Re: Fear
[14 Aug 1997]

I don't see ANY attempt from ANY Scientologist to try to make up for the damage
the organization has done. I don't see Scientology to be changing its ways.

From: Warrior <>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Fear
Date: 14 Aug 1997 01:28:14 -0700
Lines: 461
Message-ID: <5sufiu$>

In article <>, says...
>Warrior <> wrote in article
>>In article <>, says...
>> Bernie - You stated "Ex-members with a minimum of experience and
>>honesty do not find it interesting to stick around in this newsgroup."
>> Now I'm asking you, do you mean ex-members with a minimum of previous
>>experience *in Scientology*?
>Yes. It was so obvious in my mind that I didn't think I had to
>precise it, but it's true that without the word Scientology it
>doesn't make much sense.

OK. I'm glad I got that straight. I am an unassuming kind of fellow,
and I just wanted to make sure I understood you.

My take on "ex-members with a minimum of experience" is that they
have less to say about their experiences due to the lesser amount of
time they spent in the cult. This is just an observation I have made
which, while it may not be absolutely true, is *generally* true.

I, on the other hand, spent years in the Sea Org. I have VOLUMES
to say about Scientology. What is noteworthy, and one of the reasons
I refer to Scientology as a cult, is that active members NEVER debate
any issues at all (on ars) that I have seen. Ocassionally I so get an
email that says something like "Sorry about the injustices that were
done to you" or "You sound like a dissaffected ex-Scientologist."


But I don't see ANY attempt from ANY Scientologist to try to make
up for the damage the organization has done. I don't see Scientology
to be changing its ways.

The average person who gets involved in the cult leaves much sooner
than I did. Very few people remain in the Sea Org for 8 years, or
remain a Scientologist for over a decade, as I did.

So it follows (in my mind at least) that those with more experience
have more to write about than those with lesser experience. I also
am much more inclined to listen to someone who was in the cult for a
long time, but I am interested in anyone's story, however brief their
involvement may have been. I especially like to hear from those who
have recently left Scientology.

Too bad Herbie Parkhouse, Jane Kember, Laurel Watson Sullivan,
Annie and Pat Broeker, David Mayo, Mary Sue Hubbard and a host of
other former higher-ups in the cult don't post here. If they did,
you could be sure I would be VERY interested in hearing what they
have to say.

>>And could you clarify what you mean by "Ex-members with a minimum
>>of... honesty...? I don't understand what you meant with that statement.
>According to my experience, many information that circulate in
>ARS are twisted, exaggerated, ill-willed, or ignorant. Not all
>of them. Your post, for example, wasn't like that. But that's
>the exception.

My observation is that many people are VERY angry at the cult
because of what they have experienced. Many others are very severely
damaged. I have seen examples of ill-will. I will admit that even I
have no love for the organization called Scientology. Despite my
disgust towards Scientology (the organization), I still try to treat
individual members with respect, dignity and tolerance, etc. I do
keep in mind that I was a *victim* once too! And I have asked myself
what it was that enabled me to get free from the cult's grip or
spell on my mind. Then I try to use what I have experienced to help
others in their recovery.

I have seen examples of ignorance. That's not such a bad thing,
though. By definition, ignorance is a condition of simply not knowing
about something. The problem as I see it, with regards to ignorant
people, is that the cult *takes advantage* of them by lying!

As to twisted and exaggerated information, of course this exists
too. I don't contribute to ars in this manner, and it's not my
job to correct inaccuracies. I will also say that even ol' lying
ElRon said that an individual or group is responsible for their own
condition. So if someone is spreading false or inaccurate information
about Scientology, shouldn't the goody-goody Scienos realize that
they "pulled it in"? The cult's leaders should WAKE UP and change.
People don't attack Scientology for no reason. Scientology's leaders
should CLEAN UP THEIR CULT. I especially think Scientology should
take responsibility for its injustices it has committed and continues
to commit.

I say if there are some "loose cannons" around spouting off twisted
and/or exaggerated stories or information, then JUST MAYBE it is
Scientology's karma! Sometimes it is necessary (and effective) to
exaggerate in order to draw attention to the madness that Scientology
is responsible for. Maybe some people feel justified in exaggerating
because Scientology itself is deceitful. Hubbard was a liar, and he
built an organization run by liars.

The average Scientologist, to me, is just a victim of a scam cult
business operation. It's the leaders whom I have a disgust for. And
it is their actions that I detest. Lying, betraying, deceiving,
abusing, even killing are VERY VERY unacceptable to me.

>The overall impression (at least mine) is one of bigotry and
>self-righteousness, and I don't think that it is inviting for
>ex-members. An ex-member who will try to tell of his experience
>and who isn't entirely negative will often be jumped upon
>certain critics and shred to pieces. Same if he starts to
>question what he feels is being incorrect or exaggerated.

Of course there are bigots in the world, so it is no surprise
that a few of them might post to ars. (Having said that, I wish
to make it clear that I am not referring to anyone in particular.)
Maybe ex-members don't have much good to say about Scientology.
Perhaps that is why there is so much criticism pointing out what
is wrong with the cult. I certainly do not have anything good to
say about Scientology. Some of the people involved in it are very
good, well-intentioned and decent people, in their mind and through
their actions, trying to make this world a better place to live.
It's too bad they are being taken advantage of. THAT is one of my
main criticisms of Scientology. The organziation is EVIL. It lies.
It is like a big octopus. Or a cancer that has spread too far for
too long. It gobbles up people's money and robs them of sanity.
That is my honest opinion.

>That's the type of things I meant, in a nutshell. I am not
>referring to myself because I have a certain experience of
>usenet so it doesn't bother me. But it isn't the case of
>everybody, and especially not if they are new to usenet, or did
>freshly "graduated" from the CofS, and of course a combinaison
>of both.
>> Also, I want to point out that what I posted was prefaced with "I have
>>received emails from many ex-Scientologists who read ars and comment
>>privately on what they have read." and "From these numerous emails I have
>>received..." I am pointing this out since my comments are based upon
>>observations I have made from emails I have received, and NOT from any
>>survey of other sources of information. I am specifically referring to
>>lurkers, of which there are a considerable number.
>> Now I'm going to point out again that my comments were made from
>>the information I have received from individuals who have emailed me.
>>And again I am going to say that the most common reason given for not
>>posting (by these lurkers) is a fear of the cult.
>But the other ones don't e-mail you, so you only have partial
>information. To base oneself on e-mail information only is a
>dead end, because you don't know what others have in their
>e-mail box, and you can't compare anyway without breaching the
>confidential aspect. You don't know for example, how many e-mail
>I receive stating a different view, and even if I were to tell
>you, you would have no way to verify this information anyway.

We agree already. I was only pointing out the kinds of email I
get from lurkers. I only have information from those I have been
given information by! And those are lurkers. I have no idea what
others may feel if they don't tell me or post it to ars *and* I
also happen to read it.

I think that the fact that I have proven myself worthy of
trust may have something to do with the reason why lurkers
confide in me. I would NEVER betray something told me in confidence.

>Lurkers naturally tend to e-mail to people with whom they agree
>with. So you will mainly find in your mailbox information that
>will tend to confirm your own particular view. To think from
>that, that this represents the general situation is incorrect.

I never did think that my email is representative of any
general situation. My email is ONLY representative of lurkers
who are ex-Scienos AND who are critical of Scientology. And
I am telling you there are a LOT of them out there. Scientologists
*certainly* do NOT email me, with the exception of the occasional
anonymous person who is trying to "cave me in" or make me feel

>It only indicates that *some* lurkers view it the way you
>describe, which is a perfectly sound reason in itself.


>>>They could use an alias or an anonymous remailer.
>> Anyone who wants to post anonymously may feel free to contact me.
>>I will help you to learn how to use an anonymous remailer. This offer
>>is extended to any lurker on ars who is wanting to post to ars, but
>>is not wanting to use his/her real name.
>Hmm. I would have supposed that you would already have given
>this advice to the ones you were referring to above, in which
>case the arguments you advanced seems to me to shaking somewhat
>on their ground.

to tell their story as factually as possible. FUCK all that hiding
shit and being afraid of Scientology. As long as a person fears
Scientology, then that person is giving in to fear. They are also
granting a power to the cult or letting the cult suppress them.
The way I see it, it is time more people came forward and told of
their experiences in Scientology.

I have never advised a single person to post anonymously. But if
someone wants to post anonymously, I support that right. I am a huge
proponent of freedom of speech.

Something else I never said on ars is that in high school I was
editor and publisher of an independent or "underground" newspaper.
I called it "The Walrus". The name was inspired by Lewis Carroll's
Alice In Wonderland, where he wrote "The time has come to speak
of many things..." I took journalism in high school, and the school
board, principal, and even the journalism teacher would NOT let us
put our editorials about the Vietnam War in the school-sponsored
paper. So I just said "Fuck it!" And I published my own newspaper.
That was in 1968 in Texas where it was VERY redneck and conservative.
"Shitkicker, cowboy, LBJ, hawk country". I was known as the "leader
of the hippies" because I dared to have opinions at odds with the
majority opinion.

I used to sell my paper for 5 cents an issue which was just enough
to cover the cost of paper, ink and stencils for the mimeograph machine.
Being the law-abiding citizen I was, I only sold my paper on the
sidewalk around the high schools in my city. There were about a dozen
high schools, and I had a sales rep in each one to help me sell the

Well, guess what? The principal (Mr. W.R. Robbins) didn't like
my "commie" attitude. Hell, I wasn't a communist. I was an American,
a pacifist, a Christian opposed to killing, and a citizen exercising
my right to freedom of speech. The principal actually told me I couldn't
sell my paper on the sidewalks around school. He complained that the
students were bringing it on campus and leaving it in the hallways,
classrooms and bathrooms. It pissed him off.

I called an attorney with the ACLU. He went down to the school and
set the principal straight about my rights, and pointed out that the
sidewalk was public property and that it was legal for me to sell from

So what next? This same principal called the whole football team into
his office one afternoon and had a little talk with them. One thing he
said was "Go ahead and give those 'hippies' all the shit you want!"
A friend of mine worked as an office assistant during his free period
each day and overheard the whole conversation.

The next day there were 8 football players waiting for me near the
west side entrance of the school building. When I tried to get into the
building, they assaulted me. I had a friend named Mark who sold papers
for me. He was beaten up and then kicked in the eye while he was on the
ground. As a result he is now blind in one eye. These same macho, all-
American redneck football guys also used to beat up our girlfriends too.

I ended up quitting day school and enrolling in night school in order
to survive. It was a deadly serious activity just selling our little rag
around campus. I learned at the age of 17 that some people are VERY
threatened by free thinkers, especially those who exercise their rights.

I have always been a proponent of freedom of speech. And I support
anonymous remailers, especially as a means by which persons may avoid
persecution or harrassment.

>Furthermore, if there were really a great number of ex-members
>wishing to post here, at least a few of them would have already
>find their way to an anonymous remailer if they were afraid of
>the COS. I don't seem to see an awful lot of them.

Again I say that about 75% of the households in America do NOT
have an internet connection. Give it five years. By 2002 there will
be at least 4 times as many ex-members posting here. That's my

>There isn't either an awful lot of ex-members posting either at
>all, and in the other half year I post myself, I have seen a
>very few of them, and most of them did it only for a short while
>only. Why is that? I can't be because they are afraid of the COS
>since they *did* post. My take of it is that it simply isn't
>worth for them to do so in the light of the general biased of

My point that started this discussion was that there are lots
of lurkers I get email from. By definition, they do not post.
The ones who do post (not lurkers) are obviously not too afraid
to post. I have never done a survey on why those who do NOT post
don't post. I wouldn't know how to do such a survey anyway.

>As I said in an other post, ARS cut itself from communication
>not only with ex-members, but with Scientologists themselves.

Not true at all. It is a well-known fact Scienos are not
allowed to post here if they are to remain in good standing
with their cult. Even those hatted to "handle ars" are posting
very little these days from what I see. Scientology (the organ-
ization) is the entity that is cutting itself off from
communication, with the exception of the OSAshits who record,
monitor and analyze everything.

The other obvious fact I will point out is that there are
a whole bunch of people who post to,
but do not hang aroun ars.

>Instead of having an environment that invites open and
>respectful communication, having the potential to bring about a
>change, it is an environment in which it is considered proper to
>impose a "cognitive dissonance" on Scientologists, with the
>result that not only do they go away, but they get back into
>their group with an increased conviction that critics are indeed

Well, whatever. I am doing my best to create respectability. I'd
be very interested in hearing from others who got "back into their
group [Scientology?!?!] with an incresed conviction that critics are
indeed SPs". It is obvious to me that you have a very different
point of view than I do, Bernie.

>The big specialist of the "cognitive dissonance" style is of
>course Dennis Erlich. I have seen him treat some posters with a
>shocking brutality for the sole reason that they were
>Scientologists. As a long time opinion leader in the newsgroup,
>indulging and encouraging this attitude, I think that he is one
>of the main responsible of making of ARS a sterile group, cut
>from its raison d'tre and from which many reasonable and
>intelligent critics preferred to leave.

Care to name some people who chose to leave "because of Dennis"?

>It seems to me to be now
>reducing to people condemned to repeat their fixed-ideas over
>and over, without self-transforming or self-questioning

Time will tell.

>Suffice to see how a poster the stature of Diane is being
>treated, who has done nothing else to deserve this treatment
>than to have this ability of self-questioning, something which
>critics are supposedly proud to have, but which I have seen
>nowhere to date apart a very few exceptions.

Diane is responsible for the opinion which others have of her.

>Upon being challenged to bring up specifics, no one is able to
>do it. Yet, they keep making generalization and other ridiculous
>and childish accusations.
>Is this a critical and honest group? I don't think so. Is this
>an interesting group? I don't think so either. Is this a group
>in which someone with a minimum of honesty is interested to
>participate in the long run? I don't think so. And I do think
>that if people are not willing or daring to stand up against
>this stupidity, they are going to be left with the Birds,
>Rolands, Animas, and other Lermas, and the COS can then claim
>another big win.

I am not going to get into generalizing about whether this is
"an honest group". This is a newsgroup. I cannot control what is
posted here. I would not censor ANYONE. The cult does that job
very well, thank you. What I will only say is that while I do
not agree with everything posted to this NG (who does anyway?),
I at least support their right to post it, whoever they may be,
and whatever they may post.

>>>Again alias or anonymous remailer. BTW, that's an aspect Mike
>>>O'Connors does not realize when he denies to RonAmigo the same
>>>rights as others to post anonymously.
>> As has also been pointed out by others, Mike O'Connor does NOT
>>"deny" anyone (including RonsAmigo) the right to post anonymously.
>As far as I am concerned, he does.

We disagree.

>>All I have seen Mike ask is "Why are you hiding?".
>"Hello, what's your name? You are hiding". Systematically, on
>about every single post of Amigo.

This points out how Scienos are hiding. I wish that Scientology
would give us a few full-time persons to engage in debate and
discussion. But I very seriously doubt that will ever occur. What
is occurring however, is OSA is monitoring this NG, looking for
"SPs", hiring private investigators and attorneys and in general
continuing its evil tradition of oppressive tactics designed SOLELY
and ONLY to restrain criticism of the cult. I think Scientology is
a cult led by cowards. Why do they avoid making themselves present
and known on ars? Because their dead founder said to not communicate
with anyone hostile, critical or attacking Scientology. Why?

Because he knows that Scientology would be destroyed if its members
were allowed to communicate with persons who held opposite opinions.
Read HCO PL 15 August 1967 "Discipline - SPs and Admin - How Statistics
Crash" where Hubbard wrote "I am not interested in wog morality, I am
only interested in getting the show on the road and keeping it there."

>> I could make an educated guess as to why Mike does this, but he
>>in NO way "denies the same rights as others to post anonymously."
>My interpretation is that he does, knowingly or unknowingly.

We disagree. Maybe Mike will say something about this, if he hasn't
already done so.

>>My educated *guess* is that he is indicating that "hiding" is LOW
>>on the "Tone Scale" and asking WHY he (RonsAmigo) is "hiding". This
>>is my impression only, and I could be wrong.
>Whatever the reason, Amigo has as much right to hide if he wants
>to as anybody else. There is no reason for a right to have a
>double standard. Either we support free speech, which for me
>would include the right of anonymity, or we don't. If it only
>applies to one category and not to another, it has cease to be a
>right, but, on the contrary, a source of abuse.

RonsAmigo can be anonymous, and there isn't anything Mike can do
to take that away, even if he wanted to, which I suspect he doesn't.
Seems like Vera Wallace was the one who abused anonynimity by outing
TarlaStar, wasn't it? If RonsAmigo feels "abused" I suggest he make
a complaint to the appropriate person.

>Now this is not necessarily the kind of things we do on purpose,
>or even something of which we are aware of. But it isn't a
>reason why we should not be able to learn something as well.
>> What is the "very same thing... they were doing before"? Do you
>>mean to say that they are *suppressing* free speech?
>As above, for (a mild) example. As in Bavaria for a lesser mild
>one. And I can come up with loads of documents (and did already)
>to show how critics indulged (as long as the court let them do)
>in considerably worse actions than the cults in terms of freedom
>of believe and free speech as well.

I personally feel that Scientology should be investigated by
ALL governments of the world. Furthermore, I feel that the
governments of the world should place full-page ads in all
newspapers, on television, in major magazines and radio. It is
my wish that governments INVESTIGATE Scientology *completely*
and *thoroughly* by asking ALL former members who have ever been
involved to come forward and tell their experiences and observations
while involved in Scientology, and also their treatment since
leaving Scientology. Additionally, I feel that in situations where
a person involved in Scientology is now dead or insane, that the
family members should be allowed to tell the story.

I am NOT proposing whether world governments should decide if
Scientology is a religion or not. I am simply saying that I wish
that there would be ONE BIG "BOARD OF INVESTIGATION" into the cult.
I further wish that people wishing to come forward should be
guaranteed safety and peace of mind, freedom from harrassment and
so forth. In other words, I feel an environment should be created
in which people feel safe to speak out, without fear of harrassment.

The cult seems to think that it is a "suppressive act" to "sit in
judgement upon Scientology", yet Scientology finds it perfectly OK
to sit in judgement upon people.

Remember, Scientology must live by the rules and laws of society -

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects