Examining Co$ militarily

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by anonymous1244, Apr 2, 2008.

  1. anonymous1244 Member

    Examining Co$ militarily

    I mentioned in another thread, that it would make sense to start looking at Scientology in pseudo-military terms, and a mod suggested think-tanking the idea...copypasta below:

    An example would be where one set of their defences is legal: David Miscavige is surrounded first by concentric corporate shells. Beyond this, lie more general defences: tax exempt status, abuse of religious status and so on. It's not merely a gimmick, it allows us to focus on specific vulnerabilities in a much more systematic and interesting way.

    Another set of defences, would be PR-based, their website, advertising materials, general level of public awareness etc. etc.

    Already ppl on enturb, are attacking their new website video "channel", by fact-checking the material. Done right, we can slowly take out or neutralize to the point of ineffectiveness each of their various defences and weapons.

    The IRL protests form a direct psychological attack. Less ppl will choose to join, more members will be inclined to defect. In addition it acts as a force-multiplier as former Scientologists start to gain the confidence to speak out, plus members of the public may choose to join with us. These are probably more important than the much more variable media coverage that each protest may garner. Don't get me wrong, we want it all, but we can count on the former where we can't count on the latter.

    Looking at it through a pseudo-military lens is useful, because it makes their vulnerabilities much more apparent, plus it has the potential to generate media interest by stopping them from simply pigeon-holing us as just another "protest group" (something there's some risk of as time goes on). It allows us to think more strategically, and therefore be more effective, and it ensures we continue to be seen and to genuinely be a new approach to dealing with this kind of problem.


    Really no specific knowledge on this subject (apart from too many bad movies ;-)), but I think this idea's interesting, and has the potential to stimulate new ideas and methods of attack if we follow it through.

    The only ground rules that I play by personally, are that anything I do should be legal, ethical, and nothing I wouldn't want splashed across a newspaper. But beyond that, I think there's a lot of scope for us to be more creative and focussed in the way that we're doing business and battle...
  2. Anonimosity Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    The original Anonymous video was pretty much a declaration of war.
    I have no other input however...
    Brb, going to read The Art of War by Sun Tzu!
  3. Edges Member

  4. indeedindeed Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    maybe pseudo-government even: military, intelligence, bureaucracy, justice system...
    but thats maybe not concrete enough a model to get anything out of this, except maybe an explanation as to why there is such a refusal to lay low if there is another choice. if you feel like you are some sort of government you want to rule, you dont want to hide. maybe this is the deeper structural reason behind "always attack, never defend". you want to exercise sovereignity, you want to decide what happens and what wont happen. maybe thats why they could ever get to the idea of blocking a public sidewalk in LA besides the obvious reason of not getting protesters there.

    so, in general it might be a good idea on a psychological level to show that they dont determine what is happening and that their institutions are not being recognized, e.g. "SP Letters" dont have any value, the "international justice chief" is just a fake post with no authority. the undermining of authority is something that would need to happen inside the organization.

    now how do these thoughts fit in with the military model: maybe like this, the notion of sovereignity, the ability to determine whats happening and whats not, this feeling of power would be one of the last defenses on their own territory. this is also fitting to what is being said about the amount of abuses at int base and within int base their concentration on a certain person. DM sure makes sure he is sovereign. there is more to this than just the will to stay in power as to me it seems like he's taking the execution of power to an absurd level at which this is even hampering the effectiveness of the organization, because people can be punished for not fulfilling impossible missions (no pun intended) and some people went away not because they didnt believe in it any more but because they just couldnt take the climate there anymore. this is no longer a brutal yet rational management of power, its DMs misconception of what being sovereign really means.

    I still think it is a way of keeping hold on the organization though, even if its an excellent method to hamper its effectiveness and drive away even loyal members. its not about keeping scientology working, it is about keeping control of scientology. now, why would this behaviour ever be helpful beyond the immediate realm where he has control? imo because the notion of being sovereign is one of the central desires of the organization.

    if that could be changed this hold of DM via the means described would change. i think its not necessarily a realistic goal to change the climate at int base, but if we could further cut the ideological connection between int base and the rest of the organization, that might have greater chances of succeeding. this way one of the innermost defenses could be attacked.

    now the question is what would this change look like and where would it need to start. i think medium management mentality would be the place to aim for, because they actually have some power and are thereby the local bearers of the sovereignity idea. but i dont see how to change their mentality, maybe this is already happening, when OSA people are reading this and are confronted in daily live with the fact how unrealistic it is to exert sovereignity or on the other hand what the human cost is for the "victims" and for themselves. maybe they should think about what the world would look like if they succeeded and whats the use if they wont?

    an easier way to undermine the notion of sovereignity would be to fully expose a RPF to the public. to get news into a rpf. a rpf is a concentration of organizational sovereignity: We can tell you where to go, who to talk to, what to eat and when to sleep. we determine what you do. We are sovereign or rather you are not, the organization has sovereignity over you. the idea of being a free more or less sovereign citizen with human rights is totally alien to this. so if there was a way to undermine the execution of this notion of sovereignity in the RPF and to spread cynicism to the medium management sea org members this might be effective in cutting off the ideological hold DM has on CoS.

    to show that the ads have no credibility is infinitely important and definitely necessary, but it is "fighting against outer defenses on our ground".
    To really "expose an RPF to the light of day" would be "fighting against inner defenses on their ground".

    but thats not easy. just some ideas.
  5. Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Sovereignty is important, yes - it gives us a clear target to attack. But still we need to decide HOW to attack it. I posit the following - a perimeter based model.

    Let's imagine that CoS is being run like a mini-nation, with its executive and judiciary branches, intelligence services, and a subcontracted "army" (PI's). Further, let's follow the incentives to see what are the main assets that allow their sovereignty to continue - and hit them there.

    The basic thing, of course, is the money. Money is the basic means that allow the executive (Miscarriage and the higher echelons) to further their agenda (another means is free labor, but let's return to that in a bit)

    The money does not come from people that enroll in occasional courses - it comes from either
    1. Huge "charity" donations or tax breaks
    2. The poor deluded people trying to escalate the batshit insane bridge of freedom
    3. According to Arnie Lerma, the front groups.

    What enables these? For starters, the following (numbers match above):
    1. Being recognized as a religion by the government (particularly the USA - particularly the IRS)
    2. Brainwashing/Fundamentalist ethics techniques
    3. Legitimacy as NGO's supposedly separate from CoS

    The issue of free labor is included in (2).

    So we attack these three pillars. An attack is basically the exploitation of a vulnerability, and feasible attacks are thus a function of the defenses deployed by CoS. What are these defenses? A possibility would be (again numbers match):

    1. Government Infiltration, Lobbying, Direct Targeted Propaganda
    2. Disconnection, Rejection of Psychiatry/Psychology, High entry sunk costs, Cult of Personality to D. Miscarriage
    3. Charity Donations, Disaster Relief Donations, Celebrity Publicity, Direct Propaganda

    The defenses on (1) are hard to counter, because they tend to be expensive. Our best bet is to engage large sections of the population through word-of-mouth (viral) communication, so that there is an electoral cost in supporting CoS. The protests are in the process of achieving this, and other plans have been proposed for this.

    The defense on (2) is a "thought perimeter" designed to alienate the scilons from the outside world. We need to breach this perimeter. Operation Reconnect is in precisely this wavelength, but we need more. We need to inject doubt into the minds of the scilons. If possible, doubt on the tech - but if this proves too difficult, doubt on DM and "management". We need the middle level and low level scilons to doubt that they can clear the planet, to doubt that abandoning their family is OK, doubt that a life built with security checks and audits and stats and so on is all there is. We need to expose middle management scilons to the real world. We need to make them *want* to get out of the matrix.

    Regarding (3), the front groups seem to be economically independent from the main CoS, and thus we will need to engage them directly. The problem here is that some groups may actually do some good sometimes. And they will take refuge on this to tarnish our discrediting of other activities, those that are harmful. I do not know how to go about this...

    Anyway, a first shot. Undoubtedly it is full of stuff missing and oversimplifications, but that is precisely the sort of thing that the hive mind excels at removing.

    I think we are doing OK, but we need to find a way to attack the front groups.
  6. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    I haven't looked at my Sun Tzu recently, but I remember that many tricks deal with reversal of aaliance.

    My suggestion would be to cut scientology from its supporting environment.

    To achieve this, we should follow a general procedure, e.g.:

    - contact support with a probable explanation for their action (ignorance, fame, support for their own activity, etc.) and the reasons of scientology to pick them,

    - ask them to put more distance from scientology,

    - if they refuse, expose them in a proper manner.

    If and when people will begin to ask to be remove of the advisory board of CCHR and the like, scientology will loose some of its power.
  7. albinocat Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    CCHR seems to be the strongest front group from all. They have 40 years of experience, great influence and hardcore anti-psychiatry Scientology- and Non-Scientology critics. The other frontgroups seem to depend a lot from CCHR.

    Many CCHR Board Members are quite fishy. Some are real quakes, dishonest lawyers, tell a lot of lies on their websites.

    I would highly recommend to investigate a lot more on CCHR. The co-founder Thomas Szasz is a quite interesting person. I think he should be on trial together with Miscavige.
  8. Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Yeah, "Psychiatrists are the new Inquisition" Szasz, who tolerated scienos because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". "Interesting" to say the least.

    Dead agenting the founders of CCHR might undermine their credibility, and ultimately destabilize them - but Anonymous does not do this. What we CAN do is show the truth about them, to better show the driving force behind the front group, and there is already a thread on this.

    This is however not the point - the point is not that the founders were fishy, but that their current activities are. That is why the scienos are losing - they only attack the image instead of solving the problem. Of course, we will not fall in the same traps they continually fall in (of course, we have an advantage - Admiral Ackbar is on our side ;)).

    In our case, we need to prove that the end and means of CCHR are misguided at best, and malevolent at worst - independently of the fishiness of the founding committee. Exposing their link to the mother ship helps. The work by doctors and scientists explaining the neurophysiology of mental illness, so that we have better and better drugs, helps. The work by psychologists, developing faster and more robust therapies helps. The work by pop-science writers and opinion leaders helps educate the public, and thus counters the superstitious environment on which pseudoscience (including Scientology) thrives. All of this things, however, are attacks to the flanks - they take far too long, and CCHR is being able to grow faster than these things are undermining it. We need a frontal assault.

    I am not sure about this, but I would guess that most of the money that CCHR gets comes from individuals and enterprises (tax deductible donations) and maybe direct aid programs by national and international organisms. Of these, some money will be from staunch scienos - this will be there, no matter what. This is a defense that we can't counter - so we do not focus on this.

    However, another slice will be from people who might be persuaded to go to a different charity. This may be their vulnerability.

    We must find these backers. We must follow the money, and then target the big players with information and truth. Bluntly, we must make people feel ashamed to support scientology - because they should be! We must show them the horrors that their money makes possible. We must inform them of the true nature of the cult of scientology.

    So, the founders are nice. But the big prize is to find the benefactors. We need to close the money faucet of this people.
  9. AnonOutreach Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    It's easier than you think.

    If you want to attack a non-profit, it is the DUTY of a non-profit to prove its effectiveness in order to maintain its status as non-profit.

    Keep constant pressure the CoS fronts must have 3rd party statistics and evaluations to prove their effectiveness. Make it clear to the politicians that unless CoS can provide PROOF from academic research facilities that their techniques are VALID [which they are not] they have no right to claim non-profit status.

    Demand FORENSIC AUDITS if they are to maintain their non-profit status. CoS is shuffling funds faster than a 3 card monte dealer. If they are forensically audited by a neutral source all their fronts will come tumbling down like dominoes.

    Narconon is a case in point. Hit the right way, it's extremely vulnerable especially in Canada under the Canadian Drug Strategy.
  10. Whitehatv2 Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    This is quite true. They also use these same defenses to attack also, as per their 'belief' (Always attack)

    True, however this is also their main points of attack as well.

    And the fact that the CO$'s strategy never puts any sort of support behind their 'facts', it shouldn't be too hard to break.

    They put their usual list of lies on the front lines. But they never have anything to back them up. Once they run out of lines they have nothing left to hit Anonymous with.

    If Anonymous can discredit more lies than they create, it's over.

    Indeed, it's a little bit of "Shock and Awe" against them.

  11. anon7894 Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Maybe the distinction is that things that are passive and constant i.e. website can essentially be viewed as defensive. Whereas a specific response i.e. current new online media blitz, is clearly offensive (no pun intended ;-))

    I like this idea a lot. I reckon done right it will help engage a lot more Anons, and help us kick butt more efficiently and more amusingly.
  12. anonsoldier Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    A basic understanding of Sun Tzu is going to be helpful. What's REALLY going to make an impact is a reading of the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, currently in print and available to the public. It's big, thick reading, but it's what we're doing here folks...except we are the insurgency.

    To keep this brief, what needs to happen is not a militaristic approach but a global approach. Militaristic, legalistic, corporate, governmental, etc. We need to freaking hit them EVERYWHERE. So far this has already begun with protests serving multiple purposes in terms of information campaigns, recruitment, public sentiment support, and even a form of direct assault upon Scientology. Simultaneously there's the attack upon the tax exempt status; bleed them dry through taxes and discredit their religious defenses. Also, the pursuit of legal means of weakening their support structure by pushing law enforcement into action against key members.

    Honestly, to really describe this in the proper detail would take way more typing than I want to do right now.
  13. Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Agreed. However, what we need is not a long winded description of a model - what we need are strategies. There are places we are not hitting them, and we need to put our act together to continue hitting them hard enough so that they can't re-stabilize. We need to be more than noise. We need to interfere with their basic organizational processes, thus minimizing their response capability. We need to stress their management until they do something stupid or burn themselves out, and then seize the opportunity.

    I am not in the US - I think getting the counterinsurgency manual is a no-go for me. And of course, different scenarios call for different tactics... although the strategies might be common, of course. Maybe you could elaborate on this.

    Any ideas on strategy? If you do not want to develop a model, that's fine. But we do need strategies. There is are a number of threads on new strategies around - not all on thinktank.
  14. Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    I guess this is very country and front-group specific, but - how is this done? Are there annual reports? What are the relevant metrics for "effectiveness"?

    Indeed sounds good. So what we need to do is obtain a copy of their operation manuals and the "scientific" papers on which they base their operations, and then analyze them for cracks? If we find cracks, then we can contact forensic auditors (from the government, I presume) so that their status can be put into question?

    There is a set of Criminon training documents around, but I have not found any operations/protocol manual. Anyone knows if Anon has operations/protocol or even strategy documents for any of the front groups?
  15. Edges Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    The whole thing can be boiled down to this though:

    Whoever offers the public moar caek wins. Whoever makes the public more butthurt loses.
  16. sonofaxeman Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Why are we not taking direct attacks on CCHR? I haven't read Art of War in awhile, either, but I think I can remember a quote about how wars are won through deceptiveness and trickery, rather than superiority of numbers. As far as I can tell, we don't really have either. Why are we restraining ourselves?

    This is not to say I advocate illegal activities (I do (no I don't)). I simply advocate harsher (while entirely legal) methods to use against the Co$. Much as I dislike them, some of their techniques are quite inventive, and I have to commend the sick fuck that came up with them. Would it not be an irony if their own techniques brought them down? I saw a comment about dead agenting earlier in this thread, and how Anonymous does not do this. Technically legal, this brilliant trick is being used by the Co$ to further their cause. What the hell are we doing not using it? They have a resource we could easily use (probably better than they can), and we're ignoring the possibilty because of a moral objection?

    Now, I'm not one to blow sunshine up my own ass. We're the underdogs in this fight, by far. The See-oh-motherfucking-Ess has a billion times the resources we do, and is a lot less full of morals. We need to start adopting some rougher policies (NOT ILLEGAL ONES).

    Opinionate me, Anon.

    (btw: I do not support in any way, shape, or form illegal activity, so none of you sneaky little bastards can use the nifty new reporting system to give me 5 bad points on my no-no card.)
  17. albinocat Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    You are right, we need to attack CCHR (and NarCONon, Applied Scholstics, ...) directly. CCHR needs more spotlight. The Scientology board members are the high-ranking ones. They are not staff, they must know.

    And sorry, no reporting 5 bad points from my side. I´m too lazy :)
  18. Axolotl Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    I think the point is that we are trying to maximize the damage we can make. This means living to fight another day - hence moralfaggotry. WRT to legal, black ops... I am sure that there are people working on this. Maybe not in enturb, but I am sure that port knockin' and bin searchin' is happening somewhere.

    If you have a specific idea, please create a thread here in the thinktank. That is the way things seem to be working: The idea is proposed, sliced and diced, and when it is lean and mean it is transferred to the Activism section for deployment.

    So - what is your idea to mess around with CCHR?
  19. indeedindeed Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    as an aside on the usability of texts like "The art of war". sometimes when he's talking about hills he's literally meaning hills an there is no use to "transfer this into our context". i imagine there are similar restraints on using the "counterinsurgency manual". e.g. i think one main reason to get the support of the population is because of the ressources they offer such as hiding or not telling the forces of the government what they know. this is different from here. still, there can be great inspiration and useful advise in there.

    concerning CCHR:

    - to limit the effects on society: have the email leaks been used as effective as possible?
    - to internally damage the effectiveness as a front: i think there's agreement that scientology uses psychological methods and such things as hypnosis -see israeli TV report- that they are strongly condemning. on the other hand from kendra's story on ESK and from other texts i got the impression that the people working in there seriously believe in what they do and for them its not just PR or "an official stance" that they know to be false. and there are indeed horrible things in the history of psychiatry. so i would guess to some extents there is more rationality in the workings of CCHR than in scientology in general, so maybe argumentations might reach someone there. not argumentation that all of this is bad, but argumentation that methods they condemn are being used in scientology. there isnt even any need to stress the connection between CCHR and scientology (its a front) for this. some really short argumentation in language understandable by CCHR -but not necessarily completely in cult/CCHR lingo- demonstrating in a simple way that a key concept of scientology is something they condemn. maybe not auditing, because they may have trained themselves to have an answer for that or accepting it would just be too much and it would be blocked for self-protection. something to open up a crack in brainwashing or widen one already there but so far tiny.
    this argumentation ideally should not be delivered in a discussion with someone from there because they would consider it to be an attack and focus on you, but in a way that expects no answer and by this makes it clear that its a point they should consider. emails or leaflets or entries in a guestbook or something similar.
  20. Edges Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    I think COIN should be taking lessons from us, not the other way around.

    Let's write our own damn book. Watch the news ... COIN is fail.
  21. Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    I guess one of the things that is a little bit of a "hot button" with me, is control of followers through fear.

    Paranoia and fear are weapons all too often used to keep followers in line. Jim Jones used to do middle of the night "drills" to help induce fear of "outsiders." That polygamy cult in Texas taught that outsiders were evil. Scientologists call us wogs that they fancy themselves to be superior to. There are quite a few "mainstream religions" guilty of using fear as a psychological tool to certain degrees as well.

    Now it seems to be that the CoS are really trying to convince themselves and their followers that we really are terrorists and criminals, more so than anyone else. They seem to really want to believe that we truly are a danger to them. They seem to be doing things like asking orgs to provide urgent funding for additional defense and security for this very purpose.

    When I see an interaction between a scientologist and a critic, it seems like whenever the scientologist starts thinking "well, maybe this person really isn't so bad," it's like they kinda have to "shake it off" like they think they are being tricked or something.

    They are firmly convinced that we are just set out to undo all "the good they are doing" because they really think we don't want the world to be a better place. I agree that this is why we will face the most difficulty in dealing with their front groups. Sure, we can demand that these front groups prove effectiveness to retain status, but we would still need to take actions to demand investigation. This is where they will jump at the chance to tarnish our credibility and give people reason to question our motives negatively.

    We've done "hug raids" and we've got the message that operation reconnect conveys, but how can we really convince people that behind the lulz, we are here because we really do care?

    Oh, and that the lulz are necessary to keep the levity so things don't get too heavy, (I sincerely believe they are the key to the success of the peacefulness maintained in the protests). :grin:
  22. AnonOutreach Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Szasz is no longer with them although they are still quoting him.

    The way to dispute with Szasz is through his libertarianism. In fact, if one actually READS Szasz he talks about the individual's right to use any medication that will make them feel better. He just says that let's not say say that's proof of mental deficiency.

    The psych front is the EASIEST to attack but people are using the WRONG TACTICS.

    It's not a psych vs. no psych debate. Don't go there because CCHR will chew you up alive.

    It's a CHOICE issue. Right now, you and your medical practitioner can CHOOSE what actions you want to take. If you want meds, you can, with medical advice, choose which are best for you. If you don't like them, you don't have to take them.


    "Scientology does NOT want you to have ANY CHOICE. They want to interfere in YOUR HUMAN RIGHT TO CHOICE by denying you medication even if you and your medical practitioner decide that is THE BEST CHOICE FOR YOU."

    End the debate with, "So, SCIENTOLOGY wants to take away EVERYONE'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE"

    This is undeniable. They have no leg to stand on because you either have the choice to medicate or you do not.

    That's why it's a slam dunk.
  23. AnonOutreach Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    And send those funny vids to other anons--we could all use the inside jokes:rickroll:
  24. Tony Whent Member

    Re: Examining Co$ militarily

    Some general observations.

    1) The USA, particularly the right have been strongly anti communist. Scientology have got into bed with Ron Paul (see wickileaks) and yet they have a planned economy on the Stalinist model.

    Marriage of convenience?

    2) We can turn the 'freedom of religion' argument around. There is no freedom of religion in Iran because it has a religious not a secular government. Freedom of religion requires that Scientology be FROSEN OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM.

    3) Why the hell are we fighting the battles medicine and the Christian Church? It is time for them to pull their weight!!

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins