jump to navigation

Cruise on Scientology: how full of s* can you be ? January 17, 2008

Posted by dorigo in humor, news, religion, science.
trackback

Being a devout follower of the church of South Park, I know the ins and outs of Scientology pretty well. And I am aware of the fact that one of its leaders, Tom Cruise, is a person seriously in need of help. So the video clip I saw today, an excerpt of an interview where he speaks of what a scientologist can do to save the rest of us, did not overly impress me . However, I was indeed impressed by the man: looking at him in the eyes when he utters his claims allows one to realize that if we ever built a full-o-s*tometer, we’d have to consider him before setting the range, because on that one count Cruise can’t be surpassed.

Here is a transcript of a piece of his interview:

“I think it is a privilege to call oneself a scientologist, and it is something one has to earn, and…because a scientologist does. Because he or she has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. I think scientology means looking at somebody you know and know absolutely that you can help him.

We are the authorities on getting people out of drugs. We’re the authorities of the mind. We are the authorities of improving conditions. Criminals: we can rehabilitate criminals. Way to happiness: we can bring peace and we can unite cultures. Traveling the world and meeting the people that I’ve met, now, talking with these leaders, in various fields… They want help, and they are depending on people who know, and who can be effective and do it. And that’s us.

It is the time now. Now, is the time! Ok ?”

He really sets the scale. I propose the Cruise as a unit of measurement for full-of-s*tness. It is something quite large, like a Farad or a Coulomb, if you know what I mean. Ordinary, lesser men and women, will be measured in micro-Cruises and nano-Cruises. It is quite convenient as a unit of measurement also because Tom Cruise is still young and its f.o.s. value is quite constant in time, so we will have a reference point for a long time.

(NB: the video was removed by YouTube, but it often reappears here and there… Search it for yourself if you’re in for a laugh!)

Comments

1. Amara - January 17, 2008

Very funny, but, unfortunately Scientology does not have a sense of humor.

2. chimpanzee - January 17, 2008

“Never understimate the Power of Human Stupidity..in LARGE GROUPS”
— maxim (“cluster F**K”” syndrome, aka Groupthink)

“I stay away from GROUPS!!”
— Dr. J. Weichsel (my HS classmate, locker next to mine)
[ his dad was a Caltech PhD Mathematics, early 60’s..Group Theory ]

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity

http://members.cox.net/ggathome2/EvalRun/ArticlesLogic/HumanStupidity.Basics1.html

[ There is genius at work in this thesis. It came round about by way of reader Sam Keen, who sent us a thin gray monograph printed in Bologna, Italy. The trail eventually led to Carlo M. Cipolla, the author, who is currently Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley – Kevin Kelly ]

1st Basic Law
“Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.”

3rd Basic Law
“A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.”

4th Basic Law
“Non-stupid people [ American HEP ] always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals [ American politicians & public ]. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.”

[ the recent 2008 Fiscal Crisis for HEP is a perfect datapoint ]

5th Basic Law
“A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.”

2nd Basic Law
“The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.”

In this regard, Nature seems indeed to have outdone herself. It is well known that Nature manages, rather mysteriously, to keep constant the relative frequency of certain natural phenomena. For instance, whether men proliferate at the Northern Pole or at the Equator, whether the matching couples are developed or underdeveloped, whether they are black, red, white or yellow the female to male ratio among the newly born is a constant, with a very slight prevalence of males. We do not know how Nature achieves this remarkable result but we know that in order to achieve it Nature must operate with large numbers. The most remarkable fact about the frequency of stupidity is that Nature succeeds in making this frequency equal to the probability quite independently from the size of the group.

Thus one finds the same percentage of stupid people whether one is considering very large groups or one is dealing with very small ones. No other set of observable phenomena offers such striking proof of the powers of Nature.

The evidence that education has nothing to do with the probability was provided by experiments carried on in a large number of universities all over the world. One may distinguish the composite population which constitutes a university in five major groups, namely the blue-collar workers, the white-collar employees, the students, the administrators and the professors.

Whenever I analyzed the blue-collar workers I found that the fraction å of them were stupid. As å’s value was higher than I expected (First Law), paying my tribute to fashion I thought at first that segregation, poverty, lack of education were to be blamed. But moving up the social ladder I found that the same ratio was prevalent among the white-collar employees and among the students. More impressive still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction å of the professors are stupid. So bewildered was I by the results, that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature’s supreme powers: å fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid.

[ blogosphere: look at all the infighting among Physics blogs. Even I became a casualty, I got banned from 2 of them myself! ]

This idea was hard to accept and digest but too many experimental results proved its fundamental veracity. The Second Basic Law is an iron law, and it does not admit exceptions. The Women’s Liberation Movement will support the Second Basic Law as it shows that stupid individuals are proportionately as numerous among men as among women.

Moral of the Story:

“Stupidity, like Farting (“hot air” sh*tometer), is its Own Reward”
“May your SH*T come to Life, & hit you SQUARE IN THE FACE”
[ Tom Cruise got a faceful from the media ]

“The higher the monkey goes up the pole [ sh*tometer measuring stick ], the more you see of his behind [“tiresome horses a**” ]

“Life is like a baboon’s ass: Colorful and full of shit.”

[ I notice that B & Kea (Humpf! she once said) have a rebelious bent, they are unhappy with the status-quo. B has used “colorful language” like a**hole & fart, so I assume her Blog name “backreaction” is defensive weapon against stupidity: “I fart in your general direction!”. That’s a Monty Python joke, btw ]

3. Red Leeroy - January 17, 2008

I saw this clip, with his wild stare, hia excitable demenour and wild claims, It’s only going to be a matter of months before he crams his his wife and child into a homemade space ship built from the carcasses of hollywood producers and launches them both into a high orbit of Jupiter.

4. dorigo - January 17, 2008

Yes, Amara – I am quite well aware of the fact. How could I not – the South Park episode on Scientology has the kid saying “so sue our authors – their names are on the titles at the end” – and then you read a list of “john smith” and “jane smith”🙂 . I confess, I re-read the post a few times before submitting it, because with these people you never know!

Chimpanzee, I think bee wouldn’t be too happy to hear your interpretation of her blog’s name…

Yes Leeroy, his obsession is eating his life. Too sad.

Cheers,
T.

5. Amara - January 18, 2008

Boing Boing has a link and discussion about it. The videos are not easy to find, but the net perseveres anyway. “We are the way to happiness” Tom Cruise is a sight to behold, truly.

6. chimpanzee - January 18, 2008

apology to B & Tomasso:

I’m sorry if my interpretation of “backreaction” (anal exhaust fumes to combat status-quo) was in any way offensive. I’m a fan of Biological Models, i.e. insects like “stink bug” who have built in defensive systems. Scent/smell is a big deal (communication & offense/defense) in the animal world.

I’m studying ant & termite colony systems, as models for better Science Research. Scent is a big part of their communication.

“We stunk up the Joint”
— football phrase, offense/defense didn’t “show up”
[ applicable to any disfunctional situation: American 2008 Fiscal Crisis for HEP, Tom Cruise flap, etc ]

7. smm - January 18, 2008

I found the clip and it was fascinating. At one point, he mentions something about “SP’s”. I googled “scientology sp” and found the wikipedia entry for “Suppressive Person.” It’s apparently a very bad person in scientology. According to wikipedia, the number one defining characteristic of an SP is: 1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities.

Wow. I guess Tom Cruise is an SP then because all I heard during that interview was broad generalities about scientology. To be honest though, I’m not sure there’s anything more to it.😉

8. JustChecking - January 23, 2008

“He really sets the scale. I propose the Cruise as a unit of measurement for full-of-s*tness. It is something quite large, like a Farad or a Coulomb, if you know what I mean.”

It sure is something large, but more in a range of “parsec”… I don’t think I’ve met in persona anyone that would have more than few pico- or atto-Cruises… maybe I’m just one lucky bastard😉

I’m for sure not going to search for the video, I don’t think it would bring me any good laugh, sorry… It just scares me too much, that someone that can reach 1 Cruise of FOS has almost unlimited possibilities of public exposure in media.

9. Amara - February 10, 2008

Hey Tommaso.. You _must_ see this… a *parody* of the Cruise video (rolling over in laughter.. it’s great!): http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=3b8c7e360998f68a27b239837019db8a6c96bb91

10. dorigo - February 10, 2008

ROTFL! That guy rocks! THANK YOU for the video !

Cheers,
T.

11. Amara - February 10, 2008

Dear Tommaso,
As expected, CO$ is going after Gawker for posting the video:
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
using a claim that the video violated its copyright. Let’s see where it goes
http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/02/07/scientology-cruise-lawsuits-oped-cx_kf_0207scientology.html
and if they go after the excellent Parody video, as well.

12. Amara - February 11, 2008

Well this is new! There are more people than the occasional isolated engineer fighting back against Co$.
http://blogging.la/archives/2008/02/project_chanology_anonymous_vs.phtml
with photos:

Project Chanology / Anonymous vs. Scientology / Los Angeles Feb 10

This new group, has its beginnings here:
http://blogging.la/archives/2008/01/anonymous_to_scientology_we_sh.phtml

13. Amara - February 11, 2008

Sorry if I’m a little bit slow, learning about this this new player…. the protests last weekend against CO$ were _everywhere_

For news, you can search in YouTube and in Flickr:
http://ca.youtube.com/results?search_query=Anonymous+Scientology&search_type=&search=Search
http://flickr.com/search/?q=Anonymous%20Scientology&w=all

14. Amara - February 11, 2008

The worldwide headcount of those participating yesterday is presently about 8000 people:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?t=1737&highlight=

15. dorigo - February 13, 2008

That’s great! Thank you for the updates!

Cheers,
T.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: