Very-interesting Rupert Murdoch tweets today:
"Scientology back in news. Very weird cult, but big, big money involved with Tom Cruise either number two or three in [hierarchy]."
"Watch Katie Holmes and Scientology story develop. Something creepy, maybe even evil, about these people."
"Since Scientology tweet hundreds of attacks. Expect they will increase and get worse and maybe threatening. Still stick to my story."
And finally, when asked about Mormons:
"Mormonism a mystery to me, but Mormons certainly not evil."
To which I reply, if Mormonism is a mystery, how can Murdoch know they're not up to evil, as well?
Fascinating, that during a conversation about Scientology, Mormonism should come up - practically out of the blue - leading me to think someone else associates it, as a related cult, too. (Murdoch did specifically use the word "cult" in his first tweet.) I haven't noticed many differences between the two, except for how they present themselves to the public, and how the pious and wholesome routine seems to work very-well on an ignorant and gullible public - including Murdoch, who, after meeting Romney, thinks it's "doubtful" Romney can win.
Like I said, interesting, especially because no one but Scientologists are calling Rupe a bigot. (And why is Murdoch commenting on cults, and their evil, when all these big shot bloggers consider the topic beneath them?) I ask you:
Where's The InstaClan when they're needed - or do they (as I suspect) play favorites?
And I also ask you:
Let's say I'm right (as I always am) about Mormonism - considering the major blogosphere is all-in for Romney, will such an extreme oversight (again) be a black mark on the "alternative" news-gathering source (revealing it to be as useful as "alternative" medicine) or will the truth about it be whitewashed, just as the major blogosphere is doing for Romney and his cult, today?
Considering the integrity of the major players, or lack thereof, I think I know,...