Internet Group Declares War on Scientology 891
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "An internet group calling itself Anonymous has declared war on the Church of Scientology, in the form of an ominous posting to the YouTube site. 'In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech. "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".' It should be noted that Slashdot users have had interactions with Scientology in the past as well."
RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Unstoppable force, meet immovable object. Space DC-10's dropping atom bombs on volcanoes will be nothing compared to those fireworks
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I buy tickets to that event? I want front row seats!
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
That might work if the people who ran Scientology actually believed in their own garbage. I don't believe they do. I believe the whole organization is a money making scam.
-mcgrew
PS- yes I got the joke, I'm just in a bad mood today.
An inside view of the Scientology reality tunnel (Score:5, Informative)
Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization [wikipedia.org] (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)
Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person (2.5% of the population who are evil - think Hitler), PTS due to a connection to an SP (Potential Trouble Source - 20% of the population), or has committed various other overts and withholds (ie sins and secrets) and it trying to justify their own actions by making the Scientology seem less (because if you admitted to yourself that Scientology was the "one and only solution" then your otherwise small crime would have to weigh fairly heavily on your conscience). Anyone who commits various sins and suppressive acts, will be subconsciously aware of this, and slowly do themselves in (ie get sick, have an accident) to prevent themselves from committing more crimes.
It is also taught that if someone encounters the OT3 materials before being ready for them, then as part of the psychological conditioning to create "prison-planet" earth, the person may get sick and die and this is the reason it is considered "confidential" and heavily protected, and only available to members of the church past a certain level. In the south park episode "trapped in the closet" [comedycentral.com], they did a cartoon version of the OT3 materials labeled "This Is what Scientologists Actually Believe", if Matt and Trey has been members of the church, they would have been ex-communicated very quickly. The church would have almost definitely told Issac Hayes to "dissconnect" from them or otherwise become ineligible for any future Scientology services or auditing.
This "truth" or "reality tunnel" is slowly conditioned into you until you internalise it. There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology. To do so would potentially detract from Scientology and is thus a mortal sin against humanity, or you might wind up making yourself sick. I know this, because I was brought up within the church, and through the process of leaving the church and the Scientology "reality tunnel", it took me around two years to fully confront this internal taboo to the point I could openly think and speak on the subject.
Part of the process for getting people into this state of mind, is that during Scientology auditing, if you have any undisclosed overts or withholds, or you have your attention stuck on something, the e-meter will pick up on this (that you have your attention stuck on something after you where asked a question - its the same principal behind the polygraph), Thus the auditor will be trained to uncover these issues, by continually asking questions on the subject, with the help of the e-meter, which may include turning part of the auditing session into a confessional. Auditing is essentially about being completely open and honest with yourself and your mind, and fully confronting (with the help of the auditor) any issues that where previously painful or unconscious about (this is actually the good bit about Scientology). Having out-ethics or keeping secrets is considered to be a barrier to your own spiritual growth.
Re:An inside view of the Scientology reality tunne (Score:5, Interesting)
"Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)"
It's the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. As a witness, you are taught that the Watchtower society is the "faithful and discreet slave" (otherwise known as the "faithful and wise servant" in most Bibles), meaning that they are the sole channel to God. Any kind of salvation and favor with God are impossible without following the doctrinal interpretations of the society. They also teach that the only goal a Witness of Jehovah should have is to preach the message to others as much as possible. All other ambitions in life come secondary. This is why there are no Jehovah's Witness charities, scholarships, or homeless shelters. They believe the earth will all be destroyed and that the only thing that needs to be done is get people into the Watchtower fold so they can survive Armageddon.
"Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person..."
Anyone who disagrees, even if only privately, to the most specific tenets of the Jehovah's Witness faith (including the weird bits like the 1914 eschatology) is labeled an apostate and under direct control of Satan and the demons. People who publicly attack the church are often viewed as sinning against the holy spirit, the Bible's only unforgivable sin.
"There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology.
Right in line with Watchtower teachings. Books and authors that disagree with the society's conclusions are labeled as "worldly," meaning that they are a product of a world ruled by Satan. Essentially, anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is wholly Satanic, automatically, no questions asked. Witnesses are constantly told to stay away from the internet and from "apostate" reading material, because reading such things will corrupt the mind of even the most faithful Jehovah's Witness.
"it drills into you the fact that Scientology "works" and "gets results" and that the only reason it doesn't work is due to incorrect understood, applied or "squirreled"
Everything that is taught by the society is "the truth." If wonderful things don't happen to you as a result of being "in the truth," then it is always your fault. You might not be praying enough, or you might need to be going out door-knocking more often. If you're not happy, you're not doing enough, period. Until recently and even currently on some occasions, those with depression were/are told that the reason for their depression is that something is keeping them from God. The solutions are to pray and read the Bible more.
"he did a purge of anyone within the church who he considered was not 100% loyal to him by declaring them suppressive and excommunicating them (members of the church are required to "dis-connect" and never again speak to someone who has been excommunicated)."
The same thing happened with Joseph F. Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watchtower society from its founder, Charles T. Russel, in 1917. He instituted the doctrine of "disfellowshipping." Those who are disfellowshipped are shunned by everyo
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
A La Family Guy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A La Family Guy (Score:5, Funny)
Is that the game where you kill BSDs?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DC-8s, you mean. DC-10s existed only on paper when Hubbard wrote the tripe revered by the Scientologists as OT III.
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
* i.e. put it into the anagram finder at wordsmith.org
Re:RIAA.. Scientology or other's flyers in SF... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing to find chewing gum wrappers and fast-food containers and such on the streets, but ideas peddled and then rejected are a CLEAR sign that some one or some organization is going beyond free-speech guarantees. With TV, one can change channels or turn off the TV, and there is no immediate or sighted pollution. Even the ad sponsors can't (without digital connections) determine who is switching off their ads or just ignoring them and instead multi-tasking during commercial breaks or going to the bathroom between programs.
What that coarse-throat preacher and his megaphone gets up on his Powell Street pulpit condemning gays, heretics, non-Christians and so on, he's blabbing and making noise (apparently, he's within ordinance as SFPD never takes him down, since his Mr. Megaphone is not amplified via a generator or exceeding some decibel level, I guess...), he is making noise pollution, but at least one can walk away.
Flyers dropped or abandoned mean the message contained is simply not wanted. The content doesn't matter, unless it's pron, I guess, in which case we generally DON'T want the stuff face-up for kids and sensitive/easily-offended types to see. I guess I'm just sick and tired of seeing religious/belief paraphernalia on the street because its CONTENT is utterly rejected by 90% of those into whose hands it was stuck or taken out of sympathy for the pushers of it.
Re:RIAA.. Scientology or other's flyers in SF... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
One, a long list of neo-nazi organisations have been outlawed, scientology has not.
Two, where do you get your numbers? 2 mio is totally bonkers. A couple hundred thousand is what I'd guess, and I live here.
Three, both the government and the media talk about neo-nazis a lot more than about scientology.
Wherever you got your opinion, you should return it for a refund.
Anonymous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anonymous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anonymous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anonymous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anonymous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anonymous? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Warning : this is Fox News, some of your neurons may die.
Re:Anonymous? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it stems from the imageboard software used for 4chan (and its predecessors) having anonymous posting as the default state (and sometimes the only accepted state for posting). "Anonymous" as a sort of collective entity took that moniker and ran with it.
It's not a church (Score:5, Insightful)
I had dealings with them about 10 years ago. I ended up paying GBP30 for a course just to get out of the hard sell and even though I never did the course the often phoned and wrote letters of about 5 years after.
See the Operation Clambake pages for more details to their activities. http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Funny)
Any "Church" that charges for its teachings and also has them copyrighted to prevent free distribution is not a church it's a scam at best and a dangerous cult at worst
cult (n): A small, unpopular religion.
religion (n): a large, popular cult.
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? I'm serious. It's like Romney -- no one can really find fault with him except to say his hair is too perfect, that he's just a successful businessman, or that he's Mormon.
I have zero patience for the Protestant evangelical crowd and less for members of any cult, but Mormons, at least in my experience, tend to be shiny happy people that don't really bother anyone. Even the ex-Mormons I've met seem to have few bad things to say and if they do, you can't help but notice there's a certain lingering nostalgia in their eyes. That's not to say their beliefs aren't loony, but if members of cults were as benign as the typical Mormon, I wonder if anyone would notice, or care.
But I digress.
Back at you.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Insightful)
The mainstream mormons are no more loony that your average catholic these days tho.
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting words in other people's mouth is about the worst thing you can do in a debate/discussion. And adding "fixed that for you" adds a pathetic level of triteness on top of the dishonesty.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Informative)
That misinformation, as far as I know, comes from a misunderstanding of a passage in the Book of Mormon which describes a curse under which the Lamanites fell. The curse was losing the privilege to have the priesthood among them. The darker skin which they recieved at that point in time was simply a mark so the Nephites would be able to recognize them and avoid mixing with them (similar to the Jews being told not to intermarry with those of other faiths). Later, when the two peoples mixed freely, the curse (lack of priesthood) was removed, but the dark skin was not.
I am unaware of any official doctrinal "reason" that black people (i.e. from Africa) are black. It was, however, not confined to just blacks, but as far as I know, no non-white people was given the priesthood before 1978, and the priesthood was extended to all people at that time (see Official Declaration 2 [lds.org] for more information). It is also useful to note that the priesthood was limited to a select group of people for the entirety of the Old Testament (descendants of Levi and, more particularly, Aaron) and part of the New Testament. More information on this topic can be found here [jefflindsay.com].
It comes to mind that Bruce R. McConkie may have said something to the effect of what you claim we believe in his book "Mormon Doctrine", but that book is widely known to contain many inaccuracies.
As for plural marriage, please see Official Declaration 1 [lds.org] which provides a clear explanation of the reasons the Church renounced that practice. I should note that God is free to command his people, and free to rescind those commands - and this is not a belief unique to Mormons. I simplify, but Christians in general believe God rescinded the Mosaic Law when Christ replaced it with a higher law - effectively taking a law He had given and replacing it with another. To protect His restored church, He commanded that the practice of plural marriage cease, as described by Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration 1, specifically in the excerpts from his address to the members of the church at the bottom of the page.
The idea of plural marriage is not unique to Mormons either. Many prophets of the Old Testament had multiple wives, and they were blessed by God for it (according to the Bible). Any who say God has never supported plural marriage have not read the Old Testament. The entire House of Israel - that is, the Jewish people - is descended from a man with four wives, Jacob (a.k.a. Israel). That means Jesus Himself is a descendant of a plural marriage. If God did not approve of plural marriage at all, at any time, it seems he would not have promised great blessings to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then fulfilled them through the descendants of their multiple wives.
You are free to dislike other religions, and you are free to argue that their doctrines are invalid or stupid or whatever, but spreading false information about them is equivalent to Microsoft's FUD campaign against Linux.
Romney and one Mormon Point of View (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a Mormon, and while I appreciate the kind generalization, I definitely find him lacking on a number of fronts, including his ability to say anything inspiring during faith-related discussion or respond coherently to attacks on that front. There's also the fact that his about-face on several issues seem so conveniently timed it seems likely he's being phony... plus there's his endorsement of (and being endorsed in return by) Ann Coulter, plus the "double guantanamo" statement he made that, and in general a willingness to engage in a kind of republican political rhetoric that was never really high to begin with but is really, really starting to show its wear. Then there's the point that we've already elected a single-term governor from a family dynasty with political connections who has experience in business and managing a sports franchise, and that didn't really didn't work out so well, now, did it? All in all, I'd have to be pretty desperate to vote for him.
He does seem like he's probably a good Mormon, though.
Mormons, at least in my experience, tend to be shiny happy people that don't really bother anyone. Even the ex-Mormons I've met seem to have few bad things to say and if they do, you can't help but notice there's a certain lingering nostalgia in their eyes. That's not to say their beliefs aren't loony, but if members of cults were as benign as the typical Mormon, I wonder if anyone would notice, or care.
There's two things that I think make Mormons like this. One is that the religion itself is seen very much by its members as a serious spiritual practice as much as anything else -- its cosmological aspects are tied up in that, and it has sociopolitical implications, but it's not a cosmology or sociopolitical blueprint first (there are times in its history when that has been less true, especially the first 60 years, but that's another point). My experience suggests to me that people who have a faith that they take seriously as a spiritual practice tend to also be as you describe -- nice, happy shiny people. This isn't to say I don't think Mormonism has anything particular to distinguish itself, but I think this is the most important element. Having a serious spiritual practice of some kind is grounding and can inspire a real tranquility knowing you have a strong idea about your place in the world and working to play that part as well as you can. Combine it with basic rules of common decency and you get good people.
The other thing -- Mormons have long been different enough (and indeed, for some portion of their history, genuinely persecuted and hated) that they really, really want to be accepted and legitimized by mainstream society. There's also a religious desire to be a "light of the world", "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:14-16) in their communities. It adds up to a desire to excel and succeed that's probably a tad beyond the protestant work ethic, and I think when that combines with the basic decency and spiritual grounding, it does produce people that are respected in their communities.
This is, however, a generalization, and as an insider, I see this community of mine as far from perfect. In particular, I've seen a lot of that desire to be legitimized and excel turn to elitism, materialism, and a misplaced sense of destiny that can border on a naive entitlement (interesting considering there are specific and serious warnings about this hazard in Mormon canon). And the collapsed quasi-Mormon cosmology that passes for political philosophy in staunch Republican Utah can be really, seriously crazy. I say all this partly to acknowledge it's not all shiny happy people
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult [reference.com]
A cult -is- a religion, even the dictionary says so. It's on the 'connotations' that people have that make it any different than religion, and those vary according to who you talk to.
Also, you've neglected to mention the time when Christianity was also a 'cult' by your own definition. They read the bible in church in the original language, despite the fact that none of the lower members understood it. They defini
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Informative)
We can only look at their behavior recently.
I am in no way defending Christianity.
Here are some great Cult clues:
Do they want to separate you from your friends and family?
Do the harass?
Do they use 'deprivation' techniques ion recruits and/or memebers?
Is it personality based?
Do they punish people for questioning doctrine?
Do they dictate diet or eating schedule?
Do they believe they are above the law?
Do they believe they are a cure all?
Do they cost money or goods?
Do the 'sequester' people?
Just a few indicators, generally based on to degree. Example:
One could say the catholics dictate you eating schedule by dictating a wafer during mass and fish on Fridays.
I would say yes, that is an indicator but it's different then someone who tells you when to eat everyday and severely punished you if you slip.
I am an Atheist,and I recognize the difference between Cult and religion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Definition of cult (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html [umich.edu]
http://www.ibs.org/niv/booklist.php [ibs.org]
It's a money machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, not sure at all if that's
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Yes! This is important!! (Score:3, Informative)
...Why did you pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either you can simply ignore them, or they're actually doing something illegal, and you can stop them.
I don't see why you felt the need to fund them.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Interesting)
Today, the Mormon church controls a vast World wide financial empire built on the backs of their lay members. Their most visible member is currently waffling presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Scientology also has a vast financial and real estate empire in Florida and in California. Their most visible member is Hollywood movie star, Tom Cruise. Give Scientology another 20-50 years, and maybe the two empires will be of equal size.
The Cruise award video may win "Sundance Audience Favorite" award, even though it was not even entered. Everyone there seemed to really enjoy it.
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Insightful)
Germany [snafu.de] has stated that "...the chief purpose of Scientology is not religious, but economical in nature...", which is probably the closest thing to consider. And don't forget that both Tom Cruise [scientology-lies.com] and John Travolta [scientology-lies.com] are members of that outfit. (I wouldn't even call it Cult...)
And the myth as it seems that there was a wager [everything2.com] between Heinlein [nitrosyncretic.com] and Hubbard [wikipedia.org] about starting a religion, it seems to be half-true. But I don't think that Heinlein ever planned on catching up on starting a religion... He would probably gotten himself into FSF [fsf.org] or some other outfit instead with his statement of "Pay it forward" [heinleinsociety.org] if he had been born at a later date. (Today it's more than 100 years since Heinlein was born, he was born 7 July 1907!)
Especially the "Pay it forward" approach is important. Even if you do someone a service and that person isn't able to return the favor you can always set the "pay it forward" approach to the problem.
Re:It's not a church (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's not a church (Score:5, Insightful)
it did teach me a valuable lesson of telling anyone is the street trying sell anything is likely a con.
So you got your 30 pounds worth for sure.
Cults are for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymous? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Followed by (Score:5, Funny)
-
He's gotta do something until the mothership arrives...
Re:Followed by (Score:5, Funny)
Michigan Daily quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I take it you're too young to remember Jimmy Carter.
Easy to start new religions? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Anonymous' is actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Really, this is a joke. Channers will raid/invade just about anything, and Scientology is just their latest target. This is the exact same group behind the 'hackers on steroids' thing that Fox News reported on. Any claims they have about righteousness are just a way to justify their 'lulz'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So no, it's not the same "RAID RAID RAID" cancer as before - and heck, it gives those kids something useful to do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They raid almost anything and unlike normal hackers/crackers, they use pure brute force methods on their targets. Also they don't pick their targets based on any real reason. They prank call Tom Green for the hell of it, and phished tons of myspace accounts. They usually attack things that they won't get into serious trouble for. If you attack things people dislike, mo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trolls (Score:5, Funny)
Why not declare war on religion in general? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not declare war on religion in general? (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is pervasive (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish Anonymous well, but Scientologists and their cousins in the Landmark Forum are beyond reason. And fighting cults rarely works unless they're small and focused around a single charismatic leader. Both Scientology and Landmark are too big and widespread for that, and fighting them will probably only make them stronger.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He stopped p
Re:Scientology is pervasive (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing about Landmark, Scientology, and other cults is that a person's susceptibility to them has nothing to do with intelligence. Very smart people fall prey to them, too. The ability to resist is far more predicated on how emotionally stable you are. But if you're well-adjusted already, there's little chance you'd be interested in Landmark or Scientology in the first place. It's a rather self-selected group that Scientology and Landmark target; when people walk through their door they're pretty certain the person has some kind of issues or weak spots, and all they have to do is probe until they find them and the person breaks down. Then they pounce.
If your father is tangled up in Landmark, the worst thing you can do is to try to get them to stop or make them feel like you oppose what they're doing. That plays into the sense of alienation that cults try to create between their followers and their friends and families. In other words opposing what he's doing would accelerate his abandonment of his relationship with you.
The best thing to do is be loving and supportive without getting sucked in yourself. Try to be and remain his window on normalcy. Of the people that I've seen escape from Landmark and Scientology, it's because their friends and family stayed engaged and supportive. Eventually they realize how weird the group think is and also come to the conclusion that being a Scientologist or Landmark member hasn't solved their problems either. They grow disenchanted on their own.
Meanwhile back in the woods. (Score:3, Funny)
Ed: "See that cave full of bears? I am pokin' em with a stick!"
Ned:"OMG Ed, that's crazy!"
Ed: "No worries! See I build a remote poking robot device that I am controlling via wires attached to this here laptop computer."
Ned:"Uh Ed?"
Ed: "Yeah?"
Ned:"Can't they just follow the wire to where you are hiding?"
Effectual? Irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our usual media sources can't report on allegations of abuse because they've been very effectively muzzled by CSI hyper-litigation. They try to keep this fact close to the vest, but Anonymous' efforts are making it plain for all to see. This is a valuable service.
Also, any organization that exploits copyright law in order to silence critics should get a kick in the shins, even if that's all it amounts to. It's still a potent message: "We don't condone gag orders, and we'll fight back however we can, even if it is a David versus Goliath situation."
Glib as it may sound, raising awareness is key here. And an end unto itself.
Yours,
Cheeseburger Brown
Suppressive and Proud
The way to Destroy Scientology (Score:3, Funny)
Basically, just kill their silly little cult with a nationwide flash mob of epic proportions.
$cientology isn't so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Co$ gives me one more compelling reason to use "$" in a mocking fashion!
I also like to think of $cientology as a good example that illustrates the origins of religions. Whether you're talking about Christianity or Star Trek, it's just another example of a charismatic individual using his fantastic imagination to come up with an utterly baseless and bizarre explanation for the way things are. And then convincing the masses that he somehow knows what he's talking about, and deserves their money and allegiance for sharing the knowledge with them. All it takes is to follow the money to see what the real game is.
two quotes by Hubbard that say it all... (Score:5, Informative)
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. (1952)
Movie Stars (Score:4, Interesting)
Hoax or Real? (Score:5, Interesting)
We are cognizant of the many who may decry our methods as parallel to the Church of Scientology. Those who espouse the obvious truth that your organization will use the actions of Anonymous as an example of the persecution of which you have for so long forewarned your followers. This is acceptable to Anonymous. In fact,it is encouraged.
Damn. Kind of wraps the Borg's "Resistance is Futile" and Bush Jr.'s "Bring It On" in an ominious, yet tidy little anti-scientology message doesn't it?
I've had a couple of friends who "converted" to scientology and they completely shun anyone and everyone they were ever associated with including their parents now. It's very sad to see how isolated and fearful they've become.
I for one hope that this isn't a hoax. I'd never participate in something like this, but when I think of what my friends used to be and what they are now - and how Scientology seems to be this insidious organization that has used and abused so many - I can't help but hope that Anonymous, if serious, will succeed.
One man's words... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The only way you can control people is to lie to them."
-L. Ron Hubbard,
Re:The war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Double-edged sword. If the mainstream media doesn't pick up on this, less law enforcement attention is paid to his malfeasance. Similarly, more attention into this issue can only be beneficial for his cause as Scientology comes under more and more scrutiny.
It's also worth noting that there's a lot of mainstream hatred of Scientology. Technically, it's bigot
Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)
~S
Re:The war (Score:5, Informative)
As a matter of fact, yes [wikipedia.org].
Scientology, convicted in court. (Score:5, Informative)
Operation Snow White [wikipedia.org]
Operation Freakout [wikipedia.org]
I have some dirt on Scientology here: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The war (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to be expected. Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups; they have the most interest at stake in protecting basic rights like free speech. Those who only hold and/or express popular opinions don't require such protection.
More Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Where, after all, is the media trail of his development? From the newspaper's perspective, Ron Paul is one big discontinuity.
Re:More Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Is there a conspiracy against Ron Paul?
Re:More Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because I'm not a single issue voter. If you've ever seen my journals you would know that I like pot and hookers, and the Libertarians want to legalize them both. They wouldn't, of course, be able to manage that unless they somehow got control of the House and Senate.
The biggest reason I'd like to see a Libertarian in the White House is because he would veto, veto, and veto some more. The President doesn't write the laws, he vetos them when he can, and must enforce them when he can't. And IMO we have way, way too many laws.
The law I'd like to see is one that gives term limits to laws; unless reenacted, all laws would expire after a ten year period. Do we really need to protect sugar farmers form their South American competetion?
The party I'd like to see doesn't exist. It would be a social libertarian party that understood that government's prime purpose is to protect me from you, not to protect the corporations from customers, voters, and environmental laws. It would be pro-osha, drug-neutral, and antiNannyState.
When I was a young man the only corporation I was against was the one that killed my grandfather (that was 1959 and I still refuse to buy Purina products). Perhaps being young made me naive (actually in retrospect I'm sure that was the case), but it didn't seem like corporations were all run by murderous theiving sociopaths like today's corporations are.
When I speak of "murderous theiving sociopaths" I speak of Ford and the exploding Pintos and crown victorias, the Firestone SUV rollovers, Microsoft's business practices, Ty's refusal to take lead tainted toys off of Illinois shelves despite our consumer protection laws, Sony's rootkit, Alpo's poison Chinese dog and cat food, Mattell's poison Chinese toys... the list is endless.
In fact, if I had my way most CEOs would be facing trial for negligent homicide amd Grand Theift.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article, saying that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, and that he has "never uttered such words and denounce[s] such small-minded thoughts." He again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.[116] In a subsequent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he said he did not know who wrote the articles and stated
Heard of Prussian Blue? Ron has co-starred w/ 'em (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/ [cnn.com]
And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html [blogspot.com], is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.
I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php [pajamasmedia.com] this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.
Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf [littlegreenfootballs.com]
The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
The story posted after the comment was removed had a full disclosure, included the text of that comment and had _lots_ of anti-Scientology links, including Operation Clambake [xenu.net]. That was the best Slashdot could do, considering the threat of legal action.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
Memetic warfare.
Walk down the street and ask random people "What's the first thing you think of when you hear the word '$cientology'"?
If it's "Tom Cruise", the person could still be sucked into the cult. They're still infected by the "cult == hollywood celebrity thing" meme. The cult's kinda weird, but it's something successful people do.
When it's "Xenu!", "Scam", "Money", "Those assholes who DMCA everybody who talks about their UFO story", or "That UFO cult from South Park", "That chair-jumping fucktard on Oprah", the person will never be sucked into the cult. These people have been inoculated by a different meme -- the cult's something that only the mentally ill could do.
At some point - 20%? 50%? 90%? - herd immunity develops. "Hey, man I took this personality test and..." "What, what? Dude! Do you know what that cult is? Here, lemme tell you about Xenu and save you $360,000! It's crazy shit!"
When herd immunity develops in the general population, the cult starves for money, and dies.
This story should be on Slashdot for that reason alone: it exposes thousands of people to the memetic inoculations provided by the OT3 story, the deaths, the money, the criminal conspiracies in other countries, and so on. Everyone who reads this story learns something about the cult that will ultimately help starve the cult of its lifeblood: its ability to recruit new members, (in cult parlance, "fresh meat") and bilk them of their life's savings.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I've been asked, "Have you ever met an SP?" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Y
Re:how moronic (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to harass other people and unlawfully accuse them of crimes.
"My guess is that this is a dry run and that Christianity is next on the list. "
OK, you just slipped into paranoid fantasy land.
Scientology is a cult created from a bet, continued as a tax dodge.
More importantly, they harass people, threaten people, follow people, lie to people, lie to the courts, abuse the legal system.
Funny enough they paid taxes for 25 years because they are a commercial enterprise. Only after harassing IRS employees, and getting some into their cult did they get tax exempt status. At the time, it was very shocking to tax experts since every court had back the IRS decision not to give them exempt status. that was 1993, if I am not mistaken.
Yeah, I have watched this organization for years. I have family who new Hubbard pretty well. Until his power slipped and he wasn't allowed to see them anymore.
You know what? I can go to any church or synagogue learn their religion and then leave without any problems, not so with the CoS.
Religions are a waste of time and resources, but I wouldn't stop someone from worshiping, OTOH I wouldn't stop someone from exposing the truth.
Religion is like masturbation; I know people do it, but I don't want to hear about it.