Scientology's Attack on Panorama

[Clueless Morgan]

I hope this hasn't been posted yet, but here goes anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdIJHZmtIYo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjoksDEB7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dHHK6iKHtM

[Sharone Stainforth]

I'll have you know I pay my license fee, you may not believe this but I have not switched my telivision on for over two years.

Every penny of what I pay for my license will be worth it to swich my TV on, on the 28th of September. I just hope I can remember how to programme my video recorder.

In the second video, was that the same Jeff Quirros that told Tommy Gorman to drive two women insane, make them look nutty so the police would no longer go out to help them?

http://exscientologykids.com/eskforums/viewpoint.php?v=166

I believe Tommy Gorman protests against scientology now, he got his whole family out. Now, he gets harrassed.

Funny, little thing, but I never saw John Sweeney demand once. Another funny little thing I noticed was how the 'church of scientology' promoted their very own 'largest, most up to date film editing studios.

'Big Farmer', you owe me £50.

[Alanzo]

I'll have you know I pay my license fee, you may not believe this but I have not switched my telivision on for over two years.

Every penny of what I pay for my license will be worth it to swich my TV on, on the 28th of September. I just hope I can remember how to programme my video recorder.

In the second video, was that the same Jeff Quirros that told Tommy Gorman to drive two women insane, make them look nutty so the police would no longer go out to help them?

http://exscientologykids.com/eskforums/viewpoint.php?v=166

I believe Tommy Gorman protests against scientology now, he got his whole family out. Now, he gets harrassed.

Funny, little thing, but I never saw John Sweeney demand once. Another funny little thing I noticed was how the 'church of scientology' promoted their very own 'largest, most up to date film editing studios.

'Big Farmer', you owe me £50.

50 pounds is like, what?

$110?

Jesus.

What did Big Farmer do?

[Sharone Stainforth]

Originally posted by Alonzo;

What did Big Farmer do?

Why Alanzo, didn't he recruit you too to protest against the 'church of scientology':)

[Big Farmer]

<snip>

What did Big Farmer do?

<snip>



I dunno? :confused2:

Tell me Sharone.. is there another poster on EXSC kids called Big Farmer?

[Big Farmer]

Originally posted by Alonzo;


Why Alanzo, didn't he recruit you too to protest against the 'church of scientology':)

Sorry Sharone:)

Forgetting my other role (payroll) in the grand scheme of things..just submit the usual expenses claim and one of my minions will deal with it.

[Alanzo]

I'm sorry, is this a "British thing"?

Because I am totally at sea here.

And anyway, who pays "license fees"?

I got a cable bill, and that's how I get my TV.

[Big Farmer]

I'm sorry, is this a "British thing"?

Because I am totally at sea here.

<snip>.

I'll try and explain.

Scientologists claim that exes and anons are paid(£50) by large drug companies to protest.

My username. depending on the accent I suppose. sounds like Big Ph--ma.

Hope this explains:)

[Krautfag]

I'm sorry, is this a "British thing"?

Because I am totally at sea here.

And anyway, who pays "license fees"?

I got a cable bill, and that's how I get my TV.

Oh you poor fellow that you don't know the blessings of the mandatory fees here in Europe to keep the public broadcast stations running. :coolwink:

[Arthur Dent]

The videos were a slick attempt by the cofs. However, no sale.
They made me cringe as I've had so many years of hearing polished and prepared and manipulated rubbish from the cofs about the cofs and it helped keep the padlock on the mental chains for quite some time. If you're a lurker, please don't fall for this crap. And it is crap.

[freethinker]

Although the material was put together to make it look as if those interviewed were talking about John Sweeney and his behavior, you are not hearing the questions that preceded the response from those interviewed. Their answers may have been to questions not even related to John Sweeney.

The church claims that Sweeney declined invites to see Narconon Arrowhead, Gold Base, etc., but you don't see or hear them offer nor do you see or hear Sweeney decline.

They say he staged exit scenes with three or four takes and show little clips but you don't see Sweeney reset and then retake a shot but you are told thats what he did.

They show Sweeney approaching a desk and say he is demanding to see Miscavige who is at that moment giving an international event. They look connected because you are told by the narrator that they are happening that way. When Sweeney approached the desk and supposedly was demanding to see Miscavige, there is no actual proof that that was occuring (no audio, no camera shot so you could see this was occuring) and the event could have been being held on a completely different day.

One interviwee claims that the purif is Scientificaly proven. By who or what?

All the little shots of Sweeney looking bad are just that - little shots of Sweeney. No long unedited film with sound that clearly shows that but the narrator tells you that is what is happening.

An alledged email from an alleged member of a protest that Sweeney covered is "proof that he staged it.

The biggest outpoint of all is a documentary by the church claiming religious bigotry and criminal investigating on the eve of a program that exposes them. WTF!

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Ok, so the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology made a big baww'ing video to complain that BBC and Sweeney refused to make a nice marketing piece for them...

Conceited assholes!

:duh:

[Infinite]

RIP Shawn Lonsdale.

Fuck you Mike Rinder.

[AnonyMary]

RIP Shawn Lonsdale.

Fuck you Mike Rinder.

^^^^
THIS

Here is one of Sweeney's updated BBC videos:

Obit: Shawn Lonsdale, by the BBC's John Sweeney http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=38qh6Ly6YVY

[Sharone Stainforth]

Originally posted by Freethinker;


Although the material was put together to make it look as if those interviewed were talking about John Sweeney and his behavior, you are not hearing the questions that preceded the response from those interviewed. Their answers may have been to questions not even related to John Sweeney.

The church claims that Sweeney declined invites to see Narconon Arrowhead, Gold Base, etc., but you don't see or hear them offer nor do you see or hear Sweeney decline.

They say he staged exit scenes with three or four takes and show little clips but you don't see Sweeney reset and then retake a shot but you are told thats what he did.

They show Sweeney approaching a desk and say he is demanding to see Miscavige who is at that moment giving an international event. They look connected because you are told by the narrator that they are happening that way. When Sweeney approached the desk and supposedly was demanding to see Miscavige, there is no actual proof that that was occuring (no audio, no camera shot so you could see this was occuring) and the event could have been being held on a completely different day.

One interviwee claims that the purif is Scientificaly proven. By who or what?

All the little shots of Sweeney looking bad are just that - little shots of Sweeney. No long unedited film with sound that clearly shows that but the narrator tells you that is what is happening.

An alledged email from an alleged member of a protest that Sweeney covered is "proof that he staged it.

The biggest outpoint of all is a documentary by the church claiming religious bigotry and criminal investigating on the eve of a program that exposes them. WTF!

Exactly,cutting edge video editing facilities.

Anne Archer: "Do I look brainwashed to you?"

John Sweeney::eyeroll:

Anne Archer: "How dare you."

I personally think John Sweeney exploding like a tomato is exactly the response scientology wanted. That is what they do, they drive you crazy, you either explode, or implode. That is how scientology works.

[Zinjifar]

I personally think John Sweeney exploding like a tomato is exactly the response scientology wanted. That is what they do, they drive you crazy, you either explode, or implode. That is how scientology works.

I think Sweeney was just running a tone scale exercise on Tommy. But, he forgot that *they* could edit it. Not too bright. I don't really think he 'lost it', even if he admits to it in retrospect.

Zinj

[Clueless Morgan]

The thing many people seem to forget also is that journalists are human beings, and as such are entitled to have opinions and emotions. And if you have emotions, you tend to express them. So unless the BBC includes "being a Vulcan" as one of the requirements for the journalists they hire, even journalists will lose it from time to time, especially if confronted with celery like Tommy Davis.

[Sharone Stainforth]

Originally posted by Clueless Morgan:


The thing many people seem to forget also is that journalists are human beings, and as such are entitled to have opinions and emotions. And if you have emotions, you tend to express them. So unless the BBC includes "being a Vulcan" as one of the requirements for the journalists they hire, even journalists will lose it from time to time, especially if confronted with celery like Tommy Davis.

Journalists -human? Not according to scientology.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/quill.htm

[Feral]

^^^^
THIS

Here is one of Sweeney's updated BBC videos:

Obit: Shawn Lonsdale, by the BBC's John Sweeney http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=38qh6Ly6YVY

I'd never seen that video.

It's an excellent expose of those corporate Scio attitudes and operations.

John Sweeney is good, Tommy you stuffed up.

[Veda]

In his 1959 (confidential) 'HCO Manual of Justice', L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos."

Reflecting Hubbard's numerous letters to the American FBI a few years earlier, where he accused many of his prior friends and associates of being communists, Hubbard made reference to Ceppos, the publisher of 1950 'Dianetics', in a 1969 confidential "Scientology Intelligence Tech" issue, 'Intelligence Actions - Covert Data Collection':

"The objective of the enemy is to discredit... Their first blast was from the San Francisco papers, Sept. 1950, quoting the publisher (of Book One) Ceppos being critical of me (he was a communist) followed by the LA papers, pushed then by Sara Komkovadamanov (alias Northrup) 'divorce' actions, followed by attempted kidnapping of myself. Other details were pushed into it including the murder of four and so on. This was a full complete covert operation. At the back of it was Miles Hollister (psychology student), Sara Komkovadamanov (housekeeper at the place nuclear physicists stayed near Caltech), Gene Benton and his wife - president of the Young Communists League... This was a full war against Dianetics."

In the early 1960s, Hubbard had come to regard John F. Kennedy as an enemy. He blamed Kennedy for the American FDA/e-meter troubles and referenced his assassination of 28 months earlier in the broadly publicized 1966 PR piece, 'What is Greatness?'. "What is Greatness?', meant for a broad "wog" audience, extolled "love and forgiveness," and was published on the same day that the (non-remimeo/later 'confidential') 'Fair Game Law'-applying Guardian's Office was quietly established. Even in this PR piece, meant to identify Scientology with "love," Hubbard couldn't resist gloating over the assassination of John F. Kennedy:

"Were you to approach many ruling heads of state in the world and offer to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did - he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own followers about him. He could have tried to use Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us, but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was."

[Clueless Morgan]

Yay, we can now form a new conspiracy theory:

Scientology killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy!

[Veda]

-snip-

Here is one of Sweeney's updated BBC videos:

Obit: Shawn Lonsdale, by the BBC's John Sweeney http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=38qh6Ly6YVY

In his 1959 (confidential) 'HCO Manual of Justice', L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos."

Reflecting Hubbard's numerous letters to the American FBI during the 1950s, where he accused many of his prior friends and associates of being communists, Hubbard made reference to Ceppos, the publisher of 1950 'Dianetics', in a 1969 confidential "Scientology Intelligence Tech" issue, 'Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence Data Collection':

"The objective of the enemy is to discredit... Their first blast was from the San Francisco papers, Sept. 1950, quoting the publisher (of Book One) Ceppos being critical of me (he was a communist) followed by the LA papers, pushed then by Sara Komkovadamanov (alias Northrup) 'divorce' actions, followed by attempted kidnapping of myself. Other details were pushed into it including the murder of four and so on. This was a full complete covert operation. At the back of it was Miles Hollister (psychology student), Sara Komkovadamanov (housekeeper at the place nuclear physicists stayed near Caltech), Gene Benton and his wife - president of the Young Communists League... This was a full war against Dianetics."

In the early 1960s, Hubbard had come to regard John F. Kennedy as an enemy. He blamed Kennedy for the American FDA/e-meter troubles and referenced his assassination of 28 months earlier in the broadly publicized 1966 PR piece, 'What is Greatness?'. 'What is Greatness?', meant for a broad "wog" audience, extolled "love and forgiveness," and was published on the same day that the (non-remimeo/later 'confidential') 'Fair Game Law'-applying Guardian's Office was quietly established. Even in this PR piece, meant to identify Scientology with "love," Hubbard couldn't resist gloating over the assassination of John F. Kennedy:

"Were you to approach many ruling heads of state in the world and offer to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did - he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own followers about him. He could have tried to use Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us, but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was."


Yay, we can now form a new conspiracy theory:

Scientology killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy!

No. That's not what Ron said. Please go over your materials again.

[secretiveoldfag]

When did organised Scientology ever tell the truth?

About anything?

I thought this kind of propaganda went out with the Cold War.

[Veda]

Around 1971, after surveying public opinion, Hubbard switched from mainly calling his enemies "communists" (and sex perverts) to mainly calling them "Nazis" (and sex perverts); these days, "haters" and "bigots" are amongst those "buttons" judged effective.

L. Ron Hubbard explains how to use propaganda in the HCOPL 'Battle Tactics' of 16 February 1969:

"The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, that means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing... Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. [In this case, 'public opinion' 'hates' hate, as in 'hate crime', etc.] That's the enemy. What they love. That's you."

And another piece of Scientology tech, from Hubbard's 'Black Propaganda' of 12 January 1972:

"The objective is to be identified as attackers of popularly considered evils. This declassifies us from former labels. It reclassifies our attackers as evil people."

The 'PR tech' thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

In 1968, Hubbard issued a directive entitled "Ron's Journal 68," and a companion audio tape was released. In it, Hubbard discussed tactics for influencing public opinion:

"...And the general attack line is along the line of human rights; yes human rights...

"Now I'll give you a clue on how this is handled, somebody comes up to you he's hostile - he's hostile to Scientology and he says to you and he says <inaudible> and you say why are you against human rights and uh and if you know anything about human rights like the universal declaration of human rights, United Nations - that sort of thing you know if you know something about this subject you just follow it right straight up - in other words you don't defend Scientology, you just attack along this line of human rights you see...

"Tell him or her ...uh ...the hostile person the hostile press line uh...for instance a newspaper writes an article on how bad Scientology is - any Scientologist reading this should run right to that newspaper and demand: Why are you against human rights? Why are you in favor of Psychiatric death camps?

"Whereas an attack on Scientology is actually an attack on human rights - anyone making an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights...

"Each time Scientology is attacked, we build into society, if you do this, we'll build into society an actual stimulus response mechanism whereas an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights..."

[SchwimmelPuckel]

In his 1959 (confidential) 'HCO Manual of Justice', L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos." <snip>Well, you're all supposed to STFU and cower in fear! - L.Ron Hubbard, mans best freind, is telling us that by 'attacking' scientology we will all die horribly! - If it should ever dawn on us what we are in fact doing!

Most probably we will SHC! - Spontaneous Human Combustion! - That is: While sitting in front of the telly.. And if we were to realize what we are doing.. A searing flame will shoot out our navel.. Takes about 20 minutes of untold agony, while we burn like black powder from the inside leaving only our terrified staring eyeballs lying in the midst of blackened cinders on the chair!

Please be sure to post if that should happen to any of you!

:yes:

[AnonyMary]

In his 1959 (confidential) 'HCO Manual of Justice', L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos."

Reflecting Hubbard's numerous letters to the American FBI during the 1950s, where he accused many of his prior friends and associates of being communists, Hubbard made reference to Ceppos, the publisher of 1950 'Dianetics', in a 1969 confidential "Scientology Intelligence Tech" issue, 'Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence Data Collection':

"The objective of the enemy is to discredit... Their first blast was from the San Francisco papers, Sept. 1950, quoting the publisher (of Book One) Ceppos being critical of me (he was a communist) followed by the LA papers, pushed then by Sara Komkovadamanov (alias Northrup) 'divorce' actions, followed by attempted kidnapping of myself. Other details were pushed into it including the murder of four and so on. This was a full complete covert operation. At the back of it was Miles Hollister (psychology student), Sara Komkovadamanov (housekeeper at the place nuclear physicists stayed near Caltech), Gene Benton and his wife - president of the Young Communists League... This was a full war against Dianetics."

In the early 1960s, Hubbard had come to regard John F. Kennedy as an enemy. He blamed Kennedy for the American FDA/e-meter troubles and referenced his assassination of 28 months earlier in the broadly publicized 1966 PR piece, 'What is Greatness?'. 'What is Greatness?', meant for a broad "wog" audience, extolled "love and forgiveness," and was published on the same day that the (non-remimeo/later 'confidential') 'Fair Game Law'-applying Guardian's Office was quietly established. Even in this PR piece, meant to identify Scientology with "love," Hubbard couldn't resist gloating over the assassination of John F. Kennedy:

"Were you to approach many ruling heads of state in the world and offer to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did - he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own followers about him. He could have tried to use Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us, but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was."



No. That's not what Ron said. Please go over your materials again.

:lol:

Thanks for that reference. I'd forgotten about it.

[Boojuum]

Does the cos really think it can discredit the BBC? Time Magazine? The St. Pete Times? Anderson Cooper? the IRS? And a nodding public will come forward to help the cos expose the vileness of those institutions?

Stupid people do stupid things. The cos looks ridiculous.

The PR "tech" may have once silenced many critics but it seems as though anyone who even remotely wanted to criticize the cos is leaping out of the wood work to pile on the vilification.

Transparency is our friend.

Expose them for what they are and what they do. Then maybe the actions of the cos will become less pernicious.

[skollie]

RIP Shawn Lonsdale.

[Veda]

Boojuum - Scientology is applied outside of the C of S too.


I must admit, it's slightly disconcerting to consider that someone who cannot discern the sordid insincerity of Scientology's phony 'Creed', written as accompanying PR-cover for its "Religion angle," would be in a position to influence the minds of others in an intimate fashion, providing "Hubbard Guidance" as others are led "up the Scientology Bridge." http://scientologistsfreezone.com/LRH2.jpg


You've often made such disparaging comments.

And yes the creed has been honoured in the breech so often.

You often claim that I and others use PR.

That scientologists are not able to discern anything.

You here blatently use black PR.

You describe the creed as " sordid insincerity", " Phony".

As PR cover for its "religion angle".

That its a bad thing leading others "up the Scientology Bridge."


So you don't subscribe to human rights?

The Creed expresses many points re human rights.

We could assume here that you and human rights are distant.

A Creed by definition embodies fundamental beliefs.

You seem to be unaware of that.

Underlining added.