Scientology Oh No

YouTube - Scientology Oh No.

This 18-years old girl made some favorable videos for Scientology but has now changed her mind.

The video has been featured on Mark Bunker's blog, as well as "Tom Newton's" blog.

Tom thinks it's a sham because the girl only registered on Youtube recently and she already has so many Anonymous friends.

I listened to the video and I don't think it's a sham. What she says about the registrar pressure and what she did in Scientology is plausible. She also sounds sincere.

Her main point is that if Scientology really cared about people, they would not pressure them as they do to do the courses.

I agree with her on that. The registrar pressure is one of the cultish aspects of Scientology.

Mind you, she does not seem to think the tech itself is bad:

"I am not saying that the courses won't help you. but that it has to be what the customers want" [...]

"I am not going to say that I regret it in the first place, because the experiences I did have there at the time when I was doing my first session did feel real, but other than that I feel you really need to draw the line, know your boundaries, or you'll end up handing your house to the CoS, as some did."

However, she really is quite clueless when it comes to Scientology itself.

To start with, no Scientologists would swallow half of their words as she does. That girl either did not do the communication course, or, if she did, didn't understand it and certainly does not apply it.

She also claims that the "Up and Down" course teaches that SP have "that (bad) energy" about them. As far as I remember, Scientology teaches that SPs are stuck in past incidents, not that they have a bad energy about them.

By all means, she says she started the courses last January. Her experience is obviously limited, and it shows.

Apparently, she removed the previous videos she did, which is a pity, because people cannot make their mind about her story with incomplete information. I think she should leave them up and, if she wants, put comments on them pointing to her later videos, or comments pointing to why she thinks otherwise now.

She will obviously be flooded with Shallonymous own version, and she already starts using the "Scientology is hypnosis" myth. In fact, one may wonders if this is not what happened at the outset, as she started posting pro-Scientology videos.

I hope, however, that she will be able to see through Shallonymous' cultish aspect just as she saw through Scientology's one.

It's a typical Scientology 1 and Scientology 2 case. The mix of both in a single group can be quite confusing indeed.

Starting Other News

Those last days I only commented about a couple of news only, because I simply don't have the time to follow all of them as I used to, as I now am engaged in other projects.

I will try to keep on commenting on the main news, and for the other ones that may be newsworthy, I'll just group them under the banner of "Other News" for that day, with just a single paragraph comment or quote. I may try to back track in this for the recent days.

The first example of such is below.

Other News, Feb 13

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gestures 'help kids learn speech' -links to Scientogy "mass in learning" and to Rudolf Steiners' concept of "pre-mental".

Ex Scientology Kids :: View topic - Bernie: Marty Rathbun sees through web -"The majority of the "anti-cult fanatics," as Bernie calls them, want Marty to take responsibility for his past actions and to speak publicly about what he knows. They are not asking for him to do "nasty things" to the Co$." - although I disagree with this statement, I did get carried away in what I wrote and now corrected it.

benevoles-india - Scientology is increasingly turning to new markets. India is one.

Just Kat Stuff: Coffee Poem - nice poem from this Scientologist - and yammy, what best is there than a good coffee?

Slyck News - Slyck Interviews Giganews: "Giganews: As a Service Provider under the DMCA, we stand in stark contrast to file sharing technologies such as BitTorrent. The DMCA is the codification of the Netcom case , which arose from a copyright holder attempting to hold a Usenet provider liable for user-generated content in a Usenet newsgroup (alt.religion.scientology). The DMCA provides clear guidelines and 'Safe Harbors' which clearly outline a process for protecting copyrights. If copyrighted materials are available through our service without a copyright holder's consent, the copyright holder can send us a DMCA 'take-down' notice and we promptly remove such materials from our systems."

Los Angeles News - On Web Vigilantes: "My Date With Anonymous" Draws Anonymous Responses - page 1: The two aspects of Anonymous: "Don’t package me in with these tossers. Don’t ever think that we’re trying to do good in the world, just in our misguided, vigilante way. We’re just looking for a good laugh."

Tattle: Will Smith is tops in bankability survey | Philadelphia Daily News | 02/12/2009: "That Tom Cruise isn't on the list is simply a case of anti-Scientology, Hollywood-people-think-the-guy-is-a-jerk bias. Grossing $82 million from 'Val-kyrie,' Cruise has had only one box-office flop this century (the political, art-house movie, 'Lions for Lambs'). Otherwise he's 8-for-10 in movies grossing more than $100 million."

Orange County Arts - A Leer Back at OC's History of Theatrical Naughtiness, Nastiness and Outright Sexual Perversions - page 1: Scientology very liberal: "“Well, they don’t do two dogs onstage fucking, but they’re pretty liberal,” he replied."

Scientologist speaker aims to clear up misconceptions - News: "'There are a lot of people who criticize Scientology but don't know much about it,' said Lloyd-Moffett. 'People should understand what the religion is all about before they judge.'"

Inside Scientology: "When asked what she would say to the group Anonymous, Priscilla replied,'If they're protesting something we actually believe then I'll have a discussion with them. But most of what they say is pretty outrageous and kind of ridiculous.'"

Michelle Obama Makes Vogue Cover - BBC NEWS

(off-topic)

It is only the second time an American First Lady has taken the place of a model on a Vogue cover - the other was Hillary Clinton in 1998.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Michelle Obama makes Vogue cover: "'We want entertaining in the White House to feel like America, that we are reminded of all the many facets of our culture. The Latino community, the Asian-American community, the African-American community... hip-hop, spoken word - we want to bring the youth in, for them to hear their voices in this,' she said."

Losing Jett - People.com

Losing Jett - Death, Personal Tragedy, Individual Class, John Travolta, Kelly Preston, : People.com

A moving article by People Magazine.

"Jett looked at John as if he was the sun and the moon," says McDermott. "And John reciprocated." [...]

"When Ella would go shopping she would always say, 'Let's get this for Jett—he loves kites,'" recalls Ossi. [...] Now his grieving parents are struggling to make sense of losing the son they loved so fiercely. "Ella is trying to keep her mom and dad up," says Ossi. "She is giving them lots of hugs and kisses and being there for them as a friend and as a daughter."

The magazine had now time to do proper researches, and depicts quite adequately Scientology's position in the matter:

"Sources close to the Travolta family say Jett received top-notch medical care and that any suggestion to the contrary—including the notion that the couple's Scientology beliefs would prevent them from pursuing conventional medical treatment for Jett—is false." [...]

"... Tommy Davis, a spokesman for the Church of Scientology International (above, the church's Celebrity Centre in Hollywood). "Autism is a medical condition. We've never said the church doesn't recognize it." Nor does Scientology prohibit the treatment of seizures. "

It was already obvious that Jett suffered some form of neurological disorder, and actress Anne Archer (actually the mother of the above-named Tommy Davis) confirms this:

"I observed that he was significantly mentally handicapped"

The article also confirms that apparently nobody ever heard Jett speak:

"the young man who often smiled but was never heard speaking; " [...]

"Jett, who never spoke or interacted with the other kids" [....]

"John was the one who put the shoes on his feet and would ask him, 'How do these feel, buddy?'" recalls an employee. "Jett was smiling really big."

This, of course, makes suspicions that he suffered from autism stronger. However, as a reminder, even if this was the case (and such a diagnostic cannot be made easily), it would have changed nothing, since there is no cure for it, and the main danger, that of seizures, was fully taken into account - even though, tragically, they had the better on Jett eventually.

Hollywood's Most Valuable Actors - Forbes.com

Hollywood's Most Valuable Actors - Forbes.com

Forbes ventures in a new field, with a ranking they have never done before - that of the most bankable actor. The ranks were determined by statistics and also through interviews with members of the entertainment industry.

The top 10:

1 Will Smith 10.00
2 Johnny Depp 9.89
2 Leonardo DiCaprio 9.89
2 Angelina Jolie 9.89
2 Brad Pitt 9.89
6 Tom Hanks 9.87
7 George Clooney 9.81
8 Denzel Washington 9.76
9 Matt Damon 9.69
10 Jack Nicholson 9.68

Through a compound of different criteria, Esquire still found Cruise to be the most bankable star in Jun. 2008, , though he is not in the top ten of the Forbes ranking.

Tom Cruise, however, is still on the number 13 spot (out of 1,400 actors) of Forbes, with a score of 9.60 - which shows the fragility of such a ranking, where the the distances between ranks are really tight.

Take into account that the survey was conducted from Sep. 3, 2008 through Nov. 16, 2008 - in other words, before the release of Valkyrie.

I am quite confident that in a survey conducted now, Cruise would easily overtake people like Clooney, Denzel Washintong, and Matt Damon, if not raise considerably higher.

Valkyrie made $82 million (and counting) on the domestic market, whereas the latest film of Will Smith, Seven Pounds, only made $69 million. And what about Adam Sandler? That stunning guy is only nr 12, whereas his latest film (released after the survey too), Bedtime Stories, made $108 million!

One also has to take into account that, in spite of the difficult position Cruise found himself, he still tackled with a controversial movie, taking considerable risks, which is all to his credit. If Forbes had added an integrity factor in the mix, there is no doubt Cruise would have come up as number one again.

You can search the name of other actors here.

Follows my personal comments - you can skip this part if you want :-)

• Scientology rumors, and him using Scientology tech in his schools, has not prevented Smith from gaining a perfect 10/10 score
• Many of the top 20 actors participated in Ocean's Eleven and benefited from the high scores the film made. This is cheating a bit as they just surf on the wave of Bratt Pitt and Julia Roberts. I did not see Ocean's Eleven but I saw Ocean's Twelve, which, for me, was frankly superficial and bad. I hated it, and skipped Ocean's 13 altogether on that basis.
  
• Johnny Depp has indeed created a stunning character in Pirates of the Caribbeans, but apart from that nothing outstanding really comes to mind. He was average in the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, frankly boring in Finding Neverland, but good in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, though the show on this one has been stolen by an outstanding performance of Antonio Banderas (now only 127th on Forbes, with a score of 6.66!)
• Yes, Leonardo DiCaprio had a super hit with the Titanic, but, frankly, he's not looking as sexy anymore, IMO. I saw him in Blood Diamonds - still a great actor but nothing worth a second place, still IMHO
• Angelina Jolie - of course fabulous in Tomb Raider, but overall I have to question her choice of scripts. I can't name another film I really liked from her, apart maybe Original Sin. She was just good in Wanted and frankly boring in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Nevertheless, she's a truly stunning woman - both for her look and her personality, and fully deserves to be at the top. Besides, she is the only woman in the top ten! Is this normal or what? Where is Julie Andrews now? Number 729 with a score of 3.02!
• Bratt Pitt - same remark as for Angelina. Troy was good, Ocean's Twelve and Mr. & Mrs. Smith terrible.
• Tom Hanks - I need to see more movie from this guy. I only saw Lady Killers and the Da Vinci Code. The later was good. I never got around to watch Forest Gump (a shame). And, BTW, where is Travolta now? Number 31, with a score of 8.47. Still passes...

More Banning on the Part of Shallonymous

There is a discussion going on on a board called "Freethought and Rationalist" discussing the reports that Amnesty International is looking into allegation of "Human Trafficking" in Scientology. AI will probably eventually reject these claims for the ridiculous assertions they are, so that's not really newsworthy at this stage.

However, I found more interesting the fact that there is a poster on this board, named "whichphilosophy", a veteran member who has already made 6,870 posts and counting, and who comes up with very good arguments. He seems to be a moderate Scientologist. In one of his posts he writes:

Amnesty International to investigate Scientology? - Page 2 - FRDB:

"Say what you like it's a liberal board. Besides when I answer Anonymous forums presenting facts such as actual court documents or affidavits I am soon blocked from posting (often on the 3rd time). Here people are not so fanatical in their beliefs though really all they have to rely on are what they see on the internet."

Not sure that this really happened but I would not be surprised, knowing Shallonymous cultishness and the hypocrisy of critics regarding "free speech".

This is further illustrated through a recent PR news report, written by Shallonymous themselves (since the press in general just ignores them, including for their "one year anniversary"), in which they boast about various events which they attribute to themselves (just like they did in their Dec. 8 propaganda video), and in which one of their boasts is:

"4) German government extend official invitation to Anonymous. German authorities organised a conference last September in Hamburg entitled "What is Scientology?" and extended an official invitation to Anonymous to attend. Scientology representative Tommy Davis was denied access on the grounds that "If you discuss the dangers of illegal drugs, you do not invite the drug dealer to speak on stage"

This is typical of critics' justification to prevent free speech: first label accordingly, then you do not need to feel guilty about banning the representation of opposed viewpoints. Never mind the fact that the title of this conference was "What is Scientology"? So you would not want a Scientology representative to give his view or defend Scientology against accusations, right?

Note - About this invitation see my posts of Aug 3, 2008 and Feb 10.

Caberta Intimate Champagne Expert

These automatic translations are sometimes just hilarious. I could not resist this one!

Hamburg Scientology Officer Ursula Caberta wants to leave her Post - alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups:

"Caberta applies nationwide as intimate champagne expert of the international scene."

Maybe 16.5 years is now old enough for consumption...

Clearwater Protest

"ANONYMOUS" IS A GANG OF CYBER-BULLIES AND ANTI-RELIGION EXTREMISTS: ANONYMOUS PHOTOGRAPHING LICENSE PLATES OF SCIENTOLOGIST OWNED VEHICLES:

"'We protested from 3 pm until 6 pm... scarring scilons back into their turtle shells...We got a couple honks and a lot of 'Fuck you' and 'You guys are the KKK!' from people driving by...I took pictures of...their license plates for your enjoyment.'"

One of Shallonymous' initial aims was to help "scilons escape the cult". By the quote above, they are not very successful at it and seem content of just "scarring scilons back into their turtle shells". Was that ever their noble initial purpose? These protests have now degenarated in just stalking and annoying the "clams". It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever anymore.

Note that this happened during the Feb. 7 Clearwater monthly protest, where five (read: 5!) anons protested, whereas last year in Feb. they had 150, and last Mar. 300! Now they have 5! Add this to the stats I reported last Feb. 8 and behold the sublime decadence of a movement that started well but could not keep up because they were unable to digg futher than a few millimeters down the real issues. That's why I now call them Shallonymous.

Another trend I observed lately is that because of the low numbers they are now too ashamed to call what they do "monthly protests" anymore, and pretend these are just "Flash raids", even though it happens on the date of the monthly protests!

Marty Rathbun Sees Through the Web

Marthy Rathbun posted two messages in the Exscn forum. I quite agree with most of what he says, except that his skill at breaking his stance into paragraphs does not seem better than his skill at making web pages, but that's admitedly a minor point.

Ex Scientologist Message Board - Search Results

Excerpt:

"One of Scn's greatest problems is its instilling of the “us vs. them” attitude in members. Having studied deeply of the causes of its conflicts from the outset I can see how the old man fell into that trap. I am not arguing it was justified or not. Unfortunately, it is largely responsible for the unproductive, divisive and, for some, traumatic current scene in the margins between Scn and former members. From my short encounter on this site, it appears some folks are still dramatizing what they consider is the winning valence. Example given, people instructing me what to say and to whom to say it and when sort of suggests a cyber SP Hall."

Needless to say, anti-cult fanatics have been hassling him to come over their side, and to "come clean" by taking on their cause - not something I would personally recommend, at least not in the way most critics engage in that "Cause".

[Note: I originally wrote "as if doing nasty things on the other side is going to offset the nasty things you did on the one side..." This has been criticized on the ESK board. Although this is obviously not what anti-cultists ask him to do, that's what most of them end up doing. Nevertheless, I must admit that their criticism is valid, in that I should not have put it that way, and I got carried away. I've tried to express my thought in a better way now, as above.]

I am glad that, so far, Marthy could see through that web of illusion.


Related blog entries: R-Rathbun-

Ursula Caberta Wants to Give Up

Scientology-Gegnerin Caberta geht im Ärger | hpd (in German)

Ursula Caberta is angry that her job as head of the Working Group on Scientology is not valued enough and has asked a transfer.

Recent news have been devastating for Caberta.

On Nov. 22, Germany declined to ban Scientology, with comments that clearly showed Caberta's allegations to be ridiculous.

On Jan. 22, Valkyrie, the latest and controversial movie of Tom Cruise, received a five-minute standing ovation in Berlin, in spite of Cruise being a prominent member of Scientology. There is no doubt Caberta considered this and the subsequent success of the movie as another failure of her work.

Her only "success" was to gain the support of Shallonymous - which counts for nothing since they precisely are just that: shallow and nowadays mostly ignored.

Senator Seeks Bush-era Truth Commission

Senator seeks Bush-era truth commission | Politics | Reuters:

"A U.S. 'truth commission' should probe Bush administration policies including the promotion of war in Iraq, detainee treatment and wiretapping without a warrant, an influential senator proposed on Monday.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called for the commission as way to heal what he called sharp political divides and to prevent future abuses.

He compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era."

Excellent idea. I hope it will push through.

Hilarious Video from Gerry Armstrong

YouTube - Gerry talks to David Miscavige February 5, 2009

Having failed to respond adequately to RoadRunner's challenge about the Affirmations, Amrstrong has now made a hilarious video in which he admonishes Miscavige to publish the original to vindicate him!

"Recently there has been an incredible attack by people who are, I believe without any doubt whatsoever, your agents, your people, certainly who are serving your interests, who are trying to cast some doubts on the authenticity of LRH admissions". [...]

"David, you must! You know that this attack that is going on on me, a pointless but very threatening, very insane attack, you can resolve it." [...]

"you know that Hubbard was involved in your cult, and the admissions contain the admission that he was involved in your cult and that you are involved in your cult"

Besides such statements being nuts, I very much doubt Miscavigue was even of this world in 1946.

Not only does Armstrong urge Miscavige to publish the documents to validade his accusations, he also says miscavige has a responsibility to publish them because "it is the most significant Scientology scripture and will help people go free... free from Scientology and from LRH the slaver and from you the slaver"!

I am sure Miscavige will be deeply touched by such a message... and will come to Gerry's help because of course he is eternally grateful to Armstrong for having stolen $800,000 from the CoS.

Never mind the crazyness of that tape, it is of course praised by Shallonymous: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/gerry-armstrongs-message-david-miscavige-38519/

"Well Spoken Gerry! I will help to mirror the video. " [...]

"any info on what this "current" attack on Gerry is? " [...]

"i have a suspicion... not entirely sure this is correct but 1-2 weeks prior to this video there was posts on a.r.s showing up doing a piss poor job of trying to debunk the admissions. none of the ones i skimmed were of any real substance... barely more than spam imho."

Mind you, there is at least one anon who is now asking questions. Some snippets:

B: "Also i don't understand why the person, who had sent him the Affirmations would ask him to destroy the copy."

R: "Finger prints. DNA. Litigious, vicious, corrupt organization. What is there to not understand? "

B: "Finger prints, maybe. But DNA doesn't show up in a scan. I mean Gerry could have first scanned the original and then uploaded the scan to the internet to have a definite proof for its authenticity."

I'll be checking the thread to see shallonymous in their stupendous "dox or STFU" farce again later on.


Related blog entries: R-Affirmations-

Compiling Personal Information

More example of the kind of information Anonymous members are compiling about the individually targeted Scientologists (click the link to see the pics):

"ANONYMOUS" IS A GANG OF CYBER-BULLIES AND ANTI-RELIGION EXTREMISTS: ANONYMOUS SINGLING OUT INDIVIDUAL SCIENTOLOGISTS:

"They allege that they are posting the personal data of individual Scientologists in order to "protect themselves from Fair Game and Stalking". According to their own twisted logic, since Scientologists supposedly stalk people (according to Anonymous' mischaracterizations and stereotypes), it's totally justified to stalk them first.

What scares me is that the more paranoid Anonymous members also believe that Scientologists KILL people. Should we then expect Anonymous to start KILLING people? "

Related blog entries: R-InvasionOfPrivacy-

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Beauty is what we make it out to be. There certainly is an intrinsic beauty, I believe, that exists on its own and on its own plane, but here down it only comes out if we project it. It is an outcome of our own being, and only if we are able to make our being radiate will we really perceive it. It's as if there was a sort of light we could project on things that would reveal their beauty to us. Creation is the ultimate expression of beauty, and that says something about the active component that is part of it.

I realized this as I was walking yesterday in my neighborhood. Obviously, after many years of living in this environment I supposedly know it. Well... no so... I was walking yesterday in what I would describe as the "spirit of giving". It's just a spirit, and just a name for it, but I use it to describe a state where something emanates from the core of your own being, something deeply creative. Well, it's like it was a new environment. They were thousands things that just appeared as if they were never there before, and yet, of course they were always there. It was almost an enchanted paradise, and yet it just was my own neighborhood which I've known for years... I can only explain this as that something that came out of me was just reflected back and things in my environment sort of "came alive" through it.

I am also reminded of an other event. I once worked in an environment that was not really nice. The offices were a bit old and certainly not up to the standard an upscale office would be. Surprisingly, it turned out to be one of the nicest office I ever saw. Why? Because people were trying to compensate for the grayness of their environment. The kind of stuff they were coming up with were quite amazing. They displayed a lot of creativity and every office you walked into was like a different universe. It turned the whole building as a sort of enchanted paradise too, not because of the building itself, obviously, but because of what people put out to enhance it...

So again, IMHO, we do not need to seek out beauty. It just will come to us, wherever we are, on the condition we can create it - create it through the quality of our own being.