Subscribe to Feed
What’s your take on Anonymous? - Archived
This thread is archived. You still can comment - because WordPress does not allow to close the comments without taking them all away - but I am not going to read it. - Louanne, 14 March 2008
From Wikipedia:
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?
- Lou
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:
The Church of Scientology also filed an injunction against Anonymous (just found on Digg), which was put up by the St. Petersburg Times.
Here is the file: Scientology injunction against Anonymous
338 Comments
I tried to find a decent website with more or less unbiased debate between Scientology and the recent Anonymous movement. This was the best I could find. Discussion with a Scientologist is rather scarce online.
Lu, I applauded you for standing up to a barrage of well thought out criticism. You were never exactly as neutral as I would have liked but you gave answers and that is more than I can say for most Scientology sites. I eagerly awaited your take on this bizarre group called Anonymous.
Now I have it. I’ve been following Anonymous since the original ‘Message to Scientology’. Not once in my repetitive clicking on Google News did I find anything of shots being fired at any Scientology building. Nor bomb or death threats.. There was the powder scare of course, but that has already been discussed on this site.
For what it’s worth, I don’t approve of many of Anonymous’ actions. They’re disorganized, impulsive and more than a bit strange. However, I did see videos of their protests, and they did it peacefully and without incident. I’ve seen Anon here and elsewhere voice intelligent questions. You answered those questions intelligently until now.
That’s my take.
(Note: this got stuck in the comment filter because it has more than one URL. Just put “(dot)” instead of “.” for external references. - Lu)
From http://www.net-security.org/news.php?id=15730 :
“Anti-Scientology agitators have repeatedly harassed and threatened violence against a 59-year-old PG&E worker and his wife, who were mistakenly flagged as pro-Scientology hackers.”
From http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/A_NEWS/801310319 :
“Lawson [the PG&E worker] said he doesn’t feel one way or the other about Scientology. But he said the harassment so scared him he planned to buy a gun. He said he still might.”
Here’s one from a Church statement published in a FL newspaper:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/07/Southpinellas/Church_of_Scientology.shtml
“They have also engaged in other harassment, including threats of violence in telephone calls, fax transmissions and e-mails”
While the current anti-Scientologists who are trying to do damage-control after the media made it pretty clear that Anonymous is a pretty creepy and potentially dangerous group, here is what the group publicly said as recently as July 2007:
“We are the face of chaos… We ruin the lives of other people simply because we can … Hundreds die in a plane crash. We laugh. The nation mourns over school shooting, we laugh. We’re the embodiment of humanity with no remorse, no caring, no love, or no sense of morality.”
This is the group that the anti-Scientologists apparently feel can best represent them in their crusade against a religion they don’t like.
>this group got hijacked
Nonsense. Prove it.
>Bomb and death threats on YouTube and other public places were followed by the firing of guns against Church buildings.
I love you, Lu. This is hilarious. Prove it.
>to set them lose
The word is “loose.”
>It stops to be a civil right the moment someone gets terrorized
Incorrect. Unless this is your opinion. Then it’s merely illogical.
>The joke is over since a long time
And yet, Anonymous has only begun.
>The joke morphed into something you can be jailed for.
The joke became you, Lu.
Lu, I want to say one final thing on this site, and I hope you realize how reasonable it is. It’s a simple statement that everyone can get behind. The concept has been around for thousands of years. And I hope it means as much to you as it does to me.
You should never be afraid to ask questions.
I can be arrested for protesting? wow….
you must be a whiz at the law
anmn wrote: “You should never be afraid to ask questions.”
That’s hilarious. How do you respond to the fact that ANONYMOUS ITSELF, in recent months, said:
““We are the face of chaos… We ruin the lives of other people simply because we can … Hundreds die in a plane crash. We laugh. The nation mourns over school shooting, we laugh. We’re the embodiment of humanity with no remorse, no caring, no love, or no sense of morality.”
Why don’t you question the motives of Anonymous, anmn?
That same question goes to anyone siding with this group.
There was an earlier question in another thread, which was “who do you think is behind Anonymous?” or something along those lines. To anyone who has been following the Scientology debate online for some time (as I have since the early 90s), it’s pretty obvious that the folks (now) behind Anonymous are the same folks that have gone pretty batsh*t crazy in their anti-Scientology rants over the years.
In all likelihood, the folks currently “anonymously” prodding Anonymous on is probably a sub-set of these long-time haters. Lu summarizes the list of these haters here:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/cult-or-religion/who-is-accusing-scientology-of-being-a-cult-and-attacking-it.php
Just did a little looking around… The newest campaign of Anonymous with the name Ides of March is named after the assassination of Jules Caesar. How is that for a “peaceful group”? Plus, taking a historical term to emphasize the purpose to “destroy the Church of Scientology” looks like it was born in some old fart’s brain rather than something a young crowd could want. Gosh, please guys, wake up!
- Lu
@Comment by chzbrgr on February 29, 2008 1:14 pm
“I can be arrested for protesting? wow….”
You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group. No whiz required to dig that.
- Lu
>That’s hilarious.
Don’t dismiss that line. Keep it with you.
You should never be afraid to ask questions.
Do you agree with that statement?
>ANONYMOUS ITSELF, in recent months, said:
One member so said. While statements like that are as official as things get, Anonymous has changed much in the last six weeks. Read Enturbulation and see what Anonymous is saying now.
>In all likelihood, the folks currently “anonymously” prodding Anonymous on is probably a sub-set of these long-time haters.
That’s it? New critics must be led by old critics? No new critics ever arise on their own?
None of the old guard would have lasted two minutes on the chans. They are not “hip;” they are not “with it.” And it doesn’t matter who started it; thousands joined for their own reasons.
Also, Lu, did you really have to look up the Ides of March?
>You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group.
I’m still waiting on the proof of bomb threats, death threats, and shots fired. Actually, I’m just waiting for you to try to support those comments, since I know you have no proof.
Things to chew on a bit, for the blind ones amongst us:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qI_hQTDEv1s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HgPxM8ry8o
How many viewers does it take for the first one to take a real gun and go “visit” a church?
- Lu
>How many viewers does it take for the first one to take a real gun and go “visit” a church?
That is a very good question. I can’t tell you how many times I wanted to grab a crowbar and beat up crabs in the sewer after playing Half-Life. Or infiltrate government buildings with a tranquilizer pistol after playing Metal Gear Solid. I mean, I never did, but out of the tens of millions of people who bought those games, surely someone was influenced to do so, right?
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 8:57 pm
Sure a computer game is so much the same as a religious community, right. You are trying to belittle the fact that such “game” as presented on YouTube is meant to incite violence and get people to kill Scientologists. That is disgusting and criminal. I haven’t found one mass murdering Mormons or Christians, so why is that? Are these groups too big for the cowards of Anonymous?
- Lu
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 7:38 pm
Repetitions, repetitions….
http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/anonymous-and-the-scientologymyths-website/#comment-66
“Also, Lu, did you really have to look up the Ides of March?”
Yes, I first thought it is an Iron Maiden song…
“>You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group.
I’m still waiting on the proof of bomb threats, death threats, and shots fired.”
Wait until someone knocks at your door.
- Lu
anmn wrote: “Do you agree with that statement?”
Of course I agree with it. That’s exactly why I said what I said right afterwards. And it is exactly what Scientology is all about.
anmn wrote: “Read Enturbulation and see what Anonymous is saying now.”
Yeah, that’s it. I’m sure if Fox News, or Scientology, or CNN, or the Catholic Church came out with an official video statement that said “we laugh when hundreds of people die in plane crashes,” it would be completely reasonable for observers - six weeks later - to simply accept that Fox News, or Scientology, or CNN or the Catholic Church has changed.
Get real anmn. All the attempts at damage-control and spin are not going to change what Anonymous is about.
It’s a hate group, in all likelihood now being prodded on by the handful of hard-core anti-Scientologists out there (see next question).
“New critics must be led by old critics? No new critics ever arise on their own?”
I think you mean “haters”. True “critics” are willing to engage in rational conversation and re-evaluate their conclusions based on new (or old) evidence. True “critics” are willing to let go of their initial hatred, once it becomes clear that in the end, we are simply dealing with a religion and people’s religious choices. True “critics” simply agree to disagree.
“Haters”, on the other hand, are incapable of doing any of these things, and instead of working to gain greater understanding in order to resolve a conflict (or recognize a simple disagreement based on religious principles), they continually find ways to keep the hatred and conflict going.
What is happening behind the scenes with Anonymous, has all the ear-marks of the influence of the hard-core “haters”, as listed elsewhere on this site.
“You are trying to belittle the fact that such “game” as presented on YouTube is meant to incite violence…”
In Half-Life 2.
“…and get people to kill Scientologists….”
In Half-Life 2.
“That is disgusting and criminal.”
Sure, if you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
…
Ohhhh.
“Wait until someone knocks at your door.”
Traditionally, when one asks for “proof,” one expects PROOF, not threats. I know the tech doesn’t teach you how to engage in a proper debate, but this much should be obvious.
“True “critics” are willing to let go of their initial hatred, once it becomes clear that in the end, we are simply dealing with a criminal organization masquerading as a religion and people’s religious fanaticism. True “critics” simply agree to disagree.”
Fixed.
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “Sure, if you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.”
Yeah, I’m sure if the Scientologists in those videos were replaced with Jews, Muslims or Catholics, it would be soooo easy to just laugh it off and call it “fantasy”.
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “I know the tech doesn’t teach you how to engage in a proper debate”
Would that be the “proper debate” of replacing someone’s post with your own hate-speech (as you just did with my post), and calling it “Fixed”.
Nice “proper debating” style there NotQuiteAnonymous.
Why not respond to the official Anonymous statement that people dying in airplanes and being killed by school shooters is “laughable”?
You seem to be concerned about criminal organizations. I applaud that. Are you denying that the one you have adopted (Anonymous) is the real criminal one here?
>Repetitions, repetitions….
That thread went nowhere; half of your accusations there are equally baseless (where did the $500,000 figure come from?), and the other half are unprovable either way.
>Wait until someone knocks at your door.
Until then, will you stop making these absurd, baseless claims?
“Yeah, I’m sure if the Scientologists in those videos were replaced with Jews, Muslims or Catholics, it would be soooo easy to just laugh it off and call it “fantasy”.”
If you understand the nature of Anonymous, yes, it is. Their jokes are offensive and cruel and in many cases obscene, but they are just jokes. Anonymous shuns IRL violence as counterproductive, and it mocks those who do use violence to achieve their ends.
“Would that be the “proper debate” of replacing someone’s post with your own hate-speech (as you just did with my post), and calling it “Fixed”.”
Hate speech? Isn’t that what NAMBLA calls it when people point out that, hey, maybe having sex with children isn’t such a good thing after all? Calling an organization to account for the criminal behavior it promotes is not “hate speech.” Heck, that’s the very thesis of your anti-Anonymous writings (the extent to which one can call Anonymous an “organization” notwithstanding). The point of my “fixed” post was to make clear that Anonymous has no quarrel with the religion of Scientology, as strange as its teachings are to outsiders, but with the secular practices of the Religious Technology Center and the Church of Scientology International. That is why you don’t see them attacking the Free Zone orgs.
“Why not respond to the official Anonymous statement that people dying in airplanes and being killed by school shooters is “laughable”?”
That sounds about right. Anonymous, for the most part, consists of jerks, idiots, and perverts who DO get lulz from news stories that others call tragic. There’s a reason 4chan’s /b/, the original home of Anonymous, is called “the a**hole of the Internet.” Fortunately, being an a**hole is not a crime, or else every American would be in jail.
“You seem to be concerned about criminal organizations. I applaud that. Are you denying that the one you have adopted (Anonymous) is the real criminal one here?”
Tsk. I haven’t “adopted” Anonymous. Frankly, I have no dog in this fight. Yes, I’m convinced the Church of Scientology is Evil with a capital E. But you know what? I *admire* you for it. Becoming a tax-exempt Mafia is an *achievement*. It’s the American dream, and I don’t want to see that go away. That’s why I want to help you understand Anonymous, so that you can at least stand a chance agains them, but you don’t strike me as particularly receptive.
>I’m sure if Fox News, or Scientology, or CNN, or the Catholic Church came out with an official video statement that said “we laugh when hundreds of people die in plane crashes,”
What if it was one employee or believer writing the same in their blog or journal?
I’m not saying that Anonymous is a nice group, but I have seen almost nothing negative or illegal, save the half a week of DDOS, since the first Message to Scientology video went up.
>True “critics” are willing to engage in rational conversation and re-evaluate their conclusions based on new (or old) evidence.
Actually, that sounds a lot like an apostate’s logical process when they’re about to leave the CoS.
Would you describe yourself as a “critic” of Anonymous? Is it acceptable for a critic to not change his or her mind?
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 10:05 pm
>>Repetitions, repetitions….
>That thread went nowhere.
Because you insisted to not look.
>>Wait until someone knocks at your door.
>Until then, will you stop making these absurd, baseless claims?
You are denying that DDOS attacks happened, you are denying that bomb threats and murder threats happened, yet you have seen them on YouTube and other online pages. You deny that Scientologists are continuously being invalidated, harassed and attacked. What cave are you sitting in. Next thing you deny is having an internet line.
- Lu
anmn wrote “where did the $500,000 figure come from”
Lu answered it earlier. To move a website like scientology.org to a hardened server — which the Church was forced to do after anonymous started attacking it — is very costly. On the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Further, the losses associated with being able to answer the media’s and the people’s questions in a timely manner by having one’s websites and phone systems up, particularly during the firestorm over the TomCruise/anti-Scientology biography and no-doubt orchestrated video release, was also costly. I don’t know what kind of dollar figure a court would put on it, but I’m sure once the culprits are caught, we’ll find out.
@Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 29, 2008 10:26 pm
“That is why you don’t see them attacking the Free Zone orgs.”
Bullshit. You don’t see them attacking FZ because they are PROMOTING the FZ as a “save haven” for Scientologist giving up their faith. What’s their new campaign called? Operation disaffection or something? Making people feel bad for their religion? Anonymous is destroying people, and I don’t care how often you deny that. I can see damn well and I won’t look away.
“That’s why I want to help you understand Anonymous, so that you can at least stand a chance agains them, but you don’t strike me as particularly receptive.”
That went to Lake, but I’ll answer on that as well. NQA, I do understand Anonymous but I disagree with whitewashing them. They are irresponsible, allow criminals in their ranks and they will have to eat it. That’s the behavior of a moron but that is what these guys want to be, dumb, disgusting and stinking out of their mouth. Eeks!
- Lu
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 10:33 pm
“Would you describe yourself as a “critic” of Anonymous? Is it acceptable for a critic to not change his or her mind?”
Yes, and I did change my mind. First I though that this is a bunch of college kids with nothing better to do. I changed my mind after online research, personal observations and a personal experience (which I let certain government agencies deal with, so that you will have to wait a little).
Since then I am convinced that there are no “acceptable” hate crimes and that it is correct to call those guys criminals. If they want to j**k off in front of their screens, fine, I am not prudent. But I won’t accept incitations of hate and attempts to get others to harm Scientologists.
- Lu
Alright NotQuiteAnonymous. You said “Calling an organization to account for the criminal behavior it promotes is not ‘hate speech.’”
Fair enough.
And Marge responded to OnTheBridge’s 4 points to Scientology that you had re-posted.
Did OnTheBridge capture what you believe is the criminal behavior of Scientology? Did Marge not fully respond? If not, what additional questions remain?
As I’m sure you are aware, this site takes up the most common ones: Fair Game, SP, Guardians Office, Lisa McPherson, et al.
Have you attempted to calmly read the Scientologists’ responses?
If so, what questions remain?
You seem ready to come to the defense of Anonymous as a “misunderstood group” and that its “strongest supporters” mean no harm. Did it ever occur to you that Scientology is also a “misunderstood group” and that it’s “strongest supporters” (made up of it’s leadership on down) mean no harm?
You seem ready to support the Free Zone. But do you realize that the “Free Zone” claims to fully support what LRH said? Are you saying that the current Church of Scientology is not following LRH’s words and intentions?
For example, KSW was written in 1965 and is fully supported by the Free Zone. Are you sure that if the Free Zone became the “new Church of Scientology”, that Anonymous (and/or other anti-Scientologists) wouldn’t just find the new Free Zone’s leadership as “criminal” and Evil (with a capital E) as the current Church of Scientology?
In summary NotQuiteAnonymous, do you really think you have looked at both sides of these arguments in an honest and balanced way, to come to the conclusions that you have reached? Or are you mostly relying on what others have told you?
@Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 29, 2008 9:30 pm
>>“You are trying to belittle the fact that such “game” as presented on YouTube is meant to incite violence…”
>In Half-Life 2.
>>“…and get people to kill Scientologists….”
>In Half-Life 2.
>>“That is disgusting and criminal.”
>Sure, if you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
I guess you will have to convince legislators with that. Hate crime laws are saying the opposite. In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October 2007, Congress is considering the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list.
Check Wikipedia for the other countries.
- Lu
@ Lu:
You continue to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology. Please stop that. Unless one of the tenets of the faith is blind obedience to whatever the Der Fuehrer David Miscavige says, one *can* leave the Church without losing one’s faith. You have to accept that the Free Zone practices the same religion as you; they just do it for a lot less.
“They are irresponsible, allow criminals in their ranks and they will have to eat it. That’s the behavior of a moron but that is what these guys want to be, dumb, disgusting and stinking out of their mouth.”
I agree entirely. But. They. Are. Winning. Anon’s stats are up, your stats are down, and unless the Church changes its strategy *yesterday*, it will FLUNK. And to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Who’s the bigger moron: the moron, or the moron who’s outwitted by him?”
@Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 29, 2008 11:04 pm
“You continue to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology.”
Exactly right. This is the place where all of Scientology is available and where all of it is being applied, not just “what you feel to apply” or “oops, he got cancer from a squirrel process”. Violation of true Scientology costs lives and any “Scientology” outside of the Church of Scientology is BASED on such violations. I am truly fascinated by the screwed up logic those morons apply to justify their Road to Death.
“But. They. Are. Winning.”
Bullshit again. You are too much on the internet, man. Look in real life. But even if this were true it would not change my mind. Because I am a Scientologist and not an opportunist.
- Lu
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “You have to accept that the Free Zone practices the same religion as you; they just do it for a lot less.”
Ok, so it’s a cost issue for you.
So if I’m reading you right, you support the FreeZone (which claims to fully support LRH).
And which LRH policy(ies) is the “Miscavige administration” currently violating with regard to how much to ask in donations for auditing and training?
>You are denying that DDOS attacks happened, you are denying that bomb threats and murder threats happened,
I never denied them. I accept the DDOS attacks; Anonymous fortunately did not persist with them. I don’t claim they were right.
Yes, there are a few wackos. There always are. You had the Guardian’s Office; Anonymous has equal-opportunity countertrolls. They absolutely should be prosecuted for bomb threats. Anonymous will not defend them. But you have to admit it would be difficult to find them. Anon knows how to find people, and so he also knows how not to be found. Just like it’s hard to sue a lawyer, or
>You deny that Scientologists are continuously being invalidated, harassed and attacked.
I don’t deny this, but I won’t accept it without a source besides you. Isn’t this site supposed to be all about reputable sources? Court documents, news articles, affidavits?
>anmn wrote “where did the $500,000 figure come from”
>Lu answered it earlier.
Not with a source, just with a few reasons why it might cost that much. No one claimed half a million in damages except Lu.
>Further, the losses associated with being able to answer the media’s and the people’s questions in a timely manner by having one’s websites and phone systems up,
Are you kidding me? That’s publicity. Digg and Slashdot don’t get sued for sending millions of interested people to someone’s personal site, even if it uses up all of their bandwidth or makes the site unavailable.
>What’s their new campaign called? Operation disaffection or something?
Now you’re just being dense. It’s Operation Reconnect.
>the Matthew Shepard Act
…has nothing to do with anything here.
>“oops, he got cancer from a squirrel process”.
Do you seriously believe that? I mean, do you have any reason for believing that is possible besides what LRH wrote? Is there any data on cancer rates of Scientologists, in and out of the CoS?
@Comment by chzbrgr on February 29, 2008 1:14 pm
“I can be arrested for protesting? wow….”
You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group. No whiz required to dig that.
- Lu
you are severely misguided and i feel you will never understand anon if you continue to believe the drivel ladled to you by your superiors…… you read those leaked documents so when you PAY to get to that point they are given to you…. you will know just how much BS you waded through to learn of their lies.
your beliefs are a pyramid scheme
you are calling me a terrorist? my whole family is military… I’m one of 13 family members not in the armed forces… the other 50…… well… either retired, active duty, or on extended leave…..
you, with as much respect as i can muster say this to you
@Comment by Lu
You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group. No whiz required to dig that.
CALL THE FUCKING ARMY ON ME THEN!!! YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PROOF IM A TERRORIST!!!
@notanotheranon
I agree entirely. But. They. Are. Winning. Anon’s stats are up, your stats are down, and unless the Church changes its strategy *yesterday*, it will FLUNK. And to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Who’s the bigger moron: the moron, or the moron who’s outwitted by him?”
.
.
.
.
dude urdoinitwrong…. its “who’s the bigger fool? the fool or the one who follows him!”
…
oh you said paraphrase… nevermind
@ Lake:
“Have you attempted to calmly read the Scientologists’ responses?
If so, what questions remain?”
Yes, and I have just one simple question. Why should I believe a word of it? Operations Freakout and Snow White shattered the Church’s credibility. The only way to restore that credibility is with total transparency, which (for thirty years now) has not been forthcoming. The Guardian’s Office was disbanded after it got caught, but it was replaced with the just-as-secretive Office of Special Affairs, and many of the Church’s other facilities have never taken kindly to scrutiny. Your pleas are like those of a Soviet agent during the Cold War, telling the American government to turn a blind eye to the KGB, because it was the NKVD doing all the bad things and, hey, we got rid of *that*.
“You seem ready to come to the defense of Anonymous as a “misunderstood group” and that its “strongest supporters” mean no harm. Did it ever occur to you that Scientology is also a “misunderstood group” and that it’s “strongest supporters” (made up of it’s leadership on down) mean no harm?”
I suppose this is possible. In which case, however, the Church’s abuses are doubly tragic, for both the abused and the abuser become victims, victims of a fraud that outlived its author.
“You seem ready to support the Free Zone. But do you realize that the “Free Zone” claims to fully support what LRH said? Are you saying that the current Church of Scientology is not following LRH’s words and intentions?”
Well, in terms of administration, I would say that the Church is being truer to Source. That is not a compliment. I would rather have harmless heresy than deadly orthodoxy. But if the Free Zoners have deluded themselves into thinking that LRH would not have approved of his Church’s crimes, so be it. And in terms of the bridge itself, I see no difference between the two.
“For example, KSW was written in 1965 and is fully supported by the Free Zone. Are you sure that if the Free Zone became the “new Church of Scientology”, that Anonymous (and/or other anti-Scientologists) wouldn’t just find the new Free Zone’s leadership as “criminal” and Evil (with a capital E) as the current Church of Scientology?”
Anonymous wouldn’t care one bit, unless the Free Zone continued the Church’s tradition of jihad against the Internet, which doesn’t seem likely. And the other critics would probably quit as well. Those who are only concerned with the current Church’s abuses would have nothing to complain about, unless the Free Zone mutated into a tyrannical racketeering organization. And without the Church to aggressively promote Scientology, those who are bothered by its religious practices would have to pull back also, since participation in the Free Zone is, at all times, a demonstrably voluntary choice. (As long as they are only harming themselves and not others, the critics reason, there isn’t as much need to stop them.)
@ Lu:
“I guess you will have to convince legislators with that. Hate crime laws are saying the opposite.”
FLUNK! Hate crime laws only apply when an actual crime has already been committed. Start.
“Violation of true Scientology costs lives and any “Scientology” outside of the Church of Scientology is BASED on such violations. I am truly fascinated by the screwed up logic those morons apply to justify their Road to Death.”
FLUNK! The only violations are of administrative policies, like Fair Game. The auditing process uses standard tech, as evidenced by the fact that people don’t up and die when they leave the Church. (Unless they’re Lisa McPherson.) Start.
“Bullshit again. You are too much on the internet, man. Look in real life. But even if this were true it would not change my mind. Because I am a Scientologist and not an opportunist.”
FLUNK! In the world outside Flag, Scientology is a laughingstock. You have less than one hundred thousand members worldwide and falling. Anonymous has (at least) tens of thousands of supporters worldwide and rising. Their stats *are* up. Your stats *are* down. I’m not asking you to blow because of this trend. I’m asking you to re-evaluate your strategy for fighting Anonymous. The old tactics have failed, and they will continue to fail until the Church itself fails. So at the risk of melodrama, I will ask you very plainly: do you want the Church to survive? Start.
Lake wrote: “If so, what questions remain?”
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “Yes, and I have just one simple question. Why should I believe a word of it? The only way to restore that credibility is with total transparency…”
Well, I think the IRS decision provided quite a bit of transparency. The Church’s willingness to open its doors to media, including some of the core Sea Org locations, provided transparency. Miscavige’s willingness to be interviewed on ABC News after the Time story provided transparency. He regularly speaks to the membership about goals and ideals, and invites participation from everyone.
What more transparency would work for you? Like sending out financials on a quarterly basis? I mean, in comparison to the LDS Church and Christian Science and Catholicism, who were in similar situations in the past, what additional transparency do they provide that Scientology doesn’t?
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “I’m asking you to re-evaluate your strategy for fighting Anonymous.”
No NotQuiteAnonymous, you’re asking Scientologista and the Church to change its principles and spiritual beliefs, simply because you don’t agree with them.
It’s not going to happen.
And all we’ll end up with in the end will be more and more opportunities and platforms for Scientologists to actually explain themselves. Anonymous will continue to be seen as the group that they profess themselves to be — a group that laughs when people get killed senselessly.
Getting a bunch of listless college kids to rally meaninglessly behind masks, does not a group make.
When they come to their senses, most will realize that religious bigotry and “no remorse” are not values that they aspire to.
“Well, I think the IRS decision provided quite a bit of transparency.”
Right, right. The CONFIDENTIAL agreement between the Church and the IRS provided TRANSPARENCY. Head, meet your old friend desk.
“The Church’s willingness to open its doors to media, including some of the core Sea Org locations, provided transparency.”
Proof or it didn’t happen. And even if it did, photo ops do not constitute transparency. Now, if the church allows unscheduled visits from members of the public or investigative reporters posing as same (à la the “mystery shopper” programs at many retail chains), then you might be able to make a case.
“Miscavige’s willingness to be interviewed on ABC News after the Time story provided transparency.”
Again, that’s not transparency. That’s spin. There is a difference.
“He regularly speaks to the membership about goals and ideals, and invites participation from everyone.”
Good for him, but irrelevant. “Transparency” means to the outside world, to us preclear wogs.
“What more transparency would work for you?”
Let’s start with a full federal investigation and negotiate up from there. There are some pretty serious allegations being leveled at your Church. What better way to shut Anonymous up than by showing the FBI and the world that these allegations are baseless, if these allegations are baseless?
“No NotQuiteAnonymous, you’re asking Scientologists and the Church to change its principles and spiritual beliefs, simply because you don’t agree with them.”
So, and let’s be clear about this, “always attack, never defend” is an involiable dogma of your religion? Smearing your opponents as HATE-mongers and TERR-orists is a sacrament? Calling all your critics bigoted liars, paid off by the psychs and the Germans, is a holy ritual?
Well, it’s not my bag, but I won’t argue with the First Amendment.
“It’s not going to happen.”
Then you have already lost. May God have mercy on David Miscavige, because the courts won’t. I just have one final link, one final warning before I leave you to your fate:
http://scientology.facts.qlnk.net/
“And all we’ll end up with in the end will be more and more opportunities and platforms for Scientologists to actually explain themselves.”
Oh right. No publicity is bad publicity. That’s why membership in the People’s Temple skyrocketed after that whole dealie in Guyana.
“Anonymous will continue to be seen as the group that they profess themselves to be — a group that laughs when people get killed senselessly.”
It’s called black comedy, and it’s a perfectly sensible reaction to this age of information overload, when every five seconds we’re hearing about some other shooting in some other podunk town. I mean, do you really expect people to mourn for everyone who dies? Because if you do, there will be no time left for living and, paradoxically, no reason then to mourn.
“Getting a bunch of listless college kids to rally meaninglessly behind masks, does not a group make.”
And that’s why you can’t fight them. Anonymous isn’t a “group.” It’s a movement. It’s a philosophy. It’s a way of life.
“When they come to their senses, most will realize that religious bigotry and “no remorse” are not values that they aspire to.”
I am now convinced that you are legally retarded (no offense). Anonymous is not, never was, and never will be about “religious bigotry.” For what I hope is the last time, I remind you that they are not fighting the FAITH of Scientology, but the CORPORATION of Scientology, as represented by the Religious Technology Center and its subsidiaries.
And most Anonymous are a lot more forgiving, a lot more merciful, and simply a lot nicer than their collective creed implies. But as long as someone holds a grudge, Anonymous does not forgive. That’s the whole point of the statement, “None of us is as cruel as all of us.”
And since you refuse my help, you must now accept my harm. I shall take a side in this conflict, and it is not yours.
What’s this? NOT-QUITE-ANONYMOUS is evolving!
.
.
.
NOT-QUITE-ANONYMOUS evolved into OKAY-I’M-ANONYMOUS-NOW!
“Lake said: “What more transparency would work for you? Like sending out financials on a quarterly basis? I mean, in comparison to the LDS Church and Christian Science and Catholicism, who were in similar situations in the past, what additional transparency do they provide that Scientology doesn’t?
Actually, US Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is presently investigating the finances of a bunch of TV preachers. It’s a different context,of corse, but I think Davey Miscarriage would be none too pleased to supply his records. Yet it could well happen.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080216/NEWS/802160336/-1/BUSINESS04
@Comment by Rao on March 2, 2008 9:58 pm
“I think Davey Miscarriage would be none too pleased to supply his records.”
Dunno any TV preacher by that name. You must be hallluzinating.
- Lu
HOLY SHI*… Dude that was the winner of the best post award!
on an unrelated note I’m about to procreate… Wish me luck!
( I hope it’s a boy!)
@Comment by Lu on March 2, 2008 11:31 pm
Dunno any TV preacher by that name. You must be hallluzinating.
Oh Lu, your subtlety and wit are rivaled only by your tact and spelling.
Hey now, why aren’t my comments showing up?
Sorry if this should go under something else, but since I’m technically Anon I’ll put it here (also it’s a follow up to a statement in this thread). Also I’ll try to be as polite as possible as I’d like to have a serious answer.
Either Lake or Lu stated that Anonymous lets criminals into our group. How do you reconcile that with scientology drawing members from Narconon & Crimonon? (I throw Narconon in there as drug use is illegal even if never arrested)
Now the obvious answer from your side will be that those people are rehabilitated and thus no longer criminals. To that point my question would be then why does Scientology use criminal records to try to discredit critics? I’ll direct you to the BBC documentary where a scientologist states that Sean Lonsdale had sex with dudes in public and has a copy of his criminal file. (The other answer would be that those programs only licence the tech, but you must get some carry over if the tech helps as many people as they say they do)
My point is this: If we are to assume that Crimonon & Narconon people are rehabilitated due to them not re-offending, then can’t the same be true for people who never went through the program (or went through different programs)? So why are members of your organization using events from the past to try and discredit people now?
You state Operation Freakout & Snow White happened years ago and Scientology today should not be judged on the actions of the organization in the past, but isn’t that exactly what the organization is doing by using critic’s pasts against them?
If the only standard that people are criminals are that they have a criminal past then by definition you let criminals into your organization as well via Crimonon & Narconon. If you believe that they have reformed then you have to also accept that critics with a criminal past could also have reformed.
How that relates to Anon today? Anon did do a DDoS on Scientology sites (an act they take credit for). We’ve reformed and taken out the criminal elements of the campaign (hell I didn’t even take up the cause until post DDoS as I thought it was a stupid idea).
There is no evidence to point to either the white powder or the bomb threats coming from Anon. I don’t even know where the gun shots thing comes from but since there appears to be no evidence of that ever happening I’m going to assume it didn’t. So, without further evidence of criminal misdeeds is it not fair to say that we’ve reformed? You want us to believe you reformed post Freakout & Snow White. Why so unwilling to believe Anon reformed post DDoS?
And bear in mind, if we the critics are unable to reform, then all people you consider “criminal” have not reformed, your organization must be unable to reform and the members you have recieved via Crimonon & Narconon have not reformed either and thus, you let criminals into your organization as well.
“Comment by David Miscarriage on March 3, 2008 1:21 am
This post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?”
QFT. What’s the matter, Lu? Unable to ack your irrationality?
I figured my post would get deleted. Why the intellectual dishonesty, Lu? Afraid you can’t stand up to logic?
Once again, this post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02/alea-iacta-est-die-has-been-cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me.
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION: Does your argument make sense to you?
Aww, my comment got deleted. What’s wrong? Don’t like your hypocrisy being thrown in your face?
Nice that you can call other people out on being “religious bigots” and then say something like this.
“You continue to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology.”
Exactly right. This is the place where all of Scientology is available and where all of it is being applied, not just “what you feel to apply” or “oops, he got cancer from a squirrel process”. Violation of true Scientology costs lives and any “Scientology” outside of the Church of Scientology is BASED on such violations. I am truly fascinated by the screwed up logic those morons apply to justify their Road to Death.
As the official viewpoint of the “church” this is basically the equivalent of the Pope condemning all non-Catholic religions for claiming to practice “Christianity.” It’s stupid, it’s ignorant (as in most cases the tech is being practiced the same) and in your case it’s most definitely hypocritical. Anonymous can’t protest the administrative actions of the “church” of Scientology without being labeled “bigots” but YOU can attack someone else’s religious viewpoint and still claim to be “impartial?”
I want an answer, Lu. I’m print screening this entire conversation to make sure I have proof that you are intellectually dishonest.
“As the official viewpoint of the “church” this is basically the equivalent of the Pope condemning all non-Catholic religions for claiming to practice “Christianity.””
Except that the Pope, to my knowledge, has never claimed that Protestant services cause cancer.
Except that the Pope, to my knowledge, has never claimed that Protestant services cause cancer.
True, but I wanted to keep my post simple. I could have gone off on three or four different tangents if I wanted to go in-depth, I think. =p
Awww, am I late to the one-sided debate?
If anonymous have no leaders, why am I reading on the enturbulation forum that people from anonymous are meeting with the press?
Isn’t that making us slightly less anonomous?
Can’t we just keep doing the things we are doing?
You stupid f##k.
Of course we have to meet with the press. How are we going to get the message across correctly?
If we don’t organize then we can’t advance.
http://www.enturbulation .org need you to pay close attention to the directions given on the site.
You can donate to the cause via paypal.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Just seems like a group leadership evolving to me. We ain’t supposed to have leaders. Don’t call me a stupid fuck.
Listen. At times like these we need a leadership. It takes a lot of planning to organize our protests. We started something here and we are not going to stop until we complete our mission. If we have to organize and create a leadership then that’s what we will have to do to make sure our voice is heard.
In many areas we have to meet with the authorities permission to stage protests.
We can’t do that wearing masks.
The guys who get the permits to protest aren’t leaders. they’re just taking initiative. just like someone took the initiative to let us know of this fine blog which seems perfectly willing to spread lies and slander about Anonymous, with no proof to their claims, and an inability to back down from said baseless claims. I mean, seriously, shooting at a church? Honestly?
@ Lu
“Wait until someone knocks at your door.”
Why would somebody come knock on my door? I have done nothing illegal, except for accidently jay walking at the last protest. If a cop really wants to track me down for that, go for it. I’ll pay the ticket.
I have no participated in DDoS attacks, bomb threats, death threats, or anything like that. All I’ve done is protest an organization that I see as corrupt. I am not protesting the religion. I am not protesting peoples right to practice any religion. I am protesting, like a said, an organization that I feel is corrupt and dangerous for many people. Go ahead and do what you want, but when you start hurting people, like the CoS has done, I will step in and say something.
Again, why would a cop come to my door over this? Free speech is perfectly legal. As a matter of fact, it’s in the US constitution.
Anonymous believes in freedom of speech.
Anonymous is protesting lack of freedom of speech, lack of investigation into obvious crimes, lack of communication between family members, and what seem to be major human rights violations. Anonymous might be wrong. Anonymous might be right. Anonymous feels it has the right to know what is going on and to protest what could easily be construed as organized crime.
“Comment by anonymous on March 3, 2008 11:21 pm
Listen. At times like these we need a leadership. It takes a lot of planning to organize our protests. We started something here and we are not going to stop until we complete our mission. If we have to organize and create a leadership then that’s what we will have to do to make sure our voice is heard.
In many areas we have to meet with the authorities permission to stage protests.
We can’t do that wearing masks.”
No leaders. The moar you ramble about leaders, the moar stupid you will sound.
@LU: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XWGLfQ-RSlc
Enjwoy :D
Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
Aww, Lu got all butthurt because s/he can’t find a counter argument to justify his/her ad hominem attack?
Anonymous demands a reply.
Silly Lu. You and I both know this is silly to argue over– it’s a waste of your time, because we’re pushing you to defend, something you should never, ever do.
Is that why you stopped commenting? Can’t think of a new angle to attack from?
We have all the time in the world to point out where you have failed miserably. We will continue to do so, so that those who watch from the sidelines may come to their own conclusions.
Still waiting on that proof, by the way…
You mention the bomb threat posted on youtube that we assumed was from OSA. After we flagged it and comment spammed it, the video got taken down after a couple of hours at most. If the video was actually put up by somebody else that had nothing to do with the CoS, how would you know about it and the bomb threat if it had not been posted by OSA itself?
“Wait until someone knocks at your door. ”
Say, *that* sounds like a threat!
Can’t you morons just take it like men? (I don’t care what gender you are, Lu.)
THE PROTESTS WERE PEACEFUL.
NOBODY BROUGHT WEAPONS.
NOBODY THREATENED THE CHURCH.
At the very least, the Church should learn how to take some fucking criticism. *Srsly*.
Oh, and as we like to say; Dox/pix or it didn’t happen.
Just to establish, firmly, the downstat:
L. Ron Hubbard was a liar, a thief, a con man who started this bullshit religion to make a quick buck.
David Miscavige is an angry little midget. He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech!
WBM, or Mark Bunker, is NOT our leader. He is our mentor. He is our dear friend. He does not lead us. Nobody does. People take initiative, culminating in what becomes YOUR FAILURE.
But hey, maybe if you keep posting random ad hominem attacks you’ll get an upstat. In a few years.
You can leave if you want to. Remember that.
Where the heck is Lu, anyway? And Lake, for that matter. Did we scare them off or did they get RPF’d or what? ‘Cause if they’re gone, I’m totally claiming this thread in the name of France.
*plants tiny French flag*
Lu
you made referance to guns being fired at scientology churches during the recent protests. I have not seen any news reports regarding this. ive searched online and found nothing.
could you post a referance to this statement? did it actually happen?
we germans are sure persistant! I RETURN to claim this site in the name of the germans!
you may delete the post… but will NEVER delete the poster!!!!
*plants artillery and railway station*
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 5, 2008 12:43 am
“Where the heck is Lu, anyway? And Lake, for that matter. Did we scare them off or did they get RPF’d or what? ‘Cause if they’re gone, I’m totally claiming this thread in the name of France.”
(pulls flag) Sorry, no frogs allowed.
I am right here. Dunno about Lake. And I’m f***ing busy, be back tomorrow.
- Lu
@Comment by Mike Rinder on March 4, 2008 11:58 pm
“how would you know about it and the bomb threat if it had not been posted by OSA itself?”
Wake up and smell the coffee. Or at least the criminals in your group, and throw them out. You seem to live in some kind of dream about big bad organizations and James Bond hopping around.
I have no indication that OSA would do such things, not even on “anti-”sites. Those of their staff I have gotten to know in the past were pretty busy with human rights events, media clippings or at trials and so on. However I saw and still see a shitload of Anons posting clips about slaughtering Scientologists, laughing about real life misery and burning down churches. So which group, you think, is more realistic to be the source? Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next. I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s).
- Lu
“Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next. I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s).”
Sorry Lu, Anonymous is not a group. It is a collective of people. The contributions of these people are judged on their merit and usefulness to the causes of the group, not their personal life outside of their affiliation with Anonymous. Even if there are criminals in the collective (I wouldn’t know, they’re anonymous too), it would not matter as long as their contributions are legal, peaceful and in context with Anonymous’ ambitions. To respond to another point of yours, fortunately and unfortunately Anonymous cannot ‘throw people out’, even with a cursory knowledge of the collective you would know that this is not possible. The most we can do is alienate, but I’ll get to that later.
Also, you did not answer the question. How do you know about the bomb threat video that was posted on Youtube? Using the Anonymous credo does not in any way mean that it came from a supporter, and in fact the numerous factual errors in the video’s transcript as well as the video’s direct opposition to all of Anonymous’ goals suggests that it did not come from the group at all. I could even send you the page in which hundreds of Anonymous flagged the video to get it removed from Youtube as quickly as possible, what does that say about the ‘terror group’? Seeing as how it was quickly removed and very few people ever knew of its existence, how do you?
You also make plenty of claims about Anonymous being guilty of numerous illegal activities as well as terror acts against Scientology. These claims cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet that I know of, so please, post proof. Post links that directly connect Anonymous posters to terror acts. Forum posts do not constitute proof. Any response you post that is defamatory to Anonymous that does not link to proof for these claims will become immediately invalidated as it proves that your claims are sourceless. Prove to me that you are not a Scientology propagandist. I’m sorry, but here I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt.
An Anonymous will never be arrested on criminal charges. The numerously stated goals of the collective are peaceful and extensively legal, and the exact second that anybody affiliating his or herself with Anonymous commits an illegal action, they are effectively expelled. To state it simply, the only membership requirement for Anonymous is that your personal motivation and actions resemble those of the collective. The motivations and actions of Anonymous are legal. Therefore anybody who commits an illegal act and consequently gets arrested in the name of Anonymous is not part of the collective.
I’m looking forward to your response.
*soils self in awe of godlike logic*
you sir take the fuckin’ cake!
It’s funny how a lot of the anti anonymous sound more and more like scientologists.
Think about it?
Xe nu? Thetans? (spell check)
sounds like scientology nothing more than a made up fantasy just like all religions.
however it is pretty sad that even in a cult like scientology favors such everyday lifestyles that they take for granted that is based solely on other religions.
Free speech, the law, household items, and thousands of other things they do in their everyday lives that in one form or another originated from other religions.
scientologist are stuck in a fairytale, they think they are supreme, they think they are ultimate, they are sadly mistaken. The blood spilled on the soil of other countries were based on religious beliefs, men and women died so that their children can live a free life and not experience poverty, dismay, and heartache.
To have a cult like scientology built on that very soil is like telling our fathers and their fathers and so on and so on that they died for nothing, that they died so a cult can spread its disease to other un-educated and indecisive people who are confused and are being used as tools for the cult’s higher cause…
Ultimately scientology is the result of a group of humans who just can’t comprehend their existence. I feel bad for those people who just don’t know what to do, whom are too afraid to speak out against their cult because of the threats within it.
Anonymous is the only entity who will exploit scientology… and succeed.
i already asked that question… apparently contributing to society is a terrorist act!
oh boy… my uncle the drill Sargent is gonna have a field day with my face for being a TERRORIST!
My take on Anonymous:
There appears to be three distinct groups of people in this Anonymous phenomenon.
The first group is the bunch of brats that just recently began to demonstrate their intellectual supremacy right here, possibly the same characters that form the original core of Anonymous, the morons that harass people and laugh at others’ tragedy.
The second group is the drop-out circus, the guys who relentlessly repeat the same allegations concerning Scientology over and over until they sound true. You can’t see them in Anonymous colors but you can smell their breath from every accusation Anonymous are now echoing for them.
The third group consists of those intelligent and semi-intelligent people who first visited this forum and asked questions. These are the guys on the streets protesting in front of Scientology organizations.
What apparently happened with regard to Scientology is that the first group misunderstood the copyright law and thus found a new target in the Church of Scientology and began their usual harassment tactics, then the second group noticed the sudden reinforcement, realized the potential behind it and stepped up as a voice of wisdom and began to fuel the antagonism of the first group by a flood of allegations about the Church, then the first group expanded their efforts to recruit the third group by selling them a virtual reality where there is a clearly identifiable evil that must be destroyed.
And now we have a few hundred guys with an honest drive to stand up for something, a drive that has been hijacked by vicious lies to attack a bona fide target, one that may very well be the single most important source of sanity in this sick and corrupt civilization.
Looking at the most recent posts here, I see a faithful representation of a group that anyone above 5 (age or IQ, pick one) would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with.
I wish those in the third group addressed with the same passion the true “disconnection” that actually ruins lives: disconnection from reality caused by psycho-tropic drugs. You will most likely find these behind every single act of senseless violence, be it school shootings or suicide bombs.
Why don’t I see you guys protesting in front of the APA and every single psychiatric hospital where people are actually held against their will and are actual victims of human rights violations?
@ dumbass above
tl;dr oh wait… i saw this little snippet
“Why don’t I see you guys protesting in front of the APA and every single psychiatric hospital where people are actually held against their will and are actual victims of human rights violations?”
well, first of all mr smarty pants i love your fluid and logical use of language to disuade one into a sense of open mindedness…but im not of the third group as you so slyly placed me, I am of the fourth… regular guy/girl of the ages 13-40 who just has an internet connection and a job and all those normal things….you know a random anonymous person….
second….. GIVE US PROOF OR GTFO! how many MORE people will be killing randomly if they go off thier meds?
how many news reports end with the phrase “this happened after he neglected to take his anti-depressants?
That wouldn’t be T for Terryo would it now? Thank you for your obvious biased contribution and attempt to derail the thread. Sorry to resort to Godwining the thread, but I’m sure if the internet existed and Hitler was online in 1939, and Anonymous was sided with the Allies, he and his followers would have been very fond of “guys, guys, look over there! don’t you see how evil the Illuminati is, godverdamt! you’d better go DO something about that!”
I hope when Lu and Lake return we can get back to actually having questions answered.
How about a few more too, where does all the money really go as most Scientologists working their way along the bridge through the orgs seem to live in total squalor.
Where do thetans go when removed?
Is Xe nu the master of all Lies? And as such doesn’t telling ANY lie bring you closer to him? Can any amount of auditing truly save you from that?
Does anyone in Scientology understand objectivity?
You say ‘forget X that was in the past, we’re not like that now’ but wouldn’t a religion based on the books of one man, that cannot and must not be altered, be stuck in the ways of the past? or is someone at the top of the church squirreling the tech?
Oh, and please don’t forget to answer my question of “how many other religions practice regular SECURITY CHECKS.”
heaven forbid anyone might accuse the CoS of repressing free will, or free thought! surely it must be common practice?
FoT: I believe this thread is about one’s take on Anonymous, not about answering questions. Or did I misunderstand the question “What’s your take on Anonymous?”
chz brgr: Well, thank you. But I wish you demanded proof with the same eloquence from the wise guys who convinced you that the Church of Scientology is evil, ideally *before* your average kinda guys went out to the streets to chant nonsense in front of church buildings for hours.
As to news reports of the kind you so kindly brought up: go to YouTube and type the words “anti-depressants” in the search field (without the quote marks, obviously) and be amazed at how little else you find among reports of just the kind you’re looking for.
Like so: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=anti-depressants&search_type=
@ LU:
“@Comment by Mike Rinder on March 4, 2008 11:58 pm
“how would you know about it and the bomb threat if it had not been posted by OSA itself?”
Wake up and smell the coffee. Or at least the criminals in your group, and throw them out. You seem to live in some kind of dream about big bad organizations and James Bond hopping around.
I have no indication that OSA would do such things, not even on “anti-”sites. Those of their staff I have gotten to know in the past were pretty busy with human rights events, media clippings or at trials and so on. However I saw and still see a shitload of Anons posting clips about slaughtering Scientologists, laughing about real life misery and burning down churches. So which group, you think, is more realistic to be the source? Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next. I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s). ”
First of all, please prove that you saw and still see a shitload of Anons posting clips about slaughtering Scientologists, laughing about real life misery and burning down churches. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. You simply can not say something happened without proof to back yourself up. You may reply telling me to prove that anonymous didn’t post that, but that is called “proving a negative”, which is impossible. You claim that something exists. Well prove it with objectivity.
Second of all, even if your claims are true (which they are not), this brings forth another fallacy within your argument: composition. Say if there were the one or two anon who posted those clips. How can that prove that all anons post these clips or that all anons boast these opinions?
Third of all, even if someone has posted such material (which whenever someone did, we flagged it and got deleted thereafter), you can’t pin the blame on the entire collective. It defies logic to do so.
You then say “I am very curious who is going to be arrested next.” **NEWSFLASH** No one has been arrested yet for anything! However, if you wish to talk about arrests, lets look at the latest exploits of your Church. “Three French members of the Church of Scientology, suspected of holding a fourth person against their will, were arrested Monday in Nuoro, Sardinia, a local police spokesman told AFP.” Proof: http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=116530
Now you see, Lu? In this situation, I made the claim that Three French members of the Church of Scientology were arrested. Since I made the claim that such a situation exists, it was my duty to prove it. As you can see, accordingly, I provided a link to the news article.
This is the key difference between my post and yours. I have provided sources for my positive claims. All you have provided are statements without backup.
Also, you have yet to answer my question about your entire post:
“Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?”
So yes. Answer my question: Does the case presented make sense to you?
If it does make sense to you, then you admit that you aren’t using logic to think. gb2/school/
@LAnon:
You said, “Just to establish, firmly, the downstat:
L. Ron Hubbard was a liar, a thief, a con man who started this bullshit religion to make a quick buck.
David Miscavige is an angry little midget. He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech!
WBM, or Mark Bunker, is NOT our leader. He is our mentor. He is our dear friend. He does not lead us. Nobody does. People take initiative, culminating in what becomes YOUR FAILURE.
”
Silly anon. Don’t you know that downstats only happen when you post MISTRUTHS? Posting the truth is ineffective.
L. Ron Hubbard, if I recall correctly, had sex with his mother, three sets of siamese twins, all while taking it up the pooper by Xe nu.
PS: You guys are HILARIOUS. Are you seriously posting youtube search links as proof? XD lol. Dude, give it up, you’re not impressing anybody but the feeble minded.
lol please dont post stuff like that, they will quote that part only when they make press releases if they use your post
nunnimus: I posted YouTube search results as a response to this:
“how many news reports end with the phrase ‘this happened after he neglected to take his anti-depressants?’”
I thought I clearly indicated that by introducing the respective part of my response with “As to news reports of the kind you so kindly brought up.”
News reports, see?
But I agree with you, YouTube links are fun, especially those where a group calling itself Anonymous musters up a lot of creative imagination, sense of style and brilliant rhetoric to attack a fictitious evil. I really enjoyed those videos, the scenery, the tone and the editing was impressive.
Boy, did I wish those videos heralded a chain of world wide protests against the actual source of evil on this planet.
That would take real courage, wouldn’t it?
Afraid to get downstat so you delete my posts?
Anyway,
@T:
(for Terryeo?!)
“…Looking at the most recent posts here, I see a faithful representation of a group that anyone above 5 (age or IQ, pick one) would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with.”
Yes, they would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with individuals who can point out the fallacies in one’s argument. Want my to pick out the fallacies in yours?
1. Get yourself some sources for those “three types of anonymous”. Until you do, that part of your post will be regarded as a “strawman argument” where you misrepresent anonymous and then you attack that misrepresentation. That is a logical fallacy which you have undoubtedly committed. Read up strawman: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
2. “What apparently happened with regard to Scientology is that the first group misunderstood the copyright law”? I think you forget about Scientology’s litigious nature and how it has been trying to censor anyone it has spoken about on the internet through lawsuits, trolling, and etc. The suppression of free speech through such means is what got Anonymous riled up against Scientology. Once again I provide proof for my claims: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog … e_Internet
3. “…a drive that has been hijacked by vicious lies to attack a bona fide target, one that may very well be the single most important source of sanity in this sick and corrupt civilization.”? Evidence please. Prove how Scientology may be “the single most important source of sanity in this sick and corrupt civilization”. Third party scientific peer-reviewed studies would be really helpful to your cause right now. In other words, your post boils down to a moot point because you fail to provide objective evidence for your claims.
4. “Looking at the most recent posts here, I see a faithful representation of a group that anyone above 5 (age or IQ, pick one) would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with.”?? Look at points 1~3 that I have pointed out for you. 1: Fallacy. 2: No proof for claims. 3: No proof for your claims. Why should I feel ashamed of knowing my fallacies and then pointing them out in opposing arguments?
5.”I wish those in the third group addressed with the same passion the true “disconnection” that actually ruins lives: disconnection from reality caused by psycho-tropic drugs.”??? This also another fallacy. Also known as the RED HERRING. It is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn’t address the issue in question. In other words, this post is about ANONYMOUS and NOT PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS.
So ultimately, please fix up your arguments my good sir Terryeo.
I don’t think Psychiatry is evil, thus I’m not protesting them. I feel that the CoS is very dangerous and harmful to society, thus I’m protesting them. Is that such a hard concept to understand? Our reasons have been laid out, but ignored. We’ve provided proof for our claims, but that’s also been ignored. It’s really quite astounding.
My Take on anonymous.
The internet has given us a great opportunity to allow us to say our ‘2 bit’ worth on any subject we so desire to make comment on.
Years ago I had a good read of horrendous things about scientology.
It seems that regardless of all the attacks and bad press they seem to keep going so I thought I should start to talk to someone in Scientology to really get a better picture.
I did that a several years ago.
I walked into a big building of theirs and asked loads of questions… everyone seemed genuinely open and nice.
If you walk into a bar with ‘looking for a fight’ on your mind: you’ll get one… so I was just polite.
Being a business owner myself I asked loads of questions about their organisation structure and then people were literally clambering to show me how they organise their church structure all the hierarchy etc, etc, and how they organise on a global level etc. based on scientology principles. It all seemed very logical to me and what I saw gave me some brilliant ideas to help my business expand.
They were most certainly not secretive about anything.
I said what’s to stop me taking these ideas and using them myself?
They said well, to help keep us here and put food in our mouths we’d prefer if you actually ‘bought’ the OEC (Organisation Executive Course)Volumes and you will need this particular ‘course’ and that particular ‘course’ (all business related)
Again seemed perfectly reasonable to me… It’s quite standard in life to have to pay for something you want that doesn’t belong to you.
Subsequently… applying what I’d learned, my business boomed astonishingly and I’ve got a big group of people (not scientologists) whom I can call friends, I pay them very well and they don’t give a f##k about my Scientology connection and the way the business is run using scientology administration technology.
I’ve made a very good living using Scientology Principles. I have a beautiful family in a lovely home.
The money I’ve made from using scientology
(using the supposedly secret organisation hierarchy Info… ha ha is it fuck secret ) is literally tens of thousands times more than I spent with scientology and quite well deserved…
I recently decided to become a member of the IAS because I felt I owe these guys something a little more for their help.
The latest attacks on scientology seem to be channelled ‘Not at the Faith’ but the ‘Oppressive Hierarchy’.
But just like me… you can find out if this is actually true just by walking thru a door and asking questions… ? mmmm… not quite such a closed, secretive cult like group as is being indicated.
I swear if you asked nicely and politely and persisted assertively with common manners you would be able to get to speak to anybody in scientology… Yes even Mr Miscaviage… It just ain’t a closed secretive group as is being portrayed.
Any time Scientology got any bad press… while it may put a few thousand off the subject… a hundred thousand more will probably then hear of scientology and some of those would be naturally inclined to get both sides of the story.
Believe me I was very sceptical of scientology initially based on all the bad press and weird rumours.
I looked and looked and looked to ‘uncover’ something bad based on the rumours… I just simply couldn’t find it.
To really get in close and have a good look… I did a load of work as a volunteer individual living 6 months on site on site and worked alongside the ‘Sea Org’ and ‘RPF’ doing construction (I’m an engineer) and plenty of other things besides.
I stayed in modest but clean quarters but was very well fed and cared for and had a great time with all the people I worked with. Really good company.
I’ve taken time out and travelled round and spoken to probably hundreds of sea org staff many in high positions.
Just nice, pleasant, hard working people with a good sense of humour and a very good grip on things.
They are there because they WANT to be… Anyone is free to choose to leave. I admire them for their dedication. They are doing what they want to do!
I’m running my own business because that’s what I want to do.
Bigotry based on falsehoods has questionable successes for a group in the long term.
One has to wonder why Scientology continues to expand if it is so insidiously corrupt and sinister as described.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your ‘Facts’ flying around seem to clearly indicate Scientology to be the most god awful thing on the planet.
My ‘Facts’ based on my actual personal investigation behind the lines indicate otherwise, but of course that is just my opinion.
I bet it will be really interesting at the moment for many individuals going to these ‘anonymous’ demonstrations because they will feel adventure and excitement about being able to do something different to help what they feel is a worthy cause, to feel part of a group amongst individuals they’ve never met before.
I do not dispute that you ‘anonymous’ believe utterly you are being right in what you are doing.
I bet its quite a buzz.
This post isn’t addressed to those ‘anonymous’ whom would rather die than even remotely consider that the scientology organisation may not be as bad as people make out.
Look forward to all the negative replies.
Kind Regards.
^^
So what you are basically saying is that Scientology is a business that sells business related products? AWESOME! Thats part of what we’ve been saying. We need to get rid of that tax exempt status then, as obvious business does not deserve tax break.
@Comment by Paul
LOL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Paul -
Nice piece of propaganda, ‘go to the church and ask questions - find out for yourself’
Scientology parishoners have no problems lying to your face - as long as it does the most amount of good across the greatest number of dynamics.
How many times have they denied the Xe nu story?
It is a good thing that it does not require interacting with a scientologist to learn about the organization.
I dont want my tax dollars financing the harassment of anyone.
This may be off-topic, but I’m curious if a scientologist can answer these:
1. If Scientology’s goal is to “Clear The Planet”… Why not have one of your OTs Demonstrate their abilities in public. People would flock to your religion. Why is this not done?
2. Why is there a Volcano on the cover of Dianetics?
3. Why was the second Dynamic changed from “sex” to “creativity”. Do you really think LRH could have overlooked that, or that could have been mis-transcribed. Is it possible that David Miscavige is Squirreling the tech?
4. Why is the RTC unable to stop all this “entheta”?
5. If there were even one OT, would you be reading this post?
Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
Why do you guys keep demanding evidence to support someone’s opinion when at the same time you show an astonishing lack of diligence in demanding proof or evidence concerning the serious accusations that your new friends lay on the Church?
You can beat the drum as you please but that won’t hide the fact that you and/or your friends made a complete fool of themselves in front of the whole world. I mean just think about it! You accepted blatant lies on face value, went out to the streets to cheer at cars passing by and honking to signal that they, too, “hate Scientology” and then you documented the whole circus for the world to see. Any possibility that you made a mistake? Boy, would that be a tough one.
Now it’s quite understandable that you are in desperate need of any plausible justification for that blunder. And you’re organizing another show? No wonder. I mean, if you go out and make a fool of yourselves again and again then you can avoid the shame of admitting that the first occurrence was a mistake, right?
Uncle-Anon: Scientologists don’t really care about Xe nu or space opera for that matter. These are nice stories and all and I can understand why you are fixated on them but they have little to do with Scientology, they bear no significance, they are just stories, albeit intriguing ones.
Even if as your sources say OT III is about Xe nu, who gives a damn? Scientology is an *applied* religious philosophy and I would be curious how you would go about applying the piece on Xe nu or space opera to everyday situations that Scientology is in general applicable to. Quite a challenge, isn’t it? I mean, facing the wrath intergalactic warlords is not exactly an everyday occurrence in my village.
To tell you the truth, I have heard a few pre-OT’s giving an account of what OT III is like and the stories from your sources on OT III just don’t add up. Sorry, I won’t buy those stories and I would take anything from the same sources with a tablespoon of salt. You are just destroying your credibility by peddling those stories.
And apparently some of your friends don’t understand the word “take” for they keep demanding proof of one’s personal view. Go figure. I’m sure my statement about Scientology being an *applied* philosophy will bear no meaning to some either.
Well, I just hope someone else will get the point.
@Lu:
>Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next.
As someone else mentioned: Who, exactly, was it who was arrested last?
>I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s).
I am. Anonymous doesn’t allow real threats like that - that’s why they flagged and reported the video and got it taken down in a matter of hours.
@Jenova:
>sounds like scientology nothing more than a made up fantasy just like all religions.
This is not an argument that will win. I don’t care what Scientologists believe.
@T:
>Anonymous, the morons that harass people and laugh at others’ tragedy.
And yet, Jackass, Kenny vs Spenny, South Park, every sitcom ever, Dr Strangelove, Mel Brooks movies, and Three Stooges films could all be accused of the same things, and they’re all wildly popular. If that’s Anonymous, then Anonymous is much larger than I thought it was.
>The third group … [is] the guys on the streets protesting in front of Scientology organizations.
No, actually, there were a bunch of morons there. But Anonymous does not discriminate. So your first and third groups have quite a bit of overlap.
>I wish those in the third group addressed with the same passion the true “disconnection” that actually ruins lives: disconnection from reality caused by psycho-tropic drugs.
I was wondering if this would crop up here. I’m well aware that this is a common piece of misdirection in comment lists like this. Do you expect me to say, why yes, you have convinced me, and I will immediately drop my cause and pick up your own?
@T:
>As to news reports of the kind you so kindly brought up: go to YouTube and type the words “anti-depressants” in the search field
Do the same and type in “UFO” - Wow! They’re going to crack this conspiracy wide open!
@Paul:
>The latest attacks on scientology seem to be channelled ‘Not at the Faith’ but the ‘Oppressive Hierarchy’.
>But just like me… you can find out if this is actually true just by walking thru a door and asking questions… ?
The Church of Scientology has a terrible track record of lying to the public, its members, and itself. For example, how many active members does the CoS have? They claim 10 million. Several independent studies over the last ten years indicate that the actual number is less than 100,000. Even if you include those with multiple affiliations or other problems with the survey, I seriously doubt you’re going to find a hundredfold mistake.
The CoS lies about Narconon success rates. They claim Narconon has a 70% success rate, but the actual number appears to be between 6% and 30% and probably on the low end of that. Considering that Narconon is one of the CoS’s main examples of their community involvement, this is significant.
If you walk through the door of a Church of Scientology and start asking questions, you’ll probably get a reading of the Scientology.org FAQ, which is exactly what you get on scientologymyths.info.
Paul, I’m glad you have had a successful experience with the Church of Scientology. I don’t believe that everything about the CoS is bad. I believe there are a lot of good people involved in it. But I believe the bad elements need to be routed out, and given the CoS’s history, I believe this is unlikely to happen on its own.
The inherent problem and crux of this is NOT the religion of Scientology, you are free to believe in whatever you want. The problem is that the ‘church’ is responsible for adding and abetting in crimes ranging from child labor, to murder (even child molestation by OT’S)! Yet most scientologist’s confronted with the facts cannot face them. We have heard DM’s explaination off the LM saga. We seen the dog and pony show relating to his mother in laws ’suicide’ (shot three time’s in the chest and once in the head). We have seen the autopsy report of LRH and are amazed about the Vistaril® in his system. The coup d’état that DM might have orchestrated and YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE ARE NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT SURPRISED.
Ask yourself this. If all tech comes from source? How can there be new tech? When by DM’s own admission LRH has yet to reveal his new incarnation.
If OT’s have half the abilities that they should have, how is it there are those who contend that Scientology might not be all it’s cracked up to be?
These are all easily referenced issues, granted thecoup d’état might have Diana ring to it, but still you counter with….. Well have you actually countered anything?
Scientology has a lot to sort out, YOU HAVE TO BE SEEN TO DO IT! Or else more and more will come to the conclusion I have. Scientology in it’s current form is a clear and present danger to all humanity!
T -
Scientologists obviously care about the xe nu story as evidenced by the amounts of money and effort they’ve put forth towards keeping it secret.
Also - how much money and time does it cost to reach OT3? Clearly they dont really care about it
Again - more deception and spin from the scientology camp.
Scientology is a dishonest organization.
For what its worth I dont care what you believe personally, whatever gives you purpose.
It shouldnt be my taxes supporting scientology.
Uncle-Anon: I’m not sure what you keep referring to as your “tax dollars supporting Scientology”. Your tax dollars support e.g. the drugging of millions of children (assuming you’re American) but Scientology is simply a tax-exempt organization, meaning that churches of Scientology don’t pay taxes on their income. Your taxes and Scientology have nothing in common, Scientology is supported by its members, not you.