A couple of days ago the Church of Scientology put the 100th “Meet a Scientologist” video on YouTube. I am curious what the responses are.
My favorite one is this one (vrooom!):
And here is the whole playlist.
I saw the video crew when they came by. Maybe I should have agreed to an interview. Hm.. next time.
– L
56 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Scientology Myths Forum 
As I recall, the only time that scientology attempted to demonstrate the avilities of a “clear” was while hubbard was still alive, and it didn’t go very well. in that case, the subject was unable to recall even the most recent details. I don’t believe that such a thing has ever been attempted again, and with good reason.
since that time, any evidence that I have personally seen is in the form of very subjective claims based on how clients feel, or what they believe, rather than what they are able to do, objectively.
which raises the awkward question of what exactly what one gets for the cost of climbing the bridge which, if memory serves, is in the neighborhood of $300,000.
does that process buy anything more than feelings?
I mean, christians get enlightenment for free. so do buddhists. and indians. the list goes on. or, if one chooses to not partake in religion, entire libraries of self-help books can be purchase for a fraction of that cost.
That’s a good point, Big Daddy! Louanne, would you have scientology be accountable for every penny (do you know where yours goes?), and would they show you an actual “clear” and “OT” with the abilities described by Hubbard?
very noble goals, and exactly what I would ask of scientology. I would imagine that is understandable to you, as surely you consider your request to be reasonable.
” Comment by Anon on January 5, 2010 6:09 pm
So what do you want to reform about psychiatry?”
I don’t have an agenda or reform plan (CCHR.org does). But personally I want them to stop human rights abuses where ever they are documented. I also want to make them accountable for every penny they get and make them show their “cured patients”.
That should do it.
– L
Louanne,
postings seemed to be having an error, apologies if multiple posts.
For your convenience, I am defining the word “question”:
“a sentence of inquiry that asks for a reply”
Also, I will define “answer”:
“a statement (either spoken or written) that is made to reply to a question or request or criticism or accusation”
I hope that helps clarify things for you.
I believe you may have gotten confused with “Diversion”, or “a turning aside (of your course or attention or concern)”.
So what do you want to reform about psychiatry?
see, louanne, people join and support cchr because, right or wrong, they are concerned that people may be in danger. they are concerned that an enity (in this case, the psychiatric profession) is dangerous and has a negative impact on those involved, so they are using effective methods to convey their message.
as is so with those that protest scientology. right or wrong, many of them, including myself have similar concerns about scientology. in such a case, one is morally bound to speak out.
if one has such concerns about the health and safety of others, they must protest until satisfied, lest they be shown to be right.
“And where are these “hundreds of videos”? ”
Don’t you even believe your own propaganda anymore? lol
http://www.pitchengine.com/churchofscientologyinternational/scientology-video-channel-meet-a-scientologist/15090/
“The video channel contains hundreds of broadcast-quality videos, comprising almost 4 hours of content. These videos have previously been available for viewing by the general public in Church exhibitions around the world.”
“2010/01/04 at 10:06pm
“And where are these “hundreds of videos”? ”
Don’t you even believe your own propaganda anymore? lol
http://www.pitchengine.com/churchofscientologyinternational/scientology-video-channel-meet-a-scientologist/15090/”
Scientology.org Video Channel. Isn’t that the website that Anonymous tried to crash and sabotage by illegal means?
(In execution of their Freedom of Speech, clearly).
– L
on the internet. Have you not seen the internet, or are you just nitpicking? :)
“2010/01/04 at 7:52pm
on the internet. Have you not seen the internet, or are you just nitpicking? :)”
Internet? I heard of it! Must be cool.
– L
So let me see if I understand this correctly.
According to you:
Anonymous is violating free speech by posting hundreds of videos online about and against Scientology.
Scientology, however, is somehow a champion of free speech for posting hundreds of videos of their own, about themselves, and also about and against psychiatry.
The list can go on, but it certainly seems like you hold your enemies to one standard, and those that already agree with you to another.
That’s just an observation from reading a great deal of your posts, here and elsewhere.
And where are these “hundreds of videos”?
– L
What CCHR says in their mission-statement and their mental health declaration of human rights doesn’t match the message they convey in their videos like “psychiatry – an industry of death”, namely that psychiatry would have no legitimacy at all as a field of medicine and that there are no psychiatric treatments at all that work anyway.
So what exactly do you want to reform about psychiatry?
it’s time that I enjoy the company of my dear wife, but the conversation seems dead anyways.
louanne, I must reiterate a very simple question: does cchr support and attempt to achieve hubbard’s stated goals, or do they not?
question: do you believe everything you believe? or just everything that you read on scientology websites.
louanne, you’re really stretching. do you have any hard facts on either of the two minor points that you’re able to discuss, or can you at least see that you’re discussing your belief as to the inents of the two entities in this discussion?
lastly, you must see that others see “anonymous” in exactly the same way, down to the letter, that you see cchr?
can you see this?
What CCHR says matches what they do in reality. If there is a relation to hubbards teachings then that that he found it much harder to help people that have been in the hands of “psychiatry” than those who were not. But this is all not my topic. What I know of CCHR matches what they write and demand on their website:
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights investigates and exposes psychiatric violations of human rights. It works shoulder to shoulder with like-minded groups and individuals who share a common purpose to clean up the field of mental health and shall continue to do so until psychiatry’s abusive and coercive practices cease and human rights and dignity are returned to all. CCHR’s Board of Advisors called Commissioners includes doctors, scientists, psychologists, lawyers, legislators, educators, business professionals, celebrities and civil and human rights representatives. CCHR was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szasz, professor emeritus of psychiatry, to eradicate mental health abuse.
(http://www.cchr.org/#/faq/mission-statement)
– L
“CCHR is spreads documentation and testimonies of actual abuses committed by psychiatry with the purpose to reform it. ”
I assume you support the CCHR.
So, what exactly would you like to reform about psychiatry?
What would a reformed psychiatry, that you could agree with, be like?
on a related note: did not Hubbard say in Professional Auditor’s Bulletin
no. 53, 27 May 1955, “Ownership”: “We are not even vaguely
propitiative toward medicine or psychiatry, and we are overtly intent
upon assimilating every function they are now performing.”
If CCHR does follow Hubbard’s teachings, would it not be against his
wishes to fail to assimilate their functions? And if they do follow
Hubbard’s teachings and direction, why do they claim otherwise?
ooh, I always must smile when you resort to grmmatical corrections and thinly veiled insults!
while you have a very rigid and biased understanding, parts are actaully correct. however, by your definitions, you and I are in the same group, albeit a virtual one.
difference is, I can answer questions without trying to weasel out of them, or ignoring them.
so, since I don’t go to protests or use symbols, etc, then you would say that I am not anonymous, correct?
bd, I wouldn’t want you to “butt” a Hubbard book.
Did you mean: buy Top 1 result shown
bd, I am quite used to your hopping and dodging when it comes to factual statements. But this time you excelled yourself! So you say Anonymous is not a group. Let’s see: they use
– symbols to recognize themselves
– websites and forums to exchange their ideas and organize actions
and they
– meet in pubs, on public grounds and in front of Churches of Scientology. At the latter place with the purpose to live their “personal freedom” by restricting the one of others.
But certainly groups might not exist at all.
– L
louanne, I disagree with your opinion. I see only justification based on your judgement of intent.
but you failed to answer my question or the underlying campaign.
for example, if I go to an org, but a hubbard book or two, and then start mailing threatening letters to some government official, would you consider I fair that that is accredited to all of scientology?
you do not understand what anonymous is, or what it means. you really can’t accept (or don’t want to, most likely) that it is the very definition of personal freedom, and instead tey to pretend that it is some organized group.
your standards have doubled, me thinks.
” Comment by bigdaddy on January 4, 2010 4:29 pm
aside, cchr has the stated goal of taking out psychiatry: [unlinked claims nuked]”
“so, what’s the difference exactly?”.
Read slower this time: “The difference is that Anonymous spreads hate and lies about a minority religion with the purpose to destroy it. CCHR is spreads documentation and testimonies of actual abuses committed by psychiatry with the purpose to reform it.”
– L
bd, were you around in the last two years? Seems you missed the Anon campaign completely. Links are in that PDF. Otherwise here is moar. Or here(currently down, use some archive service to get there).
– L
aside, cchr has the stated goal of taking out psychiatry:
“be part of the team that’s taking out psychiatry!”
cchr mailer 7 dec 1993
“they and their program must be stopped”
cchr mailer june 1995
“it’s time to put an end to psychiatru and its criminal practices NOW!”
cchr mailer 1998
“get rid of psychs! that is just what the cchr is doing.”
cchr, “stop psych experiments on schoolchildren
and let’s not even get started on the videos and shouted slogans from the cchr raids!
so, what’s the difference exactly?
Louanne,
could you please provide the meeting munites in which anonymous approved that message? Do you have the resukts of their vote?
I might add: “Anonymous spreads hate and lies about a minority religion with the stated purpose to destroy it”.
– L
That is you opinion. to me, it appears that CCHR wants to destroy a profession (like your analysis, mine is baed on perception, rather than public statements).
to me, it seems that anonymous is trying to do the same thing as the cchr, including spreading verifiable facts about past crimes.
Louanne, I’d be very curious to know how you can call “anonymous” a hate group, but not CCHR? (CCHR.org)
Have you seen their videos calling psychiatry an “industry of death”? Have you seen them protest in the street accusing psychiatrists of terrible things? Have you seen the text on their site, and the individuals involved, label and accuse members of the mental health profession?
How can you differentiate the two, in your belief?
” Comment by paidbypharma on January 4, 2010 1:25 am
Louanne, I’d be very curious to know how you can call “anonymous” a hate group, but not CCHR? (CCHR.org)”
The difference is that Anonymous spreads hate and lies about a minority religion with the purpose to destroy it. CCHR is spreads documentation and testimonies of actual abuses committed by psychiatry with the purpose to reform it.
– L
Here is a perfect example:
In which you deleted a post that linked to proof- actual evidence- of photo manipulation in a scientology journal. You admitted to deleting it, excusing it with an insult, saying, “So what? I get that you couldn’t care less about the Church of Scientology Washington DC tripling in size last Saturday but why don’t you say so? Why this rah-rah about totally unrelated, trivial allegations? Can’t you ramp up your intellectual capacities a little and just stay on topic?”
lol, right, louanne. Reading back in the post archive shows several gaps where you’ve done so. And you know that, too.
I’m not sure how you define trash (unless it’s very critical and intense debate?), but only one person here calls people vulgar names- very often and very quickly. Is that not trash?
Doesn’t scientology claim to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
What then of article 19?
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Surely, you would support one’s freedom to hold or express their beliefs, just as you are able to do on this site (ironically, while censoring others), yes?
” Comment by Anon on January 3, 2010 3:10 pm
It’s pointless to go into detail on post links to documentation and evidence on this CoS-operated blog, because they will most certainly be censored by Louanne, like she has already done before several times.”
Lie. I never delete critical information. But it has to be pertinent to the purpose of this place. I won’t accept any attempts to trash up this blog.
“Write me an email, if you want more information: anon172839@gmail.com”
Send them to me too: scientologymyths@yahoo.com
Or post a link.
– L
Who, exactly, Louanne? How on earth do you know exactly which “members” are protesting what? Do you have some sort of secret knowledge that no one else does?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but anonymous has no leaders, it’s a movement- a culture- a philosophy. But you sincerely try to demonize the whole group because of your belief that it is otherwise. The flaw, however, is that your attacks have absolutely no basis in fact.
Do you understand what non-scientologists consider to be free speech?
Jack, I may have grown biased, but I began much like you- ready to make up my own mind.
I did.
Take a look at the scientology sites- even ones like this. look at the anger. Look at the vulgar words and accusations. look at how they treat people. Now look at the main CoS website. Or their “Religious Freedom Watch” website ( which actually offers a bounty for information on their enemies!) and also anti-psychiatry site “CCHR”. As you read their blogs, and sites like the above- it just gets kind of scary.
Try this- really. Go to Google News and do a search for “scientology”. You’ll see two things- news of their crimes and other suspect actions, and also some POSITIVE news- which is always from a free press release site, and generated by scientologists themselves.
These are facts.
The anon crowd- at least they’re actually helping, and not bragging about every small positive action. When the Iranians were fighting for their privacy and security in their country, guess who helped keep them safe (and mourned those that were kidnapped by the Iranian Gov or missing)? It was the anons, not the CoS that was actually getting things done. So please don’t be fooled into thinking that “anonymous” is a hate group that targets the CoS- it’s a group that merely stays anonymous, and does, generally, what it feels to be right.
Anonymous IS a hate group that has taken on harassment of scientologists about two years ago and they continue almost daily. I closely followed the “help to Iran” that was provided some months ago. What a pity that these were not the same guys. It’s actually a shame that the Anons now try to exploit positive actions of others for their own sordid goals, which are, and I quote, to “create hate and dissent” (https://scientologymyths.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/anonymous-flier.pdf).
Anon, the misery and harassment coming from Anonymous – that’s a fact. Just as the ones that got arrested and the ones sentenced for their violation of Freedom of Speech. That’s how I consider shutting down websites by illegal means. DDOSing scientology.org and other websites was a straight attack on freedom of speech and I am happy that the first one’s got fined and jailed for it.
Back to the actual subject, shall we.
– L
Louanne eloquently said:
“Bullshit. These videos are the gems in the flood of crappy videos on Youtube. Or didn’t you notice that Anonymous tries to flush away free speech by drowning Youtube with hate-filled and disgusting propaganda videos?”
Hate to derail the conversation, but I’m new here…
Is Louanne here actually trying to say that these folks are somehow violating free speech by exercising and encouraging it? How on earth can she rationalize the position that these people are somehow against free speech by using it?
Event this own site, as I’ve been reading through it, has a habit of censoring posts, or closing threads when the owner starts to lose. I suppose that “anons” just seem to value free speech, whether you agree with their message or not.
“Is Louanne here actually trying to say that these folks are somehow violating free speech by exercising and encouraging it? How on earth can she rationalize the position that these people are somehow against free speech by using it?”
No, I am saying that these folks are violating free speech by spreading massive amounts of hate and prejudice against a minority. While claiming to “encourage” free speech. Turns out this is only for those who run their party line.
– L
“Scientologist- Has members of the organization ever engaged in activities that could be percieved as hostile towards critics or even illegal? Thats not to say sanctioned by the church itself. ( No organization can be expected to monitor all activities of every individual)”
Yes, and it is actually part of the training of certain church members to harass critics.
It’s pointless to go into detail on post links to documentation and evidence on this CoS-operated blog, because they will most certainly be censored by Louanne, like she has already done before several times.
Write me an email, if you want more information:
anon172839@gmail.com
Jack- that’s a very insightful question.
I am an “anon”, in the sense that I’m part of the international movement that chooses to stay as such. I do hope that you’re not fooled into believing that it’s a group in the conventional sense of the word. But, I feel that I can answer your question.
You ask: “Are some members of the movement motivated by contempt with the sole purpose of destroying a percieved enemy just because it doesnt fall in line with the norm?”
The short answer is: yes. There are members that are generally bad people. Just like there are those that are good people. The reason is very simple- anyone can consider themselves to be a part of it. I’ve have personally talked to some that protest scientology, and also protest the actions of the president for reasons that I consider to be suspect. Also, there are those that protest scientology on their way to church or do volunteer work. It’s a very complex situation, isn’t it?
So, if you were so inclined, you could consider yourself to be “anon” at this very moment, and go out and commit some terrible crimes. You doing so, however, would not reflect on me, who chooses not to commit crimes. Likewise, there are scientology adherents that choose to commit crimes, which doesn’t necessarily reflect on every scientologist out there.
That’s the difference- that’s why “anons” protest the management and operation of the church, in general, rather than trying to demonstrate that “all” scientologists are “bad people”.
To your second question, I can only speak for myself, but if I knew that someone that I consider to be an ally were committing certain crimes, I would not tolerate nor accept it. I would certainly not cover it up. However, I personally believe in a certain gray area. For instance, I wouldn’t call the police if I saw a protester jaywalk during a protest, but I would personally call the “fuzz” if I knew that they were going to commit a violent act. That sort of thing doesn’t help anybody. In my personal experience, most “anons” see things the same way.
Sorry for the soapbox speech, but your questions deserved a full answer.
If I may ask a few questions.
Scientologist- Has members of the organization ever engaged in activities that could be percieved as hostile towards critics or even illegal? Thats not to say sanctioned by the church itself. ( No organization can be expected to monitor all activities of every individual)
Anon- Are some members of the movement motivated by contempt with the sole purpose of destroying a percieved enemy just because it doesnt fall in line with the norm? ( Once again it is hard to control actions in an organization, much less the free flowing form of a movement)
I have read a bit since my last post and continue to personally gauge each bit of information carefully. I am not charging anyone or blaming anyone. I also realize that anyone who answers probably is not an official spokesperson for the organization or movement.
Last question is a hypothetical one to each, if members were engaged in any illegal or unethical practices how do you think your organization should respond
I thank both parties for the opportunity to educate a layman in these matters.
and I to the origins. you have a very bad habit of paying with a wide brush.
tell us, how do you believe that the cos pulled in the attention of the boards?
by the by, jack, did I not perfectly predict the response? it’s like clockwork.
I must also remind you that the anti-cos movement is well beyond mere boards. I myself, have never been to boards such as those. have you? no, many have taken up the cause, not internet dwellers, as you seem to believe.
“I must also remind you that the anti-cos movement is well beyond mere boards. I myself, have never been to boards such as those. have you? no, many have taken up the cause, not internet dwellers, as you seem to believe.”
You are changing subject. I am aware of the anti-Scientology crowd. But I was responding to your creative history writing about Anonymous.
– L
okay, louanne- let’s explore YOUR version, where you completely absolve the cos and remove any reasonable motive… why on earth would they do this, the way you claim?
bd,
They’ve been doing this type of thing for years. Smashing websites, discriminating minorities. It’s “for the lulz”. Perfect dupes.
– L
bigdaddy,
you say that anonymous “started when the church of scientology began using the courts to shut down websites and accounts critical of them.”
Not sure if you are intentionally falsifying history but you could at least add some time, form, place and event to your allegation (if you can).
Anonymous, a group routinely gathering at the /b/ (random) board on 4chan.org since about 2004, was rallied up back in 2007 to hack and destroy the Church of Scientology’s website at scientology.org. It took up to January 2008 to actually get them organized, automatic DDOS tools spread and botnets put in place. Anonymous, a group whose only purpose in life seems to be to provoke and harass minorities, caught fire on the idea to “dismantle the church of scientology” (their words, not mine) because it fit in their “life style”. Anything else is cosmetic to give these a*holes a face saver for the criminal acts they have been and are doing against members of the Church of Scientology. For which – I might add – some of them have been arrested, indicted and/or jailed by now.
– L
jack,
to actually answer your question, anonymous (a movement, not a group) was created in the “war” between scientology and the internet, which started when the church of scientology began using the courts to shut down websites and accounts critical of them.
rather than discuss and fix it, scientologists (individually and as a group) became aggressive towards critics.
watch the response to this thread, as a case-in-point. any scientologist here will deny, and possonly attack my character. as a group, they are obligated.
those critical ask only for accountability and reform, perhaps addressing the allegations of abuse and hundreds of mysterious suicides or other deaths.
both sides, indeed, are rather passionate!
wow this seems heated. Im not a Scientologist ( no offence its just not in me to be a group person) and Im not an anonymus person ( no offence, once again its a group thing). Just started reading about the Scientology on the news and curiosity got the better of me. It seems to be a heated issue and I like to keep an eye on things from time to time. Can either side give me a short synopsis on what the proverbial hubub is about? If its a private discussion then I apologize and withdraw. I have no opinions either way, again just curious.
Respectfully (to both sides)
Jack
Hey Jack,
the really short version of “What is Scientology?” is this one:
The Scientology religious philosophy contains a precise system of axioms, laws and techniques, exhaustively researched and documented as workable. As such, it provides the individual with the ability to dramatically improve conditions, not only in his own life but in the world around him. (“What is Scientology?” book, foreword, full text here: http://www.whatisscientology.org)
A more comprehensive description is in this book: Scientology – Theology and Practice of a Contemporary Religion (full text here: http://www.bonafidescientology.org/).
I am aware that the discussion about Scientology is marked by a lot of scurrility, especially on the internet, where every nonsense possible can be found. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.
– Louanne
Bullshit. These videos are the gems in the flood of crappy videos on Youtube. Or didn’t you notice that Anonymous tries to flush away free speech by drowning Youtube with hate-filled and disgusting propaganda videos?
Here are some more of the good ones:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ChurchofScientology#grid/user/7DC75B22549B4F2E
– Louanne
You’ll only get one-sided responses to those videos since the CoS doesn’t like free speech and they moderate comments.