More I've looked into Scientology, more I am keen to participate in lobbying against their legal status and contribute to disrupting their activities.
Can anyone point in the direction of organised groups/activities?
Many thanks and keep up the good skeptical work!!
DD
That would be Anonymous you want. Wonderful little subcultural phenomenon
Start with www.xenu.net.
When you get to the forums there, check out the thread about enturbulation.org. This links to other active activist sites. Take it from there.
You may want to disable images if you venture onto the Chans, and assume nsfw. But that's down the road a bit if you're a beginner. Start with Clambake
Thanks for response. What's nsfw by the way?
Cheers,
DD
'Not safe for work'
Hi Seren, a bit more enlightenment please. What do you mean by 'chans'? Many thanks. DD
Sorry, missed your post, but Mongrel's done a good job of answering.
Aside from the "old guard", who are mostly ex-Scientologists and families of people in Scientology and who number relatively few, the main bulk of protestors are young people from the internet. They have their own subculture which is not very palatable to most people. This means they sometimes talk in strange lingo. If you go and look these strange words and phrases up, you may find stuff that'll make you wish there was such a thing as brain bleach, and/or despair at the future of humankind. Do not visit Encyclopaedia Dramatica or the Chans with images enabled unless you are hardened to gore and yuk.
They're all nice kids, really. And in fact they fill me with immense hope- young people giving a damn once again. Not that they would ever admit it- it's all about the lulz, don't you know.
If you'd prefer to join up with the old guard I'd suggest Bonnie Woods, if you can find her contact details. Googling will bring stuff up.
Last edited by seren; 7th October 2008 at 09:53 PM.
Also, this.
Actually, I agree, Seren. When I first saw the Anonymous thing, I rather thought it was a 'meme' that would last five minutes. I'm immensely pleased that I was wrong in that assumption.![]()
Bookmarks