LMT Literati Challenge, Year 2000

Thursday, November 26, 2000
"2000 Lisa McPherson Trust Literati Contest"
Topic: "Scientology: Control, Freedom & Responsibility."
2000 LMT Literati entry (David Rice), REVISED

"Total Freedom: Unattainable and Undesirable.
Scientology from the Human Rights Perspective."

Please note that the following are my opinions only, and may or may not reflect the opinions of the Lisa McPherson Trust or its staff. My opinions below are just that--- my opinions, and may or may not be correct. Reader beware! I also reserve the right to change my opinions when new data requires--- only a bigot or a fool would refuse to do so.

As a civil and human rights activist, I hold the following precepts to be fundamental and universally applicable to all human beings:

1) Human Rights are congenital: they exist due to the innate nature of humanity, and are not "granted" by any authority. There is no power in the universe that can grant or revoke one's human rights: tyrants may refuse to acknowledge one's human rights; oppressors may use force to curb one's expression of these innate rights; villains may break one's bones and chain one's body--- but they can never take away one's intrinsic human rights. Throughout human history, dictators have understood that fact, consciously or subliminally: their attempt to subjugate others can never be complete, and in their frustration they resort to the only means they have left: killing those who refuse to surrender the exercise of their rights.

The following are just a tiny few of the nearly unlimited number of unalienable human rights each person on the planet has been born with. I mention here only these few as they relate to this essay: those that I have not listed are in no way less important.

a) The right to life. This includes freedom from violence, harassment, threats, and intimidation. It also includes access to clean air, clean water, food, and shelter. While resources that allow one to live may be non-existent or limited, every human being retains the right to such materials when and where they exist and are needed. No one has the right to hoard life-giving resources at the expense of denying any other human being access to those resources. The right to receive medical services is included in the human right to life: where available, no one has the right to deny a person life-saving medical treatment.

b) The right to seek happiness and contentment, barring only behaviors that violate another's human rights [See number 3 below]. Every human being has the right to remain free from harassment, abuse, and the many other weapons in the arsenals of tyrants and terrorists that have been used to inflict pain and misery upon others throughout history. Might has never equaled right; the force of arms may end conflicts, but that force is never justified when the conflict itself was just. The right to seek happiness includes gainful employment and education where one has the ability and means--- no one has the right to deny another person the right to a fair wage for one's labor, nor deny one an education to improve one's earning power. Raising a family is included under this right. The right to seek spiritual and mental health services, where such resources are available, also falls under this right: no one has the right to deny another spiritual counseling, or mental health counseling.

c) The right to think as one wishes. This right includes freedom of expression in all its forms, barring only those expressions that in turn violate another's human rights [See number 3 below]. One has the right to speak one's opinions; one has the right to write what they will, publish what they will, and distribute what they will. Free expression includes artistic endeavors: painting, singing, poetry, dancing--- and all other harmless aesthetic and political expressions of the human spirit. This right also includes religious thought and expression: no one has the right to deny another the free expression of worship, spirituality, and contemplation of the holy and mysterious: religious persecution and discrimination can never be justified and must not be tolerated. Laws passed by the State that restrict the non-harmful practice and expression of any religion are unjust and therefore self-nullifying. This right also includes the right to dissent in word and deed; it includes the right to refuse to obey the State, employers, religious authorities, and all other institutions when these organizations require one to perform an act that is illegal, unethical, or immoral (such as military service). [See Footnote 4]

2) A person's civil rights are a sub-set of certain human rights that the State has agreed to help the citizen defend: as such, these rights are not "granted" by the State--- they are specifically and selectively recognized as important enough for the State to defend a citizen's expression of these rights, often against the State itself. For example, the United States has agreed to defend its citizens against some acts of tyranny committed by itself. Also, the United States has acknowledged religious neutrality as the best means to ensure each citizen's right to worship, or refrain from worship, as their conscience dictates. Citizens of any given nation of the world have different civil rights than the citizens of other nations; however, every human on the planet has the same human rights.

3) Every human being is born with responsibilities and duties that stem from the existence of human rights. To retain the ability to express one's human rights, it is the duty of every human being to defend those rights. The very act of being born mandates to one the responsibility to acknowledge another's human rights, and act accordingly. Most of the time this duty requires merely than one refrain from acts and behaviors that violate another's rights: one does NOT have the right to seek happiness at the expense of violating another's right to seek happiness; one does NOT have the right to express oneself when that expression violates or puts at risk another's right to life; one does NOT have the right to religious expression and acts that violate another's human and civil rights.

The above are just the basics, as I see them. However, from these basics, a great deal more can be said. I wish to comment more on some of the sub-topics of the above, and relate them to Scientology and Scientologists: Control (self-control, State-control, and coercion) from #3 above; Freedom (from #1a, #1b, and #1c above); and Responsibility (from all of the above).

"When freedom is in jeopardy, non-co-operation may be a duty and prison may be a palace." --- Mahatma Gandhi

FREEDOM is predicated upon the expression of one's human and civil rights. The expression of one's rights may be justly curb by the State when one has in turn attempted or succeeded in denying another their rights. Theft of property; assault; battery; threats and intimidation--- these are harmful, and one who engages in behaviors such as these has implicitly agreed to subject oneself to the denial of one's freedom at the hands of the State. When a person commits a criminal act, that person has surrendered her or his right to express certain rights: usually in the form of spending time in jail or prison.

Therefore freedom is predicated upon what's known as "enlightened self-interest:" to retain the expression of one's human rights, one must refrain from violating the human rights of others. I have here drawn a demarcation between the existance of human rights (which can never be revoked), and the free expression of those rights (which can be denied).

As such, ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO "TOTAL FREEDOM." Scientology Inc. pretends to teach its members how they may attain "total freedom" by expending their time and money on Scientology "technology." While their pretense is false (Scientology does not deliver what it claims it does), "total freedom" is an oxymoron: self-contradictory. Freedom requires limits, and thus can never be "total."

Scientology Inc. has written policy that mandates the commission of crimes and the abuse and denial of people's human rights. [See HCOPL of October 18, 1967, "Fair Game." See also HCOPL, HCO (Division 1) - "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law," 1 March 1965, The Basic Staff Hat volume 1, East Grinstead, 1968.] As such, Scientologists who engage in "Fair Game" [See http://holysmoke.org/mm/mm.htm] have agreed to be subjected to prosecution by the State, and thus they have agreed to having the expression of some of their rights denied them: that is anathema to "total freedom."

"If my non-violence is to be contagious and infectious, I must acquire greater control over my thoughts." --- Mahatma Gandhi

CONTROL comes in many forms. It can come external to oneself, or internal; it can be just or unjust; it can be effective or ineffective or excessive.

For the highest expression and protection of one's human and civil rights, self-control (internal, just, and effective) is by far superior. Self-control is ethics-based, and therefore immutable because it is based upon the acknowledgment of every individuals' human rights. Self-control has the least likelihood of being abusive.

Conversely, coerced control (external) is inferior. It is based on the threat of punishment (just and unjust), and thus is mutable and arbitrary. This fact is observed to be true by looking at State-sponsored legal deterrents (external, coercive control) to curb criminal acts: the installation of "the death penalty" for murder does not now, and has never in the past, deterred murder. For example, the states in the United States that have "the death penalty" for deterring murder (such as Texas) still have very high murder rates, regardless of their applying the most extreme of coercive means. External (coercive) control has the very high probability of being abusive, as it is often arbitrary and applied by the whims of those who presume to wield that control. [1]

External control has a huge flaw: in the absence of the threat of punishment, wrongful acts are not deterred. Internal control is superior in that it is ethics-driven and thus functioning regardless of the threat of punishment (real or imagined). As Ghandi once said, "What is gained by fear will be lost when fear abates."

Robert Green Ingersoll spoke this great truth eloquently over 100 years ago:

"If I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If I do a wrong, that wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor, the wrong reacts upon myself. If I would try to escape what you call judgment [God], what you call penalty [Hell], I cannot escape the working of the inevitable law that follows a cause by effect; I cannot escape that inevitable law -- not the creation of some dark monster flashing through the skies [Satan / Devil] -- but, as I believe, the beneficent creation which puts into the spiritual life the same control of law that guides the material life, which wisely makes me responsible, that in the solemnity of that responsibility I am bound to lift my brother up and never to drag my brother down." [Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Limitations of Toleration," May 8 1888, in a presentation before the Nineteenth Century Club of New York, Shy David's comments between the [brackets].]

Colonel Ingersoll is here arguing that the threat of punishment is not what deters him from causing harm to his "brother." He argues that his very existance as a human being has given him the duty and responsibility to not just refrain from causing harm to others, but to "lift up" others where and when possible. The responsibility to each other that every human being was born with negates the belief that "total freedom" is desirable.

When applied to Scientology's brand of "ethics," one finds that the type of control engaged in is externalized and coercive. For example, staff members in Scientology are encouraged to write down the "wrong-doings" (real or not) of each other, and submit these reports (called "K/Rs," or "Knowledge Reports") to Scientology authority. In this, that control is therefore abusive as it violates one's human and civil rights; fear is the result.

The person who fabricated Scientology, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, one said that the best way to "control a person is to lie to him [or her.]" Lying to a person denies that person the valid data needed to make consensual choices--- a violation of that person's human rights, as poor choices cause a person harm. Scientology staff in general, and its Public Relations staff in particular, take a Scientology course, called "TR-L" ("Training Routine -- Lie"), where members are drilled in effective lying. [See Justice Latey, Judgment -- Royal Courts of Justice 23rd July, 1984 -- http://holysmoke.org/cos/latey.htm]

Scientology lies to its current "members" and potential "members" by pretending to grant them god-like powers and abilities. [See http://holysmoke.org/cos/ot-sum.htm] Scientology also abusively controls its victims ("members") by implanting false phobias in them regarding this issue: Scientology Inc. claims that people who learn about these god-like powers before they are "ready" will suffer and even die from the knowledge. Another phobia implanted by Scientology into its victims is the fear that if they decline or refuse to subject themselves to Scientology manipulation and mind control / thought reform ("brainwashing"), horrible things will happen to them. As such, Hubbard could just as readily have said that the best way to control someone is to "make them fearful by lying to them." The nature of phobias is such that they need not be rational or valid in order to be used by destructive cults like Scientology: the more irrational a fear, the better it "works" in thought reform. [See "Releasing the Bonds" by Steven Hassan. Also see http://www.freedomofmind.org/]

RESPONSIBILITY makes control and freedom work together to achieve the highest expression of human and civil rights. When one is one's own authority; when one controls one's own behavior ethically; when one fully acknowledges and respects every human being's civil and human rights--- then and only then can one be free.

It is important to mention "religious tolerance" here under responsibility. The very phrase "religious tolerance" denies religious freedom, as it presumes an authority that does not exist. Scientology has several front groups that pretend to support "religious tolerance." This is perfidious on at least two counts:

1) Scientology and Scientology Inc. are not being "persecuted," nor is the objection to Scientology a religious objection: civil and human rights activists protest and demonstrate against Scientology because of Scientology's crimes and human rights abuses, not because of its "religion." When Scientology Inc. claims that protesting the homicide of Lisa McPherson is "religious bigotry," Scientology Inc. is in effect asserting that torturing and killing Ms. McPherson was a Scientology sacrament (a religious act). Such a defense is radically at odds with civil and human rights: one's right to religious expression does not revoke another's right to life.

2) That great American humanitarian and orator, Col. Robert Green Ingersoll, once said "For one man to say to another, 'I tolerate you,' is an assumption of authority -- not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to persecute." [See this great man's essay "The Limitations of Toleration" at http://holysmoke.org/an/tolerate.htm] As such, when Scientology claims to demand "religious tolerance" they are falsely asserting there exists among people the authority and ability to tolerate and not tolerate another's religion: THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORITY.

I am a member of a minority religion. My religion has approximately twice as many members world-wide as Scientology has world-wide "members:" there are about 120,000 Wiccans in the world. Recently I discussed my religion with a moderate Christian. This Christian woman said that she "tolerates" Wicca, and she said she based that "tolerance" on the knowledge that Wicca is beneficial to society and its members, and harms no one. However, I emphatically denied her her "right" to "tolerate" me or my religion: she has no authority, nor the ability, to do so. My religious expression and my religious beliefs are not something that requires "tolerance" of another: they merely require NON-INTERFERENCE. Wiccan religious practices harm none, and as such do not mandate "tolerance." [See In Defense of Wicca]

So, too, with any and all religious aspects of Scientology (if such actually exist). If there are any religious components to Scientology that cause no harm, they are to be ignored and not interfered with: that is the default, and therefore tolerance is not an issue. Criminal acts can be tolerated by authority; religious acts can never be "tolerated" as no such authority exists. Tolerance is defined as "A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior. The willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others." Since every human being is born with the freedom of choice and HARMLESS behavior, "tolerance" is redundant.

In applying my observations above regarding these concepts (freedom, control, and responsibility) to Scientology management and practices, I will quote very brief passages from Scientology "scripture" (texts written by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard). For those who believe I have taken the quotes out of context, I recommend that one search the internet [http://www.google.com/] for details on the quote so that one may determine for oneself if I have rendered the quote in context or not.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard once wrote as Scientology's Code of Honor, in part, "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause." This is fundamentally at odds with acting responsibly towards other human beings. I insist that the more just a cause is, the more one must fear causing harm when working to further that cause. Hubbard taught with this "Code" that "the end justifies the means:" he claimed to believe such behavior "honorable" even though it is the very definition of dishonor--- hurting people in defense of a just cause only taints the just cause with injustice. Honor demands that one must always fear causing harm to others; more so when in the pursuit of a just cause. If Hubbard had stressed this noble code of honor instead of his "Code of Honor," perhaps a great deal of abuse and misery caused by Scientologists throughout the world "for the cause" could have been avoided. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "The bomb-throwers have discredited the cause of freedom, in whose name they threw the bombs."

Take for instance the "black operation" against Jim Esterbrook. Mr. Esterbrook wished to set up a drug rehabilitation program in the Sacramento California area, which would have been in competition with Scientology's dangerous and ineffective program they call "narCONon." [See http://holysmoke.org/cos/narconon-liver.htm] The "just cause" in this case was narCONon: the "hurt" was ruining Mr. Esterbrook's reputation in town via "guilt by association," ending his chances to open the anti-drug program he had planned. [See http://holysmoke.org/mm/mm05.htm] Ot take the instance of framing Paulette Cooper for crimes she did not commit. [See http://holysmoke.org/pc/pc.htm] Or framing Mark Bunker for criminal trespassing and "hate crimes." [See http://holysmoke.org/mb/mb.htm] Or the framing of Bob Minton for assault and battery. [See http://holysmoke.org/minton/howd_day_1.txt] Or putting LSD in a pregnant woman's toothpaste. [See http://holysmoke.org/mm/mm07.htm] When Hubbard ordered Scientologists to never fear causing harm for "a just cause," he gave them carte blanche to violate people's civil and human rights. The fact that the "just cause" they hurt people over is unjust makes that mandate all the more reprehensible.

Scientology "scripture" also states in part: "When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe -- never permit an 'open-minded' approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt." [HCO Policy Letter 7 Feb 1965 "Keeping Scientology Working."] Such a statement is a gross violation of a person's human rights on several issues.

1) Every human being has the right to "join" and "unjoin" organizations as one wishes, regardless of the wishes of any other human being. There exists no power or authority in the universe that revokes a Scientologist's right to leave when she or he wishes. This includes real religions and not just businesses pretending to be a "religion" for tax-exemption, such as Scientology Inc.

2) No one has the right or authority to refuse another their right to have an "open-minded approach." Every human being has the right to think freely, to question, to dissent, and to know the truth: Scientology "scripture" here says the exact opposite. Scientology's motto is "Think for Yourself---" a right Scientology management only tolerates when that thinking does not stray outside the hyper narrow realm of thought Scientology management allows its members.

3) Dictating to another they must "win or die in the attempt" is not the venue of Scientology Inc. No one has the right to dictate such terms to any other human being. This "scripture" is all the more perfidious when one considers the death of Lisa McPherson: evidence shows that she wished to leave Scientology (i.e., in Scientology terms she no longer wanted to "win"), and therefor she was allowed to die. [See http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm]

The above "scripture" denies Scientologists their freedom to think as they will; it denies Scientologists their right to cease having any more to do with Scientology; in extreme cases it denies Scientologists their very existance.

In Hubbard's book "Science of Survival, Book One" page 131 (published June 1951), he wrote, in part, "The only answers [to social disorder] would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order [...] In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind...." The people Hubbard is talking about here include the chronically ill; homosexuals; people who show sympathy for others; people who suffer from mental illnesses (depression, schizophrenia, etc.); people without money or property; doctors who help others; and people who criticise Scientology management and its harmful practices--- even people who joke about Scientology's odd claims of space alien invasion and infestation. However, as usual Hubbard got it wrong: civil rights are designed for the protection of these people (and all others), and to deny them civil rights is to deny the very need for civil rights. Civil rights are predicated upon the fact that every citizen qualifies for the same protections, with no exceptions.

Hubbard's book "Science of Survival" is one long treatise in excessive, abusive, externalized social control, working within a totalitarian regime where only the elite may exercise their rights. Hubbard's vision of utopia would frighten any sane, thinking human being: it is predicated upon rewarding conformity and slave mentality, and punishing originality and free thought; it rewards those able and willing to contribute to the elite group, and it punishes those who are no longer able or willing to make such a contribution; it mandates the rewarding of fascism and the punishment of democracy. The old, the lame, the sick, and the feeble have only two places in Hubbard's utopia: the concentration camp, or killed "quietly and without sorrow." I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in learning about Scientology's goals for humanity and the future Scientology Inc. is working towards--- and compare this book with Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (a very good translation is by Ralph Mannheim). The parallel between the social engineering sections in both books are eerie.

RESOLUTION. Scientology Inc. greatly desires that the protests and demonstrations against it (as well as the criminal prosecutions against it) be terminated. That desire reminds me of the 100+ year old joke: a man went into a doctor's office and roughly jabbed his finger into his side a few times and said "Doctor! It hurts when I do this! What should I do?" The doctor replied "That's easy: stop jabbing your finger in you side." So, too, with Scientology's desire to see protests against it end: Scientology Inc. need only cease the activities that induce civil and human rights activists to protest and demonstrate against them.

Civil rights activists throughout the world have been protesting Scientology's crimes and human rights abuses: from Clearwater Florida USA, to "Gold Base" near Hemet California USA; from San Francisco USA, to Toronto Canada; Spain, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark--- civil rights activists have been flocking to Scientology offices in these (and many other) countries to demand an end to the organization's crimes and abuses. Here is a short list of what Scientology Inc. needs to do for the civil and human rights protests and demonstrations (and criminal convictions and prosecutions) to end throughout the world.

1) Scientology Inc. must cease breaking the law of the land. This includes criminal and civil abuses. Cease breaking and entering into psychiatrist's offices; cease illegally acquiring "intelligence" material; cease the assaults and batteries; cease denying members medical treatment; cease violating international customs and immigration / emigration laws.

2) Scientology Inc. must cease lying about people and slandering them. This includes the eradication of the "Fair Game" policy.

3) Scientology Inc. must cease raping the Justice System by subverting it as a means to evil ends. While Hubbard said that "... the purpose of the lawsuit is to harass, not to win" (it most emphatically IS NOT!), that policy is a violation of one's human and civil rights, and must be abolished.

4) Scientology Inc. must cease lying to "members." They have the right to know all sides of every issue, free from censorship and falsehoods. Consent mandates full knowledge of that to which one is consenting: they cannot, by definition, consent to Scientology abuse and manipulation when they are denied the information to make informed choices.

5) Scientology Inc. must cease the mind control / thought reform ("brainwashing") of its "members."

6) Scientology Inc. must cease punishing members who think for themselves. This means no more "lower conditions" for such so-called "crimes" as doubting Scientology Inc.'s claims, or doubting the validity of Scientology "Tech," or asking question about Scientology's illegal, unethical, and immoral activities. Every human being has the right to ask such questions and to think freely about such issues without the threat or reality of punishment and retribution.

7) Scientology Inc. must cease selling a product that does not exist and thus cannot provide. Scientology Inc. has never produced even one "Clear." Scientology Inc. has never produced even one "Operating Thetan." Therefore, Scientology Inc. is engaged in fraud, and that fraud must cease.

8) Scientology Inc. must abolish the Rehabilitation Project Force and the Estate Project Force (i.e., slave labor). Scientology Inc. must FREE THEIR SLAVES and provide them proper food, water, shelter, and medical treatment.

9) Scientology Inc. must allow their "members" to FREELY enter and leave every "mission," "org," "base," and facility owned and / or run by Scientology. Scientology Inc. has no right to chain up members in the basement of the Fort Harrison Hotel [See Hana (Eltringham) Whitfield, 4/4/1994, Declaration in Church of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz, No. CV 91-6426, US Central California District Court]; Scientology Inc. has no right to lock up members behind barbed wire and motion detectors in "Gold Base" at Gilman Springs [See "Sample Cases of Human Rights Abuses by Scientology," http://holysmoke.org/cos/hrabuse2.htm]. When a member no longer wants to participate in Scientology, that member must be allowed to leave and must be left alone: no harassment must follow; no threats; no intimidation; no stalking; no libel or slander.

10) Scientology Inc. must cease practicing its "Introspection Rundown," since this process is designed to drive an emotionally unstable individual into full-blown psychosis. [See HCO Bulletin 23 January 1974 RA "The Technical Breakthrough of 1973! The Introspection Rundown."] There is evidence that this process is also used against people who wish to escape Scientology's control: a Scientologist who wishes to leave is considered "insane" by Scientology belief, and thus a ripe candidate for the "rundown." Application of this process is a gross violation of an individual's human rights, and it also often involves criminal acts such as false imprisonment, torture, mental cruelty, abuse of an incapacitated adult, and practicing medicine without a license.

11) Scientology Inc.'s sinister front group "The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights" must cease its black propaganda, slander, and lies about the mental health profession. It is a human right for every individual to have access to truthful, current, and valid data concerning available medical treatments: producing lies to slander what Scientology Inc. considers its competitors is a gross violation of human compassion and sympathy. The front group "CCHR" places Scientology Inc. profit over the lives of sick human beings, and that is utterly revolting.

12) Scientology Inc.'s equally sinister front group "narCONon" must be abolished. Not only does the process fail to work (it only removes water and salt from a person's body--- nothing more), it is also dangerous to one's health. [See the collection of articles at http://holysmoke.org/cos/the-con.htm] Other than as a placebo, narCONon has no value. But more sinister still, the process involves the application of classic mind control / thought reform techniques ("brain washing").

13) Scientology Inc. must cease applying its "Purification Rundown." This "rundown" is the same as narCONon's process.

14) Scientology Inc. must cease practicing medicine without a license. This includes their worthless vitamin supplement regimen and their pseudo-psychological counseling ("auditing").

These fourteen points will be an excellent start. However, they can all be summed up in one charge: Scientology must acknowledge and accept the fact that each and every human being has human rights, and Scientology Inc. must cease violating those rights. All else naturally follows. If the Scientology organization ever did cease its human rights abuses as listed above, it is likely that the organization could not exist: if one takes away the human rights abuses from Scientology, very little will be left. This means that Scientology Inc. must replace their human rights abuses with something positive, or it will cease to exist.

How can Scientology Inc. be induced to cease its human rights abuses, and apply the points I have listed above? Since the application of human rights by Scientology management would adversely impact their profit, they will never willingly agree to cease their human rights abuses: only legal prosecution of their crimes, and media exposure of their abuses, will induce them to correct their abuses. They must be shown the fact that harming people is counter their own best interests.

A) Human rights activists need to increase the number of protests and pickets at Scientology buildings. Where at all possible, I think these human rights activists should have at least two types of flyers to pass out: one explaining why they personally are picketing, and another explaining the criminal and abusive nature of the Scientology organization--- usually the former includes portions of the latter: the first flyer would be mostly given to Scientologists, while the second flyer would be of interest to the general public.

One needs to always keep in mind that the average Scientologist believes that the protesters and picketers are "misguided," "sick," "degraded beings," or "insane." While that belief seems highly unlikely to a person with functioning critical thinking abilities, a person subjected to Scientology's thought reform / mind control will find such a belief "reasonable." When one gives to a Scientologist (who has been sent out to "handle" protesters) a flyer stating the reasons why a person is protesting their building, one can expect that the flyer will nearly always be dismissed, filed away as fuel for Dead Agenting [2], and only read by the organization's department of criminal acts ("The Office of Special Affairs"). There is a chance the flyer will induce a Scientologist to think for herself about the issues, so giving Scientologists such a flyer is worth the effort.

The other flyer (the one explaining Scientology Inc.'s past and current crimes and human rights abuses) will help explain to the general public the nature of Scientology. Throughout the world Scientology is used as the "butt of jokes," and Scientologists are considered crazy but harmless. This "general public" flyer will help correct the erroneous belief that Scientology is harmless. It must be mentioned that in my personal experience, the majority of people who talk to protesters are either vaguely aware of Scientology Inc.'s abusive nature but do not know the details, or they have never heard of Scientology--- the "general public" flyer is to provide brief examples of past and current abuse, and references for additional research on the harmful nature of Scientology and Scientology Inc.

It appears that protesting Scientology Inc.'s crimes and human rights abuses via picket signs is very effective in educating the public: many picketers have been battered and assaulted; many have been framed for imaginary "crimes" such as battery and criminal trespass [http://holysmoke.org/mb/mb.htm]; most have been targeted for Dead Agenting, harassment, stalking, and various other forms of abuse--- which is excellent confirmation that protesting is effective and must therefore continue.

B) Expose the Scientology front groups. When newspaper reporters are looking for the truth of an issue, they abide by the maxim "Follow the money." When law enforcement agencies wish to diminish or end criminal acts by businesses and individuals, they follow the maxim "Go after the money." Both apply to Scientology Inc. as an effective way to help Scientology Inc. learn civil social (i.e., non-criminal) behavior. The means to do this is by exposing their front groups and organizations.

Very few people willingly give money directly to Scientology Inc., nor will they willingly give money to an organization that in turn gives money to Scientology Inc. (i.e., the "WISE" businesses). Therefore Scientology Inc. must hide the connections to their front groups, or face a decrease in profit (and profit is the only reason Scientology exists). In my opinion, front groups are likely the second largest method of funneling money into Scientology, and the majority of that money probably comes from people who are not aware of where their contributions end up. (The first largest method would be those Scientologists who are coerced into handing over every dollar they can earn, steal, or borrow.)

Take narCONon for example. The State of California in the United States just passed a Proposition that mandates treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, in the stead of criminal prosecution and punishment--- a sane, long-overdue solution to the insane and unjust over-crowding of the State's prisons. For the State's project to be successful, the treatment drug addicts receive must be (1) effective and (2) secular. Since Scientology Inc. claims it is a "religion," narCONon does not qualify on both counts.

Scientology Inc. has tried to protect its front group profits by going so far as to sue people who speak about the connections. Part of the Dead Agenting / Fair Gaming attack against Jon Atack [See http://holysmoke.org/cos/atack.htm] was to sue him for saying that narCONon is a Scientology Inc. front group. This bit of harassment was all the more bizarre when one considers the fact that it was Scientology lawyers doing the suing, and Scientology lawyers who hashed out the settlement agreement in that law suit. Mr. Atack wrote, in part: "Footnote 81. In November 1994, I met with representatives of the Church of Scientology International and the Religious Technology Center along with Peter Hodkin, the Scientologist lawyer who has represented all of the Scientologists litigants. The representatives of CSI and RTC had authority to settle on behalf of all litigants, including headmistress Margaret Hodkin [from a Scientology-based "school"] and Narconon. Curiously, Narconon is suing me for asserting that it is a front group for Scientology."

I can think of only two rational reasons why narCONon would sue Mr. Atack for asserting it is a Scientology front group: (1) narCONon is ashamed of its connection with Scientology, or (2) narCONon will lose funding and government support when that connection is common knowledge. [See http://holysmoke.org/cos/narconon-utah.htm] Of course there are many non-sane reasons for the civil suit against Mr. Atack: the most probable being the punishment of Mr. Atack for speaking the truth about Scientology and Scientology Inc. [See http://holysmoke.org/cos/slap-can.htm]

Another odd Scientology front group is "The New Cult Awareness Network." Their page titled "Who We Are" [http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/WhoWeAre.html] doesn't say anything at all about who they are. From my review of the web site, it appears to exist only to talk people into giving "The New CAN" money--- even the web site itself has been coded to pop up third-party commercials now and then (such as the selling of Britney Spears postcards--- no kidding). The web site mentions the financial bankruptcy of the real, legitimate Cult Awareness Network, but failed to mention Scientology's role in that bankruptcy. Also oddly enough, the web site failed to mention that Scientology Inc. planted a spy (Jolie Steckart, aka "Laura Terepin") into the real Cult Awareness Network to help bring about its demise. [See http://holysmoke.org/cos/pic-wanted-can.htm]

C) Building a friendship with law enforcement and the USA Justice Department. Scientology Inc. uses frivolous, vexatious litigation to punish and silence the people who tell the truth about Scientology. A fine example is the law suits filed against David Mayo, Julie Mayo, and the Church of the New Civilization. [See details at http://holysmoke.org/cos/the-ho-rico.htm] Another example is the litigious attack on Gerry Armstrong [http://holysmoke.org/ga/ga.htm] who briefly swapped his right to free speach in exchange for the promise by Scientology Inc. to cease its abuses against him (i.e., "Fair Gaming"). [Apparently Scientology Inc. immediately violated that agreement, so Mr. Armstrong no longer felt bound to his side of the agreement.] A current example, as of the time of my writing, is Scientology Inc.'s false arrest of Keith Henson on charges of "terrorism" [see http://holysmoke.org/kh/kh.htm], which charge they then refused to "press---" later they talked the Riverside California District Attorney into filing charges against Mr. Henson for "making threats" against Scientologists and Scientology Inc. (a claim that appears to lack valid evidence).

This abuse of the justice system, when it occurs in countries other than the United States, has often been seen for what it is, and those countries have often dismissed fraudulent claims brought by Scientology Inc. against Scientology Inc.'s dissenters. This is because those countries have justice systems that allow for "remembering" past and current fraudulent litigation by Scientology Inc.

IN THEORY (but not always in actual practice), in the United States, Court Justices (Judges) are not allowed to "know what they know:" they may only rule based upon the evidence presented to them during the process---- they must "forget" past evidence of Scientology Inc.'s history, up to the time that history is presented to them in current and future cases. A USA Judge may be intimately knowledgeable about Scientology Inc.'s "Fair Game" policy, "Dead Agenting" policy, "TR-L" training in lying, and other evidence of Scientology Inc.'s dirty hands and bad faith, but that Judge is not allowed to apply that personal knowledge in her or his rulings: that data must be formally presented before it may apply.

As such, there are three main ways that human rights activists may help Scientology Inc. correct its abuses: (1) Amicus Curiae Briefs, (2) Affidavits, and (3) Declarations. Below are my lay interpretations of these three documents, and must not be taken as "gospel" or legal advice: it is presented as neither.

(1) An Amicus Curiae Brief is a document that an individual or a collection of individuals may write that contains what they believe to be relevant information concerning a particular case. That document is given to the court as if it is being given from one friend to another (hence the name, which means "Friend of the Court"). While the document is signed by all contributors, it is generally not notarized, nor do its contributors take an oath to its factuality. If a human rights activists wishes to give information about Scientology Inc.'s past and current crimes and human rights abuses, that activist may send an Amicus Curiae Brief to the court (i.e., Judge). Current fraudulent cases, such as the "criminal trespassing" charge against Mark Bunker, would be an excellent opportunity for human rights activists to submit Amicus Curiae Briefs.

(2) An Affidavit is a document that addresses one or more issues of a particular case, written by an eye-witness, a minor participant in the events that lead up to the charges being made, or an expert witness. This document is signed under oath and the signer therefore subjects herself or himself to the perjury punishment laws applicable in the Commonwealth of which the receiving Judge sits at Court. This document is much like the Amicus Curiae Brief, except that this document provides evidence in minor matters, and it is granted more "weight" and significance by the Court. For example, in Case HEMO 14371 California vs. Keith Henson, the State falsely believed that Henson had taken GPS readings of Scientology Inc.'s property at Gillman Springs. An affidavit from the person who actually took the GPS readings is the appropriate vehicle in correcting that error. Unlike an Amicus Curiae Brief, only one person writes and signs an affidavit.

(3) A Declaration is very much like an Affidavit, with two exceptions: it is written by an active participant or by a witness who can and will provide testimony in the case, and it addresses the major issues as well as the minor ones. Whereas the author and signer of an affidavit does not state that she or he is willing and / or able to give testimony at a trial, the author of a Declaration states that she or he is able, willing, and prepared to do so. As in an Affidavit, only one person writes and signs this document.

Therefore, if human rights activists wish to help correct Scientology Inc.'s judicial abuses, the Amicus Curiae Brief will be the most common tool to use.

D) Be willing to apply "Gandhi Tech." This means stepping forward to be subjected to Scientology Inc.'s "Fair Game" policy (i.e., abuse, harassment, beatings, frivolous lawsuits, being framed for imaginary crimes, loss of employment, and potential death). Dr. Martin King and Mahatma Gandhi [http://www.mkgandhi.org/] both pointed out that being non-violent in the face of violence and abuse is detrimental to the public image of those who are being violent and abusive. Ghandi Tech requires public observation and media exposure for it to successfully modify Scientology Inc.'s abusive behavior. Gandhi wrote "Ahimsa calls for the strength and courage to suffer without retaliation, to receive blows without returning any." This is extremely hard for people to do, because self-defense, anger, and retaliation are all human traits.

In the year 1998 I witnessed Gandhi Tech being applied in the city of Tustin in California, USA. The person applying the technique was a Vietnam War veteran named John (he used to drive a MG Midget with a bumper sticker that read "FUCK HANOI JANE" and another that read "CONVICT JANE FONDA FOR TREASON NOW!"). One day while he was escorting girls and women past anti-abortion "Pro-Lifers" into clinics to receive medical services [3], he got into a shouting match with a "Pro-lifer." Television news camera teams heard the commotion and rushed in to film the confrontation just as the "Pro-lifer" hauled off and slugged John in the face. Rather than John defending himself or hitting back, he put his hands behind his back, hooked his thumbs under his belt, and stood there taking blows to the face--- and it was all caught on film. That film was shown on all the local TV news stations that evening, and photographs of John's bloody face graced the newspapers for days afterwards. Every blow John stoically took was a public relations disaster against the blockading "Pro-lifers." Public opinion, which had already been very much against the clinic blockaders, became more so.

So, to, must human rights activists stoically accept beatings from Scientologists when those activists are out protesting Scientology Inc.'s human rights abuses. Scientology Inc. understands this fact--- that is why they try so hard to provoke protesters. This is a battle for media attention, and the "side" that gets caught in violence will lose that war. Let it be Scientology Inc. and it's goons.

E) Advertise World Wide Web sites that give factual information about Scientology and Scientology Inc. Place URLs in local newspapers, on public bulletin boards at shopping centers and college campuses, on television, on the side of busses, on bumper stickers, in magazine articles, in newspaper articles, and in books. Classified ads and personal ads are affordable for most people, and can reach thousands of people. Cards and flyers may be left at public coin-operated laundries, at buss stations, at automobile fuel stations, and at restaurants. (I once staggered out of the Arizona desert after a two-day hike, walked into a restaurant, sat down at a table, and while downing a glass of ice water, discovered a "Who Is Xenu?" flyer in the menu holder---- I spewed water twenty feet in front of me because of my explosive surprise and laughter. Scientology really *IS* expanding!)

To conclude this essay, I will offer the observation that eventually Scientology Inc. must institute profound changes in how it does business, or face its demise due to overwhelming adverse public opinion. Scientology Inc. will cease to exist due to its own criminal and abusive behavior: it is the human rights activists' jobs to make Scientology Inc. see that fact and induce them to change, and to work to hurry that process along to that inevitable conclusion. Scientology Inc. cannot survive as it has in the past four decades: it must change, or it will die from self-inflicted wounds--- this is an obvious fact to human rights activists: Scientology Inc. must be made to see the obvious.

Scientology Inc.: *FREE YOUR SLAVES!*


[1] The existance of "the death penalty" demonstrates another problem with excessive external control: innocent people charged with first degree murder might "plea bargain" by pleading guilty to the lesser charge of second degree murder, if they believe they cannot demonstrate their innocence: they exchange the probability of death by the State, for 30 years to life in prison--- even though they are innocent. There is the added issue of black people being executed by the State more often than white people, for the same or similar crimes--- my point is that external control is often arbitrary and unjust.

[2] From the alt.religion.scientology Terms FAQ, modified: "D/A, verb. Dead Agent; to spread malicious lies and rumors about a critic of Scientology's crimes and human rights abuses, in an attempt to so thoroughly discredit them that everyone concerned will be disgusted with them, and not listen to the information they have to give about Scientology." The more effective the critic is, the more lies and slander the critic is subjected to. See http://holysmoke.org/cos/how-cult-da.htm as defined by Phil Scott: "[....] Step One. Find, manufacture, or create a totally bad and ruinous story about the person. Something totally discreditable that threatens the person's life and career. Make it a story the person can't disprove. And be sure to have a few real or fake 'witnesses.' [....]"

[3] It was a very odd part of American history. Most women's health care clinics have facilities to provide abortions, but the vast majority of patients who go to these clinics are not seeking abortions: contraception and pre-natal care are the two most common services being provided. The anti-abortion "Pro-lifers" mobilized to blockade these clinics, believing they were "preventing abortions." Their actions put girls and women at serious health risk, plus put their unborn children at risk due to the potential mother being denied proper pre-natal care. In response, people (such as myself, my Wiccan coven, my vet friend John, and many local Christian and Jewish religious organizations) mobilized to help girls and women acquire medical services they needed, by keeping those clinics open and escorting patients in, often by carrying them over the bodies of the blockading "Pro-lifers." It was very surreal, very Kafkaesque, to have to face scores of people who were determined to prevent girls and women from acquiring heath services. For the clinic defenders, abortion was not the issue: free access to medical services such as contraception and pre-natal care was the issue.

[4] I am here discussing coerced, "mandatory" military service: not consensual military service. While self-defense is a right and a duty for every living thing including humans, there is no authority in the universe that has the right to order any human being to kill or die. Any person or agency who presumes to have the authority to order one human being to kill another has self-nullified their presumed authority.

2000 LMT Literati entry (David Rice), REVISED
November 26, 2000