Ask yourself: Is Tony Ortega biased on the subject of Scientology, on L. Ron Hubbard, on David Miscavige, or even on minority religions themselves? As a staunch atheist, might he be biased in the area of religious and spiritual pursuits generally?
Really. Ask yourself these questions.
Then consider my argument below.
Today I want to talk about Tony Ortega. I’ve been saying for a number of years now that Tony Ortega is biased as a journalist in his reporting on Scientology. I’m not saying that because I’m just this vicious troll – which is what he told a journalist at the Hollywood Reporter – that I was a vicious destructive troll. I know this because the reporter told me that Tony Ortega told him that. LOL
So this is why I say that Tony Ortega’s reporting on Scientology is negatively biased. My underlying assumption here, which any journalist should be able to recognize, is that the truth about anything is both the good and the bad of it. Right?
If you were going to tell the truth about Adolf Hitler, for instance, you would tell the truth about all the bad that he did, but you would also have to tell the truth about any of the good that he did too. And I agree that would probably not be very much – but the truth is both. So it’s the same way with L Ron Hubbard – the truth about L Ron Hubbard is both the good and the bad. The truth about Ronald Reagan is both the good and the bad.
I hope I’m not saying anything to a journalist here that they don’t already know.
So that’s my underlying assumption when it comes to Scientology. If you talk to a Scientologist he would only tell you the good. It’s just the good, just the good, just the good. Well that is also biased and you know that you wouldn’t be getting the truth if you only got just the good.
If you talk to somebody who is an anti Scientologist like Tony Ortega, you just get the bad. And if you don’t believe me, I’ve been reading him every day since 2011 when he began at the Village Voice reporting on Scientology – every single day. And I have to say that after, what, seven years now of reading him every day, it is astounding that he never, and I mean never, has anything to report about the good in Scientology. For seven years every single day it’s all bad.
So just like the Scientologist is wrong and not telling you the truth about Scientology when he says only the good about it, it is also not the truth about Scientology to report only the bad like Tony Ortega does.
So this is why I say that Tony Ortega is negatively biased as a journalist against Scientology.
If there’s anybody who can’t see this then it may be because you’re getting a steady stream of negative stuff about Scientology. It’s all that you know, and so you’re kind of an anti Scientologist without even knowing it. You discount, probably rightly discount, things that Scientologists say about Scientology because you know it’s biased. But you’re not discounting things that anti Scientologists say about Scientology and know that it’s biased, too.
Both sides have facts. Both sides have facts. Not just one side. The anti Scientologists aren’t the only ones with facts. So as a journalist, you should be able to recognize that you’re being fed a steady stream of bullshit from Tony Ortega about Scientology – just as if you were being fed a steady stream of bullshit from a Scientologist about Scientology.
So this is my argument for why Tony Ortega is biased on the subject of Scientology. I hope it makes sense.
Thank you very much.
Over and out.
Thanks Alanzo for leading us to really look into Tony, I just did a Google search for “Tony ortega biased journalism” and it got me to a website named undergroundbunker.org, and WOW – did you know all that Tony is and was involved in, concerning sex-trafficiking?? You should research into it and make a blog post on that.
Alanzo – When cable television first came out I was channel surfing and came across Billy Graham preaching. He KNEW, he was POSITIVE, he was CERTAIN, that if he fell dead on the stage that very moment he would IMMEDIATELY go to Heaven. Try to argue with THAT!
Yes Alanzo, Tony Ortega is negatively biased on Scientology. I just wanted to ack you.
Just like I am, as an ex member, and you. He knows the truth which is no clears or OT’s, hence negative about scientology. Yay!.
I feel so acknowledged now.
lets continue the auditing session. LOL
What shall I say, maybe good, thank you or
I got that, let’s continue the auditing process. What’s wrong with Tony being negatively biased?
LOL
If you don’t say the right answer or your indicators are not VGI, why I’ll pull out my correction list of questions to get a emeter read and an F/N.
LOL
There’s not much left of scn “discussion.” A couple of hate scn-ists and eradicate scn blogs continue. I was lucky and got in on the tail end of worthwhile discussion after watching the “Going Clear” movie. Scn cross references a lot of subjects from Buddhism to rhetoric to occultism and psychology and many other subjects and people showed up commenting about subjects in which they had knowledge and background.. By reading their comments, following the links they presented and doing some follow up study I gained an overview of very many interesting subjects. I learned some things from your background in sociology, Alanzo, as well as other areas of knowledge you have and mention on your blog. Thanks for that. I suppose it was to be expected that scn discussion would become limited as the CoS continues to decline. Once in a while an interesting topic still comes up that I participate in.
That really has been the value of discussion with other Exes and antis, and indies, for me too.
I’ve learned a lot of great things from lots of great people.
I wouldn’t count Scientology out just yet though. I’ve seen a resurgence from them on the Internet ever since ScientologyTV launched. You know the Scientology principle of “in a new unit of time”.
I think they think they’re just getting started!
Which is JUST like a Scientologist!
“I’ve seen a resurgence from them on the Internet ever since ScientologyTV launched.”
That’s interesting. Specifically, what have you seen that you indicated was a resurgence?
And do you have the impression that the orgs are actually doing better? If they were, would that mean Miscavige isn’t a true SP (sociopath)?
I’ve seen it specifically on Twitter.
There are new Twitter users who engage in debate about Scientology and they have blogs that are pro Scientology. They’ll tweet whenever they start a new extension course, for instance. Also, they have STAND League now where they are half-assedly engaging critics on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
I do not have any impression that the orgs are doing any better or any worse. Both sides lie about this, or make claims they know are inflated to continue to push their own narratives. I don’t know.
And as for Miscavige being a SP – sociopath – those two things are not the same. What Hubbard defined as an SP is not what is defined as a sociopath in psychology.
And no, I do not think that someone’s production record has anything to do with anti-social tendencies of any kind. Hubbard created a whole set of beliefs and superstitions around other people that he called “SPs” in order to cut your loyalties to them when he needed to. The whole idea of labeling “sociopaths” and “narcissists” and others in psychology is highly problematic and too often totally nutty.
So I try to stay away from that kind of thinking – unless it suits me to call someone an SP or a sociopath so other people will hate them.
Alanzo: “And as for Miscavige being a SP – sociopath – those two things are not the same. What Hubbard defined as an SP is not what is defined as a sociopath in psychology.”
According to the Mayo Clinic, “sociopath” has the same meaning as “antisocial personality,” the latter being the word Hubbard used in the most fundamental Policy Letter (also an HCOB) on the subject: “The Antisocial Personality.” Here’s a quote from their site:
“Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior.” https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
If you compare the characteristics in “The Antisocial Personality” PL with those the Mayo Clinic lists out for sociopath/anti-social personality, it isn’t hard to believe the Mayo Clinic is looking at the same “elephant” that Hubbard was looking at, but from a different angle – most notable is the Mayo Clinic’s point about “lack of remorse for harming others.” In general, Hubbard’s point of view is more incisive and insightful, IMO, although saying so is politically incorrect in most places.
I should note too that I’m not including in this topic of “SP” Hubbard’s authoritarian policies that came out later, the ones having to do with what some have called the “administrative SP” – which don’t actually align with his “antisocial personality” characteristics.
You could also be describing a soldier in war time with those characteristics, or a DEA agent raiding a drug dealers’ house.
Labeling a person an SP or a sociopath is an attempt to understand the motivations of people who oppose us or who we are presently mad at. And they usually assign demonic traits to the person’s character, rather than to his environment or immediate needs.
This is most often an example of the Fundamental Attribution Error, using the Actor-Observer bias.
I don’t generally believe in witches, or SPs.
It is an extremely stunted and childish way of seeing your fellow man.
“You could also be describing a soldier in war time with those characteristics, or a DEA agent raiding a drug dealers’ house.”
Not really, Al, unless the soldier, drug dealer or DEA agent had those characteristics on a consistent basis. The operative word in the Mayo Clinic description of an antisocial personality that I quoted was “consistently.” Not all soldiers, etc. are antisocial, regardless of the “suppressive” activity they might currently be involved in. The way Hubbard worded this idea of consistency was to state in that same PL that one had to consider “the majority” of characteristics before coming to a conclusion.
You ended off with “It is an extremely stunted and childish way of seeing your fellow man.”
Well, it’s what professionals and organizations like the Mayo Clinic have discovered to be statistically the case. I wonder if are you still resisting some of the things Hubbard came up with simply because he was the one to come up with them?
No. I didn’t agree with the SP tech when I was a Scientologist because I had a father who defied all categorization, no matter how hard anyone worked to categorize him. I knew him.
If I hadn’t known him I could have easily labeled him “SP”.
That’s the difference. You have to walk in another man’s sandals to understand why he does what he does.
The Mayo Clinic has no time for that.
“You have to walk in another man’s sandals to understand why he does what he does.”
In that PL about the antisocial personality, Hubbard is describing 20% of the people, with only 2-1/2% being truly antisocial and 17-1/2 % being PTS. To understand why PTS people act like SPs – but aren’t – is to understand that the influence on them of some SP, whether in the past or the present. Did your understanding of your father relate to that type of situation?
My point is that no ideological categorization fits my father, or any other real person.
The only use of an ideological categorization like “SP” is in your own mind – so you can use it to try to make sense of the world and other people.
Whether any real person truly ever fits your sense-making categories is never the point.
You need to make sense of the world, and these categories and labels do that for you.
“The only use of an ideological categorization like ‘SP’ is in your own mind – so you can use it to try to make sense of the world and other people.”
What do you yourself use to make sense of the world and other people? And how does that differ from what you call “ideology.”
definition of ideology: a system of ideas and ideals
In other words, I think you’re biased. 😉
The world is an infinitely chaotic mess coming at us 24/7.
Everybody has to make sense of the world.
SP is one way to do that which is grouped together with a lot of other sense-making stuff called Scientology.
These days, I would rather use my own hard-won ineffable experience to make sense of the world.
I couldn’t agree more. A person’s own experience is paramount. With Scientology, not everyone accepts its principles on faith. Some of us have done exactly what Hubbard said to do (at least what he said in the earlier years) – which was to see for yourself if it was true.
I really like it that you do your best to look for yourself, but sometimes it seems that you don’t do so with Scientology because of old, fixed ideas that you aren’t truly willing to look at newly and reconsider. I could be wrong! 🙂
Alanzo: “There are new Twitter users who engage in debate about Scientology and they have blogs that are pro Scientology.”
Wow. So if the church is behind it they’re using a double-edged sword, because essentially these active/vocal church members would be finding out what’s on the internet (at least some of what’s on it) regarding the church – which members have previously been forbidden to even look at, let alone discuss.
Maybe Miscavige has decided to fight fire with fire, the way firemen do with forest fires – propaganda vs. propaganda. That would be brilliant on his part – at least in the context of it being the current culture of our society, and until that changes with rising awareness.
sure there is much to discuss, Richard, the whole Bridge to Total Freedom is much to discuss.
Are you clear or OT?
Let’s discuss that? Did Hubbard achieve such states? Or anybody else?
Richard, do you believe scientology can produce a clear or OT?
What are your thoughts?
This isn’t a religious question of if scientology is a religion, just a simple question of if you believe scientology can produce a clear or OT?
And if so, why?
And if not why?
I’m also the only one who mentions Hubbard’s rhetoric, nobody else does, except Gib, Have you studied classical rhetoric to compare?
Wow – I started a conversation which is my only function on scn blogs – haha
I once started a list of subjects I learned about from scn blogs which I previously had little or no knowledge about.and it was over a dozen before I stopped listing them. When I mentioned a few subjects above I included rhetoric since you participate here and you were the one who introduced me to that subject. I was ack’ing you Gib!
I’m in no way a student of rhetoric such as you, Gib, but the overview I’ve gained now makes rhetoric in scn, politics and elsewhere leap out and become immediately apparent to me just like a misunderstood word which rarely escapes my attention.
Yes. I find rhetoric to be as powerful as body thetans, myself.
When you’ve got a little booger of a thetan yapping at you constantly from your nervous stomach, it’s almost as powerful as when Marc Antony says “Friends, Romans, Countrymen – lend me your ears!”
I do whatever it says.
I’m powerless in the face of body thetan rhetoric.
Laughter – I should clarify my position on the CoS. I find no value in the current CoS. It’s a con game bilking money out of people. The current statistic presented by CoS are obviously BS and lies.
I didn’t pursue the OT levels and it’s speculation on my part if I would have bought into Elron’s cosmology. Stripping away false identities is addressed in other practices and if some people want to spend years and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so, probably led by e-meter reads, then it’s their right to do so. Aftermath #1 focused on disconnection, bankruptcy and fair gaming which are valid criticisms. There are plenty of other practices, cults and religions most people would consider wacky. When and if Aftermath #3 comes about, let’s see who is next on the list.
Thanks Richard for your reply.
In my investigation into dianetics and scientology, I’m looking into sources of Hubbard’s influence, what led him to do the things he wrote and said and believed in. If we fast forward, Hubbard said he failed and wasn’t coming back, according to Sarge.
But, I can verify Hubbard failed, no clears or OT’s.
But no matter.
I’ve been trying to figure out Hubbard’s ARC = Understanding. Where did he get this from?
Also, coupled with KRC. The double cross triangle.
ARC and KRC are major influences into staying into scientology.
When I first ever posted about Hubbard reading Dean Wilbur book on Rhetoric, why nobody has read it, I even posted it on ESMB on my tread for one to read. No replies.
I was hoping some astute reader would read it, and explain it. Something not easy for me to do.
I was even hoping Alanzo would read it.
Here is something I have been mulling about. Hubbard said ARC=understanding.
Rhetoric classical basically is pathos, ethos, logos = perssuassion
Maybe persuasion should be understanding and Hubbard tricked us?
I really was hoping for Alanzo to have a discussion and in depth research, but that is not to be.
My time here is not to be spent, sorry.
I don’t see rhetoric the same way you do, Gib. I don’t see the attempt to persuade someone as all-powerful, something that covers over the target’s power of choice.
But I don’t see hypnosis or brainwashing that way either.
We all had our own power of choice, the whole time. It never went away no matter how much brainwashing or hypnosis or rhetoric was tried on us by anyone.
Sometimes, you just got to have something to blame.
I blew scientology before discovering my “service facsimile”, what I use to make myself right and others wrong. I know it’s still lurking around and making me do weird stuff.
why do you think you have such a thing?
Who influenced you into thinking you had a service facsimile? When did that first start?
Did the person who said you have a service facsimile have influence over you, did you have power of choice?
When did you first learn you had a service facsimile, and why did you believe it? Did he have logos, ethos and pathos to get you to believe?
Gib – Mentioning ser fac was a joke relating to Alanzo mentioning “something to blame”.
Werner Erhard used the idea of ser fac along with other things in EST, Erhard Seminars Training. My understanding is that EST was designed to bust people off their “story”, their self created description of themselves which might be used to justify or explain their failures or lack of progress in life. For some people it was a transformation or new reality.
According to an article I read two years ago he was still alive and his “Leadership” courses are taught in some universities.
I’m willing to be right or wrong about most things and at times I’ve been corrected on scn blogs and I appreciated the feedback.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training
nah, you don’t get it. Of course we all had power of choice, but,
the power of choice can be influenced in a decision or persuaded to decide, and that is rhetoric in the classical sense of ethos, pathos and logos and the 5 canons. Rhetoric can be used for good, or bad, to influence or persuade power of choice.
let’s take a look at your rhetoric, from the the POV of logos, ethos and pathos. Or resume that you post on your blog:
“About Alanzo
Alanzo was a Scientologist for 16 years.
He reached the state of “Clear” and was on staff as an Executive Director and Course Supervisor in Scientology missions in the Midwest and Los Angeles.”
Here in this short snip, your beginning, is your resume, or logos, pathos and ethos.
You state you reached the state of “clear”.
What does that mean?
What is it about your resume here that you fail to mention?
That would be you did in indeed not achieve the state of “clear” nor did anybody else, you admitted to this earlier.
That’s why “Clear” is in quotes. The quotes are used to denote something that exists in the world of Scientology only, something that they call it, but which really doesn’t exist outside of their belief system.
Gib – we have never disagreed on whether “Clear” exists. Over and over you submit me to your loyalty test, demanding that I demonstrate fealty. And over and over I show that I am loyal to your crusade that “Clear” and “OT” do not exist as Hubbard defined them.
You’re on a hobby horse, dude. Aren’t you running out of nickels?
fair enough, but you are not my intended audience. Neither is Richard.
Thanks for allowing me to speak my mind.
BTW, I have no desires for fealty, nor have I demanded such, aye?
What is the truth, and how to determine the truth about any given situation?
Is it ethos, pathos, logos? or a combinations of such? And the opposite?
I think you are essentially right about Tony Ortega, who is also by the way, someone who has never studied or experienced Scientology himself.
I would NOT say the same about Leah , Rinder and Karen DLC , who are specifically on a mission you might say, to expose the abuses and lies of the CoS.
Hi Joe!
So you don’t think that Leah, Rionder and KDLC are currently negatively biased on the subject of Scientology?
What about Leah, after 34 years as a Scientologist, telling the Hollywood Reporter that Scientologists believe in pedophilia?
Hey Alanzo 🙂 wanted to thank you again for allowing me to comment. Its interesting to be here, as an ex of a different sort.
I too was in a very awkward and harmful religious situation that caused me to lose a good chunk of my family and friends when I left. LGBT and Christian Orthodoxy do not generally mix — being an unholy SP sent by satan lol I have been on the blogging side of absolute atheism, ethical atheism, and other sides of the coin. I was ANGRY. Like REALLY angry to the point of being self destructive.
A decade passed then I peacefully accepted that some people will hate no matter what you do. When I started talking about it with others, I was branded a “traitor” to “the cause” O.o So I became less and less involved and felt just as abandoned as when my own family turned on me.
Lets tie this into your video a bit. I was very very very biased against any form of religion. When I spoke I never ever mentioned anything good that Christianity has ever done. It was about the cruelty of the Crusades, Martin Luther and how he influenced Adolph Hitler, how Muslims disfigure their women, or other hotbutton topics. My own distaste for the topic made my point of view inherently flawed. NOTHING I talked about was from a neutral point of view.
I have more in common with Hillel than Hubbard, so its not like I’m saying we should tolerate a scam like Scientology. When I see people who still believe in Scientology tech get trolled at the Bunker and how Marty has been reviled like some kind of leper, its time to question the methods that are being used to get clicks.
Hillel the elder said it best 🙂 “In a place where there are no humans, one must strive to be human.”
Fantastic comment, Dante!
This is an example of what I am calling a “Post Ex” viewpoint.
I hope you stick around. We need to create a new tribe! 🙂
Thank you Alanzo, its expanding the narrative, which is something that needs to happen.
At some point you start living in present time (ala The Power of Now) and realize that your past is neither something good nor evil, it just IS. When you accept that, you start creating something positive for yourself. Questioning that negative narrative is the next logical step.
Good to be here and shant disappoint. Spent a good many years studying religion from that “dreaded” academic perspective 😉
One thing I’d like to mention playing devil’s advocate, why not go after groups like the FLDS that rape young girls instead of focusing on a tiny group that fleeces their flock?
Dante – I think a lot of people who have been in fundamentalist religions or cults can relate to a lot of the scn experience. I’ve always enjoyed comments like yours above from so called “never-ins”. I’d like to come up with a better term than that since we share a common experience but I guess that’s good enough for now.
I’m an old school pre Miscavige ex-scientologist. People like myself are becoming dinosaurs. The subject was far less abusive for most people back then. Comments from myself mentioning things in the past as someone who once participated are historical footnotes which might be of interest to a few people. I never experienced disconnection, bancruptcy or fair gaming so I have a different perspective than many others.
Making comments about other cults would be my opinions not based on experience. If nobody reads my comments then at least they enter the Akashic Record of the internet. Also, since I don’t participate on any other social media making a comment on Alanzo’s blog or on Mike Rinder’s blog pacifies my internet addiction. (joke)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
I’m proud to be part of the Akashic Record.
You have posted much more than I to hang you with. (joking again)
One thing is true. We got much more informations(esspecialy tehnical ones) from so called “AntiScientologist” than from Scientology(ist).
Scientology response for “AntiScientologist” arguments are only attack on their personality on sites like WhoIsMarcHeadley.com, http://www.whoismichaelrinder.com and similar full BAD things about subject. (If you talk to a Scientologist he would only tell you the good)
There are no exact answer on any question.
Only “Microcolapple” type propaganda like “We are the Best” and “We have solutions for your all problems” etc.
Yes. Scientologists can be just as idiotically tribal as anti-Scientologists. This is my point: most are biased.
Welcome to AlanzosBlog.
Maybe Ortega couldn’t find anything good in Scientology. I think he did report that some members felt better for a while after auditing.
Or maybe there really is nothing good in Scientology, and it’s 100% temporary self-deception.
So if someone only reports negative FACTS about Scientology, does that then make those FACTS false?
Does Scientology ever report any negative FACTS about L Ron Hubbard? No. In fact, they outright lie about Hubbard’s accomplishments.
I’ve seen Ortega report the ‘positive’ facts about Hubbard such as Hubbard’s success as a science fiction writer or the fact that Hubbard was an Eagle Scout (was he the youngest Eagle Scout as Hubbard claims? Who knows).
Almost everything Scientology says about itself and Hubbard are proven lies – from the number of members to Hubbard’s cause of death.
I guess unless someone is willing to regurgitate the lies Scientology puts forth as fact, they are deemed ‘bigoted’
Not a bit, Chee.
Are you arguing that Tony Ortega’s reporting is NOT biased on the subject of Scientology?
I’m saying facts are facts no matter who reports them
Same for lies
Has nothing to do with bias
Though, I don’t think one has to mention that Hitler was a decent artist in order to report on the Holocaust
All right. So you are not arguing that Tony Ortega is not biased in his reporting on Scientology?
You agree that his reporting is biased on Scientology then?
No I am not arguing whether or not his reporting is biased.
What I am asking is how is reporting facts an indication of bias?
Using your Hitler example…..if I report on the horrors of the Holocaust or the other crimes of the Nazis, am I biased if I don’t mention the Autobahn (to use Dante’s example)?
If Ortega reports that Scientolgy claims to have millions of members, then interviews someone with access to enrollment numbers who has recently left Scientology who says the membership is actually closer to 25,000, how is that biased?
You’re promulgating the party line that anyone who reports on Scientology and does not solely rely on information put forth by Scientology is a bigot and biased.
One migh even argue that you are…..wait for it…….biased
I never said that reporting facts was an indication of bias. Really, Chee. I could not have made the argument simpler and more clear for you.
Tony Ortega does not just report facts. His reporting such as on “Where Shelly?”, “Scientologists believe in pedophilia”, “Scientology spiked the FBI investigation” etc etc, are filled with assertions that the facts don’t support. And even when they do, the assertions are usually in the negative hysteria realm. Nothing that Tony Ortega reports on Scientology is positive, and almost nothing he reports is even neutral or objective.
And this is a generalization that can be verified by clicking around on his blog articles for the last 7 years. For a guy who says he is covering the “Scientology beat” you will not find even one article that is positive. So is he really covering the Scientology beat?
Remember, he does not consider himself a reporter. He considers himself a “reporting columnist”
Chee Chalker wrote:
As an attorney, I know that you have training in being able to accurately represent an argument that you disagree with, Chee. Why aren’t you using that discipline here?
You know that this is not what I have ever said, nor do I believe this.
So why are you doing this, Chee? Have you let your emotions run away with you?
This is a great example of why I say that the majority of anti-Scientologists are no more rational than Scientologists, and many are less so. The idea that anti-Scientologists have any kind of higher moral or rational standing to tell anyone else that they are believing in mistaken ways, is not credible. When they themselves can’t even remain rational, who are they to tell anyone else how to believe?
Please show me where Tony Ortega has ever said “scientologists believe in pedophilia”
You and I both know you are twisting words there
Tony reported on a particularly creepy line written by LRH about a grown man “passionately” kissing a 7 year old girl. Tony then went on to point out that LRH’s words are ‘Source’ and supposed to be believed by scientologists.
That does not mean all scientologists a) believe in everything LRH wrote nor b) believe in pedophilia.
IMO Tony was merely presenting facts – something Hubbard wrote and that what Hubbard wrote is SUPPOSED to be Source.
Your twisting is bias.
Speaking of bias…..why did you not mention in your articles about Gerry Armstrong, that Gerry also wants answers from Marty Rathbun?
Your headline was that Gerry was calling out Mike. Your article was all about Mike needing to come clean (which I agre with BTW)
But Gerry also called out Marty by name. Why didn’t you even mention that?
Sure, Marty was briefly discussed in the comments, but you make no mention of Marty in your article.
As if Mike Rinder alone waged a war against Gerry. Please. Mike did it. Miscavige ordered it. Marty participated. As did many others.
Seems like you are the one showing bias. Come on, do you really want to carry water for Marty the rest of your life?
PS. Going to the parade today. If I respond in a strange way later on, you will understand why…..
HAPPY ST PATRICK’S DAY EVERYONE!
May St. Patrick drive the scientologists out of Ireland, much like he did with the snakes
One more thought then I’ll leave you to it…..
If one is not Anti-Cult, are they Pro-Cult?
Cheerio!
Chee Chalker wrote:
This is reporting facts?
https://tonyortega.org/2017/10/14/coming-to-grips-with-scientologys-most-vile-secret-which-was-hiding-in-plain-sight/
https://tonyortega.org/2017/11/28/ugh-we-just-found-a-troubling-l-ron-hubbard-scientology-lecture-about-little-boys-and-sex/
And never once, even though it was presented to him repeatedly, did Tony Ortega ever provide, mention or refer to this quote from L Ron Hubbard as well, which appears as the second item in the list of “Suppressive Acts” – those things that get Scientologists expelled from Scientology:
So Ortega hides the actual rules of Scientology that, year in and year out, have been applied all over the world to get people declared and expelled from the Church, and focuses on that obscure 1 sentence line from 1950 which – in all my years in Scn and in the experience of every one else I know – has never been used to justify, endorse, or condone anything.
He also leaves out 36 years of Hubbard’s writing and taped lectures on sex and raising families, the tone scale, etc which contain no endorsements or condonment of pedophilia of any kind, and repeated condemnations of it as severely abberrated, criminal behavior.
That’s not reporting the facts, Chee.
In my 16 years as a Scientologist (5 in Chicago, St Louis & Central Illinois & 11 years in Los Angeles) I never heard a Scientologist mention that passage from Dianetics once, and neither has any other Ex I have spoken to about it. And, in fact, in context the quote is used as an example of what Hubbard was teaching auditors about the nature of reactions to experience from the reactive mind – not at all as any kind of endorsement or condoning of pedophilia.
So Ortega ignores the loads of factual information that have been given to him on this subject, while continually arguing his blatantly false ‘interpretation’. Because of this, Ortega’s use of this quote, and his hysterical interpretation of it are not at all factual.
Tony Ortega’s month’s long rhetorical assertion of that 1950 quote, despite all the factual information in Scientology that contradicts his assertion, is a great example of his bias. And it shows how, if you read him to try to get the truth about Scientology, you will not be getting it.
Gerry Armstrong is a hero of mine. His views on Scientology get a full and unfettered airing on my blog, with no editing from me. That will not change. Stay tuned for more of those views in the upcoming week or so.
Mike Rinder, along with Tony Ortega, is actively revising history. I put the focus on Mike because he is on TV and revising Scientology history for now, millions of people. That focus will not change, either.
How about Volkswagon or the Autobahn? Hitler was horrible, but give both sides. When you look at something totally unbiased, both good and bad, you get the honest truth.
For all the bad of Scientology, some of the materials Hubbard ripped off were pretty good. There are some folks who HAVE seen gains in the early stages of Scientology. To deny the bits of good that do exist IS misrepresentation.
…..and that’s exactly what the ExScn community generally does 🙂
Welcome to Alanzo’sBlog Dante!
Apparently, other journalists are catching on to their own liability in using Tony Ortega’s reporting on Scientology. His whole “Where’s Shelly?” campaign has been a study in emotional manipulation of Exes and Antis for years which he is trying to expand to the public at large.
But it appears that Vanity Fair became reluctant to put their name on his reporting on Scientology for their recent Vanity Fair Confidential episode on Shelly Miscavige.
Here’s Tony complaining about that in a recent comment on his blog: