Why OSA Wins When Critics of Scientology Don’t Allow Criticism of Themselves

karen pressley scientologyKaren Pressley runs the closed Facebook Anti Scientology group called “SWOT”.

She “cleaned house” recently by expelling critics of Scientology from her group who were Ex-Scientologists. The people she expelled have built a very good track record of being precisely the kind of person she says is welcome in her group, right from the first paragraph of the notice she posted:

“Time for some housecleaning in SWOT. To be a Scientology whistleblower, observer or troublemaker means you are one of those who are focused on the bigger picture of exposing Scientology’s abuses and crimes. If you are willing to actually whistleblow—report facts and provide accounts of your true experiences so they can be examined by legal professionals and resolve in justice against the perpetrator, you are welcome here.”

In fact, one of the people Karen banned from her group presented a Wollershiem level fair game case to Mike Rinder, asking him his advice on it and how to proceed. Mike told this person not to bother bringing her case, that Scientology would win.

You mean win like you won Wollersheim, Mike?

So not only has this person done this exact thing that Karen says belongs in her group, but the person Karen is protecting from criticism, Mike Rinder, actually used his influence to divert her case from being examined by legal professionals and have it resolve in justice against the perpetrator.

Karen goes on to describe what it means to be a member of her group:

“To be an observer/watcher in this group means to watch with a critical eye, meaning, the eye of a Scientology critic as well as a critical thinker (questioning the cult and using reason based on fact and logic to make conclusions).

Only the cult? Why not use critical thinking on the group’s Anti-Scientology programs, too, so that they can be tested from multiple viewpoints, having the best ideas rise to the top after a multi-viewpoint debate?

All the smartest, most effective groups do that. All the dumbest groups follow authority.

Just like the Sea Org.

“To be a troublemaker is rather tongue in cheek, but draws off the title of Leah Remini’s book “Troublemaker”, meaning being someone who has the courage to confront the cult with its abuses and crimes and persist in that endeavor with actions that trouble the cult’s operations, with the goal of getting them to stop abusing people, stop destroying families, stop defrauding people, stop Fair gaming people, and on. It DOESN’T mean you are here to cause trouble between members.”

This is interesting because the people who were banned questioned the trouble that Aaron Smith Levin was causing other critics in the group by calling them “whacked out conspiracy theorists”. It’s funny how some critics can be criticized in Karen’s group while others can not.

Just like in the Sea Org.

What this group is NOT is a battleground for critics to attack each other, satisfy vendettas, or to find fault with whistleblowers, observers/watchers and troublemakers.

And yet that’s exactly what Aaron Smith Levin did – he found fault with whistleblowers, observers/watchers and troublemakers.

Yet it was the people he found fault with who were banned.

Just like in the Sea Org.

“Anyone who finds themself not in alignment with this group will kindly excuse yourself from this group membership. There are plenty of other places where you can tear up ex Sea Org members and ex-Scientologists. Not here.

You can only tear up Non Sea Org Ex-Scientologists in Karen’s group, apparently.

“Why am I writing this? I’m writing this because of the last few days of infighting here, which showed that there are various factions within the exes community that are not in alignment with the big picture.”

Is there really only one big picture? You mean the big picture that has allowed David Miscavige to remain in power for longer than L Ron Hubbard, eating lawsuits for lunch, and doing whatever he wants to Scientologists?

That big picture?

I think that big picture has proven itself impotent, and new big pictures need to be hung for Scientology critics and whistleblowers to examine.

“Of course, OSA loves that and will milk it to its fullest advantage by causing more trouble through infiltration, planting people to attack each other, third partying, fake news, and the like. Are you fueling OSA with your comments? If so, kindly excuse yourself from this group now or you will be booted and blocked”.

“Fueling OSA with your comments” what does that mean, exactly? Has Karen ever examined this?

I doubt it.

“Then, I woke up this morning and found a post about the harm Mike Rinder caused to Gerry Armstrong while Mike and Gerry and many of us were in the cult. I deleted it because that post, even though there is no doubt that Gerry Armstrong was dealt a deep injustice, the post had the intent to suck readers back into the black hole of destructive Sea Org operations which hundreds to thousands of us have left years ago.”

And yet all that is still unresolved. And Karen is protecting Mike from having to resolve it.

But is what Karen says true? Has even Karen herself left that black hole? Because power pushes against factions that she doesn’t consider in authority is precisely the kind of Sea Org behavior which she has employed here.

“The SWOT group is not a justice-delivering group to destructive and regrettable actions from the past. Here we keep our eyes on the target of exposing Scientology, not whittling down the people who are working to expose it, whether the people exposing it are lily white saints or flawed human beings who took regrettable actions in the past and who have redirected their path to right the wrongs.”

And yet Aaron Smith Levin did exactly that to critics of Scientology who are working to expose it.

“The post also had the tone of OSA operations, in the sense that it tried to separate and cause upheaval in the critic community. That type of post IS Scientology—and that’s why it is so ugly and explosive. It’s putting Scientology to use under the guise of trying to right a wrong”.

That post called out Aaron Smith Levin for clear abuses of other critics, exposed his faulty logic and lack of critical thinking, and very clearly and professionally reminded him of the standards that the Aftermath Foundation themselves espouse.

That post was an important set of ideas to inject into a community of critics who for far too long have never questioned their own assumptions, and who have simply regrouped outside the Sea Org to trigger each other into the same old Sea Org behavioral patterns.

That post was one of the most important posts I’ve seen posted to Karen’s group, and she could only see it through her own old Sea Org eyes.

And all of her own old Sea Org behavioral patterns took over and shut down important ideas and discussions that Scientology critics and whistleblowers desperately need to have.

“To anyone who still has the desire to tear down critics who are working to expose the cult, consider this: anyone who has never been complicit in a wrongdoing while in Scientology or the Sea Org; anyone who has never harmed another person in any way while in Scientology; anyone who has apologized or made retributions directly to every single person who you ever hurt, slighted, offended, harmed in any way; anyone who is lily white clean and without any sort of offenses in their past—please step forward and make yourself known”.

So there it is – because we have all sinned (and no Scientologist has sinned as much as a Sea Org member) no one can criticize anyone in Karen’s group for any reason – even if the harm they caused, as Aaron did, is right there in present time. Why?

Because you are a sinner yourself.

Karen? Is Aaron Smith Levin without sin?

Because he tried to destroy and discredit the characters of critics and whistleblowers in your group.

Can you even see that, or has all your Sea Org training come back to blind you?

Somehow I think there would be very few. In other words, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I’ve said my peace.

This is the most hypocritical Sea Org based bit of authoritarianism I’ve seen since at least last Tuesday from Celebrity Anti-Scientologists.

Part of the reason that David Miscavige is still in power, still doing what ever he wants to Scientologists is that his critics and whistleblowers are stuck in their own tribal hypocrisy and blindness, they block out new ideas from people who don’t have the rank to present them, and they ban the very people from their group who could contribute the most.

Now possibly, Karen could be so triggered into her old Sea Org patterns that she can’t see what she’s done here.

I hope this post makes some progress to waking her up to her own stated standards.

That’s what criticism is, by the way. At its best, it reminds people of the standards they have set for themselves and shows a productive way forward to achieve it.

What am I suggesting as a productive way forward?

Start reading and commenting in the open Facebook group called Scientology Deprogramming. Because that’s where the real deprogramming from Scientology occurs – not by triggering each other into the old roles, old emotional habits, and drilled-in reactions from the Sea Org.

If you want to see the posts that Karen censored from her group, and talk to the great critics and whistleblowers she trashed and banned, go to Scientology Deprogramming. You will be welcome there and allowed to contribute – no matter what rank you had in the Sea Org.

2 thoughts on “Why OSA Wins When Critics of Scientology Don’t Allow Criticism of Themselves”

  1. Alanzo,

    Karen wants us to forget the abuses that happened while Mike Rinder was the head of the Office of Special Affairs. Implying the we all did things we regret. Firstly, as you pointed out, few Scientologist or even Sea Org Members delivered the magnitude of harm with Fair Gaming in Scientology as Mike Rinder.

    Furthermore, one of the well known Fair Game tactics used by Mike Rinder is to discredit your critics. In the following post-scientology interview by german film makers, Mike Rinder clearly hasn’t the slightest remorse for the injustice dealt to Gerry.

    When Mike was asked if they (the church) will go after him for the same length and duration as they followed Gerry Armstrong, 20-30 years, Mike completely discredits Gerry.

    Mike’s response to being asked about Gerry being followed for 20-30 years:

    “Gerry Armstrong is seeing things at this point,” “he’s kind of a, a bit of a fruit cake, quite frankly.”

    Was Gerry followed by OSA that long?



Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.