My Views, Scientology, BBC, John Sweeney and all the hubbub

May 17, 2007 at 12:59 am 16 comments

I’ve been watching the hubbub on the net about the BBC reporter losing it in the face of a Scientologist. So far I have been watching it and haven’t commented on it much. I didn’t want to mix this into my blog as I found it inappropriate. But I am a Scientologist and thought I would give My View.

Here are the key points.

About John Sweeney loosing it. Look, he’s a journalist and he has made it his life’s work to push people to the limit and pretend he didn’t notice it if they fall off the cliff. So can I forgive him for loosing it? No. If he messed up doing what he is paid for then there is no mercy really. If he plays the game in the global arena then you have to be willing to pay the price.

About Scientology having a problem with criticism. I think the people that write that haven’t been reading up on their history. I could name a quite a few religions that reacted a lot tougher than Scientology on this type of criticism. Cartoons come to mind anyone? The bottom line is attacking people’s religion is never a good idea. At best they get some publicity, but when it’s then a biased and incorrect – well that’s asking for trouble.

“If all the brightest minds since the fifth
century B.C. or before have never been able to
agree on the subject of religion or antireligion, it is
an arena of combat between people that one
would do well to stay out of.
“In this sea of contention, one bright principle
has emerged: the right to believe as one chooses.
‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ do not necessarily surrender
to logic: they cannot even be declared to be
illogical. They can be things quite apart.
“Any advice one might give another on this subject
is safest when it simply asserts the right to believe
as one chooses. One is at liberty to hold up his own
beliefs for acceptance. One is at risk when he seeks
to assault the beliefs of others, much more so when
he attacks and seeks to harm others because of their
religious convictions.” – The Way to Happiness

About the brainwashing accusation. I’ve been in Scientology for many years. I’ve also been out of Scientology for some years. Come on, that’s fiction my friend. Do I act brainwashed? read my blog. Does Chick Corea act brain washed? does Beck act brain washed? And in case that is your next question [“you are a fan of them just because they are Scientologists”], no I am not a fan of their music, and not just because they are Scientologists. But I certainly admire how they constantly are pushing the envelope of respectively Jazz and Rock.

Really I see this TV program and I wonder how any normal person reacts when he goes to a Church of Scientology with his little notepad from the program and looks and can’t find any of the stuff that Sweeney mentioned. BBC loses credit, world media loses credit, journalists in general lose credit and documentaries lose credit.

Now the sum of all this is, if anything, the internet has brought to the people the possibility to communicate freely and investigate for themselves. And the “web 2.0” gives the people the possibility to do their own journalism and publishing.

People like John Sweeney and the BBC are no longer holding the monopoly of information and propaganda. Now call it web 2.0 call it Andy Warhol’s 15 minute of fame, call it what you will. I will call it the end of media monopoly. And it’s time the big Media corps realized that the “little” people in the streets can now do something against the Goliath of the media, they will need to stay on the straight and narrow now because they will be exposed.

As to my religion and my beliefs, well in short. I believe in Scientology because it is all about increasing understanding. When you increase understanding then you think better and do better. Scientology is systematic in the approach and it’s all about personal improvement. What do I do? I read books on the subject. I do courses and drill how to apply the information in the books. I listen to lectures by L. Ron Hubbard that elaborate on the books and they’re are pretty funny. Hubbard had a great sense of humor and a massive understanding of life.

Well enough of all that, there have been many John Sweeneys before and maybe there’ll be a day when that too comes to an end.

Cheers.

[;-]

Advertisements

Entry filed under: abuses, argument, bbc, criminon, indie rock, john sweeney, music, narconon, new york, paris, psychiatric abuses, psychiatry, rock, scientology, scientology video.

The Yellow Graffiti Van Hilarious signage – read in sequence…

16 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Beth  |  May 17, 2007 at 2:02 am

    Whether Scientologists are brainwashed or not, I’m surprised that you think people who’ve been brainwashed look brainwashed! It’s a mental technique. It doesn’t turn people into catatonic, bug-eyed zombies. In fact, I think most of us are brainwashed to some degree (for instance, by the advertising that bombards us all our lives).

    Reply
  • 2. John Wood  |  May 17, 2007 at 2:08 am

    Excellent bit of blogging! Some great responses to Sweeney’s ‘accusations’. PLease see the Banorama video on YouTube – it is hilarious! – johnalexwood

    Reply
  • 3. marcozna  |  May 17, 2007 at 9:00 am

    Beth, there is no mental technique behind the term brainwashing. It’s propaganda by redefining words. Brainwashing in the case you mention means to change someone’s opinion – then any salesman is a brainwasher… a bit extreme isn’t it.

    What I am referring to in my post is free thinking. Those examples are great examples of free thinkers. Scientology is all about free thinking and making people able to think for themselves and take their own decisions.

    [:-]

    Reply
  • 4. Beth  |  May 18, 2007 at 4:17 am

    I won’t split hairs with you about the definition of “brainwashing.” What I meant by “mental” was that it is in the mind–it isn’t something that leaves visible physical evidence.

    How do you think brainwashed people look?

    Reply
  • 5. marcozna  |  May 18, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    OK – I understand what you meant.

    It’s actually a very good point, and if others realized it, they wouldn’t brandish the word around at anyone they felt was against their views.

    How do “brainwashed” people look? I don’t know.
    How do they act? Like robots, unable to think for themselves and think outside the box.

    That’s why Scientologists wonder where such lame accusations come from. It’s from people who haven’t done their homework because that’s exactly what Scientology is all about, to learn to think for oneself.

    And thanks for dropping by.

    [:-]

    Reply
  • 6. biglizard  |  May 26, 2007 at 9:30 am

    I would like to know why it is that the term “brain washed” is used to describe what “cults” do to people and that de-programing (by psychiatrsts) are the solution, when psychiatry is the group which created “brain washing” and to this day promotes hypnosis (brain washing) as a cure for a host of ills?

    Reply
  • 7. Jeanne  |  June 2, 2007 at 4:24 am

    Thanks for your cogent and bright response. It always surprises me how people can by the load of c**p that gets shunted off as “fact” on the Internet. It couldn’t actually be simpler, really…anyone who really wants to find out the truth about Scientology can just buy a book by Hubbard and see if it works. Or go to the Scientology Handbook web site and actually DO what LRH lays out. It works. That’s all there is to Scientology. It WORKS.

    Reply
  • 8. biglizard  |  June 3, 2007 at 12:13 am

    On”looking Brainwashed” I would like to recommend changing the word “looks” to “acts”. People who fly planes into buildings ACT BRAINWASHED.
    I have yet to hear of a Scientologist flying a plane into a building.

    Reply
  • 9. marcozna  |  June 4, 2007 at 12:07 am

    Biglizard – good point. I changed that. I guess that episode could be classified as Image Branding for John Sweeney.

    [;-]

    Reply
  • 10. biglizard  |  July 6, 2007 at 1:06 am

    I would add that did you see how Sweeney looked durring his rant? I would say he looked “brain washed”!

    Reply
  • 11. Anthony  |  October 25, 2008 at 3:29 am

    Hi there, That’s a great informative post you have here. I also think your point on web 2.0 is extremely relevant. There is no longer a monopoly by a giant media corporation. The little man in the street can now get his word out.

    Reply
  • 12. RaiulBaztepo  |  March 29, 2009 at 12:07 am

    Hello!
    Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
    PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language 😉
    See you!
    Your, Raiul Baztepo

    Reply
  • 13. PiterKokoniz  |  April 8, 2009 at 12:31 am

    Hello !! ^_^
    I am Piter Kokoniz. Just want to tell, that your blog is really cool
    And want to ask you: will you continue to post in this blog in future?
    Sorry for my bad english:)
    Thank you!
    Piter.

    Reply
  • 14. e  |  May 23, 2009 at 1:24 am

    It’s “lose” (looz — fail to keep), not “loose” (looss — not tight). How has nobody said this until now?

    Reply
    • 15. marcozna  |  May 26, 2009 at 10:17 am

      whoa, no nobody said that before – thanks for the correction, am fixing the text.

      Reply
  • […] spotted around as I visit different parts of my city or different cities. But every so often (like here) I blow a gasket and go totally off […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Blog Stats

  • 290,958 hits
Add to Technorati Favorites
May 2007
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Feeds

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: