Comedians using Anonymous video

http://www.236.com/video/?bcpid=1272014315&bclid=1125909605&bctid=1397797678

I guess you know you’ve made it when your work is the foundation for national comedy. 

A bit of history of previous critics vs. Scientology action

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/skeptic/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html

That was written in 1995 and includes the raids on critics’ homes by Scientology attorneys, lawsuits, Ms. Bloody Butt, protests, etc.

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/occupied_cw.htm

That’s what life in Clearwater, Florida was like for a critic.  Scientology practically owns downtown Clearwater, so it was somewhat confrontational.

As you can see, it can get rather bizarre and exciting.  If you’re planning to be a critic of Scientology, first don’t have any skeletons in your closet. Second learn how to be very patient as you’re abused.  And third, always take the high road.

My Tom Cruise video mashup

My response to Anonymous

Here’s my Open Letter to Anonymous, a group of netizens who have declared war on Scientology. In short, I disapprove of their methods.

[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and dirty tricks]

Dear Anonymous,
It’s understandable that people get upset over the things the Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s.  They spam our newsgroup to this day.
   So I can see why you’d think damn it, it’s time somebody shut them down!
   I’ll just give you my insight for whatever it’s worth. I’ve been a public critic of Scientology since 1987. I’ve been on a.r.s. since 1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism.  Also, I’m older. I’m 52. So if it’s of any value, here’s an old, experienced critic’s 2 cents.
   The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We’ve protested, right at their front door. We’ve been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So it’s not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume nobody’s been doing anything.  We’ve been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously.
   So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you’ve done is make a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It’s something for the members to rally around. It’s proof that they’re in the right because they’re being persecuted. Externally, it makes some people ask “why is a church being attacked?” So you’ve lost me at hello.
   The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we “win” [and by win I mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then we’ve won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still haven’t won over their arguments. You’ve just pounded them into submission. Their arguments stand.
   We’re supposed to be the good people. They’re supposed to be the bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more easily it is to see which side is the right side.
   I’m very confident that we as critics have severely hampered Scientology. I don’t believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until they’re dead, to stop pretending they’re doctors, to stop destroying families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some group to fear attack.
   If you don’t believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn’t harass. They didn’t pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as well.
   So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us who’ve already been out there on the front lines working to expose Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything done since Scientology still exists. You’re quite wrong. I hope you’ll take time to listen.
Jeff Jacobsen
for the ARSCC[wdne]

1/23/08; two interesting things going on

1/23/08

There are two things happening right now of interest. One is the leaked Tom Cruise video wherein Tom says that as a Scientologist he has to stop at a car accident to help, because Scientologists are the only ones that know what to do (paraphrased). Lisa McPherson was in a car accident. Scientologists came to the hospital where the ambulance had taken her, demanded that she not see a psychiatrist, took her to room 174 of their Ft. Harrison Hotel, held her against her will until she was dead (according to Mike Rinder), then drove her to a hospital 45 minutes away to a Scientologist doctor. Is THAT the kind of “help” you’re talking about Tom?

The second thing is a group of Scientologists in Italy who were recently arrested for holding a woman against her will. This is not the second time such strangeness has happened. It’s one of multiple times:

1955: Scientologists sued for holding crazy people in house

1990; Scientology family in Calfornia allegedly holds a woman against her will

1997: woman runs screaming from same hotel where Lisa was held

Scientology husband holds his own wife in 2002

Lynn Farney, high ranking official of Scientology’s legal office, told the Clearwater police concerning whether psychotic members should be held at the Ft. Harrison hotel, “They were never supposed to be handled at the Fort Harrison, and that’s been reiterated. They’re not supposed to be there, they’re supposed to be somewhere out in the countryside or something like that.” [source]

There are other cases as well. This is policy. In fact, Scientologists now sign a waiver that essentially allows Scientology to hold them against their will!