Druginformer Peter Brych wrote a letter to the Government Office of Sweden , in wich he questioned and warned about Co$ and its frontgroup Narconons activities. He informed the office that Narconon had infiltrated other (true non-profit ) anti -drug groups in Sweden and that Narconon offered lectures about drugaddiction to schools for a charge of approx. 300$. Answer from the office of the Swedish Government ( my translation) qoute:
Best regards Peter,
On behalf of primeminister, Goran Persson I thank You for your e-mails concerning religious movements and the Church of Scientology in Sweden. I have been told to give You an answer. Your emails have been read and registered in the office diary.
In Sweden we have freedom of religion and free speech. This means that people has the right to think and believe as well as publish whatever opinion and belives they have. This also applies to members and spokespersons from the Church of Scientology in Sweden. In Sweden we have a right to meet and practise our faith within the boundaries of contemperary law.
The Government wishes to forward organisations and "churches" that promotes dialogue,multitude,democracy and equality. A demand on all organisations and "churches" granted governmental subsidaries (economic) are therefore that they share the basic values our society rests upon. The Church of Scientology applied last year (2005) to be entitled to such governmental grants given to churches and non-profit organisations. The Swedish government has after a collected evaluation come to the conclusion that the Church of Scientology do not meet the demands of contributing and strenghtening the common basic values our society rests upon. Their request was therefore denied.
Article In swedish. Qoute:
Brought to you by
The credit shall go to Peter Brych. Peter has been extremely active counteracting Narconon in the press and espescially in his local community Härryda outside Gothenburg. He has managed to get Narconon banned from the local schools as well.
My efforts can be read at:
"Eldon Braun" posted:
Good. And also, make sure all this information goes to your UN Ambassador and other international officials. Remember that the US State Department just got nagged by Tom Cruise (such a diplomat) about Scientology's religious rights in Germany.
It needs to be propogated to other countries in other languages.
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Forget Bob Woodward-It's all about Tom Cruise at Foggy Bottom
Posted by Cam Simpson at 6:05 am CDT
The Associated Press broke big news out of the State Department this week - that former No. 2 Richard Armitage, who is like a brother to former boss Colin Powell, appeared to be the "source" who first outed then-CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson in the CIA leak case.
The AP’s evidence was an Armitage appointment calendar showing a "Private Appointment/Bob Woodward," from 2-3 p.m. on June 13, 2003. But our friends at AP totally missed the real news on Armitage’s calendar that day. One hour after the scheduled close of his Woodward meeting, Armitage had another "Private Appointment." This one was with "Tom Cruise..."
Don’t believe us? Here’s a copy of the appointment calendar.
And, yes, it is the Tom Cruise, as in the guy who is at this moment engaged in a PR battle with Paramount over the souring of their once-lucrative relationship.
Why, you ask, would Armitage be meeting with that Tom Cruise?
It wasn’t about Cruise trying to gain insight for his next Mission Impossible flick from the barrel-chested former commando (some, including author James Mann, have publicly speculated that Armitage worked in the CIA’s controversial Phoenix program, the covert assassination and "disruption" campaign directed against the Viet Cong).
Not surprisingly, given that Cruise requested the meeting, it was all about the Scientology.
Cruise made the pitch for a personal meeting to express his concern about the treatment of Scientologists in Europe after an aide to Armitage apparently tried to pass the actor off to John Hanford, the State Department’s ambassador at large for international religious freedom, according to a letter Cruise wrote to Armitage. The letter is dated about two weeks before the scheduled meeting.
Cruise resisted the brush off, telling Armitage that while a meeting with Hanford would be "helpful," in fact, "I am most interested in speaking with you."
He was trying to enlist Armitage and Powell in Scientology’s battle for legitimacy in Europe under the banner of religious freedom, an issue that Congress requires the State Department to give close scrutiny each year in nations across the globe.
According to his letter, Cruise’s biggest concern seemed to be with Germany, which does not view Scientology as a legitimate faith.
A background paper http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html
maintained on the German embassy’s Website notes that the government "considers the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and an extreme dislike of any criticism. The [German] government is also concerned that the organization's totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany's democratic society."
Scientologists, of course, adamantly reject these claims. Cruise said in his letter to Armitage that he believes German officials exhibit "intolerance" to "members of my religion and other minority religions" inside Germany.
So, for the reading pleasure of all of our loyal Swamp readers, here is a copy of Cruise’s never-before-released letter to Armitage, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act. Enjoy!
On August 26, 2006 "formerlyfooled" posted a link to an Associated Press Video:
Did Cruise Discuss Scientology With State Dept?
Tom Cruise and the head of the Church of Scientology apparently met with undersecretary of state Richard Armitage. The meeting was scheduled three years ago at a time when Cruise was concerned about mistreatment of Scientologists in Europe. (Aug. 25, 2006)
Message ID: 4l912eFsac0U1@individual.net
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paramount Ends Relationship With Tom Cruise's Company
By Merissa Marr
Viacom Inc. Chairman Sumner Redstone said his company's Paramount Pictures is terminating its 14-year relationship with actor Tom Cruise's production company, citing the actor's controversial and sometimes erratic behavior of the past year.
[article requires registration]
On August 22, 2006 tmz.com reported:
Tom Cruise Canned From Paramount
Posted Aug 22nd 2006 6:41PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Movies, Tom and Katie
Tom Cruise has just gotten the heave ho from Paramount Pictures.
Sumner Redstone, chief honcho at Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, has ended the 14-year relationship with Cruise's production company, Cruise/Wagner Productions. According to The Wall Street Journal, Redstone cited Cruise's controversial conduct and behavior over the last year as the reason for the split.
Redstone reportedly believed Cruise's antics -- including his now infamous appearances on "Oprah" and "Today" -- had a negative impact on the bottom line for "Mission Impossible III." Redstone said, "As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal." Redstone told The Wall Street Journal: "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."
Cruise/Wagner produced a string of hits for Paramount, including "Top Gun," "Mission Impossible" and "Days of Thunder."
UPDATE: Paula Wagner, Cruise's producing partner, responded angrily, claiming Redstone's comments were "outrageous and disrespectful." Wagner noted that her collaboration with Cruise has accounted for 15% of Paramount's theatrical revenues over the last decade. Wagner added that she and Cruise broke off negotiations with Paramount within the last few days. Finally, Wagner said her company has raised "a revolving fund of $100 million" from two hedge funds and that they will be making movies in the future.
On August 23, 2006 MSNBC reported:
Paramount cuts ties with Tom Cruise
Sumner Redstone calls Cruise’s recent behavior ‘creative suicide’
Updated: 2:27 p.m. PT Aug 23, 2006
NEW YORK - The latest high-profile Hollywood breakup is between Tom Cruise and his studio.
Sumner Redstone, whose company owns Paramount Pictures, said the studio would sever its 14-year relationship with Cruise’s film production company because "his recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."
"As much as we like him personally," the Viacom Inc. chairman told The Wall Street Journal, "we thought it was wrong to renew his deal."
Cruise’s partner, Paula Wagner, said negotiations on a new contract simply fizzled.
The deal in recent years paid Cruise and Wagner up to $10 million a year to develop films and operate an office on the Paramount lot, the Journal said Wednesday. It was reported that Cruise and the studio had been discussing a less lucrative deal.
The studio had offered the pair $2 million a year, plus a $500,000 discretionary fund during each of the next two years, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. It cited sources with knowledge of the talks who didn’t want to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.
In the past year or so, the usually guarded actor came under intense scrutiny after he jumped up and down on Oprah Winfrey’s couch while proclaiming his love for Katie Holmes, openly advocated Scientology, and criticized Brooke Shields for taking prescription drugs to treat postpartum depression. The religion founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard opposes psychiatry and its medication.
On August 22, 2006 Yahoo News reported:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures unit is ending its 14-year relationship with Tom Cruise's film production company because of the actor's offscreen behavior, the company's chairman said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
On August 23, 2006 The New York Times reported:
Fired or Quit, Tom Cruise Parts Ways With Studio
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and GERALDINE FABRIKANT
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 22 - Citing Tom Cruise’s yearlong metamorphosis from pure box-office phenomenon to pop-culture punch line, Viacom’s chairman, Sumner M. Redstone, said Tuesday that Paramount Pictures was ending its 14-year relationship with the actor’s production company.
Mr. Cruise’s representatives insisted that they had not been fired but instead had quit and had already lined up $100 million in financing to produce movies on their own.
Either way, the parting of the ways was anything but amicable. And it came as the latest sign that the media conglomerates that control Hollywood are growing impatient with the megastars who earn the highest salaries.
Last year, Mr. Cruise seemed to sprout cracks in his megawatt-smile facade: jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey’s couch to declare his love for the actress Katie Holmes; assailing Brooke Shields for taking prescription drugs to treat postpartum depression; and speaking out publicly against psychiatry and for his religion, Scientology.
Mr. Cruise’s third installment of the "Mission: Impossible" series has earned nearly $400 million worldwide and could earn half again that much from DVD sales. But its weak opening weekend in May left Paramount executives believing that the negative attention and mockery of Mr. Cruise had hurt the film. Worse still, Mr. Cruise’s rich chunk of the profits could leave the studio barely breaking even.
After weeks of negotiations to extend a production deal, Mr. Redstone said Tuesday that Paramount had given up.
"As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal," Mr. Redstone told The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the studio’s decision on its Web site. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."
One person who had been briefed by Viacom executives said the studio did not want to renew the contract for a production deal that had been reported to cost as much as $10 million a year. "It was a huge reduction in the size," according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The issue was the cost of his overhead and his executives. All the studios are getting out of these kinds of relationships."
But Paula Wagner, Mr. Cruise’s partner in Cruise-Wagner Productions, said in an interview Tuesday that she and Mr. Cruise had, sometime "in the last few days," told their agents at Creative Artists Agency to inform Paramount that they were terminating the contract talks.
Ms. Wagner said that she and Mr. Cruise had already obtained commitments from two hedge funds, one in New York and one in Los Angeles, for $100 million in revolving credit to make movies, and that they had begun looking for a new distribution deal.
"This is something we’ve dreamt of, to have an independently financed production company, where we can decide the films that we make, from high-concept to more personal pictures," she said. "I think we’re in the forefront of a trend."
As for Mr. Redstone’s allusion to Mr. Cruise’s conduct, Ms. Wagner fired back, "I have no answer for a stupid statement." She speculated that Mr. Redstone was "trying to save face," having learned from Wall Street chatter of Mr. Cruise’s hunt for alternative financing.
A spokesman for Mr. Redstone, Carl Folta, scoffed at Ms. Wagner’s talk of new financial backers. "Did they give you a name?" he said.
About Mr. Cruise, Mr. Folta said, "It’s a business decision, and it’s based on his behavior."
Ms. Wagner said through a spokesman that the hedge funds’ names would be announced soon.
It is still unclear how Mr. Cruise’s agency, Creative Artists, will respond to Paramount’s public slap at one of America’s most visible stars. The agency is the most powerful in Hollywood, and a decade ago a studio would have risked war by publicly denigrating a client like Mr. Cruise.
Rick Nicita, Mr. Cruise’s agent - and Ms. Wagner’s husband - did not respond to a call for comment. A spokesman for Creative Artists did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Eric Weissmann, a Hollywood lawyer since the 1950’s, said that what was most surprising about the Paramount-Cruise split was that the studio could simply have decided not to renew the contract. "They don’t have to give a reason, and to go public is highly unusual," he said. "This is not a way to get Tom Cruise to cut his fee down. This is cutting the ties."
While Paramount’s decision was a shock to the Hollywood status quo, the way in which it was revealed was another sign that movie studios are playing rougher with stars they once coddled, one senior movie studio executive said.
Most recently, ABC canceled a production deal with Mel Gibson’s company for a mini-series about the Holocaust after he made anti-Semitic statements while detained for drunk driving. And the head of Morgan Creek Productions wrote a scathing letter scolding the actress Lindsay Lohan for unruly behavior during a movie shoot; the letter was quickly leaked to the news media.
"I think the press has become the weapon of choice for these people," said the studio executive. "These companies are sick of being pushed around. This is indicative of a huge paradigm shift in the industry in terms of what constitutes a star and how much power a star has."
David M. Halbfinger reported from Los Angeles for this article and Geraldine Fabrikant from New York.Allison Hope Weiner contributed reporting from Los Angeles.
On August 23, 2006 The Washington Post reported:
Paramount Cuts Ties With Cruise Company
By SANDY COHEN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; 10:59 AM
LOS ANGELES -- The latest high-profile Hollywood breakup is between Tom Cruise and his studio. Sumner Redstone, whose company owns Paramount Pictures, said the studio would sever its 14-year relationship with Cruise's film production company because "his recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."
In the past year or so, the usually guarded actor came under intense scrutiny after he jumped up and down on Oprah Winfrey's couch while proclaiming his love for Katie Holmes, openly advocated Scientology, and criticized Brooke Shields for taking prescription drugs to treat postpartum depression. The religion founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard opposes psychiatry and its medication.
"It's nothing to do with his acting ability, he's a terrific actor," Redstone said. "But we don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot."
On August 23 "Mark Ebner" posted:
http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/archives/ebner_cruises_on_canuck_radio_tonight.phtml v Last night, at 8:30pm Calgary time, Ebner went OFF on Tom Cruise, praised South Park and Sumner Redstone and prognosticated on the fading heterosexual superstar's future.
Listen to the mp3 of the show here:
On August 26. 2006 The UK Independent reported:
Mission accomplished: the man who beat Tom Cruise
Sumner Redstone, the mogul behind Paramount, this week terminated his company's contract with Hollywood's once golden boy - and delivered a withering put-down to boot. David Usborne reports on the 'old fart' who took control
It is 20 years since Tom Cruise erupted into our celebrity-obsessed lives with Risky Business and we know him pretty well by now. We have been subjected to every detail of his break-up with Nicole Kidman, his latest marriage to Katie Holmes and the recent arrival of baby Suri, cutely called TomKat by the tabloids. As for the pictures of the baby we still haven't seen, they will emerge soon enough.
Even before last week most of us had heard quite enough about Tom's batty period one year ago when he bounced about on Oprah Winfrey's sofa to declare his love for Ms Holmes and got into spats with journalists about his commitment to Scientology and his scorn for anti-depressants. Now there is the latest saga: his being fired by Paramount, the studio he had been tied to for 14 years.
But this new chapter has two protagonists, Cruise and the man who did the firing, Sumner Redstone. Who is this "old fart" - as one studio executive unkindly (and anonymously) called him last week - who has the power to show the door to one of the industry's most bankable stars and to do it with such absence of grace?
We have this story thanks to a Wall Street Journal reporter who, aware that Paramount and Cruise had been at odds about money, on Tuesday managed to get Redstone on the telephone. Redstone dropped the bomb and it landed within minutes on the Journal's web site and thereafter on front pages the world over. He was breaking his ties with Cruise, he said, and, by the way, it was all the star's fault for acting the fool. "We don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot," he blurted. "As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal. His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."
By anyone's standards, Redstone's remarks were shocking. First, they seemed unnecessarily personal. We now know that talks between Paramount and the production company owned by Cruise and his business partner Paula Wagner, called Cruise/Wagner Productions, had already imploded. Wouldn't it have been better to have left the man who is meant to be running Paramount on Redstone's behalf, Brad Grey, and the chief executive of Viacom itself, Tom Freston, to have arranged a more dignified exit of Cruise at the end of August, when his contract with them was to expire anyway?
The affair has shredded morale at Paramount, after a year when management tumult seemed to have been settling down and executives were celebrating a string of box-office successes.
Nor was it long before the Cruise camp fired back. Ms Wagner called Redstone's words "offensive". More outraged was Cruise's veteran publicity agent, Bert Fields, who preferred "disgusting". "He has lost it completely, or he's been given breathtakingly bad advice," fumed Fields. "That a mogul like Sumner Redstone could make a statement so vicious, so pompous, so petulant ... it tells you more about Sumner Redstone and Viacom than about Tom Cruise."
In short, Paramount had been paying Cruise/Wagner almost $10m a year for the privilege of getting first dibs on all their projects. But the arrangement was more expensive than that. Cruise was not demanding traditional acting fees for the films he appeared in, but insisted on taking a cut first of the box-office receipts of each film and of DVD sales. The terms with Paramount were so generous that, after the relatively disappointing performance of the most recent Mission: Impossible film, the studio discovered it was left with less profit than Cruise, who instantly took 25 per cent of the gross ticket sales, roughly $75m.
Redstone is a man who never ignores Wall Street. In his mind there was no longer any persuading investors that the torrents of cash going Cruise's way were justifiable. To try to trim its costs, therefore, Paramount insisted that the annual fee paid to Cruise/Wagner be slashed to $2.5m. Cruise said no and negotiations broke down.
If it was money that was bothering Redstone, why didn't he just say so, instead of impugning Cruise's character publicly? The answer is the same - because that was about money. There is no question that Cruise's strange behaviour has been a public relations disaster for him. As The New York Times put it, he has somehow managed to "morph into something no movie star can afford to be: a guy you wouldn't want to know". That translates into lower tickets sales. Redstone believes that, were it not for Cruise's antics, Mission: Impossible III, released in May, would have made $100m to $150m more than it did. Even for Redstone that is a lot of change to lose, so he did what he does always, he protected his business."
"formerlyfooled" posted a link to an Associated Press Video:
"Erratic Behavior Hurts Cruise, Say Insiders"
Hollywood experts say the star's bizarre behavior is the dominating factor in the collapse of his relationship with Paramount. (Aug 23, 2006)
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" posted:
From "I'll eat placenta"...
to, as ITN put it, "Tom Thumbed":
or, inside the US, still big news:
"Michael Pattinson" wrote:
Tom Cruise was dropped from Paramount's contract renewal.
POP !! .....goes DMs power balloon/bubble.
[Who TC and Co. will blame for his Paramount contract failure]
(you saw it here first)
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: kQMGg.email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: e2OGg.102$wR3.firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Six intrepid suppressives, four veterans - John, Hartley, Tony and myself - and two new protesters - new guy 1 and new guy 2, braved the English summer and protested outside one of the shops in London of the criminal cult known as the "church" spit of $cientology. The weather held out (just to cut down on the suspense).
We picketed in front of the current bOrg in Whitfield street which is at the back away from the shopping street of Tottenham Court Rd where the clams have lived for quite some time. Two policepeople were on site from the beginning, in addition to two vans full of London Transport Police (two doors down on Whitfield Street). A transport police person was most curious, but on of "our" police people informed him that we were OK to protest. A local resident expressed no love for the clams but would like us to shut up. We - and our police person - informed him that we would leave when we wre good and ready, but we turned down the boombox (Whitfield is very, very, quiet anyway, so we don't need full blast :-) ).
We did see some half dozen staff members and three - four clams which were probably students. Two or three clams came out to take pictures at various times, but not the usual DSA. One clamette was left to be ready to leaflet any passing foot traffic. There was hardly any foot traffic, and we did not have a stellar day, leaflet-handing-out-stat wise.
The clams presumably routed the other four - six people ( ;-) ) who were in and out of the org through the Tottentham Court Rd entrance (entrance to the yard, disguised as a shop-front and through to the back of Whitfield street).
Other than the clams really not liking us being there (and informing the police about this at length), Whitfield street is not an ideal pickting location. John tuned the shpiel to be more for the benefit of the clams thatn for random passers-by, so we had some readings from the alien-infested space opera madness of "A History of Man" and we told them again and again that they can just walk out (how could they get worse off) and that any "freeloader debt" was not enforcable anywhere. Repeated request to be told where Marty Rathbun had gone went unanswered :-(
After some hour and a half, we called it quits and retired to a nearby hostelry for some well earned refreshments.
A grand day out was had by all.
 She was limping time before last, but not last time. I hope she's OK.
[pictures and other picket reports]
"Keith Henson" wrote:
I don't do this often enough, but I sincerely appreciate every picket anyone does.
I think we are past influencing the public. Thanks to Tom Cruise and South Park (to name only two) they already know scientology is bad news.
While handing out flyers to the public is still useful, I think the main thrust of picketing should be to let the ones inside know there are people concerned about them on the outside and where to go for help getting out.
"Hartley Patterson" wrote:
Not only was Jens dead agented here, but a less than coherent UK clam dead agented David Gerrard on OCMB. David, well known Australian critic now living in London, wasn't even at the picket and doesn't read OCMB!
A more than clueless person actually, since he also said unpleasant things about Bonnie Woods. The English courts take a dim view of repeat libelling. Got that OSA? I'd suggest you tell OSA(UK) to read up on the real facts about Bonnie Woods (not Graeme Wilson's bullshit).
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org
How Scientology Celebrity Centers Deceive Their Members:
Artists, performers, musicians, businessowners or executives and other "Opinion Leaders" who can have an influence in their field, along with others who are associated with them, make up the typical clientele of The 'Church of Scientology's Celebrity Centers.
These people are flattered, courted and sold a bill of HOPE, at escalating and eventual exorbitant cost, which is supposed to help them 'spiritually' make better strides in their 'special' endeavors as well as in life in general.
It isn't just the handful of well known celebrities you read about that attend these centers for training and 'spiritual counseling'. There have been and will, unfortunately, continue to be many up and coming talented people who are lured in by the HOPE of success not yet attained. What becomes of the majority of them? Well, they spend thousands of dollars and hours doing classes and such and yet their careers never seem to go where their obvious talent should be taking them. They become excellent word processors, waiters/waitresses, temp agency regulars and sales people of the latest multilevel marketing products so that they can keep buying more scientology services and be able to support themselves.
You see, money and 'production' statistics become the primary emphasis for the 'registrar' and the source of pressure for the artist. And if the 'artists' have 'connections' , well Celebrity Center just moves right on in and pressures the not-yet-celebrity to bring the 'connections' in so a services sale can be had. The 'reward' for the not-yet-celebrity (or in the case of a celebrity bringing in friends) is a commission on the sale. But for the up and coming talent, The HOPE gets lost in all this pressure to supply what Celebrity Center's demand. It's 'bring in money', sign up for a service' 'bring in a friend or family member or associate' we'll train you on how to do it and reward you for it' and such that becomes the priority. This is then where the wasting of genuine talent occurs.
What is worse is that most are treated as second class citizens to the big celebrities.
What these people, not-yet-celebrities and celebrities alike, do not know is that they are being used. Out right used. Hubbard's staff policy is very explicit that celebrities are to be used for all they can provide to help spread the word about Dianetics and Scientology.
Big celebrities, like John Travolta for instance, are not immune from this process. Years ago he nearly left the church for good,partially because he was never paid certain commissions he's earned for bringing in some of his family members ( who never stayed with the church long enough to join anyway).
There is only one John Travolta and one Tom Cruise but there are thousands of others who never received the pampered care and attention to career detail given such big "celeb's", as they call them. Yet they gave all that they had, financially and enthusiastically, and grew older with daunted dreams and fractured lives.
You don't hear about them, only the big names. Exactly how Celebrity Center wants it to be.
Celebrity Center's purpose is to use their members:
As cash cows whenever they can. As a commodity for bringing in new members to Celebrity Centers and it's other centers. As promoters of the church doctrine to perpetuate the false idea that the cult is a 'religion'. As spokespersons to promote activitieswhich make the church look like it a charity.
I could list name after name of those who came, gave all and either left the cult with broiken spirit or stayed and struggle to keep the focus on their career dreams. I will compile what I know, which is limited to years before 1995, in another post when I have time but it's no secret, really, that Celebrity Center's have betrayed their members.It's just that no one wants to get harassed talking about it.
For more information read this excellent article:
WorldWide Religious News (WWRN)
Europe - UK/Ireland - Scientology
"Lure of the celebrity sect"
("The Observer," May 16, 2004)
". . . . But what is irrefutable is that Scientology has powerful friends who give it global influence. Each year it holds a celebrity gala for the likes of Tom Cruise and John Travolta, which is attended by thousands and makes for great PR. Other celebrity followers include the actress Juliette Lewis and Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson." . . . .
"Scientologists believe that celebrities wield enormous influence because they are copied by their fans. 'A culture is only as great as its dreams and its dreams are dreamed by artists,' runs one Scientology maxim. " . . . .
"As a best-selling pulp fiction writer once noted: 'If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.' The writer? L Ron Hubbard."
"Michael Pattinson" wrote:
Yes, indeed, I can confirm what you wrote here as true.
I was one of the ones sold a bill of HOPE and betrayed by Scientology.
"Out of the Dark" posted:
All you Celebrity Center attendees, pay close attention to this:
"Tom Cruise and Paramount Pictures have ended their 14-year professional relationship, with the studio blaming Cruise's recent controversial behavior for the split.
Sumner Redstone, chairman of Paramount Pictures parent company Viacom, told the Wall Street Journal Tuesday that the studio would not renew its contract with Cruise's Cruise/Wagner Productions.
"It's nothing to do with his acting ability, he's a terrific actor," Redstone said. "But we don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot." "
Message ID: email@example.com
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
The citizens of Leona Valley really don't want Narconon setting up shop in their small town. Some of them produced a 163 page briefing book detailing all the reasons why this would be bad for the community. It's really an amazing piece of work. See it here:
http://Stop-Narconon.org/LeonaValley/briefing-book.pdf [pdf file]
Warning: this is a 74 MB pdf file. People with slow dialup connections may want to wait for the condensed version.
No wonder Narconon/Scientology hates the Internet.
-- Dave Touretzky: "This is your town on Narconon."
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
This is a good thing and the right time. It just takes a quick letter.
RE: REVOKE SCIENTOLOGY STUDY TAX EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
I am strongly in favor of religious tolerance and want to see equity with religions in the tax system. It has come to my attention that the Church of Scientology parishioners get an unfair advantage in being allowed to deduct Scientology study courses. No other religion has that benefit. It should be corrected to increase the IRS income in this time of need for war. Scientology parishioners should have to pay tax for their study.
Michael and Marla Sklar fought for tax exemption for their child's religious study in Tax Court (T.C. Memo. 2000-118) and the Ninth Circuit (283 F.3d 610) and lost. Judge Silverman of the Ninth Circuit in California noted: "Why is Scientology training different from all other religious training? We should decline the invitation to answer that question. The sole issue before us is whether the Sklars' claimed deduction is valid, not whether members of the Church of Scientology have become the IRS's chosen people....[U]nder both the tax code and Supreme Court precedent, the Sklars are not entitled to the charitable deduction they claimed. ... If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology -- allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else -- then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to stop to that policy. The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper deduction, too."
Please correct this matter for democracy. It will show other religions that there is fair treatment when all religions are held to the same standard.
You can send to the following:
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242-1198
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20224-0001
Attn: Mark Everson Commissioner
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Attn: Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman
You can also write your senators, representative(s), president and vice-president at: http://www.firstgov.gov/index.shtml
Message ID: email@example.com
This hasn't been a few good days for Tom Cruise. First, Paramount Pictures announced its 14-year relationship with Cruise's production company is history. Then, there are the Q scores. Those are a way of rating celebrity popularity.
An executive with Marketing Evaluations Incorporated, the company that calculates the scores, says Cruise's positive perception has fallen about 40% in the last year, and his negative perception has jumped nearly 100%, but in the opinion of at least one producer, Peter Guber, Q scores or not, Tom Cruise will remain a big star, at least in the "near term." Guber worked with Cruise on "Rain Man" and "A Few Good Men."
In a public opinion poll Scientology had a 8 % Favorable, 52% Unfavorable, and 40% Don't Know.
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message ID: email@example.com
[Golden Era video tour now on youtube]
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Wow...Andreas, whatever you do, don't stop being yourself!
I watched the following video just now for the first time, and before I was wondering what kind of person you were because of xenu.net and I have to say that you should be held up as an example to anyone who wants to ignore what cults like Scientology do.
When I told my Grandma about what I was doing, in researching Scientology because of our proximity to Gold Base, she thought I should just ignore it and not get involved. Then I showed her this video...now she understands why I want to get involved and want to get the word out and why ignoring them is the worst thing any of us could do.
I just have to applaud you. Well Done!
Message ID: email@example.com
"Arnaldo Lerma" posted:
New at SILENTOLOGY.COM - Lecture for the US Internal Revenue Service and the recovering
Creed Pearson describes the fascist dictatorship of Scientology
Scientology in a NUTshell
Real Media 6.13 meg
Windows Media 9.8 meg
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
"Mark Bunker" posted:
I've been preparing a new XENU TV DVD. In doing so, I had to revisit the July 4th videos and actually re-edit the July 3 and 4 vids from the raw video after the edited master vanished.
I've added a few extra minutes to the July 4th video and will have close to an hour of unused footage from the event on the DVD. In case you're interested, the new google version of the event is here:
Message ID: OUzHg.614$TA5.457@fed1read09
A.r.s. Week in Review is compiled by anonymous critics of CoS for your benefit. This collection is organised for WWW by Andreas Heldal-Lund.