Scientology in France

Scientology has this court case going in France. It's annoying as a Scientologist to see someone working at religions again.

Then again that's a bit of French history repeating itself isn't it. Its understandable that there is a bit of a bitter aftertaste in the mouth of some French when one goes through history and what some religions have done to minority groups.

But we're in the 21st century... people have learned to think now and to look and observe (well most have I'm excluding those rabid fanatics that spend most of their time on the internet destroying lives).

Well anyways, back to the post: Scientology in France, the Court case? well really how can one ban a religion? It's a pretty silly thing to even think. It's like banning an idea, so what's next the Thought Police?

Whatever happens - the idea grows as long a people believe it and find truth in it.

Scientology just happens to be going through a very stabilizing phase called the Golden Age of Knowledge where all the basic texts of the religion have returned to their originals plus hundreds of additional lectures released to go with it.

Scientolgists understand and apply it much more.

So... it's not really about to go too far.

The future of Wikipedia?

I've often had my doubts on the value of the Wikipedia. And yet I often find myself using it when searching for information.

My doubts on it's validity started when I saw the text on Scientology. Some true some false but constantly changing and often to the worse. In fact the whole page is quite slanted and really doesn't give a full factual view of Scientology. It's just not really what one would expect from a source that is meant to have some authority. Somehow after reading the article one would expect to have an overview of the subject. The plus and the minus equaling out and in the end being able to make up one's own mind.

What has always had me rather skeptical was how could people who randomly consider themselves experts on a subject decide to update an entry. Sure they have to base it on facts but "facts" are so easily made up.

Unfortunately this affects the dream of the web 2.0 encyclopedia.

I believe in web 2.0 and I have loved it since it started. But it works as long as nobody claims to be an authority on a subject. A blog is perfect, it's an opinion and most people can make the difference between a fact and an opinion.

An encyclopedia can't be web 2.0 its just against the whole concept. Its like calling a meeting with a thousand people and doing a dictionary with them. "The definition of the word computer is:..." and a thousand answers later we have a useless mess or something that is 168 definitions long and equally useless.

If someone were to start an article about me and decide to "factually" spread a bunch of crap about me, dig out somethings I did when I was a teenager and focus on that, I guess I wouldn't be happy. And then when I edit it I am banned from the site because it then becomes slanted? Wait a minute - who is slanted here?

Well the wikipedia has a future and in my opinion it will go either of two ways:
(a) crash and burn and the articles become more and more slanted or
(b) like any encyclopedia, they will need to hire scholars and professionals and get all their facts verified and edited before they publish them.

I hope they take the latter, because it does have some value that everyone in the world can propose articles and we could create a massive encyclopedia that would be much bigger than anything ever done before.


PS: BTW if you really want an honest view of what Scientology is, find a Scientologist and take him/her out for a coffee and find out all about it. Then read a book and make your own opinion. But that will be the subject of another post at another time.

Scientology goes to court in France

Scientology is being sued in France by a woman who claims that the religion has been manipulating her and pressuring her to pay large sums after having been offered a free personality test. The case is against the entire church of Scientology - the belief.

I don't know the details of the court case and am getting more facts on that. But looking at the information I do find, it seems like a pretty ordinary "case" against Scientology.

The scenario goes something like this.
1. Find something about a group that the general public wont understand.
2. Publicize it as the standard thing of that group and give it an angle of evil and bad intent.
3. General public who doesn't have the time to study up on it for real will believe what he hears.
4. Roll out with "evidences" if you can't find any, look for unhappy former members and get their interviews. In most cases for a bit of money or some status reward.

Voila you have a "good" case. Add a bit of controversy, money and big names and you even have a news story! It's not that hard.

In fact there was a TV Program on M6 (French TV station) called "Enquête exclusive" it depicted the story of Senegalese salesmen under the Eiffel Tower in Paris, on tourist locations in Rome and on street stands in New York or elsewhere around the world. Per that piece of journalistic wonder these "salesmen" are part of a "very organized" religion in Senegal and that part of all the money made by these "salesmen" goes to the head of that religion.

The connection between the religion and these salesmen is dubious. The evidence on screen is a bunch of people praying in a medium to small sized, dropping coins in a bag and a few doller bills in a box. Right after that claims are made that "Religion and Business are mixed here" shortly after a member of the church is interviewed who says that any believing member would give everything he had to the church.

And with that and a few more images which the narrator clearly tinges with his opinions, the "investigation" links the street salesmen to a religious group. The street salesmen seemingly being the "money machine" for the religion.

But when you look just about 1 nanometer under the surface - that is what the narrator is saying based on no fact. Unless putting a few coins in a donations bag is part of a secret financial system of a mysterious religion of Africa...

Well back to Scientology now. The court case is about someone who claims Scientology is an extortion and took their money by force. Well if Scientology really did that and if that really was part of the religion it would long since have ended and people (not the justice system) would have shut down the religion long ago.

Could it be that someone (i.e. the media) is only listening to what they want to hear? Could it be that there is something more to Scientology than money? and that the donations made to the church are actually valid donations with a valid purpose?

Could it be that people donate because they truly are feeling spiritual enlightenment?

For some info from the Scientology site in France there is a link here: http://scientologie-espace-presse.fr/ it is all in French but could be of use if you want to hear some background info to what the news says.

Financial Crisis, a great way to justify ineffectiveness

I hear about the Financial crisis all the time, it's a bit tiring after all these month.

And now fellow employees are telling me that the reason for less sales is the Financial crisis - that is when I realize how much the media actually manages to dupe the population.

Steve Jobs had a great thing to say about that once:

"A lot of companies have chosen to downsize, and maybe that was the right thing for them. We chose a different path. Our belief was that if we kept putting great products in front of customers, they would continue to open their wallets."
Steve Jobs

The fact of the matter is that the financial crisis is a great way to explain to everyone that one is ineffective at conceiving a good product, producing it in a high quality and then marketing it and selling it. And this works for anyone on any job. If one is a great cleaner and cleans better than the rest one will be able to sell his product.

Despite the crisis there are still 6 billion people out there and they need products every day. Whether the banks have money or not they will want to buy those product even those considered a luxury!

Where I work we sell luxury goods and we're breaking all records month after month. Why? The product is great, the price is high but competitive and we market the product, people come in droves and they love it!

Elections... please vote!

American elections are always something to behold. The fanfare and hullabaloo that goes on is amazing. The money spent at campaigns is quite amazing too (Actually I hope someday that gets some form of control as it is totally unreal and really doesn't need to be - they would have a president without all that).

I just watched a French documentary movie called "Being W" which was released about one month before "W" by Oliver Stone, it is quite hilarious actually.

You can see the trailer here:

While we can definitely discuss the possibility of a conspiracy to get W on as president - I am sure enough people are doing that already. It is true that due to lack of votes the polls were tight enough to be able to proclaim him president.

I loved the video below featuring an amazing gamut of stars.
(Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Snoop Dogg, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, Ben Stiller, Will Smith, Steven Spielberg, Justin Timberlake, along with Sacha Baron Cohen as “Borat,” Zach Braff, Colin Farrell, Neil Patrick Harris, Scarlett Johansson, Shia LeBeouf, Tobey Maguire, Ryan Reynolds, and Jason Segal)

Check it out.

Borat's comments sporadically inserted take the video from being funny to hilarious. And the message really comes across well.

I would vote after seeing this.

However what scares me most about this election is the choice of candidates. The two main candidates (Obama and McCain) just fail to convince me on their abilities to lead the most powerful nation in the world. It is like a status race for personal benefit rather than getting the country back on track.

I saw the video of an unlikely winner (Ron Paul) which seems to convince a lot more.

But unfortunately - as usual I just doubt that the ones that really care and who actually mean to make some real positive improvements, just don't get voted in.

Well all I can say to all Americans is VOTE! Your vote makes a huge difference on the world scene!

The financial recession ... en passant

 

Ok so we're being repeatedly reminded by the press that we are in a financial recession. There is probably a bunch of truth in that but I don't understand why the press is so keen to keep spreading the news of the "catastrophe" that is about to happen.

At the end of the day this is their money too!

Which news editor doesn't know that the more one can bring panic to the people the more they will try to take their money out of the banks and the more they do that the worse off the whole situation will go? It is one of the first things we all learned about banks.

Yet they are all too happy to repeat it in the news EVERY DAY and SEVERAL TIMES a day! At the end of the day it is their own savings they are messing up.

If I were an editor I would be slightly worried about my own money - and maybe I would try to find some good news about the financial situation so I could cool the whole thing down a bit.

Sometimes I wonder what really goes on in the mind of a news editor...

Now back to banking. I recently read a simple and excellent text that L. Ron Hubbard wrote about banking to the financial departments of Scientology Churches. It is from September 1982 it's called "AND THAT IS BANKING".

It explains in simple terms what banking is, what inflation is, what the role of a banker is etc. I advise it to anyone who can read.

It is volume 3 of the Management Series by L. Ron Hubbard. In the section called Finance Series. And exists in about 11 languages or more.

ADHD and Michael Phelps

Just like the many millions of others I spent the last few weeks intensely following the Olympic games and seeing the results. The other day when Michael Phelps won his eighths Gold medal for these Olympics he mentioned that his teacher had once told him he would not be able to do anything in his life.

I thought that was a pretty extreme statement from a teacher (shouldn't teachers be encouraging students to become something?) well I checked up on it and found that he had been labeled with ADHD and even put on ritalin for it!

Yet here he goes and becomes not only an Olympic champion but THE Olympic champion of all time! Not just winning by chance but actually setting himself the exact goal and then doing it. In other words a true winner. Deciding to do something and then doing it, is the definition of a win.

It again goes to say how wrong the ADHD label is. Because a student has trouble concentrating (something that is very simply explained in the Study Technology) is no reason to put him on drugs!

They labeled Tom Cruise the same way and look at him now, probably one of the most successful actors of all time.

How do they get away with this?

There are real solutions to such lazy labels like ADHD, I am linking to a couple here but I am sure there are more.

http://www.appliedscholastics.org/
http://www.whatcausedmysymptoms.com/

Check them out.

Open-Source Terrorism

I love the internet, it's a great way for people to be able to communicate and for others to remain informed of what is happening. Probably thanks to the internet things like the second world war will never be able to happen again.

Recently I've been seeing these articles about a "group" called Anonymous. And it got me thinking. Who would want to call themselves anonymous leave no traces and just destroy the lives of others "for fun" what fun. The last person I knew who thought that was fun was in Germany and that was in the 1940s.

Well back to my headline. What is this anonymous thing? is it really some sort of organized on-line terrorist group? Or is it just open-source terrorism. I.e. anyone who wants to vandalize something in cyberspace just signs Anonymous and gives the idea that this was some sort of organized activity?

I think it is the latter.

It's so easy now to just create havoc, mess people's lives and assign it to some ambiguous group "anonymous". Some poor student sitting at home being bored can go in hack a computer, crash a window or whatever and sign it anonymous.

Meanwhile a few merchants of chaos can sell the idea, instigate the hate, propagandize the idea a la Goebbles and tell everyone that they are operating off some group called "anonymous".

Well, the bottom line is free speech doesn't mean free messing up of people's lives. And the internet is about free speech not free destruction.

Just an environmentally friendly idea

I had a crazy idea the other day. Maybe it could work - of course it would require someone to lobby the big petrol companies and governments and so forth and while I know by blog is good ;-) I don't know if it is that good yet.

In order to reduce the traffic in the cities we could increase the public transport use. That is a known fact and many big cities are promoting that. However taking a bus, the metro, a subway or train in most countries costs a fortune. And the prices are going up every year. It is like they are trying to get rid of customer!

Now what if the big oil companies did a super PR stunt. They would sell the gas for all buses in the cities at cost. i.e. no profit for them. Even maybe donate some of it (it isn't like they are low on cash - what with all the Iraq resources being opened to them in the last few years). They get a label on the buses saying they have sponsored that and it's great PR for them.

Then we get all the taxes on these buses and metros cancelled, just slash it down to nil. Basically nobody makes profit on the money - but everybody makes profit on the environment sustaining itself a little longer.

The oil companies get good PR on it. The Politicians get good PR on it. The people get less cars and less polution.

We all get to live a few years more on our lovely home.

Well it was a thought, if you have a comment POST it.


PS: It's great to be back.

What's happening to these kids? the contrasts of our generations

I got this on an email. I it pretty fun. And at the same time quite revealing on the social and moral decline that we are living through (and hopefully doing something to change).

I posted a similar fun series of comparisons of the last 30 years called All in the Name of Progress.

And if you don't read anything - at least check out the quote from Jay Leno on the bottom.

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's
and 70's!!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this. (That we know of)

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because, WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computer! S, no Internet or chat rooms.

WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Not only would our parents spank us, but other adult members of the community would feel free to either spank us or threaten to spank us – AND WE RESPECTED THAT AND THEM!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

If YOU are one of them...CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.

The quote of the month is by Jay Leno:
"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Tom Cruise, Religion, Germany and the Freedom of Press - or irresponsible reporting in the name of the buck

I was somewhat surprised about all the media stories being run last week about "Germany" not allowing Tom Cruise to make his new film.

At first I sort of wondered if they had really stepped out of line that far. I mean it would be almost as stupid as starting to yell at the person you are doing a documentary on. Then I realised that the article just could not point to any specific source - it was all general statements like "German Government" and other such ambiguous people.

Then when someone starts really doing their investigation it turns out it is one not so tolerant politician that voiced her opinion (It would be like asking Le Pen what his opinion is of the foreigners in France and publishing it as the official statement). The media hid that fact and then had stories to sell for another week.

My point is Freedom of Speech includes a certain responsibility. The Free Press can be helpfull if they are responsible.

But nobody even looks at it that way anymore. "That's just the way it is" doesn't make our lives easier to live. As bloggers we have the power to report the truth no matter what the media says. Let's not waste it!

A fellow blogger, Grahame did a really great post on this whole hullabaloo, called Unfair Treatment of Germany in the Press. Actually an honest piece of "journalism". More people should do this.

Travolta, On psychotropic drugs

I read this article, it is nice how Travolta is just cool about stuff. He's just smooth. Even though loosers like John Sweeney try to upset him at his movie premiere (actually I never figured out what Sweeney was trying to do there, probably trying his old poke in the eye tactic) well Travolta is just cool.

The connection between school shooters and psychiatric drugs is pretty amazing. As a note I read in a paper the other day that in the last 20 years the number of people with migraines has increased, the number of depressed has increased and yet the number of drugs sold also increased. Doesn't it prove that the drugs aren't the solution?

When the germ theory came out 100 years ago people started washing their hands and diseases decreased, that was a correct solution. Is it really so hard to see?

Travolta Echoes Cruise on Psychiatry

Jun 19 09:18 PM US/Eastern

NEW YORK (AP) - John Travolta says his thinking is in line with fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise, who has publicly defended the religion's stance against psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. Cruise, during a famously heated debate on NBC's "Today" show in 2005, criticized Brooke Shields for taking anti-depression drugs and berated host Matt Lauer for suggesting that psychiatric treatment might help some patients. "I don't disagree with anything Tom says," Travolta says in the July issue of W magazine, on newsstands Friday. "How would I have presented it? Maybe differently than how he did, but it doesn't matter. I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings, it is not gun control. It is (psychotropic) drugs at the bottom of it." "I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things, and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are famous doesn't mean you have less of a right." Travolta, who also talks of his habit of going to 6 or 7 in the morning and waking in the early afternoon, says being famous has little impact on how he lives his life. "I will tell you the things that would be the same, fame or no fame," he says. "Being up all night would be the same. Liking empty restaurants, liking empty movie theaters¡ªunless I am starring in it." Travolta, 53, portrays Ms. Edna Turnblad in "Hairspray," the adaptation of the stage musical that was spun from the 1988 John Waters film of the same name. The new film opens July 20. The role, in which he dons a fat suit and feminine garb, has added fuel to ongoing speculation about his sexuality. "I have never been compelled to share with you my bathroom habits or share with you my bedroom habits," says the married father of two. "Everyone has a right to privacy, so I have never felt¡ªeven though I am famous¡ªthat I had to share that with anybody." Do the rumors bother him? Does he think they've affected his career? "No and no," he says. "What affects your career is the quality of the product. I don't think anyone can hurt me." "Hairspray," a New Line release, also stars Christopher Walken, Michelle Pfeiffer and Queen Latifah.

Sandy Smith - amazing last words...

Sandy Smith is the editor of BBC's Panorama show. I won't go over the whole story with the BBC Panorama show. I've posted enough about that. But in my last post on the subject entitled BBC Versus Scientology Why? I referred to a statement by Sandy Smith. I thought I would quote the whole thing, it's quite an amazing statement when you think it over.

Just give it a minute of thought... You're making a documentary about something but you knowingly are giving it a unilateral view. It just doesn't make sense - well read my other post and it suddenly does.

from the morning news interview with Sandy Smith
Journalist: And is it a balanced film? I mean it isn't more heat than light is it? Because there is so much passion involved...

Sandy Smith: There is a fair amount of heat as you've seen. It doesn't claim to be the definitive film about Scientology we'll have to do that another time.

Psychologist Encouraging students to Sex and Drug experiments

I read this article and I figured I need to republish this. Why? Because the moral decay that this society is experiencing didn't just happen, it is caused by people like Joel Becker.



And unfortunately when you start digging and doing some research you find a Psychiatrist or a Psychologist at the bottom of most of the moral decay we have been going through in the last 100 years. I know these are harsh words and I am not giving you too many facts, you can find them for yourself, you can go and see CCHR.org.

I Never Thought This Could Happen
by James Robison

Teenagers at Boulder High were told to have sex with anyone and use drugs. "I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately."

That was the message preached by clinical psychologist Joel Becker at a recent mandatory high school assembly in Boulder, Colorado. Children as young as 14 sat captive in the audience while other school administrators listened in silent consent. (It is revealing to note that Becker is a part of the Lesbian and Gay Psychotherapy Association of Southern California.)

"Now, what is healthy sexual behavior? Well, I don't care if it's with men and men, women and women, men and women -- whatever combination you would like to put together," Becker said in an event labeled, "STDs: Sex, Teens and Drugs."

I am shocked and outraged that our culture has become so depraved that school officials require children to attend an assembly where supposed “experts” advocate rampant sexual relationships, including homosexuality and group sex. Abstinence was dismissed as unwise and indicative of “religious hang-ups."

But it gets even worse.

"We all experiment,” Becker was recorded as saying. “It's very natural for young people to experiment with same-sex relationships. When you are 13, 12... one of the most appropriate sexual behaviors would be masturbation. Even today, there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence of ecstasy. If I had some maybe I'd do it with someone, but you know."

The nationwide outcry has been lukewarm at best. Compared to Don Imus’ racially offensive comment, there has been little media coverage or public upheaval. Apparently, rude comments are taboo, but pedophilic psychology is no big deal.

Words are not strong enough to express my disgust with this blatant manipulation of children to convince them that immoral acts should not only be considered normal, but perfectly acceptable. This predatory tactic lays the foundation for irresponsibility and abuse. Colorado’s public school officials mentally molested these children by sanctioning dangerous and destructive behavior.
One parent that objected to the indoctrination was Priscilla White, whose daughter is a sophomore at Boulder High.

"The panel discussion was a completely irresponsible and dangerous invitation to Boulder High students to have sex and take drugs," White told the Boulder Valley school board. She read the transcript of the assembly, but was asked to stop because the language was “inappropriate.”

"But it was at Boulder High School," Priscilla White told the board members. "If they can listen to it, I think you can listen to it."

Board members agreed that they should “investigate.” Investigate? Are you kidding me? I’ll tell you what should happen. Those who approved this assembly should be fired immediately. The Conference on World Affairs, which puts together these types of assemblies, should be banned from all public schools. (Jim Palmer, who heads the CWA, defended the presentation by saying, “When you're talking to high school students about these issues, I think there is a responsibility on the part of adults to be informed and to be candid.")

It is tough enough for parents to raise children without public schools holding them hostage to lessons promoting the very things that most families find unwholesome and damaging. Young people face enough temptation in their lives learning to control appetites and desires. They struggle with right and wrong as they face situations that will impact them forever. Will the Boulder school district take responsibility when a student contracts AIDS after a night of “normal experimentation”? Will the Conference on World Affairs comfort the family of a student who dies of an overdose?

The sickness of this mentality absolutely staggers my mind. I cannot imagine the entire community not being up in arms and literally protesting in mass. An old proverb says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Joel Becker is that man and Boulder High has paved the path for its students.
Sources: The Denver Channel, WorldNet Daily, The Denver Post.

Publishing
Information
Author: James Robison
Word Count: 630

About the author:
James Robison is the founder and president of LIFE Outreach International, an
international humanitarian aid ministry; host of the television program, Life
Today; and author of The Absolutes: Freedom's Only Hope.

Media Contact:
Randy Robison, editor@jamesrobison.netPO Box 701Euless, TX 76039817-267-4211

© JamesRobison.net. Photo available upon request. Reprint rights granted with attribution for complete, unedited article. Revisions allowed only with approval.

The BBC Panorama vs. Scientology - WHY?

John Sweeney - a week of branding has given his photo
and name (and the BBC's) a whole new view in the eyes of the public.

Why would the BBC Panorama show do a documentary on Scientology, knowingly making it mainly or entirely negative when they know Scientology will never let that go down without notice?

Answer: Panorama needs more viewers.

How to get more viewers, get in the media. How to solve getting in the media - get some big controversy going and start being in the news.

How to get controversy - religion is always a great place. Taking on Islam is a little too dangerous, the Danish newspaper did that last year and some of their staff are still hiding. So they take Scientology.

Scientology is doing pretty good in UK with two new centers opened in October 2006 and lots of expansion. They are sure to get a pretty big reaction to that. How to do it? Put the roughest journalist you have on the case and be 90% smear. Result, the Scientologists will do something and media will follow.

You saw the part in between.

The viewers on the show increased. Sandy Smith delivered to his bosses.

The flaw, BBC Panorama didn't know how bad their roughest journalist would mess up and didn't know how far the Scientologists would take it AND forgot to enter in the fact that YouTube and the Internet exists and they no longer have a monopoly on the news.

Result, yes they got more viewers that night but they've also spent a week with a branding iron stuck to them. BBC, Panorama, John Sweeney, Sandy Smith and the rest of the team have become synonymous with: exploding tomatoes, Banorama, yelling, loosing it, lame journalism and plus some.

The idiocy is as Sandy Smith said in his interview on the BBC the only positive on the show that he had included was going to be a few interviews with some celebrities. So he admits that it was going to be a big smear. Things like that are better left unsaid, at least not on TV. It makes me wonder what the qualifications are for working at the BBC - or maybe those are the people Sweeney talked about in his description of the BBC? but then two of them on the same team?

Enough said
(note these are just a bunch of opinions from seeing these stories :0)

Visit the exhibition where John Sweeney lost it!

Here's a press release that was sent around by CCHR. This is the exhibition where John Sweeney the reporter from the BBC lost it.

"Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" Museum Draws Controversy in International Media

Take a video tour of the museum

(Click on the picture to watch the video)

Denouncing the fact that internationally more than 100,000 patients die each year in psychiatric institutions, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) has opened an interactive and visually spectacular museum in Hollywood called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death.

The museum features 14 documentaries with statements from scores of health professionals, academics, legal and human rights experts, and victims of psychiatric brutalities ranging from electroshock and involuntary commitment to political torture, psychosurgery and the devastating effects of psychotropic drugs. Accompanying each documentary are dozens of displays chronicling mental health barbarity spanning hundreds of years right up to present day. Included are sections on the destructive psychiatric influence on our youth, with 6 million children in the U.S. alone taking prescribed cocaine-like stimulants, and psychiatry’s infiltration of Hollywood and the creative industries, resulting in a staggering loss of talent in many artistic fields, including Kurt Cobain, Marilyn Monroe and Judy Garland. The state-of-the-art museum documents that psychiatry is an industry driven entirely by profit, and provides practical guidance for lawmakers, doctors, human rights advocates and private citizens to take action in their own sphere to bring psychiatry under the law, and to help protect themselves and others from the abuses rampant in the mental health field.

A sampling of current statistics and facts shown in the new museum include:

• Psychiatrists are using electroshock, drugs and other barbaric means to torture political dissidents.

• 20 million children worldwide are taking psychiatric drugs, which can cause suicide, hostility, violence, mania and drug dependence.

• More than 100,000 patients die each year in psychiatric institutions.

• Annually, psychiatrists kill up to 10,000 people with their use of electroshock—460 volts of electricity sent searing through the brain. Three-quarters of all electroshock victims are women.

• Psychiatrists and psychologists have raped 250,000 women. Studies show that 10 to 25 percent of psychiatrists sexually assault their patients; of every 20 of these victims one is likely to be a minor.

Visitors to the museum, which have included celebrities, doctors, educators and legislators, have described it as, “inspirational,” and that the museum should be viewed by “everyone who breathes.”

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights is an international psychiatric watchdog group co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights.

You can also watch the Introduction to our new Documentary, Psychiatry: An Industry of Death.

For more information, contact the Citizens Commission on Human Rights at 800-869-2247 or email humanrights@cchr.org

BBC Reporter gets a taste of his own medicine and doesn’t like it

BBC Reporter John Sweeney, one of the main journalists behind the BBC Panorama show Scientology and Me should be quite experienced with journalism and the routines of the job.

We all know the techniques of journalists to elicit an unexpected emotional response from the subject. Nobody likes being in the camera spotlight like that with a fast paced and prying journalist in your face trying to make you err at every step.

They stalk the subject and film it at every possible moment, hopefully trying to capture something that nobody else has so they can have some sensational materiel for their show.

This is John Sweeney’s profession – he’s a journalist for a living on one of the worlds largest TV channels.

Now what does a journalist like John Sweeney say when the tables turn and he is the one being documented? When a journalist starts to investigate him, his actions and his life?

We’ve all seen the video on youtube.com, but before you look at it again, let’s rapidly look over the journalistic philosophy of John Sweeney per the BBC’s Panorama site. He says "First, find a crocodile. Two, poke it in the eye with a stick. Three, stand back and report what happens next. If it's a sodden log you'll be quite safe. If it's a crocodile you've got a story."

And let’s see the video now

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI

Have we got a story here? Per John himself I think we do.

We will all agree that one of the most fundamental journalistic skills is the mastery of language. Let’s see how John excused himself after this outburst; we would all expect a quick twist of words that would make it all seem rational and intelligent.

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVAeL8AyYeI&NR=1

For someone whose job it is to investigate and write stories one would expect a little more creativity than “I wanted to show you that my voice was louder than yours”. (I’ll have to try that next time I start yelling at someone I am investigating).

Now in response to this he claims he was feeling brainwashed because he was “being stalked” for several days. Actually the stalking in question here is a Scientology Documentary team that did a documentary on John Sweeney’s making of the Panorama show. But how can this be an excuse? Here is a Documentary journalist complaining of being stalked by a documentary team? Does he not realize what he is saying?

In other words, is documentary journalism brainwashing people?

I don't know about that last statement but I do know that John Sweeney is getting a taste of his own medecine and it's not tasing good.

A fellow blogger wrote an article and has some great videos on this. (the one who put the youtube video on)

Don Grey

RFID chips, BBC reporters and Human Rights ...

I was looking through some earlier Engadget blogs on RFID lately and remembered one of them about a company that had invented an RFID tattoo to track cows - and then someone mentions that this could also be used for the armed services. The tattoo is readable up to 4 feet away. Only for cattle now but the company wants to get this to military personel second.

It's sort of scary how we're moving into a control society where every move is being tracked. And how many people watch it happen and think that it's inevitable. I know as I've wondered sometimes myself what could be done about it.

Something can always be done about it. That's my motto - I'm a Scientologist and I believe in that. As I'm in the subject of human rights I thought I would write a little blurb.

I was looking at the news recently and it's amazing how human rights like Freedom of Press get perverted into "Freedom to lie and twist the truth". I've lived Scientology for some 12-15 years now and I look at the stuff the media reports, it's just weird - I mean it's just not what is happening, I wonder what planet these reporters like John Sweeney from the BBC are on.

I've always kept a good opinion of the BBC for it's pretty accurate reporting, but either the Management has changed and someone from The Sun became an editor or John Sweeney has been acting like a rogue journalist.

The film Mad City was a great eye opener on how easy it is to twist the truth. It's sad that BBC entered that game.

Why Do They Kill?

I got this article sent to me and thought I should publish it here. I thought it could shed some light on the recent Virginia Tech Massacre and what goes on in the mind of a killer like that.

INHUMAN BEINGS
The Chemicalized Personality

A mother murders her five children. High school students massacre their classmates. An Iraq vet stabs his wife 71 times. How can this happen?

A common thread in these occurrences is the fact that the killers have been taking psychiatric medications. But that is too simple.

So we hear about “post-partum depression” and “combat stress.” In the case of the teens, it's “the breakdown of the family" or it’s the music, the movies, the video games.

The real answer is the dehumanizing effect of drugs.

A human being has more than one aspect. There is a definite electro-chemical component. The body physically functions via electro-chemical processes.

Then there is that aspect which perceives and reasons and creates. This is not electro-chemical. When people communicate with each other, it is not chemical molecules that are exchanging ideas. This is the spiritual aspect; the conscious, aware individual.

There is also a mental component—a mind—which is an interactive link between the reasoning factor and the physical. A healthy mind (motivated by the spirit) is analytical. A less healthy mind is less analytical and more and more reactive. It operates on a stimulus/response basis, motivated by random factors. A troubled, unhealthy mind doesn't reason. It doesn't perceive well. It reacts to stimuli. [for a more complete description of the mind check this link]

For a long time now, the mental health establishment has been telling us that we are chemical in nature. They would have us believe that they can solve our problems with mood-altering drugs—a little dash of this and a little dash of that. That approach may work at the purely physical level, as in taking antibiotics to handle infection, but it is not the physical component that gives us our rationality, our humanity. It is not the molecules in the brain that are thinking and perceiving, loving and caring, creating great music and poetry. No, the physical component is comprised of cells and electrical impulses, which are as reasoning and creative as an avocado or the electric current that powers your toaster.

When a person is troubled, he is already sliding in the direction of the reactive, unthinking, physical impulse side of his nature. To then give him chemical, mood-altering drugs, pushes him further in that direction. While the sedative effect may appear to calm him down, he is becoming, more and more chemicalized.

So is it any wonder that these killers seem less than human? They ARE less than human. Though they can appear bright and calculating at times, real judgment is gone. They are completely reactive; alienated. Their minds bubble and boil like the mass of chemicals they have become. The analytical capacity is gone. The spirit is gone. Their humanity is gone. They respond randomly and literally to stimuli (enter music, movies and video games). Then, in the extreme, they lash out with violence at the imagined demons and enemies in their own unreal world. They have been mentally short-circuited by the drugs that are supposed to be helping them. It is the ultimate betrayal. [click here for more info on Psychiatry]

And when their bizarre, chemically induced, nightmare world collides with the world of OUR reality—which consists of living people, loving families, children, teachers, learning, accomplishment—a slaughter ensues and we are left to wonder "WHY?" "WHAT HAPPENED?"

The answer: psychiatry happened. And why would anyone perpetrate such a crime as to drug children and adults, driving them insane, all in the name of help? It's too horribly simple. It’s a multi-billion dollar business.The good news is that when society wakes up to these facts, we will cease to allow these evils to occur. It's time.

Tom Solari
tom@tomsolari.com

Tom Solari is a professional writer and video producer, living and working in Los Angeles. He is concerned about a culture that promotes chemical dependency as a solution to problems, when logic and the evidence shows that this approach deepens the problem by numbing the brain, muddling the mind and undermining the human spirit.

Cho was just one in 1500

Someone put a comment on one of the posts I made about the number of School shooters that are on Psychiatric drugs and linked to this site. I checked out the site and while I knew these antidepressants are bad news, I wasn't aware that anyone had documented it to such a degree. Here are more than 1500 stories of antidepressant related violence. And we're not talking shouting when talk violence, no here are murderers and more. It's amazing that with all this - nobody does anything to take them off the market.

There are real solutions to problems of life and none of them involve drugs or electro-shocks or lobotomies. Click here for a good bunch of real solutions. And click here for more facts on the harm Psychiatry does daily.

Check out these stories for yourself.

SSRI Stories

This website is a collection of 1500+ news stories with the full media article available, mainly criminal in nature, that have appeared in the media or that were part of FDA testimony in either 1991, 2004 or 2006, in which antidepressants are mentioned. These stories have been collected over a period of years by two directors of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness (ICFDA). They experienced firsthand the drugs' power to harm and want to save others from the fate that befell them. Their focus has been on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), of which Prozac was the first, launched in December 1987. Other SSRIs are Zoloft, Paxil (Seroxat), Celexa, Sarafem (Prozac in a pink pill), Lexapro, and Luvox. These drugs are widely employed as first line treatment for depression. Other antidepressants included in this list are Remeron, Anafranil and the SNRIs Effexor, Serzone and Cymbalta as well as the dopamine reuptake inhibitor antidepressant Wellbutrin (also marketed as Zyban).