Post: #26

(04-03-2015 01:07 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I thought this thread was going to be about a Seinfeld documentary

Seintology

Too soon.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #27

(04-03-2015 11:29 AM)Honorable Man Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:35 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  I view the religious (doesn't matter whether it's Scientology or Catholicism or whatever, a lie is a lie) the same way I view hard drug abusers. Their delusion causes me to pity them, but I don't really give a shit. People need to be responsible for their own lives and decisions.

Does your view extend to people who don't have a choice in the matter, namely women who use crack while pregnant or bring their children up in a cult from birth? They're not responsible for the poor hand they're dealt.

No, of course not. I guess I should have made that clear.

My basic premise is that if people have a choice (a real choice, the kind of choice you can only make with information), and make a foolish choice, then well, screw 'em.

Children, the infirm elderly, or those suffering from a mental illness or defect that otherwise renders them unable to choose freely need special protection and care. That is the mark of a civilized society.

I suppose other potential exceptions would be if someone was forced (drugged, gun pointed at their head) to join a cult or inject heroin.

Post: #28

(04-03-2015 11:44 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:35 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  People need to be responsible for their own lives and decisions.

Totally agree.

(04-03-2015 05:35 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  They should be regulated... the role of the state should be to minimize the damage and disruption that they cause others.

...the state should ensure basic standards of education so that people are informed

Is it within the realm of possibility that your skepticism of religion could reasonably be applied to the state as well? Since, as you point out, there are many weak and wilfully ignorant people out there, and the state is made up of (and elected by) some of these very same people.

It depends how far you want to take that premise. Having no state at all doesn't work out. It just leads to Somalia and warlords. I would not want to live under that.

The state is different from religion, because in theory it is supposed to be both transparent and malleable, and to respond to the will of the people who constitute it, rather than to control their behavior through an extra human/divine authority. Modern nation states represent an imperfect system no doubt, and one which requires constant adjustment, monitoring, and improvement to function, but still a big improvement over total chaos.

I've gotten sidetracked, but just finished downloading the torrent for the documentary this thread is about and will post my opinion on it later today or tomorrow.

Post: #29

Just watched the documentary.

The good part as in some truths of Scientology:

+ out of body travel - can be taught and some describe it there
+ past lives (yes - also can be assessed and there is some basis to that - acknowledging some experiences can help people)
+ mental clarity - getting rid of limiting engrams - yes that can be done

Interesting that they describe some of the actors as going through all those stages and actually the teachings assisting them as they get some positive experiences and get rid of mental engrams.

The problem is of course that you could get that with a few books, some discipline in the comfort of your home for the price of 50$ if you buy the books used on Amazon.

And here begins the negative which permeates Scientology:

- L. Ron Hubbard wasn't overly spiritual - he had some experiences for sure, but was more an intelligent salesman, con-artist and charismatic leader
- at best what you can get out of Scientology is a certain mental clarity, but no emphasis on love, honor, real ethics, sanctity of life etc.
- it costs fucking much and they rip you off even if you can afford it
- essentially some of their techniques could help people but they then later use it to manipulate you - also sharing all the knowledge, your worst secrets with them is just nuts - they have you in your grip even if you would want to leave
- celebrities and wealthy ones are pampered while the lower strata are treated like slaves and work for less than 50 cents an hour
- they have slave labor reeducation camps which condition people
- they attack everyone aggressively who opposes them
- they encourage people to distance themselves from family, friends and acquaintances who don't share their viewpoints
- of course their "wisdom" from a certain level about their alien leader and crap like that is just nuts - it's a good thing that you need to spend at least 200k in order to get that

Personally I care little whether they have won the battle against the IRS. Income tax battles have been won even by individuals who have successfully contested the legality of the income tax and stopped paying it. The IRS is a legal mafia clan, so I don't care about them.

Their members are dwindling and since those who are not celebrities or super-rich are treated like shit, then I don't think that the crap will prosper. The top level members who took part in the documentary here left only in the last years. Their current leader seems to be a psycho.

So essentially you have a cult which offers some useful techniques and truths, but then goes on and perverts it all for control, money and psychopathic brutal rulership. You almost cannot blame Tom Cruise since he essentially gets only the good stuff of Scientology and gets pampered like a king getting his ego stroked 24/7. Well - if he ever took a look at how they probably sabotages his marriage with Nicole Kidman - well then he might reconsider.

But is it a real danger to the world? Every religion has it's own conditioning in place which prevents you from questioning logically their dogmas. Very few people are able to come to terms with that. Generally it's a good idea to keep a distance from group-think and always keep your wallet tight. Some businesses like Amway for example have similar cult-patterns, but also many things now currently taught in academia like feminism, modern economics, modern medicine etc.
Best is to always question everything - truth is unafraid of the light and a fresh mind. We here can gladly discuss the points of the Red Pill without trying to run away from an open debate. But I understand that some won't question their religions and I am fine with that. You will learn over time the hard way - heh.

Post: #30

Fascism and cults with conditioning and strict rules are very seductive, especially when you lack discipline yourself. The effects this has on an individual surely can be overwhelmingly positive. I personally dislike being bound to an organization, but a lot of the training can improve on you. Like the thing where somebody stares at you and tells you things you don't want to hear - that's excellent! No way to run away from the pain and somebody to serve as an anchor in reality.

I talked to an older friend who had been inside Scientology around the 70s or 80s. He said that it was a great thing back then where people would go in there and take what they want and have great gains. According to him, it has become way too mechanic and unenthusiastic since then. People just follow orders and need to conform instead of actually going in there to profit.

Still, people go in there by free choice and whining about it is a victim attitude I can't tolerate. Yeah, surely they are being manipulated. So what. Life is full of that. Part of the fight is to find your way despite manipulation, not to eliminate it altogether. Imagine seduction were done by signing forms. Oh wait, we're getting there.

(04-03-2015 04:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Their current leader seems to be a psycho.

Indeed. Seen the interview on a TV show of him? Seen Ted Bundy interviews? Their mimics, gestures and body language and precise movements strike me as very similar. For example the way they look down as in submission, then reinstate an intense stare with heightened eyebrows and a submissive head position. Strikes me as very artificial, but maybe that's because I'm not in the situation myself. I haven't further investigated, though.

Post: #31

(04-02-2015 02:00 PM)Lucky Wrote:  -The stuff about Travolta was odd. He seems to be afraid that the church will expose his secrets but it's assumed he's been a repressed homosexual by the public anyway. Doesn't have much to lose in that sense.

If he ever admitted to banging one 17 year old groupie (in certain states) they own him for life. It's highly likely this has happened, and if he was devout, it's highly likely he confessed. And hell, the truth could be way darker, you build up a lot of skeletons over 30 years of secret gay Hollywood sex maniac. And he certainly ain't shy.

Post: #32

Anyone have a link to the torrent or stream? Can't find it.

Post: #33

(04-02-2015 05:18 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  The only reason Scientology is getting all this bad press now is because it effects mostly upper middle class and rich people. If this were a cult focused more on poor people (with the same methods) you wouldn't hear nearly as much complaining. As a recently founded religion Scientology is pretty fascinating. Hubbard was brilliant in the sense that he lifted shit straight from the occult, old school hypnotism, and psychology 101 to mind fuck people. He understood the power of celebrity and how a lot of science fiction fans were socially awkward and easily misdirected into pseudo-scientific belief systems.

Scientology is dangerous if it's completely unchecked and allowed to proliferate into government just like how Islam is pretty dangerous if left unchecked. I agree that it's not more or less dangerous than the mainstream. It seems to actually be more efficient in how it relieves its members of resources and its use of blackmail and subterfuge.

Scientology itself shouldn't bother you because the cat is out of the bag already. What does bother me is what comes after Scientology. The cult got a lot of things right but they made mistakes. Now imagine someone coming up with a more refined version that learns from those mistakes..now that's something to be afraid of.

Mind blown!

Post: #34

(04-03-2015 06:44 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  Anyone have a link to the torrent or stream? Can't find it.

The Church might be working to get them taken down haha.

I got it here, the most popular torrent on piratebay

Post: #35

I just watched this yesterday and agree that it is fascinating and frightening at the same time.

This may sound facetious, but I am serious: could we Black Knight by getting a lot of SJW's to join Scientology? Given the high neuroticism of SJW's and the way scientology first cures - and then creates more - neuroses, and given the extreme time-sink and money-sink requirements of Scientology, isn't the "marriage" between SJWs and Scientologists absolutely perfect for us?

Post: #36

(04-06-2015 12:20 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I just watched this yesterday and agree that it is fascinating and frightening at the same time.

This may sound facetious, but I am serious: could we Black Knight by getting a lot of SJW's to join Scientology? Given the high neuroticism of SJW's and the way scientology first cures - and then creates more - neuroses, and given the extreme time-sink and money-sink requirements of Scientology, isn't the "marriage" between SJWs and Scientologists absolutely perfect for us?

It's scary because there's scary music in the video.

You're missing the greater chance here: Making a red pill version of Scientology.

Post: #37

(04-03-2015 06:43 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  If he ever admitted to banging one 17 year old groupie (in certain states) they own him for life. It's highly likely this has happened, and if he was devout, it's highly likely he confessed. And hell, the truth could be way darker, you build up a lot of skeletons over 30 years of secret gay Hollywood sex maniac. And he certainly ain't shy.

I didn't know John Travolta was a faggot!!!

I swear life is unfair. We have to work for every pussy we get while he can fuck them by the boatload effortlessly, yet chooses instead to be fucked by another man.

I mean fucking unfair .... lol

Post: #38

I just want to echo what others have said about this documentary: fascinating and scary.

Scientology seems like a cult cum real estate empire with a code of omerta rivaling the mafia.

Post: #39

On the bright side, Cruise's new Mission Impossible looks pretty bad ass.

There's a video montage of Tom Cruise running in all of his movies but there also needs to be one of him on a motorcycle.

If he played Stonewall Jackson in a civil war biopic, everyone would be on a horse and Cruise would ride into battle on a Ducati Superleggera.

Post: #40

(04-03-2015 03:18 AM)Lucky Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 09:44 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  Now imagine people had that information about you, all your deepest secrets. Would you have the balls to participate in a documentary knowing that all that information is guaranteed to be made public?

In the documentary Paul Haggis (director of Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Third Person) mentioned that scientology is building websites to tarnish the reputations of former members.

Here is the one scientology built for Paul Haggis:

http://whoispaulhaggis.com/

The Hypocrite of Hollywood

Quote:I was a bad kid. I didn’t kill anybody. Not that I didn’t try.

And so begins the apocryphal autobiography of Paul Haggis, the doughy 58-year-old who’s so arrogant, he actually thought The New Yorker “profile” was actually about him.But then again, he thinks everything is about him.

Quote:Mr. Haggis is a status-obsessed screenwriter who in the words of The Hollywood Reporter has been in “the wilderness” professionally for three years. Mr. Haggis once again is exploiting his tenuous connection with Scientology to grab headlines. His statement that the organization anonymously comments negatively about those who leave the Church is delusional and borders on paranoia.

Another former member they're attacking is Mike Rinder, who was on the board of directors for scientology.

http://whoismichaelrinder.com

Quote:Rinder walked away from his Church, his wife and two children. When Rinder’s wife, daughter and brother, who flew in from Australia, went to see him, Rinder’s “welcome” was an attack that left his brother injured and the mother of his children in the care of paramedics. She sustained nerve damage to her arm still healing almost a year later and a dislocated shoulder requiring surgery to repair.

Then, to show he’s a real family man, he went on a paid anti-Scientology media junket to Australia and tricked his way into his elderly mother’s retirement home while she was away on vacation. He rifled through her belongings, snapping photos as trophies.

This shit is straight out of the National Enquirer. It's actually quite amatuerish; one would think with the money these guys have they'd do better than this.

I just wanted to highlight this part of your post really quick, because I can definitely understand why people here would harbor that line of thinking.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people in America who "read" aren't reading Science or The Smithsonian or RVF...they're reading HuffPo and Gawker and the National Enquirer. Some of the highest paid writers in the world write for National Enquirer, and as far as I can tell based on Wikipedia, only 5 newspapers in the country have higher circulation, and only three of those are national.

Two of the ad writers I admire most (John Carlton and Gary Halbert) swoon over the addictive nature of Enquirer writing. "Don't overestimate the intelligence of your audience" is one of the most important copywriting maxims, and it translates directly into the kind of clickbait, sensationalist filth produced by the above establishments and the church of scientology with those defaming websites on former members.

So when we talk about throwing around money to buy persuasion, that's probably exactly what they did.

Post: #41

(04-20-2015 04:36 AM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  I just wanted to highlight this part of your post really quick, because I can definitely understand why people here would harbor that line of thinking.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people in America who "read" aren't reading Science or The Smithsonian or RVF...they're reading HuffPo and Gawker and the National Enquirer. Some of the highest paid writers in the world write for National Enquirer, and as far as I can tell based on Wikipedia, only 5 newspapers in the country have higher circulation, and only three of those are national.

Two of the ad writers I admire most (John Carlton and Gary Halbert) swoon over the addictive nature of Enquirer writing. "Don't overestimate the intelligence of your audience" is one of the most important copywriting maxims, and it translates directly into the kind of clickbait, sensationalist filth produced by the above establishments and the church of scientology with those defaming websites on former members.

So when we talk about throwing around money to buy persuasion, that's probably exactly what they did.

Fair enough. I often forget how how stupid the general populace can be.

Still, I find it hard to believe the National Enquirer is read by so many.

Where on wikipedia did you find the information on newspaper circulation?

According to the wikipedia page for list of newspapers in the U.S. by circulation the top 5 papers are:

1. WSJ
2. NY Times
3. USA Today
4. LA Times
5. Daily News

Post: #42

(04-20-2015 04:53 AM)Lucky Wrote:  Where on wikipedia did you find the information on newspaper circulation?

According to the wikipedia page for list of newspapers in the U.S. by circulation the top 5 papers are:

1. WSJ
2. NY Times
3. USA Today
4. LA Times
5. Daily News

How many owned by the same 5 corporations who are getting their marching orders from the same sources and string-pullers behind the scenes?

Is it 100% of them or just 99,9% - in any case it's a full propaganda machine anyway.

Post: #43

Sorry I forgot to give the link, those are correct. It doesn't include the Enquirer, but I also saw that its current circulation is just over 500,000, but down from 3/4 of a million from just a few years ago.

Seeing those scientology sites just reminded me of the headline "Preacher Explodes On Pulpit!"

Edit: OK, looks like it's actually down even more. This is for 2013, and I suspect a lot of its readers are simply moving online to our favorite web "journalists."

http://auditedmedia.com/news/blog/2013/a...-2013.aspx

Looks like its peak circulation was in 1978 at 5.7 million! Well, those readers didn't just disappear. They're online now.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...l-Enquirer

Post: #44

Remember when The National Enquirer broke John Edwards' extramarital affair and the mainstream media refused to investigate or report on it?