The Journey of Life

'Looking back on her 10-year marriage to Cruise, which ended in 2001, she says there are no regrets. She doesn't dwell on the relationship and there's no discussion of the acrimonious, highly publicised divorce. Sensitive, presumably, to the feelings of her older children, the actress doesn't have anything negative to say about her ex-husband (who is now married to the actress Katie Holmes) or about his religion, Scientology, which she also embraced. "That's the journey of life – we all go through it. You have love, you lose love, you find new love." '

From:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/nicole-kidman-ive-been-through-a-lot-in-my-life-1051769.html

Katie Holmes Doesn't Get Online

'In order to avoid all the crazy theories circulating about her, Tom, Scientology and whatever else is out there, Katie says she doesn't go online: “I would get too upset and overwhelmed if I read or looked at what's out there."'

Maybe just as well... That would explain how she could just focus on her role in the highest grossing show on Broadway and ignore Anonymous, proving them wrong simply based on her performance.

The quote comes from an article writing about how Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes got his 'n' hers Old Hollywood-style T Magazine covers in this Sunday's New York Times. You would think the article is about Tom and Katie, but in fact, little Suri steals the show.

CelebrityCafe reveals more of the interview:

"I have too much to do," Holmes said. "I'm a mom and an actress with a play to do every night. I can't pay attention to all that noise."

About her meeting with Tom:

"When I met Tom I was completely in love and, yes, I admired him growing up – he's Tom Cruise! … When I met him, he was so warm and I thought, Wow! You can be a superstar and a human being. He made me feel so amazing”.

Also check out T-Magazine web site, featuring video interviews of Tom and Katie.

Tom Cruise Keeping a Low Profile on Scientology

According to an article on ABC featuring snippets of an interview with Barbara Walters to air on "The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2008", Cruise has earned "Germany's prestigious media prize, the Bambi award for courage".

I have no idea what this award may be, and whether is is a fake prize like anti-cultists self-congratulatory award themselves through their own type of front groups, or if it is something genuine. I will have to check this on occasion, but anyway I would agree that an award for courage would be perfectly justified in this case, following the arguments I developed in a recent blog entry.

This interview confirms Cruise's commitment to the Valkyrie script:

"It was inspiring," Cruise said. "A story that I didn't know about, and that I had no idea that happened. And that it was just very compelling." [...] "I'm an actor, and this was a story that I found compelling and I felt there was something to contribute to it," he explained.

The article also confirms what could be observe de visu, that Cruise is working at mending his reputation and that he currently stays away from promoting Scientology (other than just being a "role model"):

The "new" Cruise has been working overtime to keep a low profile. He no longer wishes to speak out about Scientology. "Now, I just say look, I'm not going to talk about my religion, and if people want to know about Scientology, they can absolutely just go to the Web site."

He also seems ready to live with his couch jumping episode, which the article claim became part of America's lexicon under the expression "jump the couch", meaning: "going off the deep end".

Says Cruise:

"And I really think that all men should celebrate their women. ... They should all jump on couches for them."

Also check out T-Magazine web site, featuring video interviews of Tom and Katie, and hubpages.com for a list of some of the past winners of the 10 Most Fascinating People selected by Barbara Walters since 1993.

Stifling Myths

The UK Newspaper The Guardian has an article on "How Scientologists Pressurise Publishers", based initially on The Complex pulled out of Amazon U.K. stock.

The article in fact is not that bad but contains a few inaccuracies and omissions.

"Several times they've taken legal action to try and stop websites revealing their teachings"

It would be more exact to write "Several times they've taken legal action to try and stop websites posting their copyrighted material"

"The Church of Scientology set up a campaign called Operation Freakout to discredit her."

Makes it sound as if the operation was actually carried out. It wasn't. It was only a project that remained on paper.

"the Church falsely told the FBI she had sent them two bomb threats"

"Falsely" seems to be here the author's opinion, because there never was any definite proof one way or the other. See my page about the Cooper Bomb Threat myth at http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/cooper_bomb.htm

"The court cases went on for some years and eventually the Church won. Armstrong filed for bankruptcy and fled to Canada. The Church filed further lawsuits against him in the 1990s and into the new century. There have been numerous other examples of Scientology trying to suppress criticism."

This is incorrect and I am surprised that a journalist who supposedly has researched the CoS comes up with such a myth. Armstrong settled his case and received $800,000 as part of the settlement. He fled out to Canada with the money and joyfully breached the agreement 131 times. He can't go back in the US where he is now wanted by the law.

"numerous other examples of Scientology trying to suppress criticism"

That may be, but the examples provided on the article do not really support that claim. The complain being made against The Complex is for libel, not criticism. The examples given about "legal actions against web sites" were for copyright, not "revealing their teachings". Operation Freakout was never enacted, and there is no proof that the bomb threat accusation against Cooper was false. As for Armstrong, he is wanted in the US for what amounts to stealing $800,000 from the CoS, not because he is a critic.

There is hope, however, that David V. Barrett, author of this article, eventually corrects these innacuracies. Indeed, he writes:

"Because of the unbiased descriptive stance of my books on new religious movements, anti-cultists have accused me of being a "cult apologist"."

This always is an honor, because "cult apologist" is the term anti-cultists use for moderate onlookers who don't share their frantic and paranoid views on cults and actually check facts.

So how about it, David? Search the issue a bit deeper, and you may find that things are not just as simple as what is presented on the many so-called critical web sites that mostly repeat from each other the same myths until they become "true".

The Money Trail

Mark Bunker is relaying the call for donations of the WhyWeProtest forum.

Really, I am surprised that WhyWeProtest will try to pull that one again after the enturbulation.org fiasco, where it seems that LE, the site admin, ran away with the donation money after he completely shut down the forum.

I am also surprised suckers would fall for it again when Anonymous obviously cannot provide upon request (as most reputable charities do) reports outlining amount of donations and expenses.

At the time, I already blogged about the fact that I found strange Anonymous was demanding money at all, supposedly for maintaining a web site, something that millions of people around the world do for free. Apparently I was not the only one having my doubts about it, as can be seen on an August YouTube video entitled "Enturbulation.org donation scandals".

OGs do not have a brilliant record on this topic either.

Money issues was at the core of the conflict between critics that eventually led (with the CoS' help) to the demise of Bob Minton. One of the criticism that was being made at the time was that Patricia Greenway used Minton's money to buy for herself a luxury sport car rather than investing it in that turd called "The Profit" as she should have.

In another notorious case, the same OG that now complains about LE above had the guts to ask people for donations after he lied about the treatening post he made against the CoS and which he falsely claimed for two years they faked. To my knowledge, these donations have not been reimbursed either.

Not speaking about the case of Jerry Armstrong, who accepted a $800,000 settlement from the CoS then ran away from the US (where he is now wanted by the law) and breached the terms of his settlement 131 times.

Even has of now, money issues continue to create problems. There is a critic in ARS who is regularly blamed by his own fellows for having tried to cash in on his activism through sale of anti-Scientology items. This sounds strange, knowing that Andreas Heldal-Lund himself is selling anti-Scientology artifacts for profit too. The only difference is that he makes it sound as if the profit from sales goes to some charity, whereas it merely goes to another anti-cultist, who probably returns him the favor in another form.

So, if you feel like donating, please do if it's spontaneous movement from the hearth. It's good for your karma, even if later on you will finally realize it is all bunk. But don't be naive. Due to Anonymous' anonymous nature, what you donate will be lost forever, with no control as to what is exactly being done with the money.

At least, after the Magoo fiasco, I doubt it will be used again to finance free oversea trips for "non-leaders" of Anonymous, and I am sure Mark has now grown enough hair on his wise beard to beware of geeks bearing gifts. It might even be that the reason he now promotes the WhyWeProtest donation campaign is because he feels guilty the money has been previously spent for such futile purposes.

However, I am not against Mark continuing to sign autographs on boobs. Lots of boobs, and please film them all and put them on YouTube!

Chat Interview

From time to time I receive requests for interviews.

In the past, this was done through e-mail, since, being pseudonymous, I don't accommodate telephone or live interviews.

Recently, though, I did a chat interview, which I think gives a more spontaneous feel than e-mail interview, close to a real live interview.

Since I posted the raw bit (i.e. whole uncut interview) and thus is a bit longish, you will find it as an entry in my old blog at http://anotherlookatscientology.blogspot.com/2008/12/chat-interview.html.

The interview was done by Brian Theobald, reporter with the online GLBT magazine EDGE Publications.

As for most of the interviews I did in the past, I do not know what was made of it.

The Complex - And Other Paranoid Rumors

There are rumors currently that Tom Cruise helped censor a critical book in the U.K.. The claim is made that Amazon U.K. retired the book after he visited them.

This does not make a lot of sense.

Why would the CoS send their highest profile celebrity on a mission when a simple letter from their lawyer would do (which is most probably what happened)?

Why would Cruise bother about a book in the U.K. when it is still being sold in the U.S. where the libel laws are different?

Did Cruise use his tremendous OT powerz to guess the book would come out at the same time of the probably long planned visit to Amazon for the 10th anniversary of the movie store?

Nah - it just does not jive. It's silly, and Shawn Lindseth rightly wrote in a wonderfully written and hilarious article yesterday:

"Cruise is innocent - we think we can explain things right away here. Tom strangely stopped by the Amazon offices to show off his new Valkyrie movie. Seems like a weird choice until you realise that later in the day he’d also let the employees of a local mom & pop grocery store sneak a peak. Then he went to two gas stations and an unimpressed toll-taker, all allegedly with a projector in tow, but we digress."

Anyway, if you still long to hear the non-existent wise beard of John Duignan, you can head to this site, where you will be graced with a vocal rendition of the first four chapters.

Don't expect to be enthraled, though, according to a Scientology critic himself:

"Holy Xenu, this is the most boring story on scientology I heard so far. The female voice reminds me of Delta air (Sung). Always went to sleep before take off."

To me it reminds me of the movie "The Profit", a so-called critical film that was so bad even critics dished it off when it was leaked. Like for this book, though, the producers tried to boost sales claiming harassment and letting loose all kinds of wild rumors.

Just as for paranoid anti-Scientology claims, sensational harassment rumors is not enough to sustain the success of a book. If the content of the book is not worth it, it will eventually take the plunge.

Feel My Finger

Barbara Schwartz has a tread running in ARS about Travolta successfully giving a touch assist to Marlo Brando.

I am not convinced that the fact Marlo Brando told he feels better demonstrates anything, but this is not the point I want to make here.

I remember while "moonlighting" during my time on staff in Belgium that I gave a series of touch assist to the wife of my boss (in his presence). It did not seem to have much effect one way or the other (bad or good), but it did feel odd to repeatedly tell the wife of my boss "feel my finger...".

Epic Sword Guy

"Mario was a friend of mine for a time and some. Let me enlighten you all a little about the guy. Mario was brilliant. Not just an intelligent guy, but the kind of down right scary intelligence that most just gawk at."

From http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=177099&postcount=320

Mario refers to Mario Majorski, the guy who got shot in front of the Celebrity Center by security guards after wielding two Samurai swords at them. There seems to be quasi unanimity between pros and antis to the effect that 1/the shot was justified as self-defense and protection and 2/the guy was nuts.

However, I found that the above-referred to article brings something interesting in the cast, and that is, that before "falling well off his rocker", Mario seemed to be an exceptionally bright character. His case reminds me somewhat of that of Philip Gale (brilliantly documented by Mark Ebner) who had an obsession with jumping off high buildings.

Valkyrie - Tom Cruise's Real Risky Business

(Based on the news print at
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=102262&catid=82)

Tom Likes to take risks.

"Anything that's tough to do, I think, ends up being the most rewarding."

His house is adorned with a collection of bikes and airplanes, and he enjoys riding and flying them, even though some are perilous.

With Valkyrie, Cruise also takes risks, but it’s not risk for risk, it’s risk because he really feels for the movie:

"You have to take chances, challenge yourself," Cruise says, patting the propeller of the P-51, which is emblazoned with "Kiss Me Kate" on the nose. "You can't take movies because you think they're going to be huge hits."

That’s a thing I admire in him, in anyone. Do things because you feel it’s right, not necessarily aimed at results, even if the whole world is against you. Whatever the outcome, you’ll be a winner. You may win or lose your “external” bet, but even if you lose it, you will always have the inner satisfaction and rewards that you did the right thing. So whatever the outcome, you already won your "internal" bet, the most important of both.

That’s what happened to the hero of the film, by the way, and that’s what makes his grandeur. He did not succeed to kill Hitler, but what he did lives down history because he had the guts to at least try.

With Valkyrie, though, Cruise is really pushing it. There is an accumulation of factors that makes it indeed very risky business, and if he can pull that one, he can pull out anything:

1. Cruise couch jumping reputation, boosted by Internet activists who object to his adhesion and promotion of Scientology.
2. The fact that Cruise, a Scientologist, enacts the role of a German hero, and Scientology had more than its share of conflict with the German governement.
3. The fact that Cruise plays a Nazi, with a eye patch, which projects a somber image, even if the man is a hero.
4. The fact that unlike the Titanic, that story is not one that is generally known, and people may not be interested at the outset
5. More importantly, the fact that the film is scheduled to come on the day after Christmas. My guess is that people on that day would like to see an uplifting movie, not a somber conspiracy – plus the film is competing with a host of other films all seeking to vie a holiday family outing audience

Risky business indeed…

Angry Gay Pope in the News Again

I already pointed out the tasteless and harassing tactics of one of the Anonymous members going by the nick name of "Angry Gay Pope" (AGP). See here, here, and here.

Jeff Jacobsen seems to agree with me after another display of AGP's "talent".

Mark Bunker, on the other hand, in spite of making reservations about him, justifies his behavior using the "Gays and Scientology" myth.

I really like Mark Bunker as a person. I really do. But sometimes I wonder where on earth he misplaced his insight.

The fact that AGP is gay or not has nothing to do with his behavior. It has everything to do with the fact that he is a bully by nature. Pitdown Man is also gay, and yet I am sure he would never bully Scientologists for no better reason than the fact they are Scientologists.

Mark also writes "facts over harassment will win everytime". This is only partly true. Context is almost as important as facts. As an old saying goes, "Truth without love is cruelty".

Clearing by Cartoons

I found a great way to clear up words and have fun at the same time. The resource is CartoonStock. Type a word and you’ll get a series of cartoons culled from various sources to illustrate it. Great demo and sometimes really funny at that.

Some may say that this is another application of the Scientology concept of "balancing mass and signification". I'll be sending Scientologists using the service my usual fee for providing such a great replacement of the clay demo table...

Tip: the search gives an overview of individual cartoons, like this, but if you edit the URL you can get the first ten hits on a single page, which I find more interesting, like this. Just change the word "smugness" by whatever word starting with s you want to look up (or change the starting letter for another non-s word). Did not find yet how to achieve same through the menu.

Crusing the Good Wave

"Wow! His family is quite a powerful bunch lately! First his wife Katie Holmes has the highest grossing show on Broadway. Then, his 2 year old daughter Suri is voted Hollywood's most influential kid. And now he's on DETAILS magazine's list as one of the most influential men in the World! All I can say is... ROCK ON!!"

From http://scientologist.blogspot.com/2008/11/tom-cruise-one-of-most-powerful-men-on.html

Indeed Tom Cruise is on a good wave for the moment, and he also "made up" with Matt Lauer by brightly sustaining the litany of jokes and insults that are requirements to be honored by the "Friars Club" - plus he received excellent reviews for his short appearance in "Tropic Thunder" (which in the meantime I saw. My opinion: bad movie but indeed amazing performance by Cruise in a very atypical role).

But now comes Valkyrie, to be screened on the day following Christmas. I don't have enough information to make a judgment on the film, but I have this to say: whatever the outcome of the film, I find Cruise dedication to make movies because he finds them valuable in spite of the risk it may entails admirable. This may explains why he almost systematically comes up with great quality films, something that helps make him retain his place as the most bankable Star in the past twenty years even after the wave of criticism that followed his antics on Ophra's couch and other gaffes.

Of course, independently from his adhesion to Scientology, he also is extremely handsome and talented, IMHO, and I admit having a deep admiration for him as an actor.

This being said, I did find quite bad the famous interview leaked on to the Internet and which has been the target of numerous parodies (the funniest to date, IMO, being the SuperHero one). I realize that Cruise made the video for an internal audience and not the general public, something critics don't take into account in their mockery, but really he was not good at it. His arguments were weak and his laugh, well... stupid. By far the worst "role" I saw him in.

It also is worth to note that Anonymous' rather distastful protests at Kathy Holmes debuts in "All My Sons" didn't do squash to prevent it to be a great success. You know, there also is some cognitive dissonance to be had here. Anonymous basically "advertised" the fact that she was a Scientologist to those who may not have been aware of it. She ignored them and focused on her role instead. Because she did so well, people now may think that this Scientology thing is not so bad after all. Anonyous thus unwittingly helped her to promote Scientology!

German Ban - Historical Perspective

I personally oppose Scientology because of its cultic framework, in which an otherwise sound and original belief system exists. This framework leads the CoS into cultic behavior, and that behavior is rightly opposed by critics.

The problem, however, is that the critical movement itself currently exists in a cultic framework as well, that leads critics into cultic behavior. These could go as far as help to precipitate mass tragedies like Jonestown and Waco, on top of countless individual drama.

This is the reason I oppose the anti-cult and anti-Scientology movement in its present form, because they in fact represent a greater and more immediate danger to basic human rights than cults themselves.

Trying to scare the public and authorities through anti-Scientology myths may work in the short run but is doomed to fail in the long run because these obviously lack sufficient basis in truth to satisfy legal and academic requirements.

This is what the recent lifting of the German project to ban Scientology shows.

But there is more.

Graham, a moderate Scientologist, places the German ban project lifting in an interesting historical perspective where he shows that basically the same type of events happened in Australia, the UK, Spain and with the American IRS, among others. What is more, he points to the interesting fact that in many cases these investigations not only led to a possible ban lift but also led to a full religious status recognition for the CoS!

Grahame also argues that the burden of proof on the Internet is not the same as for legal situations and that this explains why anti-Scientology myths can have a long life on such a media and fool uncritical masses such as Anonymous.

In the long run, however, I believe that the fact that courts, government, and academics more and more refuse to follow anti-cult fanatics in their crusade, is one of the factors that increases the cognitive dissonance in the public and helps them question what they read on so-called critical web sites.

Easy Anti-Scientology Jabs

The venerable Gregg Roughley of the no less venerable UK newspaper "The Guardian" should check his facts better before launching in easy anti-Scientology jabs.

Indeed, he writes about one Paulie Malignaggi:

"He doesn't possess a 'lights out' punch, but he can move like Travolta (pre-Scientology days of course) and deliver rapid-fire jabs to outscore his opponents."

He no doubts refers to "Saturday Night Fever", that came out in 1977 and maybe also to "Grease" that came out in 1978.

Travolta joined Scientology in January of 1975 as he was working on his first film in Mexico (Durango). He already was a Scientologist when he made all his other films, including of course "Saturday Night Fever" and "Grease".

If Travolta moved better before he met Scientology then hardly anybody would know about it, since he was at the time a nobody.

If you are a journalist and especially is you write for a major news media, then check your facts before acting like a mindless fanatical anti-Scientologists. In our Internet days it only takes a few seconds.