Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
From: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com> <3F9D864B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet@18.104.22.168>
Date: 1 Nov 2003 14:22:24 -0500
X-Trace: 1 Nov 2003 14:22:24 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Original-Trace: 1 Nov 2003 14:22:24 -0500, 126.96.36.199
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653796
Tanya Durni <email@example.com> wrote in
<savage multi-> snippage ahead>
>> Just to clarify, for the logic-challenged among us that seem to
>> gravitate to this thread like particularly thick-headed moths to a
>> shiny flame, I'll note that at no point have *any* of the people whose
>> posts are immortalized on Gerry's hate site have indicated that they
>> have any problem with their initial posts, or the opinions contained
>> within. In fact, speaking personally, I can attest that Gerry's
>> subsequent reaction to any criticism of his conspiracy theorizing as
>> the reason behind the posts entirely demonstrates my initial criticism
>> of his apparent inability to handle even mild dissent.
> Kady, I don't see what you see, sorry.
Well, you know, you have every right to hold that opinion, but you asked
why *I*, as a person whose posts are included on the website, find the
whole premise to be disturbingly Hubbardian in its concept. I explained to
you what I 'see'. The fact that you don't see it that way doesn't render my
opinion, or the opinions of those who feel similarly, moot.
> I don't see it that way. I see Gerry trying to educate the "wogs"
> "scientologists" on how scientologists misdirect and redirect criticism
> off of scientology and on to one of their targets.
Not one of the posts on the Goon Squad hatepage is from a Scientologist, so
I'm not sure how you think it demonstrates how *Scientologists* misdirect
and redirect criticism, or indeed, how anyone at all misdirects and
redirects criticism, since the criticism is of actions and posts by Gerry
Armstrong. Using that logic, by turning this into some sort of faux-
exhibition, *Gerry* is misdirecting and redirecting criticism from himself
to what he claims is the intention of the posters who are criticizing him
in the first place.
>> And that brings me to la's simplistic reasoning, to which I was going
>> to respond earlier, but was unable to devote the necessary time and
>> energy. First of all, the idea of "negative publicity" or,
>> practice of "dead agenting" did not originate with Hubbard.
He was not
>> the first, he will not be the last, and frankly, neither he nor his
>> legacy organization are anywhere close to 'best', at least when viewed
>> in relation to public relations campaigns, both positive and negative,
>> that occured in the mainstream, as opposed to the tiny fringe of the
>> population that gives a tinker's damn about Scientology or its critics.
> I agree with you here. However, I do not understand why you care so
> much about this newsgroup or scientology to devote the time that you do?
Well, if you had paid attention to any of the posts I've made over the last
seven (is it really that long?) years that I have been an a.r.s. denizen,
or read my website, or, indeed, knew anything at all about me, you would
realize that I *am* part of that tiny fringe that cares about Scientology
enough to criticize its actions and behaviour. That doesn't mean, however,
that I don't also criticize similarly hostile and kooky actions and
behaviour when the originator is someone who is also part of the
aforemtioned tiny fringe.
>> Secondly, I challenge both of you - in fact, anyone here on a.r.s, -
>> post one example of any criticism I have made of Gerry's words or
>> actions that is derived, in whole or in part, from Scientology-based
>> propaganda, as was the case in the Doug Franz affair with regards to
>> Dr. Kent. My opinion of Gerry, like those of others so deemed "goons"
>> by Gerry's thicket of apologists here on a.r.s., is based purely on
>> what GERRY has written, and what GERRY has done. Not OSA. Not
>> Scientology. Gerry Armstrong. Why is this so impossible for y'all to
> I think I understand that you are offended by Gerry.
>> Finally, I'll close by noting that la seems to be labouring under the
>> illusion that somehow, ex-Scientologists are better at spotting the
>> Hubbard negative publicity tactics that Scientology incorporates in its
>> attacks on critics. I'd suggest that a good counterargument to that
>> would be that relatively few non-Scientologists fall victim to the
>> fanatical anti- psychiatry propaganda that is a perennial feature in
>> the Scientology public relations strategy.
> It is hard to imagine falling for some of scientology's propaganda,
> until one realizes, to some extent, they have fallen for it themselves.
> Most of scientology's negative publicity tactics are not as direct as
> the "fanatical anti psychiatry propaganda" that you refer to above.
Actually, most of it is just exactly that transparent and easily spotted.
The only success that the CoS seems to have in trapping non-Scientologists
into unwittingly falling for their spin is when it does so under the guise
of a front group, but since most critics of Scientology recognize these
front groups, whether they be former Scientologists or those who have never
been Scientologists, due to the excellent past and current exposure thereof
through a.r.s. posts and efforts on the web, it tends to fall flat. Take
the blitzing of "study tech" propaganda, for instance. Although the
has had limited success infiltrating public schools and the education
system as a whole, it has much more trouble doing so when those it targets
to spin are provided with information about the Church of Scientology's
involvement in the program.
As for the negative publicity tactics, the CCHR's jihad against psychiatry,
and, to a lesser extent, past efforts to spearhead the anti-tax movement
are the only major negative public relations campaigns that the church has
employed on the general public. Most of the Dead Agent campaigns against
specific individuals are very specifically targeted to do that individual
damage, not convince the entire population of the inherent evil of the
target. It has also proved to be increasingly difficult for the CoS to do
with any success, since technological advancements in the availability of
information to anyone with a computer and an Internet account has made it
much more likely that such attempts will fall flat, and often even result
in a backlash against the church.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with Gerry's kooky hatepage, or
la's ludicrous claim that ex-Scientologists are somehow 'spinproof', but
it's interesting nonetheless.
> Non-Scientologists have not been subjected to the hours and hours of
> hypnosis or post hypnotic suggestions. Nor have they been living in a
> scientology information bubble. Non-scientologists have not been
> trained to, thought stop, when opposing views are presented. It is hard
> to say how an individual would react to such propaganda until these
> processes are unknowingly done to them.
None of what you describe is, in fact, propaganda. Hypnosis, and post-
hypnotic suggestion is not 'propaganda'. A 'Scientology information
bubble' is, in a sense, the enforcement of a prohibition on any propaganda
not originating with the organization to which those so bubbled belong, but
it is not propaganda either. Thought-stopping, again, is not propaganda,
nor is the deliberate decision to ignore opposing views, a trait that I
have noticed in a.r.s. critics who hail from both the Ex-Scientologist and
never-been Scientologist camps, incidentally.
If you don't understand what constitutes propaganda, it is of limited value
to either of us to continue to debate the nature of Scientology propaganda,
and its success in the non-Scientologist world. The tools that you describe
are often used to 'soften up' a target so that propaganda will be more
easily accepted without question, but that would tend to argue against the
very questionable claim that such softening makes ex-Scientologists *more
likely* to recognize propaganda in future.
>> Ex-Scientologists, however, by their very history, were
>> clearly unable to spot the ruse at one point, at least, which does
>> little to demonstrate a higher level of critical thinking skills or
>> ability to recognize spin.
> Ex-Scientologists were taught how to vent off criticism and shut it out.
> Once they awake to what they were put through and understand how and
> why it was done to them, they recognize spin as well as anyone else who
> has studied it.
Some may. Some do not. Many individuals who have never been Scientologists
are ill-equipped to recognize spin, as evidenced by the popularity of Fox
News. However, the fact remains that Scientologists do not, by any stretch
of logic, have *more* ability to recognize that spin than someone who was
never in Scientology at all, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
>> Let's just not go there, shall we, kiddies?