Scientology vs Psychiatry: a taster
Chris Owen
thought I'd post a taster of a major new piece which I'm working on at
the moment. "Psychwar: Scientology vs Psychiatry" (working title) is a
comprehensive overview and exposé of Scientology's and L. Ron Hubbard's
views on psychiatry, the origins of those views and the covert war
against psychiatry which has resulted over the past 40 years. A lot of
very juicy stuff has come out of secret OSA and Guardian's Office files,
which I'll be documenting.
Here's an early version of chapter 4, "The origins of Scientology's
hostility to psychiatry". Surprisingly, Scientology was actually quite
conciliatory towards psychiatry until the mid-1950s. It's possible to
trace the origins of Hubbard's antipathy to psychiatry to a narrow
period - around July-August 1955. What triggered this change of
attitude I haven't yet determined. See what you think.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The origins of Scientology's intense antipathy to psychiatry in
particular and the mental health profession in general are surprisingly
difficult to track down. As with virtually every other aspect of
Scientology, its views on psychiatry originated with its founder, L. Ron
Hubbard. But why was he so vehemently opposed to the mental health
profession and what prompted him to take this stance?
There is no sign that Hubbard's views originated in his personal
experiences. There is no evidence that he ever underwent psychiatric
treatment, though in October 1947 he wrote to the Veterans' Association
requesting psychiatric examination and treatment to relieve his
prolonged depression and suicidal thoughts 8. There is no record of
such an examination or treatment taking place.At any rate, there is
nothing in his medical history to suggest a likely origin for his later
views on the mental health profession.
The Early 1950s: Dianetics
His book, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health," opens with
an excoriating attack on "the practices of the 'neurosurgeon' and the
ice-pick which he thrusts and twists into insane minds" in order to
"reduce the victim to mere zombie-ism, destroying most of his
personality and ambition and leaving him nothing more than a manageable
animal." 9 But the book was far from being merely a rant about the
failings of existing practices; its main theme was the theory and
practice of Hubbard's radical new approach to do-it-yourself
psychotherapy. Hubbard was certainly not hostile to psychologists and
psychiatrists per se. His theories bore marked similarities to earlier
ideas expounded by Freud at the Clark lectures at Worcester, Mass.,
forty years previously. Indeed, Freud was explicitly credited as an
inspiration in some of Hubbard's earliest books, in dedications which
have been removed in later editions.
In other respects, too, Hubbard did not display his later hatred for the
mental health profession. Until the 1980s the book contained a preface
by Joseph A. Winter, M.D., a Michigan physician who advised Hubbard on
medical matters related to Dianetics until the two men fell out in 1951.
He wrote of Dianetics "portend[ing] a new trend for psychological and
psychiatric thought and practice" and proclaimed that it "offers to the
medical profession, to psychiatrists, to psycho-analysts, to all who are
interested in the advancement of their fellow men, a new theory and
technique which makes accessible for therapy diseases and symptoms which
hitherto were unusually complex and obscure." 10
Hubbard himself involved psychiatrists in the development of Dianetics,
right from the earliest days. The science fiction editor John W.
Campbell in 1949 wrote to Dr. Winter informing him of Hubbard's
researches: "With cooperation from some institutions, some
psychiatrists, he [Hubbard] has worked on all types of cases." When
Hubbard's first article on Dianetics was completed it was initially
offered for publication to the Journal of the American Medical
Association and the American Journal of Psychiatry. Both rejected it on
the ground of insufficient clinical evidence of the technique's
effectiveness. A presentation given by Dr. Winter to a group of
psychiatrists, educators and lay people in Washington, DC met with a
similarly disappointing response:
Some of the psychiatrists - perhaps the more progressive and open-minded
ones - had evinced an interest in the novel postulates and intriguing
conclusions of dianetics....I did not feel that the Washington venture
was a successful one - at least, not from the medical point of view. It
was noteworthy that most of the people whose interest in dianetics had
been augmented by this presentation were members of the laity, rather
than the profession, and I thought that I could detect in their
attitudes the fervor of the convert, rather than the cool, objective
interest of the scientist. The professional people evidenced an interest
in the philosophy of dianetics; their interest was repelled, however, by
the manner of presentation of the subject, especially the unwarranted
implication that it was necessary to repudiate one's previous beliefs
before accepting dianetics. 11
Dianetics was eventually announced in the pages of Campbell's Astounding
Science Fiction magazine. The followup book was published by Hermitage
House, a small publisher of medical and psychiatric textbooks. The first
edition of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" even had
advertisements for psychiatric textbooks on the rear of its dust jacket.
It is particularly striking, given his later statements on the subject,
that Hubbard counselled against reviling psychiatrists because of the
"primitiveness" of their methods. Two sentences (my italics below)
stand out especially in a lengthy footnote in which Hubbard addressed
the failings of existing mental health practices:
Many persons investigating the treatment of the mentally ill by
psychiatrists and others in charge of mental institutions are prompted
... to revile the psychiatrist as unworthy of trust and accuse him of
using it to conduct vivisection experiments on human beings. That any
possible hope of recovery via dianetics may be gone for these
unfortunate patients in the majority of cases should not be blamed upon
the psychiatrist and neuro-surgeon. These people have only followed
their teachings in various universities ... *A witch-burning attitude
toward these people is very far from the one adopted by dianetics.
Pointing to the fact that they have murdered minds which would otherwise
have recovered, labeling them "mind snatchers" and making a horror story
out of their actions is far from rational conduct*. On the whole these
people have been entirely sincere in their efforts to help the insane...
Legislation against them such as that recently mentioned by a senator
who was familiar with dianetics, horror stories about them in newspapers
and a general public antipathy as well as the medical doctor's
traditional distrust of them cannot but bring about a disorderly
condition. Dianetics is a newly discovered science and is nonpartisan.
12
This and other statements in the book give the strong impression that
Hubbard's criticisms of psychiatry were for the purpose of contrasting
rather than campaigning; that is, to contrast "the modern science"
against the primitive methods of conventional psychotherapy, rather than
campaigning outright against said psychotherapy in all its shapes and
forms. That was to come later.
The Response to Dianetics
Dianetics strongly polarised opinion when it was launched in June 1950.
Hubbard's therapy found most support amongst members of the public, who
responded with enthusiasm to its promises. The book sold very well,
appearing for many months on the bestseller list of the Los Angeles
Times and other major US newspapers. Only two months after the
publication of the book, Newsweek reported that over 55,000 copies had
been sold and more than 500 Dianetics groups had been established
nationwide. As the Los Angeles Daily News put it,
since the overnight success of his book Dianetics, Hubbard has become,
in a few swift months, a personality, a national celebrity and the
proprietor of the fastest growing 'movement' in the United States. 13
But Dianetics also aroused strong opposition. The FBI received many
letters denouncing it as a Communist front, which neither the writers or
the Bureau were able to substantiate. 14 Although some in the medical-
scientific community responded positively to Dianetics, the more general
response appears to have been scepticism or outright hostility. The
Church of Scientology regards this as having been the opening salvo in
the "war" between Scientology and psychiatry. To quote its head, David
Miscavige:
The first attacks against LRH [Hubbard] and Dianetics are well known.
They began almost the day Dianetics came off the presses... Their
initial attacks have been mentioned over the years by us. First they got
"technical reviews" by psychiatrists hatcheting Dianetics. They
published these critical reviews in their psychiatric trade magazines.
Of course, these psychs never even bothered to read the book ...
In any event - the AMA [American Medical Association] ran these words of
wisdom in critical reviews in their own publications. Then they took
these published reviews and handed them out to the press where they were
promptly requoted as authority in magazines like "Slime" and "Tripe"
[i.e. "Time" and "Life"]. 15
It is certainly true to say that the majority of press reviews of
Dianetics were unfavourable. Reviewers - primarily medical/scientific
specialists, including Hubbard's friend and fellow sci-fi writer Isaac
Asimov, a biochemist - attacked Dianetics principally on the basis of
its lack of scientific plausibility or empirical evidence. Nobel Prize-
winning physicist Isaac Isidor Rabi declared in Scientific American that
"This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing." 16 A New York
M.D., Dr. Martin Gumpert, denounced it as "a bold and immodest mixture
of complete nonsense and perfectly reasonable common sense, taken from
long-acknowledged findings and disguised and distorted by a crazy, newly
invented terminology" and castigated "the repeated claim of exactitude
and of scientific experimental approach, for which every evidence is
lacking." 17 The Consumers Union later highlighted the mixture of
professional rivalry and medical concern which underlay the strong
opposition to Dianetics. Its rapid growth had "challenged the attention
of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric
Association, and other professional and social welfare organizations,"
but it was "remarkable that society permits persons without any medical
training to treat persons with every kind of mental and physical
illness". 18
Dianetics versus medicine
Part of the problem, as the medical and psychiatric professions saw it,
was that Dianetics explicitly aimed to cure physical medical conditions,
not just confining itself to making people happier or improving their
mental health. Hubbard's ally John W. Campbell wrote in a trailer for
Dianetics that
Its power is almost unbelievable; following the sharply defined basic
laws dianetics sets forth, physical ills such as ulcers, asthma and
arthritis can be cured, as can all other psychosomatic ills. 19
Among the "psychosomatic" conditions Dianetics claimed to cure or
alleviate were asthma, poor eyesight, color blindness, hearing
deficiencies, stuttering, allergies, sinusitis, arthritis, high blood
pressure, coronary trouble, dermatitis, ulcers, migraine,
conjunctivitis, morning sickness, alcoholism, the common cold and even
tuberculosis. In total, Hubbard claimed in Dianetics: The Modern
Science of Mental Health, "70% of Man's listed ailments" could be cured
through the use of Dianetics. Conventional medicine, he averred, was "an
art, not a science"; Dianetics by contrast was "an organized science of
thought built on definite axioms" which "contains a therapeutic
technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills and all
organic psychosomatic ills, with assurance of complete cure in
unselected cases".
Hubbard was explicit and definite about his goals in the field of
medical healing: "Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next
three years." 20 In a similar vein, he declared that "We are not even
vaguely propitiative toward medicine or psychiatry, and we are overtly
intent upon assimilating every function they are now performing." 21
Dianetics and its 1952 successor, Scientology, were initially organised
as a substitute for medicine and psychiatry in particular. Claims
continued to be made for Dianetics' remarkable healing potential, for
example: "Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least
eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully with Dianetics
after medicine had traditionally [sic] given up. The source of leukaemia
has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my
blood to water.' " 22 In 1953 Hubbard began offering certificates to his
Scientology "auditors" which were presented as being the equivalent of
medical, specifically psychiatric, qualifications:
The HGA certification ... means Graduate Auditor and is intended to
compare with a Dean of Psychiatry. I am following, more or less, in
certifications a time-honored pattern which was first begun in the field
of medicine and was later followed through in the philosophic and
healing arts. It has been customary for the founder of a subject, such
as one or another branch of medicine, one or another branch of
psychiatry or psychology, to act as the certifying and training agency;
and, indeed, today the British Medical Association grants degrees in no
other way. And the only degrees for medical doctor granted in Great
Britain which are accepted in the BMA are based on the very type of
training which we are doing. We are in the stage of doctors training
doctors. 23
He also offered "doctorate" courses leading to a "D. Scn" (Doctor of
Scientology) qualification which, he assured his followers, was "a very
superior degree ranking with or above psychiatric degrees". 24
At this time, Hubbard usually maintained that he was in dispute only
with *some* of the medical/psychiatric profession. He repeatedly
stressed that Dianetics had (despite all appearances to the contrary)
found favour with ordinary psychiatrists and mental health
practitioners, and that it was only their leaders who were causing
problems. For example, in an article which he wrote in a Dianetics
magazine in 1951, he claimed:
Under quiet test for over a year in the hands of leading psychologists
and mental practitioners, the application of this science [i.e.
Dianetics] has been found to resolve cases with considerable ease so
that in at least one state all state government treatment of the insane
is shortly to be placed under practitioners such as psychiatrists and
psychologists who are skilled in this new science. 25
Needless to say, this never happened; nor were the identities of these
"leading mental practitioners" ever revealed.
Hubbard's sweeping medical claims put Scientology into an increasingly
awkward position with the medical authorities. Dianeticists and
Scientologists had already been prosecuted in several states for
practising medicine without a license. As well as declaring Scientology
to be a religion in 1954, which improved its legal defensibility,
Hubbard began to clarify his position on medical healing. He outlined
Scientology's present position towards medical matters: providing
spiritual improvement which causes incidental medical benefits, rather
than aiming to provide both medical and spiritual benefits from the
outset. As he put it:
Unhappiness, inability to heal, and psychosomatic illness (which include
some seventy percent of the illnesses of man), are best healed by
immediate address of the human spirit. Illness caused by recognizable
bacteria and injury in accident are best treated by physical means, and
these fall distinctly into the field of medicine, and are not the
province of Scientology, except that accidents and illness and bacterial
infection are predetermined in almost all cases by spiritual malfunction
and unrest. 26
As for medical doctors,
The only place we would limit a medical doctor is in the field of
treatment of psychosomatic medicine, where he has admittedly and
continuously failed, and the only thing we would ask a medical doctor to
change about his practice is to stop taking money for things he knows he
cannot cure, i.e., spiritual, mental, psychosomatic, and social ills. 27
Entirely reasonable - except that by Hubbard's definition, this included
70% of all human ailments. This continues to be Scientology policy to
this day.
Probably in response to continuing legal probes by the medical
authorities, Hubbard's view shifted towards outright hostility to the
psychiatric profession and its practitioners during the summer of 1955.
His shift of opinion can be dated with some precision. His statements up
to that summer had been relatively conciliatory towards psychiatry, with
repeated statements of opposition to the leadership of mental health
organisations and certain practices such as neurosurgery, but with
assurances that ordinary mental health practitioners were quietly
supportive of Scientology's objectives and that the organisation was not
in conflict with them. In March of that year, he had declared:
[Psychologists, psychiatrists and medical doctors] are entirely in error
when they express the opinion that Scientologists are against them.
Scientology does not consider them sufficiently important to be against
... We have no more quarrel with a psychologist than we would have with
an Australian witch doctor. We have no quarrel with a psychiatrist any
more than we should quarrel with a barbarian because he had never heard
of nuclear physics ... Scientology cares nothing about either medicine
or psychiatry. 28
A few months later, in July, he sent the FBI two more of his many
denunciations of supposed communists. They show a highly significant
evolution in his views of his critics: for what appears to have been the
first time, he linked communists and psychiatrists together as part of
an anti-Scientology front:
The attack made by psychiatrists using evidently Communist connected
personnel on the Elizabeth NJ Foundation in 1950 and 51 and the attack
made on the Wichita Foundation in 1952 all ended on the same note of
reports to IRS and much rumor concerning what the IRS would do. 29
The attack on the HASI [Hubbard Association of Scientologists
International], like the attacks on the 1950 Hubbard Dianetic Research
Foundation found psychiatry and Communist connected personnel very much
in evidence and both active with defamation and very unreasonable - and
unsuccessful - attack. 30
In a bulletin issued that September he announced his new reasoning to
his followers:
Neatly all the backlash in society against Dianetics and Scientology has
a common source - the psychiatrist-psychologist-psychoanalyst clique ...
I could tell you about three actual murders. I could tell you about long
strings of psychotics run in on the Foundation and the Association, sent
in to us by psychiatrists who then, using LSD and pain-drug-hypnosis,
spun them and told everyone Dianetics and Scientology drove people
insane ... The public utterly LOATHES psychiatry. You waste time if you
try to defame psychiatry to the public ... Psychiatry stands in the
public mind for ineffectiveness, lies and inhuman brutality. 31
Scientology continues to take the view, to this day, that all criticism
of it is orchestrated by a hidden psychiatric conspiracy (dubbed the
"Tenyaka Memorial" by Hubbard and today described by Scientology as the
"Anti-Religious Movement" or "ARM" for short). Hubbard's September 1955
bulletin was, in effect, his public declaration of war on psychiatry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Veterans Administration case file for L. Ron Hubbard, service no.
#113392.
9 Hubbard, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" (1988 ed.),
p. 8.
10 J. A. Winter in Hubbard, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health" (1978 ed.), p. xxvi.
11 Winter, "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics", 1951
12 Hubbard, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" (1988 ed.),
fn p. 205. Surprisingly, this statement remains in recent editions
despite its marked contradiction of modern Scientology policy.
13 Los Angeles Daily News, 9 September 1950.
14 FBI files on L. Ron Hubbard / Dianetics / Scientology, released under
FOIA.
15 David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology
Center, speech to International Association of Scientologists, 8 October
1993
16 Scientific American, January 1951
17 The New Republic, 14 August 1950
18 Consumers Union Report, August 1951
19 Campbell, Astounding Science Fiction, December 1949
20 Hubbard College Reports, 13 March 1952
21 Hubbard, Professional Auditor's Bulletin no. 53, "Ownership", 27 May
1955
22 Hubbard, Technical Bulletins of Dianetics & Scientology vol.1, p.337
23 Hubbard, Associate Newsletter no. 4, ca. end May 1953
24 Hubbard, Associate Newsletter no. 6, ca. early July 1953
25 Hubbard, "A Brief History of Psychotherapy", The Dianetic Auditor's
Bulletin, vol. 2 no. 5, November 1951
26 Hubbard, "The Scientologist: A Manual on the Dissemination of
Material", Ability Major 1, ca. March 1955
27 Hubbard, ibid.
28 Hubbard, ibid.
29 Hubbard, letter to FBI, 11 July 1955
30 Hubbard, letter to FBI, 29 July 1955
31 Hubbard, Professional Auditor's Bulletin no. 62, "Psychiatrists", 30
September 1955
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
get them to say where this silliness came from. Sir Chris, you rock.
;-)
Beck
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.oispamnodemon.co.uk> wrote:
> In a bulletin issued that September he announced his new reasoning to
> his followers:
> I could tell you about long
barb
your work!
--
Barb Graham
Banned By Boston
Xenu
Scientology Reality:
"We are actually the first people that do
know a great deal about death. It is one
of the larger successes of Scientology."
--L. Ron Hubbard
Universal Actuality:
"We are actually the first people that do
know a great deal about death.It is one
of the large successes of Scientology. . .
We cause an awful lot of it."
--Retcap
Lronscam
<QMXezoBV...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, Chris stated"
>
>In the light of the current debate about Scientology and psychiatry, I
>thought I'd post a taster of a major new piece which I'm working on at
>the moment. "Psychwar: Scientology vs Psychiatry" (working title) is a
>comprehensive overview and exposé of Scientology's and L. Ron Hubbard's
>views on psychiatry, the origins of those views and the covert war
>against psychiatry which has resulted over the past 40 years. A lot of
>very juicy stuff has come out of secret OSA and Guardian's Office files,
>which I'll be documenting.
>
>Here's an early version of chapter 4, "The origins of Scientology's
>hostility to psychiatry". Surprisingly, Scientology was actually quite
>conciliatory towards psychiatry until the mid-1950s. It's possible to
>trace the origins of Hubbard's antipathy to psychiatry to a narrow
>period - around July-August 1955. What triggered this change of
>attitude I haven't yet determined. See what you think.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
<SNIP>
Another VWD Chris. When's the book coming?
Chris Owen
<NOSPAML...@aol.com> writes
>
><SNIP>
>
>Another VWD Chris. When's the book coming?
What book? Dammit, haven't I done enough already? :-)
c_o...@webtv.net
know the details of LRH's break with psychiatry. It was a bit of a
surprise to discover that the Co$ totally detested this field. Until I
saw my first CCHR pamphlet (at a $cieno-affiliated restaurant in
Clamwater), I'd figured on a natural but low-key antipathy based on
non-acceptance by the psychiatric establishment. Hubbard would have
done better than to try to demonize this generally well-respected
profession. Then again, every nut-cult needs Bad, Evil Enemies Bent On
Destroying Us.
Looking forward to the next chapter,
Sea Otter
Karin Spaink
wrote:
> >Another VWD Chris. When's the book coming?
> What book? Dammit, haven't I done enough already? :-)
You have done _lots_. And it is all excellent. So indeed,
just like Lronscam, I was wondering the same.
I do believe that you should collect all your CoS essays
and publish them as a book.
groet,
Karin Spaink
- I write, therefore I am:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink
Chris Owen
c_o...@webtv.net writes
Glad you liked it. I can't give a definite completion date but sometime
over the next month or two, I hope, for the first draft.
Steve A
wrote:
> Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> kindly
> wrote:
> > In article <857o19$26...@drn.newsguy.com>, Lronscam
> > <NOSPAML...@aol.com> writes
>
> > >Another VWD Chris. When's the book coming?
>
> > What book? Dammit, haven't I done enough already? :-)
>
> You have done _lots_. And it is all excellent. So indeed,
> just like Lronscam, I was wondering the same.
> I do believe that you should collect all your CoS essays
> and publish them as a book.
Hell, *I'd* buy it, if only so I could read Chris' oeuvre in the bath.
Chris, ever thought of setting up a vanity publishing operation? :-)
But seriously, I think that your collected essays would have a very
good chance of being marketable in print. Why not tout them around a
few publishers and see what happens?
And let me know when you get a deal: the ARSCC(wdne) will no doubt
want to initiate a campaign to hype the book to #1 in Amazon's book
sales list (assuming that Amazon don't unilaterally decide to ban it
because they don't like the colour of the dustjacket).
--
There is no legitimate reason to send email to nu...@castlsys.demon.co.uk
Mail to this address will be treated as SPAM/UCE and reported accordingly
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1, non-Mintonista.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
news...@my-deja.com
Lronscam <NOSPAML...@aol.com> wrote:
> "On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:35:33 +0000, in article
> <QMXezoBV...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, Chris stated"
> >Here's an early version of chapter 4, "The origins of Scientology's
> >hostility to psychiatry". Surprisingly, Scientology was actually
quite
> >conciliatory towards psychiatry until the mid-1950s. It's possible
to
> >trace the origins of Hubbard's antipathy to psychiatry to a narrow
> >period - around July-August 1955. What triggered this change of
> >attitude I haven't yet determined. See what you think.
> >
> <SNIP>
That would assist in the abolition of psychiatry which is urgently
needed.
As a reminder:
Were you aware that psychiatrists commit more fraud than any other
practioners in the health field? And that they personally have the
highest suicide rate among medical practitioners and the highest
incidence of drug abuse? That between 10 and 25 percent of all
psychiatrists (and psychologists and psychotherapists) openly admit to
the commission of sexual abuse of patients? And were you aware that
two-thirds of all psychiatrists are "seriously mentally ill" according
to one of their own studies? And that an American Psychiatric
Association task force found psychiatrists more likely than not to be
atheists? On the pages of Psychiatric Rape - Betraying Women,
psychiatry's unearned "expert" status is thoroughly debunked.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Leithiser
> In article <857o19$26...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Lronscam <NOSPAML...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:35:33 +0000, in article
> > <QMXezoBV...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, Chris stated"
>
> > >Here's an early version of chapter 4, "The origins of Scientology's
> > >hostility to psychiatry". Surprisingly, Scientology was actually
> quite
> > >conciliatory towards psychiatry until the mid-1950s. It's possible
> to
> > >trace the origins of Hubbard's antipathy to psychiatry to a narrow
> > >period - around July-August 1955. What triggered this change of
> > >attitude I haven't yet determined. See what you think.
> > >
> > <SNIP>
>
> That would assist in the abolition of psychiatry which is urgently
> needed.
>
> As a reminder:
$cientology teaches that all mental and physical ills can be traced back to
a holocaust 75,000,000 years ago when an evil galactic dictator named Xenu
nuked trillions of souls on earth's volcanoes, then forced them to watch
3-D movies which left them with the unfortunate delusion that Christ was a
real person, and that sex exists.
These souls are stuck to you--yes, you--and only $cientology can help you
remove them through lie-detector-aided exorcism. Oh, and they think
they're spiritually descended from seafood, too.
Thanks, "newsie," for this timely reminder of just what a wacko
UFO-nut-cult Hubbard (who personally begged for psychiatric help and never
got it) founded.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
your butt again?
Beck
news...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Were you aware that psychiatrists commit more fraud than any other
> practioners in the health field?
[snip rest of silliness]
Chris Owen
<ste...@castle-systems.co.uk> writes
>
>Hell, *I'd* buy it, if only so I could read Chris' oeuvre in the bath.
>
>Chris, ever thought of setting up a vanity publishing operation? :-)
>
>But seriously, I think that your collected essays would have a very
>good chance of being marketable in print. Why not tout them around a
>few publishers and see what happens?
>
>And let me know when you get a deal: the ARSCC(wdne) will no doubt
>want to initiate a campaign to hype the book to #1 in Amazon's book
>sales list (assuming that Amazon don't unilaterally decide to ban it
>because they don't like the colour of the dustjacket).
*laugh* Well, I'm flattered by the compliments. :-)
Seriously, there's a lot of good stuff being published on the net and
ARS which really should make it into print. The extreme harassment
meted out to publishers of critical books on Scientology isn't exactly
conducive to such publication happening; it certainly won't happen in
the UK. If the Lisa McPherson Trust is serious about encouraging a
wider range of views about Scientology, it would be ideally placed to
subsidise or underwrite the publication and distribution of high-quality
critical material. Bob Minton went some way towards that with his ARS
Literati competition earlier this year - how about capitalising on that
and actually publishing the winner and other works of criticism?
Chris Owen
>In article <857o19$26...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Lronscam <NOSPAML...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:35:33 +0000, in article
>> <QMXezoBV...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, Chris stated"
>
>> >hostility to psychiatry". Surprisingly, Scientology was actually
>quite
>> >conciliatory towards psychiatry until the mid-1950s. It's possible
>to
>> >trace the origins of Hubbard's antipathy to psychiatry to a narrow
>> >period - around July-August 1955. What triggered this change of
>> >attitude I haven't yet determined. See what you think.
>> >
>
>That would assist in the abolition of psychiatry which is urgently
>needed.
I detect an egregious non-sequitur.
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
>Here's an early version of chapter 4, "The origins of Scientology's
>hostility to psychiatry". Surprisingly, Scientology was actually quite
>conciliatory towards psychiatry until the mid-1950s. It's possible to
>trace the origins of Hubbard's antipathy to psychiatry to a narrow
>period - around July-August 1955. What triggered this change of
>attitude I haven't yet determined. See what you think.
As usual, some excellent work Chris.
While pinning down the precise microsecond might be good clean
scholarly fun, I see it as a red herring. It may sow controversy
where none exists, detracting from an otherwise excellent historical
analysis.
What I do see from the references is a gradual shift in Hubbard's
thinking -
1) Dn is an alternative,
2) rejection by AMA/APA,
3) so-called "attacks" by the FDA (a subcommittee of the APA :)
4) conspiracy of psych leaders (practitioners are OK though),
5) conspiracy by communists,
6) repudiation of practicioners ("they are only barbarians, after all"),
7) increasing isolation of Scientologists,
8) declaration of war.
I see an analysis of this progression as being the real scholarly
gem. Sort of like documenting a train wreck in slow motion from
start to finish. You can identify where all the wheels actually
leave the rails, but it's only an artifact of the process.
If anything, the analysis serves as a cataloging of warning signs.
Might be useful when the next psychocult arises.
Perry Scott, SP 4.3, ScienoSitter 3X + ISP + 2 words
Co$ Escapee
Lronscam
<8zYlMLAr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, Chris stated"><NOSPAML...@aol.com> writes
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>Another VWD Chris. When's the book coming?
>
>What book? Dammit, haven't I done enough already? :-)
I want a book out there so I can quote it properly. And, you can become hatted
in knowing what it is like for Scientology to really come and get you. :)
Podkayne1
> And that an American Psychiatric
> Association task force found psychiatrists more likely than not to be
> atheists?
Oh, I am just so horrified by this. Not.
--
lawyer: "And Xenu is the evil galactic overlord according to the
Church of Scientology, correct?"
Rhea Smith, CoS Internet Monitor: "Yes, it is."
Read more Heinlein
Karin Spaink
> Steve A <ste...@castle-systems.co.uk> writes
> >But seriously, I think that your collected essays would have a very
> >good chance of being marketable in print. Why not tout them around a
> >few publishers and see what happens?
> *laugh* Well, I'm flattered by the compliments. :-)
And well deserved they are.
> Seriously, there's a lot of good stuff being published on the net and
> ARS which really should make it into print. The extreme harassment
> meted out to publishers of critical books on Scientology isn't exactly
> conducive to such publication happening; it certainly won't happen in
> the UK.
But French, German or Dutch publishers might feel more
comfortable publishing such a book.
Keith Henson
snip
> But French, German or Dutch publishers might feel more
> comfortable publishing such a book.
Interesting thought. There is no reason I can think of which would
prevent a Dutch publisher from putting a book out in 3 or 4 languages.
Put me down for a pre-publication order.
Keith Henson
William Barwell
Podkayne1 <podk...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <85d6fg$f6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, news...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> And that an American Psychiatric
>> Association task force found psychiatrists more likely than not to be
>> atheists?
>
>Oh, I am just so horrified by this. Not.
>
The American Men of Science and sent them a religous questionaire. he
repeated this in the late 40's with near identical results.
most scientists were indeed Atheists. The percentage went up
in psychologists, psychiatrists, and biologists. Further more,
the more imminent a scientist was, the more likely he or she
was to be an Atheist, about 95% of all imminent scientists
who answered his questionaire were Atheists. A poll of
scientists last year showed not much has changed, statistically
speaking.
It isn't just the hated psychs who are Atheists.
And notice, you don't find any truely imminent scientists
who seem to be Scientologists.
To the Scientologists out there, this is called a clue.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!