Another Ex-Scientologist Quits Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker

31 thoughts on “Another Ex-Scientologist Quits Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker”

1. Anyone reading one or two of Tony’s topics and the following comments would realize it’s not a be nice to scn and scn-ists blog. Tony’s quip about “quitter” might just be a simple acknowledgement of that, nothing sinister intended.

   Just for conversation, Alanzo saying scn is the kindergarten of religious and spiritual pursuit, well, yes and no. Without realizing it most of us were getting an intro to:
   Freudian therapy, occultism, gnosticism, past life regression, Buddhism, psychology, psychotherapy, drug education, and communication theory (did I leave anything out? lol)

   • Good point.

     But for instance with Gnosticism and Buddhism particularly, he got so much wrong.

     I mean do they really get it wrong in kindergarten?

     If first grade is realizing how much they got wrong in Kindergarten, then okay.

2. Part of the problem with this whole area is – poorly defined terms and labels.

   I WAS a Scnist for 30 years. Now I am a declared SP. But what does that mean? Depends on who you ask. To me, it simply means I am no longer a card-carrying member of the Church of Scientology. From the church’s perspective I am evil, intent on destroying mankind’s only hope.

   I WAS an Ex-Scnist. For years I slung mud with the best of them. Today, less so.

   Maybe I was a member of the Anti-Cult Movement and didn’t know it. Who knows? Never got my membership card in the mail.

   Now that I got all that out of my system, I feel I am able to rationally and objectively engage in discussions on the subject. Does that make me a Scientology Sympathizer? Maybe. Ask me if I care.

   It feels like there is a honeymoon period with the ACM after a person leaves the church. Its immersive and consuming. And I got a lot out of it. It helped me unravel decades of Scn indoctrination. For that I am grateful.

   But after years of participation, I’ve grown tired of the same old arguments. There is less value in that discussion.

   Going one step further…should I participate in the analysis and critique of the ACM? Possibly. Or I may pickup a hobby. I already know they are not “my group”, which leaves me in pure spectator mode.

   So, today I stand as a non-Scientologist. I am no longer an apostate, I’m not an ex, I’m not an apologist, I’m not a Suppressive Person (honest). I’m back to being my loner self, enjoying life without a tribe.

   • Statpush wrote:

     “But after years of participation, I’ve grown tired of the same old arguments. There is less value in that discussion.”

     Yeah. I often say that Scientology is the kindergarten of religious and spiritual pursuits.

     Ex/Anti-Scientology is too often like being stuck in first grade.

     “Going one step further…should I participate in the analysis and critique of the ACM? Possibly. Or I may pickup a hobby. I already know they are not “my group”, which leaves me in pure spectator mode.

     The only value that I can see in sticking around to analyze and critique the ACM(SD)- besides taking up knitting or something – is to work out exactly how I got stuck in Anti-Scientology in the first place. There is a really interesting social science theory about the “spoiled identity” and how that drives the process of apostasy in a minority of people who leave religions.

     There’s a big herd of people on the internet who are stuck in this ACM mindset. They have all kinds of reasons to create a moral panic around scientology and any other religion that they designate as a “destructive cult”.

     I think a big reason I got so stuck in the anti-cult viewpoint was because there are very few alternatives to it. The ACM has basically beaten back and discredited social scientists as “shills”, “apologists” and “quacks” whose work can act as a much better alternative.

     What’s amazing is that the anti-Cult movement has no science behind its claims. And yet their preachers say they value science so much!

     The science is on the side of the social scientists who have been studying these religions for almost 40 years now. It’s the science from these guys that proves that most of the ACM mindset is completely indefensible.

     These are guys like James Lewis, David Bromley and yes, even the hideous and disfigured Gordon Melton. There’s a social scientist named Eileen Barker who did all kinds of real quantitative research in the 80’s and 90’s which proves that mind control and brainwashing do not exist.

     There are no studies at all which show or even suggest that mind control and brainwashing do exist.

     It’s not even controversial.

     • Interesting. I wonder what the percentage of drama-free exits is to the royal fuck-you. And after they consider themselves “not a Scnist” and become active on the web, what sites do they gravitate to? Is it a gradient? or is it polarized?

       If you feel you’ve been fucked over by Scn, is it easier to jump on the ACM bandwagon?

       Or is it that Scn was so important to you at one time, and now it is all shattered, somehow making the church sinister?

       I remember some of the early sites I visiting at the beginning of my exit. Sites like, Friends of LRH and Wise Old Goat, almost acted like “gateway” sites to the hard stuff pedalled by the ACM.

       The ACM must experience a churn, people leaving (like myself and others), and First Starts (possibly from Aftermath). For some reason I’m less interested in never-ins pontificating about how strange Scn is or why people join or how “criminal” the church is.

       Your description of the ACM mindset regarding social scientists is reminiscent of the atheist movement.

   • statpush – You really nailed it here. I followed your path almost exactly with the exception that I only spent about four years total in scn studying, auditing and about two years as mission staff. I only started following the scn blogs after watching Going Clear. In general it seems the two main variables for people would be the time spent in scn and the time spent on the blogs.

3. Everyone who replied to RandomSP wished him well over at the Bunker. Obviously Tony’s reply of “quitter” was both a joke and tongue-in-cheek. RandomSP got it because he upvoted it.

   • Thinking it over, he could have said something like “Thanks for your participation”. The tongue- in- cheek “Quitter” was a bit like a call to arms for the rest of the troops.

     • I agree. And just because they upvoted it, doesn’t mean they felt comfortable with it–they might have, I am not trying to imply I know how they took because I don’t. When you are caught up in that atmosphere and are trying to leave gracefully, as they were, it could have been trying to be a good sport about it while seething to themselves.

       Unless they tell us how they felt about the comment, all we can do is assume, and it’s probably not fair to them to do that. They don’t owe us, or anyone, an explanation how they felt about Ortega’s comment.

       I do agree though Richard, it’s not above Ortega to do something like that to rally the troops. How dare someone leave! If people had their email address, I bet the love bombing has commenced.

       • RandomSP made his departure from the Anti Cult Movement “public”. Will he now need to do “conditions” or something if he wants to get back in?
         (joke)

       • A big realization for me came before Marty or Alanzo started posting about the Anti Scn Cult or Anti Cult Movement. Over a year ago on Mike Rinder’s blog a discussion was going on dumping on some aspect of scn. A free thinking scn-ist from Australia posted counter arguments which, to me, made perfect sense. It was an “aha” moment for me and I pretty much quit singing with the choir after that.

       • Miss Tia,
         RandomSP’s post was lovely and I believe, well received and anyone who doesn’t hate Tony got his jest, including RandomSP.
         Re The love bombing you got – was just love actually. I didn’t know you well, but I do know people sincerely cared for you. You can discard that but it is true that, but they truly did.

         • Texas Broad –

           Do you believe it might be possible for the love bombing in scientology to be “just love” too – in exactly the same way it was “love” for a group member in the bunker?

4. Tony, I believe, knows I still hold and attribute some value to some of the stuff I studied in Scn.

   He’s always treated me quite nicely.

   • Well, there are a lot of other people who can not say the same.

     I guess you’re lucky, Claire.

     • Must be. Scn is as polarizing a subject as politics can be. Many a witch hunt hath been launched in critic land.

       • I really liked RandomSP’s resignation post. I agree very much with the moral of what he/she said. What these Scientology blog proprietors don’t get; is the value they deliver is the plat form they provide for exes, indies and critics to communicate. The value (to me) does not lie in the proprietors expert opinion or in some mass homogenization of what the Scientology experience is.

         P.S. If Ortega’s entire response to RandomSP was “Quitter”. That to me is pretty low class.

         P.P.S. Alanzo, I totally agree with your recommendation for Isene’s blog, for any Scientologist in or out.

5. Tony lost a customer. Oh well. He’ll probably pick up a few more after the next Aftermath episodes. I missed the upvote which gtsix mentions (thanks gtsix) so it’s probable that Tony was joking. A dozen people wished RandomSP well after Tony’s comment.

   As was mentioned on an earlier topic, ex-scientology can be sticky. Participating in scn was just too darn interesting. My bet is that RandomSp will show up again somewhere, hopefully here – lol

6. If you read this RandomSP, your post was articulate, very clear, and classy. You of course didn’t owe them an explanation, but you did it anyway. You know you aren’t a quitter. Some times it’s just time to move forward and beyond.

   • Very nicely said, Miss Tia 🙂

7. Do you understand joking? RandomSP does, as RandomSP upvoted Ortega’s comment.

   • I think I do. If you explain them to me enough.

     But you do realize which paragraph in RandomSP’s comment Tony Ortega will never fully get, right?

     It’s this one:

     I hold what may be a somewhat unpopular view among many here. I, personally, found much of value in Scientology. For me, it is a good philosophical match. Not talking about Xenu or BTs, of which I, perhaps thankfully, have no personal experience. Talking about Body, Mind, Spirit; the technical approach such as ARCU, things like that. I have no interest in studying more Scientology or going up any “Bridge to Total Freedom” but a certain Scientological viewpoint is part of my permanent inner landscape and I am fine with that. I tell my son that I would have no problem being a member of Scientology if it were not run as a destructive cult but it is and that is not changing

     That one is no joke.

     It’s the reason getting away from Tony Ortega and the other hysterically negative Anti-Cultsters is so important for an Ex.

     • And can you please point out where in RandomSP’s goodbye this statement is:

       –The need to get away, as expressed by RandomSP and so many other Exes, comes from the realization of how hysterically negative the Internet is for an Ex-Scientologist.–

       Or is that you putting your thoughts onto another person? Because I don’t see that in Random’s goodbye.

       • It isn’t in her reply. It comes from 17 years of being an Ex-Scientologist and seeing this happening to hundreds of people on the Internet.

         There can be much more positive and constructive environments for Exes than Anti-Cult/Anti-Scientology negativity.

         One of them is http://isene.me.

         • So RandomSP didn’t express that? Yet you state this IS this persons “why” as if you know that this is truth. Fascinating.

           Whether a person is online, and where they are online, is their choice, and I hope everyone makes the best choice for themselves.

           But your assigning your reasons onto other people, without their knowledge or consent, is a bit strange.

           • Whether a person is online, and where they are online, is their choice, and I hope everyone makes the best choice for themselves.

             Me too.

             But your assigning your reasons onto other people, without their knowledge or consent, is a bit strange.

             LOL! Tony Ortega does that every day! I’ll be sure to watch out for your posts on the Underground Bunker chastising him for that and calling it “strange”.

             • So if he does it*, it is then ok for you to do it?

               * your claim

               • I want to see you criticizing Tony Ortega for this on his blog, just like you are going after me for it on mine.

                 Then we’ll talk.

               • I asked you questions, I am not attempting to criticize you. You state you are walking the middle path, but if its the same path… then what’s different?

                 You took what was a joke and attempted to make hay with it. And that made this post quite … off. It was a joke, so there is no there there.

                 And you missed a much much worse quit. I did not publicly criticize anyone for it, but I’m surprised your antennae didn’t pick up on it.

               • I asked you questions, I am not attempting to criticize you. You state you are walking the middle path, but if its the same path… then what’s different?

                 I never said that I was “walking the middle path”. Others have said that about me.

                 I never said anything like that.

                 You took what was a joke and attempted to make hay with it. And that made this post quite … off. It was a joke, so there is no there there.

                 Yes. You’ve said that 3 times now.

                 And you missed a much much worse quit. I did not publicly criticize anyone for it, but I’m surprised your antennae didn’t pick up on it.

                 Do tell. Which quit was that?

     • Ortega, nor many in the bunker, will fully get that point of theirs. You must never EVER acknowledge anything good in Scientology, nor continue to use some of the tools you found beneficial.*

       * Some people though, Ortega and the bunker have no problem with still using Scientology tools, acknowledging good in Scientology. It depends on who you are and what you have to offer.

Comments are closed.