Re: Scientology 2/2

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 07:04:42 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: The necessity of mental memes"

    Received: by id HAA12449 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:07:13 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
    Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:04:42 -0500
    From: Keith Henson <>
    Subject: Re: Scientology 2/2
    In-Reply-To: <013e01c1a208$3b1a4520$b186b2d1@teddace>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    At 03:14 PM 20/01/02 -0800, "Dace" <>
    > > Perhaps we should not intervene on the basis of protecting the cult
    > members
    > > but on the basis of protecting the rest of us from cults such as bin
    > Laden's
    > > and Aum. I think a lot of people from New York and Tokyo would agree.
    >It's a free society. We can only interfere with individuals and
    >organizations when they've broken the law. We can't demonize them first
    >and then oppose them on moral grounds. Let's not mimic the Christian Right.

    I don't demonize even bin Ladin's boys, but we do need to have ways to deal
    with mental infections no less than physical ones.

    > > License plates . . . take a look at my postings from the summer of 2000.
    > > I reported a lot of license places, most of them on the cars of private
    > > investigators who were following *me."
    >I notice you began your public opposition to Scientology in 1995. I'm
    >just curious as to how it got started.

    Easy. I have been a human rights advocate for decades. Was deeply
    involved in the defeat of the repressive Moon Treaty,

    I had been interested in cults for a long time as an outgrowth of memetics
    but not scientology specifically. Early 1995 I was reading and found this message about a news group being
    destroyed. This had an effect on free speech people--dozens of
    them--somewhat akin to news of burning down to newspaper.

    >I'm also wondering why they continued their harassment after they won
    >their copyright lawsuit against you in 1998 for posting their unpublished
    >secrets on the net. You'd think they'd have been satisfied after that and
    >left you alone.

    Policy. They are out to crush anyone, any organization that tries to
    expose the facts about them or who provide aid and comfort to those escaping.

    > > > In my readings over the last few days, I've repeatedly encountered
    > > > the sentiment that anti-Scientology groups are even more inflexible
    > > > and fanatical than the Scientologists themselves.
    > > There are no anti scientology groups.
    >I meant it in the informal sense.
    > > The last two were CAN, the Cult Awareness Network. Scientology sued
    > > them out of existence several years ago, and bought the name and phone
    > > number from the bankruptcy court.
    >Hold on a minute there. I seem to recall reading about this four or five
    >years ago. It wasn't that Scientology sued CAN out of existence but that
    >CAN brazenly broke the law-- which respects individual rights regardless
    >of what organization you belong to--

    CAN was held responsible for something an informal volunteer did against
    policy, pointing a desparate woman to a deprogrammer. It was not even a
    scientologist who was "deprogrammed." In a court case every bit as full of
    odd turning as mine, a scientology lawyer paid by them won the case. See
    the interview of Jesse Prince, former high ranking in scientology at

    L: What specifically did Scientology do to tamper with this judge, and
    if you can just try to describe what your knowledge is, and who was
    involved in doing it and if you know what they specifically did, or you
    don't know what they did. Kind of, a person, an action, as much detail
    as you can have.

    J: What I would like to do is just start at the beginning. Any time a
    judge appears in a case in Scientology, good, bad, or indifferent, a
    common practice is to do an ODC, particularly if he's a hostile judge,
    or is perceived to be a hostile judge. ODC means overt data
    collection. What would happen is, you'd get some guys normally from OSA
    Invest, and they would go and get as much public record as they could
    about that particular judge.

    L: Could you state what OSA Invest is?

    J: Office of Special Affairs Investigation Unit. It's kind of like a
    low scale FBI investigotory group that investigates enemies and critics
    of Scientology.

    L: Great, go on.

    J: They do an ODC. If it goes further and the judge is really hostile,
    what they will do is go and start interviewing the associates of the
    judge, like trying to find out information in an innocuous way, or in a
    harsh way, to create intimidation. That's a common practice, they do it
    with every judge. With Mary Anna Fouser, when we got on this case, an

    >by kidnapping Scientologists and forcibly "deprogramming" them, refusing
    >to let them go until they had recanted their beliefs. This outrageous
    >behavior led to the court-ordered shutdown of CAN. Then, when its assets
    >went on the auction block, Scientology bought it up.

    You are not entirely wrong here, but you don't have much right. One of
    the things which came out later is that scientology had planted an agent
    under a false name and background in CAN's office. This was used to steal
    all of CAN's donor lists and legal papers. Years later I was part of the
    team that tracked down a photo of the CAN "volunteer" to get a certain ID
    on her. Turned out Jolie Steckart had a master's degree in acting and had
    made enough from being a paid spy to buy two houses.

    > > > It makes me wonder if the virulent Scientology meme hasn't set off an
    > > > equally virulent anti-Scientology meme. One side thinks L. Ron is the
    > > > savior, while the other side sees him as the great destroyer. Cult and
    > > > countercult. The strange thing is that they seem to reinforce each
    > other.
    > > > As long as Scientology persists, anti-Scientology will continue
    > flourishing.
    > > > As long as anti-Scientology persecutes Scientologists for their beliefs,
    > > > then public sympathy will be generated for Scientology.
    > > This is not the case. The more the public learns about scientology the
    > > harder it is for them to find new members.
    >Perhaps the effect is muddied. As we learn more about Scientology, our
    >sympathy for it diminishes. But as we learn more about the harassment of
    >Scientology, our sympathy increases. The main thing, though, is that
    >Hubbard was extremely paranoid. Always believed the government was out to
    >get him. Any kind of sustained operation against Scientology will trigger
    >a sense of persecution among Scientologists, thus making it less likely
    >that they'll see the light and leave the organization. Your war with the
    >cult strengthens its hold on its members.

    Could be. On the other hand, the cult membership after 5 years of
    picketing them in Toronto has gone from something close to 700 down to
    under 200. That's progress.

    Keith Henson

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 07:15:06 GMT