My Beef When It Comes to Anonymous vs Scientology

Kevin R Brown's picture

Scientology is awful! Why not help Anonymous in their current mission to dissolve the church?

It's a matter of mutually exclusive goals and perspectives. My problem with the 'church' of Scientology is an ethical one; Scientology is not a religion of any sort, it's an organized criminal syndicate intent of accumulating vast sums of wealth & power through the subversion of freedom of speech via information control & intelligence gathering. Anonymous's problem with Scientology is that it's a competitive body.

How dare you say that! The only thing most of the protestors at Anonymous rallies want is to protect freedom of speech!

And the only thing most members of the church of Scientology want is to rid the world of pain and achieve a utopian state. In both cases, the motives and desires of the flock are irrelevant, as it is the aims of the core membership/leadership that will direct their behavior.

And, no - the motives of those behind the 'chanology' movement is not to protect your freedom of speech.

What do you know about Project Chanology, anyway?

4chan - the parent body of Anonymous - is, and always has been, a miscreant criminal organization empowered by the contemporary ease of access to information. The group has never had any obvious goal, aside from simply sewing misery wherever the opportunity is presented, and has largely excused their actions as 'social experimentation'. Since their inception, no interest was taken on the part of either 4chan or Anonymous in confronting religious bigotry - a fact that is somewhat at odds with the notion that the group is merely interested in the noble effort of liberating people from brainwashing.

It is not at all unreasonable to speculate that Anonymous has targeted Scientology strictly because they wish to prove themselves the stronger hand in the field of social control / manipulation. The two groups are hardly indistinguishable from one another, but the common threads shared where information gathering is used to intimidate critics and increase power / notoriety does not leave us with a 'lesser evil' one should support over the the other if the goal is the promote freedom of speech & free exchange of ideas.

Well, even if that's true, shouldn't we just work with Anonymous in the meantime, until Scientology is gone?

Personally, I think this perspective lacks any depth. It's the same rationalization I hear from some atheists regarding Christians and Muslims; since the religious right in the United States is as Hell-bent as anyone in their right mind should be at demolishing Islam, we should work alongside them as allies of convenience.

Unless you believe in exchanging one dictator for another, this is moronic.

If/when the goal is achieved, what then? Anonymous has eliminated it's competitor, and we're still left with a maligned organization whose intent it is to ultimately destroy free speech & information exchange. Moreover, they're likely to gain momentum and influence as the campaign against Scientology presses forward!

Scientology needs to be dealt with, swiftly and sharply. But it needs to be done without lending support to bodies who will only use such a triumph to cement themselves as the 'church's successor.

How do you justify--

Enough questions from you. I have a couple of my own I'd like answered:

Why the moniker 'Anonymous'?

This appears to be paying homage to the wonderment of Internet anonymity; that you can act as you please on the Internet, as you're perpetually wearing a mask the whole time. Here we see something rather ugly: a mocking of the virtue of transparency, and championing of deceit as an ideal. These are among the key attributes of information control, and that they are touted proudly before the 'sheeple' to praise seems to be consistent with the brazen arrogance of 4chan regulars.

Why wear Guy Fawkes masks?

I'm dubious that those as educated as most of Anonymous's core membership are ignorant of who Guy Fawkes was (the majority of protesters perhaps just think the V for Vendetta movie was cool, granted); a violent revolutionary who plotted to blow-up parliament with a few kegs of gunpowder because he was disdainful towards any form of governance (an anarchist. The irony here is that anarchy does not mean what even most 4channers think it means; it is not an 80s-esque 'eff the man' punk rock attitude, certainly).

If you're interested in preserving the institute of free speech, why do you wear the face of a man opposed to any institutes at all?

 

We can, swiftly and decisevely, cut-away the cancer that Scientology has become. We can do it without enlisting the aid of & empowering goons that are no better.

Please, do not support one group of criminals just because they share your dislike of another.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940

Your appraisal...

...is a bit off based on my understanding thus far. You speak of a "flock" under Anonymous with a "core membership/leadership". They claim to have no leaders. I'm leaving a comment as "Anonymous" on some forums at ties, but that's the same as "Guest" so what other than being on 4chan "the parent body" would make one a "member of Anonymous"? Furtherore, you make a point of it being anonymnity to evade transparency, but if everyone is anonymous then how could anyone give orders? You make it sound as if there is somehow a solid organizational structure with upper echelons who issue orders and thereby control or at least manipulate the "flock" (which I might add is tantamount to calling them sheeple in some sense). How could this be so? What makes them have membership or follow orders? What makes them a criminal organization?

tricksters

You're all just butthurt because we exposed you as a stick up cult and got to see your titties. gtfo the internet.

 

Vastet's picture

Meh.Quote:It's a matter of

Meh.

Quote:
It's a matter of mutually exclusive goals and perspectives. My problem with the 'church' of Scientology is an ethical one; Scientology is not a religion of any sort, it's an organized criminal syndicate intent of accumulating vast sums of wealth & power through the subversion of freedom of speech via information control & intelligence gathering. Anonymous's problem with Scientology is that it's a competitive body.

Hardly. Scientology pissed off way too many people over decades of time and harrassment, and they banded together. It was inevitable. The only surprise is that only this group has emerged. And yet, it is less of a surprise because this group incorporates everyone on Earth. Like it or not, you are anonymous.

Quote:
And the only thing most members of the church of Scientology want is to rid the world of pain and achieve a utopian state.

Misrepresentation. They want to achieve that by making everyone a Scientologist. That is not a laudable goal, in any sense of the word. Any enemy to them or any other religion is an ally of mine.

Quote:

And, no - the motives of those behind the 'chanology' movement is not to protect your freedom of speech.

Yes it is. By protecting their own. Whether you like it or not, they protect yours in the process.

Quote:
4chan - the parent body of Anonymous

Originally, perhaps, but no longer. Anonymous has diversified and split. There is no central authority, and there never will be again, if there ever was.

Quote:
is, and always has been, a miscreant criminal organization empowered by the contemporary ease of access to information.

A group of hyper 14 year olds would be a far better description.

Quote:
Since their inception, no interest was taken on the part of either 4chan or Anonymous in confronting religious bigotry - a fact that is somewhat at odds with the notion that the group is merely interested in the noble effort of liberating people from brainwashing.

This is a simple failure to recognize what anonymous is. It is everyone. Therefore it has members from all walks of life and all religions. Except perhaps scientology, though I'm sure there are/were/will be attempts to infiltrate on both sides.

Therefore expecting it to attack religion is ludicrous. It only attacked Scientology after Scientology attacked them, and the rest of us, with the disgusting methods they use.

Quote:

It is not at all unreasonable to speculate that Anonymous has targeted Scientology strictly because they wish to prove themselves the stronger hand in the field of social control / manipulation. The two groups are hardly indistinguishable from one another, but the common threads shared where information gathering is used to intimidate critics and increase power / notoriety does not leave us with a 'lesser evil' one should support over the the other if the goal is the promote freedom of speech & free exchange of ideas.

99% of the people in anonymous wouldn't even understand this comment. It is certainly the furthest thing from the truth that there is.

And anonymous' tactics are very different from Scientology's tactics. They are polar opposites. Scientology seeks to cover everything up and wrap it in a ball of bureaucratic tape too long to decode. Anonymous seeks to reveal all information to all.

At least, that's what my observation of the two groups has revealed.

Quote:
You're all just butthurt because we exposed you as a stick up cult and got to see your titties. gtfo the internet.

Rofl. See what I mean? These guys are comedians and teenagers with a few hacker tricks. They are not a threat to anyone who doesn't piss off enough of them to make them a threat, which goes for life in general. Scientology has pissed off enough of them, and must, by their own tactics. Such a collision was inevitable. Scientology will lose, or Anonymous will get bored.

Attacking anonymous is like swinging at a cloud. You'll accomplish nothing, and the cloud will reform in seconds.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

butterbattle's picture

shamus9876 wrote:You're all

shamus9876 wrote:

You're all just butthurt because we exposed you as a stick up cult and got to see your titties. gtfo the internet.

This...website...is...not...a...Scientology...website. 

*bangs head against wall*

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

butterbattle's picture

Vastet wrote:99% of the

Vastet wrote:

99% of the people in anonymous wouldn't even understand this comment.

Hahahahahaha, probably.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Guy Fawkes

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Why wear Guy Fawkes masks?

I'm dubious that those as educated as most of Anonymous's core membership are ignorant of who Guy Fawkes was (the majority of protesters perhaps just think the V for Vendetta movie was cool, granted); a violent revolutionary who plotted to blow-up parliament with a few kegs of gunpowder because he was disdainful towards any form of governance (an anarchist. The irony here is that anarchy does not mean what even most 4channers think it means; it is not an 80s-esque 'eff the man' punk rock attitude, certainly).

If you're interested in preserving the institute of free speech, why do you wear the face of a man opposed to any institutes at all?

Point of information:

Guy Fawkes was not an anarchist.  He was a monarchist.  Specifically, he was in favour of England having a Catholic monarch.

The literal translation of anarchy is "without rulers" or "no rulers".  That's not the same as "without leaders" or "without order".  However in the case of Guy Fawkes, he was definitely in favour of a society whose institutions recognised a particular individual as having authority to enforce rules upon others without their consent - to rule them.

Jean Chauvin's picture

Hello

Hello,

Is this a joke? lol. I happen to know a lot about scientology. When I was a young lad, I was virtually brought up by 2 top martial artists. One of them was ranked the 10th best martial artist of all time.

Anyway, they were both hardcore scientologists and implemented Dianetics in their classes.

The woman is of the Sea Org where the contract says she must commit to for a 1 billion years. Very grusome organiation.

They are both OT 8.

Since then I have accumlated massive amounts of books on Scientology and have spoken on the subject .

And yes there is a leader and a hierarchy in the organization.

But in short and over simplified, Scientology is just an cult with religions fixations on Existialism that existence is more important then essence. As a result, the cult focuses on how to exist as an operating thetan (spirit).

When I started studying this at a young age, my martial arts teachers did not like me to visit them anymore because I was SP and PTS and caused body thetans to attack them in which they were forced to spend large amounts of money for auditing to radicate them. lol.

I've been told that I am on a dead agent list which makes me proud.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

digitalbeachbum's picture

Scientology can suck donkey

Scientology can suck donkey balls for all I care, they are a cult started by a real master douchetool who was psychotic. One can hope that eventually they will cease to exist, but I believe they will be around for a quite some time and longer than I wish.

As for Anonymous, it's no different than these "occupy" movements but it is done on the computer. their main type of attacks are dos attacks which requires lots of computers to do the attacking (hence, the "occupy" analogy). I understand the reasons for the anonymous movement, but not every thing they do is so righteous, some of "them" support child pornography. I think the movement does a lot of good though. They help expose plenty of corruption around the world including in the us government and their allies.

I hope they are eventually able to expose scientology for the fraud we already know it is; and I'm hoping it happens during my lifetime.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams