The next protest is scheduled for November 8, 2008.
However, with enturbulation.org, the organizing and reporting arm of Anonymous, being down since the end of September, and with whyweprotest.net, its replacement, being down since November 3, it is unclear how anonymous will organize the November 8 protest, and how it will report its many “Epic Epic Epic Amazing Epic Epic Epic Wins”.
Attendances for the September and October protests have already been dismal, with just a few hardcore OG and anons showing up.
The repeated demises of anon’s organizing and reporting arm, together with their less than significant attendance, the general disinterest of major media, and anon's own internal power struggle, may signify the end of a movement that made headlines at the beginning of the year and quickly went downhill after the initial enthusiasm.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Pekka-Eric Auvinen
The time I can spend following Scientology news is still limited. I do try to keep up with the main news, though, but there is rarely anything I find worth commenting on.
Today, however, I bumped into a piece of news that I found pretty scary.
I just learned that Pekka-Eric Auvinen, responsible for the Jokela school shooting that occurred on 7 November 2007, posted his intent to do it on 4chan, and that he was encouraged in his act by his fellow anons who even cheered him as it happened in direct…
Incredible? Just see for yourself, right on the archived 4chan page.
[Update May 12, 2009: it appears that the initial post is not from Auvinen himself but from "some b/tard (who) saw the news report on TV and pretended to be Pekka-Eric Auvinen". See the comments further down. The time of posting and the time when the shooting started shows this to be right. Furthermore, there were already four casualties six minutes after the initial post was made, which also confirms the assertion that it could not have been posted by Auvinen himself. I leave the post intact otherwise because the questions raised are still food for thought, however, it obviously gives a very different perspective to the circumstances in which that event occurred.]
I am not going to jump on the CoS’ PR line saying Anonymous was behind the shooting. There is not enough evidence showing that anonymous can be held responsible for his act, and nuts come in all shades in various groups.
However, it is quite a shocking revelation, and it does raise several questions.
There may be a humorous factor behind the fact that anonymous derides everything and engages in crazy verbal and net behavior, as they do on their Encyclopedia Dramatica, but at which point can this become an excuse to actually engage in actual crazy physical behavior? What prevents nuts to physically act in the name of anonymous, and what prevents other nuts to cheer him online as it happens, as seems to have been the case in this tragedy? At which point can anons cross the line between referring to black people as “niggers”, as they do in the name of questioning everything that has become accepted, and actually engaging in racist and/or criminal acts?
What would have happened if instead of writing
By all means, as I said, that news came as a quite shocking discovery for me, and really got me thinking further on that issue. As if this tragedy was not devastating on its own, the fact that is has been announced in the chan, encouraged, followed, and cheered by his peers online as it happened in real life adds an absolutely creepy dimension to it. This all certainly makes the above questions legitimate.
PS - The New York Times published an outstanding article about Anonymous last August. 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.
Today, however, I bumped into a piece of news that I found pretty scary.
I just learned that Pekka-Eric Auvinen, responsible for the Jokela school shooting that occurred on 7 November 2007, posted his intent to do it on 4chan, and that he was encouraged in his act by his fellow anons who even cheered him as it happened in direct…
Incredible? Just see for yourself, right on the archived 4chan page.
[Update May 12, 2009: it appears that the initial post is not from Auvinen himself but from "some b/tard (who) saw the news report on TV and pretended to be Pekka-Eric Auvinen". See the comments further down. The time of posting and the time when the shooting started shows this to be right. Furthermore, there were already four casualties six minutes after the initial post was made, which also confirms the assertion that it could not have been posted by Auvinen himself. I leave the post intact otherwise because the questions raised are still food for thought, however, it obviously gives a very different perspective to the circumstances in which that event occurred.]
I am not going to jump on the CoS’ PR line saying Anonymous was behind the shooting. There is not enough evidence showing that anonymous can be held responsible for his act, and nuts come in all shades in various groups.
However, it is quite a shocking revelation, and it does raise several questions.
There may be a humorous factor behind the fact that anonymous derides everything and engages in crazy verbal and net behavior, as they do on their Encyclopedia Dramatica, but at which point can this become an excuse to actually engage in actual crazy physical behavior? What prevents nuts to physically act in the name of anonymous, and what prevents other nuts to cheer him online as it happens, as seems to have been the case in this tragedy? At which point can anons cross the line between referring to black people as “niggers”, as they do in the name of questioning everything that has become accepted, and actually engaging in racist and/or criminal acts?
What would have happened if instead of writing
“hey /b/ i'm going to kill people at jokela high school today in the name of anonymous”Auvinen would have written
“hey thetans i'm going to kill people at jokela high school today in the name of Scientology”?In which way popular concepts among anonymous (being anonymous, deriding everything, indulging in various pranks) helped to trigger that crazy act? Which philosophy is the most likely to trigger it? That of Scientology or that of Anonymous?
By all means, as I said, that news came as a quite shocking discovery for me, and really got me thinking further on that issue. As if this tragedy was not devastating on its own, the fact that is has been announced in the chan, encouraged, followed, and cheered by his peers online as it happened in real life adds an absolutely creepy dimension to it. This all certainly makes the above questions legitimate.
PS - The New York Times published an outstanding article about Anonymous last August. 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.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Why the Rumors?
I have been traveling since August 8 and in spite of this could keep up with the news and this blog until August 13. After that, however, I had to let it go and now have a backlog of about 10 days. I still hope to catch it up before it becomes completely pointless.
If I receive an interesting e-mail, however, I try to answer straight away. I thought this particular answer could be interesting for others so I share it here as today's entry. Of course I stripped out any personal information.
The email:
If I receive an interesting e-mail, however, I try to answer straight away. I thought this particular answer could be interesting for others so I share it here as today's entry. Of course I stripped out any personal information.
The email:
Dear Bernie,The Answer:
I was reading your website on Scientology and got a few questions. Just to provide some brief background, I am a student who is interested in Scientology but hope to understanding the depth n width of it. For many religions, I have lots of doubt and just want to find some experienced persons to answer me.
Back to the point, I am wondering why it will be so expensive to enroll the courses comparing with other religions. Why there are numerous claims that people who left Scientology got mental disturbances or illnesses, etc. Is it really an evil religion? I deem that those courses will be useful but why there are so many rumors.
You might definitely think that my opinions and questions are so naive but I really hope to understand more about Scientology.
Thanks a lot!
Best wishes,
R.
Hi R,Scientology is expensive compared to other religions because it claims to have a technology that other religions don't have. It claims that in Scientology it is not a matter of believing but a matter of actual, scientific, experience. It values its technology so much that it makes it expensive. It claims that the price is nothing compared to what you get. It also claims that people need to "exchange" something for something and that if they would get it for free they would not value it and would have no benefit from it.
" Back to the point, I am wondering why it will be so expensive to enroll the courses comparing with other religions. "
Note that this is Scientology viewpoint, not mine. Critics claim of course that the purpose of all this is to make money and nothing else.
My personal belief is this. I personally believe that when spirituality is concerned, money should not be involved. I also believe that no amount of technology or other mechanical means can bring true spiritual benefits. Therefore, I do not personally believe in Scientology claims regarding spiritual achievements. Now this is just my personal belief, others may view this differently.
On a psychological level, however, I think that there may be some benefit from a mechanical approach, Scientology or otherwise, and some people, even ex-members, have claimed they have been truly helped. It is important to make a distinction, however, between this level and the spiritual level. The reason I believe Scientology is a cult is because they extend the possibly valid technology they have at the psychological level to the spiritual level, where they just cannot "deliver" what they promise, almost by definition.People who left Scientology did so because obviously they were not happy with it. What they report of their experience may be true or not. The reasons why it may not be true are many, but the main ones is that they need to justify why they left, they are pressured in making exaggerated claims by their new environment (critical environment), and they want to convince other people about the evilness of Scientology.
"Why there are numerous claims that people who left Scientology got mental disturbances or illnesses, etc. "
This does not mean that everything they say is a lie, but you need to be extremely critical when reading ex-members accounts and take these possible distortions into account.
I personally do not believe that Scientology in general really creates mental disturbances and illness. On the whole, when correctly applied, the technology is quite sound and many ex-members who left the official Church of Scientology (CoS) continue to have an interest in the technology and even continue to practice it outside from the CoS. If anything, I just believe that it is ineffective at the spiritual level, but I do not believe it is harmful and, at the psychological level, could even be beneficial. I personally have no interest in practicing Scientology anymore, in our out of the CoS, because my sole interest is spiritual, not psychological. I also believe that the benefit at a psychological level brought about by Scientology can be achieved by other means, that are not expensive or controversial. The best of course, in my opinion, is to follow a genuine spiritual path, which through increased awareness would resolve other issues which I view as only consequences or our spiritual unconsciousness.Scientology is very demanding, whether financially or through working on staff. It makes spiritual claims that it cannot deliver. In making these spiritual claims, it plays on hope, fear and guilt. Because people believe in the absolute truth and necessity of Scientology, they will indulge in all kinds of cultic behavior as reported by critics. Many of the critics' claims are exaggerated and are themselves exploitations of fear and guilt from the other side. Nevertheless, they do have a basis in truth.
"Is it really an evil religion? "
Whether it is an "evil" religion would be a subjective appreciation of the above. One may claim that offering things you cannot deliver at a very expensive price and indulging in cultic behavior to defend it would be evil. The point is, however, that those people do not realize they cannot deliver these promises. They actually believe in this stuff. They do not intent to harm anybody and quite on the contrary they have the best of intentions. In this sense, I would not call Scientology "evil", just misguided. By the way, this applies to other religions as well. The horrors religions such as Christianity down in history, and Islam even in actual times, have been responsible for far outweigh anything Scientology ever did in its own right. All religions are at the same time a reflection of a higher truth, and a source of great evil when fanatically applied.The secret of Scientology is that there really are two Scientology.
"I deem that those courses will be useful but why there are so many rumors. "
One, let's call it "Scientology P" for positive, is a wonderful and original systemic approach of the mind and spirit based on an actual technology. This the Scientology Scientologists see. They do not see the cultic aspect of Scientology and if they see it will dismiss it. They are in owe regarding Scientology presentation of the universe and have great wins applying its technology.
The other Scientology, let's call it "Scientology C" for cultic, is the many crazy and cultic statements injected in that system by its founder, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH). This is the source of many of the fanaticism and cultic behavior Scientology has been involved into. This is the Scientology critics see. They do not see the positive aspect of Scientology and if they see it will dismiss it.
This is the secret of Scientology. The fact that the two aspects, P and C, are intimately mixed. If LRH would have taken a wiser approach, taking criticism into account and including in his system mechanism to avoid fanaticism, such as free speech and inclusive statements towards other religions and technologies, it would not be so controversial and would be much more successful. This is not what he did. On the contrary, he included mechanism that encourages fanaticism and exclusions, such as putting the blame on critics and making statements that are offensive to many strata of society.
Because it is virtually impossible to dissociate the Scientology P from the Scientology C, because Scientology C is built into the system by the founder itself, I believe the situation is pretty hopeless and one should give a miss to Scientology as a whole.
To more directly answer your question, many of the rumors are myth and exaggerations and abuses as exposed on my web site, but they do have a basis in truth. They are a reflection of Scientology C within Scientology P.
Still, at the spiritual level, there really are no absolute certainties. Who knows who is right eventually? I have given you my personal opinion. Ultimately, what you choose to do is your decision. There really are no wrong choices, only choices that bring us faster or slower to our ultimate destination.
Best regards,
Bernie
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Dreaming to Wake Up
Jeff Hawkins published the introduction to his book/blog. I was interested to read it because it starts by "We all dream", and such was the theme of my own story, written in a much less prosaic style but true to life nevertheless.
Basically Jeff says that cult gurus appeal to our inner aspirations at spiritual freedom and at doing something significant in the world, but that cults have a darker side that eventually turns the dream into a nightmare.
I would partly agree to that, but would only point out that not all such dreams turn into a nightmare. In my case, the dream never really turned into a nightmare, but it was a dream nevertheless, an illusion, from which one really needs to wake up.
I sometimes compare the experience in Scientology, or in another cult, with marriage and divorce. People marry because they have high hopes, but it does not always turn out the way they imagined it to be. Thus, they divorce. For some, looking back to the experience may look like a nightmare. They may even have been actually beaten or otherwise abused. This, however, does not describe the majority of marriage, and an alien race trying to understand human marriage through the accounts of abused wives would get a very wrong idea of what marriage exactly is. In a way, the same could be said of ex-members, and of people trying to understand what Scientology is through dramatized accounts.
Now I am not saying the the story of Jeff is a dramatized one. I only read so far chapter 1, so I still have a long way to go before getting the whole picture. I am only pointing out that different people may have different experience of the same event, and that these can vary dramatically.
I must admit that had I spent 35 years of my life in Scientology, like Jeff did, rather than just five, I may have some legitimate reasons to be bitter (again not saying that Jeff is, I don't know at this stage). That's basically the biggest and best chunk of your life, and waking up from the dream after such time one may feel that he spent the best part of his life sleeping and chasing chimera. Maybe not the best feeling of achievement, and one does need quite a fair amount of courage to face it all.
In my case, I started in Scientology early and when I quit the movement I still had a family to get back to (my parents), and by chance I also could build a whole career. Looking back to my experience in Scientology, I mostly remember the exhilaration of having found the ultimate one and only truth, as well as my purpose in life. It's rather positive. I went out of Scientology smoothly, having attended lectures by Krishnamurti who happened to be give them a motorbike jump from Saint Hill. This helped me to make a sort of smooth philosophical transition out of Scientology.
There is, however, something I have to say. And this is that if I did not have access to critical material at the time, I am not sure my doubts about Scientology would have grown to a point where I would effectively quit the movement.
Because, on top of my publication job I was the night watch in Saint Hill Manor, not only did I have access to critical books from the GO library which the average member does not have access to, but I was at liberty to read them with impunity, being alone in that estate (I even explored a bit further and discovered personal effects of Hubbard, but that's just for the anecdote.)
For this reason, I think it is a good thing that a critical voice towards Scientology resounds around the world (now mostly through the Internet), even if sometimes that voice is a bit too loud to be credible. What I read back then was pretty outrageous, like comparing cultists to robots. However, even this helped me to see through the cultic illusion, because I could then observe that people were responding in a predictable mechanical way, according to their conditioning, a bit like robots indeed. Of course they were not robots, they were still human beings, but the allegory did help me to start seeing the cultic pattern.
This pattern is indeed like a dream, like an illusion. The moment you realize that what you see/believe is an illusion, you are free from it, but as long as you believe in it, it is as real as our concrete world, as real as a dream into which you are really engrossed.
What my point is with my web site, however, is that sometimes we think we are free from something when in reality we only changed one illusion for another one. That would be like dreaming we are waking up from a dream. Of course we are still sleeping, still dreaming, but now we believe that we woke up from that dream! Maybe that's the reason why this particular illusion is more difficult to realize than the cultic illusion itself.
This is what I wish to highlight with my web site, of which this blog is just a part. The anti-cult illusion is basically an illusion just as the cultic illusion is. Sometimes, fanatical Scientology members and fanatical Scientology ex-members think they are different, but they are only superficially different. Deep down, they are the same, because they basically follow the same pattern.
In this sense, I was interested to read a thread in ARS from henri who argues that it is wrong for anti-cultists to recruit in the anti-Scientology cause freshly exited members, because they are vulnerable to outside influence and have not yet consolidated their own perspective.
This has always been my contention. The anti-cult theory is by itself, quite ironically, a whole cultic belief system on its own. By offering ex-members an "explanation" of what happened to them, they recruit them into their own belief system, and rather than fully waking up, they just transfer from one dream to another.
"The devil is the other" could be a summary of such a belief system. Cults need enemies, and by interpreting the cult experience in negative terms, explaining to ex-members that they have been deceived by a devious cult guru, rather than in fact being part of an illusion in which both the guru and members re-enforce each other, they basically keep the ex-members in a cult.
It may not be called Scientology anymore but it is still a cult nevertheless, because they still live in a world full of enemies. They still live in a dream, maybe even a nightmare worst than their previous dream, because they don't even have the Utopian expectations anymore.
They need to wake up from that dream too, and if my web site can help at least a few even just a little bit in that awakening, then it has not been in vain.
Basically Jeff says that cult gurus appeal to our inner aspirations at spiritual freedom and at doing something significant in the world, but that cults have a darker side that eventually turns the dream into a nightmare.
I would partly agree to that, but would only point out that not all such dreams turn into a nightmare. In my case, the dream never really turned into a nightmare, but it was a dream nevertheless, an illusion, from which one really needs to wake up.
I sometimes compare the experience in Scientology, or in another cult, with marriage and divorce. People marry because they have high hopes, but it does not always turn out the way they imagined it to be. Thus, they divorce. For some, looking back to the experience may look like a nightmare. They may even have been actually beaten or otherwise abused. This, however, does not describe the majority of marriage, and an alien race trying to understand human marriage through the accounts of abused wives would get a very wrong idea of what marriage exactly is. In a way, the same could be said of ex-members, and of people trying to understand what Scientology is through dramatized accounts.
Now I am not saying the the story of Jeff is a dramatized one. I only read so far chapter 1, so I still have a long way to go before getting the whole picture. I am only pointing out that different people may have different experience of the same event, and that these can vary dramatically.
I must admit that had I spent 35 years of my life in Scientology, like Jeff did, rather than just five, I may have some legitimate reasons to be bitter (again not saying that Jeff is, I don't know at this stage). That's basically the biggest and best chunk of your life, and waking up from the dream after such time one may feel that he spent the best part of his life sleeping and chasing chimera. Maybe not the best feeling of achievement, and one does need quite a fair amount of courage to face it all.
In my case, I started in Scientology early and when I quit the movement I still had a family to get back to (my parents), and by chance I also could build a whole career. Looking back to my experience in Scientology, I mostly remember the exhilaration of having found the ultimate one and only truth, as well as my purpose in life. It's rather positive. I went out of Scientology smoothly, having attended lectures by Krishnamurti who happened to be give them a motorbike jump from Saint Hill. This helped me to make a sort of smooth philosophical transition out of Scientology.
There is, however, something I have to say. And this is that if I did not have access to critical material at the time, I am not sure my doubts about Scientology would have grown to a point where I would effectively quit the movement.
Because, on top of my publication job I was the night watch in Saint Hill Manor, not only did I have access to critical books from the GO library which the average member does not have access to, but I was at liberty to read them with impunity, being alone in that estate (I even explored a bit further and discovered personal effects of Hubbard, but that's just for the anecdote.)
For this reason, I think it is a good thing that a critical voice towards Scientology resounds around the world (now mostly through the Internet), even if sometimes that voice is a bit too loud to be credible. What I read back then was pretty outrageous, like comparing cultists to robots. However, even this helped me to see through the cultic illusion, because I could then observe that people were responding in a predictable mechanical way, according to their conditioning, a bit like robots indeed. Of course they were not robots, they were still human beings, but the allegory did help me to start seeing the cultic pattern.
This pattern is indeed like a dream, like an illusion. The moment you realize that what you see/believe is an illusion, you are free from it, but as long as you believe in it, it is as real as our concrete world, as real as a dream into which you are really engrossed.
What my point is with my web site, however, is that sometimes we think we are free from something when in reality we only changed one illusion for another one. That would be like dreaming we are waking up from a dream. Of course we are still sleeping, still dreaming, but now we believe that we woke up from that dream! Maybe that's the reason why this particular illusion is more difficult to realize than the cultic illusion itself.
This is what I wish to highlight with my web site, of which this blog is just a part. The anti-cult illusion is basically an illusion just as the cultic illusion is. Sometimes, fanatical Scientology members and fanatical Scientology ex-members think they are different, but they are only superficially different. Deep down, they are the same, because they basically follow the same pattern.
In this sense, I was interested to read a thread in ARS from henri who argues that it is wrong for anti-cultists to recruit in the anti-Scientology cause freshly exited members, because they are vulnerable to outside influence and have not yet consolidated their own perspective.
This has always been my contention. The anti-cult theory is by itself, quite ironically, a whole cultic belief system on its own. By offering ex-members an "explanation" of what happened to them, they recruit them into their own belief system, and rather than fully waking up, they just transfer from one dream to another.
"The devil is the other" could be a summary of such a belief system. Cults need enemies, and by interpreting the cult experience in negative terms, explaining to ex-members that they have been deceived by a devious cult guru, rather than in fact being part of an illusion in which both the guru and members re-enforce each other, they basically keep the ex-members in a cult.
It may not be called Scientology anymore but it is still a cult nevertheless, because they still live in a world full of enemies. They still live in a dream, maybe even a nightmare worst than their previous dream, because they don't even have the Utopian expectations anymore.
They need to wake up from that dream too, and if my web site can help at least a few even just a little bit in that awakening, then it has not been in vain.
Suri Hubbard
I have heard rumors that Suri, the daughter of Tom Cruise and Kathy Holmes, was believed by some Scientologists to be the reincarnation of Hubbard, or something along that line, but I was not aware of what may have been behind this rumor.
Apparently, behind this rumor may be another rumor, that Tom Cruise used sperm specimens of L. Ron Hubbard to father Suri! No kidding... This rumor apparently went around at some point and is one of those "most bizarre celebrity rumors and myths" Starpulse.com tackle with this week.
Well, I thought that was so funny and stunning a tale that it was worth a mention in my blog.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Elisabeth Moss may be a Scientologist
Jarett Wieselman of the New York Post is crashed. He does not understand how the "adorable, smart, talented, funny, charming and seemingly sane actress" could make such a stupid choice. In effect, we have here another case of cognitive dissonance, where people believe Scientology is what critics describe it to be, then of course cannot reconcile this false conception with real life happenings.
Isaac Hayes Interesting Links
The death of Isaac Hayes has been the top Scientology-related news of the last couple of days, now superseded with the opening of "Tropic Thunder", the new Tom Cruise sensation.
Here are for the record a few interesting Hayes-related links:
Isaac Hayes official web site
Isaac Hayes makes the Scientology booklet "The Way to Happiness" free
Isaac Hayes history with Scientology - from Fox News. This is a rather disturbing and moving article in which the author, claiming to be a personal friend of Hayes, says that Hayes never really recovered from the stroke he had in 2006. I am a bit skeptical about this article because the author also claims that Scientology forced him to resign from South Park and that he needed a lot of money to get up the bridge - which claims seem a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, the information he brings forth and the question he asks, such as "Why was a stroke survivor on a treadmill by himself?" seem quite pertinent. A good article overall and, as I said, quite moving.
A compilation of Isaac Hayes "Treadmill" death report - from ARS
Everyone Interesting Died This Weekend - In addition to Isaac Hayes: Bernie Mac, Lester Young's little brother: Lee Young, American hero Anthony Russo. Which reminds me of the short distance between the death of L. Ron Hubbard (24 January 1986) and Jiddu Krishnamurti (February 17, 1986), two major influences in my spiritual life.
The Afterlife for Scientologists - This article attempts to trace what will be the fate of Isaac Hayes' soul in the after life, according to Scientology beliefs. It is not too bad but obviously the author got her information from second hand sources and most notably from some critics, which she acknowledges at the end of the article. Not surprisingly, some statements contained in this article are frankly false. For example: "When a body dies, its thetan forgets the details of the former life". Otherwise, as I said, it is not too bad.
Isaac Hayes's Death Is Attributed to Stroke - "The soul singer and songwriter Isaac Hayes died of a stroke, according to authorities in Memphis, The Associated Press reported. ... A spokesman for the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office said that paperwork filed by Dr. David Kraus, Mr. Hayes’s doctor, listed stroke as the cause of death. The spokesman also said that no autopsy had been performed."
Here are for the record a few interesting Hayes-related links:
Isaac Hayes official web site
Isaac Hayes makes the Scientology booklet "The Way to Happiness" free
Isaac Hayes history with Scientology - from Fox News. This is a rather disturbing and moving article in which the author, claiming to be a personal friend of Hayes, says that Hayes never really recovered from the stroke he had in 2006. I am a bit skeptical about this article because the author also claims that Scientology forced him to resign from South Park and that he needed a lot of money to get up the bridge - which claims seem a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, the information he brings forth and the question he asks, such as "Why was a stroke survivor on a treadmill by himself?" seem quite pertinent. A good article overall and, as I said, quite moving.
A compilation of Isaac Hayes "Treadmill" death report - from ARS
Everyone Interesting Died This Weekend - In addition to Isaac Hayes: Bernie Mac, Lester Young's little brother: Lee Young, American hero Anthony Russo. Which reminds me of the short distance between the death of L. Ron Hubbard (24 January 1986) and Jiddu Krishnamurti (February 17, 1986), two major influences in my spiritual life.
The Afterlife for Scientologists - This article attempts to trace what will be the fate of Isaac Hayes' soul in the after life, according to Scientology beliefs. It is not too bad but obviously the author got her information from second hand sources and most notably from some critics, which she acknowledges at the end of the article. Not surprisingly, some statements contained in this article are frankly false. For example: "When a body dies, its thetan forgets the details of the former life". Otherwise, as I said, it is not too bad.
Isaac Hayes's Death Is Attributed to Stroke - "The soul singer and songwriter Isaac Hayes died of a stroke, according to authorities in Memphis, The Associated Press reported. ... A spokesman for the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office said that paperwork filed by Dr. David Kraus, Mr. Hayes’s doctor, listed stroke as the cause of death. The spokesman also said that no autopsy had been performed."
Monday, August 11, 2008
Unbiased Bias
News are a bit slow currently so I will tackle with one of the arguments found on the EO thread about my blog.
Let's start with this post. In it, the author takes a few quotes from my blog then writes sarcastically "Clearly a reputable unbiased source of information on Anonymous!"
This is the unbiased/neutral/balanced argument that sometimes pops up. Basically, it says that I claim to be unbiased, neutral, balanced, but that in reality I am not.
The problem with this argument is that I never claimed to be unbiased, neutral, or balanced. At least, I am not aware I ever did. People do jump to this conclusion, though, and not only critics. They seem to think that if someone criticize both sides, then he is supposed to be unbiased, neutral, and balanced. This, however, is not correct.
What I claim to be is independent. This means that I basically take a stand against the negative aspects of both Scientology and its critics. This is different than claiming to be neutral, unbiased, or balanced.
To be independent is different than being neutral. Neutral means you don't take a position. Not only do I take position, but I take a double position: at the same time against Scientology and against critics.
Nor do I claim to be unbiased. Being at the same time against both sides does not necessarily mean one is unbiased. I do have my bias. In particular, I do not like when people claim to be fighting against Scientology for ethical reasons, then go on to engage in the same type of unethical behavior. This is clearly visible in most of the quotes chosen by that poster.
As for "balanced" I guess you could say that the fact of criticizing both sides is "balanced" but again it does not mean that I should not tackle negatively with what I find objectionable. By "balanced" critics want me to be soft towards them. In this sense, I am not balanced. I tell things as they are. Critics would agree when I criticize Scientology, but when I criticize them then all of a sudden I am not balanced...
Another possible signification of this is that I should have the same amount of criticism on my site towards Scientology as I have towards critics. I don't think so. There are thousands of people criticizing Scientology and hundreds of critical web sites. There is, however, almost nobody criticizing critics from an independent perspective. This is the specialty of my web site, and naturally it makes up for most of it. As I explained otherwise, however, my criticism of Scientology is more potent for current members than critical web site, precisely because I criticize both sides.
The unbiased/neutral/balanced argument in this case basically amounts to a "straw man" argument, where someone builds a straw man by giving his own (false) interpretation of the argument someone else is supposed to make then goes on to "burn" the straw man he just built. In reality, he is only arguing with his own misunderstanding of what that person is saying.
Since I do not claim to be unbiased/neutral/balanced, building up an argument showing that I am not has no sense.
In particular, my blog is even more representative of my bias, because I mostly write it in one go, whereas with my web page I may spend more time trying to police things up. It only is a way for me to keep up with the news. It does not claim to be unbiased / neutral / balanced. It only is my take on the news. That's all it is, and I do claim it is done from an independent perspective.
Let's start with this post. In it, the author takes a few quotes from my blog then writes sarcastically "Clearly a reputable unbiased source of information on Anonymous!"
This is the unbiased/neutral/balanced argument that sometimes pops up. Basically, it says that I claim to be unbiased, neutral, balanced, but that in reality I am not.
The problem with this argument is that I never claimed to be unbiased, neutral, or balanced. At least, I am not aware I ever did. People do jump to this conclusion, though, and not only critics. They seem to think that if someone criticize both sides, then he is supposed to be unbiased, neutral, and balanced. This, however, is not correct.
What I claim to be is independent. This means that I basically take a stand against the negative aspects of both Scientology and its critics. This is different than claiming to be neutral, unbiased, or balanced.
To be independent is different than being neutral. Neutral means you don't take a position. Not only do I take position, but I take a double position: at the same time against Scientology and against critics.
Nor do I claim to be unbiased. Being at the same time against both sides does not necessarily mean one is unbiased. I do have my bias. In particular, I do not like when people claim to be fighting against Scientology for ethical reasons, then go on to engage in the same type of unethical behavior. This is clearly visible in most of the quotes chosen by that poster.
As for "balanced" I guess you could say that the fact of criticizing both sides is "balanced" but again it does not mean that I should not tackle negatively with what I find objectionable. By "balanced" critics want me to be soft towards them. In this sense, I am not balanced. I tell things as they are. Critics would agree when I criticize Scientology, but when I criticize them then all of a sudden I am not balanced...
Another possible signification of this is that I should have the same amount of criticism on my site towards Scientology as I have towards critics. I don't think so. There are thousands of people criticizing Scientology and hundreds of critical web sites. There is, however, almost nobody criticizing critics from an independent perspective. This is the specialty of my web site, and naturally it makes up for most of it. As I explained otherwise, however, my criticism of Scientology is more potent for current members than critical web site, precisely because I criticize both sides.
The unbiased/neutral/balanced argument in this case basically amounts to a "straw man" argument, where someone builds a straw man by giving his own (false) interpretation of the argument someone else is supposed to make then goes on to "burn" the straw man he just built. In reality, he is only arguing with his own misunderstanding of what that person is saying.
Since I do not claim to be unbiased/neutral/balanced, building up an argument showing that I am not has no sense.
In particular, my blog is even more representative of my bias, because I mostly write it in one go, whereas with my web page I may spend more time trying to police things up. It only is a way for me to keep up with the news. It does not claim to be unbiased / neutral / balanced. It only is my take on the news. That's all it is, and I do claim it is done from an independent perspective.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Isaac Hayes dies at 65
Isaac Hayes, best known for his iconic theme to the 1971 film Shaft and his role as the gravelly voiced Chef in South Park, was found dead at 7.08pm GMT today Aug. 10. The cause of death is not known.
A celebrity Scientologist, he left South Park in 2006 because of an episode of the show which mocked Scientology.
A good overview of his career can be found here.
Anonymous Discovers My Blog
Anonymous finally discovered the existence of my blog, through the post I made about the Black Op 8-8-8. I must say, there are still many anons as I get loads of hits from that thread on enturbulation.org (EO).
What I don't understand is that in the thread and in comments to my post, they point to two links to show that the 8-8-8 was not an utter failure. One is about a radio show, and the other about news uncovered by Anonymous that high ranking CoS officials are illegally in the UK. None of these two examples have anything to do with anything they spoke about a return to phase I hacking the CoS and other pranks. It has everything to do with what Anonymous has been doing all along without any Black Op being involved, promoting anti-Scientology stances in the media and uncovering anything that could damage the CoS. So I really fail to see the relevance of these links.
I just now checked again scientology.org. It is loading damn fast. I checked Google news again, not a single article about Anonymous Phase III events.
So, sorry, from where I stand it is still a monumental failure. They were hoping to get back the rash of news they got when they started to hack Scientology websites and they didn't get even a single news article, and this was several days before the news of Isaac Hayes' death took over the Scientology-related news. Quoting two totally irrelevant links does not help a bit.
Now this is also just the first part. The Black Ops were not a goal by themselves. They were also supposed to bring back the lulz and people in the fold. We'll see about that later on, but excuse me if I have my doubts about it.
By the way that thread in EO contains also a wide variety of comments about my blog. I don't have time to address them now but maybe later. By all means they are similar to what has been said about me and my site already but whenever I find the time, I'll try to address some of the arguments made.
Thanks for watching, Anonymous, and don't think I am anti-anonymous myself. Lots of bright people trying to do what they think is right. What I am only saying is this: try to check things out further than what is first apparent. Things are far more complicated than the simplistic presentation made on critical web sites. Going around just repeating these is neither original nor effective in the long run.
What I don't understand is that in the thread and in comments to my post, they point to two links to show that the 8-8-8 was not an utter failure. One is about a radio show, and the other about news uncovered by Anonymous that high ranking CoS officials are illegally in the UK. None of these two examples have anything to do with anything they spoke about a return to phase I hacking the CoS and other pranks. It has everything to do with what Anonymous has been doing all along without any Black Op being involved, promoting anti-Scientology stances in the media and uncovering anything that could damage the CoS. So I really fail to see the relevance of these links.
I just now checked again scientology.org. It is loading damn fast. I checked Google news again, not a single article about Anonymous Phase III events.
So, sorry, from where I stand it is still a monumental failure. They were hoping to get back the rash of news they got when they started to hack Scientology websites and they didn't get even a single news article, and this was several days before the news of Isaac Hayes' death took over the Scientology-related news. Quoting two totally irrelevant links does not help a bit.
Now this is also just the first part. The Black Ops were not a goal by themselves. They were also supposed to bring back the lulz and people in the fold. We'll see about that later on, but excuse me if I have my doubts about it.
By the way that thread in EO contains also a wide variety of comments about my blog. I don't have time to address them now but maybe later. By all means they are similar to what has been said about me and my site already but whenever I find the time, I'll try to address some of the arguments made.
Thanks for watching, Anonymous, and don't think I am anti-anonymous myself. Lots of bright people trying to do what they think is right. What I am only saying is this: try to check things out further than what is first apparent. Things are far more complicated than the simplistic presentation made on critical web sites. Going around just repeating these is neither original nor effective in the long run.
Black Op 8-8-8. Another Resounding Flop
I tried to browse two Scientology web sites yesterday and one wasn't available, while the other was just so slow loading that it basically was stuck as well.
I was wondering whether Anonymous was at it again, as they did make threats for starting their mischievous acts again on August 8.
However, on the evening, the sites were loading just fine. I also did not hear any other complain, either from ARS or through the news.
In fact, today, Google news on "Scientology" was lower than ever. Not a single mention of Anonymous' supposed attack, and in fact barely just a couple of general Scientology news articles, mostly from notoriously biased news outlet such as Indymedia of Glosslip.
If Anonymous did anything, it was just another phenomenal flop. The movement really seems to be dying.
Another sign of its moribon state is that for a long time now, we don't even get the "week in review" from enturbulation.org either.
We'll see anon's health on the next protest on August 16.
I was wondering whether Anonymous was at it again, as they did make threats for starting their mischievous acts again on August 8.
However, on the evening, the sites were loading just fine. I also did not hear any other complain, either from ARS or through the news.
In fact, today, Google news on "Scientology" was lower than ever. Not a single mention of Anonymous' supposed attack, and in fact barely just a couple of general Scientology news articles, mostly from notoriously biased news outlet such as Indymedia of Glosslip.
If Anonymous did anything, it was just another phenomenal flop. The movement really seems to be dying.
Another sign of its moribon state is that for a long time now, we don't even get the "week in review" from enturbulation.org either.
We'll see anon's health on the next protest on August 16.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
XemuTV
Not sure whether this is a Scientologist or not as I did not invest enough time in it to find out but the xemutv poster on YouTube has a few interesting videos, among which this one, that contains some video shots of Anonymous harassing Scientologists in guise of "peaceful protests".
Friday, August 8, 2008
Tom Cruise Regaining Fame?
A few weeks ago I read some rave reviews of "Tropic Thunder", a Hollywood satire by Ben Stiller in which Tom Cruise plays the role of a fat, bald, and vulgar head of a movie studio.
In spite of the negative publicity Cruise enjoyed of late, the reviewers of some pre-view festival were unanimous in their praise, with shouts of "Cruise steals the show".
Then nothing until a new article that sings the same tune:
"Yes, I am praising Tom Cruise, kids. Let’s put aside the Scientology and the Nazis for a minute.""Tropic thunder" will open on August 13.
Another praise of Cruise I read recently, and with which I would agree, was for his stunt at the start of Mission Impossible II:
"Whether or not it was stunt-doubled, Tom Cruise's rock-climbing exploits at the beginning of Mission: Impossible II are undeniably impressive. When he does his final flip on the rockface and looks directly at the camera, I always freak out that I'll get instantly converted to Scientology if I stare into his eyes."The stunt is available on YouTube and can be seen here.
I must say I do like Cruise as an actor, notwithstanding his religious preferences. I also like his choice of films in general, which I find of taste and quality, along that of Dustin Hoffman, another of my favorite actors.
CoS adds 5 acres to its presence in Clearwater
In one of its biggest purchases in years, the Church of Scientology has added 5 acres to its already defining downtown Clearwater presence.
Excerpts:
"One parcel is notable in Clearwater history. Rock singer Jim Morrison lived with his grandparents for a year in a little house on the water in the early 1960s while attending St. Petersburg College."
"Scientology now has 29 properties in Clearwater, most downtown."
"South of the just-purchased Triangle property is the seven-story Ocean View condo building, which the church bought in 2006 for $7.8-million. Plans call for remaking the Ocean View, formerly called the Belvedere, into 23 luxury, extended-stay units for visiting Scientologists. Remodeling cost: up to $6-million."
"Just south of the Belvedere and also on the water is Scientology's now-sprawling Sandcastle complex, a mix of hotel rooms and training quarters. Once a small, privately owned tourist hotel, the Sandcastle has been in church hands for decades and expanded many times."
"Now it's overtaxed, officials say, so plans call for a six-story, 60,000 expansion to be built on a vacant lot abutting the recently purchased land."
"Early this year, Scientology opened its latest hotel for visiting church members, the Oak Cove complex on downtown's south side. It offers high-end overnight stays after a $26-million renovation."
"In April, the church also started $30-million in renovations to its well-known Fort Harrison Hotel, which will have 220 rooms."
"In all, current church expansion and remodeling projects will give Scientology 725 guest rooms in downtown Clearwater."
Lone Picketing a Remote Scientology Cabana in South Dakota
Mildly funny video of an anon picketing a lone Scientology cabana in South Dakota. If true...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
