Forums dot lukpac.org

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:45 pm**

Chapter One, Psychology (from an interview in Entertainment Weekly):

EW: You are aware that your views about psychiatry come across as pretty radical to a lot of people.

TC: In the 1980s, you were supposed to say no to drugs. But when I say no to drugs, I'm a radical? 'He's against drugs — he's a radical! He's against electroshock treatments — he's a radical!' [Laughing] It's absurd!

EW: Yeah, but Scientology textbooks sometimes refer to psychiatry as a ''Nazi science''...

TC: Well, look at the history. Jung was an editor for the Nazi papers during World War II. [According to Aryeh Maidenbaum, the director of the New York Center for Jungian Studies, this is not true.] Look at the experimentation the Nazis did with electric shock and drugging. Look at the drug methadone. That was originally called Adolophine. It was named after Adolf Hitler... [According to the Dictionary of Drugs and Medications, among other sources, this is an urban legend.]

EW: Well, Freud wasn't a Nazi, but the point I'm getting at here is that expressing these views isn't necessarily a public relations bonanza for you.
What choice do I have? People are being electric-shocked. Kids are being drugged. People are dying.

[notes in parentheses from the editor of EW]

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:47 pm**

excerpt from "Jung and the Nazis":

by Mark Medweth, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University
http://www.sfu.ca/~wwwpsyb/issues/1996/ ... edweth.htm

Like many others, Jung initially welcomed the focus of unity that swept across the German land as the National-Socialist "revolution" took hold (Stern, 1976). Though as time went on and Jung grew increasingly cautious in his views, accusations of being a "Nazi sympathizer" emerged; accusations which, in some respects, seems justified as we will see.

In 1928, Carl Gustav Jung became a member of the International General Medical Society for Psychotherapy (Gallard, 1994). This society, which began two years earlier, was founded on the desire to develop a psychotherapeutic science with a spiritual, rather than widely popular material, emphasis. In the same year that Jung joined the society, so too did Matthias Heinrich Goring, the cousin of the now infamous Marshall, Herman Goring. Jung was elected vice president in 1930 and was asked to assume the presidency in 1933 due to the deteriorating political climate. It was believed that Jung, being a Swiss National and thus neutral, would be in a better political position to handle the role (Gallard, 1994).

Later that year, there was a reorganization of Zentralblatt fur Psychotherapie, the society's publication journal. The decision was made that two separate but aligned editions of the journal would be published: an international edition edited by Jung, and a German edition under the control of Goring for the purpose of ensuring that all material conformed to Nazi ideology (Sherry, 1986). It was soon after recommended by Goring that every practicing psychotherapist adopt Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf as a basic reference. This written appeal was slated for publication in the German edition of the journal but somehow ended up in the international journal above Carl Jung's signature (Gallard, 1994; Sherry, 1986). Though the society's headquarters were located in Switzerland and he was certainly far removed from this "Nazi deception," it was a commonly held belief that Jung accepted the presidency of a Nazified German organization; thus he must be a sympathizer.

His decision to accept such a position was heavily criticized by many. Perhaps the fact that Jung fantasized of national glory, was purportedly not immune to the lure of power, and felt neglected and misunderstood, played a role in his acceptance of the presidency for a society in which some members were almost certainly familiar with Mein Kampf and Nazi ideology (Stern, 1976). Jung, however, offered the excuse that he simply followed the wishes of his German (and Jewish) colleagues; his true aim was to save psychotherapy which could easily disappear, as he had put it, with a single stroke of the pen by higher authorities (Gallard, 1994). He did initially doubt his decision from a moral standpoint but the desire to preserve the interests of science made the risky effort worthwhile (Gallard, 1994). In the end, Jung's professional reputation was certainly affected by these events, though he seemed to have a blind spot to these ramifications.

References

Franz, M. L. von. (1975). C. G. Jung: His myth in our time. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Gallard, M. (1994). Jung's attitude during the second World War in the light of the historical and professional context. Journal of analytical psychology, 39, 203-232.

McGuire, W., and Hull, R. F. C. (1977). C. G. Jung speaking. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sherry, J. (1986). Jung, the Jews, and Hitler. Spring: an annual of archetypal psychology and Jungian thought. Texas: Spring Publications.

Stern, P. J. (1976). C. G. Jung: The haunted prophet. New York: George Braziller.

Welsh E., Hannah, B., and Briner, M. (Trans.) (1947). Essays on contemporary events. London: Kegan Paul.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:18 pm**

If that tool wants to believe all his problems are caused by invisible alien beings living in his brain, that's his choice. But he should shut the hell up about what others do when he doesn't have a clue.

Ryan

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:42 pm**

Ahh, redaction....

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:22 pm**

It's curious that Cruise equates psychiatry with Freudian/Jungian psychotherapy. Certianly the two are not the same. Most psychiatrists aren't Freudians or Jungians, and psychiatry's roots extend far beyond the Nazi era. Aside from which, calling psychiatry a Nazi science because some psychiatrists were Nazis, is like calling aeronautics 'Nazi science' because of von Braun's crucial role in developing rockets.

As for guilt by association -- L. Ron was a disciple of Aleister Crowley for awhile, wasn't he?

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:43 pm**

Look, the guy is a fucking idiot. He probably doesn't realize there's a difference between psychiatry and psychotherapy...

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:19 pm**

Clearly, Mr. Cruise is not the sharpest crayon in the box.

However, he *was* smart enough not to appear in "Battlefield Earth."

Ryan

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:44 pm**

Rspaight wrote:Clearly, Mr. Cruise is not the sharpest crayon in the box.

However, he *was* smart enough not to appear in "Battlefield Earth."

Ryan

Which, in retrospect, seems a bit incredible.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:48 pm**

Today on Today: Tom Cruise Takes On Matt Lauer’s Thetans
Filed under Culture : Today Show

With Katie Holmes supportively sitting nearby, today’s Today show forced poor Matt Lauer to sit down for a taped interview with Tom Cruise, more of which will air on Monday. But we can’t imagine Monday will get much better than today’s segment; as Lauer put it, things “got a little tense” when Tom was asked about his anti-psychiatric views:

Tom: [with patented ferocity] Do you know what Adderall is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug?

Matt: I understand the abuse of all these things —

T: [interrupting] Yeah but you don’t understand the history of these drugs. And if you do, you know that it masks the problem. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance!

M: But —

T: No, Matt, I know these things —

M: No —

T: Listen —

[This continues for a few moments and we stop listening.]

M: So, depression — is it all gobbledy gook?

T: No, Matt, I’m not saying that. That’s an alteration of what I’m saying. These drugs are dangerous, mind-altering chemicals. There are ways of handling these problems so that we don’t end up in a Brave New World.

M: You want [other people] to do well, but you want them to do well on a road that you approve of.

T: No —

M: [interrupting] But if anti-depressants worked for Brooke Shields, isn’t that okay?

T: I disagree with it.

M: But aren’t there examples where it works?

T: You don’t even know what Ritalin is! If you read the papers on how they came up with the drug, the dosage… You should be more responsible in knowing what it is. I am responsible. I know these things.

M: You’re saying that you know how it affected people you don’t know, but I do? You’re now telling me that what has and hasn’t worked for people I know, and I’m telling you I lived with these people and I saw an improvement.

T: So you’re advocating?

M: No, I’m not. I’m just saying that in their individual cases, it helped them… We could go in circles on this matter. But do you want more people to understand Scientology? Is that a goal of yours?

T: Of course. And I don’t talk about things I don’t understand.

No, Tom, we think you do.

"There's no such thing as a chemical imbalance"? Fuck you, Tom.

Ryan

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:05 pm**

Weirdly topical: a friend of mine has heard my occasional (echem) rants about Scientology, and has been browbeating me as of late into going into the New York org with him. Against my better judgment, I accompanied him on this journey.

It's MUCH nicer inside than it was the last time I went (long story in and of itself). The staff is almost exclusively intense, attractive young people, which I suspect accounted for half of my friend's desire to go in. Lots of sleek, high-res LCD screens were playing a video that talked about "the passion of the Cruise," and strangely enough all of the regs emphasized the celebrity aspect of the movement, which I've rarely heard before. It was sufficiently weird enough so that my friend, previously very gung-ho about the experience, fled the premises (with me in tow) about fifteen minutes in.

This whole event transpired, I should note, due to the seemingly perpetual stand they have set up in the Times Square subway junction near the Grand Central shuttle. It's amazing how many people actually take their "free stress test." Hopefully, New Yorkers are canny enough to see through the scam, but...

Posted: **Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:12 pm**

Xenu wrote:This whole event transpired, I should note, due to the seemingly perpetual stand they have set up in the Times Square subway junction near the Grand Central shuttle. It's amazing how many people actually take their "free stress test." Hopefully, New Yorkers are canny enough to see through the scam, but...

Well, there are an awful lot of non-New Yorkers who come in that way...if you set up shop there, you're really targeting the north suburban rich (Greenwich/Larchmont) types, which fits the idea of Scientology perfectly. And TONS of tourists.

Posted: **Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:22 pm**

Exactly. It was, frankly, heartbreaking to see some of the people who were gladly gearing up for a session on the cans. We were doing it as a gag, but for others it's entirely serious, and I really wish there were some way to dissuade those people from following up.

This current explosion of publicity (lycos recently released something noting that "Scientology" had entered its top-50 searches for the first time ever) could either be the organization's greatest coup in years or its ruin. If all of the idle New Agers who have nothing better to do suddenly flock to the organization...well, game over, they've Mormonized and in 50 years inquiries about Hubbard's actual background will be met with the equivalent of "it happened so long ago...who knows if he was actually a nuclear physicist?" If, on the other hand, newly-emboldened media outlets and/or the blogosphere begins to plumb the resources of xenu.net--and if Heber Jentzsch comes out of hiding for another fantastic television appearance--it could be their death knell. Who knows?

Posted: **Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:59 pm**

Salon's running a semi-interesting four-part series as we speak. Part 1's a bit flaccid, and Part 2 makes the mistake of waxing assumptive about Hubbard's home life (which, IIRC, was hardly abusive and oppressive) but it's still something.

Posted: **Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:01 pm**

If Scientologists became big enough to threaten evangelical Xtians...*that* would be a fun steel cage match.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:50 am**

The letters are starting to pour into Salon about their Scientology series...

http://www.salon.com/ent/letters/2005/0 ... index.html

It is interesting that a man who may be the highest-profile celebrity of our time has managed to stay out of the tabloids for so many decades because he actually leads a clean life. People want to know how Tom Cruise does it, and it would be wrong for him to keep his religion from the masses who want to know how he navigated the surly world of Top Celebrity. So he shares how he has managed to keep his life on track and offers help to anyone out there who wants it and the hacks go absolutely wild.

I actually can't get enough of the new Tom Cruise and love watching him come alive for the rest of us instead of living a sheltered life that none of us get to see. As for Scientology, you mention that he helped the firefighters at ground zero, can help people get off drugs, learn to read and stop being criminal. This is the man the press is attacking? I would bet money that his attack of psychiatry and its multibillion-dollar industry is what is stirring all of this up. A reward should be offered for the first patient of a psychiatrist who can offer up their lab work showing a chemical imbalance in the brain. Hate to say it, but I don't think people have Ritalin or Paxil deficiencies. You can't even get an insulin shot without proof of your blood sugar levels from a test. But psychiatry just looks at you and says, yep, your chemicals are out of whack, take this drug that will essentially damage your brain and you'll feel better after a while.

Maybe Tom just decided that saving humanity from this fraud was worth any amount of stone throwing. There have been a few throughout history who have had to stand up to the wrongheaded mobs of their day and try and put things right. Go, Tom, go!

-- Mary Panton

I read the "Missionary Man" article on Tom Cruise. I have been a Scientologist for 30 years and attribute the technology discovered by L. Ron Hubbard first of all to saving my life, and second to giving me insight into myself and others that no other philosophy or religion could give. I can't imagine a life without the knowledge I have about myself and how I fit into the universe and my purpose here.

The Scientology religion has no "must believe," "must do" catechism or orders. Ron said, "What's true for you is what is true for you, and what's true for you is what you have observed yourself." And he also said that a subject is only as valuable as it works. No other religion has ever proved that I am a spiritual being and have been here forever and will be here forever other than Buddhism, and unfortunately Buddha's technology in reaching a higher state was lost.

Scientology recognizes the plight of man on this planet, and Ron sought to provide simple and workable answers to help man out of his spiral into the mud by providing a means to solve his basic problems. His study technology gives a means to learning that never existed before -- I know, for had I known this I would have been summa cum laude in law school and only learned it when I was 40 years old. I am 70 now.

Ron provided means to clear the body of toxic material that is just about everywhere now in the environment and food. He gave a means to help criminals stop being criminals and most of all a technology of clearing one's self of upsets, misemotion and problems that have always plagued man through the auditing processes. I know, for it has done this for me. I have had my problems, believe me, and I do not know how I could have lived had it not been for what I have learned from this great man's life works.

-- L D Sledge

Earth to Salon.com. Guess what? The world is round and Scientology works!

-- Peter Marcotte

Get your facts straight.

No one in Scientology thinks the E-Meter is a "lie detector." You have to be a reporter to think that. And it doesn't "monitor brain activity."

The Scientology OT levels are not even close to a "central creation theory." Creation is far earlier.

And your pet sociologist Stephen Kent: You think he's objective?

Why do reporters bring up old attacks on Scientology by corrupt and oppressive governments? Why don't you defend Scientology? Where is your outrage? If the U.S. government attacked PETA, the ACLU, Greenpeace or any other organization you liked, you'd scream.

Always appreciate your contribution to religious tolerance in the world. We don't need it all that much, do we? What are a few more gunmen, firebombs and beat-up Scientologists? No worries, mate, they're Scientologists. Reporters needn't worry about their kids and wives. Small price for a byline.

Love the "may" and "could" and "rumored to." Solid reporting, that. It is now rumored that Salon.com writers and editors indulge in ... Naah, sorry, I'm too polite. But the likelihood of Cruise having signed a billion-year contract approaches the improbability that your review of "War of the Worlds" was unbiased.

-- Jon E. von Gunten

Shame on you. How stupid do you think we are? It is ridiculous of you to try to present an "unbiased" story about Scientology when it is obvious that you are expressly biased.

I found what Tom Cruise stated as absolutely true. I have been a Scientologist for more than 37 years and it has been extremely helpful to me.

-- Sally Slevin

Wow. I guess Laura Miller didn't like "Dianetics."

While I prefer my book reviews to be more about the book and less about the reviewer's biases, I suppose that has a lot to do with the intentions of the company that publishes the review. Is it to inform or to smear?

One of the most fundamental tenets of "Dianetics" and Scientology is to examine things for yourself. Is it true for you?

The fact is that besides having helped millions of people live a better life, the Church of Scientology has extraordinarily effective programs to handle the main scourges of our society: illiteracy, drugs, crime and lowered moral standards.

Scientology is also a leader in the area of human rights reform -- helping to eliminate abuses from child sex slavery to religious intolerance.

Opinions are only opinions; the facts speak for themselves -- just take a look.

-- Joel Morris

Forums dot lukpac.org

Scientology: The Book Of Tom (Cruise, that is)

Scientology: The Book Of Tom (Cruise, that is)