Ron Miscavige Scientology Youtube channel – interview with Tony Ortega
I’ve seen this since Tony arrived on the scene in 2011. There is a strange kind of mandate in any communication that Tony Ortega engages in with any Ex-Scientologist. It’s the mandate that you come to one simplistic and shallow confession which he demands of you: “I was conned by Scientology”
No other explanation, no other in-depth and intimate examination of the complexities of your own life is acceptable. All must throw away any nuance, any real human truth about their own lives and forsake all other conclusions.
It really was a Torquemada moment while watching Tony Ortega ask a question to Ron Miscavige Sr toward the end of an hour long interview when Tony at 48:08 said:
“I enjoy the most about your book is you’re going through the meticulous planning that you and Becky had to do to leave it base. And I love the ruse that you came up with. You said you were sending Becky’s mother birthday gifts and you were gonna send her like 75 gifts for her 75th birthday. And that way, every day, you were able to box up some of your own possessions and mail them to her as if they were birthday presents. Brilliant! I thought that was so wonderful. And I thought that shows what somebody has to go through to escape it base.”
“But the thing that just knocked me out was when you explained that these you know because everything you sent out it was a risk there was a risk of guard might open it up and but you guys you were taking a risk and what was it that you were risking your freedom. for you were mailing to yourself your l ron hubbard books! I couldn’t believe that Ron! Now years later what do you think about that?”
You can see Ron emit an uneasy laugh. Like he is really being put on the spot. And so here’s where Ron Miscavige Sr’s obligatory prostration to Tony Ortega occurs. He says:
“Yeah Excuse me if you’re a little bit nuts and you don’t know you’re a little bit nuts you’re really nuts. But it took me looking in the mirror one day after I spoke to a very good friend of mine, Fernando Gamboa, and he says “Ronny we were conned”
“And in my hallway in my little home in Wisconsin here there’s a full-length Baron mirror on the door to a little closet. I say little because it was built in 1938 and they didn’t have closets big in those days because people didn’t have a big wardrobe, but I looked at myself in that mirror and I said “Ron you were conned” and that’s when the whole bubble burst and those books are down in the basement.”
And now Torquemada Ortega’s work is done. Ron Miscavige’s whole Scientology career is splayed open, and the heretic has broken. No more need to think about any of this. It complies with the conformity of thought and the uniformity of belief all Exes must commit to when they come out of Scientology and kiss the human-skinned ass of Tony Ortega.
And we’re now done with that question.
Next Ex!
What Ex-Scientologists Believe About Their Own Pasts in Scientology is Not Tony Ortega’s Business
The real problem here, which almost every Ex finds after a while, is that the “I was conned” conclusion is too simplistic to explain who you were as a Scientologist to yourself, and to understand your time in Scientology.
Simplistic answers don’t work because they don’t correspond to the complexities of real life. A conclusion such as “I was conned” is so simplistic that it is actually false, and will cause problems for an Ex later on.
Also, it is not an answer. It is simply a supreme self-invalidation.
Ron Miscavige Scientology – if you read this, hear me: You are not done answering this question.
But this is the simplistic limit of Tony Ortega’s comprehension of what it means to have been a Scientologist. And it always will be.
Has any Ex thought to ask “Who is Tony Ortega to be asking people about what religious beliefs they find important in their own lives?”
He is the last person to discuss these things with. As a militant atheist, Ortega has absolutely no respect or even capacity to understand any religious or spiritual pursuit, nor what any person gets out of them. He is especially retarded on the subject of Scientology – which he hates with a spittled passion.
Why this community of Ex-Scientologists has let this kind of abuse happen to the most vulnerable Exes at the most vulnerable times of their lives, after experiencing such a loss of faith, is one of the most obscene things I’ve seen way too much of since 2011.
There is a LOT more to the idea of what you were getting out of Scientology while you were a Scientologist for decades than “I was conned”, Ron.
Every Ex who has to be friends with Tony Ortega MUST prostrate themselves and voice this simplistic and shallow invalidation of their whole lives to him.
Talk about elder abuse.
Why is Ron Miscavige letting Tony Ortega do this to him?
Why are ANY Exes letting Tony Ortega do this to them?
“Talk about elder abuse.”
I can’t believe that the same person who accuses the so called anti-Scientology community of leading exes to catastrophize their involvement in Scientology is catastrophizing a couple minutes of an interview. Holy f***ity f*** f***. [Is it OK to write the F word on Alanzos Blog so long as it’s not used to directly curse a person?]
Sure fuckin is.
If you’re not an Ex, then you might not have gotten the very important point of the post – which no one else is talking about but which needs to be said.
Can you show what that important point was?
The point of your post was that it is too simplistic for exes to tell themselves that they joined and stayed in Scientology only due to being conned. Now, I am willing to agree with you that “I was conned” might not be a statement that can sufficiently explain why every Scientologist/ex joined and stays/stayed, but it could be that for some exes/current Scientologists this is/was their only reason for being in Scientology. Let’s take a look at Aaron Smith-Levin for example. Per his accounts (at least as I remember them) the main and possibly sole motive behind his involvement in Scientology was reaching the state of Full Operating Thetan. Per the premises of Scientology, accomplishing this goal is predicated upon completing the level of OT XV. However, various executives-turned-critics (such as Rathbun, Rinder and De Vocht) attest that during their time in the CoS mamagement they’ve been exposed to evidence indicating that no levels past OT VIII have been written by Hubbard, meaning that he hadn’t mapped the path to Full OT (if such a thing can even actually exist). If the aforementioned premise is correct, I’d say that Aaron has been conned and that’s pretty much explains why he was a Scientologist. I will grant that not all Scientologists and exes are the same so therefore involvement in Scientology might not and is probably not always be explained as having been derived, in part or in whole, due to being conned.
Now please answer this question; don’t you think it’s a bit hysterical to describe these few minutes of interview as “elder abuse”?
This is the kind of over-simplistic analysis that has passed for the conversations regarding past involvement in Scientology. I can counteract your, and Aaron’s, over simplicity by providing another:
The reason anyone joined up and participated in Scientology was because they were getting something out of it. When they were no longer getting something out of it, they left.
That’s all.
No ‘conning’ and no ‘brainwashing’. From the point of view of the Scientologist, and NOT anything that Scientology or L Ron Hubbard did or said – this is the simple truth.
Aaron was never an “OT”. In fact he got very little auditing. He says he hated auditing. But he was on staff, and he even joined the Sea Org. So how was he ever going to reach OT?
See? The over-simplicity overlooks the real, nuanced reality for why any individual ever spent any time in Scientology – especially the decades that Aaron and Ron Sr spent.
The simple, undeniable fact is this: They were getting something out of it.
What that SOMETHING was, which was different for every Scientologist, unlocks the key to a treasure of getting themselves back after Scientology. “I was conned” blocks that treasure.
But it is the only analysis Tony Ortega allows. He is harming lots of Exes by enforcing that pin-headed over-simplicity on them – even making Ron Sr confess to it publicly during his own podcast.
I don’t think you have seen the damage this has caused, because too few Exes are even allowed to see anything else these days. The League of Irrelevant Assholes at ESMB do not allow this kind of discussion any more. And no where else on the Snow Suzy Properties® on the Internet is this kind of discussion allowed.
I say, like Torquemada and his demand that you believe as he demanded, this is abuse. You can see this especially after you’ve been through the process of analyzing the ‘something’ an Ex was getting out of Scientology, and they stop walling it off from themselves.
I’m going to make this point again, because it needs to be repeated in this shallow, hysterical, Dunder-headed Tony Ortega/Leah Remini/Mike Rinder Ex-Scientology world:
THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO TO YOURSELF AS AN EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
“The reason anyone joined up and participated in Scientology was because they were getting something out of it. When they were no longer getting something out of it, they left.”
1) How do you know with such certainty that this is the case for every single Scientologist? It may apply to your experience, but how can you be so sure that this is the case for all former and current Scientologists?
2) Saying that someone was “getting something out of Scientology” doesn’t contradict the idea that he was being conned. A person being conned with the promise of Full OT can still be said to be “getting something” out of Scientology; a false hope of eternal salvation.
3) If we adopt the premise that Hubbard did not write any more auditing levels beyond OT VIII, this would mean that people staying in the church for the sake of reaching Full OT are continuing with Scientology due to a lie. Their initial motives for joining may have been unrelated to the promise of Full OT, but in the present time Full OT is what keeping them in. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that these people are being conned?
“Aaron was never an “OT”. In fact he got very little auditing. He says he hated auditing. But he was on staff, and he even joined the Sea Org. So how was he ever going to reach OT?”
I didn’t say Aaron was an OT, I said that he wanted to reach the promised state of Full OT. I do recall him saying that he hated auditing but that he went through it regardless because that’s the only way go up the bridge and eventually reach the final OT levels (which may have never been written down in the first place). His statement on this subject, at least as I recall it, actually supports my position.
“What that SOMETHING was, which was different for every Scientologist, unlocks the key to a treasure of getting themselves back after Scientology. “I was conned” blocks that treasure.”
Please provide justification for treating this statement as true for all former and current Scientologists.
“[Ortega] is harming lots of Exes by enforcing that pin-headed over-simplicity on them […] I don’t think you have seen the damage this has caused”
I’m willing to bite, provide positive evidence for this claim.
Finally, since you brought it up I’d like to talk about brainwashing. While I don’t think that brainwashing should be used to explain why all or even most people who were/are in Scientology joined and stayed there (for reasons I might explain later I don’t think it’s relevant for the case of any public Scientologist), I’m not sure if this concept is indeed invalid. Can you actually refute Benjamin Zablocki’s counter argument to Elieen Barker supposed debunking of the existence of brainwashing? I brought those arguments to your attention a couple of months ago:
http://alanzosblog.com/the-anti-cult-movement/#comment-52063
I was hoping you would be able to explain to me why Zablocki’s arguments are wrong, but all you did was restate Barker’s original argument without addressing Zablocki’s criticism of it. You’ve criticized “anti-Scientologists” in the past for ignoring social science literature regarding the brainwashing debate (such as Barker’s works) yet you did the exact same thing when I brought Zablocki to your attention. I showed you social science literature published in respectable journals and printing presses which argued for brainwashing existence and for some reason you didn’t even make an attempt to consider the arguments contained within it. I thought you were supposed to be above the “League of Irrelevant Assholes at ESMB”?
You’ve left me tons of work to address here. So let me just take up your most important argument first:
I’ve seen so many lame superhero “Justice League” movies lately, that while my mind was trailing off, after I’d finished my third box of popcorn, and was slipping into a sugar coma from my $10 coke, in the darkness of the theater, the LEAGUE OF IRRELEVANT ASSHOLES! from ESMB appeared to me – right in my face.
It broke me awake. I jolted in my seat. The guy in front of me glared.
I can’t use awesome stuff like that anywhere but on my own blog.
So I did.
Thanks for asking. It really encourages me whenever anyone pays any attention to anything I write because I really am just a Tribe of 1.
So thanks again.
[Very belated reply, I know]
“So let me just take up your most important argument first”
Actually, you did nothing to address what you consider to be my most important argument, which that is that you’re guilty of the same sin you attribute to “anti-scientologists”. You accuse them of ignoring social science literature that runs counter to their positions (such as the works of scholars like Barker) while at the same time you yourself are ignoring other works of social science which run counter to your position. I’ll repeat the question I’ve asked you in the previous comment.
You know, when I first tried to bring Zablocki to your attention back in March this year* I did not do so with the intent of arguing for the existence of brainwashing. Neither was I trying to “make your wrong” out of some spite. Rather, I was actually looking for potential reasons to disregard Zablocki’s argumetns. I’ve read his arguments in favor of the brainwashing theory and they seemed solid to me. However, it is my exeprience that in such debates it’s often the case that someone manages to convince you of a particular postion’s correctness only for you to later on find out that someone else can make a no less persuasive defense for a a different position. For that reason, I assumed that I cannot rely solely on Zablocki to guide me on this subject and that I should also read the works of those who cirticize the brainwashing theory. In the meantime, I decided to inform you of Zablocki’s works. I figured that you are knowledgeable on the brainwashing debate and that if there are good reasons to doubt his arguments they might come from you.
What followed instead was a disappointment. I’ve posited to you Zablocki’s counterargumetns against Eileen Barker’s point about the retention rates of members in NRMs. You did nothing to address those counterarguments but rather merely restated Barker’s point without explaining why Zablocki’s rejection of it is incorrect. To be clear, what irritates me is not that you still hold to your position on this matter. For all I know your position could be true (though I would say you did a poor job at convincing me so). Rather, I’m irritated that for some reason you’re not even acknowledging the arguments made against your position. You can reject Zablocki’s ideas as much you like. If you have good reasons as to why I shouldn’t adopt his counterarguments against Barker then I’m all ears, that’s why I came to you in the first place. But why can’t you at least acknowledge what Zablocki (and the minority of social scientists who side with him) have to say instead of just ignoring it as if it doesn’t exist?
*See the commetn section of “Is The Anti Cult Movement True?”
http://alanzosblog.com/the-anti-cult-movement/#comment-52063
I just want to say again, FTG, that you are really smart. And I really appreciate you posting here and challenging me. It lets me flesh out my ideas and consider where I might be being an asshole of some kind.
So to your enumerated questions:
I’ve spoken to Scientologists who were only involved for a few weeks. I’ve asked them, what were you getting out of it? One of them recently told me that they got a huge rush of euphoria thinking that they could change the whole world into a better place.
In speaking with this person it was clear, even in a few weeks, that Scientology invited them to present the best part of themselves – the person who wanted to change the world for the better.
That’s a rare invitation in our capitalist, alienated conveyor belt society.
It takes somebody with balls to answer that invitation. And this person did. Even though Scientology’s side of the invitation might not have ever been able to deliver it, this person accepted it.
And that was the best part of herself.
What about people who spent decades answering that invitation? And I’m not talking about the Mike Rinders and the other complete fanatics at Int Base – they had all the information they needed to know the invitation was bullshit.
I’m talking about the people in service orgs, right down there on the street, doing their best to help people with Scientology ever day.
Forget those people who harmed people for a living – which was exclusively the people like Mike Rinder, David Miscavige and others at Int base.
What about everyone else in Scientology whose job it was to help people?
To this extent, they were not conned. They lived the best part of themselves every day. And for them to deny that about themselves is a catastrophic loss.
Because you are an incarnate human being, and because no other incarnate human being has ever been able to prove anything you have just claimed false that happens after death, then I’ll take your statement as a belief of yours, and say:
Thank you for telling me that.
If they have reached OT 8 and are still looking for “full OT” when it was never there, then yes, from Scientology’s side they were selling them on a con. And I believe that Luiz Garcia and others who were fraudulently sold into paying for OT 9 and 10 have a strong case for criminal fraud.
But there are two sides here. The other side is what matters to the point I am making – the point that is continually missed in the idiot-simple world of Tony Ortega and other never-in materialist atheists. It’s the side of the Scientologist, and what the self he was was getting out of his pursuit of Scientology.
That’s where the gold is. And that is where the best parts of most of the people who engaged in Scientology are.
Not Mike Rinder – he destroyed people for a living as the head of OSA.
Not Karen De La Carriere, or Mark Rathbun or any of the other crazy zealots from Int Base. Not even most Sea Org members – to the degree they harmed anyone.
But for the overwhelming majority of Scientologists, they were simply helping people to build a better world. And that is an extremely fulfilling way of life for anyone.
Scientologist or not.
THAT is what you must not bury. THAT is what you must not wall off from yourself.
THAT is what you must exhume as an Ex-Scientologist.
For THAT is the best part of yourself.
There’s a lot I could say in response to this comment but I’m contemplating as to whether or not I should write it. There is however one part of your comment I feel I must reply to:
“Because you are an incarnate human being, and because no other incarnate human being has ever been able to prove anything you have just claimed false that happens after death, then I’ll take your statement as a belief of yours, and say:
“Thank you for telling me that.”
I’ve apparently been misunderstood, possibly due to my careless wording. To be clear, I am skeptical of the idea of life after death. However, my intention in the previous comment was not to say that all hope based on the idea of eternal salvation is false one. Rather, I was trying to say that hope of eternal salvation through the completion of yet to be released OT levels is most likely a false hope, as this hope is predicated on an apparently false premise (i.e that Hubbard wrote additional OT levels beyond those that have been released). I cannot say similar statements about the afterlife-related beliefs held in other religions. For example, I cannot say that I have any kind of evidence by which I can argue for the falseness of the belief that following the rules of Islam will grant a person an entry to heaven. I don’t think this belief has a lot of evidence going on for it but likewise I can’t say that I have the evidence to disprove it. With Scientology it’s a different matter. As I’ve argued in my previous comments, I do have evidence to argue for the position that OT levels IX-XV have never been written down, a position that if true would negate the belief that doing Scientology religious services can lead to eternal salvation.
DigThatGroove wrote:
All you have to do is remember yourself as a Scientologist, and then see this:
Pete Griffiths Thinks the Worst of Himself as a Scientologist
Very unfortunately, Pete is presently a great example of the damage Tony Ortega’s shallow and diminutive worldview has caused to Ex-Scientologists.
Hi, Alanzo.
It’s good that you noticed this, I noticed too! It felt like a complete and total violation of the Code of Honor, not only the Scientology Code of Honor, but simple, elementary honor that anyone would understand.
I felt the same that you about it.
But anyway, poor Tony, I mean, have you looked at him? He looks to me that he is in chronic grief. Chronically sad person. The highest tone he gets is when he writes is daily obsessing (biased) reporting.
Another thing, have you noticed that Ron Miscavige looks and sounds sarcastic with his gestures and manners? He seems insincere to me many times.
I don’t think Ron is insincere. I think that – like most Exes – he’s being presented with ideas from the anti-cult movement for him to believe about his whole life and he is struggling with all that.
The anti-cult movement is the belief system an Ex is given when they get out, and it completely corrodes and toxifies them towards themselves and their own history. If you are looking for Scientology related abuse – look no further than the anti-cult movement.