[extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists?
hkhenson at rogers.com
Sat Apr 16 01:44:58 UTC 2005
At 09:33 PM 14/04/05 -0700, you wrote:
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin
> > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists?
> > As a matter of self-preservation, I keep a short mental list of no-win
> > opponents. Foes against whom the best strategy is to never come to their
> > attention.
> > The various Mafias, the IRS, Microsoft, and the Church of $cientolgy.
I remotely know someone who did considerable damage to one of the Mafia
groups. It was just after WW II and the person involved was a combat vet
who was not willing to pay protection.
When scientology went after the IRS, they managed to steal about 2 billion
dollars from the US taxpayers. So much for the IRS. I have it on fairly
good authority that it took under a million dollars to crush the IRS by
setting up and blackmailing a commissioner.
Far as I know, MS has not put out hit men on the Richard Stallman or Linus
And the net is slowly grinding down scientology. They have been dipping
into cash reserves for some time now and recruit very few people who are at
all net connected or have friends who are. Reporters no longer fear them.
> > -- David Lubkin.
>I had it explained to me thus by a colleague who is a former Co$:
>Churches have specialties, and the Co$ claims to specialize in
>drug rehab. Consequently they have more than their share of
>former dopers. These often think of the Co$ as the influence
>that saved them from certain destruction by addiction. Former
>dopers are people who have become accustomed to breaking the
>law. Even if they get over the addiction, they are likely
>still comfortable with living outside the law. So if you
>oppose the organization they think saved them, you have a
>seemingly inexhaustible supply of people of uncertain levels
>of sanity, willing and eager to break the law in order to mess
While scientology and drugs activate the same brain reward circuits,
relatively few of the scientologists and (in theory) none of their elites
were dopers. The department of dirty tricks (OSA) are trained to break the
laws. Try "outflow false data" and "tr bullbait" (with the quotes) in Google.
>My colleague felt he needed to be extremely careful as a
>*former* Co$ for fear of these people. He never was a doper,
>and so he never really felt like he was fully part of the
>scene. But he was in a state of constant nervousness.
At this point, I know dozens of former members who are out and talking
publicly about what happened to them. There are far to many for the cult
to seriously bother them.
>In Keith's case, they seem to have gone to absurd lengths
>to damage him, taking measures that absolutely defy reason
>or explanation. With regard to David's comment on avoiding
>attention, I would suggest intentional misspelling of the
>term (as for instance I modified his spelling above) in
>order to not show up in a google search when commenting
>on this topic.
By this point they won't do anything except put your name on their hate
site no matter how much you provoke them.
The last woman who they put on their hate site (this week) was paying Tom
Cruise back for his stunt of giving money to scientology in various
people's names who didn't appreciate it. So she took up a collection (over
$1000) to donate to an anti cult organization in Tom Cruise's name.
Of course being put on their hate site is an indication that you have been
galling the hell out of their diminutive leader and thus is a sought for
honor. It took some very effective people years to get into this exclusive
high status club.
PS. In the olden days, you obtained status in proportion to the difficulty
of the task. Bringing back a rabbit back to camp didn't rate very high,
but dragging an elephant back by his trunk . . . .
More information about the extropy-chat