Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Violence and Scientology Critism

Scientology critics usually try to dissociate themselves from acts of violence. They want to appear as non-violent. This, however, is to forget that anticultists did engage in violent kidnapping before the court put an halt to their practices. Nowadays, while they occasionally (though rarely) do engage in violence themselves, the main threat critics pose is through the cult phobia they create in society and through their encouragement of authorities to take unwarranted actions against "cults". like what happened in Jonestown and Waco. Critics also encourage authorities to take discriminative measures against these groups, like what is happening in Germany and France. As can be seen in Rwanda and other circumstances, violent action is often preceded by a long period of demonization, discrimination, and ostracism. Furthermore, as this Anon poster points out, violence isn't only physical, and, in that sense, critics can be considered as extremely violent.


Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: none

Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>

 11 Oct 1998 00:01:03 +0200

Message-ID: <199810102200.AAA05607@replay.com>

Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark)
"AndroidCat" <androidcat@hotmail.com>

>>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.

[Rob Clark:]
>>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.

>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".

>Word clear "violence".

Good idea:

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
1. strong, damaging force.
2. an act that causes injury or harm.
3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:

Webster's Revised Unabridged:

Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]

1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action, whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.

2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.

3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to urder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness; eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression; oppression.



Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: none

Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>

13 Oct 1998 04:50:19 +0200

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID: <199810130250.EAA29322@replay.com>

tallulah@storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) wrote:

>In article <199810112220.AAA17395@replay.com>, Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> wrote:

>So by using this broader definition of 'violence', could it not just as easily be argued that *many* scientologists harbour 'violent' feelings towards psychiatrists, Germans, tax collectors and any number of other identifiable groups?

Yes - so?

>It seems to me that *whoever* redefined the word, whether you or someone else in the thread, is playing a semantic game that belittles the real issue, which is the propensity for violence in individual critics *and* scns. We have enough words for 'things that hurt my feelings' to avoid using 'violent' as a catch-all description, I believe. YMMV.

Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought ;-)

Trying to hurt another is a violent act - whether it is just a snide remark or a bullet. That's my opinion. Some critics slaughter everything in sight through words, and then they come along and boast about their "non-violence". If you'll see it from this point of view, you'll see it as utter hypocrisy. God knows what they would do if they *had* the opportunity to physically harm others with impunity. You know how humans are...

>And, if you're being objective and fair-minded, the same type of behaviour most official scientologist spokespeople engage in, as well as the more vociferous of publics.


>Rhetoric is not action. Impassioned -- even over the top --

Yes - of course. I am not arguing that.

>posts to a.r.s.
>do not a violent person make.

No, but violent posting to ars a violent person make. I read Erlich, then I read what's on Russ web site about him: yes it fits...

Of course what's a "violent person"? People are not absolutes, sometimes they are violent, sometimes they aren't - but some are more often violent than others.

>They may well be ill-advised, and they may serve to do the opposite of what the writers intend, and I will freely admit that they quite often frustrate me a great deal. But do I think the posters are likely to go out and commit an actual act of violence against someone? In all but the most extreme cases - no. (And those extreme cases fall on both the scientologist and critic side of the equation.)

Yes - they just are all humans. But you will never know - given the circumstances. Remember the (what's his name again) experiment? The one who set up a machine where people could punish others with impunity?

I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic forum is more the real person than what can be known through the real life behavior of this person. I am quite confident that I know better many posters around here than I know my colleagues whom I see every day.

>You live in a strange and not very pleasant world -

hoho - you are quite wrong about that. I live in a very pleasant world (just thought I let you know :-)

>and a world where I believe much of the most unpleasant aspects thereof are but figments of your imagination. Critics are not, for the most part, violent. I think that has been well demonstrated by the complete lack of violent incidents that have arisen at pickets - both of orgs and of critics' homes, as well as by the condemnation that is so quick to flow whenever *anyone* -- usually a hit-and-run poster who runs a 50% chance of being an OSA instigator, or some teenaged lout -- suggests the employment of anything but peaceful tactics.

>Is Jeff Jacobsen violent?

Hmm, no. I don't think so. At least I didn't find anything to criticize on him - yet (apart for his cluelessness regarding "cults", but that's a general symptome around here and hopefully gets straighten up with time).

>Rod Keller?

Hmm.. Yes, sometimes. He is violent when he makes personal attacks against Diane to cover his irc lies, for example. He is violent when he reminds everyone of Keith Wyatt's alcoholism as Keith enters a chat forum. I remember his remark when Keith Wyatt said he leaves ars (one of those times): "don't let the door slam on you" (or something) - that's violent. IRL, he may even do it, and Keith may react to it, then you have a mess. That's inner violence actualized on the outside - and for no other reasons than Keith taking a stand against critics - that's violence too, even fascism and bigotry.

>Deana Marie Holmes?

Most of the time no - but sometimes yes.

[Eh - that's fun.]

>Ron Newman?


>Lady Ada?


>Charlotte Kates?

Don't know her well enough, but apparently no.


Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.

[People, you can send me your check and I'll deliver a good review of you]


That would be Inducto. The answer is no.

>Old Timer?

No. But she doesn't post much either + she is a freezoner (i.e. a Scientologist. Hehe...)

>Stephen Jones?

No. Stephen is in my protected tiny minority :-)



>Any of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers?

Sure - Roland, Dave Bird, Erlich, Zane Thomas, Martin Hunt, Rob Clark, Arnie Lerma, William Barwell, Bruce Beppy, Dominion, Ex-mudder, Tilman Haussherr, Alex (jeaux), Anti-Cult, Freiman, Gary Scarff, Graham Berry, Gregg Hagglung, Roger Gonnet, Steve Fishman, Steve Withlash, bc, sandy, Ralh Hilton, Jana Moreillon, Jim DBB, John Dorsay, Tom Klemersrud, ...

These are some of the people I consider violent - and out of charity I left out quite a few who occasionally can be violent too. The first named are the worst.

>Am *I* violent?

No :-)

>>>In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what critics post is 'hate propaganda,

>>That's my opinion. Of course it's arbitrary, like every opinion.

>What makes it arbitrary, though -- or perhaps the term is 'selective' - is the fact that you seem to be willing to apply these standards only to the writings of critics, rather than to scientologists - both official and unofficial - as well.


Wgert, Justin, Rod Fletcher, Enzo (and I probably forget a couple) - I consider violent.

RonsAmigo, MikeSmith, MiKe, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper (although he can be sometime), The Pilot - I don't.

Well, YMMV, of course - and sure it will. This all is very subjective.

>>Hehe - isn't it? But it's all in your mind, Kady. What I say is more simple and straightforward than that :-)

>You're saying that critics are violent, because they write 'hate propaganda' which, in your mind, leads to actual violence. Is that a fair summation of your views?

No :-)

They are violent when they try to hurt others, either out of meanness, revenge or plain stupidity. Dishonesty, as in hate propaganda, is a form of violence too.


Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: none

From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>

Date: 14 Oct 1998 03:30:10 +0200

Message-ID: <199810140130.DAA24501@replay.com>

tallulah@storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) wrote:

>In article <199810130250.EAA29322@replay.com>, Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> wrote:

>>tallulah@storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) wrote:

>>>In article <199810112220.AAA17395@replay.com>, Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> wrote:

WOW - just when I thought I had finish with ars for today, I catch a whole bunch of follow ups on this thread. For some reasons, the thread un-watched itself, so I only caught it by chance, while scanning the remaining thread.

OK - let's get down to business. I doubt I'll have time to answer everybody today, don't even know if I will at all.

>I apologize; when I initially waded into this thread, I was under the impression that you were accusing critics of behaviour that was worse than that of some scientologists. (That'll teach me not to read a thread straight through before jumping in with my opinions and pre-conceived notions, right?)

>Of course, given that you have since established that you find such "violent" behaviour to be unacceptable coming from either side, that rather makes moot the point that I was trying to make in this particular paragraph. Sorry about that.


>>Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought ;-)

>No, you *can't* kill with words.

<sigh> I thought that my 'see what I mean' would have tipped you off. Now we'll have a whole rant on how you can't literally kill with words, right :-)

>You can use words in a way that may lead others to commit actual acts of violence, but the fact remains that to take that final step -- from reading "all psychiatrists are insane criminals who should be removed from this plane of existence because of the harm they to do others to actually going out and committing an act of violence *against* a psychiatrist *solely because of what you have read* -- is more than a matter of simply reading too many 'violent' posts on USENET.

OK - I understand how you understand my statement now. No, that's not what I mean (that propaganda leads to violence). I mean: you make a snide and hateful remark - you just kill the person figuratively (even if the person is not emotionally hurt). Psychologically, you try to kill the person, to get him out of your way, to shut him up... It's figurative, not directly or indirectly literal.

>I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with the laws against "hate speech" per se, mainly since I believe that words are just that - words. Not actions. While I can understand the temptation to hold the writer of hateful words - say, an Ernst Zundel, for example - responsible for whatever acts may be spawned by his words, I think it is a fine line to draw. Telling someone to "go out and kill the Jews/Scientologists/psychiatrists/critics" is different from writing posts that may, in rare and tragic cases, lead to someone doing just that. I don't think anyone on a.r.s. would ever do the latter consciously, but I will concur that the possibility is always there. On both sides.

But who does it consciously? People are usually convinced that they are on the right side, and that the other is on the wrong side. Isn't that the modus operandi of every war?

>There is a difference, I think, between trying to "slaughter everything in sight through words" and even your first comment, which is that "trying to hurt another is a violent act." When I criticize some aspect of scientology, I am no trying to hurt any individual scientologist. I am commenting on something about the organization itself. I will sadly admit that in some cases, people on a.r.s. do not make much effort to avoid "hurt[ing] another with ... a snide remark," but I think this is more due to the cartoon-like quality to many of the offiical OSA-bot posters to a.r.s., which do not seem capable of being 'hurt' in the orthodox sense of the word.

>Does wgert feel bad when people tease him about his pig? I don't know. I've never seen him reply to posts here in anything approaching a 'personal' way. He posts whatever dead agent material or juicy court documents his superiors have handed to him; he makes snide remarks about various critics, he outs people. He doesn't seem to react to anything that is said to him, so I'd be hardpressed to say that he is 'hurt' by snide remarks launched in his direction. In fact, for wgert, this seems to be a job - nothing more, nothing less.

>None of this, of course, is in any way meant to argue that critics ought not concern themselves with whether their words make scientologists feel that they have been hurt, whether justified or not. I've been through the 'clam' wars. When I see critics behaving badly, or treating others in what I see as a dehumanizing way, I say something. I do acknowledge that some of your points may -- sadly -- be correct, but I think it's also possible that you have become so discouraged by what you see as pervasive violence amongst critics that you miss the voices of reason.

My comment is general, really. Not just for critics. We do it at every level in life - through greed, jalousy, hurt, insecurity. It's just the unfolding human drama.

>I think Dennis can be blunt, and harsh, but violent? I just don't see it. I'm sorry. (And I've been on the receiving end of his blunt/harshness myself.) Using your broad definition of 'violent', as in, that which causes another to feel pain, I suppose that's true - but then, I could say the same thing about *your* posts. And, probably, about anyone else on this group. There is nothing one can say that won't offend somebody, somewhere. That's not violence, that's reality.

>Do you think it's possible, though, that some posters to a.r.s. who you might see as 'more often violent' are, in fact, channeling whatever anger and bitterness they might have towards scientology into this medium, rather than letting it devour them from the inside, or take it out in the real world?

> For the record, to continue using Dennis as an example, I have read posts from him that are unquestionably angry, particularly when he discusses the effect of scientology on his relationship with his daughters. I have never seen him threaten violence - actual, physical violence - against anyone.

His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man. That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different things.

>>I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic forum is more the real person than what can be known through the real life behavior of this person. I am quite confident that I know better many posters around here than I know my colleagues whom I see every day.

>I'm not sure about that. Surely you have heard of the phenomenon of 'net personas' -- the often-exaggerated characters that 'real people' become when behind a keyboard. Often, these personas are far more outgoing than the person himself - or herself - is in real life. So which is the 'real' person - the online or offline persona?

Good question. Now I am not sure. Maybe they effectively become two different persons? Possible. But then, aren't we a different person in different IRL situations too? Of course, the fact that you don't have to put up with a face on the net maybe eases off communication? Or does it hinder and reduces it? Does it allow more of the real person to come out, or does it encourages the creation of a net personna, as you say?

I have a very definite image of each poster - at least those I have read for a long time, and even more so about those I have exchanged ideas with. I tend to think that this is the real person - but maybe that's just an illusion.

>Or are they both just facets of the complicated, contradictory nature of a fairly typical human being?

Would read it that way from the paragraph above.

>It is, I'll agree, far easier to hurl vitriol at someone who is no more than ASCII characters glowing on a screen than it is to do the same to someone you meet face to face. I think that goes for both scientologists and critics. Many of the most outrageous posters would undoubtedly be perfectly polite to a scientologist they encountered on the street. There is a curious quality to this medium that I don't think is unique to a.r.s. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Damned if I know. It just *is*.

Eh - I see we are on the same mind about that :-)

>You can read Jeff from here till eternity -- or, if you prefer, go back in time through DejaNews - and you won't find a single violent outburst. That doesn't mean he doesn't get angry. But he is -- of all arsians, scientologist, critic or other -- one of the calmest, most reasonable and goodhearted people on this group.

That has been my impression so far too - even though I disagree with him on more than one point.

>Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone without serious provocation

And that's the principle of non-violence? I don't think so.

>- and that includes his rounds with Diane. There is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her share of attacking first.

I only know of Diane what I read on ars - since I don't usually irc.
>From what I see from here is Rod attacking Diane because she pointed out the fact he mentioned on irc that Minton mentioned about his relation with Stacy and therefore he lied before (confused sentence but what the heck, it's too late at night). Seems to me as yet another cultie trying to protect a sacred cow, you know, like the Cooper thing. I am doubtful about the "Diane just tries to be mean" explanation type of things. I don't say it is or isn't the case, I am just doubtful about it.

>As for Keith Wyatt, I would tend to agree that many critics treat him as little more than a convenient football. But I've seen him 'start it' just as often as I've seen people light into him with no immediate provocation. Rod doesn't like Keith, and makes no bones about showing it. Is not liking someone violent?

I guess no. You can't like everybody - and you can't force yourself to like everybody just out of principle. But again, it isn't just a matter of personality, you know - Keith is actively busy criticizing critics. As far as I am concerned, it isn't a matter of "like" or "dislike". It's a matter of pure intolerance to criticism - and that makes the person ugly, in my eyes - especially when the same critics blames CoS members for not being able to open up to criticism... That makes them hypocrites, and I think it's a major fault for someone who claims to be a critic.

>>>Lady Ada?


>You ought to search for Lady Ada's posts on Deja. I have a feeling you would  agree with many of her points.

Thanks. I'll do that sometime <sigh> I'll probably never will find the time for it anyway, but it's good to know.

>As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?

I wouldn't call what he did "healthy scepticism" - but that's very subjective I guess. The lack of sensibility to other's feelings - the lack of true understanding. Yes, I find that very violent.

>I'm surprised by this verdict. I have never seen Efish post anything even approaching 'violent'. She has, however, posted impassioned attacks on what she sees as the monstrous policies of the CoS with regards to dead-agent packs, investigative techniques and the like. How is that, in itself, 'violent'?

I can't say. I guess it's her lack of understanding on certain issues that makes me see her that way. That hurts too. Maybe it gives the wrong impression that it's made on purpose while it may not be.

>>>Any of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers?

>>Sure - Roland, Dave Bird, Erlich, Zane Thomas, Martin Hunt, Rob Clark, Arnie Lerma, William Barwell, Bruce Beppy, Dominion, Ex-mudder, Tilman Haussherr, Alex (jeaux), Anti-Cult, Freiman, Gary Scarff, Graham Berry, Gregg Hagglung, Roger Gonnet, Steve Fishman, Steve Withlash, bc, sandy, Ralh Hilton, Jana Moreillon, Jim DBB, John Dorsay, Tom Klemersrud, ...These are some of the people I consider violent - and out of charity I left out quite a few who occasionally can be violent too. The first named are the worst.

>In fact, I think you would find that there are many, many critics who are uncomfortable - to put it mildly - with Roland's rhetoric, trolls and attitude towards scientologists in general.

Yes - but they use his text on "introduction to Scientology" on their web page, right? I also think that Roland is making himself be the troll of ars - so they can say "it's just Roland, you know, it's not us". I think that he is doing that out of embarassement for posts he made early on and that came out to speak against him. So now that he got so deep, he just exaggerates it: "See - I say a lot of silly things, it's not serious, you know"... Just a wild theory, of course.

>As for the rest, I take it that you consider anyone who is a 'hard line critic' - ie, criticizes both the beliefs and the actions of scientology - to be inherently violent - and I still don't think that's fair, or logically consistent.

No I don't think I take that in consideration. I listed Ralph Hilton with the lot, right? Ralph Hilton can be very violent at time, even at other times he is rather high spirited. But it's amusing to note that the rest do indeed have that in common. I didn't think about that. Just coincidence (or maybe not, maybe that's just part of them being violent).

>By sweeping all these critics - many of whom are in furious and impassioned disagreement not only with other critics but with each other -- under one broad heading of 'violent', the nuances between passion and violence become blurred. And there is a difference.

>In some senses, to my mind (I preface this with disclaimers because as you may know, I have never been a scientologist), scientology discourages *any* spontaneous outburst of emotion, whether positive or negative.

Where do you get that from?

>The 'reactive >mind' - that bit of grey matter that says 'ouch' when one touches a hot stove - is considered something to eradicate.

Yes - but all emotions don't come only from the reactive mind. In fact, in Scientology, even anger is not considered a "bad" emotion, just an emotion. Look at the tone scale.

An emotion is reactive only when it is inappropriate, when it comes out of an irrational and unconscious reactions that finds its origin in unconscious past trauma.

You really should do a bit of Scientology, Kady. Seriously. You would at least have a better reality of what you are talking about. I think it would do good for all critics to do at least do some basic courses and some basic auditing, until they have a clear enough idea. Seriously. They can still remain a critic if they like afterwards.

Reminds me of valerie - who was so cult phobic that she was even afraid to watch a Tom Cruise film (supposedly she would be hypnotized or what?) - then when she made the Hollander seminar, she was all surprised to find that there were some good people in Scientology.

>But in the wog world, emotions - when not given absolute free reign, of course - are considered part and parcel of being human. That includes feeling outrage over what happened to someone like Lisa McPherson. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

No - when it stems from a right understanding. Feeling outrage at something that is really just a mock up is a bad thing. Lisa McPherson wasn't "murdered" - feeling outrage thinking that Scientologists actually had the intent to torture and kill her is plain stupid. Saying it, like Erlich does, is misleading and manipulative, because he knows very well that this wasn't the case.

>>>Am *I* violent?

>>No :-)

>But under your definition, I can be. Sometimes I get angry. I'm human.

Me too. But then I don't parade around boasting about my non-violence (not to mean that you do so).

>>Wgert, Justin, Rod Fletcher, Enzo (and I probably forget a couple) - I consider violent.

>You see, that's where (again) we differ - the first three I see as calculated, more than anything else. Wgert, Justin and RodF - these are not outbursts of a genuinely angry scientologist;

We differ indeed. I think they are. They just are blunt Scientologists and react in a blunt way. If they ever come out of Scientology, they would join up the ranks of the group above, and become blunt critics. Nothing change.

>these are pre-fabricated attacks that in all likelihood come from some Big Book of DA. There is no honest emotion in their posts. They're doing a job. Someone back at OSA INT might feel genuine anger, but in all likelihood, they don't - it's just policy.

You do have wild ideas about OSA, Kady :-)

You also are underestimating them. If they were to send someone from OSA, they wouldn't send stupid jerks like wgert, RodF or Justin. They have better material than that, you know - it's just that they use them where it matters: court cases, public relations (not with critics), auditing, management, promotion. Anyone who has ever been in the CoS knows that there are an awful lot of bright individuals in it - that they don't want to waste them in a.r.s. is the most plausible explanation, IMO.

>To me, that's not violent. It's disagreeable, and in some cases disgusting - but it's not personal enough to be 'violent'.

Does violence have to be personal? I don't think so. In fact, cold violence, like the one of an arbitrary government is even worst.

>>RonsAmigo, MikeSmith, MiKe, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper (although he can be sometime), The Pilot - I don't.

>I would tend to agree with you here. Then again, I consider very few posters to be 'violent', as you may have guessed :) That goes for both critics *and* scientologists. Deluded, meanspirited, egotistical, willfully ignorant and just plain tiresome to read: yes. Violent - no. Not yet, at least - and I hope that things don't deterioriate in future.

All of that is a form of violence, IMO. Deluded persons are usually violent, and so do meanspirited and egotistical ones. Ignorant and stupid ones are usually violent too. Everything that comes in the way of listening and trying to honestly understand another's viewpoint is violent, IMO. But then, I maybe have a very wide definition of violence.

>Alright, let me turn the question around. How, in your opinion, can one criticize scientology without it being seen as an effort to 'hurt' ?

Absolutely. Didn't you yourself just said in another thread that the *way* to do things matter? That when you don't, the person becomes defensive and closes himself up? Real criticism, in my book, would be to bring someone to a greater understanding. Most of what passes off as criticism in this ng is hardly more than a defense mechanism in itself, a constant effort to make oneself right and the other wrong - to prove oneself right by making the other wrong. That's not criticism at all.

>To destroy a belief system would, indeed, be 'violent' based on your definition of the term. To counter well-loved myths based on misinformation, to argue with someone about the facts of a given incident that are still under dispute - all these things could be seen as 'violent'. But to do so under the belief - right or wrong - that by giving that same someone the other side of the story, and to show them that they have been led to believe a lie (when they see not through the eye :) ) - is that violent?

How you do things is what matters, not so much what you do.

> Or is it, to quote another 'Source' - the truth that shall set them free?

Yes - but truth without love is cruelty - and that doesn't set free anyone. I am afraid that the quotes that would apply most often around here are the "blind leading the blind" and the "straw in the eye".


Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

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.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Site map
What's New














Who's Who



What Is?



The Tech








Scientologists Speak