Alanzo Quotes Marildi on Geir’s blog:
“Btw, if you hadn’t blown our comm cycle (ahem) over on the So Afr blog last week, the next thing I was going tell you, on the plus side, was that I have observed your sincere kindheartedness at times (as opposed to the insincere 😛 ). I don’t think you’re an SP or evil or even vicious (which I can’t say for all those of your “ilk” 😀 ).”
I very much appreciate that, Marildi.
Not playing the “victim” here because I knew what Scientologists would think about me once I became “Alanzo” and began to publicly question and criticize Hubbard and Scientology. It was just going to be part of the package of doing something I felt it was my duty to do.
But it sure would have been nice if you had publicly stuck up for me when I was being called a “hater” and “motivated by hatred” recently [on the Scientologists Back in Comm Blog].
That’s a major Indie DA line being repeated about me, and it sure would be nice to see you not dive in along with them when you see it being done.
I stuck up for you when Marty was wailing on you for a while there on his blog. And I have done it elsewhere, too. When I think that someone is being unfair to you I have publicly said so. Repeatedly.
And I will do so again if that is what I see.
You don’t don’t have to stick up for me – I’m a big boy and I have taken it from Scientologists for [way] more than a decade. And will continue to do so.
But anyway, thanks for saying that, Marildi. I really do appreciate it.
“Al, I wasn’t involved in that BIC thread about haters, but I read through the comments just now. Would I have stuck up for you? To be honest, probably not – not because I think of you as a hater, though. In fact, when “the real Al stands up” I like him!
I think the first time I saw the real Al was when you and I had an exchange about Buddhism a while back. Remember? I felt I was in comm with Al the person, not a litany of practiced rhetoric – which, sorry to say, is easy to spot in your posts. They come across very repetitive and very much the same as what you criticize in scientology – i.e. indoctrination. Ironic as that is.
I didn’t know you or see your posts when you first started commenting on the internet, but I don’t doubt that you started out to do something you felt was your “duty to do,” as you described it. The other possibility, as I see it, is that you were swept up onto the critics bandwagon – or at least at some point it became a matter of such.
That relates to the excerpt I posted above about the “collective ego” and the choosing of a new one when the old one is no longer “ego-fulfilling.” We’ve all been guilty of that – certainly as staff members we had a collective ego, and so did the public, actually.
And then after we got out of the CoS, many of us joined some new collective ego – such as the anti’s and the pro’s, as I was saying earlier. Or they may have become hardcore fundamentalist Christians or Buddhists, etc.
These are the kinds of things I’ve been looking at lately.
Let me try to explain why I think you come across as a hater to some people. First, I’ll quote Tony D from that BIC thread you mentioned:
“In the USA the expression ‘Haters gonna hate’, is pretty common and also means A PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO STOP ANOTHER AT HIS GAME.” (My caps.)
See, Al, it’s not just that you are pointing out what you see as wrongnesses, which is your right – it’s that you are evidently trying to stop others from viewing LRH and scientology in a positive way.
I say this because you are relentless about it and continue on, long after you have made your views clear. In a later comment on that same BIC thread, Tony went on to say “…it looks to me that LRH was far from perfect and didn’t really make it to OT. Do we need to dwell on that for the next one thousand years??”
I am well aware of what you’ve said about simply trying to warn others who may not have gotten the word yet about LRH’s true intentions and products, as you see it – but that doesn’t hold up when one considers that there is already FAR more anti-LRH on the various scientology sites than there is positive. And you alone have repeated your views many, many times on seemingly every one of those sites.
The other thing is that it seems useless to try to have a discussion with you. Tony put it like this: “I won’t let you try to drag me into one of your ‘debates’. I know from the get-go you will not be moving off of any position you have had for a very long time, for the most part, so it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to try to debate you.”
Sorry to keep quoting Tony, but I do so because I’ve had the same thoughts about your posts and I believe others have too. But again, I don’t see those things as YOU. Rather, as a rhetoric that you have gotten stuck in. It happens to the best of us – and the bigger they are the harder they fall, perhaps is true.
On the other hand, I have seen the inner you, including the times you stuck up for me when you didn’t have to and I felt that there was no “ulterior motive” to it. I really thank you for that – and admire you for it too.
By contrast, I think you sometimes do have an ulterior motive with the use of flattery, on me and others – and when you do so, that is apparent too. Or maybe you’re just trying too hard “fighting the good fight” that you are convinced of in some part of your mind.
Besides, you get a lot of praise from the true haters as well as those who are easily swept up into fancy-sounding words – and that praise only strengthens the illusion of a “good fight,” I would imagine.
I think the prime error occurs for any of us when we aren’t being “present” “conscious” “mindful” “non-egoic” “oneself” – however you want to term it.
In any case, let me publicly state here and now that I THINK THE INIMITABLE ALANZO IS A GOOD GUY. ;)”
“All right, Marildi –
All those things you are saying about me are from your own viewpoint. And where you attempt to describe my intentions and reasons for doing things, they bump up against your own effort for why YOU are doing things.
I can tell you that your own effort makes your own assessment of my intentions inaccurate.
But if you were not motivated by any of the intentions you are assigning to me – such as the bandwagon effect – (Me: who got myself banned intentionally from ESMB) then you would have stood up for me when I was being dead agented by indies, quite conveniently, as being “motivated by hate”.
You say here on Geir’s blog that you know that I am not motivated by hate, and that I am a good guy.
I appreciate that.
But where’s your social courage, and your intellectual honesty, when you are surrounded by Indies?
You stood by while others tried to harm a person of good will.
The Way To Happiness: Do Not Harm a Person of Good Will
A test required in graduating fully from a cult occurs when a person has to stand up in front of a group “to which they owe their support” and tell the truth to them – even when that group may reject them for that truth.
I think I will see you passing that test more and more now, Marilldi.
I’ll be watching.
Keep asking yourself: Is your allegiance to your group, or to the truth?
“Here’s some food for thought for both of us, then:
There are many people who are always waiting for the next thing to react against, to feel annoyed or disturbed about, and it never takes long before they find it. “This is an outrage,” they say. “How dare you …” “I resent this.” They are addicted to upset and anger as others are to a drug. Through reacting against this or that they assert and strengthen their feeling of self.
A long-standing resentment is called a grievance.
To carry grievances is to be in a permanent state of “against,” and that is why grievances constitute a significant part of many people’s ego. Collective grievances can survive for centuries in the psyche of a nation or a tribe and fuel a never-ending cycle of violence.
A grievance is a strong negative emotion connected to an event in the sometimes distant past that is being kept alive by compulsive thinking, by retelling the story in the head or out loud of “what someone did to me” or “what someone did to us.”
A grievance will also contaminate other areas of your life. For example, while you think about and feel your grievance, its negative emotional energy can distort your perception of an event that is happening in the present or influence the way in which you speak or behave toward someone in the present. One strong grievance is enough to contaminate large areas of your life and keep you in the grip of the ego.
It requires honesty to see whether you still harbor grievances, whether there is someone in your life you have not completely forgiven, an “enemy.” If you do, become aware of the grievance both on the level of thought as well as emotion, that is to say, be aware of the thoughts that keep it alive, and feel the emotion that is the body’s response to those thoughts.Don’t try to let go of the grievance. Trying to let go, to forgive, does not work. Forgiveness happens naturally when you see that it has no purpose other than to strengthen a false sense of self, to keep the ego in place. The seeing is freeing.
Jesus’ teaching to “Forgive your enemies” is essentially about the undoing of one of the main egoic structures in the human mind.
The past has no power to stop you from being present now. Only your grievance about the past can do that. And what is a grievance? The baggage of old thought and emotion.
““Jesus’ teaching to “Forgive your enemies” is essentially about the undoing of one of the main egoic structures in the human mind.
The past has no power to stop you from being present now. Only your grievance about the past can do that. And what is a grievance? The baggage of old thought and emotion.”
All good stuff, Marildi.
No doubt about it.
But if we both really consider this, what will we have to talk about on the Inner-nayet??
I know! We’ll be out of a game!
Actually, we’ll think of somethin’. 😛
Peace, my old friend. 🙂
“Also Marilidi, you have to remember: Justice is important.
You can denigrate and degrade a person who is seeking justice for himself and for others by saying that he just carries a grievance, and he should release that old baggage and not be such a low-toned aberrated victim about it.
Creating justice creates good things – not just for the guy with the “grievance” as you describe it, but for everyone who has been harmed, and could be harmed, in the future.
Seeking justice for oneself and for others has a very good and lasting SPIRITUAL VALUE.
Remember this: “Alanzo” means “ready for battle”.
That battle is for justice for those who have been harmed by Scientology.
Alanzo won’t be giving up that battle because someone believes it may just be a grievance.
Year by year has proven that this battle is being won, and justice is being achieved for those who have been harmed by Scientology.
You would be a great asset in the battle for those who have been harmed by Scientology.
I would love to have you on my side.
But only where I am just. I would not want an obsequious sycophant, worshiping my every move.
Although worshiping some of my moves would be nice.
Marildi can reply in the comments section below. But then she would have to wash herself off as being unClean from communicating on a critic’s blog.
7 thoughts on “A Talk With Marildi on Geir’s Blog”
Hmmm…There is no state of ¨Clear¨ and there is no state of ¨Operating Thetan¨ Yes, I think these observable, provable facts need to be reiterated so that many lives/minds/bank accounts can be saved.
Carry on, Alanzo. 🙂
I don’t know how you remain so calm. RESTECP!
Alanzo, I’ve long enjoyed and respected your writings.
Marildi, I would say the same to you.
But Alanzo, since you’ve reposted this exchange with Marildi, I shall comment as an observer of both of your postings over the years.
First, “the words of a person are not the person”. I’ve just adapted that from “the map is not the terrain.”
Alanzo, I’ve seen it more than once, that when you’ve backed someone into an intellectual corner, leaving them standing on only one square foot, you persist, as if you are trying to get them to say “uncle”. I would offer the reminder that in chess, the game is won when the opponent king no longer has any moves – he’s never physically removed from the chessboard.
And Marildi, I’ve seen you walk into many a lions’ den, and emerge, your viewpoint intact, and a few of the lions quieted by your scratching their ears.
But lions’ dens are pretty tough places in which to hang around if the lions always want to eat you.
So I would offer to you that some arguments are not worth the effort to have. And that applies to all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time.
Believe me, Mr. Doe, I see your point.
But when it comes to a Scientologist, many times they are stuck in Scientology simply because they have been dwelling in an environment where they were forbidden to have the information they needed to make informed decisions about their own involvement. And so conflict in the form of debate, like a form of dramatic tension, can be a way of attracting attention long enough to get some of that information into the environment and into a Scientologist’s head so that they can start thinking with it.
Most of the people who I have had long-running debates with over the years were never going to come out of their Scientology mindset, and this was plain to me. But others – who were watching – have.
Because Hubbard constructed his prison of belief in the way that he has, I have simply not seen a better way to get Scientologists thinking for themselves again.
And by the way: No one, especially me, has ever gotten anyone thinking for themselves again. Just like when they became Scientologists, that is always done solely by themselves – and for their own reasons.
My journey out of scientology was assisted by every single person who voiced doubts, emotions, and thoughts that I was actively-and often, unconsciously-suppressing. Every person that pointed out that a Grade 0 completion actually COULD NOT TALK WITH ANYONE ABOUT ANY SUBJECT COMFORTABLY, or that pointed out that pc folders were routinely culled for damaging information to intimidate people with(I saw this happen with my own eyes), or that compared editions of scientology books and tapes from various decades and noted the deletions and edits, or was frankly unable to square scientology ethics with the aims of scientology…pushed me, inexorably, out of a prison of BELIEF that I had previously thought was a refuge of spiritual certainty. I am grateful that you and sooooo many others shoved the data right under my nose and, metaphorically speaking, said, ¨ Here, scientologist. Obnose this. Time, place, form, and event. Avail yourself of this new data. Evaluate and verify. Do as the founder suggests in the ABILITY magazine from 1959: LOOK AT THE SUBJECT OF SCIENTOLOGY VERY CRITICALLY. Think for yourself…and decide if this an activity and a group that you desire to be associated with.¨ So, yes, the repeated mention of out-points, fallacies, and injustices, coupled with my own doubts, misgivings, and protests…made me confront the subject in greater depth.
I think it has been established that people leave Scientology, and their own idea of what Scientology is, not in one fell swoop, but in little bits, not uncommonly taking years to do so.
The inconsistencies, discovered lies, harsh treatments, all build up until the person unindoctrinates themselves, often by coming up with ONE thing on which they disagree with LRH. Then another, and another.
It takes courage to do this, particularly when Scientology was adopted as a solution to the turmoils of adolescence. The turmoils and confusions can turn back on for, those going through the process.
The idea of “the stable datum” is workable to me still, as well as what happens when a person has a key stable datum shown to be false.
A major reason someone would not want to “get into a debate” is that deep down, perhaps they know or feel their position is untenable.
Another reason would be that they feel the person they would argue with are so intractable, that no actual possibility of a mind being changed exists.
Alonzo, your debating petard has proven to be sharp and accurate and I’ve seen you go up against debating opponents of both of the types above.
Scientology is so indefensible on so many fronts, it is a miserable task to try to defend it. Usually it ends, as many a parent knows, with an uneasy truce to just not talk about the subject.
But this cannot be allowed to stand!
So communicate away.
My point in my first post above, is that sometimes it is best to back down and sail away from an argument in which you’ve systematically eroded the shaky ground the scientologist was standing on, leaving him to contemplate the water closing in on the mound of dirt that’s left to him.
And one more point about Marildi: if anyone has demonstrated the ability a grade zero completion is supposed to have, it would be her. Whether it not she attained that through Scientology, well, that’s something I’m not inclined to debate with her.
As Manson’s future wife says in the video at 2:15, we always have the ATWA!
And that doesn’t console the Tate family, I’m sure.
But let’s confront ATWA – the concept map of Charles Manson. And frankly, isn’t “ATWA” the real issue here?
This is an important point.
Think about that a second and the girl who will marry him, support him and PROMOTE HIS TEACHINGS inspite of his crimes and history.
Anyway … let’s keep that prophet locked away. Okay? Really. Let’s release to his followers a box full of a man who died of natural causes for OUR PROTECTION.
Comments are closed.