In our times it seems justifiable to gather online intelligence on pretty much any subject. We might stalk our exes on social media. We might obsess about someone else’s profile. We might seek to find pictures of people we once knew. Most of all we might seek to control our own narrative and defend it against any contrary narrative. Anything online is fair game, to quote Scientology.
This from Wikipedia
“The term Fair Game is used to describe policies and practices carried out by the Church of Scientology towards people and groups it perceives as its enemies. Founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, established the policy in the 1950s, in response to criticism both from within and outside his organization. Individuals or groups who are “Fair Game” are judged to be a threat to the Church and, according to the policy, can be punished and harassed using any and all means possible. In 1968, Hubbard officially cancelled use of the term “Fair Game” because of negative public relations it caused, although the Church’s aggressive response to criticism continued.
Applying the principles of Fair Game, Hubbard and his followers targeted many individuals as well as government officials and agencies, including a program of covert and illegal infiltration of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other United States government agencies during the 1970s. They also conducted private investigations, character assassination and legal action against the Church’s critics in the media. The policy remains in effect and has been defended by the Church of Scientology as a core religious practice.”
People like to control shit, so any threat is often “monitored”. So, if a big macho powerful organisation is monitoring a single private individual, what is that? Is it holy defence of the just? Is it tantamount to threatening, coercive and bullying behaviour?
Of course, these monitoring “protocols” might be secret and never see the light of day.
Imagine, if by accident, you were monitoring a Bodhisattva or an Arhat, despite all your thorough justifications what might the karmic implications be:
- Inconsequential because that Buddhist shit isn’t real.
- Consequential because to do that is ultimo—bad karma- bro’!