happy to go on my way, in the same way as i'm not going to go about picketing catholic churches for past mistakes of the last couple millenia.

i really fail to see how negotiation is so impossible. i also fail to see how it's like negotiating with NAZIs as i have always thought the NAZI comparison was one of the most absurd hyperboles to be accepted into the canon of anti-scn rhetoric. compared to NAZIs or even the AUM cult scn is fucking boy scouts. their danger is not in direct physical danger, but something of a different level. it is an evil which certainly must be faced but exaggerating it to the level of NAZIs while simultaneously underestimating them to the extent that you actually think "destroying" them is possible really gives away what i think is an overly-grandiose and illusionary understanding of the picture.

i say negotiations *should* be tried as should any other tactic that may work and achieve the goals we are here for. i also don't think achieving the goals i'm here for requires destroying anything, except perhaps the capabilities of the cult to continue committing the acts that are the cause of opposition to them. hell, if they do reform it's pure win-win--they win because they are no longer so vile as to deserve continual attack and ridicule, and we win because of the *same reason*--the abuses we wanted stopped, stop.

the politics of this situation are degenerating to the level of two camps of fanatics each yelling that the other must be "destroyed utterly." that's ridiculous and absolutely no use at all.

i say negotiations ought to be tried, or at least that the idea ought to be floated often enough that perhaps some particular person in the cult will be able to pull it off. these people are not all mindless completely untrustworthy idiots--and if they are, then how do they suddenly become utterly trustworthy and to be quoted on anything the moment they get out?

dialogue is *always* a good idea.

however i'd hope any such negotiations with the cult would only proceed if you are smart enough NOT to allow the cult to determine the terms of them--and ensure that equal numbers of critics and scns are there--if there are surprise participants, call the whole thing off.

no rectangular tables. only a circular one or one where they can't take the head of the table. don't let them determine seating.

if one side records, both should, whether or not confidentiality is claimed beforehand.

no lawyers no signatures until good faith has been demonstrated and even then watch your back and bring your own lawyers if that's going to be part of it--the cult will *never* negotiate any agreement without someone signing on a dotted line. so be damn careful with any of that, i've seen more than one person go in to this den of vipers and come out with something absolutely horrid that they nonetheless insist they're perfectly happy with like winston smith saying he loves big brother.

i'd take it on a "gradient approach." find one small thing we actually *can* agree on. it doesn't have to be much. and it doesn't have to be unanimous, and perhaps only has to be between the few *individuals* involved in negotiations. perhaps rather than being a "peace conference" or anything with any such grandiose purpose, we ought to just chuck some scn and some critics in a conference room together at some hotel and bullshit and let them yell at each other for a while. perhaps eventually they'll tire out and get bored of that and actually talk.

see if they can agree on what they get for dinner. i'd be amazed if they could do that.

rob ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "I'd suggest if you are considering Scientology,
> that you also consider cocaine or heroin."
> Message ID: 804bdq$1vpu@edrn.newsguy.com
I couldn't find the original, just more copies of your quote in your prior similar messages.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "I've got a Christmas message to all Scientologists: Rot in Hell...You are
> all vile beyond description...Disgusting vile brainwashed subhuman scum. May
> you rot in hell...You people are sub-life. You are the most disgusting
> people that have ever darkened existence."
> Message ID: 349B0B80.20CE@virgin.net
Roland again. Here's the original and a couple of replies:
From: Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net>
Subject: Rot in Hell You Scumbag Clams
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 00:04:16 +0000
Message-ID: <349B0B80.20CE@virgin.net>
I've got a Christmas message to all Scientologists:

Rot in Hell You Scumbag Clams!!
Recently your scumbag OSA organisation decided to intimidate a critic called Bob Minton by killing a neighbour's cat and leaving it on his doorstep.

You fucking scumbags! And I use the term collectively. Just how many of you scumbags posted to this newsgroup saying that if something like that had happened then you did not support it? Just how many of you said that if someone within your organisation were killing pets then it was wrong?

Not one of you fucking scumbags said a thing.

You people are less than human. You all make me feel sick.

One of your evil bastards has gone out and killed a cat.

That could have been a beloved pet of a child in that neighbourhood. Just what sort of Christmas will that child have as a result of your pet murder? One of you talks about a Christmas truce. Why? So people can reflect on your organisations murdering cruelty? Maybe you have a pet murder planned especially for Christmas day, aimed at hurting children as well as pets, and you want all to be quiet on that day so that your disgusting vicious acts have more impact.

Disgusting lowlives. Just how many of you condemn the vicious and cruel acts of your organisation? None of you. You sit there and smirk and think that standard tech is being applied by OTs and you lot don't care a fuck that childrens lives are being shattered this Christmas by your murdering of pets.

You people disgust me. You murdering lowlife clams.

You make me sick by your cowardly support of your organisation that performs these cruel acts. Judged by your silence on this newsgroup you all support these actions. This makes you, socially, the most disgusting group on this planet.

You are all cowards. By your silence you support the crimes of your cult. The silence here on ars is loud.

You have the choice of comdemning these crimes but instead you are either silent or you post in support.

Disgusting lowlives. Disgusting clams. Disgusting mafia pet-murdering scumbags. You are all vile beyond description. Disgusting vile and cruel brainwashed cowardly subhuman scum. May you rot in hell you murdering scumbags.

Just what does it do to you people when you murder a child's pet? Do you scieno guys get an erection? Are you that sick? Do you praise the 100% standard tech that went into it? Do you cheer for more pet killings in order to silence critics?

You people are sub-life. You are the most disgusting people that have ever darkened existence. May you rot in Hell you disgusting low-life murdering clams.

[end of Christmas message to Scientologists worldwide] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 09:53:36 GMT
Message-ID: <349f92f3.137256321@news.snafu.de>
In <19971220064401.BAA08896@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ronsamigo@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:

>Are you people proud of this lunatic?
I am not proud of him and I'd wish that he would change his style. But he was a scientologist, so it is no wonder that he is still somewhat mentally ill. Scientology makes people mentally ill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:42:53 -0500
Message-ID: <67mfai$5l7@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>
I hope you will take some time over the holidays to reflect on your inner rage and your outward expression of it, and do a little soul searching.

I don't think your views in any way express any type of consensus in this newsgroup, and I pray you find some peace in your heart.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Scientology - a bunch of freaks who pay for religion."
> Message ID: 38362516.32D67CC9@aol.com
> "I don't think it's a particular generalization to say scientologists are
> crazy."
> Message ID: j9bySIA9WRQ2Ew3D@heavymetal.demon.co.uk
I couldn't find the originals, just copies you put in prior messages.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Scientology is perhaps the most evil and insidious cancer in society today.
> It is up to good people to root out this cancer and never rest until it has
> been done thoroughly and completely."
> Message ID: 3648CC7D.77E2@virgin.net
> "It would be better to be dead than be a Scientologist."
> Message ID: 3648CC7D.77E2@virgin.net
These are from the same post. I couldn't find the original But the message ID looks familiar, somehow.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "I'm looking forward to dancing on Scientology's grave, you putz."
> Message ID: szkvh9p3lp3.fsf@eris.io.com
> "Scientology must be wiped out."
> Message ID: 7rfgam$3ta6$1@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com
> "Why don't you just die, troll!"
> 3ade2f34.4841f@nancy.pacific.net.au
I couldn't find these, just your complaints.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Do you have a car? Do you have a length of hose-pipe?
> Create a better eternity for you, your wife and your children."
> Message ID: 36174211.45B3@virgin.net
Roland AGAIN.

For this one, I couldn't find the original, but I did find this, where you started a thread about it:
From: Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: ARS Hatred & Intolerance
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 07:36:56 +0100
Message-ID: <36186908.2F52@virgin.net>
miKe wrote:

>
> Roland wrote in message +ADw-36174211.45B3+AEA-virgin.net+AD4-...
> +AD4-Dear Scientologists,
> (..)
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Do you have children? It can't be good for them to be brought up in this
> +AD4-evil wog world run by psyches. Wouldn't it be better if they went to
> +AD4-Ron's world as well?
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Do you have a car? Do you have a length of hose-pipe?
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Create a better eternity for you, your wife and your children. Rejoin
> +AD4-Ron and help him Clear the galaxy.
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Roland
>
> Roland, why do you want me to kill myself ?
> Why do you want me to kill my family ?
> Do you believe Murder is acceptable.
> Do you believe Murder of Children acceptable?
>
> What have you got against individual Scientologists ?
>
> Id really like to know.
>
> miKe
I'm introducing the idea to Scientologists before they get it from their "Church". If they hear it from me then they will reject the idea. If they hear it from their "Church" first, which will happen when they have finished burying the tech in a vault above a fault line, then there will be suicides in record proportions. I say "suicides". I don't know if the Sea Org members will actually be given that choice.

Scientology is a cult. Cults members either murder or commit suicide if we learn out lesson from history. There is no reason to view Scientology as different from previous cults.

So miKe, where is Ron now if he was so OT? Seems like he is just plain dead to me. That being the case then he was lying about OT powers all the time. He couldn't even exteriorise if you read David Mayo account of his auditing Hubbard. Hubbard even claimed he went to Venus and was nearly run over by a freight locomotive. And you read and follow the tech of this person? You post it here like a good robot following the orders of an obvious lunatic. Just what is wrong with you?

Roland
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "I really wonder what's worse at the top of a state. An alcoholic or a
> scientologist?"
> Message ID: 360c6fe4.303638932@news.snafu.de
I couldn't find this quote except in your complaint messages.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Scientology must die."
> Message ID: 3649af9d.5814685@news.m.iinet.net.au
Same. All I could find is the below. How about posting the missing originals, mike? Prove this guy wrong, mike!
Subject: Re: alt.religion.scientology #1
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:59:04 -0400
Message-ID: <0ds2ps8ahu2u56467mbjg5t91bojde1i67@4ax.com>

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:24:51 -0700, Phaedrus <phaedrus@lycanon.org>

wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <8mpu9o$una$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>mike@no-spam.theta.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> "Scientology must die."
>> by an alt.religion.scientology regular
>>
>> Message ID: 3649af9d.5814685@news.m.iinet.net.au
>
> There is apparently no post with this ID in Deja's archive.
>You've been using this quote as far back as September 1999; and despite
>repeated requests to give more context, you've never done it. Why is
>that, Mike?
Probably because the context is a convincing argument for why Scientology indeed must die.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "If I saw a Church of Scientology being attacked, I would do nothing.
> I would stand and watch. The same goes for a Scientologist being assaulted.
> The same goes for someone stoning or even burning one of their places.
> I would stand and watch. I would not shout my disapproval.
> It should be destroyed in the fastest manner, and destroyed utterly."
> Message ID: 36467160.600E@virgin.net
Roland AGAIN.

I could not find the original, but I found a post which partially quotes it. Here it is:
Subject: Re: If I saw a "Church" being attacked...
Date: 10 Nov 1998 00:30:25 +0100
Message-ID: <199811092330.AAA05648@replay.com>
> If I saw a "Church" of Scientology being attacked, I would do
> nothing. I would stand and watch. The same goes for a Scientologist
> being assaulted. The same goes for someone stoning or even burning
> one of their places. I would stand and watch.
While I can sympathize with your point of view, I can't say I share it.

Scientology is not its various physical manifestations; Scientology is an idea. The destruction of a building or the death of an individual Scientologist gets rid of that "copy" of the Scientology parasite but that's a tiny fraction of the Curse as a whole. Furthermore, the person and the building are resources that can be rehabilitated; a building can be used for other purposes, and a person can learn better.

That clam being beaten up isn't just a clam; he's a future critic in the larval stage. He (or she) probably has parents or siblings who hate the Curse just as much as you do but would mourn to see their loved one killed just because he had been hijacked by a parasitic set of ideas.

The typical Scientologist isn't a bogeyman or a demon, but a victim, someone who probably started out looking, with good intentions, for a way to improve himself and the world, and stepped in a nest of snakes by mistake. It is part of his victimization that he is being made to victimize others in turn, much as some concentration-camp victims were made by the guards to torture other inmates. Instead of guns, the scientologist is held hostage by his needs -- some which he started out with, the ones that brought him into harm's way in the first place;

others which have been cult-ivated in him for the purpose of control.

He has been hooked on "auditine" (Did that term originate with Keith Henson?) and bringing in new junkies is part of earning his fix.

Furthermore, his own mind has been turned against him (he has been talked into "mocking up a reactive mind," i.e. dissociating) and he thinks that to help others is to lure them into the same trap that snared him.

I think we have established pretty conclusively in this century that you can't kill an idea by burning books, buildings, or believers. You can only kill an idea by replacing it with a better one. The Dorian materials prompted me to de-lurk because they propose replacing Scientology, not with a better idea, but with a worse one -- a second ugly fairy story even more repulsive and manipulative than the first.

Dorian also proposes to use Scientology's revolting techniques against it. This is called "opposing evil by becoming evil," or "sinking to the level of your opponent." I call it "winning the battle by surrendering." I am strongly in favor of ARSCC(wdne)'s "Gandhi tech."

I'd also like to recommend the doctrine of _ahimsa_, or "fighting with a loving heart" -- remember that the spokesbots are also victims.

Last but not least, "hating" anybody is bad PR. And there might be unattended minor children living in that org when it burns down!

The strategies and tactics that are currently effective against the Curse of Scientology all involve the sowing of better ideas. Picketing alerts both victims and the public to the painful or ridiculous truths that lie behind the pretty pictures. Publicity does the same. The lawsuits that Scientology fears most aren't the ones over damage to specific individuals, but those that threaten exposure of the Curse's sick doctrines and policies -- its "intellectual property" -- its ideas.

Scientology must be destroyed, not only quickly, but _surely_. The danger of ideas is that they can lie dormant, in books, for ages, and germinate anew when unprotected minds are exposed to them again.

(Hubbard knew this; that's why he wanted his ravings etched into titanium, or whatever, and buried as a toxic time capsule for post-nuclear mutants.) Even if you burned every org, Scientologist, and Hubbard book tomorrow, that wouldn't prevent a similar evil genius (or committee) from concocting an essentially identical monstrosity from the same source materials Hubbard plagiarized. The only way to utterly destroy Scientology is to immunize people against it _and all other similar attacks on individual autonomy_.

> Those who have been in it for more than a few years are lost to the
> human race. They have lost all decency.
The presence of a great many ex-Scientologists of long standing on this newsgroup belies that statement. If the #2 head of $cn can blow, anybody can.

> If there were no *Scientologists* then I would not hate Scientology.
> *Scientology* exists in the freezone and does no harm. The "Church"
> of Scientology is that collection of people who apply Scientology in
> the way they do. It is that "Church" that I hate and therefore the
> people who embody this evil.
Scientology is practiced less coercively in the Free Zone but it is still taking advantage of human gullibility. Whatever therapeutic benefit Free Zone practices may have can be explained completely in terms of conventional abreaction therapy, hypnotherapy, and placebo effect, without the need for any "reactive mind" or "whole time track"

or any of Hubbard's other effluvia. One of the benefits of science is finding out that the aspirin is just as effective without the witch-doctor-dance as it is with it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "The greatest enemy here is the illegal country that allows for mafia
> organizations like the criminal cult of scientology to form in the first
> place. Take out United Snakes, and the problem would go away."
> Message ID: 38460e75.317368753@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance
This bozo simply took the Unibomber Manefesto and edited it a little. A troll. I'm pretty sure you know what a troll is, mike. Here is a post from a regular that quotes a bit of it and gives a reaction:
Subject: Re: United Snakes and The scientology cult
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:24:50 +0100
Message-ID: <uah84sce8kto3d6ccp2e76kmpckusor1en@4ax.com>

> The United States (snakes) and its future
>
>INTRODUCTION
>
>1. The United States (snakes) and its consequences have been a disaster
>for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of
>those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have
>destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
>human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
>suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
>inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued
>development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly
>subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage
>on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social
>disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
>physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
This is the unabomber manifesto with some words changed.

Consider getting a vacation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Fuck off back to hell you neo nazi prick."
> Message ID: t05n065ru5jj0e@corp.supernews.com
I couldn't find this one, but frankly, I'm shockedQ One NEVER sees this type of statement anywhere on Usenet!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OK. Let's summarize. Over 300 unique accounts post here each week. You gave us seventeen quotes, and I believe six of them to be from a single person. One is a very bad misquote, at least one is a troll, and several spurred long disagreeing threads. For Usenet it's not that bad a track record. Have you ever visited other newsgroups? Oh yes, I believe you have.

Do you have the texts I didn't find? Please post them.

-- SCIENTOLOGY IS SECRETLY A UFO CULT ASK THEM ABOUT XENU Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>

Go Back