Friday, September 24, 2010

Tom Cruise and the debate on Psychotropics

The role of psychotropics in systematic mind-control exercised by government agencies in supposedly "free" societies is not being highlighted or examined at all at present in mainstream society; ordinarily the domain of fringe activists, psychiatric survivor groups and other non-mainstream interests, it is not regarded as politically correct to question the current dominance of pharmaceutical companies in looking after the wellbeing of society.

When Tom Cruise spoke out against psychiatric drugs in the now infamous television interview a few years ago with Matt Lauer, he received nothing but ridicule and contempt from mainstream society. Mr Lauer took every opportunity to cast aspersions on Tom's passionate convictions, and the audience swallowed the biased opinion of the interviewer hook, line and sinker.

I looked at the interview and saw how logically and articulately Tom put his position across; nonetheless, prejudices were overwhelmingly against him and I suspect many among those who subsequently ridiculed him for his firm anti-psychiatry stance, never saw the interview in the first place.

Tom's connection with the Church of Scientology was cited widely in the media at the time as the reason for the public disdain towards his anti-psychiatry viewpoint. Whatever we may think of the Church of Scientology, the fact is that it and its secular powers are hardly unwelcome in mainstream society, particularly Hollywood where it holds a great deal of clandestine sway. As a devout Catholic I am no fan of Scientology myself, but that is strictly irrelevant to the issues at hand. The Vatican ought to speak out against psychotropic drugs in the same way that it spoke out against cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Instead, we find that our church is very friendly towards mainstream medicine, having forgotten altogether about the "stand up and walk" teaching of its founder, the rabbi Yeshua who taught healing through faith in God without the aid of modern medicine. There is no area of medicine that is in more direct conflict with that teaching, than psychiatry, and it is time for the Catholic church to reclaim its origins by embracing accurate knowledge on the subject and realizing that we cannot serve two masters. We cannot serve Mammon and God at the same time. You either rely on Christ for your emotional health, or you rely on the false hope provided by antidepressants.

Similarly, Jehovah's Witnesses who powerfully teach an authentic approach to Bible Study, have failed utterly in questioning the powerful influence of Big Pharma on today's society and its role in rendering people complacent towards injustice, indifferent towards suffering (their own and the suffering of others) and compliant towards mass consumerism without imagination, without faith, without love, without spirit, without truth. The Watchtower is failing its followers egregiously by not pointing out the dangers of drugs like Ritalin and its widespread use as a tool of educational oppression, antidepressants like Paxil and Prozac which happen to have as side effects the very conditions they are supposed to control (suicidal depression in victims who have used these drugs and are no longer with us to tell their stories) and frightening conditions such as irreversible tardive dyskinesia (loss of major motor functions) which could result from the use of just about every psychotropic drug on the market.

It is ironic that fantasy writer Ron Hubbard would be the founder of a movement which, aside from teaching absolute nonsense about Christ and God, happens to have perfectly accurate information on psychotropics. There is biographical information suggesting that Hubbard himself, towards the end of his life, did in fact use medicines that he did not ideologically approve of. I do not know if this information is accurate, but there are suggestions that Hubbard had problems of his own which did not find easy solutions within his own teachings. Be that as it may, the Church of Scientology is unique in terms of the position it holds on psychotropic drugs, and as such it is an odd strategic ally for the Techno-Luddite in promoting understanding of the dangers of these things.

The business interests surrounding entertainment, mind and imagination are a complex web to navigate these days. Finding the truth in this tangled web is not for the faint-hearted, and speaking out about it is an intimidating prospect even for a writer who is not of the faint-hearted variety. It would be "safer" to write screenplays about vampires and zombies; no-one would question a writer these days for indulging in these unhealthy concepts; in fact, it is regarded as very "cool" to be able to write about these things. For me, nothing could be more boring than vampires and zombies, and nothing could be more frightening than the reality of the indifferent society we live in, where such things could be regarded as acceptable entertainment for young people. The mind-numbing influences of majorly successful entertainment properties like Twilight, True Blood and many other successful vampire-themed, occult-themed and horror-themed movies and television shows, have resulted in movements among teenagers where it is perceived as "cool" to be "into" these things; the dangers inherent in a casual, everyday acceptance of these concepts are not addressed by anyone outside the religious right that I know of, and as such I anticipate that my job of articulating these issues will be a lonely one.

It is, effectively, OK in mainstream society to be a Hollywood Scientologist as long as you do not collide with other mainstream business interests such as the corporate powers of Big Pharma. My interest in Tom as an activist is strictly separate from his religious beliefs, and my appreciation for the passion he expressed in that extremely unfair interview by Lauer, stands accordingly as it stood before.

I will therefore not fall for the trap of discriminating against Tom as a person on account of his religious beliefs, but will ask him instead to join once again in the continuing struggle to raise public awareness on this vexed issue, the danger it poses to young students and to all of us in society who do not wish to become the mindless pawns of the powers-that-be.

Tom, you are a hero for saying what you said; I am glad you said it and you have to say it again. You spoke the truth: speaking the truth is never easy or convenient and for this you have earned my respect as a person regardless of what you may profess to believe in terms of religion. I am calling for your help in raising awareness on this issue once more: you can utilize your considerable influence by explaining to people why psychiatric drugs are dangerous, unhealthy and unnecessary; what other methods exist for attaining happiness and overcoming debilitating personal circumstances and conditions that would otherwise hamper our performance and the realization of our dreams and abilities; and, above all, how important it is to value our personal liberty and not to give in to influences whose designated purpose in society is to hamper and impair that very freedom that is our birthright as human beings.


  1. Do your cautions against Big Pharma antipsychotic meds extend to other offerings of the pharma industry?

    Somewhere I read a fresh view to the effect that depression, rather than being a "disease," was simply the bodies sane response to an insane world. Would you agree with that assessment?

  2. Actually yes, Tom, my cautions would extend to a great number of their offerings!

    My chiropractor has this presentation in which he told us how we consume 66% of the world's pharmaceuticals on this continent, yet Canada ranks only about 30th on the WHO's list of "most healthy" countries. Obviously, popping all these pills is not making us any healthier.

    In another horrifying statistic, I once read in the Toronto Star that if you distribute all the pills that are taken daily in this country,
    evenly across the population, then 9 pills per Canadian per day are being swallowed!

    As for your definition of depression, yes, I would agree with that statement. I have also heard it defined as "aggression turned inwards." Thus the more proactive or creative person who responds to life's challenges by starting their own business, organizing a
    political campaign, writing a blog etc., is combating depression by fighting back in an insane world in a healthy way. A passive person
    who thinks they can do nothing about it, might be more likely to crumble and sink into a debilitating depression. It is better to express yourself than to keep quiet.

    I think that work is the best cure for depression. When you feel poorly on account of the world's overwhelming issues (remember, they
    are the world's issues, not yours; they are from outside of yourself in fact, and not from within!) the best thing to do is to start a new
    project, do something creative about it.

  3. Annesu,

    Ek het so lank laas hier kom lees . Ten minste dan dus voor 24 September 2010 as ek die datum van jou plasing in ag neem .

    Ek stem saam dat die manier hoe daar gepoog word om meeste psigiatriese "siektes" met psigotrope medikasie te behandel ontoepaslik is en baie erg te te kort skiet en ook in praktyk meesal oneffektief blyk te wees .

    Maar dit het te doen met 'n soeke na postmoderne kitsoplossings en met die onderhouding van die belange 'n gevestigde megabedryf in die farmaseutriese omgewing wat perkeloos monopoleer en wat baie effektiewe maatreels in plek het om dit in stand te hou.

    Ek stem saam met Tom dat die oorsaak van meeste affektiewe probleme voor die deur van 'n verrotte samelewing geplaas van word .

    Ek kan maar net elke dag my pieplkein bydra probeer handhaaf as teenvoeter maar een druppel in die emmer troos seker maar net my eie gewete .




Chastity Bono and her band Ceremony - Could Have Been Love

When In Doubt, Google!

Custom Search