One of the characteristic of
the cultic mindset is intolerance to dissent. In ARS, this
manifests by virulent attacks against moderate critics who
question central aspects of the invisible party line.
Jeffrey S. Victor in his book
"Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend"
(Open Court, 1993) describes the phenomenonquite
People who are
activists in moral crusades tend to be impatient with skeptics
and often intolerant toward outright critics. They often
regard the expression of skepticism by critics as equivalent
to giving aid and comfort to the evil they are fighting.
This principle is of course very visible with scholars being
referred to by anticultists as "cult apologists",
but the phenomenon can also be clearly observed in the
newsgroup towards "internal" dissenters.
Although this has somewhat
rescinded in time, Diane Richardson and myself were two of the
favorite targets of ARS fanatics.
Diane Richardson, a critic who
has been invaluable in debate against claims of Scientologists
over psychiatry, subsequently questioned central anti-cult
topics, such as the mind-control
myth, pointed to failings of central anti-Scientology icons,
such as Paulette Cooper,
and opposed unsubstantiated allegations made in ARS. This has
attracted her the hires of ARS fanatics who have declared
communication with her "dangerous":
aware of the dangers of communication with someone like Diane
Richardson. [...] Better still, *plonk* the bitch.
The similarity with Scientologists discouraging communication
with dissenters is of course striking, and I believe that the
basic mentality is just about the same. The difference is
really just a matter of resources, degree, and circumstances:
As for myself, reasons why ARS
fanatics may not like what I have to say should be obvious
reading this web site. But what is more remarkable to the
matter at hand is once again the similarity of some of their
reactions with what was popular as an "explanation"
back in Communist times: to declare dissenters insane or
It is my belief that Bernie is mentally
ill. In a sense he is worse than Koos. [...] It would be
better not to communicate with this person.
The message of course is always the same: don't communicate
and don't listen to those who dare question the holiness of
One of the means certain
ARSers have been using in an attempts to prevent dissenting voices
to be heard was to try and drown them in noise. Here's how it works,
as described by Dave Bird in a conversation with Paper Tiger:
You know what? I've
really little idea of what Diane DID have to say, because
whatever it was got drowned out in flame wars
Then you fell for my (openly stated)
strategy. Tell people it's a load of crap and they should
killfile her, all you get is arguments who are you to say
that. Pile in and oppose her hard generating a lot of noise,
people killfile the noise. Obviously it worked.
and here is the same the tactic described by Martin Hunt's.
Diane; here, kitty kitty kitty. Here, Stephen. Bernie, over
here. Here, kitty kitty kitty kitties. Any more little kitties
about, shitting on the floor? Come over here. We'll have a
little flame war, and let the lobbiers, the protesters, the
workers go back to work.
If you have two braincells to put together and realize that
Scientology is a Bad Thing [tm] and you're working against it,
please ignore these little shits. Leave them to me. :-)
Here's an example of one of the countless insults and
personal attacks Martin Hunt launched at Diane:
a stupid cunt because she doesn't have the wits to see that
Scientology is a Bad Thing [tm], and should therefore be
opposed by more sensible people.
Yes, she's too stupid to understand that Scientology hurts
people and should be brought to heel. She must be pretty dumb.
Who's dumber, Jenna Elfman or Diane Richardson? One's in the
cult, one's too stupid to oppose it.
Of course, challenging critics’ basic tenets, objecting to
unsubstantiated accusations, and pointing out unethical
behavior of critics is equal in Martin Hunt's mind to "give
aid and comfort to evil" (to use Jeffrey
S. Victor words above), and it seems to be all it takes
for him to make one "dumb" and "stupid":
Here are a few more quotes, taken from a posts I made at
the time where I gathered a few ridiculous and patently false
statements Dave Bird has been making about yours truly and
which I asked him to substantiate. Needless to say, he was
unable to come up with a single quotes of mine or anything
else to support his assertions. (Note: "Barnie" is
one of Bird’s "witty" way to refer to me):
Oh fuck off, you tedious twit. I simply point out that
Barnie constantly promotes and defends a bunch of extortionate
Hmm. I can EXPLAIN the killings: He asserts that they are
And perhaps Barnie disagrees with
reality because he is barking mad.
That's my guess. There has been a lot of noise from
obnoxious lying scum, for all I know one person with three
accounts, posting as whippersnapper & barnie &
Barnie clings on to the bits of the cult which halfsane
people reject: the killing, extortion and deceit.
As a further similarity with cultic and totalitarian
thinking, other posters who expressed strong disagreement with
the extreme behavior of some critics were then accused of
having been corrupted by dissenters' evil influence and
flamed same. Dissenters have, in sort, become akin to
what is referred to in Scientology as "suppressive
you're very persuasive; you are completely wrong, morally,
ethically, philanthropically, socially and in many other
non-logical ways, but you have attracted a handful of lost
souls to your holy cause.
Of course, Martin Hunt never managed to show how Diane was
"completely wrong", and when he tried, he ended up
looking pretty foolish, showing himself unable to understand
even the most basic points Diane was making. Check for example
his glorious interventions in the mind-control thread, both in
the first and the second
Here's Martin Hunt arguing with Sister Clara who objected
to Dave Bird's behavior. BTW, Sister Clara's whole post is a
classic in its kind and much worth reading:
As if it is not
bad enough coming into contact with the Scientology fanatics,
we have to put up with fanatics on the critics' side as well.
And I find both to be equally frightening.
Bingo; you just admitted you're:
a) full of shit.
b) incapable of thinking your way out of a wet paper bag.
c) so hysterical when you lose an argument that you tend to go
d) thoroughly influenced by Diane's insane garbage.
Sister Clara objected as well to Roland's outrageous behavior.
Here is his answer:
are one of these fuckwits who believe that the opponents of
the Co$ should not behave like them. That's about as sensible
as expecting the police not to swear, not to get into fights,
not to drive their cars fast and never to use guns because it
would make them no better than the criminals they were
supposed to catch.
You have picked up this line from fuckwits like Diane and
Since you can't think to save your life you best stick to
simpler things like scones, paper doilies, tartan rugs, car
blankets, cream teas and things like that.
and here's Roland applying the same kind of "logic"
to Rebecca Hartong during the
are obviously a follower of the Bastard Librarian From Hell,
Diane Richardson. The lying cow who claims extensive studies
exist that are aimed to harm people when in fact the Helsinki
agreement at the back of each study design protocol forbids it
and proves that Diane Richardson is a lying bag of puke.
You fucking stupid slut. I am sure you could walk into a
place where hypnosis was being demonstrated. You could
probably arrange it that your friends went with you so you
could witnes it for yourself. You are so full of dishonest
shit though, like your mentor, the fucking lying bag of shit
Diane Richardson, that you would rather repeat her lies.o
Go lie against your fellow bag of puke.
I could of course come up with loads of
similar examples, but I think the few above are eloquent
I'll give the last word to Peter
McDermott, who expressed the phenomenon, which he
witnessed through reaction of ARSers towards Diane, better than I
you accused me of 'slinging generalities' when I talked about
the sort of abusive responses that I was seeing to Diane's
posts and you wanted me to quote an example from the
newsgroup. I use an off-line newsreader though, and delete
them after I read them, so I couldn't cite one of the posts
that had shaped my perceptions of the issue. However, it
wasn't very long before I read another example of the type of
posts that I was referring to.
So try this one. The post it's
following up takes was of a similar nature, but only calls her
a brainless bitch. This goes a little bit further, claiming
that Diane is evil incarnate and comparing her with (guess
who?) the Nazis.
It appears that the cost of
expressing views that differ from those of the dominant
posters can be very high indeed. So much for our precious
defense of free speech, huh? So long as it's approved speech,
attacking approved targets, we'll defend it - but if it
happens to be raising questions that we don't want to hear,
let's stick our fingers in our ears and scream abuse as loud
as we can. After all, it's *so* much easier
The odd thing is that I never even
saw the Scienos themselves work *this* hard to smear their
critics. At least posters like Andy Milne would make some
attempt to rebut their opponents positions. This stuff is
simply mindless abuse aimed at discrediting the *person* and
diverting all attention from the arguments and the issues
being argued over. Now where have I seen *that* tactic used
It seems to me that the thing that
lies at the heart of all this anger is a difference over
tactics. Diane's position seems to be lets get *everything*
out in the open, put the emphasis on accuracy rather than just
relying on the propaganda value of a statement, and
acknowledge it when someone who is fighting the cult happens
to be wrong, because by doing so you can only enhance your
credibility and show that you have precisely the sort of
integrity that Scientology lacks. I have to say that this is
also the same position that I hold (and always have, which is
why I'm somewhat bemused by those who claim that I've
In contrast, there are those who
believe that we should fight the clams 'by any means
necessary' and if that means lying, or breaking the law,
focussing on the propaganda value of data rather than whether
it's true or not. Actually, I do have an emotional tendency
towards this point of view myself. However, there's a big
problem with it, and that is when you get caught out, your
credibility is all shot to shit. And of course, this is
another of the strategies that the cult uses to deal with its
critics, another good reason why I feel critics should
explicitly distance themselves from it. If you want to
establish your moral and ethical superiority, you really do
have to behave in a morally superior manner.
Mind you, it does highlight all
manner of interesting parallels, and goes some way to
illustrating Bernie's thesis that anti-cult posters are often
very similar in their thinking and behaviour to the cultists
that they profess to hate.
Another way that it does this is
by showing that critics reserve their most intense venom for
their apostates in *precisely* the same way that the cult
You and Diane may have a bit more
in common than either of you currently recognize. I've heard
you go on quite a lot about persecution. This looks to me like
a pretty clear example of persecution, and if it were
happening to anybody else *besides* Diane I'd be astonished
that you weren't speaking out about it.
Maybe it's time that this old bus
went in for a service?
Here's the post.
Thank God Arnie
and others have spilled the church's beans, whether illegal or
not. I might have spent the rest of my life anticipating good
things from this abusive church. Arnie and the others have
courageously given me the discriminatory data I need to
dispell the church's possessive lies. From the realm of
religion and truth the Law is a Whore! If the Law opposes my
pursuit of salvation, then Fuck the Law! I consider that
anyone who would side with the Law over the rights to the
Truth is a Whore!
'Da Bump would be
proud to be as obstructionist as this woman has dedicated
herself to being. Unable or unwilling to supply useful
material in researching the crimes, history, behavior, or
dangers of Scientology, she focuses exclusively these days in
trying to ensure that no one else does any better. Now, in the
<snipped> material you quoted, all is explained: Her
sense of morality, ethics, appropriate behavior, is all
subordinate to the One Important Thing-- legality. If
something is legal, it is acceptable to her, obviously, and if
it is Not legal, it must be opposed. Since it is not illegal
for her to produce off-topic rants about those who are still
trying to discuss the cult, such rants are obviously moral,
ethical, appropriate, etc. And if a judge orders someone to
suppress evidence of a deadly crime, such as the
"church" <spit> has been accused or convicted
of over and over in the last year or two-- and, of course,
very often before that as well, then no matter how many deaths
may be caused as a result, it is obvious that the law is more
important than life-- or, one supposes, either liberty of the
pursuit of happiness.
In short, if it is
illegal, it IS wrong, immoral, unethical, and inappropriate.
But may the god help anyone if she can find something to to to
them that is Not explicitly illegal, because such behavior
would obviously be acceptable. Thus, no matter how many lives
Arnie's brave (and it seems to me, Unintentionally illegal)
posting may have saved, she gets to sit around on her high
horse and condemn him. People who have their ethics dictated
by the law, and not from some better source, are indeed
victims whose acts are controlled by others and must waver
with the wandering wind rather than act as a beacon to others,
an example of conscience in the face of, say, Jim Crow laws,
Apartheid, political arrests, book banning (What if the courts
condemned Huck Finn? What would a librarian do-- defy *gasp*
the law?), the mandatory wearing of a Star of David or a pink
triangle. Yes, there are those who would defy those laws. And
there are the quislings who would file Knowledge Reports on
them, berate them in public long after they had confessed, and
shove others aside to be first in line at the stoning.
Is there any
possible doubt which of these two classes the hatemongering
pseudo rationalist falls into? And in that case, why bother to
attempt to engage someone whose agenda has no credibility,
whose morality is secondary to wriggling within the law and
smiling as sweetly as ever Sid smiled when he went running to
tell Ma that Tom did not whitewash the whole fence himself,
and who has such a powerfully, repeatedly demonstrated ability
to tear at people's lives at any cost with all the tenacious
bile of a rabid Hubbardite going upstat on a church-ordered
mission to destroy and leave behind some kind of warning
message, "something witchy," to be remembered by.
The difference between Di and Chuck's followers is that she
doesn't need to be ordered into action by some Manson type;
she boldly strikes out all on her own.
interest can you possibly have in Scientology issues?, you
brainless fucking Bitch!
Obviously her interest in Scientology issues is to impose her
views on those who are discussing those issues and attempting
to destroy those who dare to cross her OR who are
demonstrating their effectiveness in bringing to justice the
international criminal conspiracy disguised as a church. Other
than her bloody savaging of Factnet, Arnie, Rob, Paulette
Cooper, and others, she has contributed nothing of value for a
couple of years now. Just do what almost everyone else has
done-- killfile her. It may astonish you how much more useful
and productive this newsgroup becomes when you eliminate her
hatespew and focus on the issues, keep up with the news, and
join in the camaraderie that helps people hold on in the face
of Evil-- the face seen in the mirror each morning by the
woman who, when she touches pitch, defiles it.
Random Quote :
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.