Chicagoist: Anonymous Who? Exactly.

Killawog

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:39:08 -0600

>Actually, it's a celebration of the freedom of expression. Penn actually says "We hate doing this, but we love that we can do this." I think you completely missed the point of their act. >A few people. Like the majority of Britons? Don't dissemble and slide away from it. Things mean things, to be simple about it. Even simply tying it to V it's a loaded symbol. Anonymous is bigger in London than just about anywhere else. Is it fair for one to declare victory in an argument if their opponent resorts to hurling insults? If so, checkmate. For the record, I don’t pretend to know exactly why the GF mask was chosen; I simply offered reasons why I think it might have been. I’ve attended numerous demonstrations and read countless diatribes against Anonymous. Yours is about the only one that that fixated the supposed “loaded” nature of the mask. Personally, I think wearing Tom Cruise masks would have been better but no one asked me for my opinion. >Which is terrifying to me since Anarchism is not about lulz. Everyone has a different sense of humor. >As I said, I've had more hands on interactions with this group than I ever care to. I've seen their game and frankly, it'sickening. But compared to Bull Connor, Tom Metzger and the cops at Stonewall, they're punks. You’re comparing Anonymous to White Supremacists? That barely deserves a response. I’m also curious what kind of interaction you would have with Anonymous since you don’t attend demonstrations. >But then why wear a mask at all? If you do something it is for a reason. Even a silly one. You’ve been given quite a number of the reasons for this already. >I'm sorry Kilowog, but that is simple ignorance of history. Read about the cultural revolution, the Maoist brigades, the pre-Tiananmen state of the communist party. The protests didn't bring about democracy, but it opened the eyes of the world to China's hideous human rights record. It changed the game for China. The upcoming Olympic games, which I think are the worst choice since Berlin '36, are going to bring even more eyes to China. You apparently aren’t familiar with the human rights situation in China. I recommend Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch as sources of information on this. Specifically, protests anywhere on the scale of Tiananmen would not be allowed today. The government is keeping an extremely tight lid on dissent. Getting back to the original point; Anonymous has been holding global protests against the cult for six months now. In that time, Scientology’s stats have been down, they have lost key members and even new members such as Will Smith are loathe to publicly identify themselves with it. Unmasked demonstrators protested for years prior to that and endured significant harassment for their efforts and were largely unsuccessful in their attempts to bring to light the church’s abusive practices. I wouldn’t necessarily credit all of the recent advances to Anonymous’ actions, but they certainly have contributed to the current situation. And they’ve been effective. Without the masks? Maybe not so much, it’s hard to say. >I speak only for myself. I think protesting can be successful, in fact I know it can. But I need something more than just words or signs, I need to be involved in a more substative and direct. Just my personal way is all. I think the net-roots organization and dissemination of "classified" scientology info is BRILLIANT. I even can get behind some of the pranksterism of it, some. I’ll be keeping an eye out for your leaked docs on Wikileaks and your inventive pranks.

Albanyparkour

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:11:04 -0600

The Penn and Teller act is a perfect example. Their whole point is that symbol is only as important as what it stands for. Actually, it's a celebration of the freedom of expression. Penn actually says "We hate doing this, but we love that we can do this." If a few people, such as yourself, attach negative connotations to the mask, this is even lulzier to most Anons. “Wow, we picked this mask almost at random and it ticks that guy off.” A few people. Like the majority of Britons? Don't dissemble and slide away from it. Things mean things, to be simple about it. Even simply tying it to V it's a loaded symbol. You’re assuming that lulz and anarchical leanings are separate. To many Anonymous, they are in fact one and the same. Which is terrifying to me since Anarchism is not about lulz. By the way, it does sound Bush-like. And we know how that’s turned out. By the way, why is it that the people who talk the toughest are those farthest removed from the fight? As I said, I've had more hands on interactions with this group than I ever care to. I've seen their game and frankly, it'sickening. But compared to Bull Connor, Tom Metzger and the cops at Stonewall, they're punks. Anonymous is not swinging their fist in any sense of the phrase; they’ve been protesting peacefully for six months now. We do not wear masks to avoid accountability for words or actions. But then why wear a mask at all? If you do something it is for a reason. Even a silly one. Unfortunately, they were not able to either overthrow or even significantly reform the Chinese government. The human rights situation in China is arguably even worse today than it was at the time of those protests. I'm sorry Kilowog, but that is simple ignorance of history. Read about the cultural revolution, the Maoist brigades, the pre-Tiananmen state of the communist party. The protests didn't bring about democracy, but it opened the eyes of the world to China's hideous human rights record. It changed the game for China. The upcoming Olympic games, which I think are the worst choice since Berlin '36, are going to bring even more eyes to China. I have no idea what you’re talking about. That statement simply means that we are not going to be assuaged with the standard PR garbage that Scientology spouts and that we intend to continue our protests. Again, meaning isn't just what you intend or want to convey. Sometimes it's implied. At one point you say that Anonymous’ tactics would keep you from supporting them and now you say you don’t believe in protesting on any issue? I’m a little confused. What form would said support actually take. I speak only for myself. I think protesting can be successful, in fact I know it can. But I need something more than just words or signs, I need to be involved in a more substative and direct. Just my personal way is all. I think the net-roots organization and dissemination of "classified" scientology info is BRILLIANT. I even can get behind some of the pranksterism of it, some. But the masks, the implication of threat, the general LULZ...just doesn't work for me.

Killawog

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:42:15 -0600

>But here's the rub, these symbols have meaning. Both in pop culture and in history. You might be celebrating freedom of expression by burning a flag (Penn and Teller do just that in their vegas act) but it's going to have more than just your interpretation. To say that wearing a mask representing a religious terrorist and a famed fictional anarchist when protesting is just a pop culture snatch and grab isn't going to wash. The Penn and Teller act is a perfect example. Their whole point is that symbol is only as important as what it stands for. How powerful a symbol is the GF mask? He tried to blow up British Parliament in the 1600’s; most people (most likely, including most Anons) don’t even know who he is. If a few people, such as yourself, attach negative connotations to the mask, this is even lulzier to most Anons. “Wow, we picked this mask almost at random and it ticks that guy off.” By and large, I believe most Anons DO look at the mask as a pop culture snatch and grab. And they’re quite proud of themselves for the success they’ve had in getting away with it. >I think it's more about the lulz for the majority of Anonymous than any political idealogy. You’re assuming that lulz and anarchical leanings are separate. To many Anonymous, they are in fact one and the same. >You think that the men and women of the civil rights movement didn't live in just that kind of fear? Any time you take a stand against the dark you're at risk. Personally, I think if we all took off our masks tomorrow, Scientology wouldn’t know what to do. It used to be a simple matter for them to use their tactics against a few scattered protestors. What’s happened is that Anonymous has become a mass movement. I pretty much doubt that they could fair game all of us. >To be frank, and not to sound too Bush-like here, but bring 'em on. Why not dare Scientology to act and then catch them in the act? Use the tools of the net (video, organization, free communication) to get them red-handed. A bit of a rope-a-dope, but forcing your opponent to act in anger usually makes them act sloppily. This is already happening. If you go on to YouTube, you will see numerous videos posted by Anonymous of Scientologists harassing them at protests. By the way, it does sound Bush-like. And we know how that’s turned out. By the way, why is it that the people who talk the toughest are those farthest removed from the fight? >Oh I vehemently disagree with you there. You have the right, the basic constitutional right, to say whatever you like. But your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The notion that a mask hides you from being accountable for what you say, being responsible for your words whether they are fair of foul, is precisely what troubles me about those Fawkes faces. That, as I see it, is one of the fundamental problems with Scientology. I, and pretty much every Anon, has no problem with their beliefs. Chief among my issues with them is the harassment of their critics (I’m personally somewhat less concerned about their charging exorbitant fees for their services, caveat emptor and all that). Anonymous is not swinging their fist in any sense of the phrase; they’ve been protesting peacefully for six months now. We do not wear masks to avoid accountability for words or actions. >but should Chinese dissidents have to die in order to demonstrate the justness of their cause? I was 10 years old when I say a young man stand in front of a line of tanks because he would rather face death than accept the totalitarianism of the Chinese state. Speech is risky, I wish it wasn't, but being willing to take that risk only strengthens your argument. That young man wasn't wearing a mask. We all have a lot of respect for those Chinese dissidents; and they certainly gained the attention and admiration of the world. Unfortunately, they were not able to either overthrow or even significantly reform the Chinese government. The human rights situation in China is arguably even worse today than it was at the time of those protests. So, while I understand and identify with your emotions regarding that example, I disagree with your point. My point is, TOTALITARIONISM SHOULD NOT EXIST. The bravery or cowardice (if you want to call it that) of those who oppose it (while either noble or shameful) is irrelevant. Close to 2 billion people shouldn’t have to live in a country with essentially no rights and under an oppressive regime. Similarly, (and I definitely want to be careful in drawing too many parallels here), a cult that casually disregards the law, attacks its critics and abuses its own parishinors should not be allowed to do so with impunity. >The implied threat. "We do not forget, We do not forgive". Take off the masks, be open and demand openness I have no idea what you’re talking about. That statement simply means that we are not going to be assuaged with the standard PR garbage that Scientology spouts and that we intend to continue our protests. >A very close friend spent nearly 20,000 dollars on scientology nonsense. We, friends and family, intervened and saved them (not giving away even their gender here) from giving away their last penny to those...people. Well, good for you. Honestly, if Anonymous accomplishes as much as you have, I will consider that an amazing success. And I mean that. It’s worth it if it saves one person from falling into the cult. >Honestly, I don't believe in protesting, on any issue. Doesn't work for me. I need to be more involved in solving a problem directly. I volunteer at a soup kitchen and a shelter, not going to get specific on here. That's what I can do. Sometimes protesting DOES address the problem. One of the reasons (and I think it’s quite a compelling one) that Anonymous decided to take on Scientology is that this was something they could actually DO something about (as opposed to the many, perhaps much more worthwhile causes that you brought up). At one point you say that Anonymous’ tactics would keep you from supporting them and now you say you don’t believe in protesting on any issue? I’m a little confused. What form would said support actually take. >I think they could much much more without the silly trappings of lol-culture. I think you’ll appreciate these: http://overcompensating.com/posts/20080212.html http://overcompensating.com/posts/20080211.html

Albanyparkour

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:49:29 -0600

It was basically taking a pop culture symbol and appropriating it for their own ends, something Anonymous loves to do (see "rick rolling" for another example of this). But here's the rub, these symbols have meaning. Both in pop culture and in history. You might be celebrating freedom of expression by burning a flag (Penn and Teller do just that in their vegas act) but it's going to have more than just your interpretation. To say that wearing a mask representing a religious terrorist and a famed fictional anarchist when protesting is just a pop culture snatch and grab isn't going to wash. I have not met a single Anonymous who identified themselves as an anarchist, though the general embrace of anarchical idealogy is in part meant to stand in deliberate contrast to Scientology's rigid and controlling structure. I think it's more about the lulz for the majority of Anonymous than any political idealogy. You think that the men and women of the civil rights movement didn't live in just that kind of fear? Any time you take a stand against the dark you're at risk. To be frank, and not to sound too Bush-like here, but bring 'em on. Why not dare Scientology to act and then catch them in the act? Use the tools of the net (video, organization, free communication) to get them red-handed. A bit of a rope-a-dope, but forcing your opponent to act in anger usually makes them act sloppily. Quite frankly, people should be able to protest something without worrying about reprucussions. Oh I vehemently disagree with you there. You have the right, the basic constitutional right, to say whatever you like. But your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The notion that a mask hides you from being accountable for what you say, being responsible for your words whether they are fair of foul, is precisely what troubles me about those Fawkes faces. but should Chinese dissidents have to die in order to demonstrate the justness of their cause? I was 10 years old when I say a young man stand in front of a line of tanks because he would rather face death than accept the totalitarianism of the Chinese state. Speech is risky, I wish it wasn't, but being willing to take that risk only strengthens your argument. That young man wasn't wearing a mask. Do you feel similarly threatend on October 31st? No, because that's a holiday for wearing masks. When I speak of a threat I'm not talking about being scared of direct confrontation, I'm talking about the implied threat. "We do not forget, We do not forgive". Take off the masks, be open and demand openness. One might be tempted to respond that if you feel Scientology is bad and that you feel that the best way to oppose it is unmasked, then you should by all means feel free to do so. A very close friend spend nearly 20,000 dollars on scientology nonsense. We, friends and family, intervened and saved them (not giving away even their gender here) from giving away their last penny to those...people. Honestly, I don't believe in protesting, on any issue. Doesn't work for me. I need to be more involved in solving a problem directly. I volunteer at a soup kitchen and a shelter, not going to get specific on here. That's what I can do. Personally, I believe at some point, Anonymous will have to take off their masks. I'm not sure when that will be. I just know that we're not there yet. I'd be very interested to see that. I think they could much much more without the silly trappings of lol-culture.

pandasnack

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:49:30 -0600

Christ, there is no in-depth symbolism behind wearing the Guy Fawkes masks. And Chianon, stop being such a newfag.

Killawog

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:27:40 -0600

Albanyparkour, you make some compelling points, a number of which deserve to be addressed. Keep in mind, these are my interpretations of these issues, as it's difficult to speak for Anonymous, which really functions as a very loose knit collective. The Guy Fawkes mask is symbolic. Is it the best symbol? I don't know; symbols are imperfect representations of ideas much in the same way that language is. The GF mask currently is symbol of resistance as well as solidarity, which is why many of us wear the same mask. Anonymous doesn't venerate Guy Fawkes; I believe that their choice had more to do with V for Vendetta and not necessarily because anyone thought the movie was so great. It was basically taking a pop culture symbol and appropriating it for their own ends, something Anonymous loves to do (see "rick rolling" for another example of this). I have not met a single Anonymous who identified themselves as an anarchist, though the general embrace of anarchical idealogy is in part meant to stand in deliberate contrast to Scientology's rigid and controlling structure. It's quite amusing to many of us when Scientologists talk about how we're funded by big pharma. It just shows that they have no grasp of the nature of Anonymous' real structure, which is practically non-existent. The practicality of the mask is twofold; it serves to protect ones identity and it calls attention to this need. Most Anonymous aren't, in point of fact, worried about the immediate threats from Scientologists. They're more worried about Scientologists calling their places of work and complaining about them in (sometimes successful) efforts to get them fired. They're worried about people poisoning their pets and worried about the other various forms of harrassment the church engages in. Quite frankly, people should be able to protest something without worrying about reprucussions. The masks allow many of us to do that. Your argument, distilled to its essence, seems to contradict itself. Yes, you concede, Scientology may be guilty of attacking its critics in vicious ways. However, if protesting it is legitimate, those critics should allow themselves to be attacked so that everyone can see the viciousness of the church and therefore become sympathetic to their cause. It's an argument that seems to fall apart on basic examination. I'm not suggesting the two situations are analogous, but should Chinese dissidents have to die in order to demonstrate the justness of their cause? Simarlary, critics of Scientology shouldn't have to deal with the attacks of the church to make their point. In fact, the reason totalitarian institutions attack dissenters is because this tends to silence them and others who might also follow their example. The masks are not intended as a threat and it seems particularly absurd that anyone would interpret them as such. Do you feel similarly threatend on October 31st? I do feel that your issues deserve to be addressed, as they have been raised before and will no doubt, continue to be raised. One might be tempted to respond that if you feel Scientology is bad and that you feel that the best way to oppose it is unmasked, then you should by all means feel free to do so. However, I think that there are a lot of people who share your viewpoint; it is actually discussed at length in the current profile of Anonymous in this month's Maxim magazine. Personally, I believe at some point, Anonymous will have to take off their masks. I'm not sure when that will be. I just know that we're not there yet.

Albanyparkour

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:34:07 -0600

Sanchez: Don't bother asking questions, it will simply be turned around to explain how Scientology is clearly the most dangerous threat. It's a circle of logic, more of an oroborus actually. Chianon: As for silliness, yes the guy fawkes masks are silly. First, some history. Guy Fawkes was a failed terrorist who tried to blow up Parliament. His capture (and rather gruesome execution) is a national holiday in Britain (remember remember, the fifth of November) celebrated with fireworks and effigy burnings of Fawkes. Fawkes' motivations were religious. Yes, he was a religious terrorist. The masks became popular recently because of V for Vendetta, a fantastic graphic novel (and awful movie) by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The titular V wears a guy fawkes mask. V is also a terrorist, and advocate of a pure form of Anarchism. The notion of many people all dressing the same to speak to the cause of anarchy? That's silly. John Lydon put it best. "When punk started, you saw blokes in suits, girls in slinkies, all types. But then the uniform came in. The leather, the dog collars. Nothing says being yourself like dressing alike." And then there is the very idea of anonymity itself. There's an underlying threat of course, "we can be anyone, your grocer, your banker, your mum!" to it. A patina really, the group (club? philosophy?) has been blessedly nonviolent and takes pains to stay that way. But the threat is there. I think there's more bravery in showing your face. Think of the lunch counter protestors in Selma back in the 60's. These men were harassed, beaten, humiliated all for having the temerity to sit at a lunch counter and be black. Whatever vile threats Scientology has in it's kit bag I just can't believe it compares to the immediacy of the danger those people faced. No masks, no fake names or games, they put their bodies and lives on the line for what they believed int. I agree with the message. Scientology is abusive in extremis. Frankly, I think it should be stripped of it's religious protections under the law and treated as what it is, a business. But the methods used here are just not something I can get behind. And frankly I think belittle the issue. If you can reply without simply restating your previous arguments about Scientology it would be appreciated. I think we can clasp hands and agree on those points.

chicagoanon

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:40:21 -0600

Good morning Sanchez. So that I do not take away from the subject we are discussing, for safety reasons and because I am only one participant in Anonymous' Operation Chanology against scientology and as such do not speak for the whole at all I will be general in my response. Personally I am involved in promoting the safety and welfare of children, the protection and promotion of our civil rights, access to and safety of healthcare ,freedom of speech and thought, working to increase awareness and obtain funding for the treatment of crippling diseases which-in my view- if given enough attention and support would not be so devastating and freedom for citizens to practice their religious beliefs or lack of them without harassment or fear-so long as those beliefs do not translate into actions that harm others. I attempt to ensure that those who put their health and lives on the line to protect our rights, lives and society are given the honor and assistance they need when they are injured in the course of their noble actions-whether or not I support the event they were called upon to serve in. That is the short list and yet, I'm not a "professional protester ". I do what I can because I must. I take civic responsibility very seriously. For me, there is no " them" who will take care of "us'. We are a collection of individuals who are brought together by bonds of nationality, ideals -such as the value of each human- and history. I've found nothing in Anonymous' actions against the abusive totalitarian organization of scientology that conflicts with my own ideals. For me, once I learned more about what is actually going on, the choice was clear. I feel it is my duty to stand up for those who cannot speak or act for themselves. I would be less of a man if I didn't do what I could to inform other citizens of the dangers and abuses that have gone on for far to long.Before I donned the mask and became anonymous these dangers didn't affect me directly-at least I didnt think they did but once I saw that our access to and the safety of medicine, education, government and free speech were being influenced by the hundreds of scientology front groups intended to "clear the planet" and eliminate "SPs"-anyone who is not a scientologist or who is critical of scientology (watch the tom cruise you tube video when he discusses a world where SPs will one day only be read about in the history books)- I had no choice. My conscience would not allow me to sit idly by and watch this happen. In this time when people feel that their voices don't count. When helplessness and hopelessness seem to be the baseline rather than a departure from the norm, I am exhilarated to stand next to young and old ordinary citizens who have decided to stake a stand and try to make a difference. I am proud to be one of the many that work day and night around the world to make a difference in this cause. I am only one person and these are my views only. I found enough reason to act and I hope that you do too. Feel free to come by today and talk with us at the park. We're easy to find- look for the silly looking people. Thanks.

sanchez

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:37:06 -0600

@chicagoanon. What other causes are you involved in that are worth fighting for?

chicagoanon

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:59:07 -0600

What a pleasant surprise to see this!Thank you to the author for writing this. yes we'll be out there again tomorrow at the park. With " silly signs' and "silly masks". We will be carrying silly signs that point out crimes carried out by a totalitarian organization against its members and against those who criticize the abusive, destructive policies of the cult of greed and power. We will be carrying silly signs that aim to make the public aware of the deaths caused by faulty would-be medical practices and junk science that are packaged and repacked by the numerous scientology front groups and are selling themselves as "study tech' to our public schools and "concerned citizen" groups that seek the obliteration of any forms of mental healthcare that are not scientology controlled. Our signs will point out the scientology forced labor camps, coerced abortions, destruction of families, abuse of the old and helpless. Silly, I know. Wearing silly masks can't possibly have anything to do with the scientology "fair game policy" which states that 'enemies' of scientology can be 'tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed". It can't have anything to do with Paulette Cooper who was subjected to scientology's "Operation Freakout"where scientology's secret service OSA (yes, a church with a secret service)framed an author who was critical of scientology-they got her fingerprints on a piece of paper and wrote a bomb threat on it which was sent to kissinger-in an attempt to have her put away for life or driven insane. Of course not. The masks can't have anything to do with the numerous private investigators that scientology hires to photograph us, follow us home, get pictures of our license plates etc so that they can attempt to intimidate us and deter us from exercising our freedom of speech and assembly by threatening our families and livelihoods. No. It's just being cowardly. Of course. Google some of the things I've talked about in this post. You might see some new things and understand what we are doing and why. Or not. It's your choice. It will add some credibility to your long windedness though. One thing I have heard countless times while being a part of this operation to stop the abusive practices and plans of scientology is " don't you have something better to protest?". This misses an important point. It is a false argument. The questioner assumes that because we are protesting scientology,as individuals, we are not involved in any other causes. That is an erroneous assumption. For some this is the only activism they will participate in. For others, it is an action taken based on a personal set of values that compels them to act. I know that for some anons, that set of values requires that they stand up against injustice other places as well. I have causes which I feel are worth fighting for. I do. There are other causes I don't support. I don't ever feel the need or that I have the right to tell someone that their cause is insignificant because cause X, which I support, is more important. So, we'll be out there tomorrow. Doing what we feel is right. Doing it for great justice and for fun as well. Feel free to stop by and ask questions. Or you can put on a silly mask and pick up a sign. Scientology is weirder and more insidious than it seems. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. Join Us.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:52:07 -0600

General Public: I see that the Tin-Foil hat brigade is in full effect. As a loyal servant of L. Ron Hubbard, I suppose I'm just following my orders. What a wonderfully myopic view of the world! Take off the "V" mask and read this post with both eyes open. Ok, I'll play (GAH! FAIR PLAY! RON PAUL! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! LULZ) your game. Everything you accuse Scientology of in your post, I'll grant you. I've seen stories about most, if not all of those and more (the stories about their 'deprogramming' in Germany are just horrific) in the past few years. Scientology is a cult, an insidious, well-funded one that abuses the media, the court system and hides behind the first amendment. But- Halliburton has made BILLIONS of the Iraq War, and in point of fact has driven the US into a more militazed policy over the last decade. The WTO pummels third world nations with ridiculous debt racked up under dictators. It support medical trademarks that allow big Pharma to reap epic profits while doctors in India have to break "the law" to produce direly needed medicines. Oil speculators have doubled energy costs in the US. Hedge Funds bought into risky mortgages and developed new "products" that have caused some new homeowners to buy into explosive interest rates. All to make more money for fewer and fewer people. Greed that is, as Edward Said once said "Rivals Rome at her most decadent." That's just off the top of my brain in terms of much more worthy targets. Protesting a silly cult with silly signs when there are far more worthy beasts out there is a fad. Imagine if the organization to stand outside a Scientology offices worldwide went into raising money for Cancer Research. Or protesting Police Brutality on a global scale, or raising awareness about hate crimes? Then there's the whole concept of anonymity as a dodge for responsibility and accountability. But I'm long-winded as it is.

General Public

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:13:56 -0600

Albanyparkour: Acknowledge scientology's crimes or ignore them as you wish and let others draw their own conclusions about your true intentions. magikist, do not pretend to be witholding judgement. The curious must only google FAIR GAME, Operation Snow White to know just some of the aspects of this criminal organisation. Nobody needs to know a scientologist personally, indeed it may be of no help at all as all of those on the lower levels are ignorant of the managements deeds. They are not allowed access to websites which are critical of the cult. Are you?

poptart

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:51:42 -0600

I actually knew a guy who was a scientologist when I was in high school. He seemed like a normal enough guy and was married to a woman from my church. (which was methodist, not scientologist, just in case you were wondering) I never really talked to him much because he was never especially friendly and I guess the whole scientology thing kind of weirded me out on principle. Ironically he died last year of a heart attack at 35. He seemed healthy but apparently he had some sort of congenital problem. Since scientologist don't belive in medical treatment (I think at least) people said if he'd gone to the hospital for a check up they probably would have found it and fixed it. Who knows really, but that's could be what they mean about them "killing" their members. I tend to agree that scientology is weird and most people who get roped into it have serious issues, but there's got to be more important things to protest. Besides, any group that's so concerned with anonymity and goes on about having their pets killed if you're found out or making sure you don't drop your cigarette butts so people can steal your DNA and clone you (seriously its on one of the links in a thread) seems equally suspect...

General Public

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:50:40 -0600

Albanyparkour Which crimes are miniscule compared to Halliburtons? Infiltration of government offices and stealing files? Breaking labour laws ? The existence of forced labour camps-the RPF? The abuse of children in the Sea Org? The forced seperation of familiy members from each other? The incitement to kill stated in Hubbards FAIR GAME policy? Suspicious murders, including gay son Quentin Hubbard, supposedly commiting suicide? Financial fraud on a massive decades long scale? Attempted murder? It's not that you can't be bothered. Your recent post, rather than acknowledge scientology crimes, prefers to attack the idea that such crimes are unimportant. This is distraction, deflection. As Hubbard said 'Never defend, always attack' and you are following his orders.

JawsOfJosh

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:47:30 -0600

Wacko cults like Scientology often attract adults seeking a surrogate family to compensate for family dysfunctions that they suffered during adolescence. Can't forget the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0">Scientology publicity video with Cruise where he is pro-claimed as "the biggest movie star of all time!"

KristinaXI

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:44:40 -0600

Someone tried to convert me when I lived in Boston, but it didn't take, because I was broke. And, because I don't like church. But I've found that Scientology likes to prey on (among other people) girls who've been abused as children, so...yeah. Not a big fan of that sort of exploitation.

magikist

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:39:34 -0600

General - Actually, I don't think highly of Scientology at all, but since I don't know much other than Katie Holmes/Tom Cruise and have never personally known a Scientologist, I'm trying to withhold judgment. It does seem like some wacky, manipulative Hollywood thing though (trying... and failing).

Albanyparkour

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:35:06 -0600

General Public: In the grand scheme of things, Scientology's crimes are miniscule compared to corporations like Halliburton. The WTO makes more people poor than every scientology personality test given between now and the end of time. Hedge fund managers, Enron, Wal-Mart and, oh, yes, the government at nearly every level is rife with corruption, scandal and, yes, EPIC FAIL. Protest that. Much better use of time.

archie manning

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:17:09 -0600

Not so much faking boredom, just love Summertime Chi too much to spend the weekend in the loop where I am every day! Not sure what OSA is, but whatever. Do what you gotta do!

Chicago J

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:13:43 -0600

Quick poll here: Does anybody know an actual Scientologist? Tom Cruise and John Travolta don't count (unless you know them personally) but do you know one in real life (a neighbor, co-worker, friend). I don't know any personally...........

General Public

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:10:33 -0600

magikist: 'I'm no fan of scientology....' is usually written by someone who actually is. scientology is not only a cult for rich morons, it's also for those made poor by the scam. Nobody so far on this comments page wants anybody to discuss the actually crimes and abuses of the cult. Archie fakes boredom, he's really trying to distract us with his OSA style brain. It won't work chaps, prepare to abandon ship, the one with the asbestos in!

archie manning

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:34 -0600

If it were possible to make me less interested in this event, the beautiful weather tomorrow makes me think that there are a few other things I would rather do than chill in Millennium park with a million tourists and 100 nerds in masks.

magikist

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:57:13 -0600

Albany - makes sense. Thanks!

Albanyparkour

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:36:40 -0600

Magikist: Scientology got litigious with websites, which is where this movement got it's start from near as I can tell. Scientology has a tenancy to come down like a ton of bricks on people who disseminate information about their practices. I don't think the Catholic Church has sued anyone for publishing the bible or Roman Rite. I'm not defending anonymous, just postulating as to where this got it's start. Frankly, I'd rather see them turn their methods to some more substantive evils than a cult for rich morons.

magikist

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:25:05 -0600

If this were a group protesting an established religion, i.e. Judaism/Islam/Catholocism, I wonder if the kind of press coverage they have would be different? I'm no fan of Scientology, but it seems a little extreme.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:21:22 -0600

Oh yay. The internet is heading outdoors. I think Scientology is as laughable and scummy as the next person, but all this standing around with cutesy signs in "V for Vendetta" masks (nothing says anarchy like everyone dressing alike) is the pet rock/flash mob/streaking of the moment.