Last night’s episode of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath was a round table discussion of former Scientologists, and independent Scientologists, exposing the upper levels of Scientology so that people can make more informed decisions about their involvement. For that reason, it was a very valuable episode.
And Tony Ortega has gotten people who have completed OT 8 to reconstruct the materials that they studied while doing the level, and this reconstruction has been verified by others who have done the level as well.
Also, very valuable.
But because there are so many viewers who have angry and even hysterical accusations of criminal activity on the part of the Church of Scientology, and so many people calling for prison terms and federal investigations, one must ask that with all the resources at Mike Rinder’s and Leah Remini’s disposal – from A&E corporate lawyers to investigative journalists – where is the evidence that Scientology is actually breaking the law?
Shouldn’t we have seen some of this evidence exposed by now if Leah wants her federal investigation?
If no criminal activity is being exposed on the show, can we assume that this means they can’t find any?
And if they can’t find any, don’t they have a moral obligation to say so?
I see a fire hose of Internet hatred, cruelty, and even threats of violence towards Scientologists here at my blog after every airing of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath. I do not post any of it. It is really very disgusting.
At the faucet of this firehose of hate and anger directed at Scientologists, which Leah & Mike are intentionally cranking up and trying to increase to the gale force of Hurricane Irma, is the belief that Scientology is a “criminal organization”.
Yet no evidence has been presented on Leah’s show that Scientology has committed any crime at all.
Moral outrages, yes.
But criminal activity – no.
So when will Leah and Mike admit this?
My answer: Never.
They need viewers. And in order to have viewers they need to manipulate the truth about Scientology in such a way as to continually outrage the public to keep them watching. And admitting that they can not find any actual criminality will bring all their hysterical tribal warriors down to Earth – exactly where they do not want them lest people become disinterested in the show.
This, in my opinion, is Trump-level demagoguery and despicably irresponsible hucksterism. But it’s how you hit your numbers every week for your cable TV show, and why that business can become so corrosive to your soul.
Season 1 was fabulous. But so far Season 2 of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath is proving to be little more than emotional manipulation and Trumped up tribalism in pursuit of money and fame. Yes, exposure of OT8 is good for people to know, but that has been available to the public on the Internet for decades now.
This manipulation of the truth and peoples’ emotions comes with the territory of a cable TV show. And, after thinking about this, I have come to see that the cause of this is really the business end of cable TV itself, rather than – necessarily – the characters of Leah and Mike. This is their game, and they have to play it to win.
It all makes me realize that, as critics of Scientology, you should be careful what you wish for, because someday you just might get it.
If Mike and Leah have no evidence of criminal activity on the part of the Church of Scientology, they must say so – and soon.
The only thing I’ve wondered about is truancy. If Scientology entities have custody of these children from their parents, and aren’t providing the children with acredited education, and aren’t sending the children to acredited schools, haven’t they broken the law?
You would think so.
It’s interesting to discover your blog’s reincarnation, yet again. I didn’t realize you were blogging but I’ve re-followed it. It’s also interesting to scan over the comments and see many of the same names I’ve followed for over a decade still writing the same fallacious arguments. It’s not what I would hope for but I am not particularly surprised.
Putting “apostasy” on a scale as you’ve done seems relevant to me. Unravelling doesn’t happen all at once just as coming on board doesn’t happen all at once.
Compulsion to construct “belief systems” seem hardwired into humans and maybe the other mammals as well. It’s surely simpler and uses less mental energy than maintaining a skeptical and watchful attitude.
ChrisTho! –
We believe in reincarnation here at AlanzosBlog. Well, some of us do, anyway.
Very good to see you, my good man!
Thank you so much for your intelligence and friendship over the years.
Hey, Chris!
Good to see another one of the same old names. 🙂
You wrote: “It’s also interesting to scan over the comments and see many of the same names I’ve followed for over a decade still writing the same fallacious arguments.”
I thought it would be interesting to see if one of those same old arguments could be INTELLIGENTLY argued this time – and it didn’t go so well. I really wanted to follow it through in a sincere debate and was honestly willing to accept whatever came up as a rational discussion.
But alas, perhaps in the same way that you see the same “fallacious” arguments, I see the same old responses to them. I mean even the same wording the critics established over the years. Their arguments apparently became self-evident axioms and nothing more need be said! 😉
(Not that I want to go at it again with anybody. If Alanzo can’t do it, no one can. 🙂 )
You win, Marildi!
There is no way to argue religious and spiritual beliefs. It is literally endless, or what we might call “moot”.
So take a bow, run a victory lap, and rest on your laurels! 🙂
“There is no way to argue religious and spiritual beliefs. It is literally endless, or what we might call ‘moot'”
When all else fails, you can always fall back on calling it a matter of “belief.”
Tsk tsk tsk 😉
Everyone needs an Escape Hatch!
Your humor has always been your main redeeming characteristic. I’m happy that you have an outlet for it!
“Everyone needs an Escape Hatch!”
Tell me about it! Haha, 🙂
All religious and political belief systems come with an Escape Hatch. Sometimes 20.
From Buddhism, to Communism, to Republicanism, to Scientology – an escape hatch is always an essential feature.
This is why skepticism is the only truly sustainable philosophical position for a human being.
“This is why skepticism is the only truly sustainable philosophical position for a human being.”
Amen to that! We are on the same page regarding it. Sometimes I need to fall on one of my many “escape hatches” to soothe and calm my soul, but I am quite aware that I using them, 🙂
It’s actually nothing to be ashamed of.
Human beings are not capable of knowing everything, or even very much about the Real World Out There. And so everyone has to construct some kind of narrative that makes the world understandable to them and have some kind of meaning for their own lives. Some narratives come pre-packaged like Christianity or Scientology. Some narratives have to be pieced together with chewing gum and bits of string.
It’s always entertaining to watch someone fiddle with their narrative. I recently realized that I’ve been doing this, making people fiddle with their narratives for entertainment, on the Internet for a long time now.
The most entertaining is an atheist, though. They will tie the most far-flung science experiments together to try to make them say things from science that makes some part of their life understandable. And then the meanings they derive from these science experiments are usually just hilarious – making connections and leaps of faith with no net beneath them. Atheists, for the most part in my experience, have absolutely NO IDEA they are doing this. They think they have no beliefs, and that they operate on facts alone.
When they say this, that’s when I really bust a gut.
“It’s actually nothing to be ashamed of.”
Yeah, I know.
“Human beings are not capable of knowing everything, or even very much about the Real World Out There. And so everyone has to construct some kind of narrative that makes the world understandable to them and have some kind of meaning for their own lives. Some narratives come pre-packaged like Christianity or Scientology. Some narratives have to be pieced together with chewing gum and bits of string.”
Yeah, “Wanting to believe” is very much part of human nature.
“It’s always entertaining to watch someone fiddle with their narrative. I recently realized that I’ve been doing this, making people fiddle with their narratives for entertainment, on the Internet for a long time now.”
I know. The way you described it was as “Throwing stones”, haha, and waiting for the reaction.
“The most entertaining is an atheist, though. They will tie the most far-flung science experiments together to try to make them say things from science that makes some part of their life understandable. And then the meanings they derive from these science experiments are usually just hilarious – making connections and leaps of faith with no net beneath them.”
Tell me about it! I’ve met many of those at many “science” (especially physics) blogs. I call that “The Cult of Science”. Many of those individuals follows an irrational obedience to science “authorities” without actually analyzing nor even reading in detail the experiments upon which these “scientists” derived their conclusions.
“Atheists, for the most part in my experience, have absolutely NO IDEA they are doing this. They think they have no beliefs, and that they operate on facts alone.”
They mostly operate on what I call “Irrational Skepticism”. I am all for REAL skepticism, where one approaches knowledge from a non emotionally attached, but from an open minded attitude where no set of possibilities is immediately dismissed just based on an emotional “It just can’t be true”.
“When they say this, that’s when I really bust a gut.”
Yeah, they have a very strange way to look at life. I was like that myself when I was a science student, but only for a little while. And that probably was the emptiest period of my life.
Even cracked.com knows about the serious business:
“You hear experts talk about how extremists get “radicalized” — how a guy went from a mild-mannered food inspector in San Bernardino to a brainwashed suicide attacker in the course of a year or so. But it really isn’t a mystery, and we all form less-murderous versions of this. All it takes is a closed like-minded social circle in which it’s considered unacceptable to disagree with the group, and then devote that group to hating something. It doesn’t even matter if the thing truly deserves hating — it still turns toxic. In fact, it works better if it does. “How can you criticize any flaw in our group’s behavior when the other side is [Scientologists]! That’s literally saying that both sides are the same! The mere existence of pure evil on the other side mathematically means our side is pure good!”
At that point, no criticism is possible and there is nothing to moderate the rage. The rhetoric ratchets higher and higher as each member tries to top each other (to prove their own righteousness by demonstrating they hate the target most), and there is no method for reining it in. Moderate voices from outside the group are excluded completely, anyone from the inside who takes a moderate tone can be shouted down with accusations of being an enemy sympathizer. Soon, everything from objectively grotesque insults to elaborate torture fantasies are tossed around without a second thought.”
http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-every-terrible-person-thinks-theyE28099re-hero/
Perfect!!
That is sooo true!! Great find!
Congrats on Leah and Mike for their Emmy, but Ortega’s chest-thumping and gorilla-like bravado about how HOLLYWOOD WILL NOW DESTROY SCIENTOLOGY is the act of the pathologically insecure.
Note also that he is careful NOT to deny the urban myth that “Rathbun has gone back to Scientology”, even though that is nothing but heated speculation on his part that he wants to make true because Marty challenged his status as alpha-male. All that stuff sarcastically saying “don’t mess with the Troika”? Marty now lives inside his head, rent-free.
Even though if it’s Marty’s choice, he would never submit himself to Ray Jeffrey’s rifling through his finances, it would be very interesting to see the results of that discovery. I believe there is a better than even chance that Marty has not taken any money at all from Scientology. And when that gets proven, Tony Ortega’s cynical trolling and manipulation on Marty and Monique will be fully exposed.
Tony Ortega is building up a lot of enemies among Ex-Scientologists and others. He has attacked and done his best to marginalize many good people.
Over time, that never turns out well.
Apologies to Ortega, in a recent tweet he has actually said “it’s highly unlikely that Rathbun is actually back in the Church BUT STILL smear innuendo etc”
Has anyone actually ever figured out what Ortega’s story is, how it has come to pass that he went from managing alternative weeklies to becoming a full-time paid Scientology “observer”?
It’s interesting to look at the evolution of his anti-Scientology persona. This is the first blog post that he wrote about Scientology at the Village Voice: https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/03/04/what-to-get-l-ron-hubbard-for-his-birthday/ — interestingly after the last recent redesign the VV website now shows his Runnin’ Scared blog posts as regular articles and the comments sections have all been removed.
He very briefly mentions Leah Remini and other Scn celebs as targets of scorn and ridicule in the first article. He also refers to LRH as a “pulp fiction” author rather than “science fiction” author, which is interesting since journos almost always use the latter as a way to attack Hubbard’s credibility, which is standard at newspapers like NY Times, WSJ, SP Times/Tampa Bay Times, etc. Every blog post and article he’s written since then seems to also prefer “science fiction author”.
The second article is about Jason Beghe: https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/04/15/scientologys-first-celebrity-defector-reveals-church-secrets/
He continues to blog about Scientology intermittently until April 2011 (https://www.villagevoice.com/author/tonyortega/page/52/), when he begins posting about Scientology at least once or twice a month. By June 2011 (https://www.villagevoice.com/author/tonyortega/page/46/) he is blogging almost exclusively about Scientology and nothing else, with the rare exception now and then, which ultimately gets him booted out of the VV the following year when his bosses in Phoenix get fed up with his Scientology obsession and his inability to spin the Backpage sex trafficking controversy properly. Even other journos can’t figure out why Ortega is so obsessed with Scientology: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/village-voice-synthetic-solution
Ortega in 2011 also explicitly denies sex trafficking exists in the US and calls Backpage.com allegations mass hysteria similar to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s (https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/07/06/cnns-amber-lyon-ambushed-craigslist-but-she-wont-talk-to-the-village-voice/).
Even after all these years, Backpage.com is still proven to be a magnet for sex traffickers: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/opinion/google-backpagecom-sex-traffickers.html?mcubz=3
Anytime anyone has ever tried to ask Ortega about the Backpage situation or even any question about his personal life, he blocks their email and bans from commenting. When he does bother responding, he does so only to call them a “troll” and then bans them. If you ask him about his live-in Israeli girlfriend or his Indonesian Muslim ex-wife, block and ban with no response. He goes to Israel a lot with his girlfriend, but you’ll never even find any mention of her or her name or even that he has a girlfriend (who he not only lives with, but who pays for the rent and expenses).
This is from a guy who claims to be a journalist. He has no qualms about posting private information or personal details about Scientologists and exes on his blog. I can understand he wants to protect his privacy and that of his Israeli girlfriend, but when he invades the private lives of regular people — we’re not even talking about staff members, but very ordinary rank-and-file Scientologists — and goes so far as to post pictures of their children, which even though culled from Facebook and social media doesn’t abrogate one’s right to privacy and right to not be harassed or outed as US and European courts have consistently ruled.
He also refuses to answer questions about his connections Karen de la Carriere and Jeffrey Augustine and why he would even be connected to people who would use shows like Ghost Adventures (or whatever the hell the stupid show is called) to promote nonsense about some derelict building in Los Angeles that Hubbard briefly gave lectures and demonstrations at during the early Dianetics period as being haunted by his “victims” that he tortured and subjected to ghastly Nazi-like experiments. WTF? I mean, its bad enough Augustine and Carriere would try to profit from a ghost show (idiots!) but to portray Hubbard as some kind of Dr Mengele? That’s really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Ortega, who as we all know is a hardcore atheist and skeptic, who aggressively dumps on religion, claims of the paranormal, ufology, etc and viciously harasses and bullies those who believe in that stuff as gullible lunatics who should be psychologically spayed and neutered, has no issue taking money from woo merchants like Karen and Jeffrey?
And why when Ortega was writing about Alex Jentzsch did he never press Carriere about her role in her son’s estrangement from her or even ask what the hell happened that he ended up on methadone years after he left the SO at PAC base? This is the same guy who zealously goes after Cathy Tweed and other Scientologist parents and airs their personal tragedies without regard as to their privacy and without ever attempting to get the other side of the story.
Yet he expects his readers to believe everything Carriere has claimed and that she is completely innocent and played no role whatsoever in Alex’s estrangement and all the problems that he developed after he got married and left the church, or even any details about his marriage problems and the turmoil he endured at the hands of his wife’s family, who were and I believe still are Scientologists in good standing. She knew everything that was going on, and she sure as hell knew Alex was in a royally messed up situation there that kept getting worse and ultimately led to his death on methadone. She didn’t even give ANY of these details about marital turmoil and drug and psychiatric issues to the police which would’ve been essential to any productive investigation. Why the hell would she want to protect anyone potentially complicit in her son’s death?
When Alex’s memorial service was held at CCI which his father Heber attended and spoke at, she and Ortega used the occasion to exploit the tragedy and the occasion to attack and blame Scientology for his death based on NO evidence whatsoever. It was pure shameless exploitation and it spoke volumes about why Alex chose of his own free will not to be in contact with her, even though no one from the church or Heber himself ever blamed Karen or even remotely suggested she was negligent or screwed over Alex or anything like that, not even in any of the dead agent material the church has put on the web.
All this harassment and bullying of Cathy Tweed and other Scientologist parents who have suffered the loss of their children, and each and every time Ortega exploits these tragedies while going out of his way to not reveal anything about his own life. Let’s not also forget the harassment of Johnny Lewis’s parents after his apparent suicide due to drug and alcohol abuse — even though Johnny had never been much interested in Scientology to begin with and did very little of it while growing up, Ortega exploited his personal problems and suicide as being directly a result of being born into a Scientologist family. Based on nothing, not a shred of evidence.
I’d like to get the cultish Bunkerites who’ve been trolling here and attacking you for asking simple and legitimate questions about Ortega explain all of their idol’s shortcomings and blatant exploitations of family tragedies. I’d also like to get their opinion on Ortega’s outright denial of the existence of sex and child trafficking in the US, which he has portrayed as an urban legend in the same vein as Christian fundamentalist-orchestrated Satanic Panic in 1980s which first arose as a result of the “Michelle Remembers” hoax.
So basically Ortega considers any evidence of sex trafficking to be a hoax, even though the FBI, Interpol, MI5, Shin Bet, European Parliament, etc all verify the existence of massive white slavery and child sex trafficking rings across the globe.
“Has anyone actually ever figured out what Ortega’s story is, how it has come to pass that he went from managing alternative weeklies to becoming a full-time paid Scientology “observer”?”
It’s not difficult. Occam’s Razor: he realised that becoming a full-time Scieno-watcher was a lucrative niche market. The “ASC”, as Marty would put it, were a fanclub in search of a Leader of the Gang Who’s Great For You And Me. I hear at HowdyCon people were giving the LRH “Hip Hip Hooray” treatment to a poster of Tony. Yes, they SAY it’s all a big laugh. But I bet that was the best thing that ever happened to Tony.
(Alanzo) “Yes, exposure of OT8 is good for people to know, but that has been available to the public on the Internet for decades now.”
In what way do you feel that the “exposure” of New OT8 is something good to know, Alanzo? I am just curious. I am also curious as to what you meant by “exposure”, as I am not a native speaker and to me the word “exposure” denotes something negative. Are you attributing any specific “negativity” to that Scn level, and if so why? I am just curious, you know.
This is what Ortega wrote on his blog, about what Leah had allegedly said regarding discussing the religious beliefs of Scn in her show. The capitalization within brackets if for my own emphasis :
“Last night’s episode of the A&E network’s Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath was special in a number of ways. Through the first season and into the second, Leah had said [SHE DIDN’T WANT] to get into specific Scientology ‘beliefs,’ and she mentioned the Xenu story in particular, saying that it was [IRRELEVANT TO HER MISSION TO EXPOSE SCIENTOLOGY’S ABUSES]. But last night, she got into Xenu and the rest of Scientology’s ‘Bridge to Total Freedom’ in a big way.”
I am VERY curious to know in what EXACT ways is it “good” to publicly disseminate the beliefs of a religious organization, while mocking them as they DID (specially Leah) in her show? Care to explain that, please? Thanks!
Because Scientology charges a LOT of money to learn what Hubbard believed was a spiritual level. In the interest of making informed decisions about your involvement in Scientology, a person should know what he is buying before he buys it – especially something that expensive.
Informed decision-making is the basic ethical concern here.
Scientology asks you sign billion year contracts and pay 100s of thousands of dollars to be a participant. Then they hide the truth of these things from you so you can’t know what you are signing yourself onto or paying all that money for.
That’s not right. Scientology does not have to be set up that way, and it shouldn’t be. It is unethical that it is. So to unhide, or to expose, that information for potential consumers is right and just to do.
In my opinion.
“Because Scientology charges a LOT of money to learn what Hubbard believed was a spiritual level. In the interest of making informed decisions about your involvement in Scientology, a person should know what he is buying before he buys it – especially something that expensive.”
I can follow the logic behind your argument, thanks! However, making evaluations as to the spiritual benefits or lack thereof – as both Leah and Mike did – about a level that one has not done, is rather silly to me. Because they are NOT presenting the data objectively, they are making evaluations as to its alleged usefulness or lack thereof. And how can we possibly evaluate something we have not personally experienced? And I don’t mean necessarily by doing it at the Church – those prices are impossible, and there is no evidence that they were ever “LRH approved” – but like in the Independent field, for example where those levels are very affordable.
Are we to believe that just because a FEW OT8s believe that such a level is worthless to them, that we should believe that that’s the case with ALL OT8 completions? Not necessarily. I have more friends that talk positively about that level that the amount of individuals that are criticizing it publicly. But by ONLY presenting the “testimonies” of those who are criticizing it – while TOTALLY ignoring the testimonies of those to whom the level was workable enough (to which Mike HAVE access to) – we wouldn’t necessarily be able to make an “informed” decision, as you said. And to that degree, I just don’t see the real “value” of that episode, but rather an act of bigotry.
“Informed decision-making is the basic ethical concern here.”
Agreed, Alanzo, but ONLY when the information shows ALL sides and is objectively presented, which wasn’t the case on that episode. Do you feel that it was objectively presented and that if so, why?
“Scientology asks you sign billion year contracts and pay 100s of thousands of dollars to be a participant. Then they hide the truth of these things from you so you can’t know what you are signing yourself onto or paying all that money for.”
I understand your concern, and consider it valid to a certain degree. But please, don’t forget, that from raw public to Clear, it isn’t “confidential”. And also don’t forget, that it IS the individual the one who decides to keep going after each level (confidential or not). He isn’t being threatened by gun to keep going. Are we to rule out the most probable explanation that if they DO continue, that they must be experiencing some gains/wins they find valuable enough, or should we just brush it all off by thinking, “They are just ‘deluded’ and ‘brainwashed’ ”?
“That’s not right. Scientology does not have to be set up that way, and it shouldn’t be. It is unethical that it is. So to unhide, or to expose, that information for potential consumers is right and just to do.”
No, it is NOT right, Alanzo, if the ONLY “customers” evaluating a product or service, are apostates, without presenting the testimonies of those who found it valuable enough. And to make it worse, when two individuals who NEVER did the level, and who are OBVIOUSLY anti-Scientology, are making “professional” opinions about it. As I said, I have friends who found OT8 as very helpful, and some are Indies and some are ex-Scientologists. Who are we supposed the believe? See my point of concern here?
Your point is a very valuable one, but ONLY when an honest, unbiased, and objective evaluation showing both sides of the coin is presented. If not, then I am afraid that the “exposure” (to use your charged word, haha, I am joking), isn’t anything more than the use of half-truths, misinterpretation, and bias to attack religious beliefs.
Remember they had 2 independent Scientologists at the table, right?
I do believe that Leah’s interpretations of OT 8 were very dull-headed. She is in the militant phase of her apostasy, so she is going to go in for anything that tears it down, and she is not going to favor more level-headed interpretations of anything in Scientology.
But hey – Mike and Leah are a part of the results of OT 8, and the rest of Scientology tech, too. Hubbard said that the tech should never be held up to ridicule. I disagree with that. If the tech really works, ridicule or not, it should work. So if it doesn’t work, and THAT’S why it can’t be held up to ridicule, then the ridicule is even more important.
So whether the tech works or not, holding it up to ridicule should never be ruled out as a public service.
I look at Scientology from a Buddhist point of view, and paying to get rid of body thetans is a completely unnecessary activity. And instilling phobias into Scientologists that you might die if you are exposed too early? That’s just evil.
So really, I have no problem with that episode.
They just need to poop or get off the pot with regard to whether Scientology is actually a criminal organization. Continuing to inflame people about Scientologists beliefs and morally repugnant practices without acknowledging that they are legal and protected by law, is just dragging people’s religion through the mud. And that makes them no more morally superior than the Scientologists who they are demeaning.
A discussion about the legality of Scientology is very important, I think. But I doubt they have the brains to address this. Mike DID run OSA for 25 years following David Miscavige’s every order, you know.
How smart of a guy could he really be?
“Remember they had 2 independent Scientologists at the table, right?”
I confess that I have not seen the full episode yet, but only the reports at Ortega’s and other sources. Remember that I was hit by Irma. So I don’t know the full details of what those two “independents” said, not even if they are really Indies at all.
“I do believe that Leah’s interpretations of OT 8 were very dull-headed.”
Haha, that’s an understatement! I would describe their interpretations as very glib, 🙂 At least the ones I heard about from Ortega’s and other reports I read.
“She is in the militant phase of her apostasy, so she is going to go in for anything that tears it down, and she is not going to favor more level-headed interpretations of anything in Scientology.”
My point exactly! Thus, her (and Mike’s) assertions can’t be used to make intelligent customer decisions. That was my point. I can’t make any allegations myself as to OT8, as A) I never did it, and B) I haven’t interviewed enough OT8 individuals. So my answer to the question, “Is OT8 workable, or valuable enough?” has only one possible answer, “I just don’t know”. Anything else wouldn’t be intellectually honest from me.
“But hey – Mike and Leah are a part of the results of OT 8, and the rest of Scientology tech, too.”
Not necessarily, Alanzo. You don’t know that – nor ANYBODY for that matter – unless we had verified all their PC folders (and all student records), and had determined that everything on their cases was done EXACTLY by the book. If that were found to be the case, then we would be able to make a definite statement as to whether or not they are “failed” Scn products, meaning that Scn didn’t work for them.
“Hubbard said that the tech should never be held up to ridicule. I disagree with that. If the tech really works, ridicule or not, it should work. So if it doesn’t work, and THAT’S why it can’t be held up to ridicule, then the ridicule is even more important.”
“So whether the tech works or not, holding it up to ridicule should never be ruled out as a public service.”
I see your point. But holding something to “ridicule” is not the same as attempting to prove, disprove, or show how something is not possible. The former can lead to bigotry, but the latter leads to critical thinking applied to a subject. The former has a wrong intention (and personal) to it, but the latter is a more unbiased evaluation not based on emotions used as “arguments”.
“I look at Scientology from a Buddhist point of view, and paying to get rid of body thetans is a completely unnecessary activity.”
As much as I respect your opinion, it is only that; an opinion. For the ones who feel that BTs are real, and that having gotten rid of them changed their lives markedly, they might feel that it had a monetary value to them. I don’t know what you meant by “unnecessary” as related to Buddhism, though?
I am not neither defending the procedure of “Exorcising BTs”, nor asserting that they even exist. All I am saying, Alanzo, is that unless you and me had actually DONE the procedure as written, we just don’t know. And neither you nor me have done it. All we have are opinions – both yours and mine – without any subjective reality.
“And instilling phobias into Scientologists that you might die if you are exposed too early? That’s just evil.”
It is “evil” ONLY if he was certain that that’s not the case; that we are not at risk by being exposed to it before being ready case wise. Alleging that LRH knew that or believed that, falls under the heading of “an opinion”. He might have known about it – which would make him a con man – or he might have actually believed it. Can you say which one for certain? I don’t think so, neither can I. When I was into the anti-Scientology camp, I asserted that he knew, and that he was only a con man. But my “arguments” were only based on emotions, and not in actual evidence or unbiased analysis. Now, I know better than to do that regarding any subject.
“So really, I have no problem with that episode.”
I am ok with that you didn’t, but I did.
“They just need to poop or get off the pot with regard to whether Scientology is actually a criminal organization. Continuing to inflame people about Scientologists beliefs and morally repugnant practices without acknowledging that they are legal and protected by law, is just dragging people’s religion through the mud. And that makes them no more morally superior than the Scientologists who they are demeaning.”
You got that right! Now, I wonder – besides “Fair Game” practices – how much of those instances of “repugnant practices”, are actually based on LRH, of if it is just the manifestations of fanaticism and literal (misinterpretations) interpretations of the texts of Scn.
“A discussion about the legality of Scientology is very important, I think. But I doubt they have the brains to address this. Mike DID run OSA for 25 years following David Miscavige’s every order, you know.”
No, they don’t have the brains nor it is convenient for Mike to dig old skeletons which he HIMSELF helped to put underground, 😉
“How smart of a guy could he really be?”
Indeed! But now he is conveniently playing the “victim”, after he wrote the book, haha.
TC wrote:
Mike Rinder and Leah Remini grew up in Scientology. They were in it for over 30 years apiece. They are definitely, undeniably products of Scientology. Even if they are products of Miscavology, then Scientology produced Miscavology by being unable to prevent it. Hubbard himself never spotted Miscavige as an “SP” and never got rid of him but instead put him in charge of the all-clear unit. So 100% standard Scientology did not work in handling David Miscavige. And in lots of other areas, too.
No True Scientology is a case of the No True Scotsman’s fallacy. That’s an important fallacy to watch out for when you are making excuses on the hamster wheel of “100% standard Scientology”.
The simplicity, after all the excuses have been cleared, is “Scientology is as Scientology does”. You can’t brush away the reality of Leah Remini’s and Mike Rinder’s experiences in Scientology by saying it was “squirreling”. Mike was in the CMO and on the ship with Hubbard.
Thier lives, and even their show, are all products of Scientology. And if you believe in Scientology at all any more, these products of Scientology should be confronted and not brushed aside.
“Mike Rinder and Leah Remini grew up in Scientology. They were in it for over 30 years apiece. They are definitely, undeniably products of Scientology. Even if they are products of Miscavology, then Scientology produced Miscavology by being unable to prevent it. Hubbard himself never spotted Miscavige as an ‘SP’ and never got rid of him but instead put him in charge of the all-clear unit. So 100% standard Scientology did not work in handling David Miscavige. And in lots of other areas, too.”
Your logic doesn’t necessarily follows, as the fact that a workable body of knowledge exist, doesn’t immediately mean that it will be uniformly applied by everybody. So asserting for example that, “…So 100% standard Scientology did not work in handling David Miscavige”, presupposes that it WAS applied in the first place. That’s something you don’t know for sure as you was not there to observe it. You just don’t know under what context did LRH put DM in charge of the “ALL Clear Unit”, neither you know the circumstances surrounding LRH’s alleged inability to “spot” DM as an “SP”.
And I never inferred that Scn’s body of knowledge was either perfect or 100% workable, and I don’t think that most professionally trained auditors believe that as well. Even LRH said that Scn wasn’t a perfect system, neither the best one. He only claimed that it was a workable system. We have many “workable” medical techniques, for example, that are not uniformly applied, even though that they have been shown to work. We have many methods of correct diagnosis that some “professional” doctors fail to recognize its need in a particular case. We have many workable engineering techniques that are wrongly applied resulting in bad products, or even in disaster. But all of them were workable enough. They just were not properly understood and applied.
That we have a workable body of knowledge doesn’t mean that it will be applied. If this were the case, this planet would be a Paradise. It is rather usual that a large percentage of the population just can’t seem to understand and apply correctly what they have learned. We see this every day at almost every profession.
“No True Scientology is a case of the No True Scotsman’s fallacy. That’s an important fallacy to watch out for when you are making excuses on the hamster wheel of ‘100% standard Scientology’.”
You misinterpreted me. I wasn’t making an allegation that if somebody wasn’t helped by Scn, that then Scn had not been 100% applied to him/her. You made that Interference from my post.
“The simplicity, after all the excuses have been cleared, is ‘Scientology is as Scientology does’. You can’t brush away the reality of Leah Remini’s and Mike Rinder’s experiences in Scientology by saying it was ‘squirreling’. Mike was in the CMO and on the ship with Hubbard.”
First, you wrongly assumed that I was making excuses for Scn; I wasn’t. And again Alanzo, that someone was 10, 20, 60 years in Scn doesn’t necessarily mean that he/she received standard Scn. My point was that, unless we had carefully verified all the auditing that someone have done – by a proven professional auditor and
C/S who regularly gets products – and had ascertained that everything she/he received was by the book, then saying “Scn didn’t work for them” is a logical fallacy, or AT LEAST, an unverified assumption.
“Their lives, and even their show, are all products of Scientology.”
No, they are NOT; not necessarily, no. You just DON’T know that. It might have been, or it might have not. If, Alanzo, some specific person did his/her Bridge and got life changing results from it while being very satisfied by it – examples we DO have in large numbers, as anecdotal as the evidence might be (but so are the one from ANY psychotherapy) – and we have others who don’t feel that way, then the FIRST and most LOGIC course of action would be to ascertain if the unsatisfied customer received or not the same quality and “standardness” of service.
Now, upon verifying that, we might find that the unsatisfied customer DID received a high quality standard service, which would show that the “Tech” need modifications, corrections, or further research. But unless we do that exercise FIRST, it is NOT fair to conclude that such a “Tech” is unworkable.
“And if you believe in Scientology at all any more, these products of Scientology should be confronted and not brushed aside.”
ONLY if the “products” come from having applied Scn EXACTLY by the book. Your describing Mike and Leah as “products” from standard Scn, is an assumption you are making. It is an unsupported opinion because you just don’t know what degree of quality and standardness either of them received. And I am neither implying that they did received standard Scn nor I am implying that they didn’t. I am also not implying that Scn is 100% workable. All I am asserting is that to establish anything for certain, we would need to INVESTIGATE, and not assume anything that support our own confirmation bias.
“…then the FIRST and most LOGIC course of action would be to ascertain if the unsatisfied customer received or not the same quality and “standardness” of service.”
No. People are different. There is no “case” which everybody has. There is no mental or spiritual technology that exists in a perfect form that will ever work on everyone – even if it is perfectly applied to each person.
This is a weird kind of implant that Hubbard instilled into Scientologists when he came up with the Bridge in the early 60s. After the Bridge (the Henry Ford Conveyor belt to spiritual enlightenment) everyone on Earth had to have the same “case” and that’s when the Bridge became the solution to everyone in the world.
This is not true.
It never has been true. This arbitrary Bridge was the reason Hubbard had to come up with ethics and justice and SPs and high crimes and everything else that is so suppressive in 100% standard Scientology.
The Bridge and all its attendant ideas and attitudes and rules are an implant, or a fixed idea. You need to examine this some more.
Scientology has been around for 67 years. Everything you see surrounding Scientology from DM to Mike and Leah to you to me to Dror center, etc. It’s all 100% scientology.
Scientology is as Scientology does.
Really.
Alanzo: “There is no ‘case’ which everybody has.”
I don’t think LRH said everybody has the same case. It’s the reactive mind that he said was the same for everybody – with regard to how it functions as a mechanism.
At first LRH thought everybody’s case could be handled simply by handling their reactive mind, but later he discovered that “the nature of a being” involved several other factors, including the body and entities of various kinds, etc.
Apparently he did assume that everybody had the same case with regard to OT III. However, per Dan Koon, eventually he called for a pilot to be done in which a pc would go straight from OT II onto NOTs (a pilot that Miscavige never did, btw). So it seems that even with OT III, LRH realized it was not part of everybody’s case, even on this planet.
In other words, overall the tech does not assume everybody has the same case, although they do have the same “machine of considerable magnitude” called the reactive mind (that’s one definition of it). It so happens that entities impinge on beings (as does the body and other things), but entities are also audited on the principle of the reactive mind being the same in all spiritual being. It’s basically a mechanism..
Any questions? 🙂
Whatever you say, Marildi. These are all your beliefs which you are totally entitled to have.
There is no therapy that will work on everyone, even when it is perfectly applied in each case.
Evidence for my argument?
Every therapy that has ever been developed by anyone, Hubbard included.
“These are all your beliefs which you are totally entitled to have.”
Not so, Al. My comment was about what Hubbard stated with regard to case and the reactive mind – not what I personally believe about either of these.
You had made a statement that “There is no ‘case’ which everybody has,” and you seemed to be saying that Hubbard claimed there was – which he didn’t. His claim was that the reactive mind works the same for everybody. And there happens to be a lot of evidence of this stimulus-response mechanism – and the principle exists in many (if not all) other psychological and spiritual teachings, although worded differently.
Anyway, my actual point is that if people want to disagree with Hubbard, that’s fine – but they should at least be accurate and disagree with what he actually said. Right?
It’s a distinction without a difference, Marildi.
“Reactive mind” and “case” as Hubbard defines it are terms that exist only within the ideology of Scientology. When compared to concrete things such as brains and rocks, these are mental constructs only – with little that can be pointed to in the real world to even support them.
There’s nothing wrong with mental constructs. Science itself is full of them – even in quantum physics, where there are no instruments (at least not yet) that can provide “concrete” evidence of their actuality.
The point is that a WORKABLE construct is one that explains observable data, and the reactive mind construct does just that – in both real world experiences and in auditing sessions. I don’t know of any construct that explains the data better, do you?
The other question is this: Can two former true believers from opposite sides of the Scientology debate actually have a rational discussion that isn’t based on their former indoctrination? 😉
Yes, I do have a better mental construct than the reactive mind. It’s a better construct because it has a real world analog on which it is based, instead of a purely ideological one such as the “reactive mind”.
The mental construct is called the “primary and secondary neurological system”. Not only is this a mental construct that allows many different theoretical ideas to be fit within it for observable human behavior, but it also is a model for a real physical thing that can be seen and measured in the objective world in every single human being.
This mental construct is far superior to the reactive mind construct. Foremost, it is falsifiable, and can contain all kinds of other theories which all end up having to be grounded and testable in the real world.
That beats pure ideology with no falsifiable analog any day of the week.
Does the “primary and secondary neurological system” construct provide an explanation for irrational thoughts, feelings, and behavior? And does it include a method to free people from those irrationalities that is based on the model itself?
Btw, the reactive mind is also “a model for the real physical thing” in that mental energy, per Hubbard, is just a finer, higher set of wavelengths.
1. Yes it does.
2. A finer, higher, set of wavelengths? You mean like in “Scientology 8-80”? Hubbard said it was a real and physical thing. But real and physical things are detectable by people other than Hubbard. Has anyone other than Hubbard ever detected these finer, higher wavelengths?
Remember: Always look for or ask for positive evidence in support of a claim. So do you have any evidence in support of these claims for finer and higher wavelengths except for Hubbard’s assertions in Scientology 8-80?
1. Rather than merely asserting that there exists a construct that provides an explanation for irrationalities – as well as a method to handle them – can you at least supply a link?
2. Right, he said mental energy is actually no different from physical energy. The way this is physically proven is with the e-meter, which is an instrument that measures physical energy and demonstrates that there can be a physical change in energy coinciding with a thought. In fact, it’s an INSTANT change on the thought – and it can be repeated with the same thought. Even a simple pinch test or a stress test demonstrates this.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83471/ look under AETIOLOGY
2. The Emeter as proof of the presence of the reactive mind and these finer, higher wavelengths is very controversial. In fact the only people who believe that the emeter proves the presence of these finer higher wavelengths are other Scientologists. And even Hubbard says that it isn’t any kind of finer wavelength but the presence of “mental mass” that resists the carrier wave of electricity from the emeter battery. In fact, in the mostly unfalsifiable ideology of Scientology, the emeter simply measures resistance to the electricity given by the battery, not any finer or higher wavelengths.
This seems to be a horrible rhetorical gaffe on your part, Marildi, which I’ve never actually seen you do.
Are you sure you want to use the emeter as the evidence for the existence of your physical analog?
1. Okay, I looked it over. The last paragraph, which sums up that section, begins with this: “Overall there is good evidence that both genetic factors and early life difficulties CAN [my caps] predispose people to a range of emotional disorders…” And it ends with this: “While this information has proved helpful in developing pharmacological treatment, the role of neurotransmitters and other chemical mediators in the aetiology [the CAUSE] of GAD [Generalized Anxiety Disorder] IS CURRENTLY UNCLEAR [my caps].
Where is the construct that explains the cause? You said there was one but apparently there isn’t. Talk about rhetorical gaffe. 😛
Furthermore, I didn’t see anything that has been discovered that doesn’t fit into the construct of the reactive mind.
.
2. You wrote: “And even Hubbard says that it isn’t any kind of finer wavelength but the presence of ‘mental mass’ that resists the carrier wave of electricity from the emeter battery. In fact, in the mostly unfalsifiable ideology of Scientology, the emeter simply measures resistance to the electricity given by the battery, not any finer or higher wavelengths.”
Well, masses are energy. LRH even sometimes refers to them as “energy masses” – and where there is energy there is wavelength.
OK – you win!
Scientology is incredibly scientific, and medicine, neurology, psychiatry is absolutely not.
My god what was I thinking!
I hope you aren’t just patronizing me.
patronize: “treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.”
No, I would be condescending, which is a voluntary assumption of equality with a person regarded as inferior.
You’re welcome. (:-)
“OK – you win!”
“Scientology is incredibly scientific, and medicine, neurology, psychiatry is
absolutely not.”
“My god what was I thinking!”
Come on, Alanzo; the lady was winning the argument! 🙂 Why did you stop? I was enjoying it, 🙂
That’s called Shifting the Goal Posts. At best.
Red Herrying at worst: “Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can hopefully better respond. While it is similar to the Avoiding the Issue Fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.”
C’mon, Al. I thought you were interested in truth – regardless of who or what is made wrong or right.
Guess I’m not interested in arguing religious beliefs any more.
Not interested in arguing, I can understand.
However, a construct of the mind is no more a religious belief than physics constructs are religious beliefs. To repeat, a construct is as good as it explains observable data – which is exactly what the reactive mind does.
You haven’t given one valid argument against the construct of the reactive mind that isn’t apparently based on YOUR beliefs, religious or otherwise. Maybe you’re still stuck in the ASC indoctrination?
That’s it! My God you’ve spotted it. I’m part of the Anti-Scientology CULT! I need a cult recovery psychologist like Rachel Bernstein to indoctrinate me with another, more sane worldview so I can recover.
Wait – would Rachel Bernstien even recognize that I would need to recover from the anti-Scientology Cult?
I don’t think so.
I’m fucked. I’m like one of those early SP declares, back in the 60’s, who had no one to go to because no one recognized minority religious involvement as a disease yet.
I’m fucked!
More sarcasm and Q&A. I’m disappointed because I think you can do better than that. You’ve shown you can think for yourself and be rational, but It’s harder when you run into your own fixed ideas and don’t want to admit it. I’ve been there too.
That you posted my last reply and said nothing in return says a lot about you.
Good things. 🙂
Alanzo: “There is no ‘case’ which everybody has.”
I don’t think LRH said everybody has the same case. It’s the reactive mind that he said was the same for everybody – with regard to how it functions as a mechanism.
At first LRH thought everybody’s case could be handled simply by handling their reactive mind, but later he discovered that “the nature of a being” involved several other factors, including the body and entities of various kinds, etc.
Apparently he did assume that everybody had the same case with regard to OT III. However, per Dan Koon, eventually he called for a pilot to be done in which a pc would go straight from OT II onto NOTs (a pilot that Miscavige never did, btw). So it seems that even with OT III, LRH realized it was not part of everybody’s case, even on this planet.
In other words, overall the tech does not assume everybody has the same case, although they do have the same “machine of considerable magnitude” called the reactive mind (that’s one definition of it). It so happens that entities impinge on beings (as does the body and other things), but entities are also audited on the principle of the reactive mind being the same in all spiritual beings. It’s basically a mechanism..
Any questions? 🙂
Alanzo: “Everything you see surrounding Scientology from DM to Mike and Leah to you to me to Dror center, etc. It’s all 100% scientology.”
Alanzo, this is too comfortable, easy and most untrue generalization I have heard in a long time. Reconsider! But first look at that:
I’ve been in the CoS for many years, had many wins in earlier years, some of which life changing life saving! I swear! 🙂 Then I went to do OT3 and completed it and…
finally was a totally failed case, feeling lost and betrayed by the CoS. End result, I was fucked up, mentally and spiritually, going nowhere!! (Ready for Mike and Lea.. 🙂 )
18 years later I discovered newly independent Dror Center. I went into a 1st auditing session in 15 years half trembling. With the incredible Indie auditor and person, Claudio Lugli. I kept asking him in it: “Is this a session??
There were no “TRS” no chrome face auditor, there was laughter and lightness. 2 friends sitting in a Café, having a talk. And yet it was OT style auditing. not simple. With the E meter and all. The guy said: “sure it is a session” and laughed heartily!
I was in a state of shock. Yet the guy was bloody good, professional and knew his business. Outside the auditing room were fun and loving people, no ethics officers no IAS, nobody selling or EVER telling you what to think!! nothing. ONLY ME AND HOW TO HELP ME and screw anything else!!
4 sessions like this and my whole total failure turned into full success, joy, happiness and hope. And really wanting more! Can I rest my case here? On everything being categorized: “It is all the same”?
Alanzo, it is obviously not the same, things differ, life is full of variations and ever changing elements. Please understand: You, Mike, Lea, Peter, Marty… have done auditing/training/Ethics under a suppressive organization, with all the consequences, and don’t HAVE A CLUE (not really) what it is like to do it in a FREE place, be it a quality one. I know I take a risk here, saying this about people, but it is a well calculated risk, and I stand by it.
Now you wish to say that my described success here IS NOT SCIENTOLOGY but something else… I can agree! I tend to say this too, because that word today = what the CoS is doing, which is totally different.
And please mark my words: I am not claiming arrogantly, that if you do this tech as an Indie it will 100% work for you, I don’t know that. Only you will know.
This is why I appreciate greatly Thetaclear wise words, to check seriously things before making sweeping judgments, as his reaction to what Lea and Mike are doing.
That is why I suggested to you in a reply to TC (way above here):
To may be open a special page/column in which you and others can post for a change: full truths, proper interpretations, SUPPORTED assumptions and LRH texts IN CONTEXT. In other words positive stories of experiences and use that people have had using Ron’s work. I will contribute, I have some wild stuff..
That will bring BALANCE to the subject and further help INFORMED EVALUATIONS by readers. And you keep the criticism going too, sure. This will be something NOBODY EVER DID YET, and a true and unique truth seeking operation. IMHO.
Hemi ♥♥
I’m all for balance, Hemi, but here’s the problem: Because Scientologists – for the most part – can’t really tell the difference between beliefs and facts, I do not believe that your arguments are going to be anything I would be proud to have on my blog. LRH texts are not valid arguments for the results of Scientology. LRH too often asserted things with no evidence, and these assertions end up being “facts” in the minds of Scientologists.
If you can present a 500 word essay that is truly grounded in factual evidence and which provides a good argument for beneficial side of scientology, and it is something I can personally defend, then I will definitely put it up.
But MY personal integrity definitely includes a skeptical attitude because I have learned a decade after leaving Scientology that skepticism is the only sustainable philosophical and stance for human beings. So if you can’t live up to that standard of skepticism, then your essay can not meet the standards of this blog.
So can you handle that?
500 word essay, not justified by Scientology scripture, but grounded in facts and which argues for the beneficial side of Scientology?
I would totally put it up.
“500 word essay, not justified by Scientology scripture, but grounded in facts and which argues for the beneficial side of Scientology?”
Hmmm… 500…? Let me think… Can I get help from TC? Co-production?
If he agrees do we get 1000?
700, Alanzo!! 🙂 , You SERIOUSLY need to teach me how to do this stuff!
“No. People are different.”
Yes, they are, but as humans we share a similarity of mental and spiritual phenomena, and that’s the concept behind a Bridge. It is not based on “We are all alike or the same”.
“There is no ‘case’ which everybody has.”
“Case” is defined in Scn as this, “The whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63)” ( Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology).
I am sorry Alanzo, but it should be OBVIOUS that EVERYBODY has a “Case”, otherwise we would all be totally happy and satisfied with existence living an ideal life. “Case” refers to the sum of the subconscious trauma or barriers that each one of us has, and manifested in different ways. The mechanisms under which “case” is accumulated – which we all allegedly share – is what LRH called “The Reactive Mind”; the “Subconscious” in psychology. But we definitely don’t have the “same case” (except the “Clearing Course”, OTII, and OTIII, which I don’t have a current opinion on).
“There is no mental or spiritual technology that exists in a perfect form that will ever work on everyone – even if it is perfectly applied to each person.”
You can’t possibly know that unless you had study and tested , in lots of individuals, every known form of spiritual technology. You should have started with, “I believe….” instead of , “There is no…..”.
I thought that it was your argument that “mind control” and “brainwashing” wasn’t a “proven” thing, and if I remember it correctly, you even described that as “unscientific”, didn’t you? Isn’t an “implant” in the same category? You can’t have it both ways.
The Scn Bridge isn’t about a “same case”; it is about a PATH; a spiritual one, where a person deals (in THEIR particular ways) with specific areas of life that we all have in common : Recall problems, Communication, Problems, Suffering, Misunderstandings, Fixations, past trauma and Disabilities, etc. And the current prices were not set by LRH. In 1978, from raw public to OT7 was less than $40,000. Scn was affordable enough for most professionals.
“This arbitrary Bridge was the reason Hubbard had to come up with ethics and justice and SPs and high crimes and everything else that is so suppressive in 100% standard Scientology.”
Besides the crazy notion that “All criticism towards Scn stem ONLY because of ‘crimes’ that a person has allegedly committed against Scn”, and naming such a “critic” an “SP”, the PTS/SP tech, and “Ethics and Justice”, is about helping cases advance and not about “suppressing others”. But it have been used by others in a suppressive way. I don’t agree with the “High Crimes” list, though.
Are there suppressive elements in some of that technology that you mentioned? Of course there are!!! But, IMOH, we must carefully isolate bad, erroneous, and wrong applications from the actual bad policies like “Fair Game”, and many points in the “High Crimes” list. We can’t just make generalizations and put everything under the same category.
“The Bridge and all its attendant ideas and attitudes and rules are an implant, or a fixed idea. You need to examine this some more.”
I’ve read almost everything LRH ever wrote and listened to almost everything that he ever said in a lecture (including EVERYTHING “confidential”) Plus I have probably audited more than 10,000 hours, and done hundreds of “Ethics Cycles” and “PTS Handlings”. So I think that I am entitled to have a professional opinion about the technology of Scn.
“Scientology has been around for 67 years. Everything you see surrounding Scientology from DM to Mike and Leah to you to me to Dror center, etc. It’s all 100% scientology.”
Scientology is the standard application of it, not the results of its misapplication, misinterpretations, and misunderstanding of it. “Fair Game”? That’s standard Scn. “ALL critics has crimes”? That’s standard Scn. But “everything surrounding it”? That’s just too much of a generalization, and is a fallacious argument.
“Scientology is as Scientology does.”
“The CHURCH of Scientology is as the church does” would be a more logical assertion. Scientology IS the written and spoken words of LRH, not the results of its misapplications, its bad or suppressive uses, its failures due to OMISSIONS in using it, or the misinterpretations of it.
Is the collateral damage from an F16 fighter somehow not part of that fighter’s cause? Why? Just because it was unintended? Even if the fighter pilot “squirreled” he still killed all those woman and children with his fighter jet, right?
Sorry TC, you are still trying to hide behind this assumption that there a standard tech and there is squirreling, and anything that happens as a result of squirreling is not true Scientology so it didn’t happen from Scientology’s cause. It’s an artificial separation that LRH wanted you to have so he could distract everyone from the collateral damage of Scientology. And he could even blame the damage that 100% standard Scientology caused, such as people going crazy on OT 3, on “squirreling”.
Just try dropping this filter for just a second and picture that Lisa McPherson was under the complete control of Scientologists the whole time she was being held at Flag. They had complete control over her.
Whatever they did, they did because they were Scientologists. Even the accepting of orders from David Miscavige as C/S and continuing a process that was harming the “pc” is ALL SCIENTOLOGY.
Scientology is as Scientology does.
“Scientology is as Scientology does.”
I don’t think that I am following you, still, so I can’t properly reply to your comments. When you say “Scientology” in your assertion, “Scientology is as Scientology does”, do you mean “The Church” as an institution, or do you mean “Scientology” as a subject, as a body of knowledge?
Scientology is a person or area under the control of the people who follow the writings and taped lectures of L Ron Hubbard and now David Miscavige. It’s all Scientology.
Just as the fighter jet and its collateral damage is part of the armed forces – no matter whether the pilot was doing everything “wrong” – it does not matter. The armed forces is what the armed forces does.
And Scientology is what Scientology does.
How about this: BE-DO-HAVE??
Does that get through to you?
Ok, thank you! I got what you said now.
Last question, and then I’ll reply your whole comment some time tomorrow as I am mentally tired today, and my duplication is rather low. When you assert, “Scientology is as Scientology does”, is there an implicit conclusion to that, and if so, which one? It seems to me as if your assertion was a premise, but that there is a conclusion that you haven’t written as such, but that somehow you feel is implicit?
Ok Alanzo, since you haven’t replied to my question regarding whether or not your assertion, “Scientology is as Scientology does” had an actual conclusion attached to it (which you might have thought that was implicit), I decided to reply without that answer.
“Scientology is a person or area under the control of the people who follow the writings and taped lectures of L Ron Hubbard and now David Miscavige. It’s all Scientology.”
The above is a fallacious argument, IMHO. An analogy would be like saying that “physics” is EVERYTHING that a physicist do (or that a department of physics do), regardless if he was (or the group of physicists at that physics department) following the established laws, principles, and procedures that we call “physics”.
“Just as the fighter jet and its collateral damage is part of the armed forces – no matter whether the pilot was doing everything “wrong” – it does not matter. The armed forces is what the armed forces does.”
That’s an incorrect analogy. We might have a manual, for example, called “Armed Force manual of procedure”, in which it is described the exact procedures to follow in a war, conflict, or administrative issue. We can call that manual, the “Armed Forces technology” which stand INDEPENDENTLY of what an organization called “Armed Forces” and its members do. Now, the “soldiers”, and “officers” can either FOLLOW the manual or not. If they do, allegedly the results are favorable. If they don’t, a disaster ensues. It would be EXTREMELY important when evaluating the GROUP called “Armed Forces” for their performance and conduct, to be able to DIFFERENTIATE whether they were following or not the standard technology called “The Manual of Operations”.
Scientology is THE philosophy itself based of the works of LRH. THE “Church of Scientology” is the organization composed of individuals who are SUPPOSED to understand and follow those works AS WRITTEN. If you can’t see the OBVIOUS difference and the importance of establishing that difference in order to reform a subject by UNBIASEDLY and objectively evaluate it, then I am afraid that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
“Sorry TC, you are still trying to hide behind this assumption that there a standard tech and there is squirreling, and anything that happens as a result of squirreling is not true Scientology so it didn’t happen from Scientology’s cause.”
It is kind of obvious that if it was squirreling it wasn’t Scientology. Does that excuse the “Scientology organization” from assuming responsibility for the actions of its members that it was supposed to correctly train? Of course, it doesn’t. The organization called “The Church of Scientology” should be held accountable for the conduct of its members, especially the staff. And if bad results are caused by “squirreling”, then the organization is EXPECTED to deal with that, correct it, and take FULL responsibility for any and every bad consequences. To that, I FULLY agree to.
And if the above was more or less your implicit conclusion, then we fully agree on that. Scientology is responsible for the actions resulting from the group applying it, whether those actions were standard Scn or not. Scn should be able to correct itself.
Good post!
And you’re right – because Scientology includes Qual, standard word clearing and standard course supervision and case supervision which all prove they do not work if Scientologists are now squirreling on such a massive scale that you now say the whole Church of Scientology is squirrel – then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
You do see that the presence of David Miscavige at the top of the Church of Scientology – now for longer than LRH himself was at the top of it – is proof that “standard” Scientology does not work and there actually is no such thing.
You see that right?
“Good post!”
Thank you.
“And you’re right – because Scientology includes Qual, standard word clearing and standard course supervision and case supervision which all prove they do not work if Scientologists are now squirreling on such a massive scale that you now say the whole Church of Scientology is squirrel – then we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
I didn’t say that “…the whole Church of Scientology is squirrel”, Alanzo, neither that its members are engaging in “massive squirreling”. I don’t think that’s the case, by a long ways. This isn’t a “Black and White” issue, and most conflicts in life aren’t.
But if the members erroneously trust DM as the “successor” of LRH, and if DM then come and allege that he “found” such and such “lost tech” inside some mysterious drawers, but that he can’t show us the HCOBs because they are “confidential”, then the arbitraries thus introduced would create enough havoc to hurt cases, as in the example of the constant Security Checking on the OT levels, the “3-Swing F/N”, the “OT Eligibility Check”, ect.
“You do see that the presence of David Miscavige at the top of the Church of Scientology – now for longer than LRH himself was at the top of it – is proof that ‘standard’ Scientology does not work and there actually is no such thing.”
No, it only proves what LRH said about how can an SP create havoc when he goes to the top. It also proves the mechanism of “Roboticism” due to being PTS – the following or orders in robotic ways without any proper discernment. And it also proves the lack of balls from the executives at the top, who COULD have done something about it when they were in, such as Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, and many others. They just didn’t have the balls to throw DM out. But now they play the “victim”.
When an SP with enough power is at the top – and LEGALLY protected, I may add, by IRS itself and by the corporate structure designed by DM himself – all the Quals of the world don’t mean shit, Alanzo. The “handling” from those who don’t become robots, is the just leave, as so MANY have done.
It is not necessarily Scn’s corrective technology that is at fault – though I am not saying that such technology is perfect; it ISN’T – but the impossibility to use it under the overwhelming suppression of someone nobody have the balls to confront head-on.
But OTs are supposed to be “Cause over Life”.
You’ve got all kinds of escape hatches to keep your beliefs alive. But you have argued your point well and efficiently in this comment, TC, and I commend you for it.
“But OTs are supposed to be “Cause over Life’.”
No, they are NOT! That was just hype from LRH, I am afraid. Great wins? Yes, in many cases, yes. “Total Cause Over Life”? Not a chance, no. That goal is an absolute which isn’t attainable. The EP should have been phrased in realistic, SPECIFIC and testable ways, and not in such general and meaningless ways.
“You’ve got all kinds of escape hatches to keep your beliefs alive.”
Haha, and so do you, my friend! 🙂
“But you have argued your point well and efficiently in this comment, TC, and I commend you for it.”
Thanks! It is always a great learning experience to debate with bright minds such as yours. It forces me to push my standards higher every time.
“Scientology is a person or area under the control of the people who follow the writings and taped lectures of L Ron Hubbard and now David Miscavige. It’s all Scientology.”
This is true for general codification, tea time explanation, lawsuits. insurance and so on. BUT, to make a professional evaluation, for practical use and in depth understanding, this assertion is not workable.
In the case of the F16 fighter that crushed and caused huge damage, the responsible agency is the army, true. It was an army action and result.
However for those interested in FLYING and those professionals interested in flying machines and how to ACTUALY fly better – the quality of the F16 and what the pilot did is of great importance! Suppose army has 100 F16s and none can fly, because nobody fills them with petrol. Would you say: Army fighters cannot fly, period?
If you are interested in armies, sure, you can say that. But if you are interested in FLYING, you will definitely wish to know the actual abilities of the F16 WHEN OPERATED PROPERLY.
Back to our subject, we can talk endlesly about groups and paths. But don’t we all wish, in the end of the day, to really fly higher and higher spiritually. For that we do need drop all bias and examine truth.
In my example of auditing in the CoS (later years) and as an Indie, which I described in previous comment, you can say: Hemi, it is all scientology, period. But this sweeping approach can end in fatal and sad result, and not in…FLYING… Let’s fly guys!!
I’ll go to 750.
It does not have to be reasoning that I agree with, but it needs to be a well-reasoned essay
“I look at Scientology from a Buddhist point of view, and paying to get rid of body thetans is a completely unnecessary activity.”
Why is that Alanzo? Have you tried, seriously and professionally?
I have had most incredible wins on Nots and Solo Nots (still on it).
If I post some here your Buddhist-hair and goose pimples will jump up.
I do like and respect the Buddhist view point very much. I am nicknamed at Dror the Buddhist scnt… I am sure Gautama would have LOVED to examine Nots tech (which can be done ONLY with a meter). And why not? It suits perfectly his ideas about our minds and thoughts…! Why is everybody so afraid of the word spirit/s? And aren’t SPIRITUAL paths revolve and deal with SPIRITS this way or another?
So why, my friend, is it such “completely unnecessary” activity? Their location as stated in Nots? Obviously Alanzo, with all due respect, you are not really familiar with Nots true tech! Location is not limited to body. But MORE IMPORTANT in Nots you don’t GET RID of body thetans. This is a common and false distortion of that tech. Sorry but that’s true. Now look again at all the verbal lynching and ridicule thrown stupidly at it by so many wise people…
And I am not a delusional sheeple. (At least I hope so.. 🙂
And I am known to be quite credible amongst many people.
I curse Ron twice a day, for this crazy, difficult and complex tech, and bless him too!
I also criticize Ron where I think fit, quite a bit, harshly at times, without a 2nd thought. But I also worship him for his amazing insight and TECHNICAL genius and ingenuity!
By the way Ron DID state that he was wrong and made mistakes, even some big mistakes! Just saying…
Hemi ♥
Everybody comes to Scientology from their own perspective. My perspective is that Scientology took many things from many spiritual practices, and cobbled them together in such a way as to be able to charge for those practices on a kind of Henry Ford conveyor belt in a kind of spiritual enlightenment factory. At the very least, Scientology was an experiment that failed.
At the very most, Scientology gave some people some wins.
Everyone has a right to practice it and no one has the power to take that away.
If Scientology works, then keep doing it and grow it to a level that proves it can help the majority of people who come to it for help. So far, that experiment has produced results, and we see those results all around the world every day – including all the horror stories from people in the Sea Org and those on Leah Remini’s show.
If those results are not inherent to the practice of Scientology, as the fruit that falls from a tree, then why do they exist?
As a casual follower of nondualism, nondualism suggests that “I” am a timeless observer of existence going by. Any identity I place on myself gives rise to limitations. Attributing false identities to disembodied beings could be a lengthy process.
How’s that for an armchair philosopher throwing an off topic comment into the mix?
Very good points Peter, and well articulated!
Hemi ♥
Thanks! 🙂
These are pretty tired arguments, and examples of illogic pretending to be logical. The notion that we can “only evaluate things we have personally experienced” is so illogical that I know that this person is trapped in a maze of pretend logic, probably no point in even responding, he is chrome- shiny and impenetrable.
Read a book on critical thinking, for Zenu’s sake.
By all means, Eileen, enlighten us with your “command” of Critical Thinking. Who knows, perhaps I have gone pass way too many misunderstood words in the 20+ gresat books (plus online courses) that I’ve read on Critical Thinking, 🙂 I might even learn a few things from you, 😉
Hi, old chap, a bit off topic to this post but sort of relevant in the big picture of things.
I’m curious if you have any thoughts on my being banned from the Bunker what seems eons ago. I have my theories but would rather get your thoughts first before relay them.
To refresh your memory here’s the gist of the story:
https://www.scientologybollocks.com/donald-trump-scientology-watchers/
I actually don’t know. But I think Tony does his best to get rid of people who don’t obey him. I think he’s looking to build and maintain an army of self-righteous trolls who will retweet his tweets and promote his book, and never question him or point out his bias. Especially never point out his huge bias on Scientology.
What are your thoughts about that?
I was amazed when I found out that he actually asked all those who want to the first Howdycon if someone could start an argument with me so he could ban me… seriously, what kind of pro journalist pulls that kind of shit?
The actual reason he gave for banning me was my comments “continually dragged his blog into the sewer”… and this was based on a shoop I did of Krustie as a fat chick. No warning, no nothing – just blocked from commentating. I wrote in my blog at the time and sent emails to a bunch of regulars there who didn’t agree with the ban but were too afraid of him to go public, that I challenge anyone to go through my 10k+ comments on the Bunker to highlight exactly where I was “dragging his site into the sewer” – I made a point of making my Disqus public and have not removed one comment personally. In fact, I was so pissed off at the time that I went through a whole bunch of comments going back a week and grabbed comments that were way over the top and, way more sweary and vulgar and filled up a page pretty quickly… but then thought that was kind of childish. There were fat shaming pics of that guy on the mobility scooter – the one that handles arbitration or something – they stayed. I posted a pic of the legendary French satirical magazine Hara-Kiri that had John Travolta on the cover with dildos as nipple.. it was removed… someone else posted it a few weeks later… it wasn’t removed. And so on.
What a lot of people don’t know is that Tony and I had a lot of correspondence through facebook messaging – the majority of it was him asking me NOT to publish certain stories he knew I knew about – I was happy to oblige. Looking back I can see that it was all about control.
Anyway, I think the thing that turned the tide was when I a link to one of my blog posts made the google ‘scientology’ news alerts which never happened to his site. I can understand how this must have pissed him off as his site was his living and mine was a hobby [with no advertising or funding requests]. Also, and I’m frankly amazed about this, I think he believes that “I believe” everything I write there – a lot of his more pithy comments to me on the Bunker implied this… I always thought my twitter header of “doing to OSA what OSA does to everyone else” might have been a clue… but, whatever.
…anyway, regard this as part 1
Yeah, it’s clear that Tony just makes up excuses for what he does and his army of self-righteous trolls enforce the excuses as explanations to the rest of the group. If you want to stay in the group, you keep your mouth shut – even if you know the excuses are bullshit.
Would love to hear part II….
One thing that really pissed me off a few months ago was when he called me out as “scum out there”… he didn’t mention my name but it was obviously me as he was referring to naming [and shaming – his words] one of the victims in the Danny Masterson rape accusations as I was the only site to do this. He knew I couldn’t respond so everyone on the Bunker agreed with him and more so – how disgusting etc and so on.
I wrote on my blog [and he’s nearly always the first person to read each new post] that this girl had actually called Danny Masterson out as a rapist on her public twitter feed – I screen grabbed the tweet and explained my posting it was as it was out in public and she obviously wanted people to see it… I also reached out to her and said I would remove it immediately if she wanted me too; she followed me on twitter and said how much she loved my site…oh, and she made her twitter feed private. What this meant was that Tony couldn’t actually use it himself as he couldn’t access it unless he used my screen grab and there was no way he would do that… so he called me scum. Did he ever bother to put his followers right on this… course not
Yeah, one of the things I’ve noticed after watching Tony come on the scene in 2011 (he was no where in the critic’s scene prior to that – despite what his ‘bio’ says) is how much of a shallow kind of guy he is. For him all this ‘scientology-watching’ really is about eyeballs and money and beating out the competition. Like you.
You kind of forget that someone can be that shallow. But that always ends up to your detriment.
You’re handled now, never to return. Those people weren’t your friends, they were his friends. They are chasing the little red light he points on the wall for them to swipe at. No one even asks questions like – “hey? What is happening with the Garcia case?” Or, “what happened with the Rathbun hearing? If they find Marty didn’t steal any money from Ray Jeffrey – are you gonna apologize to Marty and Monique for accusing them of stealing for all this time?”
It won’t even occur to them because Tony will never bring these things up.
Tony doesn’t say it – so they won’t think it!
I really never thought Scientology criticism would ever come to this. Where such a small group of individuals could control so much of what gets discussed. But all his followers are going along with this willingly. They even enforce his wishes against his “enemies”.
the shame is all the secret emails I got in support and people’s real thoughts… what was ironic to me was the poster at Howdycon 2 had me there… the images were based on comments and comment likes or something – even though it’s almost 2 years since my ban I was still there. it wasn’t so much the comments about scientology that I miss but the late night comments about music, food, booze, schools etc – the fact he took that away from me is something that I will never forgive him for. Do you know at one time I was going drop a few grand into his fund-box or whatever it is.
it’s interesting that you only really get to see the hive-mind mentality once you’re out of it. that aside I think the vast, vast majority of commentators there are really good people (sheeple, ed?)
Isn’t it interesting that the few commentators who were willing to butt heads with him are no more….. any idea what Espi’s up to?
Good question. No idea.
I know, just like being expelled from Scientology, any one with the power to take away your friends – and then they do it – you don’t forget that.
The thing that has astounded me is not how unusual or rare cult behavior is, but how common it is. We assign all these normal group behaviors to ‘cults’ while we assume that the groups we belong to don’t have ANY of those characteristics that cults have.
None of the behavior of Tony Ortega or his Undie bunkers is cult behavior. It is normal group behavior – just like cults.
I wish I knew how to express this. By assigning this hive mind behavior to this specialized area of ‘cults’, we don’t see that this hive mind behavior is all around us. Marty Rathbun was completely wrong when he called the ASC a ‘cult’. They’re not a cult. They are a normal human group – just like cults are.
There’s so much I’ve learned in the last couple of years that I have not found a way to express yet. I’m just going to have to keep trying.
We need to stay in touch, Lush. Good to see you here!
Boy, Marty
the whole story from A to B is a mindfuck and as a never-in the only thing that makes sense to me [about the latest video series] is that it was a deliberate ploy by him to never be used in any future hardcore [government?] litigation as he’s perjured himself to such an extent that no one would dare ‘call him’ for either side.
you know what would be funny is if Marty gave me an exclusive interview on my blog… I’m chuckling as I write this, lol
…. and then I ask him questions like “what’s your favourite team?”, opinions on Trump etc
As I recall, Espi and ML were both specifically blocked for the use of a particularly offensive word to demean women. Personally, I support both of those blocks. Espi was highly intelligent with an occasional “serial killer” mentality, bragging about his ability to dismember carcasses, and offering to use those skills against enemies. ML was also often offensive, and obviously using Tony’s blog to boost his/her own. If someone picked a fight with ML he/she is still responsible for how they responded. Both seemed to often turn up seriously impaired by substance use.
I supported both of those ejections, and I objected to the ejection of Alanzo. Experienced no blow-back from any of my opinions.
ML, is it possible that you were wrong (instead of wronged)?
There’s something else about Aftermath that hasn’t been mentioned much, that being “reputational”. The Aftermath portrays all scn-ists, past, present and future as being blind fools or at least totally gullible. It’s no big deal to me, but a couple of my friends or acquaintances who know of my past participation in scn might have passed it off as “something Richard was once into” but now think “boy was he dumb”. laughter
It makes me think of the Jim Carey movie “Dumb and Dumber”.
I have a different view, only because I studied up a bit on rhetoric, namely the 3 means of persuasion, here was my beginning education: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/
It took me awhile to somewhat understand, and I also read some of the books mentioned in the website.
As far as reputational, and I think you mean reputation, why that is ethos or character. So as far as Dumb and Dumber goes, I explain to some that question my involvement in terms of ethos, pathos and logos, and how Hubbard tricked us. And I try to use examples.
Specifically as you mention, reputation, and I say Hubbard built up his reputation or character by claiming to be he was a nuclear physicists, he studied abroad, etc etc. And this is like your resume where you state your accomplishments in jobs past to land a new job. And even in employees like the Enron company that was making money hands over fist, and even Madoff, and Reed Slatkin and so on. People who got involved with those people based it probably due to reputation or ethos.
So it is easy to get tricked, not only in scientology but in other ventures, I might tell another who thought me of being dumb to get involved in scientology.
Gib –
Do you believe that rhetoric undermines your power of choice?
Do you think you were made to choose things by the power of rhetoric which you ordinarily would not have chosen? A lot of Exes become convinced that all their embarrassing choices in Scientology were because of being “brainwashed” or under “mind control”. But you are the only one I know who assigns all that power to rhetoric.
Do you think that if it weren’t for Hubbard’s use of rhetoric, you would have never made the choices you made in Scientology?
1. I think it persuades power of choice.
2. yes. I consider brainwashing or under mind control in scientology as being in total agreement with Hubbard, being totatly persuaded to agree. I view Hubbards rhetoric as the big skin of the onion surrounding scientology and keeping it together. But I also think Hubbard used Le Bon’s work on “The Crowd” and also the 5 books he mentioned to Heinlein in a personal letter. I’m sure there are others, I wish I had a list of books he read.
3. Yes.
There are others who are looking into scientology from the lens of rhetoric, one can google “scientology and rhetoric”. Another interesting google search is “law and rhetoric”.
When I reread the introduction of the link above, I asked those questions of Hubbard, while at one time I thought of him as mankind’s greatest friend, laughing.
Here are the questions from the intro:
“As many of you know, I read a lot of biographies on the lives of great men from history. The part of a man’s life I enjoy learning about the most is their education. What books did they read as young men that influenced them later on in life? Where did they travel? What classes did they take while at university? I’ll take notes on these things and try to incorporate their favorite books into my reading list or pick-up an audio course at the library that correlates to a subject they studied.”
I like the question “What classes did they take while at university?” Everybody focus’s on that he failed nuclear physics but nobody mentions he got a B in English Rhetoric by Prof. Dean Wilbur. I knew nothing of rhetoric at the time in 2012/13 when I started researching.
What do you think Alanzo?
I think that Exes, after Scientology, confronted with the demand to accept that they were in a ‘cult’, need to find an escape hatch for the decisions they made to become a Scientologist. They often need to blame something else than themselves, or at least try to explain away why they made the decisions they made to spend so much money and time pursuing it.
They are given a lot of excuses from the anti-cult movement: We were ‘brainwashed’, we were under ‘mind control’, and yours, we were charmed by Hubbard’s rhetoric.
But I think that in the cases of the overwhelming majority of Scientologists, we made our own decisions for our own intimate reasons to get involved and to stay involved in Scientology.
I think that these outside excuses such as “brainwashing” and “rhetoric”, and other ways of rationalizing away our own agency, block us from seeing what our own real reasons were. I think that if Exes looked at their decision-making without these excuses, they would see that it was quite conscious and even quite rational for our own lives at the time.
That’s what I think.
I’ve studied rhetoric, both formally and informally, and I never considered that it was a tool to overcome a someone else’s reasoning ability but to appeal to it in order to get a person to understand a particular point of view. Hubbard did use logical fallacies galore, but it was our own ignorance to not recognize these – our own faults and responsibilities. Hubbard may not have even been aware he was using logical fallacies. He wasn’t a mad genius. There were very finite limits to his intelligence and to his powers to persuade. Always remember that the overwhelming majority of people who were ever exposed to Scn ‘brainwshing’ and ‘mind control’ techniques, and to Hubbard’s rhetoric, never fell for it.
That means that, by this objective evidence, those techniques were not powerful at all.
I believe it is highly likely that those who did fall for Hubbard’s techniques WANTED to fall for them for their own reasons. These reasons are completely unique to the timing and placement of their lives when they got involved and stayed involved. Remember most people who get involved do not stay involved. I believe the ones who do stay involved do so because Scientology was working for them on a very fundamental level.
I think it’s very important to drop the blame on mind control and brainwashing and rhetoric and find your own reasons why you wanted to fall for Scientology. I think that is a very valuable pursuit for an Ex-Scientologist.
This pursuit results in an Ex-Scientologist getting himself back after adopting the anti-cult movement’s self-degrading and self-destructive explanations for why we got ourselves involved in Scientology.
The anti-cult movement’s ideas and worldviews are really dumb and destructive. I think they are the worst set of “stable data” possible for people to take on who have recently lost their religion and are searching for what ways to interpret their past experiences in Scientology and to move forward with their lives productively and constructively.
as you said:
“I think it’s very important to drop the blame on mind control and brainwashing and rhetoric and find your own reasons why you wanted to fall for Scientology. I think that is a very valuable pursuit for an Ex-Scientologist.”
And that’s exactly what I did, I discovered there were no clears or OT’s. The exact reason why I got involved was because I read Dianetics and I was convinced, persuaded, that I could attain the attributes of “clear”.
I’m fully aware that many many people checked out dianetics and scientology, and left.
But how come the COS is still going on? Why?
You are not really answering the question you quoted from Alanzo. You read Dianetics, lots of people read Dianetics and did not become Scientologists. You wanted to “attain the attributes of clear” (magical thinking). Why did you engage in this magical thinking, against all common sense and scientific evidence?
Those are the important questions Alanzo poses in that quote.
Respectfully, it sounds like you still haven’t done the deep dive into Why Scientology.
Closely reasoned, I like it.
Thank you very much, Eileen.
I can’t tell you how much your comment means to me.
Gib – I could elaborate but I’ll be pithy. I no longer make excuses or apologize for my scn background. I did what I did because I did it and I got what I got from it. For me it was an interesting and worthwhile life experience.
I think that pretty much sums up my present views, too, Richard.
Very pithy.
I look back at my online anti-Scientology hijinks now and have to conclude that I was caught up in some kind of mass hysteria about it.
Maybe I was hypnotized!
hijinks
WTF are you saying? LOL
You and I no longer have our own reactive minds so we can’t be hypnotized. So said Mr. Hubbard. It must have been something else. 🙂
I know I was just kidding.
It was just the mundane and very down to earth process of “assuming an assumption”.
Assumptions are extremely powerful, especially if you have never learned to identify an assumption of your own and then learned how to question it. It can be like facing down a hurricane inside you. But when the process is over, all the detritus in your thinking has been cleared away, the birds come back, and you are looking out over a whole new plateau.
Richard, why did you do what you did to get involved in scientology, and what did you get from it?
What exactly were your worthwhile experiences?
Hi Gib – The pros and cons of the SUBJECT of scn have been debated on hundreds of blog topics with tens of thousands of following comments. I choose not to enter into that conversation any more. I have nothing new to add and in my opinion it’s all been said before and anyone can reach their own conclusions.
Briefly, my own entry point was that I hadn’t read a book in a year or two and was feeling intellectually dead. Now what other cult could I have joined which discussed body-mind-spirit, analytical mind-reactive mind-somatic mind, charts of human behavior, sitting down with a person and counselling them, and so on and so on and so on. It definitely kept me interested for a few years!
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the show. It’s primary purpose is to expose abuse not to criminally charge, It is also intended to keep people from falling into the Scientology trap.
It does keep people from falling into the trap by giving them the information they need to make informed decisions as to their involvement.
But Leah says she wants a federal investigation. We should hope that the feds stick to crimes and not become moral police, right?
So she needs to produce some criminal activity to get her federal investigation. And after 18 years as a critic of Scientology, I think this needs to be settled: Are they a “criminal organization”, or not?
If so, let’s prosecute.
If not, then that is information people need to make informed decisions about Scientology, too.
With the amount of legal advice the CoS buys they always seem to go up to but not past the point of illegality. I suppose the squirrel busters could set up shop outside of my house and as long as they stay on public property they wouldn’t be breaking any laws. It would take public opinion to get rid of them. If I posted a video of them doing it on the internet a hundred or more people in my town might become aware of what they were doing. The internet changed everything.
The Aftermath is still stuck in “All Scientologists Believe” mode.
Speaking of the internet, this is from the September issue of Time magazine:
Taking Selfies Might Make It Harder To Put Down Your Phone –
A study in “Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking” found that people are more likely to experience nomophobia – mobile phone separation anxiety – if they use their cell phones for creating or sharing memories associated with self-identity, like selfies.
nomophobia LOL
There is a place for using the Internet to expose legal behavior that is morally outrageous. Like the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church. Or of the Squirrel Busters. But look at Marty – even he gave up his lawsuit and walked away when it was over.
It’s when you start falsely accusing people of believing in pedophilia, or blaming mothers for their childrens’ suicides, that this “exposure” of morally outrageous behavior becomes morally outrageous itself.
But when you start calling on the force and power of the government, then the inflammatory use of morally outrageous behavior with no evaluation or discussion of whether your target has a legal right, also becomes morally outrageous.
Waco DID HAPPEN. And I believe that Leah Remini’s use of inflammatory and false rhetoric against her former religion can actually become dangerous when blasted out to millions of people. Chris Shelton claimed that after this season was over, Scientology would be the “most hated name in the world”.
I don’t think that’s a valid goal for a critic of Scientology. Some valid goals would be “any criminality prosecuted” and “human rights abuses ended”.
The problem is that no critic has the power to execute the first goal, and has no way of knowing when the 2nd goal has been reached.
So it’s all a little crazy and gives me a feeling of nomophobia, deep down inside.
Well, I’ve found “Alanzo’s Internet Therapy Blog” to be beneficial. I suppose it’s a bit tough on the resident therapist trying to assuage everyone.
(That word was rattling around in my brain for some reason and I knew I’d find a use for it)
assuage vt. – 1) to lessen (pain, distress, etc.); allay 2) to calm (passion, anger, etc.); pacify 3) to satisfy or slake (thirst, appetite etc.) syn – relieve
Latin – ad-. to + suavis, sweet
I’ve seen posts by people which stated that the church embezzled money from their credit cards without their permission. Slapping Maria Pia Gardini-assault. DM punching people-assault. People being harassed at their homes -harassment. My credit cards were screwed wuth after I left in such a way that it was obvious it was CofS. I hadn’t given my permission. Fictitious ostrich farm-Raul Lopez. Libel. Also illegal. Violation of child labor laws…
These are all accusations that have piled up over years of internet postings and yet resulted in not one criminal charge. With all that alleged criminal activity – no charges, no trials, and no convictions. And yet the Church of Scientology is continually called a “criminal organization”.
How can that be logical, or true? Are all accusations automatically valid if they make Scientology look bad?
How long should these allegations go on being unquestioned by critics? With no resulting law enforcement action, shouldn’t someone raise a question or two every decade or so – at least?
I’ve been watching 18 years. So have you.
Do we just keep dramatizing and dramatizing all these feelings of injustice and whipping each other up with them and never once question any of it?
No.
Alanzo speaks:
“I see a fire hose of Internet hatred, cruelty, and even threats of violence towards Scientologists here at my blog after every airing of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath. I do not post any of it. It is really very disgusting.”
LOL, got any proof? Here at your blog! There are only a few people willing to post here. Why won’t you post the hatred, cruelty, and even theats of violence towards Scientologists at your blog?
I think the show didn’t portray violence against scientologists.
In the last 14 days we’ve gotten 11,000 views of Cathy Tweeds video giving her side of the story – which Mike and Leah never bothered to tell. These visitors are all people seeing Leah’s show and googling Cathy Tweed.
So they think I’m a Scientologist and this is a Scientology website. They leave comments. And yes, actual threats of violence. And a lot of very gross hatred and anger, like they want revenge on Cathy Tweed for what she “did to her daughter ” as told to them by Mike and Leah.
It really sucks. And the threats are not fictional.
Edited to add: Go to the sidebar widget “Hysterical Things Anti-Scientologists Say” and refresh until you get to Andrew Beaver’s comment. That one was tame compared to some of the others received.
so they leave comments on another website and not yours?
They leave comments on the Cathy Tweed speaks post here on my blog.
http://alanzosblog.com/cathy-tweed-taylor-tweeds-mother-speaks-leah-reminis-scientology-aftermath/
ok, 119 comments, but you said views of 11,000
luv your twist. LOL
Most comments were by Thetaclear
No clears or OT’s!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, I’m sorry gib but I don’t understand your point.
Do you think I’m lying or is this another instance you are displaying of the resistance you feel when you are asked to evaluate the rhetoric from people on your “side”?
You don’t want to confront the fact that the end result of lying about the beliefs of Scientologists and accusing mothers of causing their daughters’ suicides to millions of people on TV can be hatred, cruelty, and threats of violence to scientologists by members in the general population ?
I know. It’s hard sometimes to confront that kind of thing. You just want “the abuses to stop” right?
There isn’t any point, Alanzo. Gib is having fun trolling and sounding his clarion call.
No – I know Gib.
He’s not an insincere poster. He’s just like most people – they can see the logical mistakes and untruths of the enemy tribe, but never their own. This tribal blindness is part of the human condition, and may very well be incurable.
I see it in myself. The more problems I see with the anti-Scientology narrative, the more I start getting feelings that anti-Scientologists are “the enemy”.
And the more I point out these problems with anti-Scientologists, the more I am seen by anti-Scientologists as “the enemy”.
It’s so weird. I think it’s a characteristic of the human brain itself – a kind of cognitive bias.
We need a new tribe. We need to create a tribe where irrational and destructive rhetoric is the enemy – no matter who says it. And reasoned tolerant and constructive rhetoric that actually gets rid of the “abuse” in Scientology – while still respecting the rights of Scientologists to practice their own religion – is supported.
That is not happening right now – if it ever happened in this theater. I think that’s why when most people hit “Post-Ex“, they just leave all this behind. It all becomes so clearly hysterical, and so crazy and intractable, that you just throw your hands up and leave.
I think you hit a vital point here. I’ve been experiencing that myself. I want to criticize the lopsided and biased attack of scn by The Aftermath, but who can defend the stupidity and ripoffs committed by the official CoS?
Here we go again with cognitive dissonance – laughter
Yeah. When you point out the lopsided and biased rhetoric of anti-Scientologists, you are automatically accused of defending Scientology.
It’s stupid and it’s crazy.
Tribalism is real – but it’s not real smart.
Quality, not quantity
At the risk of sounding pro-Scn…it would be a sad day for democracy if Mike and Leah spawned a criminal investigation based on differences in morality. Imagine, if atheists accused the Baptist church of fraud and public deception which prompted a raid on Baptist churches?
As said previously…there will be NO criminal investigation into Scn. There will be the HOPE of a criminal investigation, but you will have to stay tuned for Season 3. At which point you will know you are being played.
Statpush wrote:
Exactly.
Alanzo,
What’s the matter with you???
Yes, Lea and Mike are doing many things wrong, and twist things quite a bit, ok, ok.
They are whistleblowers, not Mother Terza and Gandi. As you were when campaigning against the CoS AND anything to do with it, once. So?
But you now, have shifted all your criticism on to them and NONE any more on the CoS. Have you forgotten????? Ruthless organization bent (by definition) on totally destroying anybody who disagrees with it publicly. Led by a ruthless dictator (Def of his own son), who beats violently 100’s of people, many of which gave public statements describing repeated violent assaults, choking. kicking. These are crimes my dear!! And all of Marty’s accusations of criminal activity against him and his wife,lasting YEARS, which gave base to a strong and successful suit lawsuit!!!
And debbie cook, and Dani Lemberger with a juicy list of…
Sure they were ALL silenced and/or bought or settled with BIG money. Not with real justice or reform. Have you been silenced too? You talk about balance. Then you compare Lea and Mike to CoS management?
One last thing: Please do not mock people’s tears on subject of disconnection. Not even Lea and Mike’s. This practice which in my opinion is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, will cause any human being exposed to it (accept the one causing it..) to shed tears. I have experienced disconnection,
I KNOW. And all this repeated “there’s nothing illegal there” of yours is sad and deceiving.
“A violent crime occurs when someone harms, attempts to harm, threatens to harm or even conspires to harm someone else.”
Remember:
everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. No evidence of crime. Untill…
Al Capone: for many years there was no criminal evidence against him. Untill…
I am not saying that DM is any of these. he is what he is, and that is what his organization looks and feels like: a close “Northkorean style bubble”. And they take money from people by fraud and giving nothing back. (Def: stealing..) Many of us lost much money that way. And they promise to return unused money and they don’t! But they have powefull lawyers who work hard to make it all look legal. You wanna buy this show?
Go ahead.
Hemi
The emotional manipulation of their show is almost on the same order of the church. Deciding, as a baseline, whether some behavior by a religion – in our free society – is illegal or not is very important, hemi.
It informs just how hysterical we should get.
And so here’s a question for you: how will we know when the abuses have ended?
What mechanism do we have to know when all this criticism has finally worked and all the abuses you listed in the church have ended?
This is another important question for any serious consideration of “ending the abuses” – unless the object here is just endless punishment for Scientologists forever.
How will we know?
Look, I have seen only the 1st episode now. I can’t find them here easily. But I thought Lea and Mike are not against scientoogists, on the contrary, show care and compassion to them. And only against top management, its policies and abuses of human rights. This is my view. My good friends who disconnected, I still love and care about them, and wait patiently for them to wake up and stop acting fanaticly and roboticly. I even explain to others (in a good way) why they are like they are. They are not a problem. Those who lie to them and control them harmfully, they are the culprits.
I Always promote finding in any situation the actual criminal or SP or terrorist, and never to accuse a whole bunch of people, be them scient., moslems, and so on. The real sociopath hides within a group of good people, and so gets away with it.
How will we know? By being brave and aware and see what we see.
Come visit Dror center in Israel. You might or might not agree with their way. But you will see and know that they abuse nobody. Believe me it will take you 10-15 minutes to see that. Easy! And if someone stops getting services with them, they WISH HIM GOOD LUCK. AND MEAN IT!
The same with other groups, of other practices. And then again some other groups are fanatic and “know it all” and live in a total bubble. Easy to spot, now that we are old and wise! 🙂
well, you do it to as you said in your post:
“At the faucet of this firehose of hate and anger directed at Scientologists, which Leah Remini and Mike Rinder are intentionally stirring up and trying to increase to the gale force of Hurricane Irma, is the belief that Scientology is a “criminal organization”.
I don’t understand your comment.
“who beats violently 100’s of people…”
100s? Really? Since 2009, I can only recall about a dozen or so.
“all of Marty’s accusations of criminal activity against him and his wife…”
And their were police and lawyers involved during this time. Don’t you think they would have arrested someone in the church if they could have? In fact, the only person I remember being arrested is Marty.
“And all this repeated “there’s nothing illegal there” of yours is sad and deceiving.”
It is sad, but not deceiving.
Agreed. The bias in this line of thinking leads to the idea that the only reason DM is not doing the perp walk for the masturbatory glee of the Anti-Scn Community is that Marty (and/or Mike?) have not “spilled the beans” on the REAL crimes that these people want to believe is out there. That’s an urban myth accepted as reality, just like “Marty and Mosey took a payout / Marty is now OSA again”.
The closest thing to a murder I can think of is of course Lisa McPherson and, despite it being a disgusting triumph of bureaucracy and stupidity which cost a young woman her life, no-one went to jail despite everyone’s best efforts.
When I really started to look at this, I realized that I was caught up in a kind of mass nightmare hallucination. You accept this urban myth as reality and then GO FROM THERE, never once questioning the myth ever.
It’s amazing how many citadels can be built upon a myth.
(Hemi) “Alanzo, What’s the matter with you??? Yes, Lea and Mike are doing many things wrong, and twist things quite a bit, ok, ok.
They are whistleblowers, not Mother Teresa and Gandhi. As you were when campaigning against the CoS AND anything to do with it, once. So?”
Hi Hemi! You know, I’ve learned (still do, everyday!!) very valuable lessons from many individuals during the time that I’ve been posting at different Scn related blogs. YOU are among those individuals, from which I’ve learned balance, respect for differences, and compassion. And this post of yours doesn’t reflect the Hemi I know. The relaxed, calmed, unbiased, and wise soul, 🙂
You are justifying Leah’s and Mike’s immoral actions, and as an auditor, you know so much better than that. You are “toning down” their actions, and “diminishing” their effect on individuals that should be helped, and not attacked. We just can’t fight injustice with more injustice, my friend; it doesn’t work that way. As an advanced student of philosophy, that is something that you understand and should embrace.
“But you now, have shifted all your criticism on to them and NONE any more on the CoS. Have you forgotten????? Ruthless organization bent (by definition) on totally destroying anybody who disagrees with it publicly. Led by a ruthless dictator (Def of his own son), who beats violently 100’s of people, many of which gave public statements describing repeated violent assaults, choking. kicking.”
Is it actually an “organization” doing the harmful actions, or is it ONE individual whom others are robotically following while thinking that they are doing the right thing? Some food for thought, 🙂
“100’s of people”? You just can’t believe everything that people say online, and much less if they have their OWN things to hide which would drive them to alter facts and events to suit their specific agendas, and to play the victim role. I didn’t mean by that that he didn’t beat anyone up; I am sure that he must have done some of what he is being accused of.
But ultimately, is one word against another’s, and judging by how anti-Scientologists lie and alter events and facts – as evidenced by The Aftermath – how then is one to say that there are no lies and/or alterations regarding those “beatings” as well? I just can’t any longer take what anti-Scientologist say at face value. Not anymore.
Good day to you Peter, I hope you are dry and windless.
“Hi Hemi! You know, I’ve learned (still do, everyday!!) very valuable lessons from many individuals”
Same here man! In all subjects of life. Years ago when “proper” scientologist, I used to mainly “know” while others did not! Nothing really valuable, anyway. Since then, while truly advancing spiritually, I have changed totally, and discovered astonishingly that I can learn good valuable things from almost anyone! Even those who seem complete idiots, and benefited in many ways. (Advancing spiritually = getting close, connecting, merging with my inner essence, my real nature, myself. Nothing else) And so I came to like the saying:
“If you are the smartest man in the room, you are in the wrong room!”
May be Ron, started to lose his wisdom when he was too long the smartest man in…
This is a special trap for really wise people.
So great that you’ve exposed me!! Not a Buddha!! I confess!! Man, I am even much worse than you think… 🙂 And may be a little better too. You think you and Alanzo can be hotheaded and me not? Ha! Watch me read what Terra Cognita writes, or some other extremely stupid stuff and there’s Irma! But I am progressing. Few days ago at Mike’s, Brian wrote extremely annoying piece (“OT LEVELS”). I came down on him quite hard! But…amazingly, after a few ping pong comments, we ACTUALLY HUGED!
It was wonderful. I realized he really cares! As you do!! And Alanzo!! and…believe or not Mike and Lea care!! They DO!! As do most bubble scientologists! But DM? Nope!!
Ad so I criticize Brian, and Mike and Lea. I DO! And Going clear missed so much, may be the most important element that it pretended to investigate. But they also did important things too. Its not black and white. But with the CoS and DM there’s only black and white – either you with them or an enemy. They are beyond discussion and criticism, they are incapable of debate or influence. Total bubble!
And while it is true that German army in WW2 was composed of mainly good people, who thought they were saving the world from the devil, (Jews) for practical reason AT that TIME they were “an evil organization”. Such is the power of Hitlers and similar…
All these good people are PTS. (Brilliant distinction by Ron) they are good, but under suppressive, sociopathic influence and act as such. Watch the videos taken of them when harassing others. they look and act like Zombies. It is not the same as Lea and Mike. Not in the same universe. This must be stated. It is that vital.
They are a religion claiming to enlighten people and save the world. The Aftermath is just a TV show. It still can and should be criticized for any mistake or lie, but it is not the same responsibility as a spiritual organization who helps people, to then trap them!
That’s all I say.
Peter, believe me DM beating people is nothing compared to the mental and spiritual abuse they inflict. beating tearing the souls of man to pieces. They did it to me, to my loved ones to many of my friends who are still inside and are miserable. I don’t need proof any more. Do you? If you do, just go to them and look. Aha, they won’t let you in! Why? Are you a danger to society? Why are they closed so tightly and obsessively to outside view? Quite obvious: hiding what they do from the outside. No one hides beauty and bliss and good deeds. On the contrary, one is eager to show.
Come visit Dror! The gate is not even locked, you can come in unnoticed. You can and should stroll around totally free,Talk to anyone you wish… You see the difference? So if you criticize Lea/Mike really bad, will they send people to harass you or to get your family do disconnect from you or start hate sites revealing all your personal secrets?
So – when people tell me that South and North Korea are both bad and good, and who knows which is which..err… and there isn’t any evidence against Kim Jong-un, and no conviction…bla bla..I’m afraid I do get hotheaded and Buddhahood is fading away… 🙂
Hemi ♥
“Good day to you Peter, I hope you are dry and windless.”
Good day to you, Hemi! Yes, I am dry and windless, thank you! 🙂
“Years ago when ‘proper’ scientologist, I used to mainly ‘know’ while others did not! Nothing really valuable, anyway. Since then, while truly advancing spiritually, I have changed totally, and discovered astonishingly that I can learn good valuable things from almost anyone!”
Yes indeed! Learning from others is a never-ending experience!
“May be Ron, started to lose his wisdom when he was too long the smartest man in…This is a special trap for really wise people.”
Yeah, I understand what you mean.
“So great that you’ve exposed me!! Not a Buddha!! I confess!! Man, I am even much worse than you think… And may be a little better too. You think you and Alanzo can be hotheaded and me not?”
Haha, that was a good reply! Yeah, I DO get “hot-headed” frequently, 🙂 , just ask Alanzo, haha. Luckily for me, he let me know before I post any barkings, haha.
“Ha! Watch me read what Terra Cognita writes, or some other extremely stupid stuff and there’s Irma! But I am progressing.”
Yeah, you are a cool guy! 🙂
“It was wonderful. I realized he really cares! As you do!! And Alanzo!! and…believe or not Mike and Lea care!! They DO!! As do most bubble scientologists! But DM? Nope!!”
I know that he (DM) doesn’t care that much, and yes, Brian is an excellent individual who DOES care. I believe that Leah and Mike care, but only for selfish and wrong reasons.
“All these good people are PTS. (Brilliant distinction by Ron) they are good, but under suppressive, sociopathic influence and act as such. Watch the videos taken of them when harassing others. they look and act like Zombies.”
I see your point, and agree with it. But we are only being shown the most fanatical ones. It doesn’t mean that ALL act like that. Not by a long ways, they don’t. We are stereotyping many for the conduct of a minority. That’s my main protest with all this anti-Scientology speech from others. In the case of Hitler and WWII, the MAJORITY of the Nazi population acted evil and crazy, and in a deadly way. The comparison is not applicable, IMHO.
“It is not the same as Lea and Mike. Not in the same universe. This must be stated. It is that vital.”
It might not be the same – and actually, it isn’t – but that doesn’t make what they are doing any more right. They are using half-truths, misinterpretations, unsupported assumptions, and LRH texts taken out of context, to stereotype ALL Scientologists, and to create an hysteria about Scn as a subject. In my dictionary, that’s called “Bigotry” and “Intellectual Dishonesty”.
“Peter, believe me DM beating people is nothing compared to the mental and spiritual abuse they inflict. beating tearing the souls of man to pieces. They did it to me, to my loved ones to many of my friends who are still inside and are miserable. I don’t need proof any more. Do you? If you do, just go to them and look.”
No, I don’t need proof of course, if not I would not have turned into the critic I turned into. My point was that we just can’t believe everything that every apostate says. Believing everything without proper evidence, frequently leads to injustices being committed. And what we all should be seeking is proper justice, which includes hearing all sides, examining all evidence, and act only based on that with a non-punitive approach, but rather with a merciful, forgiving, and rehabilitating one. To me, that’s what “being spiritual or religious” is all about. I leave “punishment” as a “method” of “changing” anything, to the unenlightened. Hate only generates more hate.
“You see the difference? So if you criticize Lea/Mike really bad, will they send people to harass you or to get your family do disconnect from you or start hate sites revealing all your personal secrets?”
No they won’t, and I DO see the difference, my friend. My point was that is was basically ONE individual creating all that mess. Without him, or with him reformed, we wouldn’t have what we have today. Not by s loooong ways.
“So – when people tell me that South and North Korea are both bad and good, and who knows which is which..err… and there isn’t any evidence against Kim Jong-un, and no conviction…bla bla..I’m afraid I do get hot headed and Buddhahood is fading away…”
I understand you, and I agree with your viewpoint on that. I never inferred that DM wasn’t a harmful individual. I think he is, enough for him to need to go. My point was that a “church” is not a bunch of people at the top. We are attacking the wrong target, Hemi, and we are using wrong strategies. And the evidence of that is very clear : The problem has never been solved.
Couldn’t post. Trying to post again:
Buenos días Pietro,
That’s your main/mother language right? Do you know I speak it?
Thanks for your reply, very good and fair. I hereby accept 89.5% of it! Make it 92%… 🙂
I must confess that I saw only 1st episode in 2nd season. I must watch more. It is difficult to watch this here. Anybody knows how I can?
I try RU tube but mostly it is not working. Last season I watched quite a few, and concluded: Important work, but whap a titi they are too shallow
and missing and misleading the good and positive in the tech.
I have a brilliant Idea that can be applied here (hi Alanzo). We keep “nattering” about all those people being only negative: Peter:
“They are using half-truths, misinterpretations, unsupported assumptions, and LRH texts taken out of context, to stereotype ALL Scientologists,
and to create an hysteria about Scn as a subject.
Why don’t we do something about it. Alanzo can open a special page/column in which he and others can post: full truths, proper interpretations,
SUPPORTED assumptions and LRH texts IN CONTEXT. In other words positive stories of experiences and use that people have had using Ron’s work.
Little things, big things, whatever, told honestly and factually. I can think of quite a few of these, some of which are truly enlightening, others funny and interesting.
Isn’t this a fair thing to do as a correct “reply” to all the above.
As our old friend Gautama Siddhārtha Buddha says:
” Don’t find faults in others’ doings, dont criticize what they said or did, watch your own faults your own deeds… ”
” Beware the dangers which exist in stupidity and evil”
“Don’t invalidate the value of your good virtues, and don’t say ‘they are nothing’!
What do you say guys?
Hemi ♥ ♥ ♥
“Buenos días Pedro, That’s your main/mother language right? Do you know I speak it?”
Really? Do you speak Spanish? “Esa es una buena noticia, amigo”, 🙂
“Thanks for your reply, very good and fair. I hereby accept 89.5% of it! Make it 92%… 🙂 “
92%? That’s almost a 100% duplication resulting in agreement! 🙂
“It is difficult to watch this here. Anybody knows how I can? I try RU tube but mostly it is not working.”
Episode #4 and #5 (the last ones) from season 2 can be found here, and you can watch it online :
http://www.aetv.com/shows/leah-remini-scientology-and-the-aftermath
I had watched the first 2 episodes on that same link, but now they are unavailable. I don’t know why. Now only 4 and 5 are available. But I am sure that when season 2 is over, all its episodes will be available either at that link or on YouTube. Or sold at Amazon.
“I have a brilliant Idea that can be applied here (hi Alanzo). We keep ‘nattering’ about all those people being only negative…”
Haha, but “nattering” is frequently healthy; and it feels so good! 🙂
“Why don’t we do something about it? Alanzo can open a special page/column in which he and others can post: full truths, proper interpretations, SUPPORTED assumptions and LRH texts IN CONTEXT. In other words positive stories of experiences and use that people have had using Ron’s work.”
I don’t think that Alonzo has that much “ARC” for a “The good parts of Scientology” narrative, haha. Besides, I think he should stick to his narrative as an “outsider” to both the pro-Scientology and the anti-Scientology camps. His idea about the “500” (now raised to “750”) words essay is good, though. Nice challenge to evaluate, IMHO.
But what I am going to do pretty soon, is to create a blog (but without comments) where Scientology will be evaluated in great details from a very unbiased, objective, and non emotionally attached way. From the Bridge, to psychiatry, Narconon, etc. I’ll refrain from taking any sides, and will provide only facts and arguments based on agreed upon premises, even if my conclusions are not shared. I’ll make sure that whenever I offer my opinions, that it be clearly stated that it IS only my opinion, but I’ll try to refrain from making opinions. Its name : “Scientology : Truth Revealed”.
The blog is intended to fill the existent vacuum about ACTUAL unbiased evaluations about Scn and the CofS, which prevent the “Under the Radar(s)” and the ones leaving the Church, to find a website without all the hate and hysteria surrounding Scn, but without any fanatical “LRH was a ‘noble’ individual who was right about everything he ever wrote about” bullshit, neither. The blog is also intended to help THEM to make a CORRECT transition, from an other-determined submissive obedience and belief about LRH and Scn, to a self-determined viewpoint on it all based on “Critical Thinking”, and an inclusive approach to ALL knowledge, not just Scientology’s.
I will accept recommendations offered through email lines, and can even have a specific part dedicated to testimonials from using Scn or any other practices.
Si claro, hablo mas u menos, pero escribir..soy desastre… 🙂
Ok, thanks. I am in a hurry so:
I have finally watched all 4 episodes and will watch 5th later. Your link doesn’t work here, but I have another linkn that has all episodes. It didn’t work with my chrome browser but it does smoothly with Explorer or Edge browser. May be
it can work for you too if you need. Here’s 3 1st episodes:
https://rutube.ru/video/29b4084b94b755713656c0d63e0db1a3/
https://rutube.ru/video/79a1da9bf3d96eef34627e3c96b15050/
https://rutube.ru/video/79a1da9bf3d96eef34627e3c96b15050/
Must say after watching, I am a bit shocked! Many problems in what they do. Many! Will elaborate later.
I think Alanzo is fair and tolerant, and has shown amazing ability to develop and change. I can bow and learn from him on that.
About your future blog – wonderful idea, go for it. Great!
I will be happy to give you few humble tips, privately.
Hemi wrote:
Very interested in what you have to say here, Hemi!
Season 2 is VERY different from Season 1. Wouldn’t you say?
I think you and Alsono are the same person…
ALANZO. I apologize. I think my cell auto-correct is possessed.
Lauren – please contact me about your comment. I need to confirm what you say.
Thanks,
Alanzo