Is it true? - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion Is it true?

Wolf

More options Jun 1 1998, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Wolf <wolft...@micron.net>

Date: 1998/06/01

Subject: Re: Is it true?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

David Gerard wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 1998 11:29:12 -0600, Wolf <wolft...@micron.net> wrote:

> :Going back to the value of ARS... if my additions to this ng can bring
> :even one critic to focus their criticism on not only what should be
> :changed about CofS, but what *can* be changed, then I think it's time
> :well spent. If enough criticism is brought to bear on focal points that
> :Scn cannot withstand, then Scn will be forced to alter it's internal
> :policies.

> I suspect that the CoS will break rather than bend. Or simply run out of
> money.

Not likely. I'm betting on a 'bend'... which I see as casting out the
RTC and eradicating the SO. I suspect that they will cling to religious
status and that it will be effective in keeping the boat afloat.

> I'd *love* your thoughts on the following. (It's webbed at

> http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/demo/howto/follow-the-money.txt ).

> The previous post being responded to is one from 'Jane Doe', who seems not
> to be posting at present. I don't recall the post being followed up here.
> Jan Doe's arguments are real interesting. Basically she is saying that
> pickets are a waste of time, because the Co$ canNOT negotiate. The Co$
> feels that to negotiate would be the first step to the end of their
> belief system.

Agreed. They won't acknowledge suppression. Publically, they will turn
the other cheek and cry religious persecution. You would too, if you
were them.

> The second segment of her argument is the REALLY interesting. The Co$
> cannot be destroyed because the reorganization of the 1980's split off
> too many shell corporations that can be the source of a new Co$ should
> the old one be destroyed (admittedly she did not say this explicitly).

She is correct, even if she only inferred it. This was obvious to me in
1982 after the RTC takeover and was one of the primary reasons I moved
on.... "you're known by the company you keep". I didn't care for the RTC
company.

> I find myself with a sense of deja vu. I remember reading as a kid
> thirty years ago where they said the same thing about Communism.
> "Communism has taken over seventy countries and NEVER has one country
> come back to freedom." Then what happened? The Communist system ran
> out of money. They just went broke. There was no negotiated
> settlement, Russia and all the other Communist HAD to change because
> they were on the verge of collapse. Admittedly Cuba and China and
> North Korea are holding on, but they are not sending out too many
> "armies of liberation" anymore.

As an aside, Communism has hardly gone away. Rather than banter about
political ideology I think it's easy to agree that Communism, as we knew
it, has shape-shifted. New mutations have replaced the old methods, but
the goals and effects on populations remain near identical.

> The only way to cause the Co$ to change is cut off its cash flow. No
> other tactic will work. Picketing is cutting the line of PC's queuing
> up to squander their lives and money. Picketing will have a limited
> effect. WISE, ABLE, Narconon, Crimonon, etc. will have to have their
> cash flows decreased as well, before the Co$ changes.

I made similar arguments over three years ago. I was heavily attacked by
Erlich and a few others for 'follow the money' articles I posted. The
essence of my argument is to cut the flow of cash to the RTC, CST and SO
in general. Picketing has extremely limited and very short-term value
and, in fact, often creates sympathy and interest for the target.

> At the present moment I do not see anyway to resolve our differences
> with Co$. The idea has come to me that we will have to start being
> more active in hunting their source of funds. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

It's not resolvable. The only method available to to behead the group
and hope that new management is chosen that will be more friendly.

> Okay. I will lay out a set of steps you might want to do that soon.
> The information is out there to choke off their cash flow from illicit
> or semi-illicit sources. The information is in OUR backyard. The only
> real task is to figure out where we put the digging implements to
> unearth them. The states have started putting all manner of corporate
> records online. The FDIC has bunches of information about directors of
> banks. The SEC has that data base of filings for IPO's. From what I
> hear the Canadian (Vancouver) Stock Exchange filing are *REALLY*
> _SPECIAL_. The hunt will begin soon.

I know of no 'illicit' money sources. The financial crimes are not, I
think, in how they obtain the money, but in the arena of what they spend
it on, who gets paid, what taxes are being avoided and other boring
areas.

> >The idea has come to me that we will have to start being
> >more active in hunting their source of funds. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

When I suggested 'follow the money', I meant to follow the money they
have, not look for how they get it. I think it's fairly obvious how they
get the money... don't you?

<snip: ideas about boycotting movies and yelling about Scn stonewalling)

Waste of time. Boycotts worked 100 years ago. Even 50. Show me one that
works in a world economy. As for getting upset about their silence and
foot-dragging on paying settlement monies... ho hum. This is the 90's
and them's the rules. What you need are crimes, real financial crimes.
Evidence of money-laundering or secret accounts that only DM can access
or some such.

> To paraphrase the wisdom of LRH:
> MAKE THEM SPEND MONEY! MAKE THEM SPEND MORE MONEY! MAKE OTHERS MAKE THEM
> SPEND MONEY!

Yep. That's also the tack Reagan took against the USSR. The only problem
is, who's got enough money to outspend the CofS? Add to that Hubbard's
other little piece of wisdom:

BLACK PR IS BETTER THAN NO PR AT ALL. IF THEY AIN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU,
YOU'RE ALREADY DEAD.

Consider that my paraphrased response to ARS and it's claims of bringing
the CofS down. What a trap. If you raise the roof, then Scn stays active
as a subject of interest. If you shut up, then Scn does the PR work it
always has. A perfect Catch-22. How to fight it? I can only think of one
way. Continual pressure and the recruitment of competent human resources
that actually have the skills to look for paper and electronic trails
that would prove the RTC and CST members have committed financial
crimes.

Final thought. Scientology is not, in a literal sense, a problem.
Certainly not anymore than any other group, ideology, practice, art
form, religion, or human activity. It's a condition. It's part of our
world. Just like the abortion issue, genetic manipulation, cloning,
Shiites, racism and thousands of other attributes of humanity. Because
you *think* it's a criminal organization does not make it one. It's not
resolvable. The effectiveness of a group like ARS is, imo, not in
thinking it can play a part in eliminating Scn, but that it can play a
part in edging the group into competing for resources in a fashion that
an even larger group of people find acceptable.

Did it ever occur to you, or any ARS readers, that one of the eventual
outcomes of ARS may be to make Scn a better, stronger competitor? That
by constant pressure you might be having a part in actually growing the
CofS, rather than eliminating it?

Wolf

Reply to author Forward