Also, it gives you the freedom to dance like an idiot and not care. SMURF: thank you for making contacts about all of this: much appreciated
Wishful thinking. Trusting in any Cultist's benevolence towards someone purposefully dismantling their life and work (Life's work?) is folly. Wisely, you are treating him with respect, but let's not delude ourselves.
Hope Ebner can ask the Q and clear this up. I'm puzzled, too, but an "insight from her book, Inside Scientology": “Because of the Church of Scientology's history of harassing and discrediting its critics and defectors, the vast majority of people who leave the church do so quietly. This book began as a magazine assignment for Rolling Stone and could not have been completed without the help of a former Scientologist whom I have promised not to name but who has served as my Virgil since the earliest days of my reporting, painstakingly explaining not only Scientology's language, beliefs, practices, and moral codes, but also the mechanisms of control by which the church suppresses or discredits the words of its former members." "I felt it was imperative to this book's credibility that it be based largely on the accounts of "quiet defectors" such as my Virgil: people who had neither sued the church nor spoken publicly about their involvement with Scientology in any way. Finding the right individuals took months. Gaining their trust took just as long. And getting them to agree to go on the record was, in many cases, an almost Herculean task." “Every bit of information in this book has been checked and cross-checked with multiple sources, and where I have found discrepancies, I have erred on the side of caution and toned down certain accounts whose veracity I do not feel I can comfortably prove. While this book relies almost wholly on named sources, there were a few people who, fearing retribution against themselves and their family members still in Scientology, requested I give them pseudonyms or total anonymity. Those few cases are clearly identified.”
It is puzzling that Reitman would take such care with frightened ex's (and I agree that she should) and yet cares little for the anonymity and protection of protesters (most who were never in) who put their lives on the line to be critics of the cult. As I said before, it would take just a few minutes of Reitman's precious time to understand why we wear the masks and prefer to remain anonymous. If she doesn't believe that critics of scientology who were never in are fair gamed then maybe she should read about some of her colleagues: Paulette Cooper and Bette Orsini maybe?
This is not exactly true. Anonymous this year has: - Used LOIC - which is certainly DDOS -Hacked a company and put all of their emails on the internet (HBGary - while I completely don't agree with what they did, actually brought to light the Team Themis stuff and possible abuse by our own Justice Department/Chamber of Commerce) -Hacked law enforcement databases and put the personal information of hundreds of law enforcement officers on the internet -Hacked celebrity email accounts and put personal photos and even a script (Tom Cruise's new movie Rock of Ages) on the internet -Hacked NBC's twitter and said that Ground Zero was under attack -Hacked Talking Points Memo for putting up mugshots of arrested Anonymous -Supposedly gone to "war" with LulzSec, made up, and then... I dont' know, I stopped following it around then. - Edit to add: Anon also DDOS'd and/or other things through the Arab Spring uprising - Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. I forgot about those. *(please take the word "hack" in the most general sense, some of them were probably just guessing passwords/security questions) I see that group and WWP as so completely different, even saying the word "Anonymous" feels like I even mentally pronounce the word differently when thinking of those Anons vs. the WWP Anons (not really, but that's the best way to describe it). They have their own channels, cells, training rooms, and each cell has their own lines they will/won't cross. Kind of similar to Chanology/WWP, but I think far more disparate. I'm sure some of you know about that, at least a bit, or have skimmed news articles about it, but I think the fact that it's not on the forefront of everyone's mind is testament to the wide diversity and un-connectedness of the Anons. Anyone can be Anon. But this group is, in my opinion, the most credible and the one I most want to align myself with, which is why I'm here and not there. **Citations
Yes, exactly. It appears to me that she did not educate herself at all on Anonymous when she wrote her book, and still hasn't, other than taking short whiffs of media headlines. I still very much hope her book gets read by public because it's easy to read and understand. But as a journalist, you'd think she know better than to make any kind of "you should..." comment on a subject she doesn't know. Time for class, Janet!
Shawn Lonsdale didn't wear a mask. Now he's dead. fifm I know a lot of people here know a lot more about Shawn than I do: time to defer...
Diversity is the amorphous beauty of anonymous. It is a meme. It is the sociopolitical movement of now. In a world with few informational boundaries left, it bridges remaining gaps by being unable to discriminate activism by its own ambiguous nature. Its is a forum to voice your disenfranchisement with whatever issues over injustices you have .. or for the lulz. Hacking is the hot button now, I think due to modern societies fear of being exposed for the injustices it has allowed to occur on its watch. Every anon knows its more than just hacking- for every hacker, 10 irl protests have probably occurred (cannot dox). Any movement has its moonbats- anonymous included (especially?). But public misinformation and a few Ddos'rs are not enough to make this anon create an agenda to divide myself from the gestalt. The sum IS greater than the whole of its parts, and some things will happen under the banner of anonymous many wont agree with. Hacktivism, activism... isms create schisms. We are anonymous Let's raid!
Cosigned, and QFT. And it only takes one anon to do a hacking, ddos, or whatever. It takes years of interconnected, dedicated, and passionate anons (you fucking awesome people) to keep up regular protest, research, relationships, and be in it for the sincere long-haul. But let's not forget why Janet Reitman and others may only conjure the hactivists when they think of Anonymous. It's able to be countered, but we can't deny the reasons for people thinking that way.
Regarding Bill and other staff, a warning: I wish this were not true, but I must make this very very clear. There are not that many of us who are not still under the spell. I say that with out you, I would probably still be under the spell along with a couple others but but but you must understand!!!! Most of the rest of them are true believers, they totally believe that Scientology is the salvation for mankind and therefore you are hindering that and are the “enemy suppressive”. You are not liked for most of them. You are a enemy. I wrote my original post to show you that you are having an effect, and you are. They are wondering why the PTS/SP tech is not working. Why they can not stop you from picketing, and that is very good, very good thing and I pray you do not stop. Unlike what Jerry showed you, you are affecting how many people come into the org. There are so many good points about the good you do made here on this site I don’t need to go over them again. Here is a copy and past from Gadfly on esmb to illustrate what I am talking about: Quote: It is LRH policy to "fair game" innocent people, and set them up in crimes they didn't commit - because ALL CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY MUST HAVE CRIMES AND IF WE CAN'T FIND THEM THEN WILL WILL FABRICATE THE CRIMES (paraphrased but that IS actual LRH policy). Hubbard has codified into total acceptance by Scientology members the notion that ANY PERSON who is "against" Scientology in ANY WAY MUST HAVE OVERTS & SERIOUS CRIMES. They feel no need to actually ever take the time to OBSERVE that such a crime exists, because they KNOW, "with certainty" that all critics have crimes. That is one example of how Scientology indoctrination causes members to REFUSE to LOOK and instead to base all related behavior on THINKINGNESS (fixed ideas instilled into their soggy little minds by Hubbard's indoctrination system). That is why idiotic Scientology robots can be seen trying to "cave in" critics and protesters with the question, "what are your crimes"? They actually BELIEVE, as a result of extensive severe indoctrination into ludicrous ideas, that any person critical of Scientology MUST have major hidden criminal behavior! Otherwise, per Hubbard's Overt-Motivator and natter "tech", the person would NEVER feel the "urge" to "attack wonderful Scientology". End Quote Anyone attacking Scientology is attacking the only hope for mankind. They believe it and that is why, when they do things like not having the guy arrested for raping Gormans wife, they are protecting the only hope for mankind. They are extreme. Most all staff will not do what OSA does, but they will look away if they ever find out, like the case with Gorman. All I am saying is don’t take anything for granted. Be careful out there.
thank you, et. <3<3<3 s2g Q: I'm not grammar-fagging you, but this is a really important sentence to understand... were you saying that we are not liked by (not for) most of them?
A rather affluent looking gentleman at a recent raid at SFmOrg shook hands with me and said "you guys are doing a great job. But be careful, you're hitting them where it hurts. Their wallets."
When Bill said, "They should have hanged him (rapist)," some anons thought, "Wow moral feeling; who knew?" But I thought, "The authorities did not hang him. Therefore, the man's guilt must have been somewhat questionable. Therefore Hubbard wins!" cuz I had my cult-mind hat on at the time. OSA can find out anyone's identity, I'm pretty sure. But time is money and they aren't going to bother with a research project if they have easier targets. Kinda like locking your car door --not a serious barrier to thieves, but the lock makes your car a little more work compared to unlocked others. Don't be brave. Be lazy and safe and enjoy your life. Keep the protest activities as an amusing hobby. Reitman doesn't get it. Oh well. We get it. That's enough.
Concretely, I suppose you are right. But I think skeptic2girl was making a point about anonymity, which the mask represents. The cult could not have tormented Lonsdale as they did if they didn't know his name. It's a trivially obvious point.
When Bill said the hanging remark, my thought was, I now know much about his position on capital punishment, and probably his political leaning. But I still haven't heard shit about his religious position other than amount of time invested. Bravery isn't a virtue I wish to abandon. Nor laziness Lulz ftw
I don't even ... I didn't want to out myself here but I feel a point needs to be made. Many people can't openly debate controversial subjects without inviting complicated headaches into their own lives and even into the debate itself. For example, I happen to be Vice President of a world superpower.* Just put that in your pipe and smoke it. _____ *... or am I.
Yeah come on. Sean Lonsdale. Don't pull the cults trick, a cunts trick, and use his passing to bolster speculation. He deserves better than that. He was out there protesting the cult, but thats where it ends. Anonymous are here to teach $cilons what "ethics" really means.
For some reason I can't see the comments on that article, which I just read for the first time. In that piece Reitman is unambiguously pro-Independent Scientology. She describes Scientology as a self-help or mental health movement. It ought to be thriving but instead has been hobbled by the organization's insistence on Hubbard's writings as unchanging Source and Miscavige as COB for life. My tinfoil hat vibrated a little when I read this: Nobody likes the COB. It's like in that Tom Cruise movie, where the cool people can't stand Hitler yet can't break free --in this case the cool people being Rathbun, Rinder, Reitman, and Tommy Davis. WITP: Phase 1: Create an appealing alternative to the CoS for Scientologists worried about PR problems, heavy regging, and other old beefs. Phase 2: Channel anti-Scientology sentiment toward Miscavige, a few historical incidents, and certain policies specifically. Phase 3: Build support among Scientologists inside and outside the church for a planned replacement of Miscavige as COB. Meanwhile, as we all debate whether or not Scientology is a religion, the church's large network of affiliated chiropractors, naturopaths, wholistic healers, green mental health counselors, homeopaths, and supplement manufactures happily expand their Integrative Medicine program, which is a lot moar like Hubbard than science and is now covered by insurance.
From what I've read, many of those affiliated are coerced. How much easier will it be to wait until the cult has fallen apart and then point fingers at the CoS snake oil salesmen instead of working ourselves silly trying to fight them now? I'm all for doing what we can when we can, but I prefer to work smart instead of toil away for nothing.
This is why I protest. What they "know" about other people's crimes is otherwise commonly known as transference. Also, their stance against "psychs" baffles me as well. I'm not sure if most of them even understand the difference between a psychiatrist (doctor) and a psychologist (college degreed). I have a tough time giving credibility to a handful of disoriented folks who barely can scrape 2 college degrees together but somehow believes itself more qualified than an entire medical, scientific field. Questioning certain practices is healthy (I do believe Ritalin is way over-prescribed) but I'm not assuming I am heretheretoonfrom qualified on all other matters and certainly not making a religion out of it. Oh but wait, the cos isn't about facts or anything scientifically impossible, so nevermind...
The ex's are the victims of bad Scientology management. The Anonymous protesters are religious bigots damaging Scientology itself. See the difference?
When you get out of chiropractic college, you're going to be deeply in debt and facing an uncertain future. You will be tempted to sign with a practice management business that will help to establish your new practice. In exchage for a cut of your gross revenue, which might not be too bad the first couple years when you're not earning much, they will help find a location, help with hiring staff, setting up billing software, interior decorating, and marketing. They will practically guarantee you a financially comfortable future. They have been at this game for decades and actually are pretty good at it. Many of the practice management companies that target chiropractors are run by Scientologists. Some chiropractors become Scientologists, but not all. At some point when your practice is cooking along nicely, you likely will resent turning over a significant part of your gross income to the management business, who no longer needs to work very hard on your behalf. But they have lawyers and contracts with penalties, and you've heard stories about fair game, so there you are. These WISE connected chiros likely would be happy to see the CoS brought down. They also would likely support the Independents, who favor chiropractors over real doctors.
You must not be the celebrated author, Janet Reitman. She finds no lulz in the thought of damaging Scientology, sweetie.
