GameBanshee Forums

Get 'em while they're red hot! Or at least, while they're still available. Apparently, a law firm representing the secretive Scientology religion has demanded their immediate removal from Wikileaks, where they have appeared.

This is the base page. Bear in mind, this stuff is very long. A brief summary of brilliant highlights by founder Hubbard can be found here. My favorite is the comment about a head of the Galactic Federation, Xenu, sending large amounts of people to Earth sometime between 75 million and 4 quadrillion years ago. Enjoy.

*Saved to notepad for exploitation.

This short clip pretty much sums it up as well.

YouTube - Scientology: The Truth

Scientology is a horrible cult that lies, steals, harrasses and slanders people, are extremely secretive, and allegedly kidnaps and murders people. They prey on the weak and confused, and make those people even more mentally damaged. Scientology is definitely something that needs to be gotten rid of.

This, or some like document appeared in public here in Sweden a decade or so ago. I actually had the chance to read it, but I had to fight my way through the hordes of Scientologists put on guard at the public institution where the single copy was housed. Their strategy was to take turns at "reading" the single copy so that nobody else could get the chance. To say the least, I was amazed at its contents, pure science fiction. Just a short while later some U.S. congressman managed to put enough pressure on the Swedish government for them to withdraw it from public view. A black day indeed.

Caden wrote:This short clip pretty much sums it up as well.

YouTube - Scientology: The Truth

Scientology is a horrible cult that lies, steals, harrasses and slanders people, are extremely secretive, and allegedly kidnaps and murders people. They prey on the weak and confused, and make those people even more mentally damaged. Scientology is definitely something that needs to be gotten rid of.

True. But couldn't the same be said about most religions, including quite a few mainstream ones? While Scientology is more of a parody of a religion, everywhere they are is the same obviously unreal fantasy stories that for some reason we are all obliged to tiptoe around so as not to offend people's sensibilities. It is like insanity is the norm, and we should have to justify rejecting it. Man's stupidity is only surpassed by the viciousness with which he defends it.

Naffnuff wrote:
True. But couldn't the same be said about most religions, including quite a few mainstream ones? While Scientology is more of a parody of a religion, everywhere they are is the same obviously unreal fantasy stories that for some reason we are all obliged to tiptoe around so as not to offend people's sensibilities. It is like insanity is the norm, and we should have to justify rejecting it. Man's stupidity is only surpassed by the viciousness with which he defends it.

Can I sign my name under this, Naffnuff?

Nice to have you back, btw.

Anyway, why did you want to read that copy?

By the way, I evolved fins after reading it.

Thanks! It's been a while, I know.

Well, this was before the internet explosion, so these pieces of information were hard to come by. To tell you the truth, I didn't know much about Scientology, just that they were after people's money, but who isn't? I had this friend who had been in the cult, but she wouldn't tell me anything, and besides, for obvious reasons I wouldn't have taken her word for anything. So, the very young man that I was, I was just very curious, not just about Scientology, but about everything. But the stuff that I came across on that day was really far beyond what I had expected, I mean it was just baroque!

Maybe it was my youth, but I really didn't think people would try to pass off this kind of stuff, let alone buy it. Honestly, if it hadn't been for those hooligans trying to stop me, I would have taken it for a slanderous forgery, Elders of Zion type of stuff. But it seems their beliefs are really things along the line of fable's paraphrase above, at least they don't deny it. Later I saw an interview with L.Ron (king of Elves ) and it made sense. He seemed a mythomaniac, for example he claimed to have held prominent positions in academia, to have led wondrous expeditions, to have visited all the peoples of the earth, and so forth. And this was his conclusion, the fruit of his labours: "Everywhere man struggles for survival." This discovery is actually his, in case you have ever wondered where it came from.

Why were you asking?

Church of Scientology has its official website where you can learn the basics and buy L. Ron (Elrond?) Habbard's books for $25.
Apparently, they are protective of their mysterious "technology", whatever that might be, but all sects and cults are. Do they really kidnap and murder?

Oh, I should perhaps point out that while those books you pointed out are available for purchase were available back then too, and I had skimmed through a few of them, that particular document I was referring to supposedly contained the highest level of knowledge you could attain in Scientology. You were supposed to go insane if you read it without the proper preparations, which incidentally would cost you a fortune and a decade of reading only Scientology crap. Needless to say, I wasn't too impressed with their version of the Absolute Truth, but of course, I had been so eager for the good stuff that I had skipped a few preparatory classes. Murder and kidnap I don't know, I've never heard that one before.

Naffnuff wrote:True. But couldn't the same be said about most religions, including quite a few mainstream ones? While Scientology is more of a parody of a religion, everywhere they are is the same obviously unreal fantasy stories that for some reason we are all obliged to tiptoe around so as not to offend people's sensibilities. It is like insanity is the norm, and we should have to justify rejecting it. Man's stupidity is only surpassed by the viciousness with which he defends it.

Sciengologists are welcomed to believe whatever they want. It's their behavior, their immoral and illegal actions, that I am more concerned with. The court doesn't even give Scientology the "religion" status. They specifically refer to it as a "sinister cult".

I thought that in America Scientology was a religion, while here in Europe it is a cult.
I trully fear Scientology, not because of the "true meaning" behind the "religion", but because of the people who lead it. Everybody who joins it and breaks their connections with their family. I saw a documentary about it, by the BBC. The cult followed the reporters, and when they interviewed someone who left the cult, they came to the reporters and told all the deepest secrets of the one who left, because every member of the cult tells their secrets so they could achieve a form of serenity or something like that. They force everybody to call them a religion and not a cult, even though they have all the aspects of a cult. They say you don't have the right to call them a cult, but then again what right do they have to call themselfs a religion? They sue everybody who is against them and even the reporters were in trouble becoming sued.
It is a cult to be feared, that's for sure, and the worst thing is that they do almost everything legally. They can destroy your life and no one could do anything about it.

SupaCat wrote:I thought that in America Scientology was a religion, while here in Europe it is a cult.

Most USians who know what Scientology is regard it as a cult. The two words aren't identical.

Naffnuff wrote:This, or some like document appeared in public here in Sweden a decade or so ago. I actually had the chance to read it, but I had to fight my way through the hordes of Scientologists put on guard at the public institution where the single copy was housed. Their strategy was to take turns at "reading" the single copy so that nobody else could get the chance. To say the least, I was amazed at its contents, pure science fiction. Just a short while later some U.S. congressman managed to put enough pressure on the Swedish government for them to withdraw it from public view. A black day indeed.

I remember this very well. Scientology has never been well known or popular in the secularised Sweden, so many people didn't actually pay attention to the events until the Scientologists actually managed to lobby on the US government to put pressure on the Swedish government and forced Swedish authorities to seal the Scientology documents. That made a lot of people realise that Scientology is an organisation with real influence in the US, not only a handful of loonies that people laugh at, as it is here in Sweden.

SupaCat] I thought that in America Scientology was a religion wrote:

Fable] Most USians who know what Scientology is what regard it as a cult. The two words aren't identical.[/quote] Scientology is classified as a destructive cult wrote: True. But couldn't the same be said about most religions, including quite a few mainstream ones? While Scientology is more of a parody of a religion, everywhere they are is the same obviously unreal fantasy stories that for some reason we are all obliged to tiptoe around so as not to offend people's sensibilities. It is like insanity is the norm, and we should have to justify rejecting it. Man's stupidity is only surpassed by the viciousness with which he defends it.

Whereas I am personally an atheist, I do think it is important to distinguish between religion, cults and destructive cults. The important difference is not what stories each organisation believe in, the important and principal difference is the destructive part, that a destructive cult will contain elements that are inherently harmful to some or all of its own members. Core elements of this harm is mind control, totalitarian leadership, using members to recruit new members and to raise funds, and harassment such as threats or abuse when members leave or try to leave the cult.

For those who want to now more about definition of and effects of, destructive cults, I recommend the work by Dr Robert J Lifton and Dr Margaret Singer.

Scientology has never been well known or popular in the secularised Sweden, so many people didn't actually pay attention to the events until the Scientologists actually managed to lobby on the US government to put pressure on the Swedish government and forced Swedish authorities to seal the Scientology documents. That made a lot of people realise that Scientology is an organisation with real influence in the US, not only a handful of loonies that people laugh at, as it is here in Sweden.

One of those "lobbyists" who pressured the Swedish government was Rep. Sonny Bono (yeah, that one, post-Cher). Sonny took some scientology courses and claimed that L. Ron changed his life. Well, he was dumb anyway.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were friendly with Scientology groups at the time. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley even accepted a kind of "L. Ron Humanitarian award" from Scientologists.

The real "lobby" is Hollywood celebrities though: Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, John Travolta, Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley etc.

For those who want to now more about definition of and effects of, destructive cults, I recommend the work by Dr Robert J Lifton and Dr Margaret Singer.

Yes, and here is one set of criteria:

Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.

The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

C Elegans wrote: Whereas I am personally an atheist, I do think it is important to distinguish between religion, cults and destructive cults. The important difference is not what stories each organisation believe in, the important and principal difference is the destructive part, that a destructive cult will contain elements that are inherently harmful to some or all of its own members. Core elements of this harm is mind control, totalitarian leadership, using members to recruit new members and to raise funds, and harassment such as threats or abuse when members leave or try to leave the cult.

A colleague of mine won't hardly talk to me because I asked him a question or two about Salman Rushdie. That's what I mean by having to tiptoe. Most "ordinary", "mainstream" religious people are more offended by my sense than I am by their insanity, which is ironic, annoying and frightening. It's actually much more OK by me if they sit around in a cave waiting for a spaceship, so long as they keep it to themselves.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were friendly with Scientology groups at the time. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley even accepted a kind of "L. Ron Humanitarian award" from Scientologists.

The real "lobby" is Hollywood celebrities though: Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, John Travolta, Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley etc.

Does it matter? It's still retarded crap ":laugh:science:laugh:", no matter who endorses it.

Just wondered if anybody else might have missed this important thread, revealing the delights of Hubbard's Scientology theology. Really, now that it's out there, you've no reason to hang back any longer, have you? I mean, the genius-that-is-Travolta has accepted it.

My Two Cents!

In college I read his novel,"Battlefield Earth", to learn from it, in order to try and design a movie poster design contest, and hopefully win the prize, while also being graded for it. The novel is so thick, that I couldn't finish reading it in time to enter the contest or get a grade, so I failed that assigment. I enjoyed the novel and the movie though. I didn't read anymore of this works, because I was trying to read everything related to "Tarzan" at the time, as the college library had the complete works.

But anyway.....

"Cult"?! Do you people not know yet that all religions start out with one person, then become a cult, and go up through the ranks until they become known as "churches"? Christianity was thought of as a "wacky cult" when it began. But as it gathered more members, it rose in prominence, until it became what it is today.

Some people have similiar issues with the Mormans. The story goes, that a Catholic priest, or something like one, wrote a fantasy novel, about the idea of Jesus coming to North America. He takes his manuscript to a printer for publication. The next thing you know, his manuscript is stolen and a confidence man is out making a new religion based on it!

Until fairly recently, like in the 1990's I think it was, when I read about it, the surviving heirs were in a courtroom struggle with the Mormans, to get their intellectual property rights back, et cetera. The appeal process was decades long. I forget how it ended, if it ended.

I think my professor's statements about "cult" were just a basic brief summary, compared to what they write about at the linked site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religious_practice)

LeoStarDragon1 wrote:"Cult"?! Do you people not know yet that all religions start out with one person, then become a cult, and go up through the ranks until they become known as "churches"?

Religions typically start with a relatively large group of people--by which I mean 50 to a couple of hundred--and evolve across time. I know of only cults that begin with a single person.

Christianity was thought of as a "wacky cult" when it began.

No, it was a branch of Judaism that was recognized as such. It was not thought of as a cult as we're using the term, which is a modern concept. The idea of nascent Christianity being hated by others owes much to latterday Christians who wanted to whip up their congregations with martyr complexes. The one thing the early Christians did to stir up hatred was their own efforts at destroying the temples and statues of other gods, but that didn't qualify them as a cult. Just a damn nuisance.

LSD1, have you read any of the materials I linked to, above? I think they provide a good illustration of what we might call a cult, and even if you disagree, they certainly offer classy entertainment.

Howdy, Fable!

fable wrote:Religions typically start with a relatively large group of people--by which I mean 50 to a couple of hundred--and evolve across time. I know of only cults that begin with a single person.



No, it wasn't. It was a branch of Judaism that was recognized as such. It was never thought of as a cult as we're using the term, which is a modern concept. The idea of nascent Christianity being hated by others owes much to latterday Christians who wanted to whip up their congregations with martyr complexes. The one thing the early Christians did to stir up hatred was their own efforts at destroying the temples and statues of other gods, but that didn't qualify them as a cult. Just a damn nuisance.

LSD1, have you read any of the materials I linked to, above? I think they provide a good illustration of what we might call a cult, and even if you disagree, they certainly offer classy entertainment.

Oh not yet. When I replied, I had my professor's lecture in my head, but when I tried to write it down, it became vague suddenly. Sort of like, I can listen to a song okay, but if I try to sing along, then I can't hear the lyrics right. Odd for someone who was in school choruses.

So I tried to get the gist of it down. "Wacky cult" would be a modern usage, but applied to an ancient time. Also, someone comes up with an idea for a new religion. He makes a convert. Encouraged, he works on converting more, ala a pyramid scheme. The next thing you know, over time, you have a church. That's what I'm thinking of, ala James Michener's "SPACE", which I read a long time ago. Anyway, lots of thoughts came to ahead and tried to exit all at once. So sorry for the confusion!

I was gone for three days to celebrate Dad's 69th birthday anniversary, and when I get home, I see a lot of new posts to catch up on. I should've waited until I'd had more rest.

LeoStarDragon1 wrote:Oh not yet. When I replied, I had my professor's lecture in my head, but when I tried to write it down, it became vague suddenly. Sort of like, I cane listen to a song okay, but if I try to sing along, then I can't hear the lyrics right. Odd for someone who was in school choruses.

Maybe it was a Gilbert and Sullivan chorus. The lyrics can be tricky.

So I tried to get the gist of it down. "Wacky cult" would be a modern usage, but applied to an ancient time. Also, someone comes up with an idea for a new religion. He makes a convert. Encouraged, he works on converting more, ala a pyramid scheme. The next thing you know, over time, you have a church.

That's not the way it works, though. What happens is that you have an established religion, in which numerous people come up with, and agree upon, a variant in interpretation simultaneously, through discussion. They in turn discuss this with others, who either agree or disagree, and they hive off. We don't need to look for first causes, here: it would be useless. But typically religions begat religions, not individuals. That's even true about religion groups centered around solar deities, such as the Orphics, the Dionysiacs, and the Christos worshippers. All began within and moved slightly out of other, larger groups. Over time, given the separations, more and more changes occurred. But it's a cult when a single person announces, commands, compels others.

I was gone for three days to celebrate Dad's 69th birthday anniversary, and when I get home, I see a lot ot new posts to catch up on. I should've waited until I'd had more rest.

Please send him congratulations.