"Anonymous" Takes Scientology Protest to the Streets 740
This past Sunday members of the group "Anonymous" that has been running an attack on the church of Scientology took their battle from the tubes of the internet to the pavement of real life, staging a protest outside the central Phoenix Church of Scientology. "The protesters said they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson, a Scientologist once cared for by church staffers. Her 1995 death sparked media attention and a civil wrongful death suit against a branch of the Church of Scientology. A wrongful death suit by her family was a public-relations nightmare for the church for years until it was settled in 2004. The Church of Scientology declined to comment on the Phoenix protests. It did provide a news release calling members of Anonymous cyber-terrorists."
Turn the tables (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but I'm fairly certain they would need to reveal their identities in order to do that, which would really the defeat the whole purpose. Besides, think of the hassle it would cause for them to have to come up with a new name with the same degree of awesome!
Not just Pheonix (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not just Pheonix (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.enturbulation.org/ [enturbulation.org]
- A bit of planning, a early rough estimate of attendees around the world, post protest media being uploaded all the time.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_international_report:_%22Anonymous%22_holds_anti-Scientology_protests_worldwide [wikinews.org]
- Wikinews with pics/vids/links related to 10feb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanology [wikipedia.org]
- About the project so far (sources only from credible media)
http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology [partyvan.info]
- Anonymous own wiki on the project, mainly used to gather information, results, future plans and events.
Re:Not just Pheonix (Score:5, Informative)
London, UK - around 500 people.
LA - around 500 people
Sydney, Australia - around 300 people.
Clearwater, Florida - around 250 people. This one is scientology headquarters.
New York - around 320 people
Boston - around 270 people
Atlanta - around 250 people. They called out the riot squad in full gear, with a helicopter. There was no incidents at all.
Washington DC - around 200 people.
Toronto - around 200 people.
In total, the estimates are around 8000 people worldwide. The aim was, of course, to get over 9000.
grip: i submitted details of these protests to slashdot twice before this took place, hoping we could get some of you folks out. *shakes fist at editor*
COME NEXT TIME - MARCH 15TH.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Boston - around 270 people
Um, bullshit. It was a crowd of a few dozen at most, from the pictures I saw (no, not by a news agency.) They were protesting on Beacon Street (I've walked by the Scientology building many a time) and there isn't anywhere near enough room for 270 people. Boston PD had four officers working a paid detail- far as I know, no other BPD presence.
Don't Forget Vegas (Score:5, Funny)
Since I don't care for Scientology (or any other religion), I honked.
Had a great time in Vegas though, I got married!
what (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny that you mention that. Slashdot allows Anonymous Cowards to post precisely for the same reason: To protect them from retaliation.
Re:what (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I understood, the whole point of rule 17 (the mask rule) was that we were not representing ourselves, we were representing a cause. Of course, after what happened to people like Paulette Cooper, and Dave Touretzky (a computer science professor at CMU), many people were afraid of retaliation from the church, but I think for most people (using my friends as a random sampling) it was a show of solidarity.
I think the most tragic thing about this is that it sounds like terrorists have now ruined the once noble image of the ninja mask. Maybe next time we can all get big smiley emoticon style masks.
I also find it interesting that the official CoS statement called us "terrorists". Where I was at, it was very civil. Towards the beginning, some jackass tried to grab a video camera from an Anonymous (too many thetans), but after that CoS members were very nice. Many of them taking our fliers and engaging in friendly conversation.
We were there to deliver information that has been suppressed by the church, to the church members, and to the general population. Attempting to "terrorize" anyone is counterproductive to freedom of information. Fear causes people to react without logic. If the church of scientology actually came to terms with their sketchy past, and confronted these problems instead of waging information warfare to deny their history, I would not have needed to go down there yesterday.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Take Caution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Take Caution (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the Scientologists tried to follow some of the Tucson anons after they left, following them three times around a block in circles until they ran a red light to get rid of her.
They *do* try to pull shit like this.
Advice to the lady in the red Yaris with the fucking *ugly* green shoes: We have your license plate number. Buy a dog, and make sure you have good curtains.
The Video That Started It & A Few Notes (Score:5, Informative)
As a non-scientologist, this is scary. Possibly the most scary part of it is the editing. I have no problem with people having convictions but when he talks about "fightin' the fight" and "people needing them" and "people depending on them"
Whatever the case, I will not ever affiliate myself with a Scientologist and after reading Have You Lived Before This Life [wikipedia.org], I will do everything in my power to convince those that I know and love to avoid Scientology.
The thing that concerns me about Scientology is that after reading some books by Hubbard about it, I have found very little criticism of it. A book [amazon.com] & some articles [cmu.edu] with the most notable one being Time Magazine. It seems like such an easy target. It takes seconds to find books criticizing Catholics or Muslims
Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes (Score:5, Informative)
Though the CoS claims that it revoked its official "fair game" doctrine that specifically endorsed these tactics in 1968, there have been a number of scientology defectors who have confirmed that they were instructed to carry out similar exercises against those whom the CoS has declared to be "SP".
This is, by the way, one of the reasons why Anonymous has been careful to conceal its members' identities. During the protest, the Scientologists are known to have videoed the protests; and taken special effort to photograph any members of Anonymous who were not wearing a mask, any cars that members of Anonymous entered, and in some cases, cars that stopped and received literature that Anonymous was handing out. It does not take any imagination at all to determine what the CoS is likely to do with this information.
Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes (Score:5, Informative)
Standard tactics are to harass the person by picketing their house and calling them a 'religious bigot'.
Further, contact will frequently be made with the person's employer and any relatives, emphasizing the 'religious bigot' angle and any other damaging information gathered.
Lawsuits are filed to harass the person--whether or not they have any merit is immaterial, as the aim is to waste the person's time and money.
Xenu.net has documentation on this, for a start, and other repositories of similar records can be found in various places on the internet; I seem to recall that there are several
No need for imagination. The truth is bad enough.
Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes (Score:5, Informative)
They're not likely to suffer debilitating lawsuits, accusations to their employers and relatives of religious bigotry (given that the Church of Scientology tends to isolate its members from non-Scientologist family) or, frankly, any harm at all for taking their action.
If you disagree with the anonymity of Anonymous, you're more than welcome to do so. This doesn't mean that their message is any less true, though.
I would note further that Anonymous may be, in this case, a real-life example of a Stand-alone complex [wikipedia.org]--a movement that has no structure, no leaders, but unites under a common face, name, and cause. As such, the identities of the individual members is, in the end, irrelevant--much like a corporation, the cause exists as an entity unto itself.
To clarify further.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the grandparent wants to argue that picketing a for-profit organization is like running the Mafia. In which case, I can't help him. Non sequiturs are impossible to argue against.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Video That Started It & A Few Notes (Score:4, Informative)
Something you have to understand is that Scientologists _know_ they have the answers to everything (because L. Ron Hubbard said so). If a member has any doubts, then they're "out of ethics" and have to report for additional training (at their expense). The CoS does not use the same meaning of the word ethics that you or I would. To them, ethics is doing and believing exactly what you're told. If you don't understand something, or have questions, then you are assumed to simply not understand the material; because if you did understand the material, you wouldn't have any questions.
The organization is set up so that it slowly isolates members from normal society, both physically but also mentally. Everything the CoS teaches becomes the truth and any conflicting information is actively ignored. The group as a whole forms a sort of feedback loop whereby members receive positive affirmation from the group when they do, experience or feel something the CoS wants them to feel regardless of whether or not it's true. This is why some people claim that Scientology has helped them, it's not because of the "tech", it's because they feel acceptance and safety within that group.
The church has several ways of dealing with dissent and criticism. The first is by declaring someone a suppressive person, or SP. SPs are considered to be very, very evil people as they're trying to suppress or prevent the CoS from saving mankind (yes, that's their stated mission). People who leave the church, or people outside of the church that are trying to talk someone into leaving are "declared" SP which means that Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to them about anything meaningful. If you're a Scientologist and someone is an SP it doesn't matter whether or not they're your father, mother, brother or daughter, they're dead to you. The second way is through their "fair game" doctrine which basically states that the CoS will not punish a member for anything they do towards an SP, be it harassment, extortion, assault or murder.
David Touretzky (yes, _that_ Touretzky) has some great information about Scientology available on his homepage [cmu.edu]. There's a fantastic article available that describes exactly how someone gets sucked into the cult, little by little. Note I say cult and not religion because the CoS _is_ a cult. They simply call themselves a religion in order to attempt to shield themselves from "interference" from government and to take advantage of IRS tax breaks (so they can keep more money). In addition, they have members sign contracts that absolve the church of any responsibility should something like you dying from their Introspection Rundown happen. Check out this contract [xs4all.nl] they have you sign. Pay particular attention to this sentence,
Notice it says "only the individual's spiritual needs", which means that it doesn't meet your physical needs and you can die from their "ritual" like Lisa McPherson [lisamcpherson.org] did.
I could go on and on about things like church members being locked into compounds with patrolling armed guards, related organizations like Narconon treating drug abuse problems with long saunas and megadoses of niacin or actual proved conspiracies like Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout, but I'd prefer the reader follow some of the links I provided and educate themselves.
Better coverage of the London protest (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an LJ Account [livejournal.com] from a participant in London that's a great read; sounds like something I would have been proud to participate in!
Does the author know... (Score:3, Insightful)
"...they gathered Sunday in lieu of the birthday of Lisa McPherson..."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Bad Actors (Score:4, Insightful)
These are the actors from the very same tiny group of the overall population who also feel they should tell you how you should be voting, how the war against terrorism should be run, and why their opinions matter more than anyone else's do, and deserve more airtime (and make-up) than any "ordinary" citizen. The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact!
Re:Bad Actors (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It just tells you about Scientology. And people I guess. But nothing about actors.
These are the actors from the very same tiny group of the overall population who also feel they should tell you how you should be voting, how the war against terrorism should be run, and why their opinions matter more than anyone else's do, and deserve more airtime (and make-up) than any "ordinary" citizen. The people who drop out of college, and even high school - and are proud of that fact!
No. Actors tell us how we should be voting because we keep asking them. We ask them how to dress, how to talk, where to eat, how to vote... we pay them to entertain us. They aren't special, and they aren't born thinking they are. We train them. We put them on TV, we interview them. We follow the minutia of their lives.
They don't force themselves on us. WE chase them. Sure, at this point its become a bit symbiotic, they use the fact we can't get enough of them to further inflate their value and the activists among them spread their views, but the fundamental issue is US. If we the public could stop caring about them... if we treated them like any other professional like a bricklayer, electrictian, IT admin, PHB, or whatever, the constant media coverage would vanish. E!TV would go away. Tabloids would print something else. Etc.
So... bottom line. Actors are regular people who after spending years in the spotlight often develop some ego issues. But its we the public that first manufacture and then nurture their defective personalities. The industry surrounding them from the media circus, to the agents and publicists exists because -we- demand it.
Now, scientology KNOWS the public is obsessed with celebrity. So they court celebrities. They literally wine and dine them, and then take them back home to (mind) fuck. The CoS wants big prime-time A-list scientologists as evangilists, and they'll do or pay whatever it takes to seduce them. Plus, once solidly hooked, they have considerable funds and assets for the church to get its fingers into to fund its next celebrity acquisition, its legal battles, and so on.
So again, if we the public could stop obsessing over celebrities, CoS would lose interest in converting them. Or, more accurately, its interest would drop to the same level it has in converting the rest of us.
religious hate crimes - impossible! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
And so many are so misguided as to Anonymous motives.
If your mother was drowning, Anonymous wouldn't move a finger. He might laugh, or throw rocks. Anonymous is the motor force behind raids on Habbo Hotel, against random journals on DeviantArt or LiveJournal, they aren't interested in any political agenda. They are a Horde, a bunch of random people interested in spreading chaos and observing its results. They dont' give a shit about Church of Scientology. They just picked it as a commonly disliked target (so attacking it will likely draw support to them) and raided it the same style they raid Habbo, except IRL. Noisy, disruptive and creative, deep chaos that has some artistic feeling to it, and they got to make a lot of fuss about it. But don't be mistaken, they could have raided Mormons, IRS, Public Transport department, Citybank or anything they'd feel like raiding, no political agenda whatsoever. They prefer extreme, weird, mysterious targets but that's not because they really hate them, that's because the public will be more interested.
Yeah, that should mark me as Fair Game to Anonymous. Rules 1 and 2 not broken though.
Hate crimes (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing not, but the question must be asked.
Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
other cults (Score:4, Insightful)
In Washington we have these LaRouche cultists all over the place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche [wikipedia.org]
but especially at colleges, and especially at the UW. They show up on school property rain or shine, and organize various brainwashing events. What's worse, is that they try to make themselves look like some kind of political organization, but actually they're just trying to brainwash you, try to get you to drop out of school, and scam you out of your money.
Instead of doing something about it, the government and the school let them use school facilities to hold their brainwashing sessions, and let them stay on campus harassing students day in and day out.
In California, where the Scientologists are powerful, I'm told that there's a similar situation. The organization is powerful enough that the government would rather look the other way, lest they suffer some kind of smear campaign.
Re:other cults (Score:4, Informative)
The mainstream media for the most part give them a wide berth, leading to a lack of public awareness. Out of interest I asked some older people I know what they thought the CoS was; a lot thought it was a Christian spin-off with a scientific tilt. The BBC have not yet even noted the fact 500 protestors gathered in London (let alone the fact ~8000 mobilised simulatenously around the world). Sure there were more important stories, but the fact is they managed to find far less notable filler stories to tell the world. My guess is it's a taboo subject they don't want to go near after the CoS's attack on informative Panorama investigation. Same applied with many other major media outlets who dodged it or downplayed it.
Still at least here in the UK the London Police supported the Anons, I distinctly heard one officer (after being harassed to do something by a Cultist) walk off to another and say 'fucking freaks'.
Hopefully the media will have no choice but to approach the subject as more people get involved in the movement against the crazy cult. Once they get onboard you can guarantee the Politicians will begin to notice.
GET INVOLVED. (Score:5, Interesting)
Get involved.
They can sue a few people. They cannot sue EVERYONE.
So join protests. Write your legislators. Stuff like that.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind proof, what indication do you even have of this other than your gut feeling?
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
He said he was an atheist; he never indicated that he was guided by reason/logic/scientific method.
Remember kids,
Atheist does not imply scientist/logician
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, so there's a belief system out there where you can just pull truth out of your ass?
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
A guarantee (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a religion; therefore, I guarantee it isn't accurate.
Re:A guarantee (Score:5, Interesting)
Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang, and what was there before that, and what was there before that, ad infinitum, that is a debatable statement.
Regardless, Anon is not against the religion of scientiology, but rather the church of scientology (see here [enturbulation.org]). To quote that website:
As an outsider looking in (as of now, I may attend the Ides of March protest), I think its an extremely interesting phenomenon. Watching news reports about anon or reading online news articles about the protests from the press gives me the sense that no one who is reporting on this (outside of practially Anon itself (ie wikinews [wikinews.org])) has any idea of what is really going on. The fact that a bunch of (essentially) computer nerds from global internet websites such as 4chan, digg, ebaums, something awful, and probably many other sources have essentially banded together for a common cause through a decentralized network of group leadership and manages to make the news through their protest amazes me. The fact that they are able to do so while wearing V for Vendetta masks [encycloped...matica.com], Hello Kitty shirts, Gas masks, [encycloped...matica.com] and looking generally nerdy [encycloped...matica.com] all while still pulling fairly ridiculous numbers [encycloped...matica.com] makes me swell up inside with nerd pride (hey that rhymed).
Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a physicist, but as I understand it, contemporary physics considers the dimension of time as having come into existence at the big bang along with the familiar dimensions of space. If so, "before the big bang" is a meaningless phrase.
Yes, that's weird and hard to comprehend, and outside what human brains are built to grasp. But so is much of physics; the human brain can't really get a handle on the particle/wave duality, relativity, or quantum tunneling, either. The best most of us can do is represent it symbolically with mathematics - and few enough of us can do that.
Anyway, as counterintuitive as it is, "what was there before the big bang" may be as meaningless of a question as "how far do I have to walk on the earth before I get to the end?" We don't need religion to explain what was before the big bang for the same reason we don't need religion to explain what's past the edge of the (flat) Earth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>Until you can answer the question of what was there before the big bang, and what was there before that, and what was there before that, ad infinitum, that is a debatable statement.
Not really. Every 'religion' I'm aware of makes claims that are factually inaccurate. The god-of-the-gaps is most certainly not the god in the bible, to koran, the torah, or the secret tomes of Lron. Nor is Spinoza's god. It's really just the last retreat o
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Informative)
Voiceless [youtube.com]
Thats one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, more. Including the niece of David Miscavish (the current leader of scientology).
Come on people, the information is out there. You can easily take a balanced view by READING the accounts of the hundreds of people who've been victimized. Look up Paulette Cooper. Shes still alive today to tell her story of being harassed and sued for 15 straight years.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Funny)
Scientology's perfectly free to offer Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, there are other religions that are esoteric, but most of them don't pretend to also be scientific, and most of them don't have a ladder of charging you cold hard cash to get them. There are Buddhist teachings that the lamas will only teach you if you're a sincere Buddhist, and there are teachings that only make sense if you've spent a few years meditating and will otherwise distract you from the more important practices. There are Yoga positions that you really really shouldn't try unless you've been doing yoga for a long time, and any clueful teacher will tell you not to try them because you'll just tear your shoulder blade muscles. But the price isn't cash, it's practice. And there are mountains that guides won't take you to if you don't have the experience and physical strength to climb them safely - those guys *will* charge you money, but you've still got to have the skills, and they'll be happy to show you *pictures* of the mountains and recommend that you climb some smaller mountains first. Scientology doesn't want you to see the pictures of Xenu The Evil Space Alien and His DC9 Fleet until *after* your bank account's been tapped.
There are also other religions and similar types of groups that want cash up front. Transcendental Meditation wants whatever their current fee is to give you an initiation and your own personal secret mantra (which is picked from a simple list, not actually customized for you), plus you've got to offer fruit and flowers to their guru and his gods (not to the Maharishi, who just died this week, but to his teacher.) But they'll still tell you what it's about.
There are many religions and preachers that teach that you should give some fraction of your money to the church - some of them want it to help feed the poor, while others of them want it so the preacher can have a big house and a Learjet, and some of them teach about loving God and your neighbors while others mostly teach about Prosperity and how You can get it if you just Believe hard enough. Some of them are Christians, some of them are New Agers, some of them are Buddhists, and you'd think you could pretty much tell which kind are sincere, but a lot of people go in for the bogus ones anyway. (That's of course separate from whether the groups ask for some money to fix the church building's roof or pay the meeting-hall's rent or hire a full-time preacher at a not-very-high salary; if you're going to have an institution you're going to have institutional expenses.)
The price of Scientology auditing is a lot higher than the cost of office space and training volunteer quack psychiatrists to listen to you. And even if they keep some of their teachings secret until you've had the training you need to understand them, that doesn't mean they need to keep their organizational structure or finances hidden.
not really (Score:5, Insightful)
The stories of many who have left Scientology are quite different, and rather chilling.
So yeah, of those that left, many would likely be disillusioned. But it's like leaving the mob, it takes a lot of guts to do so, and overall it can be a pretty dangerous proposition.
I never really thought of myself as a victim. (Score:5, Interesting)
Years and years ago, I was heavily involved with the Co$. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. I thought I had the ultimate answer to everything and I was willing to fight for that with my life.
I endured grueling 12+ hour workdays and virtually no pay for a chance to save the world. I practiced how to lie effectively (they call them TRs) and due to my "get it done" attitude, shortly had an office in the International Administration Headquarters in Hollywood, the Flag Command Bureau, as a member of the Sea Org. I had a nice office with a window seat overlooking downtown Hollywood, and I wore a uniform that looked sharp and military, with epaulets on my shoulder!
It's hard to explain just how intoxicating it is to think you have the 100% right answer to all the world's problems. And, as a die-hard Scientologist, that's exactly what you think you have. You can create a beautiful world free of drug abuse, crime, insanity, and war. You just have to apply the tech.
You are on the side of freedom, of knowledge, of truth, of unlimited personal power. And anybody who gets in your way needs to be shut up and rendered powerless by any means necessary. It's that simple!
But, something just wasn't quite right. No matter how hard I tried, I could never quite do enough, or do it right enough. I had trouble getting the books and tapes to fully make sense to me. When I disagreed with what I read, I was sent to endless word clearing where we looked up every single word in the dictionary, one by one to try to find the "MU" or "Mis-Understood [word]". I had trouble getting up on time in the morning. I got sick from time to time, which is proof that I was "PTS" and needed ethics handling. I went through endless "ethics conditions" despite my very, very best intentions. They were very careful to keep me convinced that the problem was me.
It's hard to explain how frustrating it was, to be surrounded by people who are apparently "getting it" and not being able to be one of them, despite having a tested genius IQ, and being able to read just about anything *ELSE* just one time and get it immediately. I thought there was something wrong with ME. I often cried before going to sleep at night.
They had the tech, but who could explain me? When I got to work, I got lots and lots done. I was routinely commended for job well done, for quality work, for "stellar levels of production". It seemed that, when I worked, everything I touched turned to gold. Yet I couldn't make the most amazing technology in the world just make sense to me. I could read a book on mathematics, or aeronautics, or software, and turn right around and do it without any problem. (which is their test for comprehension: can you read it, and APPLY the result immediately?) But I couldn't do the same with Scientology. Something was wrong with me.
So began my fall from greatness. Slowly, surely, over months and years, I lost all my former glory. My job title drifted from the international scale on down through the organization until I finally ended up at the very, very, very bottom.
The RPF.
AKA the Rehabilitation Project Force. It's like prison for Scientologists. You are a bad, bad, dude, or something is very, very wrong with you.
You have exactly 7 hours to sleep in a crowded, slummy, cockroach infested triple-bunk in the basement. You wear black jump suits with colored arm bands. You eat only left overs. You get 1/4 the pay of normal staff. You perform grueling, hard, disgusting work from the time you get up until "personal enhancement time", where you have 2.5 hours of time to read Scientology books and tapes until bed time. You are not permitted to talk to staff "in good standing", though they are free to bark orders at you. You are not permitted to walk. (No kidding!) You must run everywhere you go, and if you are ever caught walking you are made to do push-ups or worse. You must be c
Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pissed? Bitter? Damn straight I am. I belong to a flying saucer religion that CAN'T get tax free status. Diff is; Subgenii pull the wool over their OWN eyes and know it.
Hard to tolerate carnies like Elron Hoover who couldn't even write decent Sci-Fi being the bleedin'Jesus of a Tax free scam when he doesn't even amount to a wart on J.R.Bob Dobbs ass.
Somebody mod that poor Anon Cow up.I don't give a damn how you mod me.I got eternal slack.
Scinustology casualties got a fucked up life. Give em a little slack you pink bastards!
Re:I never really thought of myself as a victim. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe it's possible to convey what I was trying to say here to you. But Scientology gives you a serious mindfuck: According to them, the "tech" is perfect. This is something that you *know* can be used to make *everybody* better. It's taught as 100% workable "tech". And the only time it doesn't work is when there's something wrong with you - you are evil and don't want to admit it. You have some hidden, scary, evil desire to do terrible things.
But what happens when you dig, and dig, and dig for the evil, when you do everything in your power to purge out the wicked sins (called 'overts and withholds") and it *still* doesn't work? What if it's something you have agreed to donate, not just your life, but your LIVES for the next billion years? What if you are ready to die in defense of this without hesitation?
The degree of utter defeat and personal humiliation is all but impossible to imagine. Blowing an easy college class compares like a Christmas tree light against the sun. It's a serious mindfuck that you would really appreciate only after it was way, way, way too late.
At the first, Scientology appears to be amazingly insightful, self-evident, and workable. Simple things like practicing communication make you a more effective communicator. All carefully arranged so that you get past that "does it work" stage with little doubt, so that you can slowly accept the gradual march toward insanity. It's easy to dismiss from the comfort of your armchair, and say "that'll never happen to me". But many people have paid very high prices in the meantime to fight for your right to do this.
Legions of others have ached to share their stories [raids.org], to grapple with their pain. [scientolog...monies.com] Fear of retaliation is universal among these stories. Ex staff remember the lengths they would have gone to as staff to defend their cult. They realize just how evil, how insane, how unforgiving staff members are. Want to see some of this for yourself? [youtube.com]
The Internet is an amazing thing. Its power to unite people around the world is simply stunning. People around the world are gathering behind the flag of anonymous. Hope is breathing where only fear and despair ruled.
Living proof: I whisper once again, one of the silent, alone, and voiceless for over 10 years...
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you see...with $cientology, that's where the money comes into play.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view.CORRECTION (Score:4, Informative)
I believe you mean DC-8's -- but without the propellers...
Oops! The DC-8 was and is a pure jet aircraft. No propellers.
Re:Balanced view.CORRECTION (Score:5, Funny)
Oops! The DC-8 was and is a pure jet aircraft. No propellers.
Good catch dude, in addition to be being a bad writer a crook and racist [solitarytrees.net], L Ron Hubbard was also ignorant of airplane propulsion. That's it! The whole sick structure will now collapse.
By the way, the racism link would probably comes as a surprise to all the Hollywood stars who donate to Scientology.
http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm [solitarytrees.net]
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with aliens "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth. Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions[1] of his citizens together to paralyze them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections". The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The spacecraft were identical to the Douglas DC-8 with the exception of having different engines."
The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. You can't even spin this as a parable like with Biblical accounts, etc. It's just plain trash that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a for-profit organisation masquerading as a religion, the secrecy, their aggressive legal tactics, their apparent refusal to ever apologise for any mistake they've made, and their underhand tactics to get and keep recruits.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the Reformation and Gutenberg, getting a copy of the Holy Bible meant going to your local Catholic church, where the priests were more than happy to interpret it for you. Badly, I suspect.
To this day, IIRC, your Catholic priest would prefer you ask him what it means. And a careful reading of the New Testament could leave you with the impression that the Catholic Church is, in fact, not practicing Christianity.
And to be fair, neither are many if not most TV and other Evangelists. It's so simple, unless you're asking for money.
Written by a Christian. Trying to keep it simple.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Funny)
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Background: The Church of Scientology successfully threatened Slashdot into removing a post containing the text of a copyrighted "holy" text, and further links to the text.
Hypothesis: The Catholic Church wants to suppress its own holy text, the New American Bible. The NAB is the officially authorized translation of the Bible for use by Catholics in the United States.
Conjecture: If a Slashdot poster posts an excerpt from the NAB, along with a link to the full text, the Catholic Church will threaten Slashdot, and Slashdot will remove the post.
Experiment: I am posting the first 10 verses from the book of Genesis, Chapter One.
1 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. 5 3 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. 6 Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. 8 God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. 9 Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared. 10 God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was.
The full text of the NAB is available at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ [usccb.org]
Wait for priests to show up with their three chief weapons, fear, suspense, a fanatical devotion to the Pope... Can we come in again?
*crosses fingers*
I dare anyone to reproduce this experiment and get a different result than I did.
Wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
That is just a classification, 'Sruti' essentially means those scriptures that have been passed down directly from God to man, while 'Smriti' would be collected ancient wisdom.
There are a number of books holy to Hindu faith, primarily the Gita [wikipedia.org], the Vedas [wikipedia.org], and the Upanishads [wikipedia.org].
~IAA Hindu
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Informative)
It should be trivial to separate Scientology from real religions. Whether or not you give genuine religions a tax break on property based on this is another story and one I don't particularly care about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it just me, or does the entire Scientology construct simply seem like a really really expensive, poorly written sci-fi based MMO that is ridiculously expensive to unlock new content and with which you are directed within instead of interacting with?
Explains why actors are into it, they can afford the next expansion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Informative)
Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.
- L. Ron Hubbard
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Funny)
sheesh.. is it really that hard to work out?
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, you can find people like this quite often on slashdot. Just look around.
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you suppose that "something must be retained from death to birth"? Other than energy being conserved, that is.
Much of the rest of Scientology seems like reasonable psychology as well--dualist, but without the supernatural
Dualism is supernatural.
Certainly no obvious fairy tales, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic miracles.
Uh, what? Have you ev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for that stuff about Xenu dropping neutron bombs into Earth's volcanoes from intergalactic DC-8s
Antagonism to psychology (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Psychiatry does not only deal with what is normal. Read up Abraham Maslow [wikipedia.org] and Humanistic psychology. [wikipedia.org] Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their ful
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Informative)
Anonymous has explicitly noted that the "Free Zone"--that is, the Scientologists outside the organization--are just fine and dandy.
O'course, the "Free Zone" doesn't charge for its teaching...
But I don't think the antagonism against psychiatry is what you think it is--I think it's more a control structure (given that the auditing, in essence, imparts a codependent relationship between the auditee and the auditor (and by extension, the CoS)). Also worth noting is that the founder, Mr. Hubbard, had a very distinct antipathy towards the profession, and which created certain aspects of Scientology specifically to counter standard psychiatric practice.
I would note that, while not a member per se of Anonymous, I do think that their efforts against Scientology are a good thing, and were carried out remarkably peacefully and with remarkably good organization.
(I've also heard there's more planned for 3/15--beware the Ides of March!)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Informative)
The regulations of the Catholic church are very strict that what is said in the confessional -stays- in the confessional under all circumstances (except for a -very- restricted few).
The Church of Scientology -says- that what is said stays confidential, but routinely uses any information obtained during an audit as either a method of coercing the auditee to take more auditing sessions, to refrain from leaving the Church of Scientology, or to attack the ex-Scientologist when they have left with blackmail, or ruining their reputation in the community.
This has been documented by nearly every ex-scientologist--sometimes, all three instances.
It's not the beliefs. It's their actions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Balanced view. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but much of Scientology is crap - Hubbard's ramblings dressed up as scientific research.
Scientology claims Hubbard's techniques work all the time but they don't, and are actually quite a good way of siphoning money from the user. Scientology doesn't submit Hubbard's writing for independent analysis because the organisation in fact is deeply anti-scientific. Their claims of a scientific basis for Hubbard's techniques are about as strong as those of the "psychics" who write horoscopes for the newspaper. It impresses people who have heard of Science and think its kinda cool, but who have no idea what actual Science is.
Scientology the organisation is paranoid, litigious, deceitful, cruel -- sharing many of Hubbard's personal characteristics -- and is ultimately a blight upon humanity. This is the aspect which Anonymous is targeting. Scientology kills people, it harasses, it's a bully who will plant fake evidence on you and then call the cops. It drives its members insane - and runs a forced-labour camp called the RPF.
The antagonism to Psychiatry is because it's a competitor to Scientology in the "healing the mind" market, and because Psychiatry, proceeding according to actual scientific principles, is in probably the best position to know what nonsense Scientology is.
Scientology, like many cults, preys on peoples' need to be part of a group. They use standard cult tactics like smothering new members with attention and building up of dependence upon the group. Bait and Switch is used to increase income from services as there is always another course which needs to be done, or some "urgent" problem in the member's psyche which needs to be "handled" (for a price). The auditing process provides the member with the desired "fix" of attention, and the probing personal questions of a Security Check [wikipedia.org] provide Scientology with excellent blackmail material.
Finally, if you were wondering about my handle ... no, I've never been a Scientologist. But they threatened to sue me, and so I investigated them, and was disgusted by what I found. This is an evil organisation if ever there was one. Calling myself 'elronxenu' is just a small thing; they're very sensitive to the name Xenu and often self-censor it, so they'd probably refer to me in their dossier as 'elron****'. Yes, they do keep dossiers on people who criticise them. Mine is probably pretty thin, as they'd probably consider me only a minor nuisance, unlike a full-blown enemy such as
David Gerard [suburbia.net].
Re:Balanced view. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Photos (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought "it was all good"... (Score:4, Informative)
Xenu.net is a good place to learn about all of this.
Consensual in the bedroom if fine. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem starts when the cult practices brainwashing and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.
That is what Scientology does.
It may START consensual, but it is a FIGHT to get out.
Where is the "vigilante justice"? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing people exercising their LEGAL right to protest.
You can claim it is "hate", but that's just your claim.
Do the research and see the instances of abuse by Scientologists. Including brainwashing.
Re:Consensual in the bedroom if fine. (Score:4, Insightful)
And while none of the public means that have been used are "illegal" per se, many are extralegal--the filing of lawsuits, et al. Doing some research into, for instance, the testimonies of ex-scientologists will shed more than enough light on these things.
The people who accuse the Church of Scientology of all these things are not any particular age. And while truth is a defense against libel, it is not a defense against having to spend years of your time and thousands of dollars in legal fees defending yourself against lawsuits.
I would question, though, why it is that you're defending them so carefully--it's very rare to find someone online defending scientology who is not themselves a member.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I thought "it was all good"... (Score:4, Insightful)
What we don't criticize are identities, or assume that religious practices are reducible to a simple body of tenets. There is a difference between criticizing someone for being Christian and criticizing them for believing that the world is 6000 years old. Obviously, there is a relationship between the two, but that relationship isn't a simple one. What it meant to be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc . has changed over the centuries of those practices, and I'm pretty sure that I have more in common with most Christians today than those contemporary Christians have with 5th century Christians. Likewise with Muslims, etc.
The "post-modernism" (or, really, post-structuralism - post-modernism is more a theory of cultural history) comes in when we observe that every act of making a statement - even a "true" or well-founded statement - comes with an agenda, says more about the reasons for saying, carries their own presumptions, etc. It is caught up in the idea that "even if they really are out to get you, you still can be paranoid." "Anything goes" is actually a very old idea, when really, you are talking about a well-founded hesitation to critique other identities simply on the basis of some of their explicitly stated beliefs, rather than addressing those beliefs historically.
Re:I thought "it was all good"... (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Lyotard, post-modernism can be defined as "incredulity towards metanarratives". Where metanarratives are attempts to order and explain knowledge and experience. Simple enough, I suppose. Unless you happen to notice that that definition of post-modernism is itself a metanarrative, albeit an entirely negative metanarrative.
So post-modernists should be skeptical of metanarratives (including this one). Leaving nothing to say. As such, post-modernism is an entirely worthless branch of philosophical thought. The only logical behavior that can be directed as a result of post-modernist thought is to avoid making any assertions at all.Sure, they can believe exactly what they want. It's when they harm people and/or prevent free exit from their organization that it becomes very important to object and object loudly.Your assertion may be correct, but it does not substantiate your previous point. There are behaviors that more right and more wrong than other behaviors. Judged by me on the basis of their behaviors, Scientologists are more wrong than the Methodists (to just pull a random name from a hat full of religions).
Actually, IMNSHO, Scientology is pretty much as close to evil as can be observed. They do nothing but destroy.
Re:All I needed to know-REFUND (Score:4, Interesting)
She should demand a refund. No I'm not blowing smoke. Scientology promises full refunds if you ever wish to receive one on the basis that they didn't help. While not the easiest thing to pursue, there is a group out there (shouldn't be hard to find on the net) that assists former members with this process.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Scientology organization is not a religion. It is a deceptive, dangerous cult worthy of as much hate as anyone could possibly throw at it. The Scientology organization defrauds people -- not even for a 10% or 20% tithe, but for hundreds of thousands of dollars, for as much money as it can take. The Scientology organization actively prevents people from receiving life-saving medical and psychiatric care. It tells people that their money is better spent on more e-meter auditing than on chemotherapy. When
Re:Fox expose on "Anonymous" from last summer (Score:4, Insightful)