Scientology vs Anonymous, round 2

Isn’t it hypocritical for a “Dangerous Cult” founded by a science fiction author, and with extraterrestrials as a key part of its mythos, to call others pathetic geeks?

Anonymous’s campaign against Scientology has been stepped up a gear, with demonstrations planned on Sunday. I might go along to take pictures but not take part. I’ve already done my bit by helping the Google bombing in the previous paragraph. Whilst the extremist wings of all religions prey upon people who’d be better off with a few visits to a psychiatrist, Scientology is a self help system gone bad. I don’t know if Dianetics ever helped anyone, but its big brother has realised that the big money is in making people ever more dependent rather than better able to handle the world.

What are SPs anyway?

Creepy Scientology related videos abound at the moment. The main one, which keeps being taken down by YouTube and is now hosted by Gawker, features everyone’s favourite Scientology dwarf in what is being referred to as an indoctrination video.

One response to the Tom Cruise footage comes from Anonymous (via Warren Ellis)

SPs? A scan of the wikipedia page on the “religion” revealed nothing, but this handy acronym guide tells me-

SP, Suppressive Person, an evil person; someone who criticizes Scientology in any way. (the two are one and the same in the cult) SPs are the cult’s _1984_ Goldsteins, and give definition to the group and a common enemy. Supposedly, some large fraction of the total population is composed of these “anti-social” characters, variously cited as 2% or 20%. Hubbard listed 12 traits of the SP, such as talking in generalities, criticism, and so forth. SPs are formally “declared” with a goldenrod issue, and lists are kept of these dangerous people. Ars has adopted its own SP levels as a badge of honour; in Scientology, there are no levels of SP. SPs create PTSes, people who are influenced by them. See MU, PTS, Disconnection.