Back in the day, there was an old guard critic named Joe Lynn who got very very angry when Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder got out of the Church and became Independent Scientologists. Marty and Mike were ranting and raving about how bad David Miscavige was, while also saying that going to the FBI about anything in Scientology was a waste of time. Mike and Marty said they’d already been to the FBI and the FBI was not interested in Scientology.
Then Mike and Marty told people that when they were running the dirty tricks operations from OSA and RTC (respectively) that they had been very careful not to commit any felonies. And, of course, they had no felonies to confess to anyone, either.
This made Joe Lynn bust a neck vein. He was positive that Marty and Mike were part of a “controlled opposition” false flag operation, which was not an unprecedented dirty trick for either Marty or Mike. Joe Lynn believed that the two of them had been sent out to distract critics and law enforcement from the real crimes that Scientology had committed.
Over the years, Marty and Mike have moved away from all forms of Scientology and they have been very effective at exposing the cultic abuses in Scientology – if not the crimes. They have shown clearly that David Miscavige was not the only thing wrong with the subject. But in all these years, I am aware of no evidence of felony-level criminal activity committed by the Church of Scientology that has emerged from anyone.
We critics used to think that there were murders, and rapes, and felony-level fraud, and kidnapping and false imprisonment, and human trafficking. This list of crimes going through most critics’ heads fueled massive outrage and weapons-grade finger typing to bring the whole “criminal organization” of Scientology crashing down.
And we believed that fully exposing the evidence for these crimes would finally produce the Holy Grail of all Scientology Activism: The David Miscavige Perp Walk.
Over the years, you would think that at least some evidence of at least a few criminal acts would have emerged, right?
I am aware of nothing. If someone else is aware of evidence of felony-level criminal activity by the Church of Scientology, then please place whatever evidence you’ve got that Scientology truly is a “criminal organization” in the comments section. Wait – better yet: Go to the FBI and get it reported to law enforcement, THEN put your evidence in the comments section!
After all these years of “exposure”, what we do have real evidence for is enforced Scientology disconnection. In Scientology, it officially remains a “high crime” to be in communication with anyone deemed to be an SP by the Church of Scientology. And this has ruined many careers, and broken up dozens of families.
It’s horrible. And very cruel.
But, as with just about every form of Scientology cultic abuse, disconnection is legal.
Moreover, there are contingencies to Scientology disconnection – even the enforced kind – that make it very hard for me, personally, to have the same level of energy that I used to have about “taking down” Scientology – if disconnection is really all there is to Scientology “criminality and abuse”.
As part of their militant tribal moralizing, I have seen Scientology critics demand that every Scientology family stay connected to each other, whether they want to or not. I have seen the hypocrisy and the self-righteousness for intrusion into other peoples’ lives reach moon-shot status just because, after all this time and energy and protesting and exposure – Scientology Disconnection is the only “smoking gun”; the only “crime” that remains visible after all the activist outrage dissipates from your brain.
The main thing wrong with Scientology is that you might end up disconnecting from someone in your family?
Really??
After all this time, is that all we’ve got?
I would be surprised if real hardcore felonies were revealed (e.g. murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.). I believe Mike and Marty when they say the church operates on the fringe of the law, avoiding actual commission of felonies.
That said, pinning actual crimes on the church may prove to be difficult. Things like: financial ruin, broken families, questionable financial practices, while all immoral, may not actually be crimes. In addition to First Amendment protection, the church wields undue influence over its members, instructing them to do things they would not normally do. Such as, assuming large amounts of debt, divorce spouses, lie to financial institutions to obtain money. Theoretically, members could simply say “No”, and that would be that.
About all you could accuse Hubbard or the church of, is influencing its members to make bad decisions, which results in very real harm and destruction. Again, not a crime.
I think Disconnection is trumpeted not because its a “crime”, but because its the church’s PR Achilles Heel. The public find it offensive. Nothing wrong with that. If one Disconnection story told results in one person out, it was worth it.
Just because CoS have managed to avoid criminal prosecution does not make them any less dangerous.
SP wrote:
Yet another excellent post, SP.
I was fully tracking with you right up to your last sentence, and then a question popped up.
If the Church of Scientology is not a criminal organization (doesn’t routinely or even regularly commit criminal acts), and they have not even had one criminal charge filed against them in a generation – then why aren’t they “any less dangerous” than if they were?
Exactly and specifically: how dangerous are they now?
Good to see you here, SP, once again.
I view COS as a criminal organization based on hubbards 4 conditions of exchange, namely #1 or rip-off. Not only monetary, but time and effort wise as well, when one considers the big picture and the chart The Bridge to Total Freedom. I mean the fat fuck, before he died, didn’t even complete the so called OT levels above 8.
And BTW Zane X, Tony Ortega doesn’t call himself an expert in scientology, it was other media reports or newscasters that called him that. Tony even commented on this in one of his post comments.
Well…the church’s influence appears to be less and less, due to continuous PR shitstorms and dwindling membership. Which may contribute to the lack of reports of criminal activity. In short, they are running out of people to abuse.
They will always have their staff and core members to abuse. But, honestly, I don’t think they view it as abuse. It’s just what is required to be a Scnist and to clear the planet.
Just because their membership is waning, and no real appreciable uptake of new members, doesn’t make the potential abuse or harm go away. It’s part of Scn’s blueprint.
Historically, the closest we’ve come to seeing criminal charges were: Operation Snow White, Operation Freak Out, The Lisa McPherson case, and more recently, the aborted FBI investigation into human trafficking. I don’t think the church will see a McPherson-type incident any time in the near future. Narconon might.
If the church should ever face criminal charges, it could be things like: criminal negligence or fraud, as we’ve seen in some European cases. Or possibly charges for human trafficking (forced or compulsory labor, involuntary servitude, etc.) in an international court.
Thank you, SP.
You said:
Isn’t that just rationalizing a hope that they truly are a criminal organization? Aren’t you just affirming your assumption, or confirming your own bias?
Sorry. These were my dreams, too, if that helps the sting.
What if:
are the evidence that the Church of Scientology is NOT a “criminal organization”?
Don’t those 2 points above prove it?
Why or why not?
All valid points, Al. And I concur, without actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing, you really can’t describe the church as a “criminal organization”.
Let’s not make the same mistake Scnists make when using the word “criminal.” Hubbard hijacked the word and redefined it to mean: out-exchange or anti-Scn. This has little to do with breaking the laws of the land. A car mechanic that does a poor job or charges high rates, is NOT a “criminal mechanic.”
Just as Scnists erroneously believe critics of Scn have hidden “crimes” (real crimes, like murder, rape, extortion, molestation, etc.), we must not do the same with them.
If the church were engaged in habitual or institutional criminality, then surely we would have seen some attempts at prosecution. But, no. No charges, no prosecution, nada. As a side note, the First Amendment does NOT protect an organization, suspected of criminal acts, from prosecution.
All I can say, with any accuracy, is that: at one time the church did commit crimes for which they were charged and convicted. That was 40 years ago.
It is my OPINION, that the church:
1) Is an immoral organization
2) Can be mean, hateful and vindictive
3) Has a propensity to lie
4) Can manipulate their members and convince them or force them to do harmful things to themselves or others
5) Seeks to control its members to the primary benefit of Scn
6) Does not deliver what they promise
In a free country, all of these things are permitted. They are not illegal.
Disconnection isn’t the only abuse, nor are any of the exes who are speaking out saying that it is. It is a biggie, though, and I covered some of my thoughts on this in my response to Zane x.
Another abuse that’s come under fire is CofS interference in members’ lives. And another is mistreatment of staff.
I read Tony’s site on and off though I often do read his Facebook Scio critical group posts. He covers many different things. While I may not agree with everything he says (why would I? I don’t agree with everything anybody says. It’s impossible to do that.) I find his material well written, painstakingly fact checked and, as I say, he does cover a lot of ground.
I agree that Tony Ortega, in his own sneering and arrogant atheistic way, is a competent reporter on the abuses in scientology.
But where are the CRIMES??
Didn’t you think that there would be CRIMES for which SOMEONE in Scientology would PAY by now, Clay-ah?
I certainly did.
So where are they?
Alanzo
I agree Alanzo, I haven’t heard or read of crimes per the law. But there is “arm’s length” via lawyers via PI’s.
I’m not sure why you use “sneering and arrogant” to describe Tony Ortega the atheistic? Or is that just rhetoric of your part to describe Tony Ortega as sneering and arrogant to persuade readers of your blog?
What are the crimes, why they are the “battle for your the mind” and as he wrote in the PL’s in the Marketing & PR Series and inclulded the book by Jack Trout & Al Ries, Positioning, The Battle for Your Mind.
Tony Ortega does not write about scientology because he cares about scientologists or Exes. He writes about scientology because he is an atheist and he sees scientology as the best example of all that’s wrong with religious and spiritual pursuits of any kind.
While he does a very good job of exposing the craziness and cultic abuse in scientology, he does a very bad job of understanding scientology and the people who engaged in it. This leaves him with a sneering arrogance and condescension of anyone who is, and who ever has been, connected to scientology.
He acts and writes like a guy who is at a party full of people he thinks are idiots and retards. He just wants to go home but the free beer has not run out yet, so he’s still hanging around, making fun of them behind their backs, and as he gets drunk enough, to their faces.
And yes, I just used rhetoric to answer you, as you did in asking me.
I really don’t care about your views of Tony Ortega, I’m more interested in the rhetoric of scientology via hubbard and the explaining of that.
So when you asked me why i described Tony Ortega as sneering and arrogant, that was just a rhetorical question? 🙂
no, not really, I wasn’t thinking with that concept of rhetorical question. I was more thinking with the concept that rhetoric is the art of persuasion thru it’s 3 means, namely character, logic and emotions,
Your statements of “sneering and arrogant” are actually an emotional appeal, and not logic.
But what about Hubbard use of this? Namely character, logic and emotions? Did he use those things? And this is a rhetorical question.
It’s a good question. I think Hubbard’s use of rhetoric on Scientologists was only one of a multitude of socially coercive techniques, and techniques of “persuasion”, that he packed into Scientology. As you’ve shown in your postings on ESMB, which I read regularly, examining the rhetorical tricks he played on Scientologists can be beneficial to an Ex.
You should write a post on this. I’ll put it up on this blog and we can discuss it.
But be forewarned, though: I won’t be revealing any of the rhetorical tricks I use on people.
Those are secret.
er, wise guy, lol, a pun from the 3 stooges. You gave me a new idea to start a tread.
Hi Alanzo, I think your description of Tony O and his blog is very accurate. I would ad; I personally never liked his comment section(for the most part). Unlike early Rinder’s blog(pre the deluge of never-ins). Rinder’s comment section used to sometimes be better than his posts. But this is all a matter of personal taste. Thank you for this blog space.
There are plenty of crimes. The Headleys sued- 2 different suits.
The cult engages in human trafficking, unlawful detention, fraud (debiting accounts for basic books packs without authorization) homicidal neglect (McPherson), assaults…
I’d take your last sentence and say:
The cult
engagesIS ACCUSED OF ENGAGING in human trafficking, unlawful detention, fraud (debiting accounts for basic books packs without authorization) homicidal neglect (McPherson), assaults…You and I have seen lots of accusations over the last 15-17 years since we’ve been out and on the Internet, but how many of these accusations have resulted in a criminal charge despite law enforcement being made aware of it?
And we know that in that time frame there have been no criminal convictions at all.
In fact, the Church of Scientology has not had any criminal convictions since the late 1970’s. With no charges (that stuck) and no criminal convictions, can we really call them a criminal organization?
You can use the standard critic rationalizations of “They have the police paid off!” or “They’re hiding behind the First Amendment!”, but after all this time there’s a point when a person needs to carefully examine whether all these accusations and their rationalizations for producing no charges – let alone convictions – are really true.
That’s why I’m raising these questions.
What’s the actual evidence for your list of charges above?
We all know the stories – but are the stories true?
Well, I was detained against my will twice andcoerced into joining staff. That’s illegal. I also personally observed a couple others experiencing this.
Lisa McPherson’s case is quite well documented. I believe there are actual court or police records re Raul Lopez, too.
It is amazing and appalling that they’re teflon coated but they’ve done those things, there are affidavits with witnesses, dates names, etc.
But if they did those things – as reported (and that’s important) – yet law enforcement charged them with no crime, can we really call them a “criminal organization”?
Yes. We can.
If a crime takes place, whether or not there’s an arrest and conviction (or a civil suit) that doesn’t change the fact that a crime takes place.
I was detained against my will twice, my friend Gene also was in an appalling situation.
There are numerous affidavits from others. There’s McPherson’s isolation watch logs-which are in court records.
So, yeah, I not only believe but I know. I experienced some and there’s documented evidence and accounts. There’s no guesswork or opinions there.
I mean, I wasn’t at Babi Yar or Stalinist purges or Pol Pot’s killing fields but I know those happened too.
Do you sincerely, honestly consider Tony Ortega to be “well written” and “painstakingly fact checked”? Really? His blog is written in a pandering, unabashedly tabloid manner. He’s the kind of writer you’d find on Page Six of the New York Post. Mostly uninteresting gossip and speculation, usually based on hearsay and innuendo from so-called “anonymous” sources that cannot be verified at all. Given the nature of his blog and the lack of verifiability and editorial oversight (you know, like with real reporters working for real editors in real news organizations) Ortega would never be acceptable as a credible source even on a crowdsourced project like Wikipedia.
Given that the bulk of his output mostly consists of unverifiable rumor, speculation and gossip, do you genuinely believe his work is “painstakingly fact checked”?
It’s true that once in and awhile he does put out actual news, usually items of a legal nature and his lawyer friend Scott Pilutik is an actual lawyer who knows what he’s talking about (Pilutik’s extensive coverage of the Reed Slatkin scandal was very good, though this was years before the Bunker and it didn’t have any involvement from Ortega), and he does upload actual court documents, but that’s a very small fraction of his overall output, and even in this regard, he is never able to provide any insight, relying instead on others like Pilutik and occasionally the person claiming to be a lawyer from Texas.
On Scientology matters, for a guy who claims to be an expert on Scientology (since 1995!) he is totally dependent on actual former Scientologists for insight. On those rare occasions where he does attempt to figure something out on his own, he makes glaring mistakes. Without Jon Atack, Chris Shelton, Marc Headley, Mark Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Jefferson Hawkins, Amy Scobee, etc his blog would have zero credibility and unable to sustain any interest. His blog at the Village Voice didn’t gather steam until he actually began consulting all these former members and providing a vehicle to channel their frustrations and grievances. So, I can certainly accept that his blog serves a purpose in providing those views and opinions, but that doesn’t make him a journalist.
Journalists report the news, and news is about facts. Ortega doesn’t provide facts, he peddles gossip.
I’ve seen quite a few hard facts in his blog entries with names, dates, places, etc.
I have to say that, along with Claire, I’ve also seen tons of facts in Tony Ortega’s reporting on Scientology.
It’s way more than just gossip.
Aren’t you ignoring the proven criminal actions of the Guardians Office? How about the stalking and harrassment of Marty and other exes? I’m pretty sure that if you were to apply the letter of the law to scientology’s actions you could have a field day with their violations, some very simple examples comes to mind – the local org, and many others have film nights where they show dvds for entertainment, this requires a public display license, which is quite expensive, so you can guarantee they never held one. Another example – compliance with electrical safety standards, just didn;t happen. More than once there were portable heaters in the courseroom which started smoking and if no one had been there could have caught fire. No these are not felonies but examples of scientology’s arrogant disregard to anything not covered by their precious policy.
Gimpy –
I don’t think any of those “crimes” are going to get us the David Miscavige Perp Walk (DMPW), do you?
I don’t think that Miscavige can be charged with anything the Guardian’s Office did. The question was always whether they could be charged with anything OSA or RTC had done while fair-gaming critics and squirrels that were within the statute of limitations. Or maybe the “inurement” that DM benefited from SO slave labor?
Still – I don’t see the FBI raiding any Orgs on that one, and it’s been exposed for years.
Actually, when I really look at it dispassionately, (something I try to do) the only actual crime I can think of that the Church may have committed – that I am aware of – is when Marty Rathbun had staffers intentionally destroy evidence during the time when the Church was charged with a crime in Lisa McPherson’s death.
Otherwise, I don’t know of any criminal activity, especially felony-level crimes which would get us to the DMPW. In 15 years of being a critic of Scientology, that’s all I am aware of.
I’d love for someone to present something. But I don’t think they can.
Alanzo
“Disconnection” has and continues to be a classic case of anti-Scientologists making a mountain out of a molehill. For heavens sake, “disconnection” happens between Scientologists in good standing and quite frequently. One of the best examples is that of Tom Cruise and Michael Doven. Doven was Cruise’s personal and professional assistant for many years, beginning with “Far and Away” in 1992 and ending during production of “Collateral” in 2004. He even got himself producer credit on some of those films and a cameo in “Eyes Wide Shut”. But like most “production” assistants, he mostly ran daily errands. The guy literally did Cruise’s laundry and dry cleaning. But something happened (which may or may not have something to with allegations of Doven spying on him for Miscavige) and Cruise became sufficiently pissed off at Doven to not only fire him, but disconnect from him completely to the point that Cruise will not allow Doven to be anywhere near him. The “Freedom Medal of Valor” awarded to Cruise in 2004 was a direct result of this situation, as was the secret “scholarship award” that Miscavige granted to Doven to allow him to study the Basics, Congresses and ACCs full-time at Celebrity Centre and become the first Golden Age of Knowledge completion. I put that in quotations because it wasn’t really a scholarship award; Doven not only did not have to pay for the massive number of courses to complete the entire Golden Age of Knowledge line-up, but he was actually paid a generous living allowance since he had to be on course full-time 7 days a week and Doven isn’t exactly wealthy.
That’s just one example. There’s many others, like the dozens of Scientologists I know who disconnected from Grant Cardone and consider him a vulture and charlatan. Like the Cruise/Doven flap, as long as they keep their grievances on the downlow and don’t air them publicly (including within Scientology itself) and limit them to proper terminals, it’s considered a legit action. Why? Because according to Church policy, a Scientologists has the right to communicate or not communicate with anyone they choose.
Anti-Scientology zealots like Ortega, as you’ve so clearly indicated, deliberately ignore the fact that the Church does not and cannot put a gun to anyone’s head. They can’t “force” anyone to do anything. They can sure as hell try to coerce people, but that’s as far as they can take it and the worst thing they can do to someone who refuses to disconnect from an anti-Scientology family member is not allow them to continue in Scientology. And if they’re refusing to disconnect from someone who hates Scientology, they’re already on their way out, whether they’re aware of it or not.
I think you might actually be the first person I’ve encountered among all the former Scientologists who write a blog that raises this basic issue, that the bizarre zealotry of Ortega and his ilk in demanding (!) that Scientologists must maintain connections with their Scientology-hating parents or relatives is beyond irrational. They also ignore the fact that Ethics Officers always go out of their way to keep the peace within families and advise disconnection as an absolute last resort. That’s Hubbard’s own policy, right there. Hubbard even did a recording, “Can We Ever Be Friends?” to that effect. I was in the Sea Org for years and each and every case that I observed or was involved with where disconnection was a possibility, it was always the anti-Scientology family member that refused to compromise in the name of keeping the peace.
Case in point, the recent obsession Ortega has with Phil Jones and his billboard campaign. I personally know Mike Jones and I know for a fact that he doesn’t want anything to do with his parents. According to Mike (who isn’t “missing”, just like Shelly Miscavige isn’t “missing” — what is it with Ortega and his idiot fans?), his parents hate Scientology with a passion and insist that he and his sister leave. According to Mike, and he’s told me his sister concurs, his parents have consistently refused to shut the hell up about their problems with Scientology and every time they talked with him or his sister, they would always keep demanding that they both leave Scientology.
If Phil Jones could actually have a civilized conversation with his son and daughter without constantly, obsessively dumping on Scientology and demanding they leave the Sea Org and even worse, join them on their anti-Scientology crusade, there’d be no problem and no disconnection! It’s that simple.
But Ortega is a mentally sick individual who hates Scientology to such an extreme that he would never in a million years even acknowledge the possibility that Phil Jones and his wife are actually the problem, not Scientology or David Miscavige or L. Ron Hubbard.
Let me be emphatically clear: Mike Jones, who is not missing and who does not wish to leave the Sea Org, does not want anything to do with his parents, and he has the absolute right not to communicate with them.
I’m certain this is also true of most other Scientologists who have chosen to disconnect from their anti-Scientology parents or relatives. They have every right to leave Scientology, but they sure as hell don’t have the right to subject their kids or family members who remain Scientologists in good standing to a constant barrage of anti-Scientology propaganda and demonizing.
So, to those parents who keep crying and whining to Tony Ortega, the formula to use in avoiding the possibility of disconnection is this: have enough respect for your children to shut the hell up about Scientology when you’re talking with them, and also have enough respect for them as Scientologists in good standing to not be in contact with a bigot like Tony Ortega. That’s all. Agree to disagree on the subject of Scientology and just avoid discussion about it, and don’t hang out with mentally sick losers like Tony Ortega.
Like most things in life, it really is that simple.
That was quite a post, Zane.
It was well written and you stated your argument cleanly and clearly. Your viewpoint is one that few Exes are allowed to see and think about on the post-scientology Internet.
I don’t know any of the people you are taking about, so I really can’t comment.
But I can weigh-in and say that in any dispute, there are at least two sides. I think that Mike Jones’s parents also have a valid point of view, too. Getting out of Scientology – especially Church of Scientology-style Scientology – can be a very good thing for a person. So I can see why they are saying that to their son. It’s because they love him and want what they feel is the best for him.
Again, in any dispute – especially family disputes – there are at least 2 sides. And why anti-Scientology Activism would want to get bogged down in the private disputes inside families, I don’t know. I think it’s best to expose actual crimes, public health dangers and other bad things about Scientology.
And if those crimes aren’t there, or no law enforcement agency wants to do anything about those crimes, why waste your time getting involved in family disputes?
Welcome to Alanzo’s Blog, Zane.
Alanzo
Thank you very much, Alanzo.
You are totally correct that there are always two sides to every story and the fact remains that nothing in this world of ours has ever or ever will be been black and white. Binary thought is inherently anathema to us as human beings; most people will always instinctively resist and refuse anything or anyone that tries to impose that kind of thinking. Hubbard first opened that can of worms in 1965 with KSW and its been a never-ending public relations catastrophe since then. The advent of the Sea Org only amplified things to the point where — to paraphrase our good friend Grant Cardone — the most dedicated Scientologists were no longer just drinking the Kool-Aid, they were diving head first into it and swimming for dear life.
What has never ceased to amaze me is that this type of fanatical mentality persists even when they leave the Church, the only difference being that they are no longer fanatics for Scientology, but against it. Even more pathetically, they’ve switched idols from Hubbard to Tony Ortega, a tabloid writer pretending to be a legitimate journalist. I think you’ve pointed out all this before in one of your other posts. They see no irony in the fact that Ortega demands full disclosure and transparency from the Church and all Scientologists, current and former, yet will refuse to reveal anything about his own personal life or answer any questions about all the controversies he’s been involved with.
That’s bad enough as it is when it comes to the sheepish cult following Ortega has deliberately nurtured, but they even help Ortega intimidate anyone who he feels is a threat to his self-appointed position as the World’s Greatest Scientology Expert ®. You’ve written before about how he royally screwed over Carmen Llewelyn and the lynch mob from Ortega’s blog that viciously harassed her. But he has even gone so far as to indirectly leak information to OSA about his so-called “anonymous” sources to get them thrown out of the Church as revenge for criticizing how he was using the information or because they weren’t willing to play his game the way he wants, or if they decide to start their own blog. Not even Bob Minton was ever this insanely childish and hostile, which is saying a lot.
There’ve been enough flaps of this kind over at Celebrity Centre and PAC over the past few years (most notoriously during 2013-2014, when GAT Phase II was being released) that I can’t imagine any active Scientologist on those lines wanting to have anything to do with Ortega at this point. For a guy who claims to be so concerned with the “toxic” policy of disconnection, he sure does go out of his way to instigate circumstances which invariably lead to that end.
Everything about Ortega and his followers validate the siege mentality of Scientology management, and the same is true of the Ex-Scientologist Message Board. Scientologists questioning their involvement come across his blog and ESMB, witness the extreme level of ridicule and incendiary attitude, the deliberately offensive nature of it all, and come away disgusted enough to maintain their commitment to the Church.
This thing with Phil Jones and the billboards, for example. I can totally understand why they want their kids out of the Sea Org. I’ve known Mike for years and worked with him many, many times when I was on staff. He’s a fantastic photographer and the main person in charge of all the multimedia, lighting, arrangements, etc at CC for events held in the Pavilion and Theatre. He’s also a very, very quiet guy, extremely down-to-earth. I cannot stress this enough. It’s people like him who are the reason why the Sea Org and Scientology continue to exist. This is a guy who doesn’t engage in idle banter or smalltalk. People who don’t know him often think he’s shy, which isn’t the case at all — he just doesn’t bother to talk unless he has a reason to. He’s the kind of person who goes out of his way to avoid conflicts and trouble, to such an extent that he rarely writes up Knowledge Reports unless an order comes down from higher up that requires him to. Like all the other veteran staff at CC Int, he’s never been interested in getting promoted uplines to Gold, which has long sought after him because he’s one of the very best multimedia talents in the Sea Org, yet he never budged an inch, much to their perennial frustration. Because everyone loves the guy to death and he’s always been upstat and CC Int execs themselves were loathe to see him leave because it’d be such a tedious hassle to find a replacement, and most importantly because he’s never been in any major Ethics situation or had any problems in that area, they’ve never pushed it and they always left him alone and gave him plenty of space to do his own thing.
Now, taking all of that into account and knowing what kind of person we’re dealing with here, imagine the sheer horror someone like him is faced with when his parents not only leave Scientology, doing so in a blatantly open and public manner so that everyone who knows them will know that they’re fed up with the Church and Miscavige and just want to get the hell out, but also go out of their way to get in communication with a bottom-feeding troll like Tony Ortega, and then, as if all of that wasn’t bad enough, they actually air their grievances and frustrations about their children using a BILLBOARD!
The folks over at the Bunker may think thats all very cool and dandy and just a totally reasonable and rational response, but to Mike Jones and his sister? Man, I can’t tell you what kind of a psychological and emotional trauma that inflicted and what kind of attention from uplines terminals that brought upon them. Attention that they absolutely, unequivocally did not want.
Tony Ortega for sure gets off on this sort of thing, and maybe that was Phil Jones’ intent all along, to stir up the hornets nest in the hope his kids get declared and offloaded out of the Sea Org and eventually, Scientology. Regardless of what any of us wants to think about the Sea Org, most of them want to be there and especially at orgs like CC Int, which has a very low rate of staff turnover (if you were on-lines there twenty years ago, most of the same people are still there!), there are plenty of staff who are more than comfortable with their lifestyle.
But for Mike Jones, it’s just never going to be the same again. And if Gold has their way and finally gets him for good, then he won’t even be in Los Angeles anymore where at least he’s easily accessible and gets plenty of time off.
I’m hoping it doesn’t lead to that and things will just blow over and dissipate, but the billboard thing is so absurdly extreme and public that Phil doesn’t know just how badly he’s screwed things up for his son and the level of emotional pain he’s inflicted on him.
But for Ortega and the Bunkerites, it’s all just entertainment, like a daytime soap opera they can watch from a safe distance, munch on their popcorn and gossip about between themselves.
I keep telling myself and a few others that “I am done with all Scientology related blogs and sites”, and then I keep finding myself taking a peek now and then which in turn leads me to want to post something. Lol… Okay, I’m an unstable wishy washy person.
All that aside I’m glad that I took a peek at Alonzo’s Blog today because this is a very good topic, and I am also enjoying Zane X’s posts. Good stuff!
Yes this subject of disconnection is overly dramatized by many. It is also not very well understood. I am not discounting the loss of those who have lost friends and relatives due to disconnection, but I will say that it was my experience in the CoS that disconnection is only a means of last resort. Shortly after I joined the CoS I had a relative who was giving me a lot of grief and was insisting that I quit. I told my CoS good friend at the time who referred me to our local C/S who had spent many years at Flag training. To this day I am impressed with how he handled the situation with my antagonistic relative. He told me that we need to do everything to handle this without disconnection. He advised me what to do and say to resolve her fears and anger over my being in the CoS. And it worked beautifully. Totally took care of it and I did not end up disconnecting from her.
My point is that this notion that the CoS always encourages rapid disconnection, no questions asked, is just BS. If someone really and truly wants to be a Scientologist then he or she is not going to want to have to deal with a relative or friend who constantly bad mouths and fights against this commitment. If said relative or friend refuses to be civil and respectful then it often leaves the Scientologist with no other choice but to refrain from communication. It’s that simple.
Regarding Leah Remini’s A&E show I have not watched even one second of it. I have no desire to watch it at all. Some who know me IRL are surprised. They thought surely I’d be all over this show. There’s just something about Remini that doesn’t sit well with me. I can’t really explain it even to myself. A gut feeling that she’s not as “noble” as many think. Even when I was a still-in I didn’t like her when she was still-in. I totally support her decision to leave the CoS. I have no problem with her calling out DM for some issues. But the A&E show seems too much. There’s an agenda behind it that I am not comfortable with for some reason.
Frankly, the still-ins that I personally know and still interact with on a weekly basis seem to be happier and more balanced than most constant posters on The Bunker and ESMB. Does this make me want to re-join? Hell no! I’m glad I quit and I’ll never re-join. But…..and this is a Scientology concept here, fair warning….sometimes you just have to grant others their own beingness. Too many Exes aren’t even comfortable or sure about their own beingness it seems. I wasn’t myself until this past year of 2016.
Excellent post, LS.
I heard what you said about Leah, but man the show is fantastic. I have been out and criticizing Scientology for 17 years now and I have never seen a better presentation of the issues of undue influence and religious and spiritual abuse surrounding the Church of Scientology. You should know that Mike Rinder is Leah’s sidekick in each episode, and so it’s not all Leah.
A lot of it is Mike, and he and Leah make a great team.
There is a little too much religious cloaking of Scientology and especially the Sea Org for me, but it’s understandable when you realize that both Leah and Mike were “born-ins” and grew up, basically, in the Sea Org. So they are seeing it from that perspective, and that perspective has quite a few problems.
You wrote:
“….sometimes you just have to grant others their own beingness. Too many Exes aren’t even comfortable or sure about their own beingness it seems.”
Exactly.
Alanzo
What is frightening to me is that scientology has created a mindset in families that encourages them to be at complete odds to one another. I look at it quite simply – if they had never encountered scientology, the family would be together today, would they be better people for this? That could only ever be speculation,
In my opinion the people of the world could benefit from something to wake them up, this is what I thought scientology would do for me, it didn’t, it was just enforced compliance to a new set of rules, seemingly designed to deliberately teach the opposite of everything we have been taught.
Before I got involved with scientology I was very concerned about environmental destruction, along with a lot of other good sense I may have had this thinking was switched off by scientology, I some how got the delusional belief that a theta environment would solve everything without having to lift a finger, this thinking was rife throughout everyting I did for many years, So yes I do understand that when people wake up to the reality of scientology they are keen for their loved ones to see it for what it really is rather than leave them there to waste their lives. It would be cruel and irresponsible to not have tried.
Wanting to see your loved ones wake up and stop drinking the Kool-Aid is one thing, but to associate with an atrocious and hateful personality like Tony Ortega and going so far as to put up billboards to air one’s frustrations concerning their children is an entirely different matter altogether.
From my own observations and experience, “good roads and fair weather” go a long way in keeping families together and on speaking terms with each other. That kind of peaceful coexistence is a hell of a lot more productive in the long run. Most end up quietly walking away from Scientology in time anyway, usually because they just lose interest in it when it becomes too tedious to continue with or they become fed up with being on staff or some other such situation.
The “shock-and-awe” tactics advocated by Ortega and the ESMB crowd isn’t constructive at all and just makes things worse.
No. CofS disconnection is enforced coerced shunning where members are blackmailed into ceasing communication with their families or friends. It’s how many members are cowed into staying in CofS while they’re mistreated, exploited, bankrupted and sometimes even beaten.This isn’t a case of someone opting to no longer talk to an asshole parent.
CofS, in events leading up to my 2nd and final expulsion threatened my marriage. They said if I did not stop what I was doing, I’d be expelled. And that’d mean my husband coukd no longer see me. That’s coercion and blackmail.
I have friends who were told they couldn’t be in contact with a family member. They literally begged the cult to kept them be in touch, promising no problems or flaps. They were told no, they had to do it. They were made to do it.
And what you say about the Jones isn’t true, either.
Fact is, ALL expulsions in CofS are accompanied by a decree tgat tge persons a suppressive and members are forbidden to talk to an alleged suppressive. They can’t talk about how to drywall, they can’t talk about the weather, they can’t talk about the latest Xmen movie. Per policy, the declared person’s only contact is the IJC. Period.
I have read and been examined on the whole Scientology ethics book and I know the policies.
I’ve even seen people get declared for not disconnecting from someone who, herself, wasn’t even declared- but the cult was all pissed off at this person and that was enough to kick off a chain of disconnections and expulsions.
If a husband and wife were in CofS, and one was expelled but the other wasn’t, the expelled parent would not be allowed to see or talk to his or her spouse or their kids. Fact.
This aligns with my personal experience, Claire. Part of the problem of getting your head around this type of manipulation is that I’ve never encountered this before – ever. In my life, CoS has been the only agency I’ve been associated with that possessed the power to breakup my marriage and destroy my family. Not with another religion, not by the government or state, not by an employer – only by my “church”.
My spouse was put under heavy, heavy duress to divorce me – on many occasions. An incredibly stressful time. There are no winners in playing this game. You either keep your family together and “lose your eternity”, lose all of your “friends”, possibly lose your job; or, dismantle your family unit, devastate your finances with alimony and child support, completely alter the lives of your children (for the worse), for what? So you can “keep your eternity” and continue to give them your money and time.
It may not be a “crime”, but it sure as shit feels like one.
Yah! And other cults have been raided with leaders arrested for this type of thing.
There could be legal grey areas there but aside from the moral issues- I think coercion is illegal.
Did you see the Headleys’ interview on Remini’s show? They experienced some if that divide and conquer stuff and when Claire Headley left, they came after her. That’s harassment and intimidation-also illegal.
Zane X wrote:
“They also ignore the fact that Ethics Officers always go out of their way to keep the peace within families and advise disconnection as an absolute last resort.”
I will have to respectfully disagree with this statement, based on my own experience and observations.
While it is policy to always attempt to “handle” before resorting to disconnection, in practice this is done for relatively minor PTS Type A situations (e.g. a parent raising concern about one’s involvement, a snarky co-worker, etc.). However, when it comes to declared SPs there is NO attempt to handle. I spoke to a couple of friends on the eve of my declare and told them I have nothing against their involvement, and would not suddenly start giving them shit about Scn. In other words, I was “handled.”
This was unacceptable to the church and everyone soon disconnected from me.
The church does not view connections to a declared ex-Scnist as simply a PTS situation. An aspect of Disconnection which is often overlooked, is that it is used by members as a kind of “tough love” against the offender. “Do your A to E; until then we can’t have a relationship.” They honestly believe they are doing you a favor. Applying pressure to you, so you get your shit sorted out. They are withdrawing their valuable ARC, in an effort to get you to get your ethics “in”.
When used this way, Disconnection actually serves to CREATE antagonism. Prior to my Comm Ev/SP Declare, I was ambivalent about Scn, afterwards I was a full-blown ENEMY.
There was more criminality. And I went to the F.B.I. well within the statute of limitations. In the midst of the criminal activity, which were financial crimes. We could not even get the victims of the swindle to come forward as a witness. It was just me. The problem is, you have all of these people coming out and giving testimony years later. While they were in, they were part of it. They contributed to it. Or they condoned it by looking at a wall somewhere. Or, it did not bother them when it was all happening to “someone else”. And only became an issue for them when they became a target. But by then, they just went the effect of a culture they had helped to build. Many, are out here torturing people full time still.Dan Larsen, Marty and Mike at least own their part. The rest position themselves as holy the entire time, while devoting their lives still, to investigation witch hunts and comm evs. False findings and recommendations are published frequently. Google my name. I called a “holocaust survivor” a slut? Never happened. This was taken from a conversation identifying a person as a journalist and in a legal suit. If you knew how many of my family died in WWll and the impact this had on my generation, we all qualify as Holocaust survivors. Now whenever my kids or someone in family or a potential client Googles my name, this is what they find. My kids pay, my family pay. Now that years end accounting is done, my literary agent and attorney have figured out they are paying too. Now they are getting all unholy. There is a consistent basic need in some people to set others up for losses. Or to profit off of others losses. And it will be that way a thousand years from now. Cross town traffic.