Financial Times Article on Anonymous

FT.com / Reportage - Dissenters transform the art of protest

No time to actually read it but the Financial Times has an article about Anonymous with an enthraling title: "Dissenters Transfor the Art of Protest". It is being follow by the interview of an anon - "I do it for the LULZ" usual stuff...

Survey Pulls Out Fishy Results

What Do Americans Want? Legal Pot, White House Online Survey Reports | 44 | washingtonpost.com

Strange news this one, first time it I hear of it.

Apparently there was some survey, that seems to bear the Obama or White House official stamp, to determine what are the political priorities for the administration to address.

You ought to ponder about the result of such survey, that basically comes up with the top priority being Online Poker!

That the survey led to "results that clearly do not align with recent scientific polling", as the above-referred to Washington Post article puts it, is clear.

Another source draws attention to "the names on the comments. It seems like many of them are the same. One blogger at War is My Concern got 10 mentions in the Citizens Briefing Book. It seems that some citizens are more equal than others …" - pointing to a possible manipulation of the result by groups like Anonymous who in the past managed to manipulate Google results through loads of votes coming from seemingly different persons whereas they only came from a small minority of technical savvy people with a petty and biased agenda. For example, see here, here, and here.

No doubt this piece of news is going to make headlines among critics who are going to pound on it relentlessly, using its semblance of Obama-esque legitimacy to further their cause.

Clearly, though, online poker and Scientology tax ones are in no way comparable to legitimate issues such as the Bush administration tactics in the "war on terror" and other deadly serious issues. So, I'll say something does not sound quite right with that survey.

Link to the "Citizen Briefing" from the White House web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Citizens_Briefing_Book_Final.pdf

More info:

National Journal Online -- Under The Influence -- Poker Players Alliance Shows A Winning Hand: "Change.gov received more than 44,000 ideas and people cast more than 1.4 million votes on them. Policy ideas received 10 points for each positive vote and were ranked accordingly. "

[...]

Here are the Top Ten issues overall:

• Ending Marijuana Prohibition - 92,970 points
• Commit to Becoming the "Greenest" Country in the World - 70,470
• Stop Using Federal Resources to Undermine States' Medicinal Marijuana Laws - 66,170
• End the Government Sponsored Abstinence Education to be Replaced by an Introduction of Age Appropriate Sex Education - 65,350
• Bullet Trains & Light Rail - 65,100
• Permanent Closure of all Torture Facilities - 61,250
• Revoke the George W. Bush Tax Cuts for the Top 1 percent - 57,080
• Get Insurance Companies Out of Health Care - 55,080
• Revoke the Tax Exempt Status of the Church of Scientology - 52,470
• Bring Back the Constitution - 50,160

Note: boosting America's economy with legal online poker rung in with nearly 47,000 points, so is not part of the top ten. However, this is the issue that has been picked up for headlines by virtually all the newspapers reporting on the briefing, which is why it gets to be named the top priority.

Note2: If each each vote counted as 10 points, does this mean that 5,247 only voted for the CoS Tax idea? Divided by 1.4 million votes, that would represent 0.4%. These results continue to be puzzling and not making much sense.

Note3: Why are the newspapers picking up the Poker issue when it does not even make it to the top ten? In fact, it appears that the Marijuana issue is the clear winner. Not only does it come to number one, but it reasonably could be cumulated with the nbr 3 spot, and in total would make for 159,140, leaving the nbr 2 spot far far behind...

FARK.com

Not sure what is Fark.com but some guy made a link to my web site from there and I am getting loads and loads of hits, way more than any other web site or forum.

FARK.com: (4218779) Glib mom sues Church of Scientology for taking away son's schizophrenia meds and giving him a loaded gun

Daily Star - Another British Tabloid

It's incredible how British tabloids manage to turn absolutely anything into gloom.

Here is another example. Titled "The truth behind...", which "truth" is in fact nothing more than their interpretation that in spite of all the red carpet glamor "the zombified wife’s eyes screamed “Help”", that her smile was "faked", etc...

I actually stopped reading the article half-way.

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: The Goss :: Truth behind Tom and Katie's red carpet capers

Daily Mail Possible Cause for Article Pull Down

I reported recently that the Daily Mail article about Jett's death was pulled off the net.

Glosslip now claims this was after threat from the CoS.

While this is, of course, very probable, what bothers me is that only Glosslip, itself a gossip rag not better than the Daily Mail, is the only one reporting it so far. I would like to see better confirmation of this before really reporting it as news.

Daily Mail Article On Travolta Deleted

The Daily Mail, a UK gossip rag, apparently deleted the article it had online about Travolta and Scientology. Not surprisingly, they quoted Tory Christman false allegations as one of the many fallacies they typically engage into. May or not have been the reason for putting the article offline after they have been informed about the real Magoo story, though I seriously doubt.

It used to be at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1111057/Did-John-Travoltas-weird-faith-seal-son-Jetts-fate.html - and now is only a 404.

Mark Ebner Strikes Low

In 2006, Mark Ebner wrote an excellent article about Philip Gale's death. The article was such that Mike Gomez removed Philip Gale from his Scientology associated deaths page because it convinced him that Scientology really was not implicated in it (as if Scientology has that more a role in the other deaths listed on that page but that's another subject).

Philip's mother played an important role in Ebner's article, providing him with many precious information.

There was one condition she put forth, though, as Mark wrote himself in the article:

"She agreed to talk about Philip on condition that his story not be used to attack Scientology."

However, Mark is now so enthusiast at the opportunity to capitalize on the emotional wave of Jett Travolta's unfortunate death that he just could not resist to include Philip on his new page. The page tries to associate Jett's death to other supposedly similar "Scientology-related" deaths and incidents.

By using the story of Philip Gale in a vile attack against Scientology, he betrayed the trust Philip mother's bestowed on him, and which was the condition under which she released the information that helped Mark's article to become a success.

In so doing, of course, he also betrayed his own integrity.

Littles Brothers Are Watching You

In a rather interesting article, called "The Orwellian power of anonymity", the Canadian National Post makes a parallel between Anonymous, or rather the phenomenon of anonymity on the Internet, and the Big Brother concept popularized by Georges Orwell's book "1984".

It claims that, in spite of the myth of us living in a Big Brother surveillance society, the Internet makes it increasingly easy to be anonymous, and as anonymous, influence major world events.

He uses the the Anonymous vs. Scientology phenomenon as one of three examples:

What is remarkable is not that the Internet makes it possible to obscure your identity, but that online anonymity is now seeping into the off-line world. [...]

Despite the lack of a leadership structure, membership list or other organizational accoutrements, Anonymous -- which draws its name from the pseudonym used by most 4chan members -- quickly established a Web site and plan of attack.

I agree that this is a most remarkable phenomenon, as exemplified by the thousands of masked protesters suddenly popping up out of nowhere to protest the CoS in Feb. and Mar.

However, the article also points to what is the weakness of the movement, and something I have been hamering down since the start:

"It used to have to be verifiable facts. It seems to me as I read things now that anonymous sourcing is a way to disguise gossip," Mr. Alboim said, adding later, "People seem free in the age of all-news television to go on the air and report whatever it is they heard in the last 15 minutes."

And that's precisely my beef with them.

In spite of them chanting "Dox or STFU" and claiming that they "keep on researching Scientology every day and get more informed about it", they still have not encompassed the wealth of scholarly researches into Scientology, they still go around displaying grotesques "Scientology Kills"signs, they still peddle a typical and outdated anti-cult approach.

As I wrote already, the day I'll see Anonymous protest the ugly German discrimination with the same enthusiasm they protest the CoS abuses, I may start to believe they made some headways from classical OG (mis)representations. To this day, I have not seen that, quite on the contrary.

As for the masses who protested the "free speech abuses" of a copyrighted, leaked, out of context, video being put down the Internet, they are just as misguided and superficial.

In other words, the Anonymous movement is certainly striking. Ideas are original and inventive, the masks, the lulz, the caek... it's great! But, you know what? It also is terribly shalow.

They may be able to spread memes around cyberspace in lighting speed, but it never seems to raise above the LOLCat level.

Cruise Threat - an Unreliable Source

I now read the Valkyrie article of the dailymail.co.uk (trying to find, to no avail, the article where they claim Cruise called in the FBI to protect him from death threats).

If anything, it certainly confirms my first impression that this news outlet is little more than a low-level tabloid rag.

Indeed, the article falls right along the one I analyzed on Dec. 26, and the one reported by John Brown on his blog. It unilaterally covers negative to ultra negative comments, completely ignoring the fact that in reality the reviews are mixed, with some very positive ones.

It also claims that

Last week the movie was given a roasting by German critics.

It just is, likewise, not true either, as I commented on my blog back in Dec. 12, and as this excellent piece by The National details.

To me, it's really journalism of the worst kind.

I guess some people delight in this kind of reporting, but I don't think anybody who really wants to be informed should take whatever they write seriously, or at least, be extremely skeptical and cross-check the news with more serious outlets.

Update: The Tom Cruise threat article is here. Why it did not come out on a search for "Cruise", I don't know.

Tom Cruise's Leaked Video 7th on 2008 YouTube Chart

The Huffington Post has compiled what it thinks is "YouTube's Best Of 2008: Top Ten (VIDEO)", arrived at "by combining the number of times viewed, newsworthiness and hilarity".

The leaked Tom Cruise video is 7th.

All the other videos I don't know about, which shows how truly lost in space a Belgian I am...

The leaked video is also part of the Top 10 viral video time wasters of thestar.com, together with... rickrolling!

but the best use – and another sign of the crossing lines between the web and the real world – was the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, which had a real-life "Rick Roll," with a surprise appearance by the English crooner himself, atop a float, breaking into his own song.

Other potentially interesting tops:

• Top 10 YouTube Videos of All Time, 2008 Edition
• Top 10 YouTube videos. Ever. [VIDEO]
• A look back on pop culture’s year of surprises
• The most pointless celebs of '08 (Suri Cruise!)
  

Pageant Not Doing Well

A "Very Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant" does not seem to do well in theaters, at least not on the one reported by ibj.com:

I don’t envy the folks at TOTS who had to try to sell tickets to this straight-faced, kid-cast, multi-level satire of L. Ron Hubbard and company. But anyone who did find their way to the show experienced something strange and wonderful. Credit Ron Spencer in guiding his tiny company to just the right balance of innocence and knowledge, hilarity and creepiness. A shame it didn’t find the audience it deserved.

Bernie Madoff and Scientology

I just made a blog entry about the Reed Slatkin ponzi being among the largest in history. Bernie Madoff may soon join that chart, but what is the link with Scientology, you may ask. Only a distant one: that Richard Behar, author of the famed Time Magazine article on Scientology, "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power", may be the one commissioned to write a book on Madoff.


Related blog entries: R-Slatkin-

Anonymous Ignored by the LA Times' Year in Review

The LA Times seems to have a year in review page, though I don't seem to be able to access it by itself, apart from the entry mentioning Scientology.

What is remarkable in this entry is that the LA Times completely ignores Anonymous. It mentions that:

The Church quickly went on a campaign to eradicate the videos from YouTube, but succeeded only in outraging many online denizens.

but does not mention Anonymous in name nor does it mention the movement at all. Since I can find no other entries mentioning Scientology for this year in review, I conclude that Anonymous is completely ... anonymous. The whole advent seems to be completely ignored.

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.

Stifling Myths

The UK Newspaper The Guardian has an article on "How Scientologists Pressurise Publishers", based initially on The Complex pulled out of Amazon U.K. stock.

The article in fact is not that bad but contains a few inaccuracies and omissions.

"Several times they've taken legal action to try and stop websites revealing their teachings"

It would be more exact to write "Several times they've taken legal action to try and stop websites posting their copyrighted material"

"The Church of Scientology set up a campaign called Operation Freakout to discredit her."

Makes it sound as if the operation was actually carried out. It wasn't. It was only a project that remained on paper.

"the Church falsely told the FBI she had sent them two bomb threats"

"Falsely" seems to be here the author's opinion, because there never was any definite proof one way or the other. See my page about the Cooper Bomb Threat myth at http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/cooper_bomb.htm

"The court cases went on for some years and eventually the Church won. Armstrong filed for bankruptcy and fled to Canada. The Church filed further lawsuits against him in the 1990s and into the new century. There have been numerous other examples of Scientology trying to suppress criticism."

This is incorrect and I am surprised that a journalist who supposedly has researched the CoS comes up with such a myth. Armstrong settled his case and received $800,000 as part of the settlement. He fled out to Canada with the money and joyfully breached the agreement 131 times. He can't go back in the US where he is now wanted by the law.

"numerous other examples of Scientology trying to suppress criticism"

That may be, but the examples provided on the article do not really support that claim. The complain being made against The Complex is for libel, not criticism. The examples given about "legal actions against web sites" were for copyright, not "revealing their teachings". Operation Freakout was never enacted, and there is no proof that the bomb threat accusation against Cooper was false. As for Armstrong, he is wanted in the US for what amounts to stealing $800,000 from the CoS, not because he is a critic.

There is hope, however, that David V. Barrett, author of this article, eventually corrects these innacuracies. Indeed, he writes:

"Because of the unbiased descriptive stance of my books on new religious movements, anti-cultists have accused me of being a "cult apologist"."

This always is an honor, because "cult apologist" is the term anti-cultists use for moderate onlookers who don't share their frantic and paranoid views on cults and actually check facts.

So how about it, David? Search the issue a bit deeper, and you may find that things are not just as simple as what is presented on the many so-called critical web sites that mostly repeat from each other the same myths until they become "true".

The Complex - And Other Paranoid Rumors

There are rumors currently that Tom Cruise helped censor a critical book in the U.K.. The claim is made that Amazon U.K. retired the book after he visited them.

This does not make a lot of sense.

Why would the CoS send their highest profile celebrity on a mission when a simple letter from their lawyer would do (which is most probably what happened)?

Why would Cruise bother about a book in the U.K. when it is still being sold in the U.S. where the libel laws are different?

Did Cruise use his tremendous OT powerz to guess the book would come out at the same time of the probably long planned visit to Amazon for the 10th anniversary of the movie store?

Nah - it just does not jive. It's silly, and Shawn Lindseth rightly wrote in a wonderfully written and hilarious article yesterday:

"Cruise is innocent - we think we can explain things right away here. Tom strangely stopped by the Amazon offices to show off his new Valkyrie movie. Seems like a weird choice until you realise that later in the day he’d also let the employees of a local mom & pop grocery store sneak a peak. Then he went to two gas stations and an unimpressed toll-taker, all allegedly with a projector in tow, but we digress."

Anyway, if you still long to hear the non-existent wise beard of John Duignan, you can head to this site, where you will be graced with a vocal rendition of the first four chapters.

Don't expect to be enthraled, though, according to a Scientology critic himself:

"Holy Xenu, this is the most boring story on scientology I heard so far. The female voice reminds me of Delta air (Sung). Always went to sleep before take off."

To me it reminds me of the movie "The Profit", a so-called critical film that was so bad even critics dished it off when it was leaked. Like for this book, though, the producers tried to boost sales claiming harassment and letting loose all kinds of wild rumors.

Just as for paranoid anti-Scientology claims, sensational harassment rumors is not enough to sustain the success of a book. If the content of the book is not worth it, it will eventually take the plunge.

Easy Anti-Scientology Jabs

The venerable Gregg Roughley of the no less venerable UK newspaper "The Guardian" should check his facts better before launching in easy anti-Scientology jabs.

Indeed, he writes about one Paulie Malignaggi:

"He doesn't possess a 'lights out' punch, but he can move like Travolta (pre-Scientology days of course) and deliver rapid-fire jabs to outscore his opponents."

He no doubts refers to "Saturday Night Fever", that came out in 1977 and maybe also to "Grease" that came out in 1978.

Travolta joined Scientology in January of 1975 as he was working on his first film in Mexico (Durango). He already was a Scientologist when he made all his other films, including of course "Saturday Night Fever" and "Grease".

If Travolta moved better before he met Scientology then hardly anybody would know about it, since he was at the time a nobody.

If you are a journalist and especially is you write for a major news media, then check your facts before acting like a mindless fanatical anti-Scientologists. In our Internet days it only takes a few seconds.

Organized Religions Lag Behind Scientology on Internet

This opinion article claims that Scientology web sites, with their sophistication and the fact it offers a personally test that relates to young people needs, is more potent than what traditional religions have currently. It claims it had to develop this sophistication as a result of negative articles from the media.

It is a pretty weak argument. People may check the CoS pages but if they check the Internet they will also see floods of negative information about Scientology. I am not sure that the sophistication of CoS pages alone can make people forget that flood of negative information, but the thought is an interesting one.

Scientology approach towards the media, and this would include the Internet, is never defend only attack. By that, it means it does not argue with opponents but just dismiss them on the whole. I must admit Scientology critics themselves do a good job of discrediting themselves through the gross claims they are making. This may indeed make people who see through their propaganda vulnerable to Scientology arguments.

I still don't think this is what is happening on the whole but a good case could be made that it is possible, at least in some cases.

New York Times - First Hand Report in Anonymous' Entrails

The New York Times has published an outstanding article, "The Trolls Among Us", that goes much further than the recent articles about 4chan published by the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian. It is a first-hand researched article where the author actually lived with the major hackers and channers for days to get into the whole scene.

Unlike the Maxim article, you won't find it much promoted by Anonymous because in fact it is quite damaging for them.

Some quotes:

"/b/ is the designated “random” board of 4chan.org, a group of message boards that draws more than 200 million page views a month"

"A post consists of an image and a few lines of text"

"Almost everyone posts as “anonymous""

"In effect, this makes /b/ a panopticon in reverse — nobody can see anybody, and everybody can claim to speak from the center""

"The anonymous denizens of 4chan’s other boards — devoted to travel, fitness and several genres of pornography — refer to the /b/-dwellers as “/b/tards."

"Measured in terms of depravity, insularity and traffic-driven turnover, the culture of /b/ has little precedent"

"/b/ reads like the inside of a high-school bathroom stall, or an obscene telephone party line, or a blog with no posts and all comments filled with slang that you are too old to understand."

"“You look for someone who is full of it, a real blowhard. Then you exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz."

"Among /b/’s more interesting spawn is Anonymous, a group of masked pranksters who organized protests at Church of Scientology branches around the world"

"Technology, apparently, does more than harness the wisdom of the crowd. It can intensify its hatred as well."

"After all, I was examining a subculture that is built on deception and delights in playing with the media"

"Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it?"

"When does it evolve into a better collective understanding?"

"Is the effort to control what’s said always a form of censorship, or might certain rules be compatible with our notions of free speech?"

"One promising answer comes from the computer scientist Jon Postel, now known as “god of the Internet” for the influence he exercised over the emerging network"

"In 1981, he formulated what’s known as Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.”

"Originally intended to foster “interoperability,” the ability of multiple computer systems to understand one another,"

"To build a robust global network with no central authority, engineers were encouraged to write code that could “speak” as clearly as possible yet “listen” to the widest possible range of other speakers"

"The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance"

"the spirit of good conversation"

"Trolls embody the opposite principle"

"They are liberal in what they do and conservative in what they construe as acceptable behavior from others"

"It’s tempting to blame technology, which increases the range of our communications while dehumanizing the recipients."

Russel Brand Forbidden from Mentioning Scientology

"BRITISH comedian Russell Brand, known for his controversial way with words, has been banned from making certain jokes when he hosts the MTV Video Music Awards.

The British comic has been warned by show bosses there are specific things he definitely can't say.

He explained: "I've been warned when I'm presenting there are two things I'm never allowed to say.

"One - C*** and two - Scientology.

"There is one sentence that could join both of those words but I'm going to try and not say it."

Russell is worried he will not be able to control his mischievous instincts.

He added to Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper: "I have a real problem when people tell me not to do something.

Now this is quite strange that MTV would single out Scientology as a word not to say along with the C word. I am not sure whether this is something that reflects positively or negatively on our favorite cult.

Maybe the Americans are being over-cautious but Russell does have history with MTV. He was sacked from the station after turning up for work on September 12, 2001, dressed as Osama bin Laden.

Anyway, I have been sampling a few news stories and I must say this Russel Brand character is quite a hoot. First his hair. Then his Manson-look. Then some downright funny comments. For example:

"When I was going to meet the Queen of England, the protocol people told me how to bow, not to curtsy and not to speak until I was spoken to. But all I could think of was, 'Grab her tits.' "

Thankfully Russell managed to control his urge and the royal bosom remained untouched.

After having earned a scholarship to The Drama Centre in London and being subsequently expelled for misbehaving, Brand said:

"I was a drug addict. I used to smash stuff up, cry, take drugs while at school, I had a mouse live in my hair, broke school property - I was a whirlwind of annoyance. They tolerated it for three years because the work was good but at the end, due to various afflictions and addictions, it deteriorated and I was slung out."

Joking at his good fortune for being named host of the MTV award show, Brand said:

"I'm planning to have lesbian kisses with Britney and Madonna individually. It's not going to be easy, what with my genitals, but I will try."

Brand, who won rave reviews for his performance in comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall, is welcoming the opportunity to get his raising star in the US raise further:

"People say you must enjoy it that no one knows you're famous in America but I hate it. Without fame, this haircut makes me look like someone with a mental illness. I want everyone to know who I am. I have to carry a laptop around with me so I can explain I am a celebrity."

Will he be able to control his impulses? Nothing is so sure. Recently, Russell Brand had to apologise for phoning the police with false information about a sex attacker during a stand-up show in Northampton, UK. However, he said it had been a "spontaneous and impulsive thing" to do, which is why he says he cannot promise not to do it again.

"You can never rule that out, that's the nature of spontaneity, things just sometimes happen."

The MTV Video Music Awards will be held in Los Angeles on September 7.