Re: Scientology issues statement about Channel 4 programme
[30 Nov 1997]

A more accurate statement, in my opinion, would be "Through our own propaganda mouthpiece,
Freedom Magazine, our Office of Special Affairs and through the use of hired investigators such as Eugene
Ingram, we are continually intimidating reputable program directors, former cult members and *anyone*
else who would be so brave as to shed a truthful light on our decades-long attempt to hide the truth and
re-write Hubbard's past".

From: Warrior <>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology issues statement about Channel 4 programme
Date: 30 Nov 1997 13:44:38 -0800
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <65smo6$>
Xref: szdc alt.religion.scientology:231590


In article <65s4tj$nvv$>, says...
> The CoS has issued the following statement about the C4 documentary.
>As the late lamented Andrew Milne no longer seems to post this sort
>of thing to ars, I suppose I'd better do it:

Thank you, Chris. It seems OSA's ars PR machine dropped it's "hat"
and failed to inform netizens. Thanks for bypassing them. OSA's lack
of "wearing their hat" with regards to posting this statement to
ars would indicate that Scientology is in a condition of danger <grin>
according to their own policies covering their system of "ethics",
statistics and job responsibilities ("hats").

>The Church of Scientology condemns as "journalistic
>terrorism" the vicious rendition by Channel Four's "Secret
>Lives" of a purported "biography" of L. Ron Hubbard, the
>Founder of Scientology and Dianetics.

Ooooooh... It seems that Scientology has an "ARC break". <heh heh>
I wonder why it is that Scientologists are so upset? According to their
now-deceased founder. L Ron Hubbard, upsets ("ARC breaks") occur when
"withholds" have been missed. One thing I have learned well over these
last 27 years is that Scientology *really* doesn't like it when an
outsider points out the truth ("pulls their withholds").

>The program is the most contemptible form of tabloid
>disinformation and reeks of journalistic deceit and

Perhaps this is true in the eyes of Scientologists. After all,
the organization (cult) and it's followers (culties) have their
own (false) reality. Obviously, their delusion extends to an
ill-conceived notion that only Scientology should be able to speak
publicly about Hubbard's past. This way, only officially approved
"facts" may be presented by the "tell-an-acceptable-truth" cult of

>Boxes of factual information and documents disproving
>the lies of their sources were provided to 3BM, the
>independent company that produced the show, its director
>Simon Berthon and its producer Jill Robinson. The producers
>were offered an interview with L. Ron Hubbard's official
>biographer, Mr. Dan Sherman, which they ignored.
>Mr. Sherman had access to the entirety of the archives

No doubt this "entirety of the archives" refers to _Scientology's_
archives. This same organization is still trying desperately to re-write
Hubbard's history. During the 15 years that I considered myself a member
of Scientology, the cult never once told me the whole truth about Hubbard's
past. It seems that it was convenient for the organization's PR machine
to ignore numerous embarrassing facts about Hubbard's past. Some of these
facts include Hubbard's three marriages. I was told by the cult that
Hubbard had only been married once (to Mary Sue), when in fact he was
married three times. The cult also conveniently ignored Hubbard's bigamy.
Scientology also continued to portray Hubbard as a physicist, when in
actuality he dropped out of George Washington University. Early policy
letters issued by Hubbard are signed by himself as "Dr. Hubbard" --
yet another lie. I would also point out that Hubbard failed to tell of
his life-long drug and alcohol use, now recounted by numerous individuals
who previously held positions close to Hubbard. The list goes on; the
falsehoods issued publicly and to members of the cult are numerous.

When many, many documents were entered into evidence in the Gerald
Armstrong case, Scientology tried desperately to get them back. The
veracity of many (if not most) of these same documents was not denied.

>documenting L. Ron Hubbard's life, comprising several
>million pages of documentation--government records, personal
>letters, manuscripts, diaries--a literal mountain of
>material. All of it was rejected in creating a programme
>dripping with bias, lies and a disreputable parade of
>self-serving and discredited sources.

Well, I guess if the program is "dripping with bias, lies and
a disreputable parade of self-serving and discredited sources", then
a lawsuit is in order. I look forward to Scientology "putting its money
where its mouth is". Let a court of law decide the truth.

>Through our own news journal, we are investigating how
>this atrocious programme came to be aired and we have
>uncovered the sordid tactics used by 3BM's Jill Robinson and
>Simon Berthon.

We all know Scientology's love of "investigating" those who
are critical, those the cult perceives as "enemies", etc. A more
accurate statement, in my opinion, would be "Through our own
propaganda mouthpiece, Freedom Magazine, our Office of Special
Affairs and through the use of hired investigators such as Eugene
Ingram, we are continually intimidating reputable program directors,
former cult members and *anyone* else who would be so brave as to
shed a truthful light on our decades-long attempt to hide the truth
and re-write Hubbard's past".

>L. Ron Hubbard has not been the first target of these
>hacks. Berthon and Robinson have constructed distasteful
>presentations of heroes, sports champions, actors and
>actresses who have made positive contributions to British
>life and culture.

This is a generality designed to discredit the Channel 4 programme
directors, producers and associates. It's just more hot air spewed
forth in an attempt to paint Channel 4 as "hacks". In that this
attack against Berthon and Robinson lacks any specifics, it is an
obvious attempt at creating an "us against them" [Hubbard, "heroes",
(whomever they are), "sports champions" (again lacking specifics) and
"actors and actresses" (another all-encompassing generality) versus
Channel 4, whom the cult tries to discredit by use of its world-renowed
"black propaganda" technique.

>Sadly, this kind of reporting is reminiscent of the
>British press which supported blackshirt leader Oswald
>Moseley in his attempt to replace traditional British
>tolerance with his brand of fascism prior to World War II.

This is just more hot air and is a further attempt to
portray Channel 4 personnel in a negative light. It is also
not dissimilar to the same type of technique used against the
various German officials whom Scientology erroneously compares
to the Nazis' treatment of holocaust victims. This comparitive
technique is referred to in Scientology's "Data Series" policies
and "Axioms" which discuss and define concepts such as "similarities",
"differences", "duplicates" ("identical"), "assumed similarities", etc.
Scientology's PR machine uses this technique frequently when it is
attacking reporters, critics and "enemies"; it is exemplary of the
cult's well-thought-out strategy and program actions covered and dictated
by confidential Hubbard and Office of Special Affairs policy letters.
But in reality, the above statement is just more hot air with no factual

>The Church will release a TV video to help bring an end
>to Royalty-bashing by callous papparazi, cowardly and
>snivelling attacks on British heroes and continuous attempts
>to undermine national morale by destroying the reputation of
>people of goodwill.

Again, more blather in an "us-against-them" bandwagon approach.
This is Scientology's PR macnine at its "best", in action.

>Any honest investigative journalist or biographer
>reporting about L. Ron Hubbard's life would not have failed
>to mention:
>The hundreds of thousands of people completely
>freed from the harmful effects of drugs and toxins, using
>Mr. Hubbard's drug rehabilitation methods.

Only if this were actually true... In reality, "hundreds of
thousands" is the number of *ex-Scientologists*. How convenient
that Scientology chooses to ignore the attrition rate of those
who have been involved with the cult. Since Scientology does not
follow up and perform studies on the number of individuals who
have reverted to drug and alcohol use after involvement in "Hubbard's
drug rehabilitation methods", how can the organization even make this
claim? It is provably false! Scientology tries to deceive the public
and potential members into believing that one *stays* "completely
freed from the harmful effects of drugs and toxins". Nothing could be
further from the truth. In fact, Scientology has no way of knowing
how many individuals remain completely free from drug and alcohol use
after involvement in one of Hubbard's programs. There are many times
more ex-members of the cult than there are current members. In fact,
once one leaves Scientology and becomes "disaffected" (in their words)
or critical towards the cult (a "suppressive act" according to Hubbard's
"ethics codes"), all communication and contact is almost invariably
severed between the cult and the former member. Due to this practice,
it is _impossible_ for Scientology to have any clue; there are *no*
follow-up studies done!

Further, the cult's _claim_ that individuals have been "helped"
by Hubbard's "technology" (sic) is provably false. I know of several
people who attained "OT III", did the "Purification Rundown" or "Drug
Rundown", etc and continued to use drugs and/or alcohol afterwards.
Some of these "success stories" of the cult are simply wishful thinking
("postulates") on their part. In fact, I knew one Sea Org Ethics officer
who did the "Purification Rundown", "Drug Rundown" and attained the
"state of "OT III", and yet, he remained ALL THE WHILE AN ALCOHOLIC!!
This individual never had his alcoholism successfully treated or "handled"
by Scientology, yet the cult issued him a "Purification Rundown completion
certificate" *and* an "OT IIIX Course completion certificate".

>The millions of children and adults who have
>learned how to study or become literate using his proven
>education methods.

Let's see names. Let's see these "millions"! I myself have a
"Superliterate certificate" from Scientology, but I was already
literate *before* I even became involved, yet I am one of the
individuals whom Scientology claims to have helped to learn how
to study. The public school systems helped me achieve this ability,
but mostly I did it myself.

>The many, many recognitions received from
>governments, universities and officials which Berthon and
>Robinson never bothered to read. They include two recent
>awards from the {Royal National Lifeboat Institution}, which
>honoured L. Ron Hubbard as a "humanitarian and seafarer"
>and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
>People, (NAACP) which bestowed on Mr. Hubbard an
>Outstanding Leadership Award. It praised him as a "true
>humanitarian who has forwarded literacy, education and

If this is true, it can only be because Scientology duped
some more people. One thing is for certain: if Scientology
continues to provide "information" about Hubbard which only paints
him in a positive light, then Hubbard will continue to be given
falsely-obtained praise.

>The over eight million members of the Church who are living happy
>lives and assisting others with volunteer minister programs.

This is an outright lie! There NEVER have been eight million
members at any time during Scientology's forty four years of

For the real truth go to:


Warrior - former Scientologist, Sea Org exec and "Clear"