Slashdot Mirror
Internet Group Declares War on Scientology
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "An internet group calling itself Anonymous has declared war on the Church of Scientology, in the form of an ominous posting to the YouTube site. 'In the statement, the group explained their goal as safeguarding the right to freedom of speech. "A spokesperson said that the group's goals include bringing an end to the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents." The press release also claimed that the Church of Scientology misused copyright and trademark law in order to remove criticism from websites including Digg and YouTube. The statement goes on to assert that the attacks from the group "will continue until the Church of Scientology reacts, at which point they will change strategy".' It should be noted that Slashdot users have had interactions with Scientology in the past as well."
Hopefully the RIAA will be next. Sure they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately, but they still need to be wiped out.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Cowards.
I had dealings with them about 10 years ago. I ended up paying GBP30 for a course just to get out of the hard sell and even though I never did the course the often phoned and wrote letters of about 5 years after.
See the Operation Clambake pages for more details to their activities. http://www.xenu.net/
Scientology and all its offshoot cults like The Landmark Forum are brainwashing users of people. Money money money.
There's no point in posting this story on Slashdot; Slashdot just caved last time Scientology told them to censor themselves, and there's no reason to believe that has changed.
Precisely. This "war" will amount to very little. The CoS is loaded with the cash of the gullible and foolish. Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites. It'll be amusing to watch, though.
4chan isn't mentioned in the Wikinews article at all. Wikinews, and every other outlet reporting this story, is a fucking joke.
Anonymous?? Moar liek 7chan...amirite?
It's a leather thing
Is this the same Anonymous that Joe Blow knows about thanks to Fox News? When asked to choose between a church and terrorists who want to blow up your van, which one do you think the public is going to go for?
I read the internet for the articles.
Tom Cruise declares war on the internet.
-
He's gotta do something until the mothership arrives...
The war on Scientology, led by the same people who said "Google Ron Paul"
/b/tards, on the other hand, listen intently and google bomb "Rob Paul" to link to a picture of shitting dick-nipples.
No, this is lead by 4chan.
Some people say "google Ron Paul."
From Wikinews: The "Message to Scientology" video was highlighted as the "YouTube Video of the Week" by The Michigan Daily. Commenting on the video, the piece states "if this video is any indication, it seems like the assailants mean business". Hehe. If that were a credible metric of "business", we'd have an emo President by now.
LRH's scam shows how easy it is to start a new religion that survives and gains passionate adherents after the death of its founders. Most people couldn't do it, but a few individuals have the kind of personality that can pull it off in the right social environment. In fact, we have enough recent historical data on cults that turn into competitive new religions (for example Mormonism and Baha'i, both founded in the 19th Century) that I don't think it's even all that mysterious how older religions like Christianity & Islam could have originated through normal social processes. (We don't have to postulate "supernatural" causes to explain their existence, in other words.)
...a group composed of members of several -chan sites (4chan, 7chan, 711chan), as well as several other related communities like YTMND and Ebaum's.
Really, this is a joke. Channers will raid/invade just about anything, and Scientology is just their latest target. This is the exact same group behind the 'hackers on steroids' thing that Fox News reported on. Any claims they have about righteousness are just a way to justify their 'lulz'.
You do realize that the people who are leading this war are the same people who consider trolling Slashdot a professional sport?
Why single out one specific 'religion'? I saw the Tom Cruise interview video last week - it really didn't seem all that fundamentally different from listening to an evangelical Christian. Different terms were used, but the mindset was mostly the same. Watch Jesus Camp if you haven't already. Not much difference between the main camp director's mindset and Tom Cruise's.
creation science book
Especially when you consider its offshoot, the Landmark Forum (formerly "EST"). They are scary, for-profit cults that employ techniques like fatigue, hunger, group compulsion, and newspeak. You would be surprised how many people from all walks of life have gotten pulled into them.
I wish Anonymous well, but Scientologists and their cousins in the Landmark Forum are beyond reason. And fighting cults rarely works unless they're small and focused around a single charismatic leader. Both Scientology and Landmark are too big and widespread for that, and fighting them will probably only make them stronger.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites
Double-edged sword. If the mainstream media doesn't pick up on this, less law enforcement attention is paid to his malfeasance. Similarly, more attention into this issue can only be beneficial for his cause as Scientology comes under more and more scrutiny.
It's also worth noting that there's a lot of mainstream hatred of Scientology. Technically, it's bigotry, but Anonymous has way more support than you think he does. Enemy of my enemy and all that...
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Which is to be expected. Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups; they have the most interest at stake in protecting basic rights like free speech. Those who only hold and/or express popular opinions don't require such protection.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Ned:"Heya Ed, watcha doin?"
Ed: "See that cave full of bears? I am pokin' em with a stick!"
Ned:"OMG Ed, that's crazy!"
Ed: "No worries! See I build a remote poking robot device that I am controlling via wires attached to this here laptop computer."
Ned:"Uh Ed?"
Ed: "Yeah?"
Ned:"Can't they just follow the wire to where you are hiding?"
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
and all-around psychos who couldn't stop ranting about him in some way.
Um, isn't ranting about him what you just did? Oh, I know. You can quit any time. You don't have a problem. I mean, why would it be a problem when you have to rant about him in a thread dedicated to an anonymous internet group's attack on scientology? Seems like the perfect place to slam Ron Paul to me...NOT.
http://xkcd.com/386/
"All Religions are Bad!"
Uh, what is an SP?
Sorry to ask a dumb question here...
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Ron Hubbard - the founder of Scientology - has been quoted as saying that if you want to get rich, you start a religion. ( http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scientology/skeptic/start-a-religion-faq/ ) Well, that's what he did. You have to pay just to learn about it and the deeper you go, the more you spend. It's designed to dupe people into giving the Church of Scientology gobs of money. I truly feel sorry for anyone that's been sucked in by it. It's like believing that Star Wars is real (the movie, not the missile defense system...).
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Where, after all, is the media trail of his development? From the newspaper's perspective, Ron Paul is one big discontinuity.
Wikileaks, no DNS
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International.]
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
Granted, this e-hissy from Anonymous is unlikely to take down the cult or even deal it serious damage, but it does serve to highlight how the traditional big media outlets have been legally hogtied.
Our usual media sources can't report on allegations of abuse because they've been very effectively muzzled by CSI hyper-litigation. They try to keep this fact close to the vest, but Anonymous' efforts are making it plain for all to see. This is a valuable service.
Also, any organization that exploits copyright law in order to silence critics should get a kick in the shins, even if that's all it amounts to. It's still a potent message: "We don't condone gag orders, and we'll fight back however we can, even if it is a David versus Goliath situation."
Glib as it may sound, raising awareness is key here. And an end unto itself.
Yours,
Cheeseburger Brown
Suppressive and Proud
These stories are free but worth money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy
Paul disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article, saying that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, and that he has "never uttered such words and denounce[s] such small-minded thoughts." He again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.[116] In a subsequent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he said he did not know who wrote the articles and stated he "[repudiates] everything that is written along those lines." Blitzer told Paul that he was "shocked" by the newsletters, because they did not seem to reflect "the Ron Paul that I've come to know, and the viewers have come to know" over the course of several interviews during the campaign.[117] David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, commented "I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that'."[117][118]
In the interview with Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals--not as part of collectives. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate.[117] Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), defended Paul, saying that he has known him for 20 years, saw him as a "free thinker", "very intelligent and very informed", talking about "real issues" that "invite attacks on him", who was "correct in what he's saying", and that knowing his intent, he believes Paul has been misconstrued and taken out of context.[119] Former LA Times editor Andrew Malcolm noted that Paul got second place in the January 19 Nevada Republican caucus despite the recent reports about the newsletters.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
If to get about a million people to join all at once and then when the muckey mucks are not around you really mess up the place. I could see at a Scientology meeting you have 300 people 2/3 who are plants, when the rest want to do somethign evil like harass someone, you would then have 2/3rds stand up and say, HELL NO WE AINT GONNA BE ASSHOLES! You can join without paying just tell them that the other churches don't require you paty and demand that they let you into their churches because if you are dressed nicely I have yet to see a church kick you out if you go in, sit down and behave civily. Plus regular churches don't charge you for services, yes they pass around the collections plate but you don't have to put anything on it.
Basically, just kill their silly little cult with a nationwide flash mob of epic proportions.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The definition of a cult is quite simple. A cult hides it's core beliefs from it's members a religion does not.
---------
This space for rent. Call 1-800-SIGADVT to place your ad.
It is short for "Suppressive Person". In Scientology, an SP is anyone who is actively impeding the Church or questioning it's teachings. Being an SP is attributed to gross personal flaws and they will assign the label to threats both perceived and real and internal or external. Furthermore, they believe SPs are "Fair Game" and may be "sued, tricked, lied to, or destroyed" by any possible means. People will be branded SPs for things questioning family members too closely about their new church for instance but the application of the label is much much broader than that.
Just becuase it's a "religion" and I use that term loosely doesn't entilte it to special protection when it does wrong. Not everything has an inherent right to exist. In my human rights and international crimes class, our professor started class with a simple question. Does every culture have the right to be left alone free from outside influence? Of course we all said yes. We were all young college students, wide eyed and naive. He then said "Well what if that culture practices female genital mutilation?"
You can not hide behind a religion or a cult and say it's our right, not when you hurt others or even you own members.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
From the cult of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person
This is the point where I invoke Godwin's Law, right?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
The Co$ gives me one more compelling reason to use "$" in a mocking fashion!
I also like to think of $cientology as a good example that illustrates the origins of religions. Whether you're talking about Christianity or Star Trek, it's just another example of a charismatic individual using his fantastic imagination to come up with an utterly baseless and bizarre explanation for the way things are. And then convincing the masses that he somehow knows what he's talking about, and deserves their money and allegiance for sharing the knowledge with them. All it takes is to follow the money to see what the real game is.
I don't care how hard their sell was.
Either you can simply ignore them, or they're actually doing something illegal, and you can stop them.
I don't see why you felt the need to fund them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Uh, what is an SP?
High quality video tape marketed by Sony. A precursor to their digital tape format.
What?
Now you know why 4chan is simultaneously humanity's greatest achievement and its most epic failure.
I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
"Suppressing Scientology is no different the the Chinese government suppressing and killing Christians. "
Not really. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to harass other people and unlawfully accuse them of crimes.
"My guess is that this is a dry run and that Christianity is next on the list. "
OK, you just slipped into paranoid fantasy land.
Scientology is a cult created from a bet, continued as a tax dodge.
More importantly, they harass people, threaten people, follow people, lie to people, lie to the courts, abuse the legal system.
Funny enough they paid taxes for 25 years because they are a commercial enterprise. Only after harassing IRS employees, and getting some into their cult did they get tax exempt status. At the time, it was very shocking to tax experts since every court had back the IRS decision not to give them exempt status. that was 1993, if I am not mistaken.
Yeah, I have watched this organization for years. I have family who new Hubbard pretty well. Until his power slipped and he wasn't allowed to see them anymore.
You know what? I can go to any church or synagogue learn their religion and then leave without any problems, not so with the CoS.
Religions are a waste of time and resources, but I wouldn't stop someone from worshiping, OTOH I wouldn't stop someone from exposing the truth.
Religion is like masturbation; I know people do it, but I don't want to hear about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... now what? Is the next obvious step to make a facebook group about this? I think it would be about as effective.
Libertarians who love being told what to do and how to do it can't get enough of Ron Paul.
You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. (1948)
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. (1952)
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
This is not to prevent distribution though. It is to protect the integrity of the work.
The scholars who do these translations don't want someone taking their hard work, changing a few words here or there, and putting it out under a new label.
Imagine "The New International CowboyNeal Bible" where Exodus 20 started out 1 And CowboyNeal spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God CowboyNeal, who brought you out of the pre-computer age, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me. [based on the NIV - I claim fair use]
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The version of Scientology celebrities receive is way different (and far easier) than the version the "raw meat" (non-celebs) get. And even though the Scn. celebs are the biggest Public Relations tools Scientology has to bring the "raw meat" through the doors and get their butts in the seats for the "free personality tests," they keep the celebs far, far away from them.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I don't know that hatred of a pyramid scheme is bigotry...
~S
When I read about the supposed upcoming downfall of beheamoths like the RIAA, MS or Scientology I can't help but feel like those poorly developed boss fights in some games in the 90s where it'd take what felt like hours to take it down. Don't expect any of those to go down any time soon especially when you consider these bosses have regenerative power (i.e. continues and diversified income streams to maintain their initiatives.) The contributions from the numerous Hollywood Scientologists alone would keep them going...
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
no, bigotry is a predudice held against a group of people not based on an adequate cause. The defing factor is that is directed at a group of people equally, based solely on them being part of that group. The Church of Scientology is not a group of people, it is a corporation which has committed countless criminal acts including conducting espionage against the US government and fabricating terrorist threats, and is hatrid against it for it's criminal and unethical actions as legitimate as hatrid against any other corporation.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
He blows himself up, ascends to heaven, and there are 72 slashdot users having a celestial lan party, playing netcraft and flaming Microsoft.
FairTax baby!
As a matter of fact, yes.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
I feel I should point out that ED is largely NSFW. I think the Anonymous article is OK, but fair warning.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Yes, absolutely Scientology leaders have been convicted in court. L. Ron's wife, among many other cult leaders, spent years in prison. Here's some more info:
Operation Snow White
Operation Freakout
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I used to have a high level of respect for John Travolta and Tom Cruise. Then they joined the Cult of Scientology and became wack jobs. Worse is that they use their "Star Power" to sway more members to the cult movement.
The City ought to revive the idea of charging fast-food restaurants for their garbage strewn all over the streets and apply it to those passing out the pink-paper "Are you bi-curious..." umm, I mean "Are you curious about yourself" tri-fold flyers. On any given day in Powell area, one can find locals and tourists just dropping the damned things once they realized what they've been proffered.
It's one thing to find chewing gum wrappers and fast-food containers and such on the streets, but ideas peddled and then rejected are a CLEAR sign that some one or some organization is going beyond free-speech guarantees. With TV, one can change channels or turn off the TV, and there is no immediate or sighted pollution. Even the ad sponsors can't (without digital connections) determine who is switching off their ads or just ignoring them and instead multi-tasking during commercial breaks or going to the bathroom between programs.
What that coarse-throat preacher and his megaphone gets up on his Powell Street pulpit condemning gays, heretics, non-Christians and so on, he's blabbing and making noise (apparently, he's within ordinance as SFPD never takes him down, since his Mr. Megaphone is not amplified via a generator or exceeding some decibel level, I guess...), he is making noise pollution, but at least one can walk away.
Flyers dropped or abandoned mean the message contained is simply not wanted. The content doesn't matter, unless it's pron, I guess, in which case we generally DON'T want the stuff face-up for kids and sensitive/easily-offended types to see. I guess I'm just sick and tired of seeing religious/belief paraphernalia on the street because its CONTENT is utterly rejected by 90% of those into whose hands it was stuck or taken out of sympathy for the pushers of it.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
From the video:
We are cognizant of the many who may decry our methods as parallel to the Church of Scientology. Those who espouse the obvious truth that your organization will use the actions of Anonymous as an example of the persecution of which you have for so long forewarned your followers. This is acceptable to Anonymous. In fact,it is encouraged.
Damn. Kind of wraps the Borg's "Resistance is Futile" and Bush Jr.'s "Bring It On" in an ominious, yet tidy little anti-scientology message doesn't it?
I've had a couple of friends who "converted" to scientology and they completely shun anyone and everyone they were ever associated with including their parents now. It's very sad to see how isolated and fearful they've become.
I for one hope that this isn't a hoax. I'd never participate in something like this, but when I think of what my friends used to be and what they are now - and how Scientology seems to be this insidious organization that has used and abused so many - I can't help but hope that Anonymous, if serious, will succeed.
Agreed, but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? I'm serious. It's like Romney -- no one can really find fault with him except to say his hair is too perfect, that he's just a successful businessman, or that he's Mormon.
:) But see, that's the thing. As a Mormon, I know lots of good Mormons who really, really shouldn't be president.
I'm a Mormon, and while I appreciate the kind generalization, I definitely find him lacking on a number of fronts, including his ability to say anything inspiring during faith-related discussion or respond coherently to attacks on that front. There's also the fact that his about-face on several issues seem so conveniently timed it seems likely he's being phony... plus there's his endorsement of (and being endorsed in return by) Ann Coulter, plus the "double guantanamo" statement he made that, and in general a willingness to engage in a kind of republican political rhetoric that was never really high to begin with but is really, really starting to show its wear. Then there's the point that we've already elected a single-term governor from a family dynasty with political connections who has experience in business and managing a sports franchise, and that didn't really didn't work out so well, now, did it? All in all, I'd have to be pretty desperate to vote for him.
He does seem like he's probably a good Mormon, though.
Mormons, at least in my experience, tend to be shiny happy people that don't really bother anyone. Even the ex-Mormons I've met seem to have few bad things to say and if they do, you can't help but notice there's a certain lingering nostalgia in their eyes. That's not to say their beliefs aren't loony, but if members of cults were as benign as the typical Mormon, I wonder if anyone would notice, or care.
There's two things that I think make Mormons like this. One is that the religion itself is seen very much by its members as a serious spiritual practice as much as anything else -- its cosmological aspects are tied up in that, and it has sociopolitical implications, but it's not a cosmology or sociopolitical blueprint first (there are times in its history when that has been less true, especially the first 60 years, but that's another point). My experience suggests to me that people who have a faith that they take seriously as a spiritual practice tend to also be as you describe -- nice, happy shiny people. This isn't to say I don't think Mormonism has anything particular to distinguish itself, but I think this is the most important element. Having a serious spiritual practice of some kind is grounding and can inspire a real tranquility knowing you have a strong idea about your place in the world and working to play that part as well as you can. Combine it with basic rules of common decency and you get good people.
The other thing -- Mormons have long been different enough (and indeed, for some portion of their history, genuinely persecuted and hated) that they really, really want to be accepted and legitimized by mainstream society. There's also a religious desire to be a "light of the world", "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:14-16) in their communities. It adds up to a desire to excel and succeed that's probably a tad beyond the protestant work ethic, and I think when that combines with the basic decency and spiritual grounding, it does produce people that are respected in their communities.
This is, however, a generalization, and as an insider, I see this community of mine as far from perfect. In particular, I've seen a lot of that desire to be legitimized and excel turn to elitism, materialism, and a misplaced sense of destiny that can border on a naive entitlement (interesting considering there are specific and serious warnings about this hazard in Mormon canon). And the collapsed quasi-Mormon cosmology that passes for political philosophy in staunch Republican Utah can be really, seriously crazy. I say all this partly to acknowledge it's not all shiny happy people
Tweet, tweet.
Cults sue you when you call them a cult.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Tell that to the people building the Jedi Church.
I have but one thing to say about Scientology
.Off the Time Track,. lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY, issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418.
"The only way you can control people is to lie to them."
-L. Ron Hubbard,
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
yes, a large group of organized intellectually and emotionally subpar humans can outcompete, hunt down and destroy clear thinking mentally strong independent people
this is the history of all religion
dismissing something intellectually does not make it vanish in real life
it is a potent threat to your freedom. all organized religion is
the group is stronger than the individual. no matter how strong the individual and his ideas, no matter how feeble and dysfunctional and idiotic the ideas and the members of the group
learn and understand this unfortunate aspect of reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The parent is an obvious troll, but since the moderators are apparently taking a vacation...
Public schools are clearly a state issue, not a matter for the federal government. Personally, I'm against compulsory attendance, much less compulsory participation in activities with religious overtones such as you describe, but this is not something a U.S. President has any actual authority over. Talk to your state government if you're so upset.
You are drastically over-simplifying the issue. There are two issues here: (a) there are at least two people involved in an abortion, the mother and the child, and there remains significant debate over whether the mother's right to control her body should trump the child's right to live. I'm not going to state my position one way or the other, but Ron Paul is hardly the only pro-life/anti-abortion candidate.
To the best of my knowledge Ron Paul does not support a ban on stem-cell research, only on government funding of such research, which he (correctly) points out is not something the federal government is permitted to do under the Constitution. This applies to many research areas, not just stem cells, but since that's a hot topic it's all you hear about.
Here you're grasping at straws. Point out a real-world case of provider-specific throttling sufficient to justify effectively nationalizing the Internet infrastructure and someone might just care, although it probably won't be me.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I kiiinda like Obama and realize the "he's a muslim" chain emails are very dishonest, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with being a Muslim so long as you don't think Jihad=kill those you disagree with. I do not appreciate my truthful comments being lumped in with that sort of obvious smear, and you kinda owe me an apology for suggesting my claims are on that level.
But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/
And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html, is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.
I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.
Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf
The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained
And I've heard Christians talk about how Jesus fixed their liver, and acupuncture practicioners talk about how the needles block Chi flows. Having a stupid belief about slaughtered galactic citizens stuck to your body causing all your illness and bad thoughts seems no sillier.
Claiming that getting rid of these spirits make you a god, and you can get rid of them with a badly designed lie detector called an "e-meter" and having all your confessions of crimes and bad thoughts recorded and sent to the cult headquarters, and paying to have that done? Now, that's silly.
... but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? ... unless you try to leave, then they treat you like you are the greatest evil on earth. Another hallmark of the *commonly* defined "cult".Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)
Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person (2.5% of the population who are evil - think Hitler), PTS due to a connection to an SP (Potential Trouble Source - 20% of the population), or has committed various other overts and withholds (ie sins and secrets) and it trying to justify their own actions by making the Scientology seem less (because if you admitted to yourself that Scientology was the "one and only solution" then your otherwise small crime would have to weigh fairly heavily on your conscience). Anyone who commits various sins and suppressive acts, will be subconsciously aware of this, and slowly do themselves in (ie get sick, have an accident) to prevent themselves from committing more crimes.
It is also taught that if someone encounters the OT3 materials before being ready for them, then as part of the psychological conditioning to create "prison-planet" earth, the person may get sick and die and this is the reason it is considered "confidential" and heavily protected, and only available to members of the church past a certain level. In the south park episode "trapped in the closet", they did a cartoon version of the OT3 materials labeled "This Is what Scientologists Actually Believe", if Matt and Trey has been members of the church, they would have been ex-communicated very quickly. The church would have almost definitely told Issac Hayes to "dissconnect" from them or otherwise become ineligible for any future Scientology services or auditing.
This "truth" or "reality tunnel" is slowly conditioned into you until you internalise it. There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology. To do so would potentially detract from Scientology and is thus a mortal sin against humanity, or you might wind up making yourself sick. I know this, because I was brought up within the church, and through the process of leaving the church and the Scientology "reality tunnel", it took me around two years to fully confront this internal taboo to the point I could openly think and speak on the subject.
Part of the process for getting people into this state of mind, is that during Scientology auditing, if you have any undisclosed overts or withholds, or you have your attention stuck on something, the e-meter will pick up on this (that you have your attention stuck on something after you where asked a question - its the same principal behind the polygraph), Thus the auditor will be trained to uncover these issues, by continually asking questions on the subject, with the help of the e-meter, which may include turning part of the auditing session into a confessional. Auditing is essentially about being completely open and honest with yourself and your mind, and fully confronting (with the help of the auditor) any issues that where previously painful or unconscious about (this is actually the good bit about Scientology). Having out-ethics or keeping secrets is considered to be a barrier to your own spiritual growth.
Free speech is free speech when it is a spoken 'opinion', however, free speech ain't free with it is the false statement of facts used to obtain money. That is generally considered as fraud and has some rather substantial costs associated with it, so not always free ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It is extremely hard for me to believe as a European that you have TV reports like that in the States.. only after I read about that report on wikipedia did I start accepting the possibility that this was NOT a joke. By no means do we have perfect journalism on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, but this.. this can not even be called "journalism". Amazing, simply amazing. I am in awe at the methods used in this "informational" program.
No wit here.
Your post reminds me a lot of my experience as a Jehovah's Witness. I was raised in the church, and a lot of these elements of scientology are present in the JW religion as well.
"Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)"
It's the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. As a witness, you are taught that the Watchtower society is the "faithful and discreet slave" (otherwise known as the "faithful and wise servant" in most Bibles), meaning that they are the sole channel to God. Any kind of salvation and favor with God are impossible without following the doctrinal interpretations of the society. They also teach that the only goal a Witness of Jehovah should have is to preach the message to others as much as possible. All other ambitions in life come secondary. This is why there are no Jehovah's Witness charities, scholarships, or homeless shelters. They believe the earth will all be destroyed and that the only thing that needs to be done is get people into the Watchtower fold so they can survive Armageddon.
"Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person..."
Anyone who disagrees, even if only privately, to the most specific tenets of the Jehovah's Witness faith (including the weird bits like the 1914 eschatology) is labeled an apostate and under direct control of Satan and the demons. People who publicly attack the church are often viewed as sinning against the holy spirit, the Bible's only unforgivable sin.
"There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology.
Right in line with Watchtower teachings. Books and authors that disagree with the society's conclusions are labeled as "worldly," meaning that they are a product of a world ruled by Satan. Essentially, anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is wholly Satanic, automatically, no questions asked. Witnesses are constantly told to stay away from the internet and from "apostate" reading material, because reading such things will corrupt the mind of even the most faithful Jehovah's Witness.
"it drills into you the fact that Scientology "works" and "gets results" and that the only reason it doesn't work is due to incorrect understood, applied or "squirreled"
Everything that is taught by the society is "the truth." If wonderful things don't happen to you as a result of being "in the truth," then it is always your fault. You might not be praying enough, or you might need to be going out door-knocking more often. If you're not happy, you're not doing enough, period. Until recently and even currently on some occasions, those with depression were/are told that the reason for their depression is that something is keeping them from God. The solutions are to pray and read the Bible more.
"he did a purge of anyone within the church who he considered was not 100% loyal to him by declaring them suppressive and excommunicating them (members of the church are required to "dis-connect" and never again speak to someone who has been excommunicated)."
The same thing happened with Joseph F. Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watchtower society from its founder, Charles T. Russel, in 1917. He instituted the doctrine of "disfellowshipping." Those who are disfellowshipped are shunned by everyo