Edit: 20th August 2011: Scroll down or jump here: viewtopic.php?p=406169#p406169 for the cult's hilarious "Freedom" magazine rhetoric

Original New Yorker article thread here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33953
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement #1 - 7th February 2011 (am)

C H U R C H O F S C I E N T O L O G Y I N T E R N A T I O N A L
_______________________________________________________
6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90028 USA
Telephone: (323) 960-3500 ● Fax: (323) 960-3508/9

STATEMENT

It is unfortunate that The New Yorker chose to introduce its readers to
Scientology through the eyes of an apostate, someone religious scholars
unanimously denounce as unreliable, rather than take advantage of the
Churchʹs invitation to experience its practices and humanitarian works
firsthand. The New Yorker doesn’t mention Scientology’s global human
rights initiative, which has educated millions on human rights. Or its
“Truth About Drugs” crusade, teaching millions how to live drug‐free. Or
its global Volunteer Ministers program, whose work in Haiti alone has
been hailed by the international community. Or its dozens of new
Churches bringing Scientology’s life saving technology to communities
around the world. Indeed the newest Church opened just this last week in
Melbourne, Australia.

The one grain of truth in the article is its acknowledgement of the positive
effect Scientology has had on the lives of its adherents and the world at
large—that is the message of Scientology.

The article is little more than a regurgitation of old allegations that have
long been disproved. It is disappointing that a magazine with the
reputation of The New Yorker chose to reprint these sensationalist claims
from disaffected former members hardly worthy of a tabloid. As for the
claim that the Church is the subject of a federal investigation, the Church
has never been advised of any government investigation, a fact The New
Yorker knew before it went to print. Moreover, the subject of the alleged
investigation was recently raised in a lawsuit by the same individuals who
are the sources for the article and the complaint was resoundingly
dismissed by a Federal District Court Judge. The New Yorker was aware of
this fact but irresponsibly sought to use the claim of an “investigation” to
garner headlines for an otherwise stale article containing nothing but
rehashed unfounded allegations.

Anyone who wants to know the true story of Scientology should find out
for themselves by coming to a Church of Scientology, whose doors are
always open, or going to the Churchʹs website, Scientology.org.

Tommy Davis
Church of Scientology International

1/10
Very poor effort. Must try harder.

I would like to see TD explain the contradiction between this statement:

and this:

So, the investigation was confirmed to have existed, but CoS never knew about it, even though they said it was brought up at trial in the Headley cases. Wouldn't they have known about it if it came up in the trials?

You're forgiven. What is the provenance of these documents? Gotlinks?

What?



They're from the "scientologymyths" website blog thing (a cult site). I asked on WWP where are the full official statements that all these articles are quoting bits from and someone give me the links, so I copypasted from the cult PDFs here because it was easier that re-hosting on a safe link (plus most people are just plain click-lazy anyway).

first statement
scientologymyths.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/church_of_scientology_international_am_statement-_7feb11.pdf <<cult URL
second statement
scientologymyths.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/church_of_scientology_international_pm_statement-_7feb11.pdf <<cult URL

Thanks, eh.

Finally, 6 months after the event (I guess they can't get the staff), we now have scientology's full blown Freedumb magazine response on the awesome New Yorker Article by Lawrence Wright.
Of course, nobody out here in the sane wogworld takes any notice of their moronic crap and it is provided here merely for your entertainment.

First though, a Village Voice article by Tony Ortega...
Scientology Attacks The New Yorker. Hilarity Ensues.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... gy_att.php


Now some screenshots of the freedumb "article".....
[thanks to anon on wwp: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/ ... ker.92933/ ]

(if you want to go to the scilon article yourself then paste this into your browser address bar: freedommag.org/special-reports/new-yorker.html
You may wish proxy-up using a web proxy such as http://www.hidemyass.com although video/flash may not display)

YouTube versions of the cult's freedumb mag videos.... (commenting is open)
#1 on Lawrence Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWSXSwf2vM0
#2 on Paul Haggis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AlwrnMR8jM
#3 on The New Yorker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpefoedwgw

You can safely download the video source .FLV files here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZLIKLW30
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HKIHZT9E
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P6P58Q04





















The rest is the usual advertising propaganda.

(if you want to go to the scilon article yourself then paste this into your browser address bar: freedommag.org/special-reports/new-yorker.html
You may wish proxy-up using a web proxy such as http://www.hidemyass.com although video/flash may not display)

You can safely download the video source .FLV files here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZLIKLW30
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HKIHZT9E
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P6P58Q04

YouTube versions of the cult's freedumb mag videos.... (commenting is open)
#1 on Lawrence Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWSXSwf2vM0
#2 on Paul Haggis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AlwrnMR8jM
#3 on The New Yorker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpefoedwgw

The original New Yorker article by Lawrence Wright "The Apostate", Feb 14, 2011, is here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... act_wright
OCMB thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33953

zuuuuuum zuuuum brain,zeeeeeem zeeeeeem brain,......oh no,no brain............

big hello from LRHs Bulgravia.

I do not care what CoS say in response to an article, but I am curious why they are responding. Back in the good old days they were trying to pretend that only a handful of SPs are criticizing the Church. Now it seems they are going to a great length trying to disprove the article. I think they are not hiding the fact that the cult is under attack from the lay members because ostrich policy is not working for them. New world, new rules, and they must adapt.
The Tech says nothing about adaptation because it was assumed that by this time CoS will win. Now they have to improvise, which does not look good for them.

The thing is, they aren't as you say "going to great length trying to disprove the article". Emphasis on disprove. They've gone to great lengths to produce a shed load of adjective strewn rehetoric, childish character asassinations and shiny scientology video-brochures but nowhere do they get down to the the nitty-gritty with any of the actual "dead wrong" facts that they claim in their neat little pie chart.

The target audience is their own members, you know, the kind of true believers who are willing to accept OT-III on its face and that they are riddled with nasty alien body-raisins. Those people aren't going to care about the truth and are mostly happy to have it fed to them through the scientology filter.

I think the footbullet is not just the fact that they've done yet another typically stupid freedumb article but that they've done it 6 months late and hence they stand to revitalise interest in the original New Yorker article which they so desperately didn't want people to see. The danger for DM is that some of those people will be those publics on the edges of scientology who he has no real control over and who are going to look and find out for themselves what all the fuss is about. Whether he wants a much smaller but more insanely batshit core with even less grip on reality, I don't know, but that's what he's heading for everytime he does this.

Also, I think they are playing a dangerous game when they attack hollywood figures. I don't know whether it registers, even just slightly, with Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Nancy Cartwright, Anne Archer etc that this is the fate which awaits them should they ever express serious doubts.

Btw, at this rate we should be expecting freedumb article on Janet Reitman by about December/January.

It's just so bizarre. The text of the videos sounds EXACTLY like Miscavige's speeches. You can tell that Miscavige is directing the whole thing.

Also, isn't it hilarious that at the end of the orginal New Yorker story, Paul Haggis said, "Don't be suprised if you see some hatchet job on me in about a year" (I am praphrasing) and now here it is.

LOL, yeah, Haggis did say that didn't he.

If Lawrence Wright is looking for that perfect ending to his book or a lulzy little epilogue then this is it.

CoS says about Haggis, "How could anyone...who shunned his faith...provide a credible viewpoint?"
Same old story - ex-Scientologists can't be trusted, non-Scientologists are ignorant, journalists aren't allowed to join CoS and take notes, so only loyal CoS members and staff can describe Cos. Wrong. CoS's rants against Haggis's talent reveals that there is total FURY at CoS about Haggis's criticism.

CoS says that the Headleys story is disproven because they lost in court, but the facts about minimum wage violations and forced abortion weren't disproven - the case was lost because of a judge choosing the stupid ministerial exception, that ministers can be abused and exploited because religion is "special."

The whole piece is badly written, shrill and TOO LONG - flinging insults rather than disproving points.

Lawrence Wright, author of the New Yorker article criticizing Scientology, is photoshopped with the famous New Yorker top hat, but shabby with flies buzzing around. It appears the artist took several New Yorker cartoons of New York dandies, and photoshopped Wright's head onto them. In one, Paul Haggis perches like a miniature troll on Wright's shoulders; I admit that was a clever use of photo-shop. Then Haggis wallows in a "Wiki-Dump" dumpster with Wright, to malign Internet sources that Wright used. Haggis's face also gets plastered onto a lizard creature. The artist should quit working for CoS and work for Mad Magazine - they probably pay better, though they demand more than quick-and-dirty photoshop.

It has taken six months for this to come out because the techdrones have been word clearing 24,000 words. Probably had to do that 5 or 6 times.