Scientology: Where the Mafia Meets Religion

It never ceases to amaze me how little people know about Scientology despite the fact that there is so much easily accessible information out there from unimpeachable sources. The following videos should give you more than enough information to get on your way toward hating this cult.

This first video is a great intro. The video is crap, but what is said on the audio track makes up for the lack in video quality. One thing all these videos have in common are that they all feature different and high-ranking former Scientologists who admit that Scientology is every bit as awful as its most strident opponents contend. So exactly how many former members have to come out against this cult before we acknowledge just how evil it is, all of them? Video highlights: 30 year former Scientologist states that L. Ron admitted that he was bent on conquering the world and compares him to Hitler, and a New York Times reporter states that L. Ron made up his entire biography.


This video details the egomania and downright violence of the cult's current leader, David Miscavige, from the mouths of high ranking former Scientologists.


This video exposes the group's animosity toward public education through trial testimony and the playing of an audio tape provided by the Church of Scientology to one of its members.


This video addresses the way the Church of Scientology extorts money from its members, also from the mouths of former members.


This video is pretty boring, but it's L. Ron's son testifying about the e-meter. The e-meter plays a critical part in Scientology because it is used in the auditing process. In this video, L. Ron's son repeatedly states unequivocally that L. Ron's belief that the e-meter was a useful tool depended solely on his rights to use it, not its effectiveness. Even his own son clearly believes him to have been a charlatan.


For more, see xenu.net, specifically this.
Highlights:

"MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well 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

"When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia [sic] and bribe the police."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 12 February 1967, "The Responsibilities of Leaders"

"A psychiatrist today has the power to (1) take a fancy to a woman (2) lead her to take wild treatment as a joke (3) drug and shock her to temporary insanity (4) incarnate [sic] her (5) use her sexually (6) sterilise her to prevent conception (7) kill her by a brain operation to prevent disclosure. And all with no fear of reprisal. Yet it is rape and murder� We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder

, an assault, or a rape or more than one� This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Sec ED, Office of LRH, Confidential, 22 February 1966, "Project Psychiatry"

"I�m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys."

- L. Ron Hubbard in a 1967 letter to his wife, written during the period when he was creating Scientology�s secret "upper levels." (Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. a.k.a. Ronald

DeWolf, L. RON HUBBARD: MESSIAH OR MADMAN? Random House 1989)

China and Religious Freedom

According to an article in Yahoo news, President Bush told the Chinese not to be afraid of religion, but is he right? First, let me just say that the real fundamental freedoms we Americans cherish are the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought. Both necessarily require the freedom to observe whichever religion one wishes in the open without fear of reprisal. However, that still leaves the question, does China have something to fear in religion? The response is certainly "yes." There is no better example than America itself, an allegedly secular state where religion is one of the single most important factors in determining who will be elected President, if not the most important. This fact places great power in the hands of the religious leaders and institutions in our country. I am not going to get into whether or not that is a good thing, however, it shows that at the very least religion poses a threat to the government of China, because it creates powerful institutions who could use their power against the government.

An important concept to address with respect to this issue, is the idea of "memes." This is a concept articulated by Richard Dawkins, which essentially states that ideas can often behave like genes or viruses. Certain memes are more successful than others at replicating, and those ideas are more likely to be expressed in the population. I am not in the least an expert on memes, so I encourage the reader to research the concept on their own. But, to my knowledge, almost any idea can be a meme. Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, communism, capitalism, all are memes. Christianity and Islam are examples of highly contagious memes, while Zoroastrianism clearly has trouble replicating in the modern age, though it was at one point very popular in the Middle East. Communism is obviously a major meme in China. The problem is that many memes, like Christianity and Islam, are mutually exclusive. These memes compete with each other, which is why Muslim countries and communities go to such great lengths to censor non-muslim memes. The Chinese Communism meme is mutually exclusive with religion because it is explicitly Atheistic. Since these memes are competitors, it makes sense for China to want to exclude it.

That being said, there are far wiser ways of dealing with religion than by banning it. The problem with a religion isn't its adherents, but its leaders. Not only that, but the free market approach to religion used in America leads to a kind of survival-of-the-fittest, leaving the most appealing and financially successful religions to flourish. In addition, the tax free status of such organizations gives added incentive to silver-tongued swindlers interested in getting their hands on that donation money. This raises another important point, those donations are tax exempt! That means that religious organizations are basically taking money out of the hands of the government. And the Chinese government shouldn't be afraid? Whether right or wrong, nobody likes money taken out of their pocket.

The key is limiting the amount of money the organizations and leaders make. Keep the incomes modest and the only people you'll see preaching are the truly devoted... which is whom the religious people should want to be preaching to them anyway! Denying the organizations tax free status would be a big first step in the right direction. Step two would be somehow limiting the amount of money people can donate, and denying those donations tax exempt status. Maybe limit the contributions to that amount which is sufficient to allow one church to function, which would include salaries and upkeep. Any surplus could be given to the government for community projects. Step three would be to ban any major organizations from forming. The aim should be to actively promote Atheism, while fostering a community of small, independent Churches, Temples and Mosques, all independent from one another, all strictly financially regulated, but free to express whichever opinion they desire.

Why Obama's Laying Back is Brilliant

As I've said before, although not apparently a non-religious topic, because a Democratic President will almost indefinitely be better for the non-religious citizens I would like to discuss Obama's significant absence from the spotlight and McCain's alleged "jump" in the polls.

First, I'd like to point out that thus far every decision the Obama camp has made appears to have been carefully thought out and, most importantly, successfull. Right-wing pundits try to play his lead off by saying it's not big enough, but are they going to make the same claim if he wins? "Oh sure, he won, but if he was really so great he should have won by more." Whatever guys, enjoy that comforting thought while he's instituting universal health-care. The truth is, his average lead in the polls has been, at times, quite high, and at other times quite low, but it has been a lead for months.

Second, I'd like to emphasize the pointlessness of listening to the political pundits. Here, let me ruin the surprise for you, the left-wing pundits are going to say Obama's going to win and McCain's an old idiot, and the right-wing pundits are going to say McCain's going to win and Obama's a naive elitist. LOOK AT THE POLLS. They're not perfect, but they represent the best indicator of how the people are going to vote because the information is coming from the voters themselves. Some might argue that they are skewed because they do not necessarily poll voters, but merely people who answer polls, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't matter. So what, should we instead listen to the opinions of a few people simply because they're on tv? The polls are still the best indicator, despite the fact that they are not perfect. So look at a list of all the Obama v. McCain polls here. If you buy into the argument that Obama isn't winning by enough, look at the Bush v. Kerry polls here, for a comparison. You'll see that Obama's numbers are just as impressive as either candidate's when they were in the lead, the only difference is that Obama has been in the lead for a much longer time than either of those candidates ever was.

Finally, the issue of Obama's vacation. As with every decision ever made by the Obama camp, this one was undoubtedly very calculated, and I think it was win-win. It's obviously important for him to be rested before the final stretch, but I also think it was important for him to give McCain time to make up some ground. One of the problems with being in the lead for so long is that voters will become apathetic, his victory will seem like a foregone conclusion and voter- turnout will plummet. Every single time Obama has flipped the switch and started campaigning, talking, and advertising, his numbers go up. I'm calling the Obama Law. He's one of the few candidates who has the ability to voluntarily make is numbers climb. He demonstrated this talent in the primaries, and Hillary demonstrated her lack of that talent. Even when she "turned it on" she could only win those primaries she was supposed to win like Pennsylvania. Mind you, this isn't some kind of rationalization of any jump in the polls that McCain has seen, because he hasn't really seen a jump in the polls. For two or three months Obama was winning EVERY poll. That leads to apathy. Why not take a vacation, get some rest, get out of the spot light, prevent people from getting desensitized to you and allow your opponent to look enough like a contender to keep democrats and obamindependents interested?

But McCain is only winning a poll every five or six polls, and importantly, the only polls that put him significantly ahead have small sample sizes, and only one recent poll with a large sample size (+ 2000) puts him ahead and only by 1 point. Meanwhile, Obama has six large sample polls that place him ahead, and by much more than 1 point, not to mention the dozens of smaller polls that put Obama ahead. So I'm not saying Obama has given, or plans on giving, up the lead. On the contrary, if McCain ever takes the lead, all credit should be given to him for that accomplishment. That will mean Obama messed up. These occasional wins by McCain, however, even if not orchestrated by Obama (though I believe they are), I believe will work in his favor. The right-wing pundits will undoubtedly try to play it off as if it is a sign that McCain's stock is on the rise, undoubtedly by saying things like, "Is the tide turning for McCain?" And they may be right. But in the end, occasional wins look more like statistical anomalies. McCain needs either consistent wins that make him look like a legitimate competitor that conservatives should go out and vote for, or he needs democrats and obamindependents to stay home on election day. These occasional wins merely motivate Obama's supporters to go out and vote, while highlighting how little of a chance McCain actually has of winning to conservatives who have mixed feelings about the guy in the first place.