Ever heard of Scientology? If you watch television or even listen to the news the chances are you have. If you're reading this in America, unlucky, its classed as a religion there. Something which affords it far more credibility than it should probably have. Here, however, it has been refused such status thankfully. Sure, there are tons of issues with religions, but there's a limit and that limit is Scientology. Its whole appearance and set up is so rich in absurdity and sheer insanity, that even the word brings a suppressed giggle from nowhere.
It is a fairly sinister organisation, it harasses critics, preys on the vulnerable and is rather more like a profitable franchise. It even charges for its key texts- something not even a hard up church would do, well you can get beefed up Bibles for a price but most are given free. But I am not bothered about these aspects, it is unpleasant but not very dangerous- ask Joe public and they will think it as credible as the OJ Simpson defence. I want to look at the vast amounts of comedy it provides me with. Calling it a cult annoys me though, we expect such crazy ideas from cults, so let call it an organisation to amplify the humour shall we?
Firstly, let us look at who it has representing it in the public eye. The most famous is Tom Cruise. This is like the Church of England asking Borat to be their figure head. Hilarity is bound to ensue. And it did. He filmed a video about Scientology in which he stated amongst much tautologous crap, 'I won't hesitate to put ethics into someone else because I put it ruthlessly in on myself'. Oh, and did you know that Scientology is the authority on drug and criminal rehab? With Criminon and Narconon, now don't they sound like nice, safe rehab programs? Maybe Amy Winehouse should hook up with Tom. I don't know about Amy but Tom's got to be on crack.
I would like to share an experience I once has with a dear friend regarding Scientology. We were in town and had about 5 hours to waste. So we decided to go for a free 'personality test' they were offering. We of course went in under aliases. I chose a rather ordinary name whilst my dear friend thought she would go in as Regina Spector, a irony lost wasted on our testers. Thinking it would be a quick ten minute bout of suppressed laughter, we sat down in the reception area. Soon a rather large sheet with about 200 tick box questions was brought to us. Shit, we both thought simultaneously, this discrete mockery was going to take a little longer than expected. We began seriously answering the questions, up to around 15 and then went on a super speed ticking race.
Having realised, we had answered 200 deep, introspective questions in under 5 minutes, the woman with a permanent smile came over and took our results to go and be analysed. We were each given a book to muse over whilst we waited for out consultation on how toxic we were. This time, however, was used to run through our story and fake addresses . Again, the irony of No. 12 Existential Road seemed lost on them. Now our mockery became how far we could push the boundaries of absurdity. Seeing as they deal in this commodity already, we must have seemed like amateurs in comparison. After much waiting, I was the first to be taken to a consultation booth. I was lead there by a man who had clearly been a car salesman in his past. A suit that left much to be desired and an ill fitted shirt flagged up the fact that the drug addicts he exploited in this area weren't particularly lucrative.
Appearances aside, he told me that overall I get nervous, can be fairly happy too and predicted that I was someone who engaged in the act of breathing on a very regular basis. What revelations I thought to myself. However, I had told my accomplice that I was going to play two personalities. One mumbling and insecure one and one coherent confident one. I began by uming and erring and using completely inappropriate adjectives, apparently my life was very 'mauve' and I can find social situations 'pulsating' and 'salty'. Then half way through one of the many confused sentences I confessed, as lucidly and swiftly as possible, that socialising was very agreeable and that life was good. To say he looked confused is an understatement. But he was damned if he was going to lose a sale, oops- I mean the chance to enlighten. Eventually, the consultation finished with not one fact being mentioned the entire time. But then fact and Scientology are not particularly chummy.
Pretty soon I found myself talking to the woman with the permanent smile, whilst by friend was in a booth whilst the curious man told her that she is female and probably uses her legs to walk. And that because he knows such intimate and powerful information, she should buy his books and posters about people with permanent smiles. Anyway, I sat there as the woman with a permanent smile pointed out flaws in the theory of evolution. Apparently, because 'she feels like a spiritual being, adaptation and evolution just don't seem plausible'. Well, if that's not conclusive proof I don't know what is!
I've come to a little conclusion of my own. I think the secret is all in the permanent smile. My theory is that, once a full member, they tell you that Scientology was actually set up as a practical joke but as it proves to be lucrative and few have caught on, they're just continuing with it. Like becoming a millionaire for using a Whoopy Cushion. The only way they can hold the years on held back laughter, is by steadily releasing it through smiles. Even Tom Cruise is subject to the occasional unstoppable bout of laughter. Who couldn't?
Like the Monster Raving Looney Party, I reckon Scientology is almost slap stick satire. Its a shame reporters and drug addicts are the victims of their practical joke. Still everyone likes a laugh. If you need proof, just go on their websites, you'll encounter a big toothy grin within a few seconds. Cherie Blair would be jealous.
So here's to Scientology! The most amusing cultural faux-pas since witch hunts.
26.1.08
10.1.08
Beggars can't be choosers. They can't have mansions or morals.
Today Britain and much of western society is hailed as a free, liberal and opportunity filled land of promise. There has never been such good access to education, training and advice. So naturally there should be a cornucopia of choice and power over your own life. In such a setting then, we would think that people could easily adhere to and uphold admirable moral and ethical lifestyles. A stable and lawful country should be a haven of ethical citizens. But I would argue there is another hugely important factor that allows people to act morally, that is wealth. Think about it for a moment, go back in history, who is it working in the whore houses or pickpocketing? Its those at the bottom of society, the impoverished and hapless.
In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.
Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?
I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.
A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.
So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.
It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.
In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.
Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?
I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.
A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.
So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.
It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.
4.1.08
Steal This Movie? No thanks.
I was talking to my dearest cousin and she was telling me all about www.stealthisfilm.com and how she agrees with their philosophy. That is their philosophy that current copyright laws are wrong and that 'file sharing' copyrighted files should not be prevented, they then claim this comes into the arena of free speech and freedoms afforded to you as a human being.
All these issues are based around a raid made upon a basement where servers, being used to host a file sharing website, were being kept. To cut a long story short- the website didn't exactly break the law and American companies pulled some strings to get action from the police in Sweden where the website was being hosted. The American film industry ended up being able to do nothing to shut the website down. All the while, the Swedish people hosting the website cried injustice as the police tore through their basement.
I suggest you go watch the film and read the website.
I'm sure many of us have downloaded movies and music from file sharing sources. And I think most of us aren't in any doubt that it is a form of stealing, thus illegal. We know its wrong, it doesn't do that much harm- the music industry is still alive let's face it. But the chances of getting caught are extremely slim and everyone does it so we feel fairly guilt free and safe in doing it. However, its not this that annoys me greatly, its when people claim they are entitled to download copyright, that the media industry is evil for making examples of innocent file sharers and that they are upholding human rights and freedom of information through their actions.
To put it plainly, they are choosing to get music and video from peer to peer networks because its free and requires a lot less effort than going out to buy CDs or get a job to pay for legally downloaded music. In the spirit of being outspoken let me just say this- I don't care what a bunch of greasy, ethnic-peace bicycle-riding, jobless hippies have to say. Its just annoying that they decide to get all self righteous, when really they're just being cheapskates. Be cheapskates by all means, but don't get preachy and try to justify theft, whilst hiding behind differences in international laws. Then you're not so much of a hippy, but a prick.
The industries are complaining because, quite simply, every time someone illegally downloads a music track or film, they lose out financially. That's profit from the fruit of their labours that people are simply taking for free. It might not put them out of business, but if people stole 10% of a greengrocers produce, you can imagine he would get pretty pissed. And quite right too, theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up or whether you get caught. Its not so much a case of 'save the dying media industry' but 'don't complain when they try to stop people stealing from them'. Don't moralise and try to say you did it for the good of the people, you didn't and if you thought you were then you are rather simple.
The film claims that the media industry kicked up a fuss when video recorders were introduced, saying the video recorders would destroy them. It didn't. The industry adapted and eventually made money by selling cassette and video tapes. But this isn't a logical justification for stealing, no matter how you phrase it.
They are well within their rights to prevent stealing through legal and technological means. Nowadays many DVD recorders detect and stop recording copyright material. Its very annoying but fair play, they used the law and technology to stay one step ahead of the game. So now when the hippies tell the industry 'tough luck if we steal, you have to adapt' the industry can smile politely and walk away. Whilst listening for the angry shouts from the living room as someone tries to record Pirates of the Caribbean onto DVD. Its not really that fair that the industry has to adapt because it can't rely on the law to prevent theft. But then life's not fair.
I don't think file sharing illegally will ever really go away completely. People will always try to get something for free, easily. And that's just what illegal downloading is. It takes a fair amount of money away from the industry but, for the moment at least, the industry is doing fine. It is also legally and for most, morally wrong. However, we aren't stabbing someone or setting fire to a pile of newborn kittens and puppies when we download copyright, it is a comparatively minor offence. But the next time Madonna's latest track is illegally downloading to your ipod, don't think of yourself as doing your bit for the freedom of speech or human rights- you're just cutting costs. Its like going around stabbing arthritic pensioners, claiming you're doing your bit for compassionate euthanasia. You're not!
All these issues are based around a raid made upon a basement where servers, being used to host a file sharing website, were being kept. To cut a long story short- the website didn't exactly break the law and American companies pulled some strings to get action from the police in Sweden where the website was being hosted. The American film industry ended up being able to do nothing to shut the website down. All the while, the Swedish people hosting the website cried injustice as the police tore through their basement.
I suggest you go watch the film and read the website.
I'm sure many of us have downloaded movies and music from file sharing sources. And I think most of us aren't in any doubt that it is a form of stealing, thus illegal. We know its wrong, it doesn't do that much harm- the music industry is still alive let's face it. But the chances of getting caught are extremely slim and everyone does it so we feel fairly guilt free and safe in doing it. However, its not this that annoys me greatly, its when people claim they are entitled to download copyright, that the media industry is evil for making examples of innocent file sharers and that they are upholding human rights and freedom of information through their actions.
To put it plainly, they are choosing to get music and video from peer to peer networks because its free and requires a lot less effort than going out to buy CDs or get a job to pay for legally downloaded music. In the spirit of being outspoken let me just say this- I don't care what a bunch of greasy, ethnic-peace bicycle-riding, jobless hippies have to say. Its just annoying that they decide to get all self righteous, when really they're just being cheapskates. Be cheapskates by all means, but don't get preachy and try to justify theft, whilst hiding behind differences in international laws. Then you're not so much of a hippy, but a prick.
The industries are complaining because, quite simply, every time someone illegally downloads a music track or film, they lose out financially. That's profit from the fruit of their labours that people are simply taking for free. It might not put them out of business, but if people stole 10% of a greengrocers produce, you can imagine he would get pretty pissed. And quite right too, theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up or whether you get caught. Its not so much a case of 'save the dying media industry' but 'don't complain when they try to stop people stealing from them'. Don't moralise and try to say you did it for the good of the people, you didn't and if you thought you were then you are rather simple.
The film claims that the media industry kicked up a fuss when video recorders were introduced, saying the video recorders would destroy them. It didn't. The industry adapted and eventually made money by selling cassette and video tapes. But this isn't a logical justification for stealing, no matter how you phrase it.
They are well within their rights to prevent stealing through legal and technological means. Nowadays many DVD recorders detect and stop recording copyright material. Its very annoying but fair play, they used the law and technology to stay one step ahead of the game. So now when the hippies tell the industry 'tough luck if we steal, you have to adapt' the industry can smile politely and walk away. Whilst listening for the angry shouts from the living room as someone tries to record Pirates of the Caribbean onto DVD. Its not really that fair that the industry has to adapt because it can't rely on the law to prevent theft. But then life's not fair.
I don't think file sharing illegally will ever really go away completely. People will always try to get something for free, easily. And that's just what illegal downloading is. It takes a fair amount of money away from the industry but, for the moment at least, the industry is doing fine. It is also legally and for most, morally wrong. However, we aren't stabbing someone or setting fire to a pile of newborn kittens and puppies when we download copyright, it is a comparatively minor offence. But the next time Madonna's latest track is illegally downloading to your ipod, don't think of yourself as doing your bit for the freedom of speech or human rights- you're just cutting costs. Its like going around stabbing arthritic pensioners, claiming you're doing your bit for compassionate euthanasia. You're not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)