Neil Gaiman's Scieno Front

Discussion in 'Celebrity News' started by KlaatuBaradaNichto, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. Re: Neil Gaiman's Scieno Front

    Neil Gaiman does benefit from the cult.

    All donations, including the half a million dollars Neil Gaiman just funneled into Scientology's coffers are tax deductable. When Bank Corp funds a donation, Gaiman benefits tremendously.

    Gaiman is a victim in the sense that he was raised being audited and taught disturbing, hellish philosophies like the "tone scale," where accountability ranks low. In my mind that is child abuse. Gaiman's father and mother were willing to take children radiated by Chernobyl and expose them to saunas and toxic doses of vitamins, what were they willing to do to him?

    Scientologists are not educated. Most of them never go to college, including Neil Gaiman, all they know is the idiotic philosophy the cult drills into them. So Gaiman is probably brainwashed to be a self-referential idiot who thinks he is superior, but still, there are adult cult members like Jenny Miscavige, who reason their way out.

    As an adult with a perfectly servicable brain, Gaiman has chosen to take the benefits the cult offers him, the family fortune made by conning people and screwing their brains and their health up, the Hollywood and publishing connections and the tax deductions. He's chosen to hang onto the family money rather than stand on his own two feet.

    Every cult member who pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars, or MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, into the cult should be exposed. And the Gaiman clan, who derive a Six million dollar annual income from duping people should certainly be exposed. Neil Gaiman is the same as a corporation funding the Taliban, he's a Scientology underwriter, building Orgs, supplying RPF camps, even funding Scientology's campaigns against Anonymous and it's bullshit.

    As I said before, Gaiman is both a victim and a a big problem for Anonymous because he is an underwriter of the cult. He would like to do it in secret, the way a child molester wants you to keep quiet about the dirty thing he's doing. Anonymous is here to expose the cult, not issue one of its major underwriters a pass because he would prefer we all shut up so he can continue to roll in the mud.

    I'm not sure what is meant by "cut him some slack." That the obvious money trail should not documented? That we all ought to collude with Gaiman to hide his connections? This thread serves a few purposes; 1. To document the money trail and amounts of money being funneled into the cult by the high-ranking Scienos, in this case the Gaimans. 2. To profile the Scientology behavior of lying in public about the money trail and the level of involvement in order to get more money.

    The second point is important because I am seeing a trend where Scientologists hide their activity. This is evidence that Anonymous is having a profound effect on the Scientologists who now want to hide their connections.

    It's a complicated world and you'll have to hold two disparate things in your mind at the same time. Neil Gaiman is a Scientology victim. Neil Gaiman is a Scientology underwriter.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: Neil Gaiman's Scieno Front

    Tax exemption doesn't work that way in the country where I am, so I'm not clear on the details, but surely he doesn't actually get more back in taxes than he gives away?

    no shit! ;)

    'spose that's true in a 'cycle of abuse' type of way.

    Isn't it true that all Scientology victims benefit the cult though? I mean in that the cult works by taking away the resources of its victims (whether money, time, whatever) and using them for its own benefit.


    • document away - I know you will anyway ;)
    • but let's not drift from anti-Scientology to anti-victims
    • (that's no way to get existing Scilons to become Ex's)
  3. anon555 Member

    Re: Neil Gaiman's Scieno Front

    if my ex insisted on keeping kids in a cult, I'd be spending more money on a kick- ass family lawyer and demand full custody. I have little sympathy for parents who willingly allow their ex's to actively brainwash their own children. Either he doesnt care about them, or he thinks there is nothing wrong with indoctrinating them. He hasn't been strung over anything. He's trying to play it both ways, supporting scientology while publicly denying it.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Neil Gaiman's Scieno Front

    Well, I hate the disaffection as much as anyone but still... Tori Amos? I've never known what to take on board with "Tori Amos is a Scieno" allegations. And today I read on Wikipedia that she founded a company called "Bridge Entertainment Group" and one then wonders if the switch from Atlantic to Epic in a Contract Liberation Bid is sinister when Neil Gaiman is doing all those thumbnails on "Strange Little Girls"(no new songs, goodbye contract). Ach...
  5. Ogma Member

    "a damaged hazard for society"

    Sounds like cult language in itself. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

    Neil Gaiman's quite possibly a genius. There's a lot of inference and witch-huntery about this. I'm not convinced. I'd have to see more. What a lot of this type of protest misses is literature and what quality literature does and is about. NG doesn't talk about scientology much - he was brought up in it - he does stand up to bullies, he does do an immense amount for others, and he has made a sublime contribution to our art, a legacy that does nothing but promote imagination and freedom of thought, not tittle tattle and hearsay about what people earn or don't earn.
  6. Ogma Member

  7. Anonymous Member

    Gaiman may indeed be a genius as you suggest. And also may be taking the pragmatic approach as suggested in the comment to which you link.

    But that doesn't make me admire him. It is not courageous to ignore the devastating abuses meted out by the cult. Paul Haggis did it right. He earned my respect back. Gaiman? Not so much.

    And, logic fail in mike s' comment:
    What are you hoping to accomplish by bumping this old thread Ogma? Is it an attempt to rescue the reputation of a perhaps brilliant, if ethically lacking, author?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. NCSP Member

    Just wanted to mention that a few months ago I was watching the documentary about Harlan Ellison, "Dreams with Sharp Teeth," and there's a big segment about his close friendship with Neil Gaiman. They appear on camera together a lot and make a nice mutual-admiration society.

    Ellison, of course, never misses a chance to tell the story of Hubbard saying, "If you want to make a million dollars, start a religion." (He claims to have heard him say it.) So I think it's safe to assume that Gaiman at the very least has an open mind on the subject.

    As to Gaiman's ethics, I'm really not in a position to judge. Both sides here make good points. I was never so crazy about him as a writer, but that's just me.
  9. another123 Member

    Just finished seperating some PDF's in another thread, and this was included:
    Gdox: david_gaiman_hat_writeup, Public Relations Chief.pdf
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    and I never miss a chance to embed his tals with Robin Williams :p
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Pique Member

    What a wicked, mean-spirited organization. And a perfect example there in black and white. Thanks another123.

    And thank you Ogma for bumping this old thread. I might not have seen the hat writeup for Neil Gaiman's father otherwise.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. another123 Member

    Actually the thanks should go to opantomime for re-posting an older hatting zip.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    Neil Gaiman worked as an auditor (scientology quack psychotherapist) at Guardian Office World Wide and later at the Flag Land Base. He left around 1982 after his wife Mary, who was in the sea org, got pregnant and did not have an abortion. Both were declared SPs for "blowing", but later reinstated after he became a writer of note.
  14. Ogma Member

    Anon 6.34 pm - Attempt to rescue his reputation? It occurs to me his reputation doesn't need rescuing. I responded because this thread is at the top of some search terms on Google, and redress seems appropriate. In any case, I'm entitled to comment, so I did. I can't comment every thread where these half-baked allegations have been posted. (all curiously similar) I'm glad others on the thread support my view. I came with an open mind to look at the evidence there was, and found it unconvincing I'm afraid. I saw the thread was old and didn't expect a response: the thread may be old but it is very prominent in some Google searches.

    Can't see the logic fail in the section you quote of mike s's comment. Seems salient.

    How do you know he ignores the abuses? You can know nothing about that. What are you doing about them apart from commenting on threads? How do you know what else he does with his money (apart from make payments to his ex-wife as per the terms of their separation), and what emails he responds to? If you're honest, you don't.

    Scientology is a rich, fairly powerful and (very) ethically questionable cult, yes. The energy spent by those against the cult spent on NG seems like a pure waste of time at best, vindictive obsession at worst.
  15. How do you know he doesn't? Are you his PR? If so, maybe you'd like to address some of the concerns mentioned ITT, rather than evading the question.

    It's my opinion that Neil has, indeed, left the cult. And I really, genuinely hope I'm right.

    However, I can't help but feel it's somewhat cowardly of the man, if he's not still in, to just say nothing.

    I appreciate that he still has family inside; So do many critics. That doesn't stop them from speaking out; They know that their best hope of saving their loved ones is to hasten the destruction of the criminal enterprise that is Scientology.

    Is he worried about the cult plundering his preclear folder for blackmail material? That hasn't stopped ex-members from telling their stories. And if CoS try, the worst will be another issue of Freedom Magazine, which nobody except cult members takes seriously.

    Take Paul Haggis. He spoke to the New Yorker because his conscience motivated him to, even though a number of his friends disconnected from him as a result, and even though the cult published their own borderline-libelous smear magazine against him. That takes balls, although his position as a successful Oscar-winning film director means he has the money and influence to defend himself.

    Neil also has money and influence, yet he stays resolutely silent. He has it in his power to stir up a mighty shitstorm against the cult that wanted his now ex-wife to abort their baby, but he doesn't. He could expose the nastiness at the heart of Scientology... If he wanted to. But it seems he'd rather trundle along, being "handled" by the cult - Surrendering to their emotional blackmail (we all know how the Disconnection Threat Game is played). That's just cowardice, I'm afraid.

    Paulette Cooper was the target of a vicious Scientology life-ruination campaign, but she didn't back down. when Mark Bunker was getting his house picketed, he didn't back down. And neither of these people had the resources that Neil possesses. they did much, much more, with a lot, lot less. That's proper bravery, the sort of bravery that, in the fairytales Neil likes so much, slays the dragon - These days, it cuts right to the heart of totalitarian mind-control organisations.

    Yeah, good luck with trying to deflect Anonymous from doing what Anonymous wants. While you're at it, you might want to try and stop the tide coming in. If the collective decides it's got some energy spare to address this issue, the collective will do it.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Ogma Member

    You're assuming in all these comments the allegations he was an active member of the cult are true. I'm not convinced he does have it in his power to stir up a mighty shitstorm. Actually I think a typical Gaiman reader is highly intelligent and free-thinking and already has made up their own mind about scientology. Others already seem to have addressed the concerns in the oft-repeated, poor, inferences at the top of the page. No I'm not his PR. Why should I be? I think you're post is rather judgmental. The points I've made and the posts I linked to made are still very salient.

    There are a lot of different kinds of dragons. What the collective or the tide does doesn't make the collective or the tide right or good. In fact it's a pretty scary basis of justification for any activity. Sort of cul-tish actually. I'm basing my view on assessment of the evidence here, what he has said about it, and mainly his actual writings, which promote free-thinking the widest kind of imagination, and an utterly expansive approach to belief systems; it doesn't at any point in the tiniest way promote scientology.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    G&G Vitamins really pisses me off. So fuck Gaiman and his anti-medicine, anti-psychiatry friends.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. bAnon Member

    Gaiman is the leader of Anonymous you f*cking idiots.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Anonymous Member


    Selling vitamins in bulk to a cult that uses them to poison its members, all in the name of quack detoxing is bad in my book.

    It's like homeopaths prescribing their magic water as an AIDS cure, and encouraging those taking it to stay off their anti-retrovirals
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member

    No, Tommy Davis is.

    Or possibly Louis Armstrong
  21. Anonymous Member

    I know very little about the man, and nothing of his work.

    I was listening to a programme on BBC Radio4, in which he appeared, last year. He came across as an arrogant tosser.
  22. grebe Member

    Download, "Anansi Boys," as read by Lenny Henry. You can hear a sample here:

    I liked it.

    Gaiman experiments with the notion that ideas influence reality by altering the way people think about things.

    I could forgive him for being the princeling of an evil cult if he would renounce his family's crazy alt med vitamin business.
  23. Anonymous Member

    He was frequently on Prisoners of Gravity, 20ish years ago

  24. Ogma Member

    Find it hard to view him as an arrogant tosser given the time he gives to people he doesn't know. This is one of the things that makes him very popular. He doesn't need to this. His views and outlook as as it comes across in his work and in interviews is also not the mark of an arrogant tosser. I probably should not dignify comments like that with a reply, but there you go. Some of the posters here should go and work for the British tabloid press rather than involve themselves in intelligent constructive protest, just my take.
  25. WWP Anonymous regards anything associated with Co$ to be toxic. It is impossible to find anything that would redeem the cult in the eyes of its critics.

    If you enjoy Mr. Gaiman's work, no one is preventing you from doing that. However, if you are here to praise things that are regarded by some WWP Anonymous as toxic, because of the connection to the Co$, your reception here is going to be rather chilly.

    You'll probably have more fun on a Gaiman Fan Site. You probably won't succeed in changing the perceptions of any members of WWP here, especially those committed to destroying an evil, vile, criminal cult.

    Pax vobiscum.
  26. Anonymous Member

    I would not describe Neil as arrogant. I remember him in his adolescence as cocky because his father was Deputy Guardian Public Relations GOWW and his mother was in an executive position in the PR Bureau GOWW. Both made lots of money selling their overpriced vitamins to a captive customer base of scientologists in England. What's more, his father, David, and DG Finance GOWW Herbie Parkhouse had a monopoly concession from Hubbard for the only place to buy food and drinks at Saint Hill, and they charged very inflated prices and paid employees a pittance. Neil came from scientology nobility, from a family of privilege. Neil did benefit from his parent's positions and special privileges in scientology which exploited quite a few public and staff members. While he does not patronize David Miscavige or actively promote the scientology organisation, he does not speak out against the crimes and human rights violations of scientology which indicates a degree of passive complicity to me.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    If Neil is afraid of disconnection and fair game, then he absolutely must help us take this cult down. Too many people have lived for too long in fear.

    But after learning that Amanda Palmer's parents were in the Sea Org, I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope for Neil. In fact, I suspect that he will be a major player in Scientology 2.0, the cult sans Miscavige.

    Although I imagine Sci: The Sequel will be nicer in many ways, I also expect it to be more totalitarian. The organization has been in the extortion racket for some time. It's likely to gain further access to large databases concerning travel and electronic medical records.
  28. Ogma Member

    What a lot of tosh. I find it fascistic to tar someone for being born into something. Are you actually scientologists updet that he doesn't speak out for you? You certainly don't seem to have understood the points made by me and others.
  29. Pique Member

    No dear, probably they are not scientologists. Just people with an in depth knowledge of the insidious and destructive nature of a cult and the effect it can have on everyone it touches, genius or otherwise.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. I have Summoned Slobeck to this thread. Could get lulzy! ;)
  31. Anonymous Member

    Ogma, you are a lurk moar.

    The Sea Org is serious business. Born into it or not.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Ogma Member

    Have done a bit of research on the vitamins. Have found nothing compelling. Looking forward to the "lulz" as this suggests someone who might be able to put forward compelling evidence. I am open-minded. Perhaps some of you are but I can't see *much* of this so far.
  33. Ogma Member

    Attacking individuals from inadequate inference (so far) is also a deeply serious business, wouldn't you say? It appears that anyone questioning your evidential basis is a "lurk moar", am I right? No one may question you?
  34. Ogma Member

    Can I ask if this also means that Alan Moore is supporting the cult, since he hasn't stood up and denounced his friend Neil Gaiman? Is Moore's deliberate worship of the hoax snake-god Glycon an encouragement to the unsophisticated? Tori Amos, Clive Barker, Gene Wolfe? etc
  35. Pique Member

    Ogma you seem unfamiliar with anon culture. A thicker skin helps. And to be fair, you wandered in and bumped this old thread expecting to leave a comment and
    You came here with an agenda. Don't be surprised to get some push back.

    Lurk moar means a person might be wise to spend some more time researching. Yes, of course people can ask questions. But folks around here are not often over fond of spoon feeding information either.

    If you wish to discuss Moore, try this thread–-meet-the-man-behind-the-protest-mask.96953/
  36. Ogma Member

    It's not a matter of wanting to be spoonfed, just that if you say something about someone you have to be prepared to back it up. I didn't find the top of this thread convincing, and I really have investigated, and I really still don't.

    Another thread on this site here: Typical comment #24: "There is NO WAY Neil Gaiman could be a believing Scientologist and still be able to write the stuff he's way. We've all seen the mindset they is totally anathema to sophisticated creative writing. Nevermind his extensive(and deep) knowledge of all things mythological" - Anonymlceland it seems to be people who know literature and the internal evidence presented by it who find it hardest to credit NG as an active sci.
  37. AnonRanGER13 Member

    WTF 4 srs? I thought she was crazy in a GOOD way. Please don't tell me she's a Scilon...
    I'm rather disappointed in Neil as well - I'm a fan of his, actually. And Amanda Palmer. And Tory Amos.
  38. Anonymous Member

    It's someone's opinion from 08.
    Deal with it.
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Ogma Member

    I'm dealing with it. I questioned it, I'm content with that.

    AnonRanGER13 I would investigate it thoroughly for yourself. Someone being smeared as a scilon doesn't make it true. In Neil Gaiman's case I'm very sure he isn't. There is a lot of investigation one can do... (This comment here fit with my experience of this:
  40. Anonymous Member

    David Gaiman ran the Guardian's Office, one of the most powerful intelligence agencies on Earth.

    That same network still exists. It seeks leverage over world leaders.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins