home

about the Scientology protests that I interrupted on March 1 & the 3rd & 6th, 2024

My main issue with the protestors is that they will purposefully engage local police for the publicity; a few online like-minded groupies going on in chat about how mentally ill people are such a problem yet simutaneously going on about how the Scientologists prevented Lisa McPherson being labeled as "mentally ill". It’s always been a strange issue for me because, as I was trying to tell the young man who was protesting, I actually read the book "Dianetics" and was impressed. L.Ron explains thought and memory associations and unfortunately a person might need to have been through enough varied experiences to understand the reasoning.

I might’ve written more about this in this text. I’m updating this website, relaunching it after a hiatus, but the best I can describe the belief system is that it’s like a commercialized version of the basic tenets of Quakers (or "Religious Society of Friends"). A point of misconception about the latter group is that it was actually an English judge that first used the term to describe George Fox. It’s really about recognizing that spirituality needs to be taken in a pragmatic way, maybe as opposed to dogmatic, sure. Actions speak louder than words is a reasonable adage to describe the underlying concept. Of course the actions can be judged through a filter of bias and ommission of relevant fact, or through hypocrisy. Do means justify the ends? is another pertinent expression to consider.

There’s the other aspect of the protesters walking through the alley behind the building, especially with live streaming camera, where there’s potential privacy issue for the residents of the apartment complex along there. Technically, alleyways are only supposed to be used by local residents (to access detached garages) or other legitimate commercial or utility vehicles. A quick search for "city ordinance alley access" will produce relevant results. The truth is that the police could press tresspassing charges for them strolling through the alleyway, but don’t. In the third video I’m on (so 2024-03-06) I mentioned a letter I received from HUD threatening me with an investigation, and it’s at the bottom of this page.

I also originally had this content split between two websites, part of it under different domain. Only reason I mention that is because I’m going to paste it all into here for now and edit later. If there is repetition then that’s why.

The image I made up for a flyer I took down to the protester who was obsessed with Lisa McPherson. She would’ve ended up labeled as ’mentally ill’ if she was taken to the hospital, is what people don’t seem to want to take into account. She would’ve been objectified, is the point. There’s the high mortality rate, loss of personal privacy, and stigma associated with the label. (I was kicked out of a bible study group back in the day because I didn’t agree with what Westboro Baptist Church was doing by protesting Matthew Shepard’s funeral. I told those people to just wait & see, now they’re just a right-wing gun-nut cult.)

I’m fully aware that the image here is rude, but my point is evident in that Lisa could’ve very well been objectified upon entering the mental health system where a protester that I met insisted that she needed to go, but she was instead held for seventeen days by the Scientologists before she died. I then realized that, by serendipity if you will, that Lisa offers us a perfect case example of the problem that exists with what is commonly referred to as "mental illness" and the means that’s used as "treatment". The system is comprised to be of pure expedience, to not mince words. It’s known that the concept is a social construct where there’s a category of human cognitive ailment where a person will behave in bizarre fashions, maybe even equivalent to inebriated, but the person isn’t drunk or "high" from taking an illicit substance (that’s proportionate to the person’s reaction, at least. It also could be obvious that a person is exaggerating in that aspect). A person could inadvertently hurt themselves or unintentionally hurt someone else (also to varied degree of intent and/or injury inflicted on someone).

In short and to the point, is that a person’s behavior could be embarassing to family & friends, but (initially) not criminal. It is more common now, especially in the digital era where information about a perpetrator of a violent crime will be public within hours of an incident, that the person will be labeled as "mentally ill". Over the last few decades the term is associated more & more with violence. There is also a noticeable aversion to being considered as such and yet simultaneously it’s become the only culturally accepted label to place on someone (even one who’s committed no wrongdoing) and it’s immediately associated with a person being inferior to everyone else. The person might be told exactly what rights they continue to have, but in any event it’s accepted that whoever is in the person’s immediate proximity is the authority of that aspect (if they can find the time, anyway).

So... On March 1, 2024 I was walking through my city on my way downtown and got distracted by people who appeared to be protesting and I asked them if they’ve ever read a specific book. They answered that they haven’t. I told them that I have and that it’s actually good. I told them that they should read it since it was associated with the entity that they were protesting. We talked back & forth a bit and as I was walking away the young man yelled out to me that I needed to see a psychiatrist and that I was mentally ill. It was at that very moment that the young man was no longer merely protesting, but engaging in an act of civil disobedience. The term he used is associated with violence and so subsequently the inevitable idea is that I would need to be restrained or incapacitated. (It’s a vigilante posit.) So since the term that he labeled me while I was being broadcasted on a video feed that he controlled was intended to deem me as inferior to him, insinuating that I was committing some wrongdoing, implying that I’m unnecessarily violent, etc., ... I have a right to defend myself, and my reputation. So my going back there, even on the third time he pointed out that I was approaching him, is completely within my rights. (At any time all the young man needed to say to me is that he understood what I was saying to him and he’d figure out a way to incorporate the issue into his activism.)

I watched the video of when Jay was contacted by city police and it astounded me the way that he spoke to them. It was entirely opposite of the way he speaks to others and that tells me that the way he usually speaks to people is feigned while his behavior toward police is his true self. Engaging local city police in an issue which is decades old and where the protests consist of a handful of people is not reasonable. When the main lead protester is speaking to his live video feed audience about getting some "merch" to have available to sell them then the idea of him merely engaging in humanitarian, peaceful protesting is thrown out of the proverbial window.

I will link to the Wikipedia article, "Fundamental attribution error", here since it’s applicable in this issue. A person who is upset, but not about the exact same thing as a protester is upset about, is stigmatized as being inferior and immature, etc., instead of being considered as having a valid point, is putting themselves at physical risk and then that in turn is frightening and yet people are going to insist that they just calm down and chat awhile about humans suffering. But I digress... I did need to point out here that in Lisa’s case, she gave us the perfect example of risk to her of continued emotional/physical injury if she allowed herself to be admitted into psychiatric hospital treatment. Actually, I realized, it also eamplified an application of the rudimentary philosophy of "Theory of Forms" where the institution of "psychiatry" is brought up by protesters in a way that implies that it is a perfect system (or maybe if it’s not then that isn’t of their concern), when the absolute reality is that the system is rife with abuse, and always has been, which is really the crux of the whole issue. Lisa’s case is our example and so let us play it out in a thought experiment of what might’ve happened to her upon entering a psychiatric hospital in a reasonable scenario...

The events that led up to Lisa being first admitted to the emergency room became public and inevitably the circumstances would’ve been noted in her admittance paperwork which many people would have access to while she was a patient. Although it would be ideal if all the hospital staff personnel were mature professionals, without one malicious employee among them, there is always possibility they all won’t be. That idea may seem to be incredibly hurtful to hospital staff but in the human/social services field(s) it is customary to present possibilities from the outset. The people who work in the psychiatric system that are truly professional understand the possibility that there may be another that isn’t so professional, but with that stated it could also be pointed out that with patients who are distressed and suffered trauma in their lives then there could be an unintentional slip or misspoke word, etc., that could be misconstrued by a patient, and could cause them to have an emotional outburst. The staff has authority to isolate and even restrain a psychiatric patient in a locked cell. That is a reality and the patient is not ever charged with any crime to where they’d be offered an attorney to represent them. A person in a psychiatric hospital has less rights than a criminal.

To address an argument that Lisa may not have been traumatized when she was younger (the "mental illness is just a type of disease" ideology aside here), but maybe it was the Scientologists themselves that traumatized her somehow, I would like to point out that she sought out the organization. She very well might have known a little about what their belief system was, and was a willing participant.† She was considered to be clear, and actually wasn’t is really analogous to psychiatric care outcomes to where a person will be stable for a good period of time but some event or series of events will cause a mental breakdown ... at that point it’s important that the distressed person’s cognitive state isn’t needlessly exacerbated. The psychiatric system is priced, and services rendered, according to socioeconomic status too, where a lower income person would be expected to submit to medication, receive minimal psychotherapy, and experience noticeable degradation in their quality of life. Side-effects of psychotropic medicines have been historically terrible, with weight gain being common. All too often a person will gain so much weight, so quickly, that by the time they are fully aware of their (new) problem it’s to late for them to do anything except do their best to maintain their overall health. They have to accept a diminished quality of life and are at risk of being harassed and ridiculed. Their personal relationships with their family is forever changed. (They’re scapegoated.)

When there’s an outcry about Lisa being "held against her will" but in a dignified environment where access to her was strictly controlled, and then insist that she be forced into circumstances that the majority of protesters would avoid and vehemently deny ever needing, like it’d be something completely beneath them, is so hypocritical that only a complete moron would deny the contradiction. It all becomes obvious that the protesters desire to find some notoriety and the issue is a culturally acceptable, and even an esoteric niche, where the participants can experience a sense a self-worth & belonging & altruism that they’d refuse to give up at any cost. It’d be so helpful, if even out of sheer accident, that they’d protest against shock treatments. It’d be wonderful if we all could avoid the "it’s bound to get worse before/rather than it gets better" on this subject since it’s a serious issue for trauma-informed advocates, internationally.

† I mentioned the movie "The French Connection" to the protesters because in the movie the protagonist, (Gene Hackman’s character), is a detective who’s investigating heroin smugglers and they get him addicted to the drug. His friends have to lock him up in a decrepit, urban hotel room for a few days to wean him off. The point is that the "medical" way of treatment isn’t always in a person’s best interest. People have to have a better understanding of human physiology themselves to know that the word "patient" (a person in a hospital) and the word used as in: "be patient" aren’t alike by mere coincidence. People who are introverted and timid (which is typical of those who’ve experienced trauma in their lives) can be convinced to sympathize with the medical staff in a hospital setting and give consent to taking medications that have atrocious side-effects. Psychiatry is experimental medicine with corporate interests involved. In the conflict of psychiatry and Scientology, it’s the former that poses the greatest danger to low-income people and consists of a disproportionate representation of people of color. The other aspect is that oftentimes when people in the general public discuss the field they don’t take into consideration the people diagnosed with "mental illness" in the prison system. Again, that is indictive of "Theory of Forms" where any of the exact details, or intricacies of an issue can be ignored by people in the general public when they engage in an argument (about other humans suffering).

In my defense of referring to the Church of Scientology as an alliance when their actions in other cases were incongruent with my advocacy for people who’ve suffered abuse and violent crime, I’d also like to address that apparently some of the church members, sanctioned by the church then (let’s not mince words), made a point to participate in concealing crimes committed by a celebrity member of theirs (who is now in prison). The way I can reconcile that, and this is critical perspective to the circumstances, is that the idea is that a crime of rape is reported to police when the perpetrator is a celebrity so there is presumably a confidentiality policy in place for the victim. That would stand to reason. There is simularity with the situation with Lisa McPherson in that in the real world there will be a number of different people involved, both with law enforcement and the medical community, and to have the expectation that every last one of those people will exhibit nothing but the upmost professionalism and ethics is not reasonable. If in the real world a victim’s name were compromised and the crime was recent then the general public, that really hasn’t changed all that much since days of labeling women with a scarlet letter and dragging them through the streets, would readily have commentary that maybe doesn’t outright blame the victim but labels her ungrateful since there are many impoverished women in the world who’d be willing to endure the eccentricities of a rich & famous man (type thing). Anybody who doesn’t think that wouldn’t happen doesn’t understand sociology. If the point is to discuss the possibility or probability of such an outcome without taking into consideration the reality for the victim in the resulting scenario is only using the event to discredit the church as opposed to being truly concerned for wellbeing of victims. To think that everybody working in the system is as sweet as can be when interacting with trauma’d people is deluded. To think that a victim of rape will be always subdued and submissive when interacting with people working in the system is not realistic. A rape victim can end up being restrained to a hospital gurney too. Human beings’ emotions are not always predictable and their resulting behavior can be frightening if they resort to self-harm, for example. People naturally would like a standardized policy that would always be applicable in every situation but when dealing with sentient human beings who want to express their individuality will catch on to the posit and do the exact opposite of what is desired of them.

Maybe the very least to ask is for a bit of compassion for a community (or just me here for now) who considers Church of Scientology as an alliance and the distinction is clear with regards to the mutual understanding of psychiatry where it’s comprised as a means to victim blame, in essence, in that dysfunctional families will utilize the medical discipline as way to deflect responsibility for abuse a member has endured. The responsiblity for abuse may not be the burden of the family members themselves (only) too, is the thing, but trauma the person suffered was just not of kind that people are typically proud of (to put it bluntly). Of course, as way to also defend my position, I know there are many psychiatrists who themselves understand the reality of their patients’ histories and family dynamics but there are still those like Dr. Thomas Kirk Burchard, who was killed by a young man and woman, the latter who he thought he was in a relationship with because he gave her money. He was a child psychiatrist who gave his patients little gifts which although may sound good, maybe at his discretion as part of therapy to convey to the child that their worthy of receiving gifts for just being them (or whatever) but the other side of sociology coin is that the child could/would associate a material object with their treatment, which means their wellbeing. A gift like that could have sentimental value for the child, in other words, which any normal person would have to admit that wouldn’t be healthy since after all, the only reason the child received the gift is because the man is a professional medical doctor being paid good money. The child gets a cheap toy. The doctor gets a nice house and life and then becomes a sugar-daddy to a young internet sensation who doesn’t need him interfering with her life anymore. The point is here that it’s not like the AMA (who whatever applicable professional organization) completely disowned Dr. Burchard after his full story came to light, even though gift-giving to patients is considered unethical, and he gave gifts to children too so it’s not like as with an adult who would be likely to consider the act as a mere trivial gesture. I figure that serves as a decent example of the hypocrisy that exists within the mental health system.

The other aspect that I can bring up here is the forced treatment of people diagnosed with psychiatric disorders where it’d stand to reason that kind of thing would be necessary is certain cases, although generally the popular consensus is that it’s not utilized enough. Just recently there was a comment by someone that was circulating that was in reference to recent event, the murder of Rob Reiner, that stated something to effect of "we should bring back institutions for people like (the murderer)" and I’d think that most people know that they already exist and have been ongoing source of controversy for funding, etc., but first is the "we" part (& I’m certain the comment had either "we" or "they", but there was differentiation between the two groups of "general public" and (potential) inmates and people would be like "well, yeah, of course!" but that’s strange when there’s the point that the potential inmate was a victim themselves of violent crime which preceded any crime they committed, or can potentialy commit, which (the preceding crime committed against the inmate) not only went unpunished but is completely denied (usually). When it’s not completely denied it’s still considered as inconsequential, for all practical purposes. The point I’d like to make too is that in their way, psychiatric disorders can be akin to terminal illness where there will be inevitable decline in physical health along with mental health but offset with lifelong regimen of medication (is the idea) yet the side-effects from medications can be problematic and any problem that the patient has in their lives is always seen through bias of their having a psychiatric disorder. It is really like that they can be bullied as grown adults by just about anyone at anytime because they are considerate and polite and nice. People can be mean and it gets frightening when the people they are being mean to have already suffered abuse from other people in their lives. (I might’ve have pointed some of that out already. These last three paragraphs were added in late December 2025.)

See also: The Wikipedia article for "Fundamental attribution error".

This site mirrored at: "spnation.org".

Letter I received from HUD on account of one of my websites. I’ve since moved the content to scapegoated.info

Subject: Housing Discrimination Complaint Inquiry — Termination of Contact
HUD Inquiry Number: 761239

Dear Scott H

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUUD) administratively enforces the Fair Housing Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq., as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing- related transactions, because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, national origin, and disability. On February 5, 2024, our office received the above referenced inquiry you submitted online alleging housing discrimination.

It has come to my immediate attention that you may have engaged in cyberstalking activities related to a member of our staff. While the matter has been referred to Federal Protective Service for investigation, the safety of our employees is of the utmost importance to HUD and our office will take every reasonable precaution in these situations. Your inquiry has been closed and our office is terminating contact with you as of the date of this letter. This decision is final, and HUD will no longer respond to your correspondence or telephone calls about this matter.

You may consult with a private attorney to ascertain any other right of action you may have under federal, state or local laws. Notwithstanding this termination of contact, you have the right to pursue a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court or state court no later than two (2) years after the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice.

Sincerely,

James Whiteside
Region VIII Director

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity