What Are AntiScientologists & the AntiCult Movement Trying to Achieve?

A valued contributor to this blog, Richard, said something that made me realize a whole bunch of things about Tony Ortega and his Underground Bunker, ESMB, and all the other outlets of the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network (ASMN)

Huge fireball explosion over a bunch of burning cult members in Waco Texas, 1993.

Richard wrote:

“Classifying all people participating on the Underground Bunker as cultists seemed to have a shock effect, imo.

Yeah, and it’s also false. And dumb.

If there is any useful definition for the word ‘cult’, it is when it is used to mean “sub-culture”.

From my social science studies in college, I learned that a culture is the social repository of knowledge, skills, and moral values of a group of human beings. It contains their ‘tribal narrative’ and all their attitudes and acceptable moral behaviors which go along with it. The first thing you learn in social science is that cultures are different all over the world. Same humans – different cultures.

A cult can be thought of as a smaller culture inside the wider culture around it. It has different knowledge, skills and moral values, with a different narrative and different attitudes and acceptable behaviors.

The second thing you learn in social science is that human beings who live under different cultures have a hard time understanding each other. They are usually disrespectful and disgusted with each other, rather than curious or tolerant. Social science teaches you to watch out for that human disgust and to remain tolerant, to keep observing and to keep learning, and to try to keep an open mind and to see things from their cultural viewpoint. Social science teaches that if you can do this, you can learn from the differences between cultures and come away much richer for the experience.

Social scientists actually believe that if they can promote greater understanding between cultures, they can create a better world. Imagine that.

This is the reason I took off to Egypt when I had the chance in my early 20’s, and traveled to Israel to live on a few Kibbutzim. Then hitchhiked through the Sinai desert through the first Intifada and went to Crete, and then Morocco. I was remaining open to what these other cultures could teach me. My best achievement was spending a day or two with a tribe of Bedouin in the middle of nowhere in the Sinai desert. I learned never to use my left hand for anything social like eating or grabbing food from the communal bowl – even though I am left-handed. (In their culture, you always use your left hand after going ‘Number 2’.) Big faux pas!

So a cult is another culture sitting in the middle of a wider culture around it. And because humans have this innate intolerance for people with different moral values than theirs, there is always tension and misunderstanding, and even the potential for violence, between the cult and the culture.

Leah Remini Scientology and the Aftermath

The Anti-Cult Movement’s Greatest Achievement in America?

The antiCult movement exploits these innate intolerances in human beings and they inflame the ignorance of people in their attempt to create a moral panic around the minority religions they target as ‘cults’. The AntiCult Movement, and all its attendant ideas, beliefs and morals, is almost directly opposed to social science. And that’s why I believe the anticult movement is largely destructive – they actually instill anti-science and anti-tolerant behaviors and attitudes into their members.

Marty Rathbun, for all his contribution to exposing the real abuses in Scientology, knows none of this. And he simply fights against people he does not like. He is a “warrior” after all. Many of his fights are valid. He has done a lot of good things. And I believe he should get more respect than he does.

But I believe it is cruel to blame a mother for her daughter’s suicide, too. So what do I know?

If there is one generalization that can be made about the Underground Bunker, (and the rest of the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network ASMN) it is that they are rabid anti-cultists operating under the ideology and beliefs, and cultural values, of the anti-cult movement. Like Marty, most of them don’t even know they are doing this. They are just out to get rid of a “vile” cult and all its moral differences. To the degree they expose real deception and real criminal activity so others can’t be harmed, their work is good. But anything beyond that – and they go WAY beyond that every day – their work is bad, and can potentially lead to future Waco-like disasters.

I was a member of the anti-cult movement for many years. But I kept bumping up against the same things, over and over. They really didn’t like being questioned. And they really don’t like tolerance and understanding for people who live in cults. In the end, for all its social justice warrior behaviors, the anticult movement is an incredibly pinheaded pursuit. And I have come to see very clearly that their sub-culture can be very damaging to our society in the long run – if we wish to have a free one.

, , , , ,

64 Responses to What Are AntiScientologists & the AntiCult Movement Trying to Achieve?

  1. Eileen September 15, 2017 at 11:28 am #

    I agree that the term “cult” until pretty recently had the meaning of a subculture. In that sense Catholicism or Hatha Yoga can fairly be called cults. But I think that meaning has morphed over the last 40 years or so. To most people the word cult now refers to a high control group that progressively isolates its adherents from mainstream contacts and controls their minds.
    Alanzo, you seem to have generalized the term antiscientologist cult to anti-cultist?

    • Alanzo September 15, 2017 at 11:37 am #

      I’m trying to reflect my growing realization in recent years that anti-Scientologists are simply members of the Anti-Cult Movement’s Scientology Division. (ACM/SD) There’s also the Anti-Cult Movement Mormon Division (ACM/MD), JW Division (ACM/JWD), and many others.

      Anti-Scientologists have adopted the beliefs of the anti-cult movement, such as the definition of ‘cult’ that you describe, as well as the overwhelming power of ‘mind control’ and ‘brainwashing’, as well as the use of stereotypes to explain wildly different minority religions and people. They use repeated atrocity stories, over and over, and they use escape stories as well. They describe religious conversion and participation in a minority religion, not as a personal choice, but as a result of “mind control’ or being ‘hypnotized’.

      Participation in a minority religious pursuit is characterized as a disease from which former members must ‘recover’. When in fact, for most ex-members, the experience was a rich spiritual pursuit from which they describe themselves as being “wiser for the experience“.

      These cultural beliefs and practices of the ACM span their approach to all the minority religions they target as ‘cults’. And they especially target Ex-members with their beliefs, and try their best to get them to adopt them.

      What is actually being described when an ‘Ex’ leaves a ‘cult’ is most commonly just moving out of participation in a minority religion, or a sub-culture, into the wider culture around them.

      I’m not saying that any division of ACM is a ‘cult’ using the definition you used. But the anti-cult movement is definitely a group of people with a shared culture as I described. And thankfully, they are not part of the mainstream culture with the political power they are seeking in western civilization yet. The implications for that would be disastrous to civil rights and religious freedom.

  2. Eileen September 15, 2017 at 2:53 pm #

    I hope that you recognize that these “movements” (Anti-cult movement, Antiscientology Cult, Antimormon Cult) are figments of fevered imaginations! I don’t know of anyplace to sign up for these, pay dues to these, or read mission statements.
    Neither are these nonexistent “movements” engaged in targeted attacks against a class of people (scientologists, mormons whatever). It is entirely possible for a person to quit Scientology and never interact with anyone who opposes Scientology again.
    There are groups of people who choose to associate over an issue, and individuals within those groups who are fiery or outspoken or crass or inappropriate. That is the Internet.
    If I wanted to praise Scientology I certainly wouldn’t do it on the Bunker and expect a supportive response. I might try it here. I pick and choose my venues. I don’t experience either site as a wing of a cult, just as places to explore opinions.
    Lay down your weapon, no one will harm you here. I’ll kick their ass if they try.

    • Alanzo September 15, 2017 at 4:17 pm #

      Eileen wrote:

      “I hope that you recognize that these “movements” (Anti-cult movement, Antiscientology Cult, Antimormon Cult) are figments of fevered imaginations! I don’t know of anyplace to sign up for these, pay dues to these, or read mission statements.

      Even though groups, sub-cultures, and even cults exist without those things you list there, have you not seen the Pledgie Buttons on Tony’s site? The opportunity to make monthly Patreon payments all over Chris Shelton’s web properties?

      The Internet is a fantastic place to do sociological research and see group dynamics at work. When I flip through the Underground Bunker and ESMB, or back when I was on Scientology message boards, that’s all I see.

      What do you see? Individuals with maladaptive coping strategies and deep-seated complex trauma disorders? 🙂

      “Neither are these nonexistent “movements” engaged in targeted attacks against a class of people (scientologists, mormons whatever). It is entirely possible for a person to quit Scientology and never interact with anyone who opposes Scientology again.”

      While it’s possible to never interact with anyone who opposes Scientology, if you get onto the internet and type in the word “Scientology”, you will be instantly interacting with them.

      I don’t know why you say these are non-existent movements. If there was no movement, Leah Remini would have none of the ideas and values that she and Mike Rinder assert on her show. They are all about the anti-Cult Movement and Leah Remini is their biggest recruit since Congressman Leo Ryan visited Jonestown.

      “There are groups of people who choose to associate over an issue, and individuals within those groups who are fiery or outspoken or crass or inappropriate. That is the Internet.
      If I wanted to praise Scientology I certainly wouldn’t do it on the Bunker and expect a supportive response. I might try it here. I pick and choose my venues. I don’t experience either site as a wing of a cult, just as places to explore opinions.

      This must be one of those “Psych vs. Sosh” things. Because just your use of the distinction between the venues you pick above means there are very existent groups that even you recognize.

      The problem, as I see it, has been identifying normal group behaviors and then assigning them to some specialized group that we call a “cult”. This assumes those behaviors only happen in those special places where cults operate, and this makes those group behaviors seem foreign or special.

      No. Behaviors which we assign only to ‘cults’ happen EVERYWHERE humans gather together. A study of ‘cults’ is simply a study of normal human group behavior – but with harsher penalties. I really do think that the only difference is the penalties exacted on the participants. Otherwise all the behaviors are the same whether its Scientology, Phi Beta Kappa, the Chicago Bears, or the Republican party. And the penalties given out in the last three are sometimes indistinguishable from the penalties given out in Scientology.

      Penalties for what?

      Penalties for NON-COMPLIANCE with the group beliefs and morals.

      So which is the ‘cult’ and which is the normal human group?

      I’ll answer that: The one with less power in the wider culture around it is the ‘cult’.

      Let the Psych vs. Sosh Wars begin! 🙂

  3. Doloras LaPicho September 15, 2017 at 7:24 pm #

    Excellent. One main cult-like aspect to the Anti-Scn community is their “if yer not for us yer agin’ us” attitude. If Marty no longer feels like poking the Scientology bear he must have been PAID OFF or RE-BRAINWASHED or something (and Monique too, apparently). But Alanzo is damn right – Marty just wants to hit back at people who’ve pissed him off. He’s done taking sides.

  4. Thetaclear September 15, 2017 at 8:29 pm #

    “Alanzo, you are insane. Sorry, but it is true.”

    You are risking to be told the above, Alanzo. You are re-defining terms here – “cult” – in way that goes against what soooo many “scientists” like Margaret Singer, Robert Jay Lifton, Steven Hassan, etc; have “researched”. Shame on you!! “There are no cults”? Just “sub-cultures” or smaller cultural groups? No “brainwashing”, no “mind-control”? All those 100+ books on “cultic studies” are suddenly wrong because the great Alanzo suddenly “saw the light”? You must be really insane, indeed, as Wynski called you in the above quote!!!

    But oddly enough, I must be even more “insane” than you are, because I agree with you in 150% of what you wrote, to such a degree that there is no way in hell that I would be able to add anything of more value to it, because you said it all!

    • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 6:40 am #

      Thetaclear can not add anything???

      Oh my God! We may be at the end of the road here.

      Or maybe it’s a fork. Or maybe it’s just the beginning of the road. I can’t tell right now. Because this is definitely uncharted territory for the post scientology internet.

      It’s not uncharted for social scientists, though. They’ve been saying this since at least the 1980s, as far as I can tell. And proving it with science.

      When you are at the end of the road, build a new one. Let’s build it with out the tired old antiscientific intolerance of the anti-cult movement.

      From now on, ‘cults’ are minority religions with all the rights and legal protections that the US and many other liberal democracies were founded upon. Individual criminal acts must be prosecuted. But no more smearing of whole groups of people just because you think their religion violates your own dogma.

      From now on, bigoted stereotypers are the target. People who spread ignorance and intolerance for minority spiritual pursuits will need to answer for their hysteria. And governments will need to watch them, just as they do the KKK and Neo Nazis.

      This has to end. These people need to be called out for the illiberal clodhoppers that they are.

      • Thetaclear September 16, 2017 at 11:52 am #

        “Thetaclear can not add anything???”

        “Oh my God! We may be at the end of the road here.”

        Haha, well since you “insist”, now you’ve “forced” me to do a “700”, 🙂

        “It’s not uncharted for social scientists, though. They’ve been saying this since at least the 1980s, as far as I can tell. And proving it with science.”

        Yeah, so I’ve been able to ascertain since you have been posting about it. Definitely, knowledge is freedom and power. Without your having exposing me to such ideas – which as you said, are not new ones by a long ways – I would not even had researched the topic as to me, these “cultic studies” were a pretty much “wrapped-up” research. Interestingly enough, I discovered that many of those “researches” had been done by the ex-members themselves of such “cults”.

        When I witness how Scientologists are so furiously stigmatized and stereotyped, I just can’t help it but to expose these “anti-cult members” for what they really are; ignorants who doesn’t have a clue about what Human Rights are all about. They scream about the alleged lack of “compassion” from the “cult” members, when what they THEMSELVES show is a clear intolerance and lack of compassion for the members of such minorities. Many of those critics would not be able to stand an investigation of their own moral weaknesses and yet, they try to portray themselves as these “puritans” and “noble” individuals trying to “free” others from this mysterious “mind control”.

        Rinder’s OWN family don’t want ANYTHING to do with him. His OWN son is on a video saying, “I am not interested in having a relationship with my father”. He tells the account of how Rinder didn’t even care to contact him when he was undergoing cancer therapy – which oddly enough, those anti-Scientologists allege that Scientologists don’t “believe” in medical treatment. According to Rinder’s son, his dad attempted to “see” him, but he went to Flag accompanied by Rathbun and with cameras. Was that a REAL attempt to see his son? Are we supposed to just dismiss this son’s account just because we think that he has been “brainwashed” and “mind controlled” by DM to “lie” in camera?

        And what about Leah Remini. Go to the Scientology website on The Aftermath, and watch a dozen or so videos from ex family friends and from ex workers, and one will be able to ascertain what Leah tells about herself in her book as an attempt to “strike first” regarding the Dead Agenting that she KNEW that the Church would use against her – and with VALID reasons if those accounts are true. We are not talking here just about “Scientologists” making those videos, but from non Scientologists as well, and even by her OWN non Scientologist father. And Leah HERSELF describe her Iike that. Here is a “Fair-use” quote from her book :

        “Let me start with this: I am an apostate. I have lied. I have cheated. I have done things in my life that I am not proud of, including but not limited to: • falling in love with a married man nineteen years ago • being selfish and self-centered• fighting with virtually everyone I have ever known (via hateful emails, texts, and spoken words) • physically threatening people (from parking ticket meter maids to parents who hit their kids in public) • not showing up at funerals of people I loved (because I don’t deal well with death) • being, on occasion, a horrible daughter, mother, sister, aunt, stepmother, wife (this list goes on and on)” (End of “Fair Use”)

        Leah wasn’t here just joking; She really meant this. She fails to clarify though, that she STOLE her husband from a married couple, and actually made that ex-wife’s life quite miserably as evidenced by the court documents THEMSELVES. So much for being “compassionate” and being such a “crying baby”. She doesn’t fool me AT ALL.

        No abuses must be permitted from either side. Justice, REAL justice, is about hearing both sides of a coin; being compassionate about ALL sides; and about ONLY dealing in facts leaving aside assumptions, opinions, and plain hate and bigotry. Gee, I am beginning to sound like DM, haha. (700, Alanzo!!)

        • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 12:12 pm #

          Leah and Mike both are using the line that if anyone criticizes them, then they are Scientologists.

          Just because you think that a line might score some rhetorical points if you accuse someone of being a Scientologist, or a pedophile, in the end, it’s not going to work.

          It will come back to bite them in the weeks and months ahead – just like it has bitten Scientology countless times.

          The problem, for them, is that they are going to have to keep ratcheting up the hysteria to keep people watching. Does that mean they are going to have to keep lying about their critics in order to “dead agent” them just like L Ron Hubbard did?

          If so, how is anti-Scientology, as they are now practicing it, any better than Scientology?

          I’ll say this again: the reason to become a critic of Scientology is to tell the truth about it. Criticizing Scientology by lying about it, by misrepresenting it, by mis-characterizing Scientology beliefs and by never giving the Scientology side to the story, is not criticism at all.

          It is the same thing Scientology does.

          • Thetaclear September 16, 2017 at 2:37 pm #

            “Leah and Mike both are using the line that if anyone criticizes them, then they are Scientologists.”

            Not just them, but most anti-Scientologists do.

            “Just because you think that a line might score some rhetorical points if you accuse someone of being a Scientologist, or a pedophile, in the end, it’s not going to work.”

            No, it won’t. Dishonesty doesn’t work at ANYTHING at all. And thank God that it doesn’t! Otherwise we would all be fucked!

            “It will come back to bite them in the weeks and months ahead – just like it has bitten Scientology countless times.”

            Yes indeed!! In fact, it is ALREADY biting them. It is just not that obvious yet. You didn’t get more than 11,000 hits on your post on Cathy Tweed out of nowhere. You don’t get to be mentioned by Leah Remini at Tweeter for trivial reasons or for lack of anything better to do. You don’t get to moderate dozens or so hateful comments a day because of nothing. To me this means that people are fighting their own cognitive dissonances about this, by trying to reconcile their hate towards Scientology with their moral principles that tell them that perhaps there is something TERRIBLY wrong with the current narrative of The Aftermath.

            “The problem, for them, is that they are going to have to keep ratcheting up the hysteria to keep people watching. Does that mean they are going to have to keep lying about their critics in order to ‘dead agent’ them just like L Ron Hubbard did?”

            It is either that, or to accept being wrong on a few things. Do they have the moral altitude to publicly accept being wrong? Not a chance! They just don’t have it.

            “If so, how is anti-Scientology, as they are now practicing it, any better than Scientology?”

            For me, Alanzo, it is not only not better, but it is actually worse. I would rather be a Scientologist (which I am NOT!), than to continue to being identified with an anti-Scientologist or an anti ANYTHING!

            “I’ll say this again: the reason to become a critic of Scientology is to tell the truth about it.”

            Yeah, but we need to make VERY sure that such “truths” are ACTUAL facts and not just opinions or confirmation bias. And the line dividing truth and just opinions, sometimes is a very thin one. Part of correct skepticism is to know where that line is drawn.

            “Criticizing Scientology by lying about it, by misrepresenting it, by mis-characterizing Scientology beliefs and by never giving the Scientology side to the story, is not criticism at all.”

            Actually, it is plain abuse, and it is as despicable as what Scn does when it uses Fair Game and other destructive policies.

            “It is the same thing Scientology does.”

            Yes indeed!

          • Hemi September 17, 2017 at 3:47 am #

            Alanzo and TC, you are both insane… !! 🙂
            You know, sometimes, thinking too much too intensively and a bit obsessively can cause acute blindness to the simplest things in life.
            Too many thoughts, too little observing. Applying your definitions, you are now part of the ALM cult (Anti Lea & Mike)… :). Funny…
            I hate some of the things the aftermath does, especially the suicide stories and attributing the cause to scientology and scientologists. Not only wrong and unproven but mean and ugly “Agenda Driven”!! No truth seeking there. But other things in the Aftermath are unique and very important!!! Exposing the mindset, the disconnections, the moral abuses and basic human rights violations, all these are truly valuable work. And I liked episode 5, made sense and supplied more and more reality on DM and his reign.
            But this cult-like criticism of yours, with no balance is out of place. TC you have no business getting between Mike and his son! None whatsoever!!! It has nothing to do with anything you try to prove, but rather proves Mike RIGHT on this. TC:
            ” Rinder’s OWN family don’t want ANYTHING to do with him. His OWN son is on a video saying, “I am not interested in having a relationship with my father”.
            My dear friend, you still don’t get it. How do you explain to an Eskimo what is a dessert? You being the Eskimo here.. May be this true story will help:
            have a very close friend, a great dear person, who’s son’s love to him was ALWAYS so deep and beautiful and full of gratitude, it is impossible to describe.
            After this friend spoke against and exposed the CoS and was declared, his son came to him, looked into his eyes with a cold, “sincere” face and started to let him know what a horrible father he was and how everything he ever did to him since being a kid, was bad and caused him nothing but damage. And added that he has to disconnect from him and did!! The thing is, this young son (22 years old when happened) went right away into a deep depression and sadness. A huge trauma, he will never forget.
            How do we know all this? Because months later when he woke up and reconnected, he detailed what happened, the duress, the unbelievable pressure put on him, the threats, the total “dead agenting” of his father, the tricks played on his mind culminating in him hurting the person he loved most. CAN YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS ALREADY? It doesn’t matter what are the relationship between Mike and son in these “Sea Org families”. It has nothing to do with anything, unless one understands the CoS mindset and its consequences. Just leave these thing alone. And I would say the same to mike and Lea, because they are doing similar things.
            And about “the videos” in the CoS sites, come on, you must be joking! They are totally ordered dead agent videos. And even if there is an iota of truth in them, the fact that they show up like mushrooms right after a n exposing Aftermath episode, and not at any other time, renders them to me as NOTHING but fair game and avoiding the issue.

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 9:24 am #

            In Season 2, Leah and Mike are engaging in the same dead-agent tactics that Mike engaged in as head of OSA for 25 years.

            When I criticize scientology to a scientologist I usually say to look for the facts in the criticisms and don’t be put off by the pejoratives that people use. You can use those facts to get both sides of the story and thus more truth than you could get by just considering one side.

            I think the same applies to Marty’s videos and to some of the videos the church puts out on their critics.

            Why shouldn’t old guard critics like myself have their own opinion on what Mike and Leah are doing? Been doing this 18 years now. Got my own blog and everything. Gonna be writing about what I want to write about.

            I agree that there should be balance, and have said for instance that exposing what’s on OT 8 was valuable.

            But then I made my own point about addressing criminal activity because I personally believe that is important.

            Things are getting pretty hysterical out there and that is all on purpose. The end result of that hysteria might not be a good thing for run of the mill scientologists who are not the enemy and never have been. I’ve seen the threats here at my blog. I’ve talked about them with Mike and, just as you would expect from a guy who ran OSA – he deflects and turns the problem away from himself.

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 9:48 am #

            Hemi –

            I have another question for you: Did you know that, as a Scientologist, Leah says that you believe in pedophilia?

            What do you have to say about that?

          • Hemi September 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm #

            Hemi –

            I have another question for you: Did you know that, as a Scientologist, Leah says that you believe in pedophilia?

            What do you have to say about that?

            My dear friend I am not a scientologist. That is what members of the CoS are. Regarding that Lea saying, I am not familiar with that one so cannot comment. If she does say that of course it is horrible and not true. But does she really? Is it not taken out of context a bit?

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm #

            Alanzo” “I agree that there should be balance, and have said for instance that exposing what’s on OT 8 was valuable.”

            What was valuable about it? Do you know for a fact that what Leah’s mother stated was the EP of OT 8 was true? She said the end result was to realize that “your case was all made up by the body thetans,” and “you were never this person that these body thetans were remembering as your past.”

            There is a partial truth at best, according to what I’ve read. Others who have done OT 8 have said something entirely different about the actual EP.

            It looks like you, like the anti-Scientoligists, are willing to accept as fact anything negative about the tech. That is contrary to what your advice is regarding getting the facts about Scientologists as opposed to opinions about them – which is very good advice.

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm #

            I guess it looks like that to you right now, Marildi, but at other times you know it is not true.

            The deception surrounding the OT levels, such as the danger that you would die if you were exposed to them, the incredible expense of them, and the highly questionable nature of auditing body thetans through Incident 2 until they “blow” – all have to be exposed to the open air. All these power structures and secret teachings all need to be brought out.

            And then, once people have all the data, they can make informed decisions about their own involvement. THAT has been my long term purpose as a critic of Scientology, and that is why I think what Leah and Mike did with OT 8 on episode 5 of Season 2 on Scientology and the Aftermath was valuable.

            If Leah’s mom’s interpretation was inaccurate or disputable, then that means we need MORE talking about it and not less.

          • Thetaclear September 17, 2017 at 12:35 pm #

            “If Leah’s mom’s interpretation was inaccurate or disputable, then that means we need MORE talking about it and not less.”

            In fully agree with that, Alanzo, but your calling it “valuable” can be interpreted by most people as meaning that those accounts were accurate. You just (neither me) can possibly know that. We should not validate something unless the actual bulletins are shown. New OTIII, we know that for sure, and also about the rest of the New OT levels including NOTs. We HAVE those Bulletins, not just the account from anyone.

            It is misguided, IMHO, to describe anything as “valuable” unless ACTUAL data exist to back up the assertions made by others. So The Aftermath might or might not have accurately described New OT8, and unless we are sure as to whether they did it or not, we can’t properly describe it. That’s how I see it.

            Like you, I don’t approve of “confidentiality”. And the evidence that being exposed to those levels results in deaths (especially to OT III) are zero, none, zip, nada. But with me it is, “show me the beef” and let assumptions and suppositions alone.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 12:50 pm #

            Alanzo: “I guess it looks like that to you right now, Marildi, but at other times you know it is not true.”

            Right. I should have been more clear that I was referring to you unquestioningly, it seemed, accepting what was said about OT 8 specifically. My point was that I don’t think you should repeat that particular “fact” – or anything else about the tech – that you don’t know for a fact is true.

            You also wrote: “The deception surrounding the OT levels, such as the danger that you would die if you were exposed to them, the incredible expense of them, and the highly questionable nature of auditing body thetans through Incident 2 until they “blow” – all have to be exposed to the open air. All these power structures and secret teachings all need to be brought out.”

            I’m just curious – why do you suppose so many people (not all but many) have gotten huge gains from OT III. You may remember, for example, that Geir had some huge gains from it, including that it opened up his artistic ability.

            So how do you explain such huge gains – and as to the point about balance, why not mention that too?

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 12:57 pm #

            I fully recognize that people make spiritual gains for themselves on all the ot levels, not just ot iii.

            It’s the abusive and deceptive power structure surrounding them that needs to be dismantled.

            Thus will not stop people from getting gains on the ot levels.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 1:04 pm #

            Agreed. However, my point stands that if you want to point out that an OT level is crazy you should also include the fact that many people feel it has given them great gains. That’s the balance point.

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 2:04 pm #

            Oh Marildi –

            Thou art so pugnacious!

            I didn’t say it was crazy I said.it was questionable.

            As in able to be questioned. But as long as it is secret?

            ?? What Marildi?

            As long as it is secret what can’t we do?

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 5:55 pm #

            1. “Crazy” might have been a bit of a stretch but “questionable” means much more than “able to be questioned.” Here are the definitions:

            “affording REASON for being doubted, questioned, or challenged;

            “attended by well-grounded suspicions of being immoral, crude, false, or unsound : [example usage:] ‘questionable motives'”

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/questionable

            2. On top of it, I don’t know if it’s true that a religion (or some other group) is required to make their confidential scriptures public – and I don’t think they should be.

            3. Lastly, you ignored what I said was my actual point – which was that you left out the fact that many people get great gains from OT III. This is the point about balance that I thought you agreed should be there.

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 6:15 pm #

            Any religion that charges so much money, that has billion year indentured servitude contracts, which can impact the lives of their members as deeply as the church of scientology attempts to do, must be questioned. And their right to secrecy, which they only use to exploit people, must be pierced full of holes until all the light shines through.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 6:20 pm #

            Right or wrong, these are your opinions. But are they the law? And do they allow religious freedom? Just because somebody come along and says “I don’t think it should be that way” – and appeals to emotion – doesn’t mean it falls within the law or the consitution. Does it?

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 6:36 pm #

            Just as it is perfectly legal for the church of scientology to order disconnection and bankrupt people and lock people up in the hole, it is perfectly legal to expose their confidential scriptures so people know what they need to make informed decisions about their involvement.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 7:23 pm #

            Apparently it is not “perfectly legal ito expose confidential scriptures,” due to copyright and tradmark laws that the church can enforce and has done so other than for “small potatoes” in the independent field.

            But even if it were legal, is it morally right? I don’t think so. It’s another way to put religious beliefs someone does like up to ridicule – a very bad precedent, in my view.

            I do agree with enlightening the public on the abuses that have to do with disconnection, pressure for money, the harsh treatment of staff, etc.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 7:33 pm #

            Should say “…beliefs that someone does NOT like…”

          • Thetaclear September 17, 2017 at 6:52 pm #

            “Any religion that charges so much money, that has billion year indentured servitude contracts, which can impact the lives of their members as deeply as the church of scientology attempts to do, must be questioned. And their right to secrecy, which they only use to exploit people, must be pierced full of holes until all the light shines through.”

            I fully agree with that, Alanzo. That’s being balanced about it all.

            (Marild wrote) : “On top of it, I don’t know if it’s true that a religion (or some other group) is required to make their confidential scriptures public – and I don’t think they should be…

            Marildi, I beg to differ on this. You know as well as I do that the issue of “confidentiality” was more a PR one than as a means to “protect” a case. If LRH’s claims about the alleged “dangerousness” of being exposed to the OTIII materials before being ready were true, we would have had at least a few deaths by now. And I have absolutely no knowledge of anyone having been hurt in any way by reading those materials. In fact, I exposed myself to them almost 15-17 years ago as an “Un-Clear” PC, and I had no ill consequences by having done so. And so have many others who have read them.

            Actually, I know of many who actually attempted to run the materials without being ready case-wise, and even badly run didn’t bring any sickness to them. I am not necessarily saying that LRH lied about it. He might have believed that; I just don’t know.

            And let’s just say that the sake of argument that he actually meant the RUNNING of them instead of just reading the materials. Even if that were the case, the materials of other “confidential levels” does not have any “dangerousness” attributed to them by LRH, as he didn’t write anything about that except for OTIII. And if you read the HCOBs about the security of upper level materials, the slant is towards PR protection and towards avoiding the materials from falling into the wrong hands. But as history has taught us, trying to hide something isn’t very workable at all, because the fact itself that it is being made “secret”, is enough to turn on the curiosity button to its highest volume setting.

            Besides, if the secret levels were free of charge, or very cheap – as with other religions – then I wouldn’t have that much of a problem with that. But can you imagine having paid thousands of dollars for NOTs, for example, but thinking that you were going to receive some actual “OT process” resulting in, let’s say, an stable Exteriorization with full perception, to then find out that you would be dealing with BTs? Spirits allegedly inhabiting others bodies are not a new concept. A lot has been written about it. No need to make “confidential” something like that. Besides, LRH had ALREADY discussed the subject of BTs (but with other names) as early as in the PDC lectures who are not confidential. And even in 2 lectures before the PDC. So it wouldn’t make sense to make it confidential.

            A paying PC has a right, IMHO, to fully know what he is being offered, even if not in great details. And he has a right to either decide to do it or not according to his beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on him/her. In that regard, I don’t think that Scn has a right to confidentiality. Look at all the trouble that it brought to the Church. It could have been very easily avoided, if LRH would have been smarter about it, knowing quite well the character of humans. That’s my take on that.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 7:31 pm #

            Thetaclear: “A paying PC has a right, IMHO, to fully know what he is being offered, even if not in great details. And he has a right to either decide to do it or not according to his beliefs.”

            I don’t think that’s up to you or me. It’s up to the person who has faith in his religion and can opt to trust its ideas about what knowledge should be available to whom.

            On the other hand, I would agree that individuals can tell about their experiences, and let others make their own decisions about it. But I go along with Alanzo’s idea that there shouldn’t be a virtual witch hunt being carried out that forwards exaggerations and lies based on ulterior motives.

          • Thetaclear September 17, 2017 at 8:06 pm #

            “I don’t think that’s up to you or me. It’s up to the person who has faith in his religion and can opt to trust its ideas about what knowledge should be available to whom.”

            I understand the logic that you are following, but as you very well know, my dear Watson, the scriptures of most religions aren’t confidential. Buddhism? Not confidential. Christianity? Not confidential. Hinduism? Not confidential. All the versions of Non-dualism that I have studied (and so have you)? Not confidential. Confucianism? Not confidential. Judaism? Not confidential. Islam? Not confidential. Should I go on? It is true that parishioners frequently trust their churches and ministers to be doing the “right” thing, but this has more to do with their daily practices, and not necessarily with the scriptures themselves, as these are normally known by those members. The comparison that you are making is not applicable to this scenario. And most of the religions that I mentioned, have all what others would consider as “far-fetched” beliefs and “ridiculous” cosmologies, but yet, they are not kept confidential. That Scn decided to keep them confidential, and to make it worse, that it is CHARGING for the revelation of such scriptures, is very odd and strange to say the least.

            .

            “On the other hand, I would agree that individuals can tell about their experiences, and let others make their own decisions about it. But I go along with Alanzo’s idea that there shouldn’t be a virtual witch hunt being carried out that forwards exaggerations and lies based on ulterior motives.”

            We are all on the same page regarding that. No witch hunt and ridicule should be allowed. An unbiased evaluation of it as a valuable information to make available to potential members? Yes, I believe as Alanzo does, that it is needed.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm #

            Not so, TC. On a Google search, I found a Wikipedia article titled “Sacred Mysteries,” which it defined as

            “the areas of supernatural phenomena associated with a divinity or a religious ideology. Sacred mysteries may be either:

            “1. Religious beliefs, rituals or practices which are kept secret from non-believers, or lower levels of believers, who have not had an initiation into the higher levels of belief (the concealed knowledge may be called esoteric).

            “2. Beliefs of the religion which are public knowledge but cannot be easily explained by normal rational or scientific means.”

            The article goes on to say the following:

            “In parts of the Early Church many aspects of Christian theology, including some sacraments and sacramentals, were kept hidden from the pagans—the so-called Disciplina arcani—LEST THEY BECOME OBJECTS OF RIDICULE [emphasis in caps is mine], and were also introduced gradually to catechumens or new converts. […]

            “In several other religions, knowledge of some esoteric parts of the doctrine or teachings is reserved only for certain members. This has been a feature of Tantric Buddhism, Hinduism, Catharism, some parts of Shia Islam, and the Druze religion. In traditional Judaism, study of much of the mystical tradition of Kabbalah is reserved for scholars. Esotericism is a strong characteristic of many modern movements such as Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, and Scientology.”
            ———————————————–

            I included the paragraph with the statement regarding the hiding of sacraments and sacramentals “LEST THEY BECOME OBJECTS OF RIDICULE” because this is a point I was trying to make earlier as one reason I don’t agree with “exposing” confidential materials. I feel it reacts badly on religious freedom.

          • marildi September 17, 2017 at 9:42 pm #

            TC, my last comment was in reply to what you said about “the scriptures of most religions aren’t confidential. Buddhism? Not confidential. Christianity? Not confidential. Hinduism? Not confidential…. Judaism? Not confidential. Islam? Not confidential.”

          • Thetaclear September 18, 2017 at 2:46 pm #

            Thanks for the reference, Marildi. I wasn’t inferring that no religions in existence have any “secret texts”. I am sure that some examples of this do exist, though the reference that you brought up does not show that many examples, and some of the ones it does show, were ancient and not present. Besides, there is no reference at all as to having to paid large sums of money in order to have access to those “secrets”. The emphasis is more in “being ready to receive those revelations”, but I can’t see anything regarding charging money for them. That’s an important point to take into consideration.

            “I included the paragraph with the statement regarding the hiding of sacraments and sacramentals ‘LEST THEY BECOME OBJECTS OF RIDICULE’ because this is a point I was trying to make earlier as one reason I don’t agree with ‘exposing’ confidential materials. I feel it reacts badly on religious freedom.”

            I can understand your objection to it, but I feel that you are missing – as well as many Indies are – the big picture here. In would ask this rhetorical question to illustrate my point. Even with all the efforts from LRH and the CofS, with all the “Security Checking”, with all the briefcases with chains around the wrists, with all the protocols; did any of that prevent those “secrets” from finally becoming public? No, the fact IS that it didn’t. What DID happened was that – because one need to pay THOUSANDS in order to know those “secrets” (with NO possibility to ask for refund unless we agreed with being excommunicated) – the “secrets” became public and were ridiculed. So how “effective” and “practical” was that attempt at trying to prevent “ridicule”? Not very, right? See my point?

            But let’s just assume for the purpose of discussion, that A) Those levels were kept “confidential” but ONLY until we were ready to be admitted to them, and B) That BEFORE that one was able to pay for them, there was a policy where one was required to at least READ what it was that all about, but signing, let’s say, a sort of document promising not to discuss those secrets with those who had not achieve that “readiness”. Wouldn’t that have prevented all the MASSIVE ridicule to which Scn has been subjected?

            As much as I agree with you on the issue of “ridicule”, the fact is that LRH made a judgment mistake in his attempt to keep the confidentiality of the upper levels. The proof? Well, look around you. Assuming that LRH was right about all of his ideas was his own trap, and the trap that most KSW strict followers fell into. But being wise means being able to learn from our mistakes. That’s what I am trying to do, Marildi, and that’s what I am honestly trying to get others to understand.

            “TC, my last comment was in reply to what you said about “the scriptures of most religions aren’t confidential. Buddhism? Not confidential. Christianity? Not confidential. Hinduism? Not confidential…. Judaism? Not confidential. Islam? Not confidential.”

            Yes, I know; thanks!

            Do you remember the quote from LRH (on his “A History of Man” book, I think) along the line that the way to protect that knowledge (that esoteric and “cosmological” one) from falling into the wrong hands and from being abused, was to make it BROADLY known? Do you remember that quote? Well, that’s what I am referring to. The fact is, Marildi, that such knowledge HAD already been made public in the early ’50s. “Cosmologies” and “esotericisms” that were even more far-fetched than NOTs, for example.

            That knowledge had remained public until 1966, before OTIII came. Try searching for many instances of “ridiculing” before 1966. I am sure that you won’t find that many. In the “Victoria Inquire” (before OTIII), the confidentiality wasn’t an issue of protest, but mostly the issues of Disconnection and Fair Game. Even in the British “Foster Report” (1977±), confidentiality wasn’t a strong issue neither. Do you see my point? Confidentiality was not properly handled by LRH. IMHO, together with Disconnection and Fair Game, that issue is responsible for most of the bad PR that Scn has been subjected to. Confidentiality was a VERY bad and impractical idea.

          • marildi September 19, 2017 at 1:21 am #

            Thetaclear, your overall argument seems to be against there being confidentiality in Scientology and you give various reasons – which mainly concern other issues involved, such as how much money it costs. But just sticking to the point about confidentiality, what I’m basically saying is that it isn’t up to you or me or anybody else to tell others what to believe in or what to practice – regardless of how “misguided” we may think they are. It is their right as a matter of religious freedom, and no one should be ridiculing them about it. And the fact that they’ve already been ridiculed doesn’t mean it’s now okay to keep it up and make it that much worse.

            The other point I was making was that, as per the Wikipedia article, there are several other religions in PT besides Scientology that practice confidentiality, including some that are well thought of in the world. This data should help people (not meaning you) get over their prejudice about anything Scientology!

          • Thetaclear September 19, 2017 at 7:46 pm #

            “Thetaclear, your overall argument seems to be against there being confidentiality in Scientology and you give various reasons – which mainly concern other issues involved, such as how much money it costs.”

            Not necessarily the money in terms of “how much it cost”, but the fact that one DOESN’T know what it is that we are paying for AFTER one has ALREADY paid for it, and taking into consideration that no refund can be asked for (if we disagree with doing the level, but agree on other elements of the religion, as happens with most religions) unless we accept being excommunicated. The way it is designed is not honest, as it opens the door to the possibility of scamming others. We have a moral duty to protect others from being scammed. That’s my conviction, and no amount of “explanations” are going to make me change my mind about something that I have honestly analysed from every possible angle. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I won’t support confidentiality as set up by Scientology. For me to do it, violates my principles and everything in what I believe in, in terms of Human Rights. I hope you can understand that. I wish for Scn to survive as a philosophy. But with fair play for everybody. Right now, I don’t think that such fair play exist.

            “But just sticking to the point about confidentiality, what I’m basically saying is that it isn’t up to you or me or anybody else to tell others what to believe in or what to practice – regardless of how ‘misguided’ we may think they are.”

            A right Marildi, needs to be accompanied by the other side of the dichotomy; “The duty to”, otherwise rights means just nothing at all. Everybody has a right to freedom of religion AS LONG AS (this is just for emphasis) what we practice does not interfere with other Human Rights, and as long as such religions are not set up in such a way as to scam others. I have no problem whatsoever with any far-fetched cosmologies, and I have no problem if a parishioner – out of his blind faith – decide to invest 10 millions in some esoteric procedure that he ALREADY knows all about, and where he could just ask for refund without any penalties if his disagreements are honest, and not just an attempt to scam others. I am talking about FAIR PLAY, Marildi.

            “It is their right as a matter of religious freedom, and no one should be ridiculing them about it.”

            No, it isn’t their “right”, no – of the ones responsible for setting up such “confidentiality” – to come up with such an arrangement where a LOT of money is asked for something that the customer DOESN’T know what it is, and where, if he were to ask for refund because he don’t agree with the “package” once he opens it, then he is told , “Here is your money, but you can’t possibly do any other services that you agree with”. How can such an odd arrangement is morally right? Care to explain?

            “And the fact that they’ve already been ridiculed doesn’t mean it’s now okay to keep it up and make it that much worse.”

            If one doesn’t ever want to be exposed to “ridicule”, then one must not be alive at all, because some FACTS of life should be confronted. And ridicule is part of human nature. It is correct? No, but it is part of the “Freedom of Speech” right, so the only correct handling, IMHO, is to educate people better about why we believe in whatever it is that we believe in, instead of whining so much about “You are being a bigot” and such nonsense from the CofS and from Tommy Davis, which btw, is responsible for a big portion of the ridicule towards the upper levels.

            “The other point I was making was that, as per the Wikipedia article, there are several other religions in PT besides Scientology that practice confidentiality, including some that are well thought of in the world. This data should help people (not meaning you) get over their prejudice about anything Scientology!”

            “Several”? Your post had only 2-3 examples, and one or two of those, referred to an ancient practice, not a current one. You are going to have to be more specific than “several” I am afraid. And as I already mentioned (but you apparently chose to not comment about it), there are nothing in your quoted article that indicates the charging of large sums of money (or any money) in order to have access to those “secrets”. If you know of such examples, please provide the exact links for me to see the source of your information. Then, we can take it from there. Fair enough?

          • Hemi September 18, 2017 at 2:19 am #

            TC: “Buddhism? Not confidential. Christianity? Not confidential. Hinduism? Not confidential. All the versions of Non-dualism that I have studied (and so have you)? Not confidential. Confucianism? Not confidential.Judaism? Not confidential.”

            And how would you know that, my dear Watson?? It could be top secret and confidential at the highest levels but you wouldn’t know it – BECAUSE IT IS SECRET…and they managed to keep it so in a less virtual/internetish times…
            By the way about Judaism you are definitely wrong! The Kabala, the mystic part of Judaism has been strictly forbidden to those under age of 40, unmarried and not thoroughly learned in the Torah (old testament), and other stidies, and stated to be dangerous to those not ready for it.
            Later modern men contested that prohibition stating time have changed and people are now ready…

            My take: In any study or skill or profession a proper gradient should be followed otherwise people will fall on their heads!

          • Thetaclear September 18, 2017 at 5:11 pm #

            “And how would you know that, my dear Watson?? It could be top secret and confidential at the highest levels but you wouldn’t know it – BECAUSE IT IS SECRET…and they managed to keep it so in a less virtual/internetish times…”

            Haha, funny but not very likely, 🙂 It is very difficult to keep something secret for very long due to our human nature. Sooner or later (usually sooner) someone expose it.

            “By the way about Judaism you are definitely wrong! The Kabbalah, the mystic part of Judaism has been strictly forbidden to those under age of 40, unmarried and not thoroughly learned in the Torah (old testament), and other studies, and stated to be dangerous to those not ready for it.”

            I stand corrected as to Judaism is concerned. Now, please notice that the prerequisites are mostly religious in nature and cultural, and that the revelations has nothing to do with paying large sums of money. Notice as well, that even though that there are some exceptions to the rule, most known religions are totally open as regards their scriptures. So my argument is still valid, IMHO.

            “Later modern men contested that prohibition stating time have changed and people are now ready…”

            That’s wise, and what Scn should have done as well!

            “My take: In any study or skill or profession a proper gradient should be followed otherwise people will fall on their heads!”

            Agreed! I would not immediately discuss the subject of BTs with someone new to Scn. But I would definitely discuss that subject with such individual as soon as I felt that he was ready – which can occur at ANY level of the Bridge, even before “Clear” (see LRH’s Class 8 lectures), and BEFORE he pay for such upper levels so as for him to make a totally informed decision about it.

            If I would have paid, for example, for OT VII thinking that I would be doing Exteriorization kind of drills, and then stumbled upon BTs, I would be VERY pissed off, and would feel betrayed. From Clear down, everything is public in HCOB form, so one is able to evaluate it all, and even to know IN DETAIL what type of exact wins were others experiencing. One is paying, thus, for something one is somewhat familiar with. But that’s not the case with the upper levels, not to mention that in some of those levels one might be even running a “False Case” (The Clearing Course, OTII and OTIII – and even OTVII, if one wasn’t near this system where BTs might or might have not been that big of an issue. BTs are allegedly the result (in part, at least) of Inc II). So it is even more important to keep an open channel of information.

            I don’t think that I have neither of those cases, for example, and perhaps that’s the main reason that I always objected to doing them, even when I had both the money and terminals to work with. To my particular case, it felt like a “Wrong Item on the list”, you know. It still does. But there isn’t a “Was/Is this action unnecessary?” question as regard to doing those levels. It is just AUTOMATICALLY assumed that one needs to do them. To me, that violates a lot of the fundamentals of C/Sing a case. But the “Old” OT levels? That has NOTHING to do with an specific case or incident. Not most of them, at least. I feel sort of uncomfortable just trusting a machine without the element of ACTUAL recalls, or ACTUAL perception of another being. That’s not how it works with me.

            In a psychotherapeutic setting – which IS what Scn is, mostly – confidentiality is a doorstop, IMHO.

          • Hemi September 17, 2017 at 2:59 pm #

            “It’s the abusive and deceptive power structure surrounding them that needs to be dismantled.”

            Well said Alanzo. Words of wisdom.

            It has been totally dismantled with some Indies. The results:
            Pleasure and fun. Fear and abuse gone away. Very interesting change!

          • Thetaclear September 17, 2017 at 2:28 pm #

            “Alanzo and TC, you are both insane… !! ”

            Well my friend, I can’t speak for Alanzo, but me? I’ve been insane since I was born, haha. Why do you think that I chose to come back to this “beautiful” planet? 🙂

            “You know, sometimes, thinking too much too intensively and a bit obsessively can cause acute blindness to the simplest things in life.”

            And it can also cause something called “genius”, you know, and to make one to observe and notice things that others just fail to see, 🙂 Which one am I, a “genius” or a blind “fool”? 😉

            I was born with a knack, dear Hemi. A knack that allowed me to not need the e-meter in order to be able to “read” others. I was what you can call, a “Bullshit Detector”. When others with the use of the e-meter failed to get that exact Missed Withhold that was bogging a case, I – just relying on indicators and communication alone – was able to get it every time. I can be accused of many, many things, but not about being “blind”. Get audited by me, and find out for yourself, haha.

            “I hate some of the things the aftermath does, especially the suicide stories and attributing the cause to scientology and scientologists. Not only wrong and unproven but mean and ugly ‘Agenda Driven’!! No truth seeking there. But other things in the Aftermath are unique and very important!!!”

            I’ll give you an analogy to illustrate the fallaciousness and great risks of your argument above. A lady is searching for the best prospects to create a romantic relationship. Among a list of candidates, there is a former wife beater (John Doe), or let’s just say, a very invalidating individual who made less of her day by day for years. But he was a “good provider” and treated her son with good ARC. A friend of this lady comes along and tell her, “Look, don’t even think about John; he was very invalidating to her former wife and even beated her a few times”. But you come along, Hemi, and said, “I know, I know that he hitted his wife one or two times, and I know that he was very invalidating of her. But he was ALSO a ‘good provider, and was good to his son. So that’s ‘very important!!!’ for you to analyze”, you say. See the contradictions and inherent danger in it?

            You just CAN’T separate a specific narrative into its “good and bad parts”, Hemi, as a “defense” for it. You need to evaluate it as a WHOLE, and THEN, determine whether it is valuable or not. Not doing so is – to use the same word, haha – “insane”, 🙂

            ANY narrative to be valuable AT ALL, should ONLY consist of truth; otherwise calling it “valuable” is just rhetorical bullshit, IMHO.

            “Exposing the mindset, the disconnections, the moral abuses and basic human rights violations, all these are truly valuable work.”

            You are just being hysterical here, with all due respect, Hemi, as so many “Ethics Officers” that I knew were. They allowed themselves to become hysterical by the assertions from the PTS person they were handling, and BOUGHT everything that the PTS told them as 100% facts. But when it was me handling those same cases in what seemed to be a situation with no possible solutions besides just “Disconnecting” from the antagonistic element, do you know what it was the I usually found? The PTS individuals, out of his/her OWN Overts and Withholds against the terminal (which DOES NOT justify in ANY way any Overts against that PTS), was altering facts, making it worse than it actually was, lying, and in fact, were creating antagonism beyond belief!!! In other words, I uncovered the OTHER side of the coin.

            But when I TAUGHT them to use the ARC triangle in her/his dealings, and to try to not “solve” their problems by committing harmful acts, magically these people all recovered and were able to causatively handle those terminals. They could either be connected to them or send them to go fuck themselves at will at their own choice. Some food for thought for you, Hemi, 🙂 Don’t just believe everything you hear. That’s not being wise at all. That’s just being hysterical, 🙂

          • Hemi September 19, 2017 at 3:45 am #

            Thank you Peter for all that juicy ad hominem, name calling and detailed analysis of my sanity and observation abilities. (I was joking calling you and Al insane.)
            Well if you got steam off and you are happy, that’s fine. Have another go man. on me!

            Hemi: “Exposing the mindset, the disconnections, the moral abuses and basic human rights violations, all these are truly valuable work.”
            TC: “You are just being hysterical here, with all due respect…”

            Did you Actually read what I wrote here? You yourself continue to validate everyone of my “hysterical” words. You stress that “they, Ethics Officers in the CoS, went right away for disconnection while you, looked at both sides of the coin, using ARC..” That’s exactly my meaning, you fart, (joke!) about the mindset and disconnection in the CoS being exposed. You are saying the same words. And when you rant on and on about mike and Lea all black and wrong and nothing else, all I do is “being Peter” insisting you and the other fart (joke, joke I love him too), see the other side of the coin instead of this 100% wrong thing. But now you come with this thing:

            “You just CAN’T separate a specific narrative into its “good and bad parts”, Hemi, as a “defense” for it. You need to evaluate it as a WHOLE, and THEN, determine whether it is valuable or not. Not doing so is – to use the same word, haha – “insane”,
            ANY narrative to be valuable AT ALL, should ONLY consist of truth; otherwise calling it “valuable” is just rhetorical bullshit, IMHO.”

            To start with, no narrative EVER, consisted ONLY of truth! Bible? Vedas? the Tao, Bhagavad Gita’s? Scientology? Ron’s? Peter’s? Hemi’s? Alanzo’s?
            So according to you none of the above is valuable! Alanzo, shut this blog off, NOT VALUABLE! And in fact nothing ever is!! You see, this is absurd. I am sure you meant something here which is valuable but the way you put it, it is not clear. (See, trying to see the other side of your coin.. you deserve it, Lea, Mike, Ron all deserve it, even DM.. only he is more of a con than a coin… 🙂 )
            But more over, to examine anything as a whole you do need, for the purpose of observation, to separate its various parts, and that helps you evaluate it as a whole.
            Unless you just generalize things and paint narratives sweepingly with one color brush. That’s easy but not wise. That’s actually what they specialize in, at the CoS.
            They believe BLINDLY that they have the whole truth (“valuable”) and everybody else then obviously don’t, so NOT VALUABLE. Black or White! Sorry, not for me.
            So if I say what I see as good in the Aftermath and also what is bad, based on my observation, and I state it as I see it, it might be incorrect or bad observation, but insane?
            Two sides of the coin, remember?

            “Hemi, Don’t just believe everything you hear. That’s not being wise at all. That’s just being hysterical”.

            Man, how could you take my strongest quality and state it is null. Most hilarious thing to write about me. 🙂 As a kid I knew when grown ups lied, in the CoS even as a dedicated person I knew they were lying to us many lies. It was so obvious, I never understood why others couldn’t see…on OT3 elig, they showed me the bulletin about David Mayo. I looked at it and knew it was bullshit right away, because it was easy to see. The problem was: I did not know WHY they lied, this was more difficult. I learned later of course. So please…!

            Do you wish to know what I think of the Aftermath as a whole, sure I have formulated an opinion. If it interests you just ask.
            And as to your “marriage counseling” hilarious example, I don’t intend to marry Mike and Lea (sorry I’m straight), its just a TV show.
            And as such it is very sane to state the good and the bad as seen by the viewer, me. SAME AS AFTER READING A BOOK. That’s ELEMENTARY MY DEAR WATSON… Do you not see anything of value in the Aftermath? And that’s what upsets you when I do? If so, fair enough, I respect your opinion and disagree with it SANELY and in a NON HYSTERICAL fashion.
            And by the way, in your example, the poor wife invalidator DOES deserve that his good deeds will be observed too, AND STATED, everybody deserves this, I am sure its part of Human Rights.
            As is the free choice to marry anybody or not…

  5. Richard September 16, 2017 at 8:41 am #

    Living on Kibbutzim and spending a day or two with a Bedouim tribe sounds like great fun. The closest I’ve had to that type of experience is spending some time on couches and floors and in the moutains with a gang of hippies, a previous subculture which I enjoyed for a while.

    Anti-Cult Movement sounds grandiose to me and implies large numbers of people with a common cause which I don’t think there is. Anti-cult groups in relatively small numbers might be common. As with scn they would be composed of previous members along with non participants who take an interest for whatever reason. With all the publicity going on the anti-scn group is large at this time.

    Marty saying “all” Bunkerites are cultists caused anyone who has any serious interest in the scn scene to take a look at themselves. If he had qualified it with “most” or whatever the tendency would be to think “Well, that’s them but not me.” Unknown if he did it deliberately or because he despises Ortega so much he regards anyone who posts anything on Ortega’s blog as being supportive of him.

    Editorial comment – comparing anti scn-ists to the mafia sounds fanatical

    • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 8:49 am #

      I agree that the mafia kills people, and these people don’t.

      So what word would you use to describe a network of Internet venues that do not allow criticism of their views, who ban all critics, and then assassinate their characters through any means necessary, and warn their members not to interact with these critics after they have been banned?

      What would be the word I should use?

      Really asking here. Really want to find the exact right word.

      • Eileen September 16, 2017 at 9:33 am #

        Scientologists.

      • Richard September 16, 2017 at 9:37 am #

        “these people”? Whoa – Marty went down that road and look what happened. Scientology is a tiny philosophy/religion/cult. Gotta be honest – It’s worth discussion on a blog but I’m not interested in joining a crusade against “The Anti-Cult Movement” which seems to be mostly of interest to sociologists. Let’s have a beer and some pretzels.

        • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 11:09 am #

          LOL!

      • marildi September 16, 2017 at 8:25 pm #

        Alanzo: “So what word would you use to describe a network of Internet venues that do not allow criticism of their views, who ban all critics, and then assassinate their characters through any means necessary, and warn their members not to interact with these critics after they have been banned?”

        How about Radical Internet Cult Network. Example usage: “He hosts/participates in an RICN.”

        • marildi September 16, 2017 at 8:46 pm #

          Or simply Internet Cult Network – an ICN – and define it as you did.

          • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 8:54 pm #

            Because it’s not really a cult. It’s a normal human group that is in a highly tribal state. They are fighting the evil that is Scientology, and so they’ve started to lock into their bee-hive mentality. And they were almost all sea org members before this, so all that programming is blazing fully in them still.

            They may develop the penalties in the ASMN which launches them into cult status, but hopefully we can save them before it comes to that.

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:10 pm #

            Okay, if you’re referring specifically to the anti-Scientology network of sites, how about just that – Radical Anti-Scientology Network – RASN.

          • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 9:13 pm #

            Because it’s not radical – it’s normal human group dynamics. These are what the overwhelming majority of Scientology behaviors are. Scientology only becomes a cult in the Sea Org, and even then, at the highest levels.

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:11 pm #

            Oh! What’s wrong with what you said – the ASMN?

          • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 9:15 pm #

            Someone didn’t approve. So I started asking for suggestions.

            I need to place a suggestion box in the sidebar: “Suggestions on How Alanzo Can Become a Better Critic”.

            That thing would fill up every frikking day.

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:19 pm #

            What didn’t they like about it?

            I think it’s a good idea to give it a name AND the definition you stated so as to bring up the awareness about it.

          • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 9:29 pm #

            It definitely exists, I have lots of experience with it. I just need a good name for it that nails the traits and characteristics accurately. I don’t go in for Karen DLC-type OSA-degrade names. I was never in OSA, so I lack those evil purposes.

            Mostly.

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:32 pm #

            The words “persecution” and “witch hunt” come to mind.

            witch hunt: “A campaign directed against a person or group holding views considered unorthodox or a threat to society.
            ‘he claimed he was the victim of a media witch-hunt’” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/witch-hunt

          • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 9:35 pm #

            This could be the first line of their first commercial “Now Playing on the Anti-Scientology Mafia Witch Hunt Network…”

            ASMWHN

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm #

            Maybe add a hyphen to make it easier to remember: ASM-WHN

            Btw, what does the “M” stand for – movement?

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:45 pm #

            Oh, now I got it – Mafia. I kinda want to not-is that word.

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:25 pm #

            Maybe add “Radical” – RASMN.

          • marildi September 16, 2017 at 9:52 pm #

            I still say “radical” fits because although it may be a normal hive reaction, as you say, it goes to an extreme.

          • Richard September 17, 2017 at 5:18 am #

            I was thinking of being more pro-active. We could start a youtube channel, CDN, the Cult Defense Network. Tee shirts emblazoned with “Cult Defender” on a superman type background might be a good seller.

          • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 9:11 am #

            The t-shirt idea sounds good, but we’re definitely going to need a cape if anyone is going to take us seriously.

    • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am #

      Richard wrote:

      “Anti-Cult Movement sounds grandiose to me and implies large numbers of people with a common cause which I don’t think there is.”

      Did you ever read this description of the anti-cult movement? What do you think about it?

      In all my experience being an ex-Scientologist for the last 18 years, and an anti-Scientologist for most of that time, that article described something exactly which I was not aware of, but which I kept bumping up against without realizing what it was. Are you saying you do not see any of these elements in the anti-Scientology community?

      • Richard September 17, 2017 at 5:46 am #

        Above I mentioned Scientology being “tiny”. Just because a cult is tiny doesn’t justify hostility against its participants. I shouldn’t have said it. Some small cults like the Hare Krisna have reformed and expanded.

Clicky