The Help Factor

I had to do some hard thinking yesterday, because that day was the first deadline of a series of jobs I want to apply. As of late I have been in a sort of very long dream holiday... But everything has an end.

Without going into details, I am in a position where I have a wide variety of job opportunities, and sometimes making the right choice is not easy. I was in a closed quandary as to what to do until I found what for me was the key, and that is - the help factor. "In which position am I best placed to really help people?" This is the angle that really appeals to me. Not "which job will bring me the most money?"

And so, I passed on this first deadline. I didn't apply, because, although the job came with lots of gusto and relish, the help factor was limited. Mind you, it does not automatically mean that a job where the help factor is important is necessarily one that pays less. But the consequences simply should not take precedence on the purpose - and that was my "cognition" into this question, which resolved the quandary. The feeling is completely different. I guess I still have not lost my "cultic" need of "meaning" in what I do.

And this brings me to the reason why I am blogging about this at all, and that is that such a key should also be the one to guide my web site. (As for my blog I mostly write for my own benefit so I am not as "constrained" there, haha :-)

Anyway, it brought me to re-write my opening page , with this in mind, as follows:

"Hell is paved with good intentions" - Dante.

This sentence may summarize the whole Scientology controversy.

I have no doubt that Scientologists feel they have a "technology" of the mind and spirit that can really help people and society. To a certain extend, they do. The problem with Scientology is the extreme position its founder took on various issues. Their good intentions, thus, can also turn into hell in certain circumstances.

These extremes is what anti-cult groups try to address. Unfortunately, they often fall themselves in the same traps cults do and, ironically, sometimes illustrate cultic zeal better than what they are trying to address. Here too, they end up doing more wrong than right - all wrapped in genuine good intentions as well.

Scientology has its limits. These are what I try to point out in my critical section. However, it also is not the monster critics try to paint. Such a depiction leads to discrimination, ostracism, and sometimes to outright drama and tragedies. This is the reason why I try to debunk the most common anti-Scientology myths. We need to take a critical stand towards Scientology, but we also have to avoid falling in the opposite trap of oppressing a religious minority. This is what I refer to as the Third Way.

Ultimately, it all boils down to our common search for true meaning and values. Obviously, good intentions are not enough. There is something else that ought to go with it. Understanding the issue at hand may help us find what this missing ingredient is.

Hong : Elephant Artist

Yepee - I now have my very own elephant painting!

Ever since I saw that video, I vowed that if ever I go to Chang Mai, Thailand, I will go and see that amazing feat. An elephant painting a self portrait!

One of the reasons I wanted to see it was to check if it was really true. Well, it is! It really is the elephant himself who paints it! Of course, you can see that the Mahout is holding her ear and speaks to him, so almost for sure the mahout is the one who directs the brush, via the elephant, but nevertheless!

It also has to be said that this particular elephant is a very nice being. It actually is a she, a young girl elephant born in 2001 and named "Hong". She even kissed me! OK, I gave her some banana for it, but nevertheless. I still remember to this day her soft breath on my cheek...

Then she was also the one elephant among the pack who was allowed to swim freely on to the other side, ran a bit there like a dog let free, and then came back on its own volition. Clearly a superior intellect and character, for an elephant, that is.

What surprised me was that those people there in Thailand do not seem aware that this elephant is world-famous. It was impossible for me to know while in Chang Mai where she was working. In desperation I just went to Maesa, the most known elephant camp, something like 30 km from town, even it was clear that Hong was not working there. Luckily, when I arrived there and asked for Nong, finally someone told me that she was working in another elephant camp, called Maetamann. They don't have their own web site, and they are selling her master pieces at the same prices as other paintings! As I said, they just seem unaware that they have among them a precious jewel that is worth much more!

A Cute Letter to Ron

I am currently sorting out old papers and found a draft of an unfinished letter to Ron which I wrote, well, I don't know because there's no date. I was already in the GO WW (or maybe already out) so it must have been somewhere around 1978-1980

I think the letter is cute and also amusing, while at the same time reflecting the absurdity of the ever increasing prices.

Here it is :

(Note: my English wasn't that good at the time):

Dear Ron,

I write you about the the prices of admin courses (in GO WW).

By my opinion, they are much too high and unreal.

For example, the "Telex Writer" checksheet is a very little checksheet of about one page and with very few issues. Just a matter on how to write a telex. This course was at £25 a few years ago and with the price increase is now at more than £400!!! This is the amount of one month wage of a full time work in Belgium, which means that one has to work full time for a month before he can afford to learn how to write a telex.

If it can be argued that the technical courses and auditing "have no prices", I don't think that it is the same as regard some admin courses.

As the price increase continue on those courses, they will be more and more expensive and, for me, more and more at an unreal price.

I also saw that the DSEC (?) was, at the moment, at around £16,000 (probably more now). Although one could argue that this is the value of the data contained in it, it is however a fact that it would take a freeloader around four years of hard work before completing the payment at this price (since they usually don't have money to start with an have to start at zero in the wog).

That's all. Duh... Cute, I think, and already reflecting a nonsensical situation back then.

PS - Boy, am I happy not to be slave of this absurd system anymore...

Musing on Bernie and Other "Stooges"

Even though I am not posting to ARS I get my daily dose of "criticism" from so-called critics in ARS, just for maintaining this blog and expressing views that are not approved by the ARSCC committee. Critics who happen to have similar views as mine, or who dare say that Bernie may not be a complete evil moron after all, get to be tagged likewise.

Just check this thread for entertaining reading.

Even Ted Mayett, who is far from being a "cult apologist" as he almost solo picketed the CoS for years long before Anonymous got its pampers changed, is now assimilated to one for the mere crime of expressing doubts about Anonymous.

Here is a poetic excerpt from this piece of high level "criticism" on the part of so-called critics:

As an apologist, he's comparable with J. Gordon Melton, the "scholar" who is periodically paid to suck David Miscavige's cock and studiously put a stamp of approval on the RPF gulags or commit other gross insults to modern civilization.

Pretty soon they'll have their own "SP List", reminiscent of the one that was once maintained on the now defunct Anonymous forum "enturbulation.org", and of course just like the one of the CoS.

But of course "we are not cultists, they are" - right?

About Bernie

There are currently a couple of lengthy threads about me and my web sites on ARS, fostered by my recent open letter to Andreas Heldal-Lund on OCMB asking him to activate my months-old account registration request so I could have my say on Don Carlo's threads about my websites.

In OCMB and on ARS people have made a few speculations as to who I really am. Some people thought that I was from Germany and others that my native language was Dutch

I post pseudonymously, for a variety of reasons, and did so as I started posting as an outright Scientology critic on ARS back in 1996.

There are, however, a few things that I let know about me over the years:

I am from Belgium and my native language is French.

I believe my command of Shakespeare's language is more than fair, but here and there, there may be some idioms or subtlety I may miss.

The latest example of this is my recent blog entry where I claimed that "What is Scientology Queries Tops Google search in 2008". In my mind this meant “among the top”, but, upon a remark in that ARS thread, I looked it up, and now realize that it really means “at the topmost”. I adapted the post title to reflect this.

If you have any more such comments or doubts or whatever, my comments section is open and I suggest you post them there or sent me email before setting off in wild accusation campaigns based on nothing more than a possible misunderstanding.

Though moderated, the comments section is open to every viewpoints, except for spam, off-topic posts, copyright violation, and invasion of privacy. Apart from this, I always post all comments, no matter how insulting, false or misguided (keep in mind, though, that this is a comment section only, not a public forum aimed at extensive debates). I also believe that aggressive comments tell more about those making them than it does about the target of their vindication.

For the rest, what I also made known, was that I was on local staff from 1975 to 1978, during which I went for a lengthy stage at the European HQ in Denmark, then started working for the SoCo bureau at GO WW where I stayed for an other half year before leaving the movement altogether in 1980. My Scientology stories are recounted here, here, and in more details here.

After I quit Scientology, I never had anything to do with it, and didn’t even join any Freezone groups as I simply stopped believing in the tech when it came to spiritual results, my one and prime interest.

I basically “fell” back on my previous spiritual path, that of Theosophy and Krishnamurti, and extended it with things like Alice Bailey (about whom I had a web page until representatives of that movement sent me copyright notice to put what I webbed down, and ignored my request to keep part of it as fair use). Nowadays I am a fan of Eckhart Tolle, which was tipped to me by a Scientology ex-member who was greatly helped by my web site.

After I left Scientology I was fascinated by the anti-cult movement and traveled quite extensively in the USA to personally understand what it was all about, and even had an extensive interview with the dreaded Ted Patrick as he was commuting between San Diego and Los Angeles (where he had to attend one of his numerous suits). My spiritual background, my Scientology experience, and my anti-cult-related researches are part of the reasons my web site and blog reflect a host of what I refer to as “alternative” viewpoints.

It’s funny to read from the ARS thread above (I do read ARS currently but try to avoid starting to post to it for now), that Piltdown Man thought my native language was German. I am not sure why he would think that. I do have a certain understanding of German but when it comes to speak that language, I am rather clumsy.

Piltdown Man is currently one of my favorite posters, even though we probably disagree on more issues than one. I appreciate his witty style and insights, but I have no idea who he could be, even though we both are from the same tiny country.

Most of my friends who were in the org at the same time as myself are now ex-members too (partly because of my own dissent), and all of them unanimously share my moderate viewpoint on Scientology (which leads me to believe from that sample and emails I receive that this is a very common situation when it comes to ex-members). I have heard through some of my friends that they know of someone in Belgium who is more radical or engaged than the lot of us but I really don’t know who it could be. Probably just as well.

Unbiased Bias

News are a bit slow currently so I will tackle with one of the arguments found on the EO thread about my blog.

Let's start with this post. In it, the author takes a few quotes from my blog then writes sarcastically "Clearly a reputable unbiased source of information on Anonymous!"

This is the unbiased/neutral/balanced argument that sometimes pops up. Basically, it says that I claim to be unbiased, neutral, balanced, but that in reality I am not.

The problem with this argument is that I never claimed to be unbiased, neutral, or balanced. At least, I am not aware I ever did. People do jump to this conclusion, though, and not only critics. They seem to think that if someone criticize both sides, then he is supposed to be unbiased, neutral, and balanced. This, however, is not correct.

What I claim to be is independent. This means that I basically take a stand against the negative aspects of both Scientology and its critics. This is different than claiming to be neutral, unbiased, or balanced.

To be independent is different than being neutral. Neutral means you don't take a position. Not only do I take position, but I take a double position: at the same time against Scientology and against critics.

Nor do I claim to be unbiased. Being at the same time against both sides does not necessarily mean one is unbiased. I do have my bias. In particular, I do not like when people claim to be fighting against Scientology for ethical reasons, then go on to engage in the same type of unethical behavior. This is clearly visible in most of the quotes chosen by that poster.

As for "balanced" I guess you could say that the fact of criticizing both sides is "balanced" but again it does not mean that I should not tackle negatively with what I find objectionable. By "balanced" critics want me to be soft towards them. In this sense, I am not balanced. I tell things as they are. Critics would agree when I criticize Scientology, but when I criticize them then all of a sudden I am not balanced...

Another possible signification of this is that I should have the same amount of criticism on my site towards Scientology as I have towards critics. I don't think so. There are thousands of people criticizing Scientology and hundreds of critical web sites. There is, however, almost nobody criticizing critics from an independent perspective. This is the specialty of my web site, and naturally it makes up for most of it. As I explained otherwise, however, my criticism of Scientology is more potent for current members than critical web site, precisely because I criticize both sides.

The unbiased/neutral/balanced argument in this case basically amounts to a "straw man" argument, where someone builds a straw man by giving his own (false) interpretation of the argument someone else is supposed to make then goes on to "burn" the straw man he just built. In reality, he is only arguing with his own misunderstanding of what that person is saying.

Since I do not claim to be unbiased/neutral/balanced, building up an argument showing that I am not has no sense.

In particular, my blog is even more representative of my bias, because I mostly write it in one go, whereas with my web page I may spend more time trying to police things up. It only is a way for me to keep up with the news. It does not claim to be unbiased / neutral / balanced. It only is my take on the news. That's all it is, and I do claim it is done from an independent perspective.

Anonymous Discovers My Blog

Anonymous finally discovered the existence of my blog, through the post I made about the Black Op 8-8-8. I must say, there are still many anons as I get loads of hits from that thread on enturbulation.org (EO).

What I don't understand is that in the thread and in comments to my post, they point to two links to show that the 8-8-8 was not an utter failure. One is about a radio show, and the other about news uncovered by Anonymous that high ranking CoS officials are illegally in the UK. None of these two examples have anything to do with anything they spoke about a return to phase I hacking the CoS and other pranks. It has everything to do with what Anonymous has been doing all along without any Black Op being involved, promoting anti-Scientology stances in the media and uncovering anything that could damage the CoS. So I really fail to see the relevance of these links.

I just now checked again scientology.org. It is loading damn fast. I checked Google news again, not a single article about Anonymous Phase III events.

So, sorry, from where I stand it is still a monumental failure. They were hoping to get back the rash of news they got when they started to hack Scientology websites and they didn't get even a single news article, and this was several days before the news of Isaac Hayes' death took over the Scientology-related news. Quoting two totally irrelevant links does not help a bit.

Now this is also just the first part. The Black Ops were not a goal by themselves. They were also supposed to bring back the lulz and people in the fold. We'll see about that later on, but excuse me if I have my doubts about it.

By the way that thread in EO contains also a wide variety of comments about my blog. I don't have time to address them now but maybe later. By all means they are similar to what has been said about me and my site already but whenever I find the time, I'll try to address some of the arguments made.

Thanks for watching, Anonymous, and don't think I am anti-anonymous myself. Lots of bright people trying to do what they think is right. What I am only saying is this: try to check things out further than what is first apparent. Things are far more complicated than the simplistic presentation made on critical web sites. Going around just repeating these is neither original nor effective in the long run.

Rolling Eyes and Getting to See the Light

One of the nice folks over at ESK wrote something about me that I feel is quite correct.

Critics often accuse me of being OSA or some sort of disguised/deluded Scientology agent because of my critical stance towards critics. It does not matter much to them that I am also critical of Scientology. In fact, some of them, such as paranoid Lerma, claim that this is only a "cover" to better entrap unsuspecting victims.

The fact is, however, that precisely because I take the stance I do towards critics, some Scientology members will read my pages, including its critical content towards Scientology, whereas they won't read other critical pages, and this may start them consider critical aspects of Scientology they would not otherwise. By agreeing with me on the exaggerations and abuses of critics, what I critically write about Scientology is more credible to them, especially since such criticism is reasoned, based on my own thought process upon leaving, and not wild accusations.

What happens is in fact the exact opposite than what Lermaloons claim. One needs to be quite paranoid and cultish to think that my site is a malicious and clever setup by the CoS. I just write things as I see it and as I feel correct. To think that any criticism of critics is automatically an OSA operation is quite cultic by itself, as if this kind of criticism could not be valid on its own and evaluated as such.

I thus receive from time to time emails from Scientology members thanking me for helping them to get to see the negative side of Scientology through my web site - precisely through its combination of reasonable criticism, allied with exposing the exaggerations, myths and abuses on the critics' side.

But you don't have to take my word for it, here you have a statement on a public forum.

Note - I would agree that sometimes even reasonable critics reading my site, and especially my blog where I write without giving much thought to it, may legitimately "roll eyes", and sometimes I wish I had the luxury of time to better qualify and nuance my writings, but nevertheless, the fact of Scientologists opening up as described does happen, and critics should do well to consider this angle rather than trying to dead-agent me with all kinds of rather silly cultic rationalizations:

"I'm not Bernie and don't know him, just know some of the back history. Like I said, he has been accused of being an OSA op and cult apologist many many times. I happen to think that despite his criticism of the critics -- in fact, because of it -- his site can be useful for Scnists getting out of CofS.

I think that because when I was getting out, I read every page of his site. Because he was willing to "look at both sides", at the time I found his criticism to be especially potent - far, far more creditable than a.r.s for instance which was so full of vitriol I didn't care for reading it.

Nowadays I roll my eyes and would heavily debate a lot of his points, but I still think it makes a good transition point for CofSers who may be testing the waters on the outside, even if they're fairly indoctrinated.

I don't think it's an op because it's been going on so long, and while the CofS may have once been capable of such sophistication as the infiltration you describe, nothing the CofS has done in relation to the internet in general has shown me that they are still so capable.

When he put up his page, the CofSes general "handling" for the internet was to try to remove the a.r.s. newsgroup, fill it with sporgeries, and put up spam pages. I just don't see them putting up a site that is even remotely critical of CofS, especially not at that time. But I'll allow that I could be wrong. "