Pounding the Intellectual Honesty Out of Aaron Smith-Levin

Aaron Smith Levin

Aaron Smith-Levin and his Freaking Emmy!

“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 August 9, 2017 The Hollywood Reporter
Leah Remini was a Scientologist for 34 years. She knows that Scientologists do not believe in pedophilia. But she has flipped from fervent Scientologist to fervent Anti-Scientologist, and so 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. It’s the groupthink of Anti-Scientology, and apparently she is very drunk on its kool-aide.

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

“Intellectually honest” 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 & Anti-Scientology watching, you are not allowed be loyal to both.

And so I recorded my thoughts on the treatment I am observing Aaaron Smith-Levin getting from his Anti-Scientologist friends for simply 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 the anti-Scientologista WANT scientologists to be pedophiles so bad that they are pounding anyone who disagrees with this fact into submission. Aaron Smith Levin is receiving that pounding right now.

Here are my thoughts on that.

, , ,

newest oldest
Notify of

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.


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?


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.

Chee Chalker

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.


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.

Chee Chalker

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.


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?


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.


Finally, someone who was there speaking out.


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..


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.


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.


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.” 🙂


I did reply, but it is not here..


it is here again, all is well. Disregard last comment.


Thanks for the context, marildi. It does change the impact of the quote.


Glad you could appreciate the context.


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.”
Scientology In A Nutshell


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. 😉




Hemi, thank you for the nice acks!


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.


Excellent !!!


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)


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.


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.


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.


Good comment, Eileen.


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.


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!


thanks for your success story, only question is are you “clear” or “ot”. And why should I believe you?

Doloras LaPicho

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.


“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!


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!


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!!!

Created by Alanzo