Subscribe to Feed
Anonymous
Hate Crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
In 2006 the internet saw the creation of a phantom calling itself “Anonymous”. With recruits from porn and manga boards the new built group went to town stealing passwords, hacking and crashing MySpace pages and generally being obnoxious to other netizens. Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.
In January 2008 this group got hijacked by another breed of online criminals and gotten to form an truly international form of cyber-terrorism. “Anonymous” now focused on members and buildings of the Church of Scientology. Bomb and death threats on YouTube and other public places were followed by the firing of guns against Church buildings. One might think the situation got out of hand. Nothing further from the truth, Anonymous is now being steered by people who know exactly what they want, how to “push buttons” with with the original manga and porn freaks to set them lose to destroy a religious minority. One could say that Anonymous fails to clean its ranks from psychos and criminals but - without morals to protect it and cowardice as “party line” - is actually actively supporting terrorist activities. Freedom of Expression however ends if is expressed with firing a bullet into someone’s head. It stops to be a civil right the moment someone gets terrorized and harmed by acts of Anonymous. The joke is over since a long time and you didn’t notice. The joke morphed into something you can be jailed for. Is that so hard to understand?
That’s my take. What’s yours?
- Louanne
Update 12 March 2008:
There is a video documentary called “Anonymous - Hate Crimes & Terrorism Directed at Scientology” which got posted on YouTube yesterday, giving all sorts of details about what Anonymous did. I checked, and this is actually a DVD which the Church is mailing out since a couple of days. You might consider this as well:
Update 22 April 2008:
Older discussions are archived here:
Archive1: February 29 to March 14, 2008
204 Comments
Wake up and come up to present time.
Your church is a fraud. You KNOW this.
Wake up and come up to present time.
COB is NOT KSW. You KNOW this.
Wake up and come up to present time.
BLOW. The is help out here.
Wake up and come up to present time.
I am incensed that this website continues to spread this libelous material. There is clear evidence that the Church of Scientology likely created the “bomb threat from Anonymous.” Why don’t you address that pressing matter?
It’s funny because most of that was completely made up by the “church”
@Comment by anon on April 24, 2008 2:35 am
“Wake up and come up to present time?”
What now?
- L
@Comment by Blue on April 24, 2008 3:04 am
“I am incensed that this website continues to spread this libelous material. There is clear evidence that the Church of Scientology likely created the “bomb threat from Anonymous.” Why don’t you address that pressing matter?”
I do. Welcome to the world of logic:
“clear evidence” vs “likely” equals = you don’t know.
You see, wishful thinking won’t help you. Look and find out.
- L
@Comment by Blue on April 24, 2008 3:04 am
>I am incensed that this website continues to spread this libelous material. There is clear evidence that the Church of Scientology likely created the “bomb threat from Anonymous.” Why don’t you address that pressing matter?
Hmm.. Clear evidence. Got it. Who (not what), but WHO did we libel?
Let’s be specific.
Pat
Nope
Just more rhetoric.
Specifically who have we false reported on? And what was the false report on this person(s)?
Pat
Specifically who have we false reported on? And what was the false report on this person(s)?
ME. Louanne libels ME by suggesting that I am a member of a TERROR!ist movement. Unless she has evidence that this alleged bomb threat came from a former or present member of Project Chanology, her claims are nothing but a defamation of MY character as a citizen of the Internet.
Test.
Specifically who have we false reported on? And what was the false report on this person(s)?
ME. Louanne libels ME by saying that I am a member of a TERRORIST! movement. Unless she has evidence that the alleged bomb threats were produced by current or former participants in Project Chanology, her claims are nothing but a defamation of MY character as a citizen of the Internet.
Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 11, 2008 6:55 am
Who are you? Can you prove that you’re not part of the group that are terrorists?
And since the statement is about “Anonymous”, what does Project Chanology have to do with anything? Is Anonymous changing it’s name?
Pat
Who are you? Can you prove that you’re not part of the group that are terrorists?
Ah, Pat, this isn’t Russia. Is this Russia? This isn’t Russia, is it? No. You see, here in America, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. If you want to establish guilt by association, you first have to establish guilt. Unless you have evidence that the alleged bomb threats were produced by current or former participants in Project Chanology, your use of the word TERRORIST! is nothing but a defamation of my character as a citizen of the Internet.
And since the statement is about “Anonymous”, what does Project Chanology have to do with anything? Is Anonymous changing it’s name?
Have you done any research on Anonymous, or do you limit your data to “Church”-approved propaganda? Project Chanology is the accepted name of Anonymous’ campaign to dismantle the “Church” of Scientology(TM), and it has been so since the beginning. Anonymous is who we are; Chanology is what we do.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 12, 2008 6:52 am
“Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.”
Need new reading glasses?
- L
Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 12, 2008 6:52 am
>And since the statement is about “Anonymous”, what does Project Chanology have to do with anything? Is Anonymous changing it’s name?
Have you done any research on Anonymous, or do you limit your data to “Church”-approved propaganda? Project Chanology is the accepted name of Anonymous’ campaign to dismantle the “Church” of Scientology(TM), and it has been so since the beginning. Anonymous is who we are; Chanology is what we do.
Well, then. It’s in your own words, now. Terrorism.
Pat
“Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.”
Need new reading glasses?
No, I need evidence. We have a saying on the Internet: “pics or it never happened.” I don’t need photographs necessarily, but something to back up your assertions would be nice.
Well, then. It’s in your own words, now. Terrorism.
Silly girl. Dismantling a criminal organization with a record of human rights abuses isn’t TERRORISM!, as long as peaceful means are pursued to that end. And ever since we shunned the DDoS and went IRL, I’d say things have been pretty peaceful on our side, despite your “Church”’s best efforts at bull-baiting.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 13, 2008 11:17 pm
Ah, another friend of the 180-degree argumentation. No Mister, I find it surprising and it actually makes me proud that no Scientologist has yet hurt one of you guys. What “Anonymous” does as a group is just outright disgusting and pure provocation. Not all of you are terrorists and criminals, no, not all of you. But every single one of you has not the slightest purpose to improve anything. Your talk about “dismantling” this or that is just bullshit and you know it. There is nothing to dismantle and there is nothing to win here. Why don’t you come out and state what your actual problem is?
- Louanne
Here’s my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p814hybC_40
If I’d been there I had bulldozed these vicious trolls out of the way. There is no justification for such harassment.
- L
So much for hiding the fact the whole reason for Anonymous is to enturbulate. You are really out in the open now.
Pat
Why don’t you come out and state what your actual problem is?
Okay, fine. Our actual problem is that the “Church” of Scientology(TM) is a cheap and plentiful source of lulz which we have failed to harness for far too long. We’ve got a lot of lost time to make up.
If I’d been there I had bulldozed these vicious trolls out of the way. There is no justification for such harassment.
I see no harassment. I see only a peaceful protest and cowardly bus drivers.
So much for hiding the fact the whole reason for Anonymous is to enturbulate. You are really out in the open now.
As though naming one of our websites http://www.enturbulation.org wasn’t enough of a hint? Geez, Pat, you really are slow.
This is not “peaceful” nor is Anonymous. You’re terrorists.
Pat
This is not “peaceful” nor is Anonymous. You’re TERRORISTS!
Just like Paulette Cooper? ;-) Seriously, though, you need to clear your m/u’s. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
For example, when the “Church” used infiltration, blackmail, and frivolous lawsuits to coerce the IRS into giving it tax-exempt status, that wasn’t terrorism, because none of those acts were violent.
And when the “Church” uses violence and the threat of same to intimidate its critics, that’s not terrorism, because it’s directed at individuals instead of society or the state.
And when the “Church” issued fake bomb threats and white powder to itself in order to discredit Project Chanology, that wasn’t terrorism, because it was neither violent nor directed at the state.
See? It’s not that hard to figure out. In closing, I welcome an investigation into the “Church” of Scientology(TM), as I have begun one myself and found shocking evidence. Nyoro~n.
After reading the discussion above I have a few comments…
There have been absolutely no links between the fake anthrax and bomb threats with anonymous. And the FBI is supposedly doing the investigation and if there was any, the slightest hint of our involvement it would be exposed immediately. CNN in an interview with Tommy Davis even said there was no links and the only thing the spokes person could say was “Come see for yourself…”. I do believe you should be able to look at BOTH sides not just one.
Apparently this is a hard concept for some people to grasp but Anonymous is only protesting the atrocities of the church to “dismantle in its current form”, meaning reform. This means no fixed donations (business not religion I also don’t agree with Mormons just to head you off there). No more disconnection- Just because of disagreements with religion there shouldn’t be this disconnection. Heck even denominations of Christian churches disagree but there has never or will be a policy to disconnect. No more RPF, underpaid workers, and no more Fair Game (it was canceled in name only which is quite apparent with Sean Carsonov’s case and Gregg’s in Boston).
Do I think you are a bad person? No. You should do what you feel is right, but the crimes are there and hundreds of testimonies even from JENNA MISCAVAGE herself back up these accusations.
Hey Anonymous people on here,
am curious as to what religion or lack of you espouse?
I personally am Christian, but that doesn’t really matter does it?
There was actually a poll on Enturbulation.org
http://forums.enturbulation.org/10-off-topic/poll-what-religion-anonymous-9813/
Very interesting,
I might have known the unholy alliance was at work lol
Big guy, or “Okay I’m Anonymous Now”, what’s your take on the youtube clip? Bunker, Tory, Graham Berry, the creme de la creme of scientology “experts” trolling an entrance to piss off people…. WTF?
- Louanne
Lady, it’s a protest. If it doesn’t piss someone off, it’s not doing its job. And they weren’t blocking anyone from using the entrance; the gate was closed. The only problem I see here is your bawwwwwing about the situation.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 17, 2008 2:46 am
Intimidating and harassing is what I call that. They gathered at the the side where the entrance is and certainly they were blocking exactly that and they know that they are. They even congratulate each other for it.
Try that with me and I show you what a “protest” is.
- Louanne
Harassment is “the usual” for Anonymous but no serious protest does instigate:
Suicide
or ask for
Suicide
- L
Intimidating and harassing is what I call that. They gathered at the the side where the entrance is and certainly they were blocking exactly that and they know that they are. They even congratulate each other for it.
They’re not intimidating anyone. They’re not harassing anyone. They’re not blocking anyone. They’re just standing there, and the buses simply refuse to go near them, apparently because the people on board are unable to confront (i.e. face without flinching or avoiding) a few so-called SPs. Think about that, Louanne. These people are Sea Org, the “Church” of Scientology(TM)’s elite, and they can’t even confront “suppression,” let alone handle it.
Try that with me and I show you what a “protest” is.
ARE YOU THREATENING ME? Seriously, though, drop the Internet tough guy act. It only makes me lol harder.
My big question to this christian/atheist anonymous crowd is why scientology of all religions do you focus your efforts on?
Where is anonymous exposing fundamentalist mormons hurting children?
Where are you protesting catholic child raping men who claim to be the voice of god on eath?
Where are you protesting wahabbist sects of the more extreme variety?
Why do not protest cults like raelin?
Where are you protesting orthodox jews and their disdain of the gentile?
Never mind religions now, out of all the crimes against humanity do you decide to focus on perceived faults of scientology?
I’m not sure if any of you will be able to answer this perhaps because gravely serious issues dont allow for college kids living with mom to play dress up, and you know why, you’d get laughed straight off the streets by any real activists(who are up to more serious things than a year round halloween party) and are actually trying to bring up non-sectarian issues that actually effect everybody and are of import.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 17, 2008 4:45 am
“ARE YOU THREATENING ME?”
Buhaha… no. Just be aware of the consequences if you should ever decide to harass and intimidate me. You intrude my rights at your own risk.
“Seriously, though, drop the Internet tough guy act. It only makes me lol harder.”
Scary. Did you ever dare to show up at those ridiuculous “squatting parties”?
And it’s “girl”.
- Louanne
@Comment by veritas on May 17, 2008 8:14 am
“My big question to this christian/atheist anonymous crowd is why scientology of all religions do you focus your efforts on?”
Yeah, I am curious about that answer. I think they chose a religious minority because the big ones would have annihilated them on Day 1. A bunch of masked cowards they are.
- L
Wow Louanne and Veritas you basically don’t read comments. I am not attack your beliefs or religion. And according to the COS you have “15 million people” so that wouldn’t make you all a huge minority (but you and I know that number is completely exaggerated). But I will reiterate once again because you ignored my previous post….
I AM AGAINST THE STRUCTURE AND RUNNING OF THE COS!!!!
not the beliefs behind Scientology.
I guess we could “go after others” but they have their critics just like Catholics and Mormons. But the amazing thing about those two groups was THEY REFORMED. Unlike the COS they made changes because of the outcries. the COS resists these changes/criticisms that is why they are being “targeted”. And just like the polygamist sect of the Latter day Saints I think there will be an investigation maybe not in the US but certainly in other countries.
And everyone will have to take criticism so I don’t think they will “annihilate” us. And who were are does not effect the facts and our voice will be heard!
Never mind religions now, out of all the crimes against humanity do you decide to focus on perceived faults of scientology?
Two reasons.
One: there are already activist movements spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed there. And nothing prevents individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.
Two: it’s personal. The “Church” of Scientology(TM) has been fighting the Internet for over a decade, and for whatever reason, getting the Tom Cruise video yanked from YouTube was the last straw. As one Anon put it, “[they] pissed off the Internet, and [now] the Internet is pissing back.”
For more, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_Internet
@Comment by AnonymousNow’s /b/ackup on May 17, 2008 8:46 pm
No group, especially very big ones, is safe against “black sheep” amongst their mid. But most of those groups have a way to correct those members or give them the boot as they are not longer in agreement with the group. So does the Church of Scientology , so do the Mormons, Catholics, most groups I know, except “Anonymous”.
“I AM AGAINST THE STRUCTURE AND RUNNING OF THE COS!!!!”
So that’s why you are bumping your head against the walls of the Church, you are against the “structure”! Please realize that the Church of Scientology is made of people, just like any other group is, who came together to forward a common purpose. And they do, 24/7, in most countries in the world. So what you are saying is nonsense. You ARE attacking individuals, you are trying to intimidate and harass PEOPLE and not some buildings or imaginary “structure”. Your Anonymous brothers here in L.A. additionally try to coerce people to leave the group they chose to be with on their own steam. That’s why this harassment campaign does not work. Scientologists are Scientologists because they want to. Maybe such an idea has no place in your head, I wouldn’t be surprised. Anonymous is a group that allows their members to commit criminal acts without restraining them and thereby help to correct illegal activities. That is the maximum in irresponsibility towards a group and that is something a Scientologist can’t think with.
“THEY REFORMED”
BS, the last time I checked the Catholics still had a Pope and their organizational setup has not changed since more than 1,000 years. And why should it? They set it up because it fits their needs and beliefs and it works for them.
- Louanne
Never mind religions now, out of all the crimes against humanity do you decide to focus on perceived faults of scientology?
Two reasons.
One: there are already activist movements dedicated to spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed. And nothing is stopping individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.
Two: it’s personal. The “Church” of Scientology(TM) has been waging war on the Internet for over a decade. Getting the Tom Cruise video pulled from YouTube was merely the final straw. As one Anon put it, “they pissed off the Internet, and now the Internet is pissing back.”
For more, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_Internet
BS, the last time I checked the Catholics still had a Pope and their organizational setup has not changed since more than 1,000 years.
Which is why you still see Inquisitions, Crusades, and indulgences going on today. Oh wait. Ack this, Louanne: structural changes are independent of policy changes. For example, when the wogs found out about Snow White and Freakout, the structure of the “Church” was shuffled around a bit, with the GO falling on its sword and being replaced by the OSA, but the policies were left intact. That is why we do not trust you.
“You ARE attacking individuals, you are trying to intimidate and harass PEOPLE and not some buildings or imaginary “structure”. Your Anonymous brothers here in L.A. additionally try to coerce people to leave the group they chose to be with on their own steam.”
I have no desire to attack anyone. I wear a mask because of the COS’s long reputation of litigation and court, and I rather not have them know who I am. And Anonymous is a loose collective of people, I have no control over the actions of other anons, just like you can’t control another Scientologist. And how can you “coerce” people into leaving a group, I guess an example of their actions would be nice. Anonymous has had 4 peaceful protests and many spokespersons have said the Anonymous is not an issue yet here you accuse us of harassment and “intimidation”.
Is it the V for Vendetta mask? Would it make you more COMFORTABLE if we just put on face paint? I just don’t understand, the COS sends PIs after anonymous who don’t give us their names. At LA a PI brandished his weapon… that is intimidation!
>Is it the V for Vendetta mask? Would it make you more COMFORTABLE if we just put on face paint? I just don’t understand, the COS sends PIs after anonymous who don’t give us their names. At LA a PI brandished his weapon… that is intimidation!
More like V for victim (Anonymous). It was Anonymous who chose to back the criminal doing the posting of the copyrighted DVD (Mark Bunker) and go after Scientology. Poor Anonymous!
Pat
@ AnonymousNow’s /b/ackup
Actually I think you suffer from non-comment reading! I would like you to show where I mentioned me being a scientologist, you cannot because I am not one. I am interested in lrh philosophy but have not yet stepped into a COS(or taken any programs) or had the chance to talk face to face with a real scientologist, which is one reason I like this site because I can get some straight answers.
See I agree that there are problematic issues when you have religions holding the realms of spirituality, so I think you may have a valid point there. But in the case of scientology what I am going on is hubbards writings, wherein he mentions the distinction between manipulative faith and a logical applied spiritual philosophy which is more along my lines of thinking on that subject.
Also I have read about almost every claim(brainwashing, deaths, forced aborition, etc…) and most claims are varied incidents that do not link or as in the ‘quickest way to make a buck is start a religion’ phrase, its just based on undocumented hearsay that passes off as “well everyone knows he said that” kind of knowledge.
I must disagree that anonymous is not against scientologys “belief”(applied philosophy would be more accurate imo but you’d have to ask lou or pat on that one) I routinely observe your group carrying ‘Scientology Kils’, “Ufo Cult’, ‘Scientology=brainwashing” which are not criticisms of the COS structure but attacks based on the actual practices of scientologists.
Okay briefly;
As a former catholic I can guarantee you they are anything but a fully reformed entity, on the sex abuse issue alone it is an age old problem of letting in the predators then shufflinfg them around(there are historical writings that mention the ‘priest disease” for example) instead of outright firing them. And they still claim to be the representative of jesus on earth and the pope still claims divine authority on all matters of dogma and interbranching issues.
The FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS is very distinct from the moron churcn, they also have not reformed- go do your own research on that sect.
I see no groups bullhorning/protesting outside of the religious groups mentioned in my previous post, so I am curious as to who you are talking about because the only one trying to disrupt the services of a church is anonymous vs COS. If protests did occur outside a mainstream catholic, christian, jewish, muslim place of worship I assure you it would be swiftly branded bigotry and or a form of hate crime and the protestors would be made to cease and desist.
@ okay Im anonymous Now
>>One: there are already activist movements spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed there. And nothing prevents individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.
Please point out thes groups, what is there mission, why are they not protesting outside of these other religious houses?
>>Two: it’s personal. The “Church” of Scientology(TM) has been fighting the Internet for over a decade, and for whatever reason, getting the Tom Cruise video yanked from YouTube was the last straw. As one Anon put it, “[they] pissed off the Internet, and [now] the Internet is pissing back.”
I made a statement earlier that I could not understand why a pulled internet video got you riled up and now I still fail to see how this effects you or got you pissed of enough to “protest”
There are real actual dangers to free soeech being forced on the american public by traitors posing as officials in the government but I guess if they let you type on your forum and watch your youtube everything A-Okay right?
Just for the record I would like to mention I am somewhat suspicious of mark bunker and some other prominent critics, you anonymous types like research right? Look up project mockingbird and further take a minute and try an just picture the scope of those forces that assailed LRH early on(FBI,FDA, IRS, psych orgs) and these groups unless your living under a rock constitute major heavies in this country and have many times forced there will upon those deemed enemies of their agenda.
I
I give scientolgy credit for standing up to these corrupt entities alone
“More like V for victim (Anonymous). It was Anonymous who chose to back the criminal doing the posting of the copyrighted DVD (Mark Bunker) and go after Scientology. Poor Anonymous!”
You are asked about a PI working for the CoS flashing a gun in a protest and your answer is a declaration that someone has crimes… You people really never learn new tricks.
Please point out thes groups, what is there mission, why are they not protesting outside of these other religious houses?
FLDS: the states of Texas and Colorado.
Wahhabi: various right wing commentators.
Et cetera.
They don’t do protests because that’s not how they roll.
I made a statement earlier that I could not understand why a pulled internet video got you riled up and now I still fail to see how this effects you or got you pissed of enough to “protest”
The Tom Cruise video was a source of lulz. NO ONE threatens our lulz.
There are real actual dangers to free soeech being forced on the american public by traitors posing as officials in the government but I guess if they let you type on your forum and watch your youtube everything A-Okay right?
You still think this is about free speech, about censorship, about a force of good standing up to a force of evil? Silly, silly cracker. This is about trolling. If the American government were as prone to butthurt and emo rage as the “Church” of Scientology(TM), then maybe, maybe we’d take them on. Until then, we leave them alone. The government may be more vicious than your “Church,” but at least they’re grownups about it for God’s sake.
I give scientolgy credit for standing up to these corrupt entities alone.
That’s like being proud of the Yakuza for taking on the Mafia, or even for taking on a “corrupt” police force.
Veritas-
I’m agnostic. I was raised with a Pentecostal preacher as a grandfather, but I was encouraged to follow my own path. I am extremely interested in all sorts of religions and have spent many years studying various religions both in my own time and in the class room. I have read many religious texts and have enjoyed lively debates and discussions with people of varying faiths.
Now, onto your assumption that we are all college kids living off of their parents and playing dress up. You are wrong. Yes, I am in college (I’m graduating in three weeks), but I am completely self sufficient. I”m paying my own way through school by holding down two jobs and stacking up lots of loans. I’m working my ass off here.
So, why Scientology? I feel that it’s an extremely abusive and dangerous organization. I fear that, much like Jonestown, this can lead to a tragic ending and I would like to prevent that. If not something like Jonestown, it can lead to something else dangerous like the Osho-Ranjeesh attack.
I have no problem with their religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, I’m a loud supporter of the Freezone. I have no problem with what people may perceive as crazy beliefs. I love talking about them actually and would love to sit down with a Scientologist and discuss the finer details of their belief system. I also believe in re-incarnation and am quite fascinated by their take on it. Unfortunately, most Scientologists aren’t very open to talking about their beliefs. I can’t afford to buy the dozens of books and tapes they offer (working through school, remember?) so I’m limited to discussing them. Most of the time the response is “go find out for yourself!” which is quickly followed by a Dianetics or Way to Happiness sales pitch.
What I cannot stand, though, are the numerous abuses committed by the organization known as the Church of Scientology. These issues have been discussed many times, but if you’d like me to repeat them I’ll gladly launch into it. I feel that these abuses need to be stopped before more harm is done.
Does that answer your question?
I’m here for discussion. I’m here to learn and ask questions. This topic is fascinating.
“One: there are already activist movements spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed there. And nothing prevents individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.”
I’d like to comment on this too. I’ve actually donated my time to a lot of other organizations too. I probably spend 10-20 hours a week volunteering (on top of all the other stuff I mentioned in my last post) to community organizations and local causes. This cause is the biggest cause I donate my time to in the sense that Scientology and the protests against it stretch all over the world.
If you’d like to know what else I do, just ask, but to keep my anonymity, I won’t be giving exact specifics. I don’t want to be harassed, thanks.
Downstat much?
Nobody-
Thanks for the open reply, from what I gather of your response it seems that your somewhat more along the lines of my thinking.
The whole reason I’m here is because much of what I’ve studied of LRH so far(for free btw, there is such things as libraries that have the books and such) a lot of it back ups some of my own intuitiveness and independent verification of many matters both of a spiritual and of a more logic based approach. For example I think hubbards point on religious belief being awry and often a tool of control which is very contradictory to the notion of spirituality and hence his approach via observed and workable acts that are not read from some mystic text and not to be questioned but rather from the individual applying it to his life and seeing what works for himself
I admit I’ve yet to step into a COS or done any of the techs/dianetics, partly through some trepidation relating to the rumors swirling about scientology. As I go on and do more research much of it looks to me as unfounded or hearsay passed on as fact.
And when I study the history of lrh;s and scientolgiys opponents much of this comes clearer into focus and one can connect the dots at least from my vantage point.
However I still have some reservations like OT levels and if they cost a much amount, why not make it based on ones income instead of set price?
I think you’ll agree that my ‘assumption’ is at least partly right, I based it off my actual observations of certain protesters though your right that theres room for variety amongst all manner of groups(I’d use this as an example of the so called evils of the COS structure, it appears to me rather than broad based corrupt policy what legitimate wrongs committed were isolated incidents) apologies if I came off as derisive but with all the media and public forces having a free for all with taking up anything as fact as long as it proves a negative against scientology, it annoys me.
.
Could you illustrate how jim jones at all intersects with scientology?
Also is your beef with the COS or LRH or both?
From a non-scientologists POV I think that when you get what you may perceive to be a ‘brush-off’ of sorts when you ask a scientolgists about scientology, the answer makes sense in that from what im reading it has many complex strands that can be boiled down to ‘knowing how to know’ the core if you will, one can only make up his mind from his own study of the info available.
Oh, awesome, are we doing this again? Well, here’s as good a place to start as any:
Louanne- Tell me: Do you think that you and I are part of a “group”, since we both post on this blog? Am I responsible for what you do? I mean, after all, we’re here for a common purpose, right? To discuss Scientology and “debunk myths” about it (even if we may have some differing ideas about what those myths actually are)?
Veritas- Could you please explain to me what part of court documents and sworn statements are “hearsay”?
The reason I included Jim Jones in the statement is because they actually have intersected in the media in the past. Mike Rinder famously stated that the People’s Temple was a “mainstream Christian Church” and Ida Camburn, a notable Scientology critic, had communications with Leo J Ryan. Comparisons have been made numerous times in the past, so I was wondering what a Scientologists take on that was. I was also interested in comparisons made to Rajneeshee’s tactics. Again, I am really interested in learning about different faiths, even controversial ones.
And as for “my beef,” I don’t really care so much about L Ron Hubbard since he died (or “dropped” his body as Scientologists say) so many years ago. He may have done questionable things in his life time and is certainly surrounded by controversy, but that’s not really what I’m interested in. I’m more concerned with the reported abuses and questionable policies of the Church of Scientology.
In addition to that, it was mostly about their opinion on the use of the word “Cult” to the both of them. Louanne answered most of that, so thanks.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 24, 2008 6:54 am
> Louanne- Tell me: Do you think that you and I are part of a “group”, since we both post on this blog? Am I responsible for what you do? I mean, after all, we’re here for a common purpose, right?
What’s this denial of Anonymous being a group? Is that your idea of avoiding personal responsibility for the actions of your group. How convenient.
Group: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group, definition 2a)
You organize and/or attend the same protests (i.e. “a number of individuals assembled together”), you wear the same masks, you use the same slogans, you believe the same nonsense, you quote the same sources, you share a common enemy (i.e. “a number of individuals having some unifying relationship”), you use the same jargon, and you identify yourself with an immature internet community that finds joy in the inconvenience of others.
What I see is a perfect fit. You are a group.
So since we are number of individuals assembled on this blog, I guess we are a group here, right? I think that was his point. A “group” can be pretty much anything, including us here. And I’m sure if somebody here were to go and do something stupid, you wouldn’t want to get punished for it either, right? How can you control people you don’t know and have never met in real life?
I’ve been branded “anonymous” by a lot of people simply because I don’t state my name. Does that mean that if somebody else who also doesn’t reveal their name does something stupid I should be punished for it?
I understand the sticky situation of real life protests. There people are meeting in real life, so there is a bit more responsibility. If somebody did something stupid or violent at one of the protests, I’d hope everybody else there would react properly (contact authorities, stop them, etc). But when it comes to things like this, the lines get blurry. It’s not all black and white.
I have no control over Anonymous. Nobody does. All I can do is keep doing what I”m doing. That is, state my opinions on the matter in a peaceful, legal, and as tactful way as possible. I can encourage others to do the same, but since I don’t know these people, I can’t force them to.
Do you understand?
Some of these Anonymous goons still don’t get what an SP is (most likely they give a shit but I am ignoring this for now).
So I updated the definition of SP and PTS on the site:
http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/suppressive-person.php
The source for all of that is the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”.
- Louanne
@Comment by Nobody on May 25, 2008 7:32 pm
“I have no control over Anonymous.”
How convenient.
“Nobody does.”
Lie. This crowd of people with the same lack of personal responsibility like you have - called “Anonymous” - is very much controlled by those doing the thinking for you. They call themselves the “Old Guard” now and consider you guys as their “pupils”. Hilarious.
And you run, run, run for them and spread, spread, spread their venom for them. Think for yourself.
“All I can do is keep doing what I”m doing. That is, state my opinions on the matter in a peaceful, legal, and as tactful way as possible. I can encourage others to do the same, but since I don’t know these people, I can’t force them to. Do you understand?”
All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions or the actions of the group you belong to. And that is another lie they sold you.
- Louanne
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 24, 2008 6:54 am
“Louanne- Tell me: Do you think that you and I are part of a “group”, since we both post on this blog?”
Not really. We are not working together to achieve an agreed upon goal. Which is what groups usually do. But certainly there is another definition for group, which is just a bunch of people gathering on the same spot, like at a location or on a blog. In this definition we are a group here.
Maybe I am wrong and you share my goal for this blog: “Here you can ask questions about Scientology, no matter what type of questions or how stupid they may sound.”
(from the FAQ). You seem be here to make statements or just be right about preconceived answers. But again I just might have gotten the wrong impression and you might want to explain what your goal is.
- L
Let me tie up the loop holes: Answering using only the words “yes” or “no” within 24 hours of reposting of the question, is it true hat anonymous is paid by the Pharmaceutical Companies and the German Government? (explanation after said yes or no would be appreciated).
Louanne- Sure. I’m here to get to the truth. In those cases in which I have misconceptions, I am glad to have them corrected. That does not mean, however, that I should uncritically accept any information I’m given.
“Lie. This crowd of people with the same lack of personal responsibility like you have - called “Anonymous” - is very much controlled by those doing the thinking for you. They call themselves the “Old Guard” now and consider you guys as their “pupils”. Hilarious.
And you run, run, run for them and spread, spread, spread their venom for them. Think for yourself. ”
It’s amusing mostly because it’s wrong. I’m sure there are some people who simply parrot whatever information or opinions members of the “Old Guard” provide. Your sweeping generalization, however, is grossly inaccurate. For my part, while first-person testimony is important and frequently valuable, other things are often required (corroboration from other sources, supporting documents, etc.) Likewise, I have no particular compulsion to do something simply because a member of the Old Guard says so. As with any other suggestion, I take it into consideration, weigh the benefits and possible risks, consider the source, and then make my decision. I would hope that Scientologists do the same.
“All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions”
Funny, I don’t recall seeing ANYONE claim that they’re not responsible for their own actions. To the contrary, the sentiment I’ve seen is that individuals are, first and foremost, completely responsible for what they do.
“or the actions of the group you belong to”
Two things. How do you define group membership, here? Anyone who attends a protest? Anyone who attends a protest without publicly giving their name? Anyone who reads a Chanology message board? Anyone who supports the same basic goals?
Secondly, are -you- personally responsible for what other Scientologists have done? Are you responsible for the Guardian’s Office fiasco? Are you responsible for the vulgar, sexist, homophobic language of John Carmichael in New York? Are you responsible for the false allegations against Sean Carasov?
“All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions or the actions of the group you belong to. And that is another lie they sold you.”
Please point out where I said I wasn’t responsible for my own actions? I’m not responsible for people I’ve never met and have no control over. Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand? How can you control somebody that you don’t know, have never met, and know nothing about?
We don’t have a secret club house where we all hang out and plot to destroy you. We are very much out in the open about everything we do, accessible to everyone, and open to whoever decides they want to join. We’d even accept you Louanne. For that, as you say, there are always a “few bad apples” in every group. All I can do is to encourage them to not do stupid stuff and call the authorities if applicable (I’ve never had to do the second one, but I have done the first).
Nobody “sold” me on anything. I originally heard about Scientology back when I read the Times magazine article. Later I got offered a stress test in LA, which I took. That was the only selling point, actually, as they tried to get me to buy Dianetics by “calling a friend to borrow money for it.” I googled Dianetics and Scientology and was amazed at the information that I found out about it. There were court documents, videos, and tons of newspaper and magazine articles highlighting the abuses of Scientology…. then Anonymous got involved. From that point I decided I’d help in anyway I could since I also believed that the abuses needed to be stopped.
No seriously, even you guys. Feel free to join: http://www.enturbulation.org
@Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 1:15 am
“No seriously, even you guys. Feel free to join: http://www. enturbulation.org”
Not if you are a Scientologist. They are prohibited.
- L
@Comment by question on May 28, 2008 9:45 pm
“Let me tie up the loop holes: Answering using only the words “yes” or “no” within 24 hours of reposting of the question, is it true hat anonymous is paid by the Pharmaceutical Companies and the German Government? (explanation after said yes or no would be appreciated).”
No. If that would be true Anonymous would not be that broke and unsupported.
@EA
“Secondly, are -you- personally responsible for what other Scientologists have done?”
Yes, if I know about them I am responsible to do something about it. And I do.
“Are you responsible for the Guardian’s Office fiasco?”
No, because I was not born yet. But as a group member I am responsible that such actions never happen again.
“Are you responsible for the vulgar, sexist, homophobic language of John Carmichael in New York?”
That’s your interpretation and not a question. I have not seen him using such language.
“Are you responsible for the false allegations against Sean Carasov?”
There were no false allegations against Carasov, to my knowledge, but there were false allegations BY Carasov and plenty of them. He should have been arrested much earlier for what he did.
Now, EA, how many Anonymous members have you stopped from harassing and invalidating Scientologists? How many from engaging in online crimes? What is your contribution to stop this war?
- Louanne
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 28, 2008 10:16 pm
I wasn’t talking to you here. If I remember right you are not even part of the “Anonymous” crowd.
- L
@Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 1:15 am
>No seriously, even you guys. Feel free to join: http://www.enturbulation.org
Since my whole life is devoted to raising the level of free theta on this planet, why would I go to a site that is devoted to lowering it?
Anti-social characteristic #11 page 180 Introduction to Scientology Ethics :
“Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”
Pat
@Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 12:57 am
>>“All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions or the actions of the group you belong to. And that is another lie they sold you.”
>Please point out where I said I wasn’t responsible for my own actions? I’m not responsible for people I’ve never met and have no control over. Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand? How can you control somebody that you don’t know, have never met, and know nothing about?
That’s an easy one. The very fact that you have continued adherance shows mutual agreement and tacit consent.
Pat
Oh, Louanne…
“I wasn’t talking to you here. If I remember right you are not even part of the “Anonymous” crowd.”
I’ve attended a protest. I’ve pointed other people to critical information. By your definition, I guess that would make me part of that “crowd”. That’s part of why I’m trying to figure out what your criteria for “belonging” to the group includes.
Also, you may not have been talking to me, but it was a comment publicly posted on the blog, so, y’know…it seems fair enough to address it. If you’d like to use “I wasn’t talking to you” as a pretense to avoid answering the questions though, well, have at it.
“Yes, if I know about them I am responsible to do something about it. And I do.”
That’s the rub, isn’t it? If you -know- about it. If I -knew- that someone were planning to do stupid, harmful, and/or illegal, then yeah, I would try to do something about it. First, I’d try to convince them not to do it. I would try to get others to do the same. If it were illegal, I could give what information I have to the authorities. What other recourse do I, random person on the internet #9141515, have? “Kick them out”? Heh.
“No, because I was not born yet. But as a group member I am responsible that such actions never happen again.”
Fair enough. The evidence I’ve seen indicates that some of that stuff IS going on (not the infiltration of government offices, mind you, but harassment of ex-members (”apostates”) and critics), but you clearly disagree; I find the desire to prevent GO-style stuff from happening again to be totally reasonable, however.
“That’s your interpretation and not a question. I have not seen him using such language.”
Yeah, well, I grant you that this was pretty recent. I -could- link you to the video if you like, but there’s a lovely example of him telling several protesters to go ahead and come out of the closet, along with his now-famous declaration of “I smell (fill in the blank)”.
Like I said, if you want the link, it’s no problem, but it’s pretty unflattering.
Also, by definition, that is a question. It’s simply a question that -includes- my own reactions to his words.
“There were no false allegations against Carasov, to my knowledge, but there were false allegations BY Carasov and plenty of them. He should have been arrested much earlier for what he did.”
Which is obviously why the charges were dropped before it even went to trial. What, praytell, should he have been arrested for, since the charge that was leveled against him (making threats) proved to be unfounded? In fact, if I recall, there is direct video evidence that shows that the event in question occurred very differently than the supposedly “threatened” Scientologist reported it.
Thus: False allegations. “You threatened me and said all kinds of mean things at X time”, when there is evidence that clearly refutes that, seems like the platonic -ideal- of false allegations, to me.
“Now, EA, how many Anonymous members have you stopped from harassing and invalidating Scientologists? How many from engaging in online crimes? What is your contribution to stop this war?”
Depends on your definition of harassing and invalidating. I would not support Scientologists being followed, for instance, or trailed by private investigators, or having their homes staked out. I would not support Scientologists being given a blanket, thought-stopping label like “terrorist” or “bigot”.
Of course, those are all things that Scientology does to -other- people, but “do as I say, not as I do” seems to be a core tenet of the organization.
I suspect you would define harassment and invalidation much differently than I would. I do not consider the protests to be either, including flash raids. Those are terms that the church throws around to try to shut down criticism, because all they have to do is label ANY criticism of or action against Scientology as “harassment and invalidation”, and suddenly they get to play the wounded victim.
Finally, for me to -stop- anyone from engaging in illegal acts, I would have to be aware of them. I am not, nor have I been. To date, the only illegal acts I’ve seen -confirmed- have been the DDoS attacks, and as with the GO, those happened before I was involved in any way. There probably WERE a few idiots who made threatening phone calls, and if I -knew- specifics I’d do something. I don’t. If I had to -guess-, I would suspect it was a few idiots acting independently, without the knowledge of or approval of anyone else. Because of that, my own influence is mostly limited to encouraging other people -not to be idiots-; if they do something illegal AND I have personal knowledge of it, then I can do something.
As for “stopping this war”, it’s been going on since long before January. This is just the latest part, and I suspect it will continue in some form until people are satisfied with the answers Scientology gives. For that to happen, I think something has to change. For my part, I’ve been -aware- of things since the infamous ARS battles, but I’ve only been active in any capacity since February or so.
“Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”
Which is clearly why I’m also protesting the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Cancer Fund, the Humane Society, and every local women’s shelter, orphanage, hospital, veterinary clinic, and soup kitchen I can find.
…
Right.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 6:09 pm
““Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”
Which is clearly why I’m also protesting the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Cancer Fund, the Humane Society, and every local women’s shelter, orphanage, hospital, veterinary clinic, and soup kitchen I can find.”
Did anyone say you are anti-social? I must have missed that. I actually doubt that the one’s laughing their head off in view of the false information you are parroting for them can be found on blogs like this one. At least we are communicating here, somewhat.
- L
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 6:01 pm
“I’ve attended a protest. I’ve pointed other people to critical information.”
So you are supporting a group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others? Did you wear a mask, supporting their symbology?
““Yes, if I know about them I am responsible to do something about it. And I do.”
That’s the rub, isn’t it? If you -know- about it. … What other recourse do I, random person on the internet #9141515, have? “Kick them out”? Heh.”
Start looking, that’s always a good way to start. Ask Anons to stay away from provocation and harassment, scold them if they don’t. Be critical not only about Scientology information but as critical about “critic’s” claims and accusations. There are plenty of ways, most of them require a little courage though. Protesting and harassing Scientologists hidden behind a mask does not require any courage.
Carmichael: “Like I said, if you want the link, it’s no problem, but it’s pretty unflattering.”
Found it, and it is unflattering. That’s what happens if you try to have a conversation with Anons, pure provocation, but yes, he should just have left. There is no good reason to continue a conversation which starts that unfriendly.
““There were no false allegations against Carasov, to my knowledge, but there were false allegations BY Carasov and plenty of them. He should have been arrested much earlier for what he did.”
Which is obviously why the charges were dropped before it even went to trial. What, praytell, should he have been arrested for, since the charge that was leveled against him (making threats) proved to be unfounded? In fact, if I recall, there is direct video evidence that shows that the event in question occurred very differently than the supposedly “threatened” Scientologist reported it.”
I haven’t seen any video about it (link? you know you can put links, though I sometimes have to digg your posts out of the spam cue). No, I am talking about the threat Carasov put on his ED page (that he is ready to shoot Scientologists, along with a picture of his two guns) which was before the picket and the insinuation that Scientologists did something to his cat. Which is just too fitting in the whole meme thing of Anonymous and also the timing indicates pure propaganda. I don’t know if he then threatened that security guard to kill him or not (nor do you) but this was later.
““Now, EA, how many Anonymous members have you stopped from harassing and invalidating Scientologists? How many from engaging in online crimes? What is your contribution to stop this war?”
Depends on your definition of harassing and invalidating. I would not support Scientologists being followed, for instance, or trailed by private investigators, or having their homes staked out. I would not support Scientologists being given a blanket, thought-stopping label like “terrorist” or “bigot”.”
Cheap, and not an anwer. You want to try this again?
“Finally, for me to -stop- anyone from engaging in illegal acts, I would have to be aware of them. I am not, nor have I been. To date, the only illegal acts I’ve seen -confirmed- have been the DDoS attacks, and as with the GO, those happened before I was involved in any way. There probably WERE a few idiots who made threatening phone calls, and if I -knew- specifics I’d do something. I don’t. If I had to -guess-, I would suspect it was a few idiots acting independently, without the knowledge of or approval of anyone else.”
A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members. They do it to other groups and invididuals too and have done so long before “Scientology” became their newest fad.
http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3894628&version=7&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
http://www.citypaper.com/printStory.asp?id=15543
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-hacke.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-hac-1.html (what this guy witnessed personally happened to scientologists and churches at large)
http://www.anonymous-exposed.org
even here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29
“As for “stopping this war”, it’s been going on since long before January. This is just the latest part, and I suspect it will continue in some form until people are satisfied with the answers Scientology gives. For that to happen, I think something has to change. For my part, I’ve been -aware- of things since the infamous ARS battles, but I’ve only been active in any capacity since February or so.”
The a.r.s. battles were before I could spell “internet” but I, too, think something has to change but what would that be?
- Louanne
Pat, are you calling me an sp? As I’ve said, I DO help others. It doesn’t “drive me crazy.” It’s pretty much my entire life off of the internet. I’m an educator and a volunteer on a local committee (again, keeping myself as anonymous as possible, but if you want more specifics I can provide it, just ask) and I’ve organized many community projects that, I believe, help others.
Also, what adherence? I’ve stated many times that I do encourage others to be responsible, peaceful and legal. However, I’d also be willing to call the cops on anyone that I see breaking the law. How is that adherence? If I’m willing to call others out in my “group” for their own stupidity I’d say that’s the antithesis of adherence, but maybe you don’t know what that word actually means. Here is the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adherence
I’ve never claimed to “be a member of Anonymous.” I’m just anonymous by default because I don’t give a name. If by keeping my name secret I am a “member,” then I guess I am.
I’m really confused by what you guys think qualifies as a member of Anonymous though. People who have gone to protests? People who keep their names secret? People who come from the chans? People on enturb? All critics? Please clarify so I know whether you think I am Anonymous or not. It’d make this whole thing a lot easier.
Also, no, Louanne, you are most certainly welcome on enturb. We are directly inviting you all to come. There have been a hand full of Scientologists who came there seeking information already and we’ve provided it. We don’t kick somebody off just for being a Scientologists. Personally, I wish more would show up. I want to have direct conversations with Scientologists, which, again, is why I’m here. I’m really enjoying this blog and I’m thankful you guys are communicating so openly. I think this is the only place online that I’ve seen that happen and I’m really happy a about it. Though Pat is extremely harsh and nearly drove me away once, I’m sticking around. Thanks for providing the venue.
Ahem (in no particular order):
“No, I am talking about the threat Carasov put on his ED page (that he is ready to shoot Scientologists, along with a picture of his two guns)”
No, what he said was that he was prepared to shoot anyone who broke into his house. Given the poisoning of the stray cat that he took care of, this was an ill-advised (but understandable) reaction. Unless the Scientologists were -planning- to break into his house, it’s difficult for them to make a case for that being a threat. Also, that’s not what he was charged with. He was -charged- with threatening that guy on the street. Other people filmed Carasov’s interactions with the guy, though I don’t believe the video has been put up on Youtube. The entire case, however, was based on that guy’s claims that Sean had threatened him.
Note that the case was dropped. So…false allegations?
“Found it, and it is unflattering. That’s what happens if you try to have a conversation with Anons, pure provocation, but yes, he should just have left. There is no good reason to continue a conversation which starts that unfriendly.”
It was unfriendly partly because he’d been trying to photograph them and gather personal info that he has no particular need for nor a right to. Note how he keeps asking for their names and telephone numbers. Why does he need that information in order to discuss Dianetics? I grant that some of the protesters there were being pretty provocative, and it’s not how -I- would have handled things. However, I wasn’t there. I didn’t see what happened off-camera. Carmichael’s reaction, though, is pretty unbecoming of a “reverend” and the local head of a religious organization.
“Start looking, that’s always a good way to start. Ask Anons to stay away from provocation and harassment, scold them if they don’t.”
Been there, done that, though again, I suspect our definitions of provocation and harassment might differ.
“So you are supporting a group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others? Did you wear a mask, supporting their symbology?”
No mask, though I did cover my face and wear concealing clothing to protest my identity from the (several) Scientologist photographers, including one guy -hiding in a bush-.
And no, I’m not supporting a “group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others”. If a bunch of channers went and pulled some typical online stunt, I wouldn’t be showing support for that. I support the general goals of Project Chanology, however, and its associated individuals.
“Cheap, and not an anwer. You want to try this again?”
How is that not an answer? Perhaps a clear definition of what you consider to be harassment and “invalidation” would help. Are we talking about the -legal- definition of harassment? Is it “any protest outside of a Scientology org”? Is it “anything which makes Scientology look bad”?
“A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members. They do it to other groups and invididuals too and have done so long before “Scientology” became their newest fad. ”
The fact that you say “Anonymous members” indicates to me that you still don’t really get it.
Look. If I went to 4chan /b/ -right now-, and posted on the forum, I would technically be anonymous. That does not mean that people there all share the same opinions, goals, or outlooks. There’s no charter, no statement of purpose.
Was the whole epilepsy thing done by people calling themselves Anonymous? Yeah, probably. That’s just a fancy way of saying, “It was done by some jerkoffs on the internet who read one of the image boards.” That’s a pretty low threshold for establishing association.
I’m not going to lie and say it’s all sweetness and light. I mean, we all know what the internet is like. That does not mean that the specific individuals involved in Chanology, though, are complicit in the things you mention.
And finally:
“The a.r.s. battles were before I could spell “internet” but I, too, think something has to change but what would that be?”
Here, again, I suspect we would disagree. I think, at the very least, a greater degree of transparency on Scientology’s part would help tremendously.
“No mask, though I did cover my face and wear concealing clothing to protest my identity from the (several) Scientologist photographers, including one guy -hiding in a bush-.”
Same, mainly because Guy Fawkes masks are expensive and I don’t know enough about British history to know what I’d be promoting. Ha. But I also concealed my identity. Does that make me “anonymous” or “Anonymous”? Again, what makes Anonymous? Who is counted? If it’s people wearing Guy Fawkes masks, some Scientologists in LA would be considered Anon. Heh.
“transparency on Scientology’s part would help tremendously.”
This. A thousand times this. An organization that holds so many secrets is bound to make others suspicious, even if it’s unwarranted. If the critics are wrong, they should be proved wrong, which I simply haven’t seen yet. Transparency is key.
@Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 10:27 pm
By attacking Scientology you’re attacking a Betterment group.
You buy into the garbage without ever personally investigating it for yourself by reading a book or going into a Church to see a film or attend a service. I could be lenient on you by saying you don’t know what it is you’re attacking when you protest (and it being legal is irrelevant) but I don’t think that will change anything. Find out what it is by investigating first-hand.
Protests are not peaceful, as they incite people, which is the whole intention. Just the fact you are there at all hiding behind masks of any kind is not transparent at all. I wish I knew what you think is so “un-transparent” about the Church, that you couldn’t get the knowledge on in the basic books (Everything, and I mean everything about Scientology is in those basics) that are free to read in every library.
Pat
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 6:09 pm
>>“Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”
>Which is clearly why I’m also protesting the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Cancer Fund, the Humane Society, and every local women’s shelter, orphanage, hospital, veterinary clinic, and soup kitchen I can find.
It’s interesting that you would take one sentence out of a post replying to someone else and make it about yourself.
What’s up with that?
Pat
@ Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 10:27 pm
“I’m really confused by what you guys think qualifies as a member of Anonymous though. People who have gone to protests? People who keep their names secret? People who come from the chans? People on enturb? All critics? Please clarify so I know whether you think I am Anonymous or not. It’d make this whole thing a lot easier.”
In my understanding a member of Anonymous is whoever choses to take on the “memes” of this group, including attending anonymous events or hanging out in Anonymous boards, but the main factor is taking on the philosophy that they are “nobody” (no offense to your user name) amongst many, a kind of “hive mind” which implies that they do not take any responsibility for any their actions and the actions of their group members. If it gets too hot or they did something illegal, they can go away and never get caught (so they think). Some critics went “anonymous” to help stirring the crowd with catchy accusations but the majority of the old critics are not part of that group. They have more interest in public attention and that requires a face and a name.
“Also, no, Louanne, you are most certainly welcome on enturb.”
I am blocked from enturb.org after someone posted a death threat against me. My ID was LuSmyths and here are the links:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/26-think-tank/operation-google-mapmaker-13203/
http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/google-maps-13067/
“There have been a hand full of Scientologists who came there seeking information already and we’ve provided it. We don’t kick somebody off just for being a Scientologists. Personally, I wish more would show up.”
This would require a fair setting and the actual wish of those enturb visitors to learn something new. As its name says already Enturb is a place for planning the next harassment “run” on Scientologists and has been from the start. If there are people on enturb who appreciate a live conversation and exchange of ideas then I haven’t found them yet.
- Louanne
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 11:02 pm
““No, I am talking about the threat Carasov put on his ED page (that he is ready to shoot Scientologists, along with a picture of his two guns)”
No, what he said was that he was prepared to shoot anyone who broke into his house. Given the poisoning of the stray cat that he took care of, this was an ill-advised (but understandable) reaction.”
The sequence was the other way around. He first put the threat on the page and then claimed that a stray cat got harmed (though I still can’t believe that a cat would drink ammonia).
“Note that the case was dropped. So…false allegations?”
Not “false” allegations but “not court proof”. Did someone post the actual court statement? Maybe there was footage of the incident and Carasov said something else then “I’ll slit your throat” .
“That’s what happens if you try to have a conversation with Anons, pure provocation, but yes, he should just have left. There is no good reason to continue a conversation which starts that unfriendly.” It was unfriendly partly because he’d been trying to photograph them and gather personal info that he has no particular need for nor a right to.”
You are leaving out half of the story. Anonymous gathered, filmed in the windows of the Church (they do regularly and post the pictures - and sometimes names - of the people working in there, how about THEIR privacy?). They went on messing up the side walks with chalk graffiti. THEN someone got out there to photograph. We agree that it should have gone differently but no Church staff ordinarily walks around with a camera unless there is a provocation first.
“And no, I’m not supporting a “group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others”. If a bunch of channers went and pulled some typical online stunt, I wouldn’t be showing support for that. I support the general goals of Project Chanology, however, and its associated individuals.”
I understand what you think but then again the “general goals of Project Chanology” as of this morning are:
” * Gain experience of performing operations on a global scale for future lulz.
* Alert the public to our presence and recruit active participants (for destroying CoS, not necessarily to become Anon).
* Lulz.
* Great justice.
* More lulz.
* Destroying a cult = lulz
* Destroying a business = lulz
* Destroying both at once = double lulz
* Force Dave Miscavige and Tom Cruise to buy curtains, a phone recorder, and a dog.
* And even more lulz.”
and this one - a mere afterthought per the edit history - but I guess this is what you think you are supporting:
“Save people from Scientology by reversing the brainwashing and help Scientologists realize that the Church of Scientology in its current state is a vast money-making scheme under the guise of religion. Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, but religion should be free.”
(Source: http://www.partyvan. info/index.php/Project_Chanology )
I guess you are one of the “recruited active participants” and you are now expected “to destroy the CoS”.
““Cheap, and not an anwer. You want to try this again?” How is that not an answer? Perhaps a clear definition of what you consider to be harassment and “invalidation” would help. Are we talking about the -legal- definition of harassment? Is it “any protest outside of a Scientology org”? Is it “anything which makes Scientology look bad”?”
The official definition does well:
(1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harassment)
Harassment goes along with hate crimes:
“Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime)
Damage of property? Check.
Bullying? Check.
Harassment? Check.
Verbal abuse or insults? Check.
Offensive graffiti? Check.
Offensive letters? Check.
““A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members. They do it to other groups and invididuals too and have done so long before “Scientology” became their newest fad. ” The fact that you say “Anonymous members” indicates to me that you still don’t really get it.”
Sorry, but I don’t buy this “hive mind” stuff. Individuals are responsible for their actions and if they put on symbols which make them part of a group they become responsible for the actions of the group as well. That’s why the law includes the banning of groups as a measure of public safety. Nobody is forced to become a member of Anonymous or to call oneself Anonymous (capital A) but nevertheless they have the same masks, the same flags, the same lingo and the same goals. That’s a group.
“And finally: “The a.r.s. battles were before I could spell “internet” but I, too, think something has to change but what would that be?” Here, again, I suspect we would disagree. I think, at the very least, a greater degree of transparency on Scientology’s part would help tremendously.”
That sounds like “stop doing your secret activities”. If there aren’t how to stop them? Scientology is not transparent enough because what you think is there cannot be seen yet? But maybe I am not fair here and you have specifics in mind. What areas of Scientology you think are not transparent enough?
- Louanne
Lou I was generalizing what Mark Bunker said. He might have said “don’t make martyrs out of scientologists” but isn’t that a good thing? I do not think any Scientologists were ever in physical danger because thats just not how the internet goes about things. Anonymous was famous for just freaking out the enemy and having them overreact= Lulz. You don’t want to be made into a victim… or do you?
Ok your links showed no death threats against you, the worst that was said was “Fail Troll is Fail” and it you weren’t even identified as a Scientologist until the 2nd page. Unless it was a PM you haven’t given me to believe you personally got a death threat.
http://www.partyvan.info- this is more of the chans and /i/nsurgents playground. This (pre-mark bunker) had discussions on the black faxes, prank calls, destruction of property that was REMOVED because of basically Mark Bunker’s pleas. I personally go to Enturbulation.org which technically isn’t anonymous (we have names) because it contains less incitefull material. And the scientolgists are always bawwwing over “they are in masks” yet several people not of anonymous have gone into an org and asked about it (including a Radio Talk Show Host *I think in boston*) and they people there say “its no big deal, just a silly group of protesters…”. So if we are such a threat how can they play it off as nothing…
And writing on sidewalks is legal in many places, just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it “graffiti”. Heck you just have to pour water on it to clean it off. And the reason we wear mask: FAIR GAME, which still exists in practice! And the reason Michael reacted the way he did was anons shined a normal flashlight into the lens of the camera to prevent their picture being taken. I still don’t understand why he didn’t just leave, if he was “being harassed” or in ANY danger he didn’t he just leave? Is it his job “to handle” to protesters?
“”"”"”"”"”I am blocked from enturb.org after someone posted a death threat against me. My ID was LuSmyths and here are the links:
http:// forums.enturbulation .org/26-think-tank/operation-google-mapmaker-13203/
http:// forums.enturbulation .org/7-general-discussion/google-maps-13067/”"”"”"”"”"”"
so instead of starting though provoking discussion you go and point out we are doing something illegal?
wouldn’t you be able to LINK TO THAT PAGE in a separate post or locked discussion?
YOU HAD THE OPTION TO CONTACT AN ADMIN AND HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN A LOCKED ARENA YET YOU DIDN’T!
in my opinion you had the insults coming the moment you said FUCK ALL to the smart ideas! btw you were banned because you were stupid enough to NOT contact an admin and inform them that you are a scientologist
“”"”"”"”"”Centurian, you spend a lot of time on Google Maps though… why are you changing your own changes back?”"”"”
he got pissed because you obviously researched his activities… an openly hostile action in his opinion… again STUPID IDEA
Pat-
You’re being -remarkably- intellectually dishonest. First of all:
“It’s interesting that you would take one sentence out of a post replying to someone else and make it about yourself.
What’s up with that?”
Well, see, Pat, here on the internet, that’s how conversation works. If it’s not a private conversation in private messages, other people are able to comment and contribute.
As for -why- I did, well, you were making a pretty sweeping generalization, trying to (at the very least) categorize the whole Anon thing as an anti-social group, with the IMPLICATION that this extended to its members, as well. I was pointing out how it’s interesting that this supposedly anti-social group has not gone after any groups that are -widely- considered to be helpful, rather than a group about whom many people disagree (such as Scientology).
“By attacking Scientology you’re attacking a Betterment group.”
That’s what you say. I disagree. I think the average Scientologist -is- trying to help, and I do think they BELIEVE in what they’re doing, but my overall impression of the organization is quite different.
“You buy into the garbage without ever personally investigating it for yourself by reading a book or going into a Church to see a film or attend a service. I could be lenient on you by saying you don’t know what it is you’re attacking when you protest (and it being legal is irrelevant) but I don’t think that will change anything. Find out what it is by investigating first-hand.”
You know, you guys say this a lot, but it doesn’t fly. Reading a book or going into the church to see a film only gives me Scientology’s perspective. It doesn’t give me some sort of unvarnished absolute “truth”, any more than reading the Bible tells me about the history and political influence of the Catholic church. Might it help? Certainly.
The irony here, of course, is that if the people complaining DID join Scientology, only to later leave and voice their concerns about the organization, you’d label them “apostates” and say that they should have addressed their concerns through the “proper channels”.
I don’t need to join a snake-handler church for years to realize that there’s a pretty good chance you’re going to get bitten.
“Protests are not peaceful, as they incite people, which is the whole intention. Just the fact you are there at all hiding behind masks of any kind is not transparent at all. I wish I knew what you think is so “un-transparent” about the Church, that you couldn’t get the knowledge on in the basic books (Everything, and I mean everything about Scientology is in those basics) that are free to read in every library.:
You know, you like to harp on the masks, but given that I -personally- know at least two individuals who have been followed by Scientology investigators for their participation in protests (and for putting their names on a police report as witnesses in one Scientologist-instigated incident), they seem like a good enough idea to me. Maybe if Scientology did not have a -documented history- of following, harassing, stalking, and smearing its critics, it’d be different. Sadly, they do. Also: There’s no such thing as a peaceful protest? -Really-? Do you -really- want to try to make that argument?
Finally, see above for the “But you can find out about Scientology by reading a book!” No, you can’t. You can find out about the book and, perhaps, the founding philosophies behind the organization.
Louanne-
“The sequence was the other way around. He first put the threat on the page and then claimed that a stray cat got harmed (though I still can’t believe that a cat would drink ammonia).”
Again, how is it a threat? He said if someone comes back and breaks into his house, he’s prepared to defend himself. Is “Breaking and entering” a protected sacrament of Scientology that I’m somehow not aware of?
Also: The cat didn’t drink ammonia. It ate cat food laced with it, which is -entirely- possible (stray cats, marking territory, etc etc you know all this already).
“Not “false” allegations but “not court proof”. Did someone post the actual court statement? Maybe there was footage of the incident and Carasov said something else then “I’ll slit your throat” .”
No, fair enough. I was under the impression that the “making false claims” thing was currently under investigation. If anything else comes out about it, I’ll let you know.
“You are leaving out half of the story. Anonymous gathered, filmed in the windows of the Church (they do regularly and post the pictures - and sometimes names - of the people working in there, how about THEIR privacy?). They went on messing up the side walks with chalk graffiti. THEN someone got out there to photograph. We agree that it should have gone differently but no Church staff ordinarily walks around with a camera unless there is a provocation first. ”
Oh, no, I’m well aware of the flash raid and all the stuff that goes on. I’ll admit I’m not a huge fan of posting people’s names and identifying info online (except, perhaps, if the person has -already- done something to merit it, or in the extenuating case of a “public figure” like Carmichael). Sidewalk chalk, though? That’s…pretty mild. I mean, really, -that’s- the big case for harassment and vandalism? That’s provocation to do…well, what the Scientologists did?
(Incidentally, I suspect their agitation had a bit MORE to do with being shut down by the police and fined for operating their table without a permit.)
“I guess you are one of the “recruited active participants” and you are now expected “to destroy the CoS”.”
I’d be reasonably satisfied if it just stopped all of its harmful nonsense. Frankly, I suspect that no matter what, the organization will continue in some form; that’s fine, so long as it stops doing, well, a lot of the stuff we’ve already covered.
Also: Yes, some of this stuff is -deeply- funny. I’ll admit, Scientology attempting to react to current, quickly-changing circumstances based on the same playbook it’s been using for decades is, really, pretty funny. The tone-deafness and ineptness of many of the official responses is funny. The 1984-ish “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia” doublethink is funny (although also depressing and terrifying).
Lives being destroyed, well, that’s not funny. People being harmed? Not funny. And yes, that applies on -both- sides. Threats and stuff like that? Not funny. That’s just dumb and harmful.
As for the hate crimes thing, the part you seem to frequently overlook is that in order for something to be a “hate crime”, it first has to be a “crime”.
Some of the things you mention, such as “bullying” and “harassment”, would first have to reach the level of criminal offense. THEN the hate crime label could be attached, adding to the seriousness of the case.
No matter how much Scientology might want it to be so, though, “hate crimes” does not mean “saying anything negative about a religion or acting against it in any way”. That’s simply not how it works.
“Sorry, but I don’t buy this “hive mind” stuff. Individuals are responsible for their actions and if they put on symbols which make them part of a group they become responsible for the actions of the group as well. That’s why the law includes the banning of groups as a measure of public safety. Nobody is forced to become a member of Anonymous or to call oneself Anonymous (capital A) but nevertheless they have the same masks, the same flags, the same lingo and the same goals. That’s a group.”
Sure, by some measures. It’s also a group that has no official membership, no formalized hierarchy, no “governing body”, no dues, no required activities…
No one has ever said that individuals aren’t responsible for their -own- actions. If I’m at, say, an anti-war protest, though, and one lone idiot does something stupid…I have a responsibility not to join him, sure. It would be wise of me to make sure that it’s obvious his actions are not representative of me or my friends. It would be smart for me to encourage others not to do the same thing as that guy. However, I am not -legally responsible- for his actions as an adult. Moreover, if he’s on the other side of the protest and I never even SEE the guy or know his name, how am I magically supposed to stop him?
“That sounds like “stop doing your secret activities”. If there aren’t how to stop them? Scientology is not transparent enough because what you think is there cannot be seen yet? But maybe I am not fair here and you have specifics in mind. What areas of Scientology you think are not transparent enough?”
Well, that is tough. The thing is, even reporters will tell you how much difficulty they’ve had doing anything on Scientology. Scientology will say, “Why didn’t you talk to a bunch of average Scientologists?” Well, because the reporter is inevitably “handled” by a PR contact who never LETS them. It’s pretty telling, in the initial days of the whole Chanology thing, that practically ever org asked for comment issued the same response, -word for word-, that had been handed down via press release from top management.
Pat-
I HAVE gone to a church. I took a free stress test in LA, read some of Dianetics at my local library, and have asked numerous questions here on this blog about your belief system, which you have refused to answer. It’s not my fault that you refuse to talk about your own beliefs. If you want to talk about your beliefs, I’ll gladly ask my questions again, but you seem to have no interest in talking to me which makes my perception of your organization even worse.
Besides, getting information only from Scientology is only getting half of the story. You see, in college we are taught to look at various sources to get the full story. If you are going to present an argument you need to understand the other side of it in order to adequately defend your point of view. Getting only half of the story is just lazy and really poor research. You can’t just take one source and claim it to be true. You have to look at all sides, compare and contrast, think critically, and come up with your owns conclusion. That’s all I’m doing.
Also, we have to agree to disagree about protests not being peaceful. I think protests can be very peaceful if done right. I participated in an anti-war protest once that seemed to be straight out of the sixties. Besides being horribly cliche, it was extremely peaceful and actually quite fun. People were playing music, singing, blowing bubbles, and making crafts. How is that not peaceful? It IS a protest. Now, at the protest I went to against the abuses of Scientology, it was also pretty peaceful. People were playing music, eating cake, dancing, singing, hugging, etc. Overall, these two protests were the most peaceful I have ever been to.
You are right though. Not every protest can be peaceful. I was at a protest on a college campus (as an observer) where people climbed into the trees to set up a camp to prevent them from being cut down. The broke down barricades, hit a cop, damaged property, and were over all just plain loud and annoying. That was NOT peaceful.
Now, as for “attacking a betterment group.” I am doing no such thing! If you want to go and say that Psychiatry is evil and people shouldn’t do drugs, be my guest! On some level, I agree with you. If you want to rehabilitate criminals and drug addicts, go ahead! I don’t care what whacky belief you choose to use to do so. That’s not what I have a problem with. My problem is with the abuses going on within the Church of Scientology.
My problem is the families that have been torn apart, the people who have been hurt, the people who have been stalked and harassed, and the many questionable policies of the Church of Scientology.
Pat, every time you try to attack me you fail because what you are saying simply isn’t true. You seem to think that any “member” of Anonymous is some evil, religious hating, criminal bigot who hates anything happy and positive in the world. Those aren’t your words of course, but that’s what I’m getting from what you are saying. I’m not any of those. I’m the exact opposite. Now can we actually address some of the concerns that we have over the CoS? I’m getting tired of this “always attack, never defend” mentality.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 30, 2008 5:55 pm
>>“It’s interesting that you would take one sentence out of a post replying to someone else and make it about yourself.
What’s up with that?”
>Well, see, Pat, here on the internet, that’s how conversation works. If it’s not a private conversation in private messages, other people are able to comment and contribute.
What does that have to do with taking a communication that replied to someone else’s communication (even quoting it) with you? Why do you take that personally, going on to protest how supportive you are of help groups. It wasn’t about you so why would you jump in on that as tho’ this were a personal attack?
Pat
Well, Pat, again, if you’d read the -rest- of that post, it pretty clearly explains that. In fact, the very next sentence begins with “As for -why- I did”.
@Comment by Nobody on May 30, 2008 6:41 pm
Pat-
Alright. I guess I’m not talking to you and never have. I guess I haven’t answered numerous times thru-out this blog about the beliefs of the Church (which are my beliefs). I guess that protests against my Church are ok for lulz but they are still hate crimes by legal definition.
At the bottom of this you assert that you aren’t attacking a betterment group. By saying that you have just said that Scientology doesn’t help anyone, as far as you’re concerned. You can believe that it won’t help you. That’s your prerogative. But when you protest us you protest the incredible miracles that Scientology gives. Scientology is not faith-based. It’s applied and those who apply it get miracles. You object to people in Scientology shunning those