Tuesday, February 12, 2008

SP--after all.

I guess this is a trifle after the fact, but I kind of appreciated the pwnzoring of Scientology by Anonymous (et als).



It's not that I have anything personal against Scientology--or even L-Ron, whose Mission Earth decalogy amused me mightily when I came across it as a sf-addicted teen. I was down with what satire was all about, but there were things just a little too out there to just be satire--I never did get what the deal was with the psychiatry/gay connection. Did Hubbard suppose that psychiatrists could actually give you teh ghey with drugs? I was puzzled, but mostly amused by the over-the-top and kind of interesting depictions of how public relations and lawsuits manipulated gullible people, wrecking some lives, glorifying others. It was a relevation of sorts into a kind of highly cynical mentality, that believed in the use of these tools. As I read about various things (hrmph...no grand reflection on me, but I am most interested in his involvement in the Babalon Working with Jack Parsons back in the long ago day, because I had read Robert Anton Wilson, who turned me on to Crowley, and so I obliquely dig Jack Parsons) it became more and more clear to me that Hubbard was kind of a user. He made up some stuff about his credentials, and then created a religion--for the profit--and gave it all the IRL nastiness regarding lawyers and secrecy and making people pay to achieve, that he could.

It is said, that if you ask a Christian about the Gospel, they will tell you about it, or a Jew about the Talmud, and they'll tell you about it, or a Muslim about the Koran, and they'll tell you about it, but ask a Scientologist about their knowledge--and they'll wait until the check clears....

Or if someone tries to give it away for free, I guess they get a take-down order.

People have posted horrible stories about this organization, horrible enough to make someone stop, and wonder--what is going on with this group? Why are they like that--or if they aren't like that--why can't they successfully refute these stories? Why would their best recourse be to shut people down, censor them, and be bullies? If it's just an ingrained habit they got from their somewhat paranoid founder--time to ditch it, methinks. If it's all they've got--it can not work if any or many of the particulars of the information being put out there are true. Not slander. Hard to trace as proprietary--unless the group wants to own some kind of self-slandering stuff, or legitimize rumors--what can they do, if internal docs are released, really? Rewrite them?

I am not a proponent of any religion--to be quite honest, I'm kind of anti-religion because I think people should think for themselves--I don't know what the truth is, but I make a reasonable guess it isn't necessarily on the side of might--only on the side bringing the facts. I am interested in what the CoS response will be--honestly, I think, the best response would be to leave it--alone. Do not respond--or it will accelerate. Continue to let gullible people start with something like an OKCupid personality test and end up in the correspondence school that never ends (until your bank account does). Just saying.

No comments: