Operation Drop the Masks

I had a quick look to the web page Evolved Rationalist was so angry about.

The web page in fact is not so bad, and quite on the contrary is rather original and interesting, with a lot of good ideas.

I still have to agree with Evolved Rationalist on the opening line, though, because blaming the original anonymous for the failure of Anonymous is, to use a Scientology line, a "wrong target", and AnonymouseHouston indeed should remove or change the opening line of this page.

The real cause of failure, as I explained repeatedly on this blog and on my web site, is because Anonymous made the mistake to fall for the old OG line that proved of little use to counter Scientology over the years. The original Anonymous on the contrary brought in the lulz, the masks, the cake, a very different spirit in many ways. Had they combined this novel approach, springing from the Internet culture, with a different attitude than OG towards Scientology, they may have been much more successful.

In fact, I find that page about the "Operation Internet Love Machine" much better than anything else Anonymous attempted so far. And if they want to prove their non-beligerent approach to Scientologists, they should, as I said, protest when Scientologist are discriminated, in the same way as they protest the CoS. But anyway, they should come to that conclusion themselves, which I hope they will sometime.

This being said, though the intent is good and has many original aspects, I believe it will be almost impossible to achieve that Operation Internet Love Machine successfully, for a series of reasons, of which I can only think two for the moment:

1. If you want to speak in a friendly manner to a Scientologist in real life, you will have to drop the mask. "Operation drop the masks" may be a good idea.
   
   
2. You can not successfully speak to a Scientologist in order to "deprogram" him, of sort, if you haven't yourself been a Scientologist, at least it just make it so much more difficult.
   
   Ex-scientologists. OTOH, are not always good either, because, as I explained on my pages otherwise, they often fall in the opposite cultic mindset, that of the anti-cult movement (which by the way is also going through some sort of self-criticism in this respect).
   
   What you need is a moderate ex-Scientologist, knowledgeable and intelligent enough to go around the many obstacles such an encounter would meet. And it will not be easy to find such a rare beast, because most of them have already been driven away through the OG attitude that aggressively attack moderate ex-members as "cult apologists.

Anyway, all this reminds me of an episode of my own history.

As I tried to enter the UK back when there was a ban against Scientologists, I was caught at the custom because I had a lot of Scientology literature in my luggage. I was subsequently sent back to Belgium.

However, as I was waiting in the UK custom office, an officer came to me with in his hand one of the writings of LRH (I think it was the Creed of Scientology or something like that). He told me "this is very beautiful", something that surprised me a lot coming from him. Then he said "Why doesn't Scientology apply it?".

This was a perfect approach, something that brought me to think and open up, rather than contract in defense. It was non-confrontational, not denigrating, but putting the focus on the actual application of Scientology's own aims without denigrating the belief itself. That's the whole point.

PS - I must say that my web site has been more instrumental in getting Scientologists to think and leave than radical web sites, precisely because I use many of the concepts found on the HoustonAnonymous page. See two examples here and here.

Also check what I webbed two days ago: the "DOs and DON"Ts on How to Help Cult Members", that goes very much in the same direction. (Of course, don't call Scientology a cult in front of Scientologist. Be imaginative, sensitive, moderate, knowledgeable, and most of all try to diversify your sources. Go deeper and beyond the old OG information and tactics. Go out of the OG box to resolve the conundrum Scientology criticism faces. That's what being a true revolutionary critic such as Anonymous is all about. IMHO.)


Blog entries in this series:

• Jan 15: Anonymous - Show Your Human Side
  
• Dec 12: Should Anonymous Unmask?
  
• Dec 11: Operation Drop the Masks

Where is the Lulz?

In a blog entry yesterday, I wrote:

Anonymous 2.0 may be more concerned with ethic, but they have become more like stratefied Old Guards, all the while having lost some of the revolutionary aspects that appeals to young people, like the systematic questioning of every established concepts.

As for the original Anonymous, it seems that they have taken some distance with the anti-Scientology protest, as is rather evident through the crashed protest statistics, and through the fact that they apparently DDOSed their former venues: enturbulation.org and WhyWeProtest.

Now we have a blatant illustration of this, in an article written by Anonymous 1.0, and in which he states, among quite a few other things with which I personally agree:

Instead of becoming lulz you have become the anti-lulz

[...]

Fuck you, 'new Anonymous'. In more ways than one, you have become as bad as the dangerous cult of Scientology.

Anonymous 2.0 does not seem indeed a real upgrade of Anonymous 1.0 - or, if you want, the "upgrade" is of the sort of that backup software (sorry I don't remember the name) years ago that dominated the market and that released a major upgrade with an "improved and modern" interface so bad that they could sell it out separately as a labyrinth game - and which lead them losing the market over night.

Top Search Terms for 2008 Include "What is Scientology"

Google has released its year-end list of the most popular terms searched on the Web site.

In the United States, Barack Obama came in at No. 1.

In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love" tops the list, while Scientology is sixth.

I doubt the prank pulled out by Anonymous in July to put "Scientology is a cult" on top of the supposed search list had much an effect in this context, since the stats are drawn out of the whole year and, in this category, pre-fixed by "what is..". I blogged about this prank here and here.

PS - Metro.co.uk reports that top of the "how to" questions on Google this year is "how to draw", while web-users have also been typing "how to kiss" into their Google search boxes on a regular basis. The web site then proceeds to offer a titiling video of two girls embarking on a mammoth lesbian snogging session in order to teach watchers how to French kiss.

PS2 - Check also http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/mind.html for a more detailed info about the top searches. I observe among other things that Isaac Hayes is 4th on the Fond Farewells category. Interestingly as well, Miley Cyrus is 5th on the Who Is category. I never heard of her until I learned she was the co-star of the new (doubling voice only) Travolta movie.

Double Bind

From http://www.winnipegsun.com/Entertainment/Movies/2008/12/10/7691461-sun.html

Scientology will follow him everywhere, it seems. "If I don't talk about it," Cruise said, "it's, 'What is he hiding?' If I do, it's, 'He's proselytising.' "

The sentence comes from Cruise's interview in Toronto, promoting his new upcoming movie, Valkyrie.

Through another newspaper referring to the interview, we learn a bit more about what prompted Germany to change its mind about the movie:

"A lot of the German government resistance was blown out of proportion," maintained Cruise this week. "Understandably, they wanted us to do justice to the subject. And after they read the script, they decided we were going to."

"I feel like I have been through it all before," he said. "And every time, I still think, ‘Well, OK, but I still want to make movies.' "

Reuters also quotes Cruise from various interviews:

Cruise called the incident on Winfrey's show, "My year of jumping dangerously," in a comedic reference to "The Year of Living Dangerously," a novel turned into a 1982 movie.

On the Lauer interview, Cruise told People, "All I want is to help people. I could have communicated it in a way that was better, no question."

People, for its part, features the actor in photos spanning his entire 25 years as a movie star in an issue coming out Friday.

New Spears and Scientology Rumors

From http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a137962/britney-asked-cruise-about-scientology.html

According to Heat, Spears told a friend: "I have met Katie a few times, so I called her up and just started asking questions about Scientology. I'm always open to new things.

A few months ago I heard a rumor that big limousines were taking Spears to Scientology orgs. Just rumors, of course, that did not appear to be true. Now, comes the new rumor, at least a bit more plausible, but still only rumors.

We also get to know a bit more about how Katie herself got into Scientology:

"Katie told me she wasn't so sure about it at first either, but once Tom explained it to her and she read the books and took some classes, it really started to work for her.

"Then Tom wanted to talk to me about it, so I did. He was nice and answered all my questions and sent me books."

Truth Cultists

Theory cults, left and right

"The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There's always a convoluted excuse - some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic "evidence" to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels - that will rationalize irrationality. Mrs. Palin could produce Trig's umbilical cord and it still wouldn't be enough. "

Michelle Malkin, the author of an excellent article in the Washington Times, refers to the myth of Sarah Palin not giving birth to her youngest son, Trig.

Malkin states above that "Truth cultists", which she calls "Truther", will never give in. They will find a way to rationalize the irrational, even when presented with incontrovertible evidences.

(We pointed out something similar just a few days ago, when we stated that contrary to more rigorous environment where the burden of proof is considerable, Internet myths can have a long live.)

"It's only a matter of time before someone accuses Mrs. Palin of planting fake breast milk on her pump," Malkin writes.

To balance things out, she uses the "Obama is not a natural born citiizen" myth to give an account of same but from the Republican side.

This reminds me of the more than tasteless "Scientology Murdered Moxon's Daughter" myth, where anti-cultists tried to turn in a somber conspiracy theory what is in fact a horrendous tragedy of a sensitive girl wanting to save squirrels from a transformer vault.

I remember reading fantastic tales from anti-Scientologists in order to make this tragic death fit in the "Scientology deaths" page (where it still is), even though there is really no causality.

It was one of the myths in which Keith Henson believed, even though there was not a shred of evidence, and with which he harassed Scientologists for months until he was convicted and jailed for hate crime.

Not to forget of course our loving and tender Anonymous friend, who blantly claims that "Moxon's daughter Stacy got fried in some electric wires, and he didn't give a shit".

Truth cultists indeed...

Cruise on Leno

Just as Jay Leno's show was moved to prime time, it seems it will be attended by Tom Cruise on Thursday (though I'd like to see this confirmed from a better source than ARS.)

Maybe Jay will ask him to jump on his couch too... I'll be curious as to what would become of that...

Madona and the British Press

"Madonna, always in fighting shape, has won a round against the British press. The pop star won a judgment Monday against a British tabloid that she accused of breaching her privacy and copyright by publishing pictures of her 2000 wedding."

From http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/magazine/article/505849

If we believe anti-Scientologists that bringing down a leaked video aimed at an internal audience and on which they have the copyright is against "free speech", how about that one? Shall we now see masked protesters roaming around Madonna's mansion?

Anonymous 2.0

Two interesting articles articles about the Riverside County proposed anti-picketing ordinance today:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/riverside/20081209-1500-picketing.html
and
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081209/NEWS01/81209003/1006/news01

They discuss the pro- and con- for such an ordinance.

I am not going to enter into that specific issue here, but there is a side issue I found of interest:

"The supervisor showed photographs and literature that members of Anonymous allegedly published, some of which depicted children pointing guns at their own heads and wearing explosives. [...] Passages from one leaflet advocated a return to segregation and attacks on Scientologists – as well as Christians and Jews. "

I have not seen the pamphlets, and I guess, if they are not actual pamphlets distributed by Anonymous in the CoS neighborhood, they may be excerpts from Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Anons apparently are not claiming that these are forgeries made by the CoS (at least I don't see this in these articles), but that they are not the same group as those who made those pamphlets, and that they have never seen these.

In a movement where everybody is... the same... anonymous... how are you going to tell them apart?

It has always been very convenient for Anonymous to claim that bad things done in their name was not them, whereas good things are them.

Nowadays they seem to come up with a variation of this, that anons who now protest Scientology are not the same as those who started the protest, or at least, that they now evolved to something more respectable.

There are also signs of power struggle within Anonymous itself, best illustrated by the fact that the DDOS attacks on both enturbulation and WhyWeProtest were not blamed on the CoS but on Anonymous factions that were now against the protests as they consider the whole anti-Scientology Anonymous movement to have derailed the original meaning of Anonymous. Or something along this line. Go figure...

So is there really an Anonymous 2.0, fundamentally different than the one who started the movement?

Obviously, some of the original Anonymous took their "Mission" at heart, and maybe moved away from the pranksters they may have been at one time. Others joined the movement later, without having been ever part of the original Anonymous.

Still, there is no a clear-cut differentiation, and the fact that The Thunderdome, that existed inside enturbulation.org, still seems to exist in their new forum at WhyWeProtest, is also a sign of the pervading influence of the initial Anonymous philosophy.

The pages on Scientology on Encyclopedia Dramatica, more representative of Anonymous 1.0 than Anonymous 2.0, are also basically the same as those on WhyWeProtest or other Anonymous sites.

So, I really am not sure that there is a fundamental difference.

Anonymous 2.0 may be more concerned with ethic, but they have become more like stratefied Old Guards, all the while having lost some of the revolutionary aspects that appeals to young people, like the systematic questioning of every established concepts.

As for the original Anonymous, it seems that they have taken some distance with the anti-Scientology protest, as is rather evident through the crashed protest statistics, and through the fact that they apparently DDOSed their former venues: enturbulation.org and WhyWeProtest.

I believe that one of the reasons for this is the fact that young idealist that formed the core of Anonymous were disappointed by the way Anonymous lived its own ideals, free speech among others. Another reason, I think, is that they may have become aware that the whole anti-Scientology issue was a bloated one. Not that there is nothing to criticize about the CoS, but it just does not warrant the cultish zeal some anti-Scientologists invest in it, and less even to abandon their Warlord games and hintai that provide them with more lulz. A third reason, I believe, is that the CoS did not crumble after the first few protests. In fact, in a way, the CoS became stronger, precisely because it withstood such a massive frontal attack.

From the start I claimed that the weakness of Anonymous was to basically just mindlessly repeat the partial and vindicative claims to be found on the OG web sites. Anonymous certainly brought about many original aspects in the form (the masks, the lulz, etc) but unfortunately they virtually brought nothing new in content. The one thing that may have seen new (the we-don't-attack-belief bit) was in fact not that new and, what is more, something they could not live up to either.

For it to be really Anonymous 2.0 rather than Anonymous 1.1, I would say it needs to deeply question some of its own assumptions, as well as some of its own actions, and reform itself to the point of going to protest masked when they see discrimination against Scientologists (such as in Germany), as well as to protest against the CoS.

When this happens, we may speak of a new generation of protesters, going further than the original movement, and bringing an aspect OGs failed to bring about.

Otherwise, there would be no real difference between whatever version of Anonymous and between Anonymous and OGs, apart from superficial ones. It would basically remain the same-old-same-old, increasingly seen by better informed observers as a misguided angry mob who that needs to be kept at a safe distance from unpopular minorities and citizen's residences.

10 Most Fascinating People of 2008

Last Dec. 4, I blogged about the upcoming Cruise interview with Barbara Walters to air on "The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2008".

Here is the interview itself.

DOs and DON'Ts on How to Help Cult Members

I have plenty of disagreement with the Anti-Cult Movement, as is visible from my web page and through my rants in this blog.

However, surprisingly, when it comes to practical advices anti-cultists provide to parents who have offspring in a cult, these are almost identical to those I would myself give (though some of the definitions I use may be somewhat different).

The question is: if these are valid for parents on how to deal with their Scientology son or daughter, why would it not be valid for anti-Scientologists when they address Scientologists who happen to come in their forum? Or otherwise wherever they meet them? Anonymous, take note...

Here they are:

• DO try to keep in regular contact via mail or telephone even if thereis little response.
• DO express sincere love for the cult member at every availableopportunity.
• DO keep a diary of comments, attitudes and events associated with his/her life in the cult.
• DO always welcome the cult member back into the family home no matter what is said.
• DO keep copies of all written correspondence from you and the individual.
• DO record all the names, addresses and phone numbers of people linked with the cult.
• DO try to bite your tongue if the cult member makes unkind comments.
• DO read all of the recommended books relating to cults and mind control, as well as reading other information on the cult in question.
• DO seek help and information from organisations specialising in counter-cult work. We care about you and your individual situation

-----

• DO NOT rush into adopting a potential solution before carefully researching the cult problem.
• DO NOT say:"You are in a cult; you are brainwashed".
• DO NOT give money to the member of the group.
• DO NOT feel guilty. This is not a problem caused by families.
• DO NOT act in an angry or hostile manner towards the cult member.
• DO NOT feel alone. It happens to thousands of families every year.
• DO NOT underestimate the control the cult has over a member.
• DO NOT antagonise the cult member by ridiculing his/her beliefs.
• DO NOT be judgemental or confrontational towards the cult member.
• DO NOT antagonise any of the cult's leadership or members.
• DO NOT be persuaded by a cult 'specialist' to pay large sums of money without verifying his/her qualifications.
• DO NOT give up hope of success in helping your family member to leave the group no matter how long the involvement has already been
• DO NOT neglect yourself or other family members.

Xenu Likes to Party

"Say what you will about Scientology, But Xenu knows how to throw a star-studded Christmas bash."

From http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/12/xenu-really-kno.html

with quite a few photos of Scientology celebrities in partying gears.

More information on that party here.

PS- check this blog post to see a video of another celebration event in which Scientology celebrities joined in a float for the annual Hollywood Santa Parade 2008.

Travolta Sings Again

I remember seeing Grease as it came out. It was released after Saturday Night Fever even though it was actually realized before. The comment from a surprised spectator as Travolta started to sing the splendid "Summer Nights" was "and he can sing too"? Amazed that not only could he dance superbly be could sing as well.

Subsequently, not only the film but the songs and the clips became a big hit for Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. Remember "You're The One That I Want" - WOW! It gives me frills up to this day... and it came after another big hit from the film, Sandy.

Now Travolta sings again, and he shows that he has not lost anything of his talent. To be fair, I am not sure he can still dance like in his younger years, but he surely can still sing.

Check this video, in duet with Miley Cyrus, his co-star of his new movie Bolt.

And here is Travolta's Bolt interview.

Dec 14 update: That singing duet has now been nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best original Song - Motion Picture. As for Bolt itself, it has also been nominated for Best Animated Feature Film.

New Propaganda Video from Anonymous

Check out Anonymous new propaganda video that refers to Scientology beliefs as "garbage" and to Anonymous as the "Guardians of the Internet", no less...

It claims that:

"Since January, over 9000 Anonymous in over 140 cities worldwide have staged monthly protests"

This is false. While there may have been close to 9,000 anons in the Feb. and Mar. protests indeed, this number has now dwindled down to probably around 1,000. It is thus false and manipulative to make it sound as if the high numbers of Feb. and Mar. have persisted every month. Of course, Anonymous will claim that "over 9000" is just an Internet joke but this by itself is manipulative because it is presented in a serious context.

Anonymous claims their protests is working and that people should check their stats. Of course they do not refer to the disastrous stats of the crashing down numbers of protesters. Instead, they "steal" various events, basically claiming that they are the result of their protests, whereas most of the time there is no proof to that whatsoever and it is even unlikely. For example:

• Jason Beghe - I have not seen anywhere his defection was the result of Anonymous protests - docx?
• David Graham - I have not seen anywhere that his defection was the result of Anonymous protests - docx?
• James Parker - I have not seen anywhere that him leaving Scientology was the result of Anonymous protests - docx?
• Anonymous featured in the press - there has been quite a few articles in the press during the initial protests for Feb. and Mar. then gradually the press lost interest and nowadays Anonymous is almost universally ignored by the media. Taken as a whole, a study of lexis has shown that the number of results for Scientology has remained pretty constant over the past three years in spite of the temporary surge of press at the start of Anonymous
• "More journalist now have the power to write anti-Scientology stories without fear of retribution" - unsubstantiated opinion..
• Bookathon stats - I was unable to confirm this claim, though Anonymous certainly did systematically stalk bookathon events.
• Shut down org in Belgium - I have not heard of such. Authorities have raided and indicted the CoS in Belgium, and I believe the case is still on going., but the case against Scientology in Belgium was started long before Anonymous was on the scene.
• Reject application restraining order - not true. Angry Gay Pope and Gregg Housh have both been served with restraining order within a week in October.

Follows a litany of allegation against the CoS claiming they are getting desperate. Among which the "accusing handicapped critic of assault" one about which I already blogged last June. They also accuse the CoS of "distributing lie-filled fake anonymous flyers" - ironic for an organization like Anonymous whose purpose is just that. Even the claim that the CoS is getting desperate is a projection, as Anonymous have turned their stance of martyrdom to a ridiculous level.

More funny bloating: "We are the greatest opposition the Cult of Scientology has ever faced" - yeah right... Scientology fenced with the IRS and various governments but a few goons dancing in front of orgs is the greatest opposition... In this respect I like to quote one of my favorite quote, made by an OG:

"After all, how could a bunch of teenagers who'd never heard of Scientology until a few months ago possibly not easily destroy an organisation which has been around for decades, with tens of thousands of dedicated grownup members and many millions of dollars in the bank? "Piece of cake", as Lafayette R. Hubbard would say. Sorry, I may have misplet 'cake'."

Anonymous hope to tags among the tens of millions new students joining Universities all over the world next month, but I doubt they will have anymore success than their failed black op 8-8-8 or big "over 9000 Anon March" that was supposed to be the epitony of all protests and was another resounding flop.

Even as of now, this propaganda video has been viewed only 204 times only. Compare that to the 2 millions of the initial video... Ok give it a bit of time, maybe they'll reach 2,000 - but even that I doubt. By no mean Anonymous is the mass movement it was for a couple of month at the beginning.

Read also the "more information" on that video, and the ludicrous, overblown and paranoid claims of "Crimes, Human Rights Violations and Deaths perpetrated by this sinister and dangerous cult".

Oh my...

Will Smith Credits Cruise with Success

"Will Smith credits Tom Cruise with his record-breaking box-office success - because the icon reviews his movie scripts before he takes on a new role.

The stars have become close friends over the years, and Smith admits he turns to Cruise for advice before signing on to a film.

Smith tells Newsweek, "I was so used to competition between other artists that I just didn't get him at first. And then Tom just broke it down to me and said, 'Will, we are not competing, so don't think that way.' That blew my mind because that is not how this business works at all..."

From http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212191284.shtml