What is Scientology's Stance on DMT?

Anyone who's looked into Scientology at least for 10 minutes knows 2 things about them; they don't like drugs or psychiatry. Anyone who is very familiar with Joe Rogan is familiar with dimethyltryptamine or "DMT."

For those unfamiliar with DMT, it is one of the lesser known drugs on the scene, but with an interesting twist. Everyone does it every time they sleep. When a person sleeps they need to dream or they will go insane. During slumber brain produces this chemical into the brain causing a drugged dream state. Though only trace amounts are used in sleep, these chemical can also be extracted from plants and used as a hallucinogen. Like sleep, the user almost immediately forgets the dream. In sleeps states this is done for the mind to separate the fictional dream world and reality, though not 100% efficient, we sometimes wake up running to our drawers to look for that million dollars we found and stashed in our dream.

I have tried drugs in my younger years and refrain from all drugs today, but even if I still dibbed and dabbed, I'd be too afraid to try it. Not just because of the effects are too frightening, (and reading some of the experiences, that does seem to be the case) but because of the insane legal ramifications of getting caught with the stuff. Though there hasn't been any test confirming any dangerous side effects, it still is more illegal than heroin and cocaine.

Here is where Scientology comes in, Scientology has always been claiming that the chemical brain theory quackery and false yet admit the chemicals in psych drugs have effects on the brain. Contradictory, I know. The Beacon has blogged about this logical loophole so I won't get into it too deep. However, if DMT is a naturally occurring chemical in the brain that causes extreme emotional and sensory alterations in order to protect the mind's sanity during sleep, how could they deny the chemical brain theory existence while still taking a firm anti-drug stance? They could do what they always do, and just lie about it. They still take a voodoo-pharmacology stance on drugs even to this day; which in itself is dishonest and/or ignorant.

What is also interesting about DMT is studies that have shown that the pineal gland squeezes out a lot of this stuff prior or during death stages, which is solid grounds for those near death expediences we keep hearing about. Which makes me wonder. If it is true that when we die and go to implant stations, are we really going or is it just a drug induced dream?

I'd like to get someone in Scientology/Freezone to give me feedback on this; like to know what you think. However given the lack of communication Co$ brand Scientologists have with me I'm not holding my breath.

Defending Anonymous?

I got an interesting e-mail from an anon who pointed me to yet another entry in an Anonymous dead agent blog similar to Anonymous Hate Group. In it, they made the claim that Anonymous was like Nazis due to their want of Tom Cruise's new movie Valkyrie in which Tom Cruise plays a Nazi planning to assassinate Adolf Hitler pulled from theaters. Interesting enough they claim not to want to invoke Godwin's reductio ad-hitlerum law, and invoke Godwin's law in the same sentence:

Please understand that I don't want to invoke Godwin, but this rather reminicient of Nazi Germany.

Aside from the irony and the obvious misspelling of reminiscent (it's really sad that of all people, I have to correct your spelling) it begs the question; why should I spend my time defending Anonymous?

I mean sure there are bad anons, just like there are bad lower-level Scientologists. The posts even admits that the vast majority of anons are good. People who are not under Scientology's hypnosis can blatantly see what is going on here and know it's a load of crap. There should be some defence of the claims aganst anonymous, sure. However, there are those who are committed to spening a good portion of their time doing this which I think is a fruitless endevor. We don't need someone standing next to a gaping asshole pointing out that everything that comes out of it is just a steaming pile of shit by analyizing every peice of corn in it. Just point out how any why it is shit overall and move on to the main arguments and not get distracted by Scientology's red herrings.

I think if Scientology were to win this battle against reason, reality and logic (or as they call it "The MEST Universe") I think they need to spend a little less time looking like assholes by using the most well known and useless logical fallacy of ad-hominim attacks and start defending themselves against criticism by rational debate.

For one, they can start by explaining why they had to lie to set up shop in Clearwater, FL, why the security at Gold Base looks as though as if it's designed more to keep people in than out, why they sue people for simply disagreeing with them, why they feel it nessassary to stalk and picket the homes of dissenters, or why they have people who spend a lot of time on the internet flaming people on newsgroups.

I try not to point out too much how Scientology are in ways similar to that of the national socialist regime of Nazi Germany for the reason that as soon as you bring up Hitler in any argument, it makes most people suspicious of your argument. Arnie Lerma does a great job pointing out the similarities for those interested; however it's safe to say Scientology aren't Nazis and most-likely not going to be throwing people in ovens. Moreover, Scientologists need to learn how to confront criticism and opposition and also learn how to stay away from nasty logical fallacies that puts so many bullet holes in their feet.

LRH Jr. Slides Down the Memory Hole

I'm sure many old time Scientologists would have notices that "The Church" has slowly been erasing LRH's Family from it's history. This is probably the most disturbing.