What You Have to Look Away From In Order to Remain an Anti-Scientologist

Anti-Scientology

Pro Life marchers and some abortion-rights supporters at the U.S. Supreme Court on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, on Jan. 24 , 2005. Chicago Tribune Photo by Pete Souza

Back when I used to be a Scientologist, I would look away from a lot of things in order to remain one.

Even in that little bubble, there were things that I was aware of which were “truths” that I didn’t want to look at.

For instance: I didn’t want to look at the idea that a lot of the incidents I ran in past life auditing didn’t add up. I didn’t want to look at the passages in, for instance, Science of Survival where L Ron Hubbard wrote that people “below 2.0 on the Tone Scale” should have “no civil rights of any kind.”

And I certainly did not want to look at those fanatics in the Sea Org running around in fake sailor suits screaming at me.

When I was a Scientologist, I was doing something else than seeking to live with the truth. I was being a tribal warrior. And those were some of the parts of my side of the war that I had to look away from if I wanted to keep being a Scientologist.

After I’d flipped and become an Anti-Scientologist, there were things I was looking away from there, too. And I did not allow myself to see them until I had my “Hey! Wait A Minute!” moment as an Ex and discovered the policy of Embracement.

Abortion: Pick a Side and Look Away from Half of the Truth

There are two very strong tribal elements battling against each other in the US Abortion War.

One side says that Abortion is murder. It’s actually murdering babies.

The other side says that a woman has a right to control her own body, and to make decisions about whether to become a mother.

In order for a person to remain on one side or another in this war, they must look away from the truth that the other side clings to.

The policy of Embracement would open their eyes to the truths of both sides and conclude:

ABORTION IS MURDER and A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE IT.

When you really embrace both of those ideas, you become a little bit less adolescent. You grow up a little. You realize that human life does include killing – even to eat. And a woman has a right to her own body. That means a woman has a right to kill her fetus, and no other power has the right to stop her.

It’s at that point when you realize that the existing law which limits abortion to the first trimester – a law forged in this raging battle – is probably the most rational law we could ever have on the subject.

When you accept these truths from BOTH tribes, all of a sudden, you cool out. The war goes away in your mind. And you grow up a little bit.

The same policy of Embracement applies to the Scientology/Anti-Scientology war:

Scientology is my religion and I have a right to practice it.

vs

Scientology is a criminal cult and is a matter for law enforcement.

What are both tribes looking away from in order to cling to the half-truths of their positions?

Scientology is a cult which abuses people and Scientologists have a right to practice it.

There are a lot of other things that Anti-Scientologists are looking away from, as well, in order to cling to their “side” of the truth.

Such as:

It’s perfectly legal in the United States to make-up a pack of woo-woo ideas – and outright lies – bundle them together with a bunch of socially coercive, hypnotic, operant conditioning techniques, and charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to run people through them to the point of bankruptcy. This is perfectly legal in the United States.

But there’s something else, too. Something way more important that Anti-Scientologists are looking away from, and which Ex-Scientologists have even forgotten about themselves: Your own power of choice.

When you were a Scientologist you did choose to remain one – even after seeing the abuse. All the information was available to you if you wanted to see it – if you were really seeking to live with the truth.

As a Scientologist, you CHOSE not to see it.

It’s this part of the truth which Anti-Scientologists are looking away from and which would bring them up out of adolescence. It would help raise the debate to a more adult level:

Scientology is a religious choice. And the people who get themselves involved and stay involved for years, do so knowingly and willingly.

Just as you did.

It’s their choice.

Scientology is perfectly legal, and people, knowingly and willingly, choose to practice it.

And, just as you would not want to live on a planet that was “cleared” by Scientology, I don’t think you would want to live in a society where making the religious choice to be a Scientologist was not perfectly legal, as well.

Like the grown up view that in order for us to eat we have to kill something, it’s also a grown up view that Scientologists make a religious choice to be Scientologists – a valid individual choice that they have every right to make.

These are baseline truths that you must accept as an Ex-Scientologist which pretty much deflates your ability to remain a red-faced, screaming anti-Scientologist. Fully accepting these baseline truths moderates your rage, and brings reason back in to your viewpoint. You cool out, grow up, and become more accepting of the other side’s truth, too.

There are other truths that you must look away from in order to remain an Anti-Scientologist.

Can you think of them?

Leave a Reply

60 Comments on "What You Have to Look Away From In Order to Remain an Anti-Scientologist"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest
Lone Star
Guest

To remain an Anti-Scientologist you have to ignore the fact that there are people who are leading joyful, purpose driven lives practicing Scientology. Here in my area I’m still in fairly regular contact with about four or five still ins. I’m in contact with even more with still ins I run into about once or twice a year. They are all doing well and quite happy. No, I don’t mean that they never have bad days or upsets. But they wouldn’t give up Scientology if you held a gun to their head.

Now, I do know that these folks have a lot of debt because of Scientology. I also know that this debt will bite them on the ass some day in the future when it will not be good to have debt. (It’s never good in my book). But right now they “have no attention on it”, as they would say. Lol…

Long story short….These particular folks are healthy, mostly happy, and doing well in their jobs, careers, and businesses. Of course they credit the tech for their happiness and success. That’s fine. I personally think they could be just as successful without Scientology, but that’s my opinion. Not theirs. I’m not threatened by their “faith” in the tech.

Oh, and they do not regard me as the plague knowing that I gave Scientology a try and ultimately said no to it. Sure at first attempts to “reactive” me were tried. But I was never disconnected from or declared. Most anti-scientologists probably wouldn’t believe me on this. They think that only celebrities and big donors are “exempted from disconnection”.

Mainly I just don’t fuck with them. I give them a right to live their lives and they give me the right to live mine in the manner I see fit.

I prefer to fuck with people on these message boards and blogs instead! Lol….

marie
Guest

Your last paragraph was hilarious! Lone Star, what do your friends know of all the recent drama of the cos? Are they familiar with Going Clear or Leah Remini?

Lone Star
Guest

Marie I think some of them are somewhat aware, but they don’t go out of their way to read anything in depth about it. Nor will they watch any news reports about it. (Remini, Going Clear, Rinder, Beghe, Rathbun suit, etc…) One still-in I know never reads or watches any news at all. Has no idea what’s going on in the world except through the IAS and CCHR sources It’s really bizarre.

Gib
Guest

maybe you should tell your scientology friends “how LRH tricked you”

https://alanzosblog.com/how-l-ron-hubbard-tricked-you-the-scientology-ot-levels/

Richard
Guest

Nice post, Lone Star. I don’t know any still-ins so I don’t have a comment about that. I’ll take you at your word that you don’t get snarky with the still-ins you know. (joke)

I just recalled something. At times I’d return from out west to New Jersey where I’m from and get together with my oldest and best friend. I’d tell him some stuff about scn, sort of promoting it. He’d just look at me, neither nodding or saying yes or no. I guess it was a case of “no ack” was the “best ack.”

Lone Star
Guest

That is pretty much what I do if the subject of Scn comes up. I give “no acks”. But it very rarely comes up anymore. I do think that some of these still-ins I know will eventually blow. Just a gut feeling. I’m not seeing any sings of “pre-blow phenomena” yet. Lol… I just made up a new condition…pre-blow phenomena. I better copyright it.

Anyway, I think when the whole Ideal Org project comes crashing down in a way that not even the great spin meister Slappy McSavage can explain away, then there will be pre-blow phenomena followed by full blown blowing. Many still-ins have sunk a lot of their money into this Ideal scam. Gone into considerable debt over it. They’ll be devastated when the results are so obvious that it was all for naught.

Richard
Guest

Laughter! Too bad you weren’t on the original Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Your discovery “pre-blow phenomena” would have entered the scripture. “Full Blown Blowing” is also worthy of copyright protection. laughter!

John Doe
Guest

That phenomenon might even show up on an emeter with a special read: PBPBD!

Pre-blow phenomena blow down.

Richard
Guest

Laughter – plus, “RED TAGGED – SEND TO ETHICS!”

Gib
Guest

that’s all Lone Star, in contact with 4 or 5, I’m in contact with about 15 and all are OT8 and have done the L’s.

To say scientologists lead joyful lives is just looking at their PR shore story, always putting on a gleeful happy face. LOL Oh, the stories I wish I could tell, but I respect their privacy and won’t name names or tell.

You see, I am in the sort of same boat as you LoneStar. Of course I don’t create antagonism, but I do enter in some non judgmental questions.

Can you imagine the world being run by Scientology? Why it would be like that movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and in Scientology case it would be all being replicates of L Ron Hubbard, round ball bearings falling lock step in line with the tribe (or crowd) Hubbard created.

There is no such thing called Scientology or a COS religion or an applied religious philosophy, it’s actually Hubbardology, Scientology is a shore story. Why do I make this statement. Simple, all of Scientology is being run by HCOB’s and HCO PL’s (and Hubbard secret advice’s to corporate at the time which DM follows), whether Indie or official COS . It’s all Hubbardology on how to live life.

And the H means Hubbard, and not Scientology. I know it’s subtle, does anybody get it?

Richard
Guest

Here’s a bit of lock step, the Apple 1984 Super Bowl commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSnW-ygU5g

Lone Star
Guest

Well, truth be told, the still-ins I know are doing well because of me. That’s right. Me. I’ve taught them a little ritual. A ritual that helps them to procreate the unholy bastard. Very powerful. Yes, a bit squirrelly. But quite enlightening…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l2FEHr_Yzg

Richard
Guest

Headphones! I forgot about Ghost for a while, Thanks Lone Star! Great bedtime music. “From the Pinnacle to the Pit” – Ghost has Crowley beat by a mile.

Richard
Guest

From the video – “What if man could harness the power of a god? In a sense, he would need God no longer, yes?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A-IoOEPbUs

Lone Star
Guest

Exactly Richard! And with LRH tech you CAN harness the powah of a god! The band Ghost is a double top secret alternative route to going up the bridge! The spirit of Crowley is with them.

Yeeeeeessssssss!! Believe.

Richard
Guest

Laughter – That video put George White on a two month toot of investigating the occult background of scn. He says he has over 200 index cards cross referencing Hubbarism and Occultism, particularly on the OT levels, and will publish his findings soon. Crowley, Madame Blavatsky and the rest of the occult crowd need to be given proper credit!

Claire M Swazey
Guest

I’ve factor seems to be that many feel the entire subject is tainted. I get that, though to me, it’s pretty obviously untrue.

What those ppl who feel that way are doing is to proffer the package deal mindset we see that’s so problematic in organizated religion. Ideas are just ideas and they can be singled out.

I know Christians who’ve left their former congregations but retained their belief in Jesus. Can’t a Scn’ist do something analogous? Sure they can, and they do.

When one is in a totalitarian cult, one has little say in anything like that. But someone who’s doing a more free form heretical thing can do it.

There is no such thing as contagion by proximity of ideas. The ONLY way an entire belief system can be bad or worthless is if everything in it is bad, or you’re in a cult or even mainstream group that stood you from judging various ideas separately. And, yeah, there are some.

If some dude grabs an old Phoenix Lectures , curls up on the window seat and reads it, then applied some practices from it in his life apart from any group, then that oughtn’t be a threat to anyone.

I find that radicalized fundie critics really like to pigeonhole and shout ppl down. They really resent being told, no, this is not my stance. But they get pretty uptight when someone dies it to them or they believe that’s the case. It IS fundamentalism and I saw CofS members doing it all the time.

How’s that work- make fun of Elfman or Alley for running roughshod on ppl re their decisions then go act the same?

Claire M Swazey
Guest

Sorry re typos- typing on a cell is hard. Anyway, should be “STOPPED you from judging” and “ONE factor”.

Lone Star
Guest

Next time try doing a reach and withdraw process with your phone. Your typing effectiveness will 10X!

Claire M Swazey
Guest

I also like the analysis re the abortion issues.

Eileen
Guest

Fix your analogy, Abortion is not murder!
Your analysis of the abortion comparison needs rethinking. Murder is unlawful taking of life. “Murder” is a legal construct, meant to convey the unlawful taking of (human) life.
The distinction is important. Murder is a legal definition. Soldiers are not considered to be murderers, although they are often killers.
So, your essay should read: “Abortion is killing (at least of potential life), and a woman has a right to choose it” A more accurate description.
So, what does that distinction do to the analogy?
“Scientology is killing (at least of potential growth of an individual), and a person has a right to choose it.”
I recognize a person’s absolute right to choose Scientology. However, as a person who has witnessed more profound improvement from other therapies and philosophies I feel sad for the person whose only option is Scientology. Just as I feel sad for any person who chooses abortion. Both choices are a death, literally and figuratively. And people find ways to move past either decision (abortion or Scientology) and build meaningful and important lives.

Virginia McClaughry
Guest

I agree with a lot of what I think you’re trying to say here Eileen, but not with that what soldiers do is somehow LESS than murder.

I just don’t think that kind of distinction should be made because I think you might be trying to say (and you can correct me if I’m wrong) that what soldiers do is some kind of “authorized” killing, and I have any number of problems with that concept. The simplest of which is that no amount of authorization makes it any less of an act of taking someone’s life.

Of course, maybe that’s exactly what you are trying to say, but I just don’t think people who are considering having an abortion should try to soften in ANY way what they will actually be DOING to their child. I am not against abortion, per se, I guess what I’m against is people being far too flippant about it.

I have just heard too many stories from women who did not really fully consider the full weight of that and what that would feel like, until it was too late, and then it hit them like a mack truck because it is a lot more profound than they wanted to face before-hand.

Eileen
Guest

Hi Virginia,
I was making the distinction between words. Murder is really a legal term, means killing that has not been “justified” by governments or cultures. using the term murder to describe soldiers or abortions is just inaccurate. If the law changes than murder may become a descriptor for abortion, people will go to jail.
I agree with you that taking a life should never be minimized. But I would never want to call a war vet a “murderer” or a woman who chose abortion.
I have never known a woman who was flippant about abortion. I have witnessed what I would describe as grim determination, and regret.

Virginia McClaughry
Guest

Right. Well, obviously we disagree. But that’s ok.

Richard
Guest

Regarding being a tribal warrior, I was in scn for my own benefit. I never bought into Clearing The Planet. It took too long and cost too much. My tribal mentality was believing that scn had all the answers for me personally. I did believe that I would do some good for some people.

After watching Going Clear I reexamined my scn experience of many years ago and became an anti scn-ist to the extent of singing with the choir on a couple of blogs, Alanzo’s included. I added satire and condemnation of all things scn, but after a couple of months I realized I wasn’t doing myself any good and quit doing it.

Richard
Guest

This is from memory and may not be accurate. The “brainstem”, often referred to as the reptilian part of the brain, is the first part of the brain to develop in the fetus. The human brain continues to develop until about age 20, so says modern science.

Regardless of stance on soul/spirit/thetan and past lives/reincarnation/the hereafter, an unfortunate person who is brain dead after an accident is no longer a “person” imo. Anti abortionists sometimes point out the fact that a fetus develops a heartbeat. So has the brain dead adult. Abortion=murder is hardwired in the minds of many people.

Richard
Guest

I think the discussion of abortion needs to bring in some politics. Trump said he’d leave abortion up to the individual states. I guess that means a state would need to find its own funding for abortion clinics without federal assistance. Federal defunding of all Planned Parenthood would be stupid imo. At least leave in birth control and basic women’s services. No fetus equals no abortion.

But Catholics and others in the Be Fruitful And Multiply crowd don’t want to hear about birth control. I guess they haven’t looked at world population statistics. In 1800 there were 1 billion humans walking the earth. In 1960 there were 3 billion and today, less than 60 years later there are almost 8 billion and still rising. oops

Virginia McClaughry
Guest

There could be another reason for that rather than rhetoric – if that’s what you mean by hardwired. You’d have an impossible battle to convince a woman of that it wasn’t a person, who, after the fact, has just realized that they have eliminated a life that will never be again. I’m not saying things should go back to back alleys and dirty knives, just that there is more going on there “connection” wise that isn’t always correctly accounted for in the decision-making process.

Richard
Guest

Good point, Virginia. What was on my mind is that the most militant anti abortionists seem to be men. They seem to project the idea that stopping abortion is the most important issue in the world. Hopefully, in an ideal world, most women choosing to have an abortion are not forced or coerced into it. I don’t know if I exactly answered the question.

Lone Star
Guest

I think abortion should be legal up to the age of 30. No not weeks….years.

Claire Swazey
Guest

Even have it be retroactive!!!

Virginia McClaughry
Guest

Richard, thanks, that helps me understand what you were looking at.

wpDiscuz

Created by Alanzo

Clicky