Sindy
Crusader
Excuse this brief interruption, but I thought I'd take the chance.
Well, I just took a look, Karen, and you've chosen to ignore the many questions seeking clarification over there, so this ends my attempt into prompting you into doing the right thing in this regard.
David Miscavige is universally unpopular, and riding the wave of that (well deserved) unpopularity is a guaranteed path into the minds of those Marty&Friends are seeking to persuade.
But persuade to what?
Marty Rathbun&Friends have, as part of their "mission," the rehabilitation of the image and reputation of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
From Marty's Rathbun blog:
"With all the chatter about L. Ron Hubbard's alleged shortcomings, it got me thinking about what the effect of the unprecedented ad hominem attacks against the man were. Hubbard was demonized by the cold war establishment perhaps more than any other civilian figure. One cumulative effect of it all was to one degree or another de-humanize him in the public eye. We see remnants of those effects to this day. Tony Ortega has even come to the conclusion that my mission - and the mission of many independents - is made hopeless by this historical landscape. The landscape is not easy to conceptualize given its long lived nature and Miscavige's daily efforts to make the myths a reality. Providing context to the entire picture is a long term project that I never lose sight of, but unfortunately I have not found the time to devote to it that it deserves..."
And,
"Miscavige has run a continuous propaganda campaign attempting to besmirch the good name of L. Ron Hubbard. He has continually given little interest or funds for defending public relations attacks on L. Ron Hubbard."
The outside the CoS Scientologists have finally found an effective "button" to "push," with which to apply the following "LRH datum." That button is the "Church" of Scientology as run by David Miscavige, with Miscavige regarded as an "anti-Scientologist":
"The objective is to be identified as attackers of popularly considered evils [Miscavige, and Miscavology, i.e. perverted or 'Reverse Scientology']. This declassifies us from former labels. It reclassifies our attackers [Miscavige and the 'Reverse Scientologists'] as evil people."
Confidential 'Black Propaganda' 12 January 1972
Who are those "evil people." One, according to J. Swift, is Gerry Armstrong. In the above mentioned thread, 'Is it helpful to conceal the truth?', J. Swift congratulated Karen: "Good job Karen#1: You got inside their heads!"
Huh?
In the same thread, J. Swift noted, "Unlike the scofflaw Gerry Armstrong, David Mayo signed a non-disclosure agreement and abides by the terms."
"Scofflaw"?
One wonders about the ultimate motive behind the game being played. As much as I dislike Miscavige, and as much as I appreciate Karen's contributing to the already decades-long exposure of Miscavige's abuses, I, for one, am not interested in being a manipulated or "played."
Below is a reminder of the Independent Scientology "reality" circa 2011:
"...there are OSA operatives throughout the Anonymous network, ESMB site, the Freezone and Independents running backstabbing, covert propaganda campaigns while we are 'tied up' under siege. Just look for the 1.1s using the safe Independent Scientology space we are creating to promote such practices as no-training-needed to get onto OT levels, 'OT I and OT II are of little importance': especially coming from 'Class VIIIs', 'Class VIs' and folks claiming to be 'trained by Ron.' They may as well be saying 'Scientology is a fraud, because after all I studied it all, and violently disagree with the Bridge created by Ron.'...
"...Cleaning up the image and damage that Miscavige has created for Scientology is not very difficult absent his gargantuan efforts to disrupt such work..."
Etc.
One last J. Swift quote, an excerpt:
"Where Scientology is concerned, Mainstream Culture has swung to supporting the Independent practice of Scientology...
"There are no mainstream journalists, academics, or popular authors who oppose Independent Scientology.
"Those of us who support the Indies are growing in numbers."
This is where we are being led, and I am not interested in going there.
Most definitely, I am not interested in being "handled by Scientology" again.
My apologies for this interruption.
Okay, I've been observing and dancing around this issue by "liking" posts that Veda has posted without actually saying anything myself.
I have a considerable amount of respect for Karen. She deserves it and I am impressed by her resolve, her tenacity of purpose, her strength and in many ways, her kindness. She is strong, very well spoken and a formidable foe to the cult. I am sure we all share her desire to bring about justice.
Karen, from this point forward I am speaking to you and I am hoping that you take this in the warm spirited way that it is intended as I would not want you to stop posting here. Clearly what you have to say is appreciated, is beneficial and is edifying to say the least.
From my perspective (and correct me if I am wrong), one of the main things that you are working on accomplishing by posting your many well thought out exposes (filled with facts, figures, identities and real life stories) on the many message boards you post on, is to get these facts and figures to come up in search engines and to be EXPOSED with a capital "E".
That is one of the great things that one can accomplish on a message board and there is no question that it should be done. I would go so far as to say I think it's a brilliant idea. It is not, however, the ONLY purpose of a message board and certainly not its primary purpose.
The primary purpose is interaction. It's not a bulletin board and when one decides to "play" on the message boards, if you will, one rather tacitly agrees to interaction. One cannot possibly just lay down one's own thoughts without ever expecting others to ask one to expound on those ideas, or to explain, to clarify, etc.
On occasion, one can also expect to be challenged. It's just the nature of the beast. Every single person here is just as important as any other and when one posts solely for making one's own points without regard to anyone else's, it shows a certain amount of disinterest (intended or not) in others. One could liken it to being "talked at" instead of "spoken with" and I really don't even believe that is your intention.
I will speak for myself but I am guessing I am not alone when I say that one of the annoying hallmarks of many (if not most) Scientologists is their dodging and ignoring of certain communications. Karen, you strike me as a woman, Scientologist or not, who could take on ANY subject without dodging or ignoring.
I read through a lot of the thread in question, on OCMB, and I have to say that some very brilliant communication ensued that it appears you did ignore and not rightfully so, IMO.
I am not stating here that I have an opinion on the actual subject broached but simply on the fact that I can't understand why you ignored or refused communication on the matter. That's all.
I have seen the sort of Karen/Veda number where you lay down a post only to be followed by one of his in his attempt to bring about perspective. I appreciate his perspective but can also understand that this could be frustrating. It might even happen less if you acknowledged some of the communication.
In any event, I am also aware that I have only one side of the story, if you will, and I am simply trying to understand. I approach the subject with all due respect.
Last edited:
Right back atchya 
Scientology is a very dramatic place.