Pounding the Intellectual Honesty Out of Aaron Smith-Levin

“Asked to explain these “abusive practices,” Remini takes a deep breath, then lays out some foundational principles. “Scientology policy dictates that children are grown men and women in little bodies. They believe a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed. That’s in Dianetics,” she says, referencing L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book that establishes core tenets.”

Leah Remini was a Scientologist for 34 years.

She knows that Scientologists do not believe in pedophilia. But she has adopted the ideology of the anti-cult movement to explain her whole experience in Scientology, and flipped from fervent Scientologist to fervent Anti-Scientologist. And so now she is willing to tell herself, and everyone else, the most destructive lies about who she was, and what she believed, and what she stood for when she was a Scientologist.

This is the result of the GroupThink of Anti-Scientology, and apparently Leah Remini is very drunk on its kool-aide.

Here’s a good explanation of what Intellectual honesty means:

“Intellectually honesty” means you make arguments you think are true, as opposed to making the arguments you are “supposed” to make, or avoiding arguments that you think are true but you aren’t “supposed” to make.”

Noah Millman

I have found that you can be loyal to your friends, and you can be loyal to the truth, but in the highly partisan environment of Scientology vs Anti-Scientology, you can’t be loyal to both.

And so at around the beginning of Season 2 of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath, I recorded my thoughts on the treatment I observed Aaron Smith-Levin getting from his Anti-Scientologist friends for saying that no one believed in pedophilia when they were a Scientologist.

You would think this would be a fairly non-controversial statement simply because anyone with any experience as a Scientologist would know it to be true.

But Anti-Scientologists WANT scientologists to be pedophiles so bad that they are pounding anyone who disagrees with them into submission.

Aaron Smith-Levin was receiving that pounding a few years ago.

Here are my experiences behind the scenes of Scientology and the Aftermath, and in my short but brutish acquaintance with Aaron Smith-Levin.

So I first heard about Aaron Smith-Levin, I think it was, uhh…I think I might have seen something about him on Tony’s blog – I can’t remember. But it’s in the last few years. And then I’ve been following some of his videos. And then I saw that he got a spot on Scientology and the Aftermath.

He’s a good friend of Mike Rinder, see.

Oh! That’s where I saw him first, On Growing Up in Scientology. His video channel, where he interviewed Mike Rinder.

That [interview] was very interesting to me because when Mike Rinder got out in 2009 and went over to Marty’s blog, he was an independent Scientologist. And at that time if you questioned L. Ron Hubbard, or the technology of Scientology, you were considered, you know, persona non grata over at Marty’s blog. And Mike Rinder was one of the chief people who would make you persona non grata there.

So I watched his interviews with Mike Rinder that lasted hours, and that’s where I saw the complete change in Mike Rinder. He’d finally begun to criticize L. Ron Hubbard himself, and the technology, and that’s the first place that I saw him actually do it. And I wrote a blog post about it at the time.

And the two of them had a very intelligent, rational conversation which I found to be really refreshing. You know, at the time, it was just a discussion that wasn’t filled with a bunch of emotion. People weren’t, you know, standing up and shaking their fists about how Scientology is a criminal organization, and you know, MURDER!  All the stuff that Exes just go completely hysterical over. That wasn’t in that conversation at all between Mike Rinder and Aaron Smith-Levin, and I was very impressed by that.

So then I see him appear on Scientology and the Aftermath, and I also see the pictures of him winning an Emmy.

Okay. A critic of Scientology who has won an Emmy. That, that is, that’s quite something, I’m telling you.

18 years of Scientology watching, and I watched a critic on YouTube, and he’s got an Emmy behind him in his shot. Okay. And why does he have an Emmy there? Because he fucking won it!

That’s unique that is that is a history-making event, and I don’t think anybody really recognizes this. There’s never been a critic who’s won an Emmy. And Aaron Smith-Levin did. And he proudly showed it in the shot in one of his one of his videos and I was totally impressed – just blown away – at that development in Scientology criticism.

So, I got to know him a little bit and some exchanges I had with him associated with the Facebook group that he started the “Official Supporters of Leah Remini Scientology and The Aftermath”, Facebook group. It’s a secret group. Okay. You have to be let in. You can be kicked out.

As I was kicked out.

Alanzo Gets Banned From “Official Supporters of Leah Remini Scientology and The Aftermath” Facebook Group

I think the final question that I asked in that group, which finally got me kicked out, was very specifically “Are all minority religions considered ‘cults’?

And it was on a Saturday at around six here in the cornfields, and so it was Saturday afternoon for some. Saturday night for another group, and the conversation got really lively. It never went off the rails. There was never anybody yelling or insulting anybody, but the discussion was just very lively. And it was excellent.

Chris Shelton – Enforcer of the Ideology of Both Scientology and Now Anti-Scientology

But then Chris Shelton, who is one of the more, uhm, He… You know, when he was in Scientology, he used to enforce Scientology philosophy and ideology down on the people who ran the delivery of Scientology in all of the organizations in the western United States.

So, when you have a job like that, you are, you are the chief priest, basically. You make sure the ideology remains pure in all of these people who are running all of these organizations. And you do that on the phone. You do that through telexes. You do it through, you know, pulling people in for ethics handling.

If the Kansas City org stats are down, Chris could pull in a tech person or some other person [to Los Angeles] for ‘handling’. Handling meant “write up your Overts and Withholds!All the things that you’ve done wrong!”And then find out what your condition is. And then once you work yourself up by the lower conditions  – “which you’re going to be in a lower condition motherfucker, cuz you’re here in LA, when you should be back at your work!”

And they they ordered you out there [to Los Angeles, at your expense] under threatened declare. And then once you get there you’re blamed for being there, and you’re in a lower condition because you’re there so you have to apply these ethics conditions.

This is all ideological reconditioning. This is getting rid of the thoughts that a person has, which are not loyal to the ideology – number one. And then the times he has been disloyal to the ideology – Number two.

This is all Marxist reconditioning.

OW write ups themselves came right out of Maoist reconditioning camps. They used to write down on pieces of paper their overts to communist ideology and Maoist ideology. That is, it was a huge part of the reconditioning camps, the Maoist reconditioning camps. It was either that or you were murdered, see. So. So if you were here you can re educate yourself to be a loyal person that is completely loyal to the ideology and does not ever stray from it.

Well this is what Chris did. This is what he did to all the people that ran tech divisions and some of the other people in organizations around the Western United States. And his whole job was to detect when a person was being disloyal to the philosophy or the ideology.

If there’s one small outpoint, then Chris will begin to, “Okay, that guy’s got, he’s got an overt there! Or he’s got an MU or he’s got something going on with him!”

I know all those conversations. [Because I had it done to me] And that’s what Chris did all day every day for eight years – is basically make sure that the ideology is pure with these people who are running organizations, and if there’s any sign that they’re going off the ideology in any way, pull them out for reconditioning. And then send them back then in they’re done. That’s that was Chris’s job.

So, he really hasn’t spotted the simplicity of this. He really hasn’t gotten that he’s doing the exact same thing that he did to COs and ED’s. Anyway, this was Chris’s target for ideological purification, and he’s doing the same thing as an anti Scientologist. He’s picking people for targeting for ideological purification and if they’re found to be not ideologically pure – and this time in the anti Scientology ideology – then they must be banned.

And Chris has been doing this for a long time, with me and a lot of other people. He is ensuring that the ideology remains pure among the anti Scientologists – no questioning of anybody. No nothing but the ideologically pure line. So Chris is an enforcer of that and, obviously, he is self taught.

Well, he learned it in the Sea Org. L. Ron Hubbard taught him. But he’s not self untaught yet on this. And he really needs to be because he’s one of the most intolerant, non intellectually honest, smart people I’ve ever met. And it’s really, I’m positive that if he just would begin to spot this in himself, it would go away, finally. He’s only been out for four or five years, and he’s been getting lots of admiration for being Mr Anti Scientology.

And so, as Mr Anti Scientology, that pressure to remain Mr Anti Scientology is very strong – to hold the line firm. It’s how he got there, by expressing very eloquently, and very clearly some of the most poignant and cutting phraseology for the anti Scientology ideology.

Enforcing the Purity of the Anti-Scientology Ideology

That’s Chris Shelton. He develops the phraseology for the ideology of anti scientologists, just as he enforced it when he was a Scientologist. So.

In the [youtube] conversations between Aaron and Chris, you can see the interplay between them where Aaron disagrees in a way that is much more intellectually honest than Chris Shelton does.

It’s unfortunate that Chris doesn’t see this yet in himself, but it is instructional.

And you can take a look at what Aaron and Chris do together. You can see two different types of approaches to the anti Scientology ideology.

One of them has a hard line, orthodox approach, which must follow, you know, the ideology, and the other is it more questions anyone that can question, deep things deeper, you know question that the points in the ideology, itself. It can examine the anti Scientology ideology and see where it’s being hypocritical. It can examine it and see where it’s being effective. Whereas with Chris he doesn’t know that he’s capable of thoroughly examining all of that, but that’s not what he’s about saying he’s not about that he’s about holding the ideological line pure.

So, so it’s it’s fun to watch those two but that’s where I first began to really understand that, Aaron Smith-Levin, is more intellectually honest than your normal anti Scientologist.

And so when I told him I knew that I would end up being banned from the Facebook group – not because I was going to, I was going to cause any fights, or make people angry or insult anyone. None of that. It had to do with the ideology, and its purity. And I knew that this would be the reason for my demise in this particular Facebook group.

But because Aaron Smith-Levin is the guy to have accepted me in it, my first post was “Aaron Smith-Levin Has Huge Ass Balls”. Because he’s letting me into this group. He knew what he was taking on. See, so did I.

After that, I wrote a couple more posts that got taken down, I can’t remember those – they were were put up and taken down so fast. I can’t remember what they were about, but Aaron Smith-Levin, contacted me. Can I call him ASL or, he’s actually,  it’s like such a mouthful. Aaron, I just get a call him Aaron.

Aaron Smith-Levin Contacts Me Personally to ‘Handle’ Me

Okay so, Aaron gets a hold of me, back channel, and he says, “Hey man, why are you being such a Debbie Downer?”

Okay, this is … he literally said that. He used the phrase “Debbie Downer” with me. And I said, Well, you know….

Oh! It was because I posted the stats! I’d posted the stats, as reported by TV By The Numbers of the show. And I didn’t say anything. I just posted the stats for the show.

That’s why, I guess, I was being a “Debbie Downer”. Because from the initial pilot episode in the first season, down to where it is now it’s about half the viewership. But it’s steady half of the viewership. And steadiness is good. Steadiness This is good.

So I am not trying to put down the show. I’m trying to talk about information that the ideology doesn’t want to talk about. The ideology is, “you only talk about it when it’s up, you never talked about when it’s down.” So, I just showed what it was. I didn’t even talk about that it was down before the post was taken down. So Aaron’s getting a hold of me to ‘handle’ me.


He asked me why I would being such a Debbie Downer. And so I said, “Listen, most of these people who are coming in here. They are, for a lack of a better term, well, non Scientologists”. I was going to call them wogs, you know, but I didn’t. Called them non Scientologists, pretty sure, maybe I just said they were ‘from the real world’.

And so then I said, “Yeah, that’s all I was doing. I mean these people don’t even see this as negative information. They’re from the outside world. They don’t even think of this as a threat or some kind of danger. Okay? So don’t worry about it. It’s just the stats to the show. They’re used to that.”

But then I went further, as I do.

I told him that I understood what he meant by a ‘positive post’ about how to be positive, within the group. That’s what he wanted me to be. “You want me to be positive.”

It’s just supporters show, and, you know, that’s a, it’s a supporters group, and you know that’s a valid point. Totally valid point. The way I show support is a little bit different than how they want me to show support. They think that I’m “attacking”.

But they don’t know that my definition of criticism is the holding of some activity to its stated standard. If it says this particular standard. You can expect that, and if you don’t get that – if it doesn’t meet your expectations – then that’s the source of criticism. Not because you want to destroy it. But because you want to make it better. And you want it to be constructive. you’re actually cause the person, or activity to go back to its stated ideals or standards. That’s the purpose of criticism.

So I …but I believe me. I know the definition that he was wanting me to have of “positive”. I know that.

Aaron’s Words, Almost Verbatim, Get Me Pounded Because Aaron Was Too Afraid to Write Them Himself

So I decided to test him, and I asked him. “So what if I posted something about how I’m an ex-scientologist and I never believed in pedophilia when I was in?”

And he said to me, “You know, it’s a big argument I had with Leah.” too.

I said, “REALLY??

And he said “Yes. I took that up with Leah. I told her that Scientology didn’t believe in pedophilia, even though she said it did.” He didn’t tell me how it was brought up or anything about the conversation. He just said it was brought up.

And then he said, “And we just agreed to disagree about that.”

And I think he then did say that her point is they were guilty of pedophilia.

So there you go, Aaron Smith Levin got his first pounding probably right there.

He’s beginning to see that if you disagree. If you’ve got another viewpoint, about how to criticize Scientology, or how to see your own time in Scientology, or any of the things that an ex Scientologists is concerned with, it’s got to be in a particular way to be an anti Scientologist. See, it can’t be just any old way. You can’t just assume any old viewpoint. You have to assume the anti Scientology viewpoint on all of it.

I knew that. I knew that this is what he meant by being positive. So I knew that my time there was very limited and that I should make it count.

So I asked him, at this point, I said, “should we never bring this up?”

And he said, “Hey if you wrote something like… and then he wrote about four or five sentences of a post to me in a Twitter DM. He didn’t say ‘post this’. Okay. But he said “if you wrote something like that, I think it’d be a great discussion. I think it’d be freaking awesome.”

So I did. I think within 15 minutes of getting off of the direct messaging with him, I posted that.

I took his sentences, and I modified them with four or five different words, to make it look like my own writing and that he didn’t write it. And then I posted it. And again, an extremely lively discussion, ensued, within an hour, 22 people have liked it, including, including Sarah Goldberg, Terry Gamboa, and Aaron Smith Levin himself. And then Aaron Smith-Levin got on and just started answering questions & doing things with it.



So this is going really well. And Aaron Smith-Levin, is engaged, and Miriam Francis is engaged, and all these people were all talking about the various beliefs of Scientologists regarding pedophilia. Do scientologist really believe in pedophilia?

Do Scientologists Really Believe in Pedophilia?

Well no, they don’t. Everyone knows they don’t. Despite what Leah said to the Hollywood Reporter, they don’t believe that seven year old girls shouldn’t shutter when they’re kissed by a grown man, even passionately.

Yes, they should. And Scientologists believe that that they should. This whole thing that Tony Ortega has dragged up You can look at it two ways, right?

He’s a never-in. And so he’s got an outside perspective that the Ex-Scientologist is just unaware of. Right? And here he is coming into tell us that we’re all brainwashed and that we actually did believe in pedophilia this whole time when we were Scientologists. And we just didn’t know it.

Oh my god. And you actually see people, you know, “I remember reading this when I was in but I never once thought it was actually, you know, promoting pedophilia, sorry, endorsing or condoning pedophilia, but now that I look at it…. My god it is!”

(Laughing) What the fuck? You were the scientologist – you yourself, were the Scientologist. Did you believe in pedophilia when you’re a Scientologist? Can you remember back that far?

And you’re saying because Tony Ortega says this. “Maybe I did believe in pedophilia when I was a Scientologist.” Or, you know, are you just going to be able to just look at it and go “No I’m me, I was a Scientologist. I’m not anymore, but I was, and I’ve never believed in pedophilia – before Scientology – during Scientology – or after Scientology.”

And this little quote from the back of the freaking Dianetics… I never once in my whole time in Scientology, did I ever even come close to anyone, even using, or quoting this, or referring to this quote ever – about anything! Let alone justifying endorsing or condoning, pedophilia!

So anyway, the discussion is lively and then Chris Shelton arrives.

Chris Shelton Accuses Me of “Making Mike and Leah Wrong”

Chris Shelton writes this big post about how I’m just making Leah and Mike wrong with this post. So get that. I’m making Leah and Mike wrong by saying “I never believed in pedophilia when I was a Scientologist”. And actually I didn’t write it. Aaron Smith Levin wrote it.

It’s almost verbatim Aaron Smith-Levin’s words.

I get banned for Posting Aaron Smith-Levin’s Post in Scientology the Aftermath Facebook Group

So I said, “Chris this isn’t an attempt to make anybody wrong. This is just a statement. And look at all the people who have agreed with this and have liked the post, including Aaron and Terry Gamboa, Sarah Goldberg and so many others.”

Okay? Who is able to remember when they used to be Scientologists? It’s not this self that’s completely cut off and occluded from them. They remember. They kind of feel it was them. And they didn’t believe in pedophilia then, and they don’t now. Pretty simple.

But Tony Ortega is trying to ram it down everybody’s throat. And I really, I can’t believe that ex Scientologists are letting him do that, I just, I can’t believe it.

It’s, you know, the ideological purity, is just too strong. There’s just a pounding.

So Aaron got pounded there. And he’s going to continue to get pounded. I have ways of finding out various things that are going on in the group and I’ve been able to read certain things by various authors. Aaron, Nora Crest, Marian Francis, Tony Ortega.

And Aaron is continuing to receive his pounding.

Will Aaron Smith-Levin Survive Celebrity Anti-Scientology With His Intellectual Honesty Intact?”

The question is, “Will Aaron survive the pounding? Will Aaron, in this reconditioning, this pounding, this reconditioning camp that he’s in, will he be able to retain his intellectual honesty?”

That is a very interesting question for me because, you know, this is what I’ve been writing about for the last two years, at least.

But, you know, I, I’ve received many poundings, many poundings, in an attempt to make me into a pin headed fanatic for the anti Scientology ideology. You know? And I have resisted all of them. And if there’s one thing that I’m proud of… not so much today I’m proud of… but I am proud of that.

And I think anybody who withstands that kind of ideological pounding to try to reduce your ability to be intellectually honest about something, to try to radicalize you, to try to, you know – it’s Maoist reconditioning. Okay?

To try to make you more loyal to the ideology than you are to the truth. Or, if that fails, to try to make you more loyal to your friends than you are to the truth.

The problem is that in any ideological group like anti Scientology, you can either be loyal to your friends, or you can be loyal to the truth. But you can’t be both.

And that really is the truth. I found that to be true.

I hope to find a group of people who allow you to be you. Who allow you to buck the ideology, to criticize the ideology, to turn the ideology on its head. And they really enjoy all that. I hope to find people like that. But I haven’t found it in anti Scientology. I was bumping up against this the whole time.

I’ve written about it. It’s like, I thought we were like a, you know, free exchange of ideas, kind of a bohemian philosophical discussion society, you know? Where every idea is fair game and we’re all open to all kinds of new things.

No anti Scientology has never been like that. And it never will be.

Anti-Scientology is an Ideological Branch of the Anti-Cult Movement

It is a branch of the anti cult movement. And the anti cult movement is an extreme ideological organization that is out to go after minority religions that they called cults. Even the term cult itself is an attack on a minority religion.

And it’s also a very weird and stupid way of seeing a minority religion. But it’s one of those things that never gets questioned. Or if it does, it always comes back to affirming the ideology.

Anyway, the pounding that Aaron Smith Levin is getting is an example of the pounding that everybody gets in anti Scientology. And the question is, “Will you be able to survive it?”

Will you come out of being an anti Scientologist with your intellectual honesty intact?

Right now, let’s watch Aaron Smith-Levin. And let’s see if he can survive the ideological pounding from Tony Ortega, Miriam Francis, Nora Crest. Chris Shelton. All these people who want him to ‘re-remember’.

It’s like a Truth Rundown thing. “You believed in pedophilia when you were a Scientologist. You just forgot that you did. Or you didn’t know that you did. It was so subtle you didn’t notice it.”

You know, just so freaking crazy.

So over it out.”

### __________________________________ ###
This was recorded over 5 years ago. I have since written more about Aaron Smith Levin and Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath. You can read those posts and decide for yourself whether Aaron has survived his pounding.

130 thoughts on “Pounding the Intellectual Honesty Out of Aaron Smith-Levin”

  1. What Mike and Leah are doing is totally unnecessary. The truth is: practising Scn DOES change your viewpoint on children and family; and often not in a good way. I have seen parents adopt a “no sympathy” or “tough love” attitude towards child rearing. I have seen them do borderline criminal things, like putting a 13-year-old in charge of a 10-year-old sibling, while you go off to Flag for your 6-month refresher – with no adult supervision. Or putting pressure on their teenager to join staff or the Sea Org without finishing high school. I have seen parents effectively abandon their kids at a Scn school, and maybe seeing them at Christmas. I have seen Nanny Units I would not bring my dog to. Infants sitting for hours in their own vomit and pooh. It’s fucking horrible.

    I have witnessed these things with my own eyes. And it wasn’t an isolated case, in fact, it was pretty consistent.

    Of course, not ALL Scnists behave this way. I didn’t. Nor did I raise my kids to be Scnists. Rarely gave them assists. Took them to a real medical doctor if they were ill. Got them vaccinated. Ensured I was always there for them, providing a safe, healthy environment, provided excellent schooling. I did these things because they were the right thing to do.

    Scnists who didn’t do these things either felt it was not important, or felt the most important thing they could offer their kids is Scn.

    Lying about Scn’s policy or philosophy is completely unnecessary and only confuses the viewer.

    One of the realisations I had when I left, was: Scientology makes good people do bad things. Or more accurately – makes good people make bad decisions.

    And THAT is the real threat.

    • Excellent post, statpush. Just one thing I would challenge. You wrote:

      “Scientology makes good people do bad things. Or more accurately – makes good people make bad decisions.”

      For the most part, I don’t think that Scientology (as a subject, that is) makes people do bad things. It’s their own egoic purposes and zealousness, and/or the influence on them of zealous staff members.

      For example, I never once got the idea from any of the materials that children are no different than adults and should always be treated the same way – except with regard to their being spiritual beings. None of the references quoted on “Aftermath” say otherwise, yet they are interpreted and “explained” on the show to mean that.

      The same can be said about the interpretations of various references to mean that children and family are unimportant and inconsequential – although people are convinced of that by reg’s, recruiters, course sups, etc. They do it so as to not let this dynamic get in the way of their zealous conviction that the only dynamic that matters is the church – despite the fact that LRH specifically says pretty much the opposite, e.g. that when any one dynamic is not doing well the others are also brought down.

      Btw, “statpush” was a good choice for a posting name in that, to me, this is the main reason for the downfall of the Scientology movement.

        • Thanks. And thanks for doing what you do. I may not agree with you on some matters, but I very much appreciate your efforts and what you’re basically trying to do.

        • Where is the “good supporting evidence” ?
          I don’t see any quotes, links, etc.
          Just marialdi’s opinions. Which he/she is entitled to, just as Leah is entitled to hers.

            • Chee is right, this was opinions and personal observations not facts. They are the lowest level of evidence.
              Shirley you know the hierarchy of an argument.

            • I think you have a M/U on ‘evidence’
              I didn’t comment on marialdi’s argument. I don’t think he/she presented any evidence, that’s all.

              • Chee Chalker: “I don’t think he/she presented any evidence, that’s all.

                I believe I did support my arguments with evidence. As regards my view that “Aftermath” was misinterpreting the LRH quotes they based the interpretation on, the evidence I presented was the context of those quotes. Look back and you’ll see it.

                With regard to my other point – that their interpretations of various references to mean that children and family are unimportant and inconsequential – my supporting evidence was to point out that LRH had basically said the opposite when he wrote that no one dynamic is more important than the others. But you can fault me for not giving the exact quote and reference, so here it is from FOT:
                “There is no thought or statement here that any one of these eight dynamics is more important than the others. While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they are not necessarily equal to each other. It will be found amongst individuals that each person stresses one of the dynamics more than the others, or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important than other combinations.” (Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)

                Btw, I doubt that more there a small percentage of both current and former Scientologists, are aware of that last datum – i.e. that people vary in how much importance they give to the different dynamics. If that datum were better known, it might result in a greater granting of beingness by Scientologists and ex-Scientologists, both. But alas, that datum isn’t useful to our egoic friends and “enemies.” 🙂

                And I’m a she, Chee.

      • I have to disagree on one point – the idea that children are just thetans in little bodies is very much a part of the core Scn beliefs. I don’t think “they should be treated like adults” is as prevalent.

        Quick story which illustrates the church’s viewpoint on 2D vs 3D. I was being heavily recruited by the SO to join staff at an Ideal Org. Doing so would mean I would work a wog job from 8-5pm, then Foundation staff from 6-10pm. No realistic enhancement. Plus, this would include about 3 hours travel time each day. I pointed out that I would never get to see my family. And said “I mean, why be married and raise a family?” The recruiter responded, “Well, that’s the decision you need to make”.

        And what about my three young kids?

        • I had this schedule for 2 years while on staff in a mission in Pasadena.

          Lived in Manhattan Beach (southwest LA), wog-job in Calabasas (northwest SF Valley), on staff in South Pasadena (easternmost LA).

          I was living with my girlfriend at the time and, for some reason, she was always angry with me.

        • statpush: “I have to disagree on one point – the idea that children are just thetans in little bodies is very much a part of the core Scn beliefs.:

          I’m not saying that this isn’t an idea Scientologists have (unlike the false accusation that they believe in pedophilia). I just don’t agree that it’s a correct interpretation of what LRH wrote. The quotes that were given in the last Aftermath episode were these two:

          “A child is a man or a woman who has not attained full growth.”

          “Any law which applies to the behavior of men and women applies to children.”

          Those two sentences are from an essay in NSOL titled “How to Live with Children.” Below is the beginning of the essay, and it gives the context prior to the two lines quoted (which I’ve put in caps):

          “An adult has certain rights around children which the children and modern adults rather tend to ignore. A good, stable adult with love and tolerance in his heart is about the best therapy a child can have.

          “The main consideration in raising children is the problem of training them without breaking them. You want to raise your child in such a way that you don’t have to control him, so that he will be in full possession of himself at all times. Upon that depends his good behavior, his health, his sanity.

          “Children are not dogs. They can’t be trained as dogs are trained. They are not controllable items. They are, and let’s not overlook the point, men and women. A child is not a special species of animal distinct from Man. A CHILD IS A MAN OR A WOMAN WHO HAS NOT ATTAINED FULL GROWTH.


          (Scientology, A New Slant on Life)

          Nevertheless, I do think LRH changed his approach after he started the SO and became fanatical with regard to many things, including the treatment of children. After that was when the general Scientology attitude towards children also changed. But once again, individuals should have read what was written and interpreted the references for themselves.

          Bravo for you that you apparently didn’t fall for the group think. I get that you were one who couldn’t be convinced it would be right to neglect the second dynamic, not to mention the first and others! I would say you were in the minority.

          • I don’t see anyone accusing Scientologists of approving pedophilia.
            I see Leah repeating what Hubbard WROTE.
            Now, how one chooses to interpret that is up to them. Personally, I don’t think that quote means Scientologists approve of pedophilia.
            I think it shows how sick Hubbard was. That’s it.
            Perhaps some sickos used that quote to justify their behavior. We’ll probably never know.
            What we do know is that the ORGANIZATION of Scientology has chosen to protect some of its members who are guilty of this act.
            (As an aside, some members of the Catholic Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc etc have done the same).
            But the difference is child abuse is not part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church (as an example).
            Is it part of Scientology doctrine? I guess it depends on how you interpret that comment.
            We know what is written in Dianetics is sceintology doctrine.
            So, I guess it’s up to each individual to decide for themselves what Hubbard meant by that.
            And each Scientologist to determine what part of Hubbard’s doctrine they choose to believe.

            • Chee Chalker wrote:

              I don’t see anyone accusing Scientologists of approving pedophilia.
              I see Leah repeating what Hubbard WROTE.
              Now, how one chooses to interpret that is up to them. Personally, I don’t think that quote means Scientologists approve of pedophilia.
              I think it shows how sick Hubbard was. That’s it.

              Then why did Leah Remini say this to the Hollywood Reporter to kick off her 2nd Season?

              “Asked to explain these “abusive practices,” Remini takes a deep breath, then lays out some foundational principles. “Scientology policy dictates that children are grown men and women in little bodies. They believe a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed. That’s in Dianetics,” she says, referencing L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book that establishes core tenets.”

              Why did she use the word “they”?

              Why did she use the phrase “they believe” if she was only referring to what Hubbard wrote?

              When you are an actress and you have an interview with the Hollywood Reporter to kick off the second season of a show that has your name on it, you don’t think there is careful prep before the interview and what you say is not chosen deliberately, with your wording practiced – if only to a mirror?

              No Chee. Leah Remini said “they believe” on purpose.

              She knows that Scientologists don’t believe that.

              If you listen to my Recording Thing in the post, Aaron verified what Leah meant. He’s spoken to her about it and they “agreed to disagree”.

              That backwards dancing you got goin there make you look like you doin’ the Moon Walk!

              • Don’t you think that “they” have spent a lot of ink defending or interpreting or managing that piece of writing? I have seen nothing from Scientology or Indies that calls LRH out as plain wrong.
                That would be a real revelation.

              • I’m not backward dancing, though I wish I could like MJ.
                I think the ‘they believe’ can be interpreted the way you did, but in fairness to Leah, I think you also need to look at her sentence before…..(“……it’s Scientology policy……”)

                So, I would ask a Scientologist a question before any others – do you believe everything LRH said (do you believe LRH is infallible?).

                I’m sure most Scientologists believe what they want and make excuses for the reprehensible or the stuff that doesn’t make sense (Xenu) or just ignore it.

                • But Chee, Leah said “They believe a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed.”

                  No Scientologist believes that. I never ran across one in 16 years of being a Scientologist. No other Scientologist or Ex-Scientologist I know has run across anyone ever using this quote, or even mentioning it for any reason. I can guarantee you that Leah doesn’t know anyone either.

                  Leah Remini knows that her statement above is false, and I must conclude that she said it for inflammatory rhetorical purposes only. She wanted to kick off her show with a strong attack on Scientology and scientologists, and it did not matter to her if that attack was true.

                  Mike Rinder called me a Scientologist on Twitter, knowing that was not true, as well. He wanted my criticisms to be lumped in with DM’s attack videos. So he dismissed and discredited my statement by calling me a Scientologist. It was a rhetorical trick. The truth was not important. He’s been doing this ALL his career.

                  Set up an enemy, and then associate your critics with that enemy.

                  I’m telling you, ever since Season 2 began, it has been all about the rhetoric with these guys and not about the truth. They are trying their best to whip up the hysteria around Scientology by calling Scientiologists pedophiles.

                  Look at it this way. Let’s say you were Leah and you had been in Scientology for 34 years. And you were being interviewed by the Hollywood Reporter and you said “They believe a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed.”

                  What would you mean by that?

                  Would you mean LRH wrote that?

                  Or would you mean they believe that?

                  And if you meant “LRH wrote it”, why wouldn’t you say “LRH wrote it”. Why would you say “They believe a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed.” when you meant “LRH wrote that a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed.”?

                  Again, Leah is a highly skilled and practiced rhetor. She is no dummy. Every point she makes, she makes with the power of delivering lines that have been worked out way ahead of time. I have written many times about how powerful of a critic she is.

                  This is why this shocked me. And when Aaron confirmed that Leah believes it, why are you still questioning this? Do you believe that it is below a member of the anti-cult movement to accuse a “cult” of engaging in pedophilia if it might cause a huge moral panic around the cult they were targeting?

                • On a side-note, Tony O admitted that he first encountered this quote four years ago when he reviewed Dianetics, chapter by chapter. And it didn’t jump out and grab him.

                  Why not?

                  Could it be he read it in its proper context and knew what Hubbard meant?

                • Yeah. This is why Tony is campaigning so hard about this quote.

                  As with so many of his hysteria-making campaigns over the years, his credibility is on the line again. The stories from the beginning of Season 2 all came from Tony Ortega. It’s like Leah and Mike used Tony Ortega as the guy who was going to get them the explosive controversies that will get all the viewers, and that plan has failed utterly.

                  Look at the viewers for Season 2

                  And so Tony’s cred is on the line as a journo, but also as a consulting producer for the show. They ran with his cockamamie quote from the back of Dianetics thinking it would produce explosive hysteria and wild interest in the show. It didn’t.

                  It’s also easy to demonstrate that they were lying, or at least misrepresenting what they knew to be the truth about the quote (which is the definition of lying).

                  I’m sure that’s the exact worst case scenario for A&E. To find out that your stars are willing to lie about an organization as litigious as the Church of Scientology. That is not what they would ever want when they picked up this series.

                  Have you noticed that, as an “unbiased journalist working the Scientology beat”, Tony Ortega has not written one critical word about Scientology and the Aftermath? Have you ever seen him review anything without at least one or two critical comments about where they can improve?

                  He’s treating it like it’s his baby.

                  Because it is.

                  But now it’s a little turd baby at this point and he does not know where to put it.

                • Alanzo, how many scientologists did you actually talk to about such topics? Maybe not that specific quote, but about things like sexuality and age?

                  As a scientologist, I would have believed, and told you, that Hubbard was absolutely right about that – the theory says, a young girl shouldn’t react, and so no, she shouldn’t. When it came to passionate kisses or even sex, I would have had to have thought long and hard about issues of age and consent, and while I’m not sure I can say I could reconstruct my perspective from that era with certainly, I might well have given a rather extreme answer on the topic, based on the theory. I don’t remember that specific quote, but I thought a lot about the radical implications of theory like that, and wondered if it was not in fact legitimate to reject traditional societal constructs – weren’t they just implants, thrust upon us to impede our freedom, anyway?

                  Sorry, but you can never say “never” again.

                  I don’t think that any of the old timers who really knew what it was like back in the thick of things in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s are commenting on your blog – I’ve known and talked with some of them, and they have wild stories that shock even me. It seems to me that you may have gotten rather limited exposure to Scientology out in the cornfields. Also, by the time you came along, Scientology was definitely taking a more socially conservative bent.

                  I think if you got honest answers from a bunch of real veterans, I wouldn’t be the only one.

                  I can tell you stories of sex, death and murder in the orgs, if you really want to hear – and my experience was pretty limited, but I was in a couple of hot spots close to the real action of the day. I’m might even be guilty of statutory rape (just “wog” law, of course) myself, for doing something that an active member from a prominent family (1 degree of separation from Source himself, through several people) encouraged me to do with a member of his family (who was a perhaps inappropriately hot-to-trot-thetan-in-a-young-body). I don’t want to get into salicious details, but I guess I should be specific about two things: the family members was his full-blooded daughter, and even now looking back at the law, I’m still not certain whether we were just inside or outside the legal limit given an age difference, so it wasn’t egregious – but it was one of the things that never sat right with me, cause me to start questioning theory, and contributed to an end to my involvement not much later.

                  And yes, I agree that the rhetoric on Aftermath is somewhat heated and sloppy. But that’s the real world – and maybe it’s the best that can be done, or even what’s required, in an imperfect world. I’m not sure it’s really too far from the mark, even if it’s not as precise and scholarly as you might like.

                • I would love to hear those stories of sex, death, and even murder in orgs. It’s one of the reasons I started this blog.

                  When you say that when I was getting in – in the mid 80’s – things were turning more conservative, I recognize what you are saying.

                  Do you remember that scene in “The Master” where everyone except Ron is completely naked singing a sing in that living room? Most people look at that and can not fathom what that scene is doing in that movie.

                  I worked for one of the original founding Scientologists, in from May 1950, for 5 years in the Peoria mission. And he had a very weird kind of open view of sex. And there was another woman I knew in LA who said she heard about wild sex orgy stories from the early 60’s in the Honolulu org.

                  So who knows? I can imagine Scientology being very unconservative.

                  But what does this have to do with this quote?

          • Thanks Marildi,
            That is part of the text I refer to in my reply to statpush above, describing my application of the above in real life to wonderful results!!
            And yes, I agree that RON should not be taken as gospel automatically, ever.
            What is true is true, and what’s not IS NOT! As he himself said clearly..

              • Alanzo,
                Is this a serious question? Don’t you know me, a little, by now?
                Of course this quote’s interpretation as anything pedophilian is total nonesense and an insult to the tiniest level of intelligence. Just a low level demagoguery.
                Marildi explains this well enough, but the fact that this has to be explained at all, to anyone, is due to a severe misunderstanding of the subject by so many people.

                • No, what I meant to ask you is whether you believe this quote was an appropriate example to use as an area to look for engrams in.

                  What is your personal opinion on the use of this by LRH as an example in Dianetics?

                • I need to read the whole page, for a learned opinion. But on its face, it looks like a valid example to ilustrate a point. All the “noise” around this is agenda driven, as you rightly explained.
                  Here’s another example he could have used:
                  “A boy of five, given a hand grenade whose safety catch has been removed should not shudder…unless he has engram/past life experience concerning this. True and simple and demonstrative.
                  But if one is an “Agenda stricken” or a moron, or a demagogue we will get:
                  * The author is a war monger
                  * He hates children and believes they should be exploded…
                  * He an all his readers believe in educating kids with explosives…
                  That’s clear enough. 🙂 🙂 🙂
                  But actually, it is not funny. People are driven by this kind of nonesense to hate, to abuse, to harm others, to make wars and WORLD WARS…
                  Without this kind of demagoguery, which uses people’s ignorance and subconscious fears (or Bank) this world would have been at peace and peosperity long time ago.

                • I understand your point about the “agenda stricken”. Great phrase.

                  But giving an example should illustrate the principle, and not distract from it.

                • Buying the compliment – Englisg not being my 1st lamguage. Thanks!

                  “giving an example should illustrate the principle, and not distract from it.”
                  True enough. Well, for 67 years this example was fine, no ill effects reported by Dianetics users…. 🙂 Even the “Agenda stricken to end all agenta strickens” Tony Ortega, never found anything wrong with it.
                  Until somebody decided to outagenda Tony… 🙂

                • Talking about Dianetics, here’s an amazing true story which demonstrates what is the subject (part 1) and what happened with it. (part 2). All witnessed first hand by me.
                  Part 1
                  When I was quite new in scient (a few months) I did a short Dianetics course with my girlfriend at the time. She knew nothing about the subject, just came to try.
                  After a short basic course, we did a first Dianetics session, me being the auditor first. Most incredible session imaginable, we were lucky.
                  It went so really well and by the book we found ourselves unintentionally handling past lives incidents. Very heavy ones. Yes, Engrams run and resolved as explained in the text.
                  To cut a long story short, at the session end she was happier than I ever saw her, felt an enormous burden lifting off her shoulders, one that was bugging her entire life and she felt that her entire existence has changed. I wouldn’t have believed it if it didn’t all happen in front of my eyes..!

                  Part 2 –
                  Right after the session, my girlfriend, feeling on cloud 9, was heading home, and I stayed a while there to do something upstairs in the building.
                  But on her way out, the Reg intercepted her, then into his office, and seeing how wonderful she felt after session, tried mercilessly to sell her the whole f—-ing bridge!! With much duress and force, all “based on her win”! By the time she got home, she was a mess, crying and crying, never wishing to step into an org ever again! When I (still in the org that evening) heard about this and confronted the Reg angrily, he calmly said: “it’s just BPC (by-passed charge), you’re an auditor, handle it!!
                  You see, instead of saying: “sorry, what an asshole I’ve been, ruining somebody’s great win, driving them away from further wins” he used the materials he read moronically to justify his acts.
                  A true story from many years ago. I know of many similar stories.
                  What is the meaning of all this, regarding the tech, Ron, the Orgs?
                  Marildi, over to you… 🙂

                • “Marildi, over to you…”

                  I can only concur: ”..he used the materials he read moronically to justify his acts.” 🙂

      • Marildi, the fundamental problem that I think you miss there, is that Scientology is based on egoism, and utilitarianism – the philosophy that the end justifies the means. If you look to the work of Hubbard’s self-proclaimed “very good friend” Aleister Crowley, you will see these in a rawer and more unvarnished form, but the same basic precepts are still at work.

        You, like many, may have had a more humanitarian take on what you thought Scientology should be about, but that’s essentially something different, of your own creation – and probably a large part of why you are no longer a part of Hubbard’s orthodox Scientology organization.

        If you were to take the utilitarianism out of “the subject” of Scientology, you’d essentially have to reduce it down to everything that had been proven properly proven through research and scientific method (what Hubbard falsely claimed, in an exercise of end-justifies-the-means utilitarianism) – which would leave nothing. I would be genuinely interested to see what you and like minded people came up with, if you were willing to honestly go back and start with your first principles, followed by the application of proper method, rather than imagining something can be salvaged from a thoroughly corrupt subject that you are overinvested in.

        It’s actually the intended result, that Scientology “makes good people do bad things” – it’s the return to that “law of the jungle” as Crowley put it and Hubbard echoed in slightly different terms several times, where conventional ethics and morality are abandoned as artificial impediments, and “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” It’s what is seen most obviously in Hubbard’s notorious works such as The Responsibilities of Leaders (Bolivar, “pink legs”), extermination of the beggars, the Affirmations circa 1947, etc.

        p.s. I think that Rathbun outlines it pretty well in a piece in which he writes “The philosophy includes as a senior element, an utilitarian ethics system.”

        • PeaceMaker: “Marildi, the fundamental problem that I think you miss there, is that Scientology is based on egoism, and utilitarianism – the philosophy that the end justifies the means.”

          Sorry but you’ve just demonstrated my point about the subject of Scientology being misunderstood, and how the misunderstandings get forwarded and become group think. This occurs not only in the church but outside of it, in the exact same way – and the misunderstandings then become part of the anti-Scn narrative. Every argument in your post has been repeated over and over, even the ones that have been clearly debunked.

          For example, utilitarianism is not “the philosophy that the end justifies the means,” as you stated. It basically concerns the greatest good for the majority, although exactly what that means varies somewhat among philosophers. With Scientology (the subject of) it specifically means the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics – but that is not what the CoS practices. Their concern is with the greatest good for the CoS. I actually made this point already, in a comment on this very thread.

          Apparently, you’ve also misunderstood the post of Marty’s that you linked. In the excerpt I’ve quoted below, he is saying the same thing I wrote in my other comment. He clearly states that utilitarianism in the church has been “corrupted,” and in the sentence I’ve put in caps he even has the word ‘utilitarian’ in quotes:

          “The utilitarianism of the ethics system is only apparent. Its representation that it is based upon infinity-logic is false in practice. IT IS CORRUPTED BY CREATING A CENTRAL ‘UTILITARIAN’ EQUATION THAT ALWAYS HAS WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GROUP (THE SCIENTOLOGISTS) WEIGHING SENIOR TO ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND THUS IS ALWAYS CONSIDERED WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL. That fact makes the system, in fact and in practice, a two-value logic system. What redounds to the benefit of the group is good; what does not benefit the group is evil.”

          Before LRH started contradicting himself, he wrote that no dynamic is more important than the others.

            • When was Hubbard not contradicting himself? Really, when was this supposed ideal time period?

              Even his first work on the subject, Dianetics, in 1950, is full of contradictions, false claims, deliberate mis-statements of fact, and outright lies. His personal behavior in 1950 and 1951 towards everyone including his wife and child, and (soon to be ex) business partners and collaborators, was reprehensible if not psychotic, and in complete contradiction the sort of claims he was making about improved mental health and the elimination of aberrative behavior.

              Hubbard’s early works on Scientology, such as A History of Man, are similarly flawed pieces full of misinformation and falsehoods – and contradict Dianetics. And during the period of their writing, Hubbard was continuing his pattern of troubling and contradictory behavior, including acquiring his fake Ph.D. and misrepresenting himself as “Doctor.”

              p.s. Alonzo, I’m not sure why you picked that quote, so my questions are not necessarily directed at you. I will more specifically answer marildi later, though it would be interesting to have an answer on these basic points from which to start.

              • PM: “When was Hubbard not contradicting himself? Really, when was this supposed ideal time period? Even his first work on the subject, Dianetics, in 1950, is full of contradictions, false claims, deliberate mis-statements of fact, and outright lies. His personal behavior…”

                I was talking about his contradictions on the subject of ethics – not every subject he ever wrote about since the beginning. You then stretched it even further to including his false claims, misstatements, lies and even “personal behavior”!

                On top of it, you listed out a whole series of nothing but generalities – as you often do, sorry to say – without a single specific or reference. It comes across as “throwing everything against the wall hoping something will stick.”

                Either that or you’re committing the logical fallacy of Argument By Fast Talking: “[If] you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won’t have time to think.” http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fast

                Another possibility is that you’re simply using a blog exchange as a means to forward anti-Scn propaganda – which, to be blunt, is the impression I often get from your posts: they seem like propaganda.

                Be that as it may, if you want to discuss something with me, please stick to a single topic at a time – and even then, try not to throw too many points out there all at once. That way I’ll feel that you’re sincerely interested in a discussion, and it won’t require a lot of tedious effort on my part to speak to all your claims.

                • marildi, you didn’t specifically mention ethics, so it wasn’t obvious to me that your comment was limited to that area.

                  I sometimes make broad points, because to get down to specific examples and references, would make comments inordinately long. If it serves to drill down to the details, that can be done.

                  So, at what point in time or in what initial works, do you think Hubbard was not contradicting himself on the subject of ethics?

                  And (separate question), at the time that you think his work wasn’t self-contradictory, was his behavior in accord with, or contradicting, what he was speaking or publishing?

                • PM, thanks for keeping your post to manageable limits for discussion.

                  You wrote: “So, at what point in time or in what initial works, do you think Hubbard was not contradicting himself on the subject of ethics?”

                  I had in mind early references like the following from Scientology 8-8008 (1952):

                  “An optimum solution to any problem would be that solution which brought the greatest benefits to the greatest number of dynamics. The poorest solution would be that solution which brought the fewest benefits to the least number of dynamics….[R]ight action would depend upon its assisting the survival of the dynamics immediately concerned; a wrong action would impede the survival of the dynamics concerned.”

                  Note especially that an optimum solution for right action was based on the dynamics “immediately concerned.” I don’t think this datum is well known by Scientologists, since in PRACTICE it isn’t followed. But when I tried to find a reference that specfically violates the above quote, I couldn’t find one.

                  In practice, the ethics principle of optimum solution is violated (or is attempted to be) in all cases where members are pressured to put Scientology above all other dynamics, primarily with regard to how they spend their time and money – involving major decisions that affect all their dynamics.

                  Your also asked this: “And (separate question), at the time that you think his work wasn’t self-contradictory, was his behavior in accord with, or contradicting, what he was speaking or publishing?”

                  That is irrelevant in relation to the value of the tech. Hubbard may very well have considered himself “above the law” (or impervious to it) as regards the ethics principles he claimed were at work for others. The argument of the anti’s to point to Hubbards’s own ethics violations is one that seems to me to be a last-ditch effort to get people to reject Scientology – on the basis of an Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy.

                  Do you have any argument to make that isn’t included in the anti-Scn narrative. 😉

        • Regarding the assertion you made here:

          “You, like many, may have had a more humanitarian take on what you thought Scientology should be about, but that’s essentially something different, of your own creation – and probably a large part of why you are no longer a part of Hubbard’s orthodox Scientology organization.”

          It isn’t really your place to tell me what *I* thought Scientology “should” be about or what was my “creation.” But this too is part of the narrative – to convince former members that anything and everything they found positive was actually not the case – or if it was, the credit lies somewhere else.

          On this point of the positive, I’ll quote Marty again, from that same post:

          “The net result of Hubbard’s system was that he could create adherents who were given a taste of infinity-logic, non-dual reality, but were prohibited by his GROUP [my caps] ‘philosophy’ and ‘ethics’ from exercising or sustaining such reality. The former serves as the glue that holds adherents to the latter. The adherents could appreciate the possibility of intuition. However, in practice only Ron Hubbard could exercise it consistently.”

          In my own words, the subject of Scientology does indeed have the potential of creating spiritual freedom. What got in the way was the third dynamic tech that altered its practice by altering its ethics.

          • Very funny, marildi.

            You’re pushing, with great certainty and an apparent effort to convince, a “narrative” about Hubbard, his “work” and Scientology, that only a tiny handful of people thinks makes any real sense.

            I’m asking some of the sort of hard questions that any real scientific inquiry into the subject would pursue, about whether observed or experienced phenomenon can be verified, and properly attributed to an actual source or cause.

            I’ll get back to the subject of Hubbard’s particular, peculiar utilitarianism (more specifically, down the branch of consequentialism) a bit later.

            • PM: “You’re pushing, with great certainty and an apparent effort to convince, a ‘narrative’ about Hubbard, his ‘work’ and Scientology, that only a tiny handful of people thinks makes any real sense. I’m asking some of the sort of hard questions that any real scientific inquiry into the subject would pursue, about whether observed or experienced phenomenon can be verified, and properly attributed to an actual source or cause.”

              The posing of questions is only the beginning of a scientific inquiry. Along with that, a lot of data has to be systematically collected and scientifically analyzed – none of which is going to happen in a blog discussion. You obviously know this – and that is why your rhetoric appears to be sheer propaganda. Not only that but, from what I’ve observed from you posts, it’s the same propaganda as that of the anti-Scn community, and you are dutifully repeating and forwarding it.

              Seems to me that you are the one who is “pushing, with great certainty and an apparent effort to convince.”

    • I should add that it isn’t just the zealous mindset (their own or that of others, especially staff members who they allow to influence them) that leads Scientologists to act on bad ideas which they probably wouldn’t otherwise do – it’s also a matter of their own misunderstandings in the basic subject as well as going along with group think.

      But think about it: what better way to learn what it means to think for yourself and be your own orientation point* and to develop intellectual honesty – than to have the personal experience of what can occur when you don’t. I don’t think there is a better way – in fact, there may be no other way for many people to learn this. What a blessing in disguise the Scientology experience has been for some of us.

      (*orientation point: “The goal of Scientology is that the thetan be his own principal orientation point, and that he have the ability to use or discard any other point of reference.” –Creation of Human Ability)

        • This goes back to ancient teachings – that bad experiences are blessings, there for us to learn from.

          I get the idea that some ex-Scientologists have learned a lot from their experience but don’t even realize it! Instead, they’re doing the same thing all over again in the anti-Scn cult. Apparently, they need another lesson or two. 😉

            • Good point, Gib. I just think that the lesson isn’t always learned through study. But there should definitely be education about cults.

              I would say Mike and Leah had this opportunity, and it would have been a huge contribution to society – but I think they are making some mistakes in how they’re going about it. They could still learn from their mistakes, though…

      • Good point, I agree. One cannot assume they have a real understanding of the subject matter.

        Also realised that there was always someone on staff who would “turn it up to 11”, on just about any aspect of Scn. Really pushing it far beyond the context of the written word.

        If LRH said to “find the person’s too gruesome”, there was always some sadistic MFer who pushed the envelope.

        It was easy, and often times expected, to be somewhat fanatical about Scn and Clearing the Planet. Fixed dedicated glare. Ruthlessness. Unreasonable. Hubbard certainly fostered this type of extremism.

        Combine this with the dog-eat-dog, snitching culture and you have a right royal mess. I believe this is the insanity people talk about in the Sea Org. At least, this was my observations and experience.

        • “Hubbard certainly fostered this type of extremism.”

          I have to agree with that. The man was aberrated – and like everything else he did, including the breakthroughs, he did it up big. “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.”

    • wait a minute here statpush, your first two line says:

      “What Mike and Leah are doing is totally unnecessary. The truth is: practicing Scn DOES change your viewpoint on children and family; and often not in a good way.”

      Maybe you meant to say “totally necessary” since Mike and Leah are exposing how practicing Scn does change your viewpoint on children and family, and often not in a good way.

      • No, you read it right. Leah planted the pedo seed before the season started. And it is repeated in the introduction of each episode. This is not a true datum.

        It is ridiculous to consider a pedo would justify their actions by using this quote. A pedo would remain in the shadows, fearing the e-meter.

        I do not doubt the validity of their guests. I question the editing and composition. The authenticity of the guests legitimises their agenda.

        It is dishonest. And it doesn’t need to be.

        • SP wrote:

          It is dishonest. And it doesn’t need to be.

          Maybe it does.

          Maybe they have nothing.

          Remember the null hypothesis: Maybe the Church of Scientology does not operate outside the law, and there is absolutely nothing they can report that will bring about the federal investigation and they know it. And so this is why they are going with all this innuendo, and all this guilt by association, and all these decades old stories of abandonment and abuse.

          They’re all heartbreaking. But they’re nothing that will produce the federal investigation, or the viewers that they need.

          Maybe they are going with these stories because that’s all they’ve got.

          • The point they hammer on about is that this is policy and can never be changed. Which is not entirely true. The church has changed massively over my 30 years.

            And it appears there is no more:

            Forced abortions
            Cadet Orgs

            Even the prices for services has gone down.

            Those are some pretty big changes. But, we don’t talk about that.

    • Very interesting, statpush. Allow me to present another view point:
      I used “Ron’s ideas on children” (as stated in the introduction to “Child Dianetics”) many years ago as a project on quite a difficult child. To fantastic results!
      And that based now on a 10-15 years time span observation.
      And of course I took the child to a doctor when feeling physically bad.
      (Ron says that is the 1st thing to do, always!). And I did treat the child as an adult, IN MANY RESPECTS. Why so many people see this as an abuse???
      May be because they don’t respect adults enough… 🙂 I mean, you should treat adults with: respect, love, compassion, empathy, help, endless caring, seeing their needs and being there for them. Being HONEST with them, not cheating them (easier to cheat kids, but important not to), and giving them freedom and self determinism and full appreciation. So all these weird abuses of enslaving kids, forcing them (to join SO or any other forcing), neglecting them.. ad infinitum, where do they come from? Is there elsewhere RON says the opposite of all this? I don’t think so. But if he does, then the hell with it, into the rubbish bin!

      Ah yes, I would ask/suggest to the child to learn and embrace these principles, explaining why. But when he didn’t, then he didn’t, I respected that too, AS I WOULD RESPECT AN ADULT when not taking my ideas as gospel. When not forced or abused, most kids will adopt good advice eventually.
      In other words PATIENCE is part of the deal with kids and RON emphasized this especially.
      Exactly as we should act with adults…
      So, interpretation and arbitraries can be regarded as a key point in this and in many other aspects.

      • I have and do treat my kids as adults. They are entitled to their viewpoint and opinions, they have their own space and privacy. I don’t have a problem with that.

        I think what Leah does, is position that idea with ideas of slavery or human trafficking, making kids dig a ditch, and so on.

        She’s taking a benign concept, and claiming it is the philosophic foundation of a hopelessly abusive cult.

        Don’t forget, Scn does not age discriminate. They treat adults just as shitty.

  2. Based on the widely divergent positions regarding Scientology, and the challenging that occurs without attack, this is becoming a very interesting place! Wonder how long it will last.

  3. The description of the current “pounding” of Aaron Levin Smith is pretty interesting. Based on my own observations I agree with your observation that people are increasingly expected to fall in line with an ideology.
    Unfortunately, they are taking a “support the greater good” approach, where dissent is seen as attack.
    Then, of course, there are those who just pile on with their “friends” supporting them right or wrong.
    On the other hand, has this ever really been different? Churches are ideologies, anti churches are ideologies.
    The places that I have come closest to the kind of non-ideological thinking that you are searching for has been in Unitarian churches, Liberal Synagogues, and Athiest Societies. The 54th street Y in New York City might interest you.

  4. Alanzo,
    Your quest for truth, OBJECTIVITY and INTEGRITY is totally admirable. This quest and the state of operating is not an easy one to attain.
    It is actually THE ESSENCE OF SPIRITUAL quest, work and development, IMHO. Isn’t that the quest which brought you (and most of us) to scientology in the 1st place?
    In all my spiritual work this life, these elements, when approached are most gratifying and ascending.
    To be able to observe what one truly observes, without any bias or stimulus response machines intervening. This is individuality sanely opposing tribe think.

    Here’s some personal examples concerning our subject:
    If LRH constructs something which is beneficial, then that is what it is, anytime. And if Ron says something that is wrong or damaging, then that is what it is, period. And if then he says something which is incredible and effective, it is that…and so on.
    If Marty Rathbun, says for months incredible words of truth and wisdom, which helped and assisted me out of doom’s gates then that’s what they are.
    But if a month later Marty says things which I observe to be lies and untruth, then that’s what they are too! Because that is my honest observation.
    And even more important, I WILL NOT FORGET that not long ago he was as true as the gospel. I can and will hold these 2 observations in place!
    And it is the same with Mike Rinder, Lea, you, Lao Tzu, and even the inimitable Marildi (meant as a compliment for her high reasoning abilities)
    In other words it means: To be NOW, and to be ONESELF. Or in Ron’s world, to be KEYD OUT and in PT. (present time).
    This is what you ask Mike and Lea and anybody else to be. High expectation. I myself experience many times being like that. But still far far away from stable with it.
    But stable enough to say a few weird things which are my PT integral observations”
    1. The auditing tech as designed by LRH, WITH THE auditor discipline needed to practice it are priceless and gave me true glimpses into myself and life.
    2. The Ethics Conditions and Formulas as written by LRH INCLUDING the repair action (RPEC), all done INTELLIGENTLY gave me incredible life presents, got me out of huge dark holes, changed the course of my history for the better, and most objectively gave me my beautiful business, which gets so much acknowledgement in my country and elsewhere.
    3. RON’s later ethics ideas, and some policies and attitudes, lead to much suffering for me and others, almost to the extent of nullifying the above. But not quite.

    As can be seen, I will not change my mind about Ron’s great work, because he pissed me off too or made mistakes as well. Why should I?
    I’d rather acknowledge great work where I spot one and mercilessly spot and recognize mistakes when I find them too. REGARDLESS of who wrote them!!!
    And I will not change my mind about Marty’s great work and huge help to me and others. Nor will I change my mind about the untruth and sad stuff he does now.
    And the same goes with Mike…
    Having said all these pearls of wisdom…  one little problem remains, and here to stay:
    Most everybody’s dead sure that’s exactly what they are doing: honest, true, just and holier than anybody else.,, 
    That is exactly where true spiritual practice, of any kind or discipline, INCLUDING properly done AUDITING and SOLO AUDITING, can transcend and make a change, to cause a unique and unimaginable moment where a person discovers for himself, by himself, how wrong he is or was and changes then and there for the better.
    I repeat: any spiritual or mental practice which can achieve this ‘not easy’ task is a great gift!

  5. A very brief essay: Why Tony Ortega Doesn’t Care What You Think

    Tony Ortega makes a living doing what he loves, writing/blogging.
    Tony Ortega has a fan club numbered in the thousands (tens of?), and is accredited as an expert on the subject of Scientology.
    Tony Ortega clearly enjoys the above.
    Alanzo is a pseudonymous blogger who doesn’t even have ONE “Bunkeroo” equivalent who pays him money.
    Therefore, Tony Ortega is doing it right. His stats are in AFFLUENCE.
    As we all know, if you’re in AFFLUENCE you can literally commit murder.
    It doesn’t matter if Tony is pushing a tendentious narrative designed to start a moral panic, or smearing a man who helped him get where he is (M. Rathbun). This is how SUCCESS is measured in Western society – and in Scientology, a fortiori.
    A liar is someone who tells falsehoods. A bullshitter is someone who doesn’t care whether what they’re saying is true or false as long as it gets results.
    LRH was, in my humble never-in opinion, a bullshitter. Those who set out to destroy someone generally have a LOT IN COMMON with that person.

    • Definition of a fortiori

      :with greater reason or more convincing force —used in drawing a conclusion that is inferred to be even more certain than another the man of prejudice is, a fortiori, a man of limited mental vision

      First Known Use: 1561


  6. “He reached the state of “Clear” and was on staff as an Executive Director and Course Supervisor in Scientology missions in the Midwest and Los Angeles.”


    If you think like a Scio you see it like a scio. If you think like a Wog you see it like a Wog. Get the fuck out of the loop people!

    Leah and the show is designed to Max. the Audience! Why? A&E has a budget and Leah has a crusade. Leah has a platform to give Voice to the Victims. Numbers are counting here. Deal with it.

    Scientology is using every trick in the book to Attack and never defend… I am too. I was trained to do this by the Master. Make no mistake!

    Let me quote Leah here: “When Scientology stop fu*cking with peoples life, I’ll stop too!” I guess it goes for all Scientologists – Stop fucking with peoples life! Not really her to defend Leah.

    This constantly nagging about Tony Ortega is an embarrassment. It’s not even valid and comes over as teen thing. He is what he is and he has created his own platform where people can get a Voice.

    You are on a mission to shut up those people Allen! Not going to happen.

    If you will defend peoples right to believe that a scam is now a religion, you are advocating that scammer’s are entitled to sell a fake iPhone and call it a Religion! Not going to happen.

    This sucking up to Marty Rathbun, is by all means a mistake. He needs his time! Don’t be stupid.

    Defending ex-scientologist because you portray them as victims is a total falsehood. They don’t agree with you. Trust me!

    If you want to provide a space for people who expose Space Aliens and the Matrix.. Be that Guy!
    I do have to say, do not provoke the masses with your lame anti anti crusade.

    IndieOSA trying impose Ethics on ASC is by far hilarious. Mark my words!

    • “He reached the state of “Clear” and was on staff as an Executive Director and Course Supervisor in Scientology missions in the Midwest and Los Angeles.”


      If you think like a Scio you see it like a scio. If you think like a Wog you see it like a Wog. Get the fuck out of the loop people!

      And it appears that the militant anti-Scientology contingent has arrived, enforcing the party line and trying to enforce how you should see Scientology and yourself as an Ex.

      Welcome to AlanzosBlog, “Cube”.

      • This exchange between Cube and Alanzo really points up the fundamental disconnect that makes it so hard to have discussions on any blog.
        Is Scientology a “minority religion”?= Alanzo
        Is Scientology a scam purporting to be a religion?= Cube
        From my perspective neither are true. I would place Scientology with the psychological interventions (ironically).

        • Eileen wrote:

          I would place Scientology with the psychological interventions (ironically).

          Oooo! Irony! I love irony!

          What’s “psychological interventions”???

          • Psychological intervention (to me) are techniques that try to modify the “mind” or the emotions or mood through a structured set of exercises. Might be talk therapy, or cognitive/behavioral therapy, or Scientology.
            These can be compared to neurological interventions that intervene in structure or processing. Might be medications or ECT or EMDR.
            I think Scientology squarely fits more in the psych field than in the religious field. The ironical part is the deliberate distance Scientology tries to set from what it clearly is.

        • It’s both Eileen, that is a minority religion and a scam, a hoax in the end since no clears or OT’s and Hubbard even admitted he failed.

          Hubbard wrote a letter to his Dean Wilbur in which he stated something like “you are right, it’s a rhetoric world”.

          In a policy letter Hubbard wrote “It’s a PR World”. Hubbard also loved a book by Al Ries and Jack Trout called ” Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”

          There’s also another book called Battle for the mind, a physiology of conversion and brainwashing by Sargant.

          • Interesting, but there is no physiology of conversion or brainwashing. If we could identify physiological indicators of conversion or brainwashing it would certainly make our discussions a lot easier!

                • I am using the word “real” to describe factual things, rather than beliefs, constructs or ideas.

                  Engrams are ideas, mental constructions. They’re not facts. Facts are real things like rocks and cornfields that can be pointed to which exist in the physical universe.

                  Engrams and brainwashing are beliefs about the world. They do not exist in the world itself.

                • “Engrams are ideas, mental constructions. They are not a fact.”

                  The same could be said about regular memories. Are they not facts either?

                • That’s a good point, memories are also constructs, and in that sense are not “real.” Memories are based upon factual events, but are not themselves facts.

                • No. And this is not trying to “put down” memories by reducing their social status or something.

                  They simply do not fit into the bin of “facts” of you are to think rationally about the world.

                  Rocks are not dogs, either, and that is no slight on dogs – or rocks.

                • “think rationally”

                  I don’t know of a definition of “fact” that means physical existence. But per your concept of it (or a materialistic world view?), wouldn’t thinking also not be a fact? Rational or otherwise.

                • but they do exist as real, that is engrams as some folks believe they are real, how did that come about?

                  One of the richest man in the world, Bob Duggan, believes they are real.

                • Gib, engrams so have physical reality – as electrical charge. The charge has been demonstrated many times over with an e-meter.

                • There are no studies of what the e-meter is registering. There is something that occurs, but no evidence of what it means (if anything).
                  This is the point where Scientology is no longer science.

                • The first person to use an emeter was Carl Jung. You can see his version of it dramatized in the movie “A Dangerous Method” starring Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortenson, two of my favorite actors playing Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud.

                  I really wish that Hubbard would have advanced the science on the emeter because what I saw that thing do has never been properly explained. I would say that anyone who has used them in a real session, or even done the “Dating Drill” or the “consider the events of the day” drill would agree with me.

                  There is the phenomenon, and then there is the explanation for the phenomenon. These two are very different things. The various explanations from critics of Scn such as “sweating and unsweating” just doesn’t cut it.

                  I really wish someone would come up with a scientifically verifiable explanation for the phenomena observed on an emeter.

                  Hubbard, very unfortunately, never did that. He, like Freud and Jung, never developed their psychological approaches up out of an ideological belief system.

                  Here’s the official trailer of the movie featuring Jung’s emeter.


                • Eileen: “There is something that occurs, but no evidence of what it means (if anything).”

                  What can’t be disputed is that the e-meter registers instantly on a particular thought – when spoken by the auditor or the pc, or when the pc simply has the thought – and will instantly register again and again on that same thought. That is, until the emotional charge on the incident relating to the thought has been audited out, at which point it will not register again.

                  What other evidence would a scientist need to be able to draw the obvious conclusions?

                • Alanzo, it has been replicated countless times over a period of decades. Being a believer has nothing to do with it.

                  For example, I remember my “raw” pc – i.e. completely new to auditing – when I was on the NED (New Era Dianetics) course. She had no data whatsoever about the e-meter, reads, etc. Yet the instant reads occurred and she ran out the charge to her self-stated relief.

                  Yes, it’s true that this hasn’t been done in a scientific setting by “someone else,” but based on the data we do have, I can’t see any reason to doubt the implications.

                  Minimally, I would expect that you as an experienced Scientologist would concede that if the data about reads is accurate – and I assume you are experienced enough to know that it is – it only needs scientific corroboration, rather than “proof” of its validity.

                • As I said, the observable phenomena are one thing. I have observed the same thing you have.

                  But the explanations for those observed phenomena are quite another.

                  Those “Your Deceptive Mind” course lectures really raise a person’s scientific literacy. They explain exactly why it is essential that we should not believe that this has been scientifically verified, corroborated, or anything else.

                  We saw something. That’s all we know at this point.

                  And I’m using the word “know” in the epistemological sense, of course.


                • I skimmed over that Wiki article on epistemology and liked the way it ends:

                  “[William] James discarded conventional philosophical views of truth and defined truth to be based on how well a concept works in a specific context rather than objective rational criteria.”

                  That aligns perfectly with the scientific principle that a theory is as good as it explains the known data – and this is exactly what the theory of engrams does.

                  You do realize that most scientific theories have not (at least not yet) observed the “facts” (the actuality) of what they theorize as being the basis for observations. Nevertheless, since the theories do explain the known data, they are accepted as “truth” – and will continue to do so right up until data is observed that contradicts it.

                  Do you know of data that contradicts engram theory? I don’t.

                • As far as I know, engrams have not been studied. It is not enough to ask whether something has negative research, you have to ask has it shown benefit (efficacy and safety).
                  Closest approximation to engrams might be some Freudian concepts and some 60s concepts like “rebirthing.” Both are pretty much discarded, or moved to the fringe. They didn’t stand up (in terms of benefit to clients) when compared to cognitive and neurological models.

                • On the subject of epistemology, here are some LRH quotes I dug up:

                  “Epistemology has long been the senior study of philosophy; Scientology is itself the science of knowing how to know.” (Scn 8-8008)

                  “In 1938 I codified certain axioms and phenomena into what I called “Scientology”. Scientology is the science of knowledge or the codification of epistemology. Dianetics was evolved from these.” (6 February 1952, Wichita, Kansas [from the introduction to Tech Vol 1950-53])

                  “Dianetics is basically epistemology, the study of knowledge. Man’s behavior is based on knowledge, or lack of it. The very act of trying to study without knowing what knowledge is is nonsense. We study the human mind because the mind is a computer for knowledge. A clarity of vision, an ability to absorb, recall and compute with data is absolutely necessary before the individual can adequately handle knowledge. Without these abilities, he is powerless against his environment. In order to assure this ability to use knowledge in the race of man, the computers of individual men must be brought up to a high level of efficiency. The aberrated mind is a problem of Dianetics because it is an imperfect computer. How can men learn what knowledge is when they are violating the basic principles of data?” (DAB, September 1951)

                • That last quote is completely laughable, Marildi.

                  Dianetics is absolutely not epistemology. At all.

                  And this “The aberrated mind is a problem of Dianetics because it is an imperfect computer. How can men learn what knowledge is when they are violating the basic principles of data?”.

                  The aberrated mind is not an “imperfect computer”. That grade school analogy only goes so far. And using that analogy to do your thinking for you completely bars understanding the discoveries of neuroscience. Neuroscience has developed since Hubbard wrote this. And that subject has taken the science of the mind up out of ideology, as people like Freud and Hubbard had to deal with it, and made it into an actual science on the level of geology.

                  As geologists study rocks, neuroscientists can now study brains, spinal cords and ganglia. Metaphors are needed much less now. It could probably be said that ideologies and metaphors for the mind were necessary in Freud and Hubbard’s days. But you always want to work toward a time when metaphors and analogies should not be used as the end-all of knowing shit about the mind.

                  And what I just said there is a use of epistemology, showing how Hubbard was violating epistemology with this ridiculous quote of his.

                  Please do that “Your Deceptive Mind” course, Marildi.


                  I have watched lectures by Sheldrake and I am very familiar with his VERY IMPORTANT criticisms of science. LET ME REPEAT. SHELDRAKE’S CRITICISMS OF SCIENCE ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

                  But, his criticisms of science are not a substitute for being scientifically literate. And I have to go ahead and tell you Marildi, using the relevant portions of the Supervisor’s Code, that your comments here today show that you are horrifyingly illiterate in science.

                  That’s okay. Most of the population is.

                  But for a person who latches on to important critics of science like Sheldrake, it is outrageous and inconceivable that you would skip being literate in the area first. It drips of confirmation bias. And you need to handle that.

                  Your pink sheet is that “Your Deceptive Mind” course – at your own expense.




                  ADDENDUM TO THE PINK SHEET: I should tell you that the major stable win I had in doing that course was to learn the LIMITS OF SCIENCE. It was very clear to see that one of the mistakes of people who try to substitute science for religion in their lives was to make science do things that it can not do. I saw, very clearly, that science and religion are not at odds. And anyone who thinks they are at odds, or that one can take over for the other, does not understand the limits of science and are, therefore, to that degree, scientifically illiterate themselves. Which, again is a LOT of people!

                  So, when will you be turning in your first essays on that course?

                • I have to say that here at the Alanzo State Department, we are considering suspending your diplomatic attache to criticize science pending proof of your completion of that course.

                • Alanzo: “That last quote is completely laughable, Marildi. Dianetics is absolutely not epistemology….Hubbard was violating epistemology with this ridiculous quote of his.”

                  He said Dianetics was “basically” epistemology – and what he meant by “basically” was explained in the previous quote, which said “Scientology is the science of knowledge or the codification of epistemology. Dianetics was evolved from these.”

                  See? It’s “basically” epistemology – i.e. evolved from it. And assuming for the moment that his description of the reactive mind was correct, Dianetics would have everything to do with knowing and not knowing.

                  In other words, the subject of knowing is fundamental to Dianetics simply because, other than missing data, knowing is only hampered by arbitrary data – and critical thinking fits right into that concept. What, after all, is logical fallacy but arbitrary data?

                  “The aberrated mind is not an ‘imperfect computer’…. As geologists study rocks, neuroscientists can now study brains, spinal cords and ganglia.”

                  You might be surprised to know that that there are ongoing scientific studies on cellular memory – which is what Hubbard was talking about in describing an engram. He said an engram is “a cellular trace of recordings impinged deeply into the very structure of the body itself.”

                  Most of the articles I took a look at were too scholarly, but here’s an excerpt from one titled “Is the brain the only place that stores our memories?” which gives a basic idea of current research:

                  “In 2009 Harvard Medical School defined cellular memories as ‘a sustained cellular response to a transient stimulus.’ Basically, when a cell is introduced to a specific stimulus it will react in a certain way and every time it is given this stimulus it will have the same response.

                  “The best way to understand cellular memories is studying cases of organ transplants. One of the more famous cases includes a woman named Claire Sylvia. In the 70s this woman received a heart and lung transplant from an 18-year- old boy who died in a motorcycle accident. After her surgery Sylvia had cravings she never had before like beer and burgers. After some time, she contacted the family of her donor and was in shock that he enjoyed the same foods (She wrote a book on her experience!- link below). […]

                  “…A lot of research is being done today not only with interaction of the brain and the body’s organs but also with quantum physics and how atoms interact. It is still a mystery today but it’s something interesting to keep in the back of your head… or heart.”


                  Based on different articles I’ve read, few scientists now doubt that cellular memories exist, even though what the exact process is hasn’t yet been determined. But research scientists are working on it.

                • Marildi, You pulled that opinion piece (not a research study) out of an undergraduate blog. But you conveniently edited around the most important line.
                  “There are a few different theories on how cellular memories might work but there is no strong scientific evidence on the process of cellular memories.”
                  It is important to consider the source of the opinion, which is someone trying to learn to write, as well as not avoiding this undergrads summary statement.

                • Eileen: “But you conveniently edited around the most important line. ‘There are a few different theories on how cellular memories might work but there is no strong scientific evidence on the process of cellular memories.’”

                  I wasn’t conveniently leaving that out. I stated myself that “the exact process hasn’t yet been determined.”

                  And the writer did give his source: ‘In 2009 Harvard Medical School defined cellular memories as ‘a sustained cellular response to a transient stimulus’ – followed by “Basically, when a cell is introduced to a specific stimulus it will react in a certain way, and every time it is given this stimulus it will have the same response.”

                • HMS only gave the definition, most likely of cardiac muscle cells.
                  The phrase “the exact process has not been determined” is not the same phrase as “there is no scientific evidence on the process”
                  Your wording implies that something exists, where no evidence means no evidence.
                  Plus you are quoting an Undergraduate’s understanding, not a scientific study. He/she may have pieced the whole thing together from disparate sources.

                • What he wrote agreed with the other articles I read over, which I didn’t want to quote because they were very technical.

                  Check it out for yourself. Just Google – cellular memory research.

                  I’m going out now but will check back with you guys later.

                • Oy Veh. I give up.
                  I see no evidence that Marildi can reconsider a position, or evaluate sources for reliability.
                  And not wanting to give a more accurate quote because the other sources were very technical?
                  Marildi, you are no scientist.

                • Well, Eileen, it doesn’t seem that you were wearing your scientist hat very well either. Did you see the link to the Harvard Medical School Journal that the student posted just below his article? I didn’t see it at first either, but we should have known that there would be a reference for his data. Apparently, he’s a student at Boston University and this is their website.

                  Anyway, I skimmed over that paper and, as I found with others, it’s pretty technical. Its focus is on bioengineering by means of producing synthetic memories – which are based on “natural” memory networks. That was the data I was searching for.

                  The paper starts out with this: “The induction of a protracted response to a brief stimulus is a form of cellular memory. Here we describe the role of transcriptional regulation in both natural and synthetic memory networks, and discuss the potential applications of engineered memory networks in medicine and industrial biotechnology.”

                  And it ends with this: “In sum, both nature’s wisdom and previously designed memory modules can provide bioengineering insight to accelerate our progress toward the creation of devices capable of producing cellular memories that can last a lifetime.”

                  The point of interest for me in the above quotes is that it’s “nature’s wisdom” that produces “natural” cellular memory networks. This gives some credence to Hubbard’s notion that an engram is a “memory trace on a cell.”

                • Yes, as I said earlier, this is a BU undergrad site.
                  Don’t cite undergrad blogs as scientific evidence. Go to original sites and read the studies. The role of epigenetics in transferring cellular “memory” across generations of cell lines is being studied in cell lines across generations.
                  What you call “technical” is actually theoretical. Theoretical and interesting but not been to the mouse stages yet. Has nothing to do with Engrams or Freud. It is looking at how some instinctual behaviors might be inherited outside the DNA.

                  My question stands: Do you believe in engrams as a scientific fact? If so, how do you define a fact?
                  Respectfully, Eileen

                • I’m no expert on cellular memory, but I believe that the only real studies underway are on what is called muscle memory. Muscle cells can, under some conditions, twitch or contract even in the absence of an electrical stimulus.
                  Not really the same as an engram.

                • Muscle memory is quite different. It’s essence is repetition. Quoting from Wikipedia:

                  “Muscle memory has been used synonymously with motor learning, which is a form of procedural memory that involves consolidating a specific motor task into memory through repetition.”

                • Yes. I was trying to relate that to your concept of cellular memory and engrams. It was the only link I could think of.
                  Marildi, do you believe that engrams exist? It is fine to believe, but that is more religion and not at all science.
                  I believe in the unconscious. Sort of the same thing, and probably the basis for LRHs engrams.
                  But that is a belief (the unconscious), not a scientific fact.

                • Engrams may or may not be an empirical fact – yet. They are part of Hubbard’s theory of the mind. And as I said in a previous comment, it’s a scientifically good theory because it explains the known data.

                • It would be interesting to design a study in which predictions could be made.
                  Hypothesis: pulse changes, blood pressure changes will be associated with X curve on the e-meter. See if there are reliable and predictable results.
                  Hypothesis: X result on the e-meter Is associated with increased activity in the temporal lobe.

                • Regarding “Scientology” proving its claims with scientific research, it will never happen. Miscavige is spending the money buying real estate. No scientific proof is just part of the anti-scn narrative. There were workable models which produced results for some or a lot of people.

                • A favorite sermon for some anti-scn preachers is “Hubbard said Dianetics was Scientific and it wasn’t!! OMG!” Alanzo was much more diversified in his anti-scn preaching. He even invented a “process” for “How to Stop Thinking With Scientology”! True

                • I think you are on that track. It is so hard to accept that what we believe to be true cannot be proved.
                  I was “trained” n psychoanalysis (which still maintains a foothold in Boston). It was painful to watch new models emerge which could be measured for effect. But facing the science is important.

                • Step One: Identifying the difference between a belief and a fact.
                  Step Two: Willingness to rethink our beliefs based on the emergence of new facts.
                  Step Three: Repeat steps One and Two.

                • I don’t know about you two, Richard and Alanzo, but I can think about both, no problem really, it’s like trying two think with two languages,

                  On one hand, it’s devt to keep repeating myself, no clears or OT’s, on the other hand, I enjoy talking about sources and rhetoric of hubbard.

                  I hope I’m not ARCXing anbody, but if I am causing your Tone ARM to jack up, what can I say, truth is truth. LOL

                  What’s the bypassed charge you might have?

                • It’s your comm dude. Your comm.

                  Your comm is out-reality for the board. You’ve got to grant beingness to your scientology valence. I’m not saying you have BE that valence, just grant it beingness. Just stay up tone on it, and don’t go all antago with it.

                  It’s so theta when you do that.

  7. I have 2 examples of ex-sci people still using their training routines to keep a fence around the protest movement. This is not regarding pedophilia but the use of TR’s to control the direction of a conversation. First, this one surprised me, was on a video posted by Tory Christman (ToryMagoo44) regarding the death of Bob Minton. I asked her if Bob was affiliated to any faith because I wanted to send a thank you to him at his funeral that would be appropriate and would not upset his family or memory, just out of respect. Tory in response just drilled me a new asshole because my question was “none of my business” and her final answer was “end of subject”!

    Secondly I responded to one of Chris Shelton’s videos regarding my distrust of Marty Rathbun’s behavior and just like Tory’s response, “end of subject” and “none of your business”! This was before Marty started posting videos but was definitely attacking Chris on his web site.

    Part of me can understand Marty’s point of view about the cult of the anti-sci movement! I really wanted to respond with a complement about their well executed TR’s but just let it go … I’m now rethinking that decision! Eventually both Tory and Chris were forced to address my questions in later videos. Just as hypocrisy can be learned, it can be unlearned, hopefully! Looking forward to being kicked out of Aaron’s Facebook group! LOL!

  8. I have to say that your comments on Leah Remini are not, from what I perceive as correct. I am not and have never been a Scientologist, so I have a different perspective that many of the readers.

    It is my sense, that what Leah is trying to convey, is an understanding for the general (uneducated in Scientology) public, as to why people are and continue to be Scientologists. It seems to me, that she tries to say that the intention of the general parishioner is that they want(ed) to do good for the planet. That they mean well, that is why they give up so much and continue to do so. Why they disconnect, or why they still believe. I think further information on the religion itself, would be helpful.

    It seems she is empathetic and understanding as to why people did what they did. That they had the best intentions, or they were children, or they wanted to do well. However, a select few, were brutal. There are rapists, pedophiles, abusers and horrible people in all religions. But, showing examples as to how the COS managed some of these situations is abbhorant and needs to be exposed. This is a cult and sometimes the brutality has to be addressed.

    I guess I can’t fully understand as I have never been in a cult, and I don’t agree with bullying on any front. I just couldn’t not comment on Leah being a bully as I really don’t see that at all.

    I think that anyone who has the bravery to come out and speak against them and tell their story is amazing. Everyone who has the strength to get out deserves a ton of credit!!!


Leave a Comment

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