The Damn! Show: From the creators of MTV's Stankervision

Does anyone have a hidden camera?
does anyone wanna go fuck with scientologists at their cult compound in Dunwoody?

We used to drive by there all the time yelling stuff like "Xenu lives motherfuckers!"

We could send Yucko.

2/10/08

a lot of *chan message boards look to be planning some hooliganism on that date

Maddy: Scientology may be more interested in aiming celebrities but they go after the ordinary people too: anyone desperate/naive enough to buy into their pseudo-"self improvement" courses (most of the time to cure a "condition" that was miraculously detected by Scientology on your first auditing - just a few days before you commit suicide! How convenient!) is the perfect target. Dissemination between the common population is very important; besides, part of the logic behind recruiting celebrities is expecting that their fans follow them into the cult. So, you see, no one's really safe, not if you don't think critically and do your research before allowing yourself to be sucked into what is already well-documented to be a brainwashing cult.
Second thing is, most critics' beef with Scientology is not the belief system, ergo, the "dogma": people are free to believe that Mary was a virgin, that Xenu offed millions of aliens in our planet, that the moon is made of cheese for all we care; what is really worth concerning is the scam they pull on people to get them to give them all their money and some more, their unethical tactics on getting and keeping followers not to mention the massive smear and scare tactics they use on critics, the fact that they have driven people to obliteration and death with these procedures - the corruption behind the organization that is Scientology, if you must.

"I think people (mass population) do have a problem with the actual beliefs of scientologists."

Of course believing in little green aliens and the whole Xenu tale is, for the nowadays receiver, relatively "educated" in science fiction, sounds more ludicrous than the already well-established myth of Mary's virginity or whatever story any religion preaches to its members. It's not random that CoS had originally intended the OT3 story to be known only to Scientologists who had already undergone a lot of brainwashing, even claiming the story to be "toxic" for the "unprepared soul" (the implant each and every one of us allegedly has is supposed to release a deadly toxin killing you in case you came to know the story before you were ready). I have no doubt that many Scientologists would never become affiliated with the cult if they knew this story beforehand and many have been reported to have a downfall without after learning it. What I'm really trying to say is that Scientology critics will frequently rely on the general uncanyness of the story to expose Scientology's true colors, but sticking to it as an argument is clearly insufficient as to prove to you that it is not a real religion nor an organization you're 100% safe dealing with - that's why they move on to the facts, to the crimes the cult has committed in the past, to the smear tactics, to the cover-up ops, to the totalitary and restrainful of free will system they try to pass as religion for the highest profit. As for the christian dogmas that you refer to, I can do nothing but speculate about its strenght in the nowadays world as I'm not qualified to give any other kind of opinion about those. I can only say that most of the rational religious people will recognize that these stories don't hold themselves up very much, and that they are only believable from a point of view entirely originary on faith; meaning that they rationally know that they're probably aren't true, or metaphors at the very best, but they are incapable of discussing or criticizing it because it's part of a story they believe in for altogether different reasons. The fact that they believe, or else, they chose not to criticize these dogmas, is irrelevant for their relationship with other people, so it shouldn't come up in a discussion concerning the practical effects of a cult over people's lives and relationships with each other, especially those people who do not follow nor believe Scientology but are constantly restrained on their free speech by the organization.

"No where in the recent Cruise video was money mentioned."

But of course not! Basic advertising tactics: money is only mentioned after they have identified your "problem", the one only Scientology can fix in return for a significant fee. Mentioning money to people you're trying to doctrinate first hand, especially with the nasty reputation Scientology has grown to have mostly thanks to the internet, wouldn't help on keeping their attention and would only render them more suspicious.

"The big uproar is about his arrogance and weirdness. He knows what's best and you don't."

That'd be the general media, dying to have a justification to launch another cover article featuring a bumbling high profie celebrity under the caption "Tom Cruise is Kooky!" and the mass receiver for this kind of press, who shakes their heads and goes, "they're right, he's such a nutjob and Scientology's such a scam" and go about their business. Incidentally, they are right - they may not be close to understand just how right they are, though, because if they did they would drop the Xenu story from the main listing of arguments about Scientology. Dismissing Scientology over that story, I daresay, grazes religious intolerance - and as tolerant, yet rational people, Scientology critics have learned to avoid it. Sure, it's riddiculous; but so are the stories that are on the bases of many belief systems around the world, and we're not discussing that. We're discussing the damages that following a cult - because that's what it is, not a religion, but a cult - like CoS brings upon you, and the importance of thinking things through before diving head-first into them - gathering info, thinking critically about the facts you're given... if the Xenu story is used, sometimes, by Scientology critics, as to convince people to be suspicious of Scientology, it's mainly because without a good slapstick piece of "evidence", people would never bothering looking up. It's mainly to catch one's attention. Is it wrong? Perhaps, depending on whether you think that the goals justify the means - they generally don't, in my opinion. Just keep in mind that Scientology appears to be, in the first contact with a potential follower, very appealing in a purely personal, egotistical level - self-realization! The way to happiness! The solution to all your problems! People tend to underthink when confronted with these kinds of shiny offers. Maybe I'm too skeptical about the human kind, but it has proven itself to be a fact in most occurrences - not to mention that when this kind of promises kick in, you're meant to be in such a fragile emotional state (partly caused by the "results" of your personality test - it's sometimes also the reason why Scientology comes after you, in support groups, rehabs, shelters, etc., posing as the good will bringer in order to get vulnerable people to buy more easily into their stories) that you hardly can say no.

"Scamming people through religion has happened for how many decades?(...)"

You cannot possibly compare what went on 500 years ago, or even 100 years ago, to what goes on now, as far as religion is concerned. It's a totally different context, at least for most of the world - the generalization of information, for one, is crucial but not also: these times in history were marked for revolving around the undeniable dogmas that ran society, politics, every area of human life and not only the realms of spirituality. This is no longer the case, as limits to religious activity are included in the fundamental law of the countries of the free world, as well as it's recognized religious freedom. Of course, deviations from the bases of religion still happen today - we call it fundamentalism, and it's widely regarded as something we should fight. Fundamentalism is not only about people blowing themselves up in bus stops, but also tricking people into making them think they're going to hell if they happen to be gay and that they are natural-born sinners whose only chance for salvation is to finance the church is downright wrong and practices that cannot be supported by belief systems that advertise love, peace, tolerance. I think those are cultural inheritances from the totalitary system the church used to be - then, yes, mainly concerned with world domination and cashing in as much as it couldn - but its mold was broken by the growing civil awareness that happened throughout the centuries. People are now able to be good Christians, Muslims or whatever religion they want to follow even in extreme poverty, and without an obligation of giving the Church any of their money; this doesn't happen with Scientology, in which you're just a good follower if you contribute significantly to the cult's finances. Sure, there are people that live by Scientology's spiritual beliefs of self-improvement and denial of psychiatry and whatnot without consequently buying courses to move up in the rank - those people are called "squirrels" and looked upon by most Scientologists, especially the highest ranking, as outsiders to the faith and lesser followers that those that pay for the courses. Which brings me to say that Cruise's claim that "people can follow Scientology and remain faithful to their old religion" is, if anything, hypocrite.

"There was a little church close to where I live, now its a mega church. What the fuck? Where did all that money come from? What are people paying for if not for salvation."

The difference is, Christianity (I'm assuming that the church you're referring to is a Christian temple) does not persecute, intimidate, defamate or force people into giving them the money. One less than upright minister might, but this is a personal stand; it cannot reflect itself over the whole belief system. Inversely, this is what Scientology does: it is documented in scriptures regarded by followers as the fundamental truth that it's alright to procede in these criminal ways when dealing with people believed to be supressive for the cult - it's called the "fair-game policy", if I'm not mistaken. People are free to pay for salvation if they think it's the best thing to do and if they're not forced or scammed to do so, which includes Scientologists; it's with the situations of persecutions, legal harassment and smear tactics that most critics have problems with.

"An AA meeting suckers these poor drunks in by telling them to give over their power to god."

See, this is wrong. It's an example of one of the tactics Scientology uses to gather followers and a clear deviation from what religion itself claims to be. The exception, however, shouldn't be made rule.
Another explanation for it is that faith may cause people with severe problems to overcome them by believing that they're being helped by a superior force - this is, as far as I can see, the most abonatory argument anybody can come up for faith; they help people overcome hard times. Sometimes God may not even be the bearded man that sent Jesus to the world but some kind of superious, disembodied force that rules people's lives in a purely spiritual way... I realize this is a stretch, though. Besides, were these people tricked into giving their money to the cause? If not, this situation hardly applies.

"I don't see alot of difference between one religion and the next. When they start asking for money, you should run."/"Personally, I would like to see most religions shunned."

This is where I started thinking that you were deviating from the main subject of discussion, which is Scientology, and where I'd be forced to underline that Scientology is not a religion but a cult. But as your line of argumentation seems to be that religion equals cult, I'll go along with it: I'll come right out and identify myself as an agnostician and someone who is by rule suspicious of any religion. I just can't think that I can have a rationally based discussion with someone who keeps quoting a relative truth as an absolute one to justify their opinions with. That is my personal case, however, and the (absolute) truth is, whether you and I like it or not, that people have a right to have faith in whathever they want. More than a right, it's a basic human necessity to believe that we, as mortal beings, are in the hands of something more powerful, that transcends us and looks after us in life and, what's more scary as a concept for the minds of humans, death. What I'm really not for are the organizations that explore people's fears and beliefs for self profit. This structure has little to do with the actual faith - I like to call it the "church" component of religion, opposing to faith, which is intrasubjective. This "church" component is the one trying to mold your life and your action in a way that's befitting to its goals, the one that creates elites and is not ashamed of parading its hypocrisy, for example, in advertising poverty as a form of virtue and then covering themselves with riches. This component, mostly thanks to general awareness, has became mainly "a thing of the past"; abuses still go on, of course, but these are individual situations that no longer reflect the general MO of the religion.

"I just don't think that a prank at a scientology retreat, compound, whatever is a good idea."

That is obviously childish, but an altogether valid way of expressing oneself, seeing that it can be harmless and that it tickles Scientology's sensibilities.

"You always pay up when it comes to religion."

Again, in real religions, you're not forced or harassed to; you do because you believe that the belief system you support could use your help, you pay as much as you want or can and if at the end you decide that you can't or you won't pay nobody's going to force you to do it anyway. This is not the case with Scientology.
I apologize for the equally long, if not longer, rant; I guess that there's something about this matter that really speaks to me. I also apologize for the occasional mistake in my English, as I'm not a native english speaker; nevertheless, I hope I was clear enough to be understood, if not completely grammatically correct. :)

Co$ has also been known to hold tapes of auditing sessions indefinately as blackmail

do a video about L. Ron next. that will really piss them off.

Join Anonymous in an act of solidarity in protest against the CoS on March 15th. The Dunwoody compound is the gathering for those in GA. Join us in protest or drive by and show your support. Operation "Party Hard" celebrating Ron "The Con Man" Hubbard's bday.