the moral of the story in that video is,
that no one survived except a giant jellyfish and a machine.

thinking it's okay to dehumanize people so they can be disposed of without remorse, is totally missing the point of what it means to be human.

i realize it's a popular thing these days to corral people off into stereotypes for easier propaganda desemination and dehumanization, but seriously, you gotta know the end game of that, is gonna be total annihilation.



[edit on 2-3-2008 by undo]

Everyone will soon know how twisted anon really is. I would go so far as to say they've revolutionized dehumanization. Mister.old.school had the right idea with this thread but of course the wrecking crew comes in to set things straight because Anon acts exactly like a religion complete with random representatives which can appear anywhere at any time you speak out against them. There is no right side to choose in this fight. It's just more gang wars, more uprisings, and at this point they are only causing trouble for everyone else who wants a say. I hate to be long-winded but I feel something is amiss, anon used to be about fun and jokes and sharing freely but it turned to bullying and hatred and the utter squalor of today's youth so I'm worried what their full motives actually are. They are sneaky, make no doubt about it. Not as powerful and dangerous as the CoS but a little slimier, I've been speaking out against Anon for a while now, there is a very deep mind conspiracy going on but they could have no inkling. They are joined in their iniquity and spite towards others, like most religious types.

I just feel I need to point out the major hypocrisy in those defending Anon and their message boards here. Anon leaves no time think, only to judge.

i'm not anon, so i can speak for myself, and it's not hypocracy if i believe you have the right not only to practice your religion, but to do so without fear of being killed for it or otherwise hampered from the full function of your freedoms. i expect the same in return. that's not asking too much and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

Originally posted by rationalgaze
I know you didn't read the thread but I made the same point earlier. The good of anonymous is in the vast, vast minority (like me) and the rest are all blithering retards.

We perhaps have differing opinions on which division of Anonymous is the better, and while I think I would place your view in the minority, I am not sure that I would place it in the good. If the technical detail of posting without a pseudonym is so repulsive to you that you cannot bear to do it while considering the question of the Church of Scientology, then perhaps you might visit other, non-anonymous sites that have grown around the issue, and have drawn a variety of people interested in the issue of the Church, including both ex-Scientologists and Free Zoners. These are people who have known about and cared about the issue for longer than most of Anonymous has, and they seem to feel that this project (Project Chanology), started by Anonymous, is important enough, and valuable enough, to contribute to.

Originally posted by undo
i'm not anon, so i can speak for myself, and it's not hypocracy if i believe you have the right not only to practice your religion, but to do so without fear of being killed for it or otherwise hampered from the full function of your freedoms. i expect the same in return. that's not asking too much and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

It's really hard to understand exactly what you are saying. Can you set out the points you are trying to say and give concrete examples in relation to topic at hand, if possible?

Religous beliefs are a human right. Anyone has a right to believe in any religion that they want. The problem that occurs with the cult of scientology is that thousands of ex-members are saying they were decieved and that deception should be investigated.

When under the guise of religion, management of that particular group, and usually, a charasmatic leader, the said leader decieves his followers for the gain of personal power then people have the right to protest that said group.

While there are many "fringe religions" most are harmless in respect. A few ex-members might say they were abused but generally ex-members will say that their experiences in the religion was not for them which is their right.

No's 18 and 19 in the charter of human rights Hold freedom of thought a basic human right. This is placed to stop controlling institutions wether government, religuos or other wise from controlling the thoughts of it's membership.

Charter 18 : Freedom of Thought, We all have the right to beleive what we want to believe to have a religion or to change it if we want.

Currently most anon members hold the view that the Cult of Scientology does not allow people to change their religion if they are unhappy with it.
Further, CO$ impliments a system whereby peoples spiritual freedom, in regards, is in fact suppressed. Any critisim of scientology is ruthlessly crushed to the point of like in the case of investigation reporter, Pauline Cooper, had her apartment broken into by cult members, had paper stolen that contained her fingerprints, and then the paper was used in a bomb plot against the an arab embassy in which she was charged. The truth of her situation only came out some five years later because of unrelated police raids on the cult found that indeed she was not only framed but the whole operation was planned as a greater megaplan to suppress all critisim.

All religion get criticim. Some defend themselves and some just don't worry. But it is difficult to find a case where all critiscm is crushed.

We have seen ex-members come out from scientology and are totally framed, and degraded. They hire private investigators to totally destroy reputations. Some examples are found on the web. Pages totally made just to destroy ex-members who give information on brainwashing and cult strongholding.

However, how many people coming out of this cult that say, yes it just wasn't for me? Why do consistently so many people come out saying that criminal activities and abuses of human rights have taken place? Considering the common knowledge that CO$ fights with ex-members and sues a large amount of detracters and critics. Why would so many also come forward?
It is because it is in fact a destructive cult rather than a fringe religion.

Are the rights of these ex-members to be taken into consideration?

Can they not have the right to speak out for themselves or take the dangerous cult to courts without being defamed, investigated, tracked, broken into or any of the other things CO$ consistently does as per their official response to such matters?

There question of how much rights a religion has over individuals is determined by it's content. If the church partakes in illegal activities the state has a right to respond. This is what we saw in The Children of God membership whereby children were encouraged to be present while adults had sex.

Originally posted by helatrobus

Originally posted by undo
i'm not anon, so i can speak for myself, and it's not hypocracy if i believe you have the right not only to practice your religion, but to do so without fear of being killed for it or otherwise hampered from the full function of your freedoms. i expect the same in return. that's not asking too much and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

It's really hard to understand exactly what you are saying. Can you set out the points you are trying to say and give concrete examples in relation to topic at hand, if possible?

I think she's agreeing with us. I wouldn't mind a further elaboration, however, to whatever extent would remain approximately on-topic for the thread.

continued...

Indeed, there are religions that beleive in virgin sacrifice and blood drinking and all kinds of behaviour that society deems as illegal. While one has the right to beleive in religion this right is to protect the individuals right to thought. However, when the religion promotes illegal activities and seeks to take away the basic rights that itself harbours, then the hypocricy that ensures will be of no ones fault but the said institutions.

I think she's agreeing with us. I wouldn't mind a further elaboration, however, to whatever extent would remain approximately on-topic for the thread.

It's hard to say. There is some oscillating between thought. As she has had brain injury I am worried that our extreme divergence between ideas may be harmful. I fear also that she belongs to a fringe religion (like 7th day) and is buying the Cult of Scientology's PR line, that we seek to attack all religion. i.e. she sees our complicated stand as an attack on all fringe religions. Clarification would be good and point by point explanation of what is being said.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by helatrobus]

Originally posted by helatrobus

Originally posted by Anonymous13
I think she's agreeing with us. I wouldn't mind a further elaboration, however, to whatever extent would remain approximately on-topic for the thread.

It's hard to say. There is some oscillating between thought.

I suspect it's more abbreviation than oscillation. She had earlier observed the potential for violence in any policy Scientology may have to convert the entire planet. Hence, perhaps, the emphasis on the right to practice one's own religion without being killed for it (e.g., by Scientology). Perhaps a thread on the point of planetary conversion should be started, probably on one of our own forums, and perhaps here, as well, if any are interested.

abusing people's fundamental human rights is not good.
that much is obvious.

i''m not a 7th day adventist. interesting religion though.
i'm just a generic, non-denominational. raised baptist, changed to non-denominational as an adult.

Originally posted by Anonymous13

I suspect it's more abbreviation than oscillation. She had earlier observed the potential for violence in any policy Scientology may have to convert the entire planet. Hence, perhaps, the emphasis on the right to practice one's own religion without being killed for it (e.g., by Scientology). Perhaps a thread on the point of planetary conversion should be started, probably on one of our own forums, and perhaps here, as well, if any are interested.

yeppers. the potential for violence? the texts say there will be violence unless every person is above "2" or whatever that is. 2's are just bumped off, quietly and without remorse. that's so hitler.

yeppers. the potential for violence? the texts say there will be violence unless every person is above "2" or whatever that is. 2's are just bumped off, quietly and without remorse. that's so hitler.

According to Scientology doctrine 2.5% of the world is made up of suppresive people.

That's roughly 156 million people.

"The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower
bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an
almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the
dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered."

-- L. Ron Hubbard, "The Science of Survival", p. 157

That book is widely known and read by Scientologists. Any Scientologist is against SP's as per their doctrine.

The unfortunate thing is one of the determining factors of being an SP is being a critic of $cientology.

I hope this makes it clear why people wear masks in protests.

The problem really is that more than 2.5% of the population would be critical of $cientology, so if they got into any kind of world power, you could assume it was either $cientology processing or extermination.

I hope this has made this issue clearer for you.

Originally posted by helatrobus
Are you saying mr.old.school and his backers tried to start another hoax here? It runs very similar to what happened on that thread.

Where does mister.old.school show up in the thread? I'd be interested to know, but would rather not wade through all of it.

Bill, I'd suggest if you want to stop this kind of thing, would be to put a warning on the front page that this may be a hoax. I'd suggest it somewhere the google bots will pick it as text if you know what i mean? That should stop them.

Well, he did mention that it looked like a hoax on the first page. Also, ATS members can tag threads such that a collection of tags appears on each page of the thread (see the bottom of each thread page for the tag box). For example, the thread in question (as well as this one) is tagged 'disinfo'. An appropriate tag for OSA-involved threads might be 'osa', 'osa disinfo', or perhaps 'scientology'. Each member gets one tag per thread, it seems, so choose wisely.