@KellyKels_Melbs is an important critic of Scientology whose work has appeared on Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath.
And so it was astonishing to me when Kels reached out to me on Twitter to tell me about yet another bullying incident by Tony Ortega of her in the Supporters of Leah Remini’s Facebook group:
Kels wrote about this attack on her Twitter account, and I contacted her asking if I could publish it on my blog, to document the ongoing bullying of Exes and critics of Scientology by Tony Ortega. She gave me her permission to repost it.
A lot of people criticize me for criticizing “upstat” critics of Scientology in the past couple of years. But I have to remind them that I left Scientology and became a critic of them 18 years ago because of Scientology’s cruelty and tribalism and its abusive bullying. And now that this same behavior is appearing in Anti-Scientology, there is no way I am not going to call attention to it.
How can you criticize the fanatic cruelty and tribalism and abuse in Scientology while turning a blind eye to it in your own group?
I learned my lessons by getting out of Scientology and becoming a critic of them for 18 years. I will never understand how any Ex-Scientologist who went through the same things I did when I was getting out of Scientology could ever let this kind of behavior slide.
But they do.
And so I will continue to raise awareness of this bullying and information control by Tony Ortega against important critics and Exes until more Exes themselves start to call out Tony and make him change his ways.
Hypocrisy and fanatic cruelty and abuse go hand in hand with tribalistic thinking.
Maybe it’s past time more Exes started examining that in their own tribe.
I’ll leave you with this quote:
Exes – Let’s please not forget it.
EDITED TO ADD:
And just for another lesson in how blind tribal fanaticism breeds hypocrisy – I give you the big guy himself:
49 thoughts on “Tony Ortega Attacks & Bullies Another Important Critic of Scientology”
This is getting to the point where I feel embarrassed FOR Tony O. He’s still flogging that LRH quote about the seven-year-old girl, knowing full well he has taken it out of context. Proof: he never provides the text before or after this quote, which would allow the reader to determine the meaning of the passage. Yet, considers himself to be the de facto authority in interpreting the works of Hubbard.
As someone who has read thousands and thousands of pages, listen to many hundreds of recorded lectures over a 30 year period, I (as well as others) have developed an intuition or sense of Hubbard’s style (including sense of humour). This is something one acquires over years of study and careful inspection.
Hubbard would often make wild, exaggerated statements, which were designed to illustrate a point or assist in explaining a complicated subject, or sometimes it was his own brand of humour. No one I knew ever took these statements literally, and would always place them in proper context. Yes, including the seven-year-old girl passage.
Ortega is either dim-witted, incapable of understanding nuance; or, he simply does not care about the truth. His precious “seven-year-old girl” quote is his battle-cry to rally the troops in an effort to destroy all things Scn. In reality, all it does is demonstrate the contempt he has for the subject and for his readers.
Support for Kels for having the gumption and courage to call him out.
“…Tony O. He’s still flogging that LRH quote about the seven-year-old girl, knowing full well he has taken it out of context….His precious ‘seven-year-old girl’ quote is his battle-cry to rally the troops in an effort to destroy all things Scn.”
It’s a textbook case of demagoguery:
“Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people.” https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/demagoguery
Excellent post. I’ll add that the effort to “destroy all things Scn” isn’t limited to Ortega. It’s “almost” like a propaganda campaign – the subject of the last Aftermath episode, ironically – that’s being carried out.
Statpush, I’ll take this paragraph and analyse it:
“Ortega is either dim-witted, incapable of understanding nuance; or, he simply does not care about the truth. His precious “seven-year-old girl” quote is his battle-cry to rally the troops in an effort to destroy all things Scn. In reality, all it does is demonstrate the contempt he has for the subject and for his readers.”
Your first line is a ad hom attack or character assassination of Tony Ortega. What is the truth you are talking about?
Your second line. I actually think that is true and I agree since I’m a ex scientologist, I’d wish all things scientology would be destroyed.
Your third line, I’d agree he has contempt for the subject since I’m a ex scientologist and I’d agree, but I don’t think he has contempt for his readers, that is another ad hom statement by you.
I’ll let SP answer for himself, but what I find interesting is that you said,
Have you ever considered the function of the word “since” in your statements above?
What function do your uses of the word “since” perform?
Are you trying to use objective evidence for the truth of your statements, or are you saying that since you are an Ex-Scientologist these things are true?
Can you see the logical problems with your statements?
What is your process for how you determine that something is true?
Since you asked me, I’ll answer Alanzo your question, yes I’m using objective evidence, when I make the statement “no clears or OT’s”,
“Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.”
Can one prove a “clear or OT” can be had by dianetics and scientology auditing?
What is the objective evidence?
Regards your question, “Are you trying to use objective evidence for the truth of your statements, or are you saying that since you are an Ex-Scientologist these things are true?”
Well, to answer that question is from “objective evidence”.
Really Gib? You take one sentence out of four paragraphs and accuse me of an attack? What do you think of the overall post? When you see things like this, do you question Ortega’s motiviations and intentions?
I am no fan of Hubbard or Scn. But I will not deny my involvement or knowledge of the subject. I know Hubbard and the church and Scnists (ex’s included – looking at you Gib), do not believe that paedophilia is okay.
So, when some “expert” comes along and misrepresents the subject to foster hatred, I call him on it.
What do you do?
Statpush, I’ve already expressed Tony O motivations, that is too expose the scam of Hubbard and the then current leader DM. Which I agree with.
Mike Rinder did a interesting post today on Tony and his involvement with “back page”:
But whatever, no clears or OT’s.
Got it on the “No Clears or OTs”. I don’t think anyone here will argue that.
Exposing the lies of Hubbard and the church is fine – provided you do not LIE about them. There is really no need to lie, one can use the church’s own words to prove that.
Manipulating people and creating conflict has nothing to do with exposing Scn lies.
Yes Rinder did an interesting post on Ortega and his involvement with Backpage and its help in giving a venue for child sex traffickers to make money, but he also left a lot out of the story. He left out how Ortega repeatedly defended the Village Voice’s use of Backpage for revenue and repeatedly poo pooed and downplayed the problem of sex trafficking in general, child sex trafficking in particular. That whole period Ortega was indifferent to the suffering of countless parents and kids who begged Village Voice and Backpage to stop being such an avenue for the underground sex trade. He was indifferent, smug, and defiant. And many of you who idolize Ortega NEVER learned your lesson from being in a cult, and I doubt ever WILL learn it.
But no, there are no goddamn clears of OTs.
“I’d wish all things scientology would be destroyed.” I like that. It’s an honest and straightforward opinion. Starting from that viewpoint I might consider whether the world would be a better place without scn in any form. Would everyone who ever participated be a better person or had a better life if scn hadn’t existed in the first place? It would be for a lot of people who went bankrupt or had their families broken up. Would I be better off or worse off if I’d been a Moonie or joined some other New Age cult in 1975? Lot’s of if’s and maybe’s there.
Nowadays few people would join without being aware of the pitfalls, but I still read comments here and there of people being curious and experimenting with parts of scn as well as independents continuing their efforts. Some people are even trying internet auditing. I think the idea of two people without college degrees in psychology auditing each other will remain intriguing. Speaking for myself, I got bored with everyday life and would have found something which stirred my curiosity – laughter
There are also spin offs from scn. One is called TIR or something like that. A TIR “practitioner” was listed in my area so I gave him a call. I mentioned I was an ex Scientologist and could I ask him a few questions. He hung up on me!
well thanks Richard, how many people do you know that have obtained the so called state of “clear & OT'” ?
I know lots, do you?
I have “objective evidence”, do you?
Hubbard never provided “objective evidence”. Instead he provided rhetoric that a clear or OT can be had?
Gib – It was an honest compliment, not at all facetious. You’ve often mentioned that scn “entanglements” have affected your life. You must have known that making an absolute statement like that would get some negative feedback.
In general I find that people making extremist or absolute statements about something, for example politics, provides a basis for comparison on where I stand. 🙂
Are you going to answer the question:
“how many people do you know that have obtained the so called state of “clear & OT’”?
Maybe we should start with some old-fashioned book burning?
Gib wrote: “Your second line. I actually think that is true and I agree since I’m a ex scientologist, I’d wish all things scientology would be destroyed.”
In your wish that all things scientology be destroyed are you willing to use trickery and deceit Gib? Isn’t that stooping to their level? You see now why some call the movement the Anti Scientology Cult. You’ve got that cult fighting another cult using similar tactics. Despicable in my opinion.
Saying that “scientologists believe in pedophilia” because of that out-of-context line in Dianetics is trickery and deceit. Leah should be ashamed of herself because she knows damn well it ain’t true. Tony isn’t capable of shame so I won’t even bother with him. He’s a prima donna irresponsible yellow journalist who does at times get things right in spite of himself. Oh I’m sorry, is that an ad hom attack? My bad.
He’s also not one to be throwing stones with regards to children and sexual exploitation. Search the Village Voice and the backpage.com scandal with Tony Ortega. I don’t have time to outline it now.
But anyway, did you Gib believe in pedophilia when you were in? Didn’t think so.
The more I look into Tony Ortega’s involvement with helping his former rag, the Village Voice, make money off of sex trafficking the sicker I get. And it involved a lot of child sex slaves, something which he downplayed and tried to minimize away. Here’s what U.S. Senator McCaskill (D) of Missouri said about this sordid enterprise:
“The profit they were making was obscene,” says Sen. Claire McCaskill, who co-authored the the senate report on Backpage. “And the fact they were comfortable making that profit on the backs of children that were being sold for sex — it’s hard to contemplate that kind of evil.”
Here’s what Tony Ortega said:
“We’re being told that there’s a widespread, growing and out-of-control problem to fear in our country. And it has a catchy name: ‘trafficking,’” wrote Tony Ortega, editor-in-chief of The Village Voice, in an editorial last year. “The actual data behind this ‘epidemic’ is wanting in the extreme. It involves guesses by activist professors, junk science by nonprofit groups trying to extract money from Congress, and manipulation by religious groups hiding their real agendas about sex work.”
I tell you what Tony and your Bunkaroo groupies, turnabout is fair play. If you and your culty followers insist that “Scientology believes in pedophilia”, then I think it is fair to say that Tony Ortega and the Underground Bunker as a group believes that child sex trafficking is “sex work”. And those kids are just “child prostitutes” trying to make a living.
So there you have it. The Underground Bunker cult believes in child sex work. And it’s okay for a publication, especially one that’s edited by their cult hero, to make money off of it.
I could go on but I feel my blood beginning to boil. I could post where Ortega bragged about the success of Backpage in making Village Voice a lot of money. But I’ll leave this link….
Remember…..Ortega Bunkaroos believe that child sex work is legitimate and just no big deal. Yep! Guilt by association is just as true for Bunkaroos as it is for Scientologists.
(Parents found their missing children listed on Backpage. Nice stuff there Tony. Now who’s the deviant?)
“@KellyKels_Melbs is an important critic of Scientology whose work has appeared on Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath.”
Guess I’m out of the loop. Who is this KellyKels and what was her “work” that appeared on “…the Aftermath”?
This is how Jeffrey Augustine described it on his blog:
Okay, thanks. I did know about that from Mike’s blog.
Scn presenting fake endorsements. Whatever they think works – lol
When and if Scientology Media Productions gets going get ready for some infomercials.
“Lose 10 pounds of Mental Mass in 20 days!”
I believe it was Hubbard who claimed one could lose 20 pounds just by doing Op Pro by Dup.
It really is very too bad that L Ron Hubbard was the founder of Scientology.
I’ve never heard of this important critic?
Who is this person, I don’t recall seeing the person Leah’s show, What critic or critical thinking did this person do to the tenets of scientology?
I’m not on twitter or facebook.
Alanzo, I thought you were interested in doing some real analysis. This looks to me, like going down the rabbit hole of internet drama.
It occurs to me to that Ortega and Rathbun both have what I would characterize as bulldog personalities, useful for certain roles – investigative journalist, Inspector General – but a detriment at times (though I think that Rathbun has been comparatively far worse at unmitigated undermining of himself, and his cause). But that’s humanity, beautifully flawed. Your own track record online is kind of rough, isn’t it? And, isn’t part of recovery from the high control group or cult mindset, giving up on the expectation that there are leaders or gurus who we can expect to be perfect models?
If you have points to make about issues such as tribalism, I think something like this is a footnote, not the sort of focus you are making it. And if you are going to make accusations such as about fanaticism and hypocrisy, you might want to be careful that you’re not falling into the old Hubbardian scientological mindset of accusing others of that which you yourself are guilty of (I believe that scientologists and exes are particularly prone to what Freud and “psychs” call projection, indoctrinated as a thought-stopping mechanism).
You can post this or not as you see fit, it’s mostly a note intended to be constructive criticism. You may not catch it, but I actually have exchanges of similar character with Ortega, from time to time.
p.s. I hope you caught Ortega’s recent piece about Rebecca McKee, describing the scene around Scientology – and in Hubbard’s immediate orbit – in the 1950s and 1960s, with its permissive and libertine attitudes, including towards sexuality and especially towards the sexuality of people in young bodies. I caught the tail end of that, though I’m guessing that you missed it.
I don’t think that you have caught the pattern that Tony runs where he begins with a conclusion, like “Marty Rathbun made a deal with Miscavige to cut Ray Jeffrey out of his percentage” and then keeps running it over and over for months, cherry picking little details of sometimes irrelevant things to keep propping up the controversy until it has been completely debunked. And then he backpeddles and says something like “I’m just a reporter, reporting the facts as they are revealed”.
He’s doing this about all the pedophilia in Scientology now. (There is virtually none, probably less than other human populations) And you are falling for this pattern, PeaceMaker.
Yes, I am saying that if you have not spotted this pattern that Tony runs on you, then you are being played.
Tony Ortega is not an unbiased investigative journalist working the Scientology beat. He sees himself as a “reporting columnist”, not objective on the subject of Scientology at all.
Tony Ortega begins with a conclusion, and makes sure all the facts he reports bolster that one conclusion. He then leaves the rest of the relevant facts – the ones that do not support the conclusion he is running on you – out of his reporting.
You do realize that you have been apoplectic about the RPF for the last 4 or 5 years without knowing that it had been dismantled, right?
What other real world issues are you missing about Scientology because Tony Ortega, as a reporting columnist and not an investigative journalist, is declining to report to you because those facts do not prop up the conclusions he is running on you?
If you are getting all your information about Scientology from Tony Ortega, and others in the bubble-world of the Underground Bunker, your understanding of Scientology, and the real life issues surrounding it, is going to remain very inadequate.
And as for your point that his bullying of Kels as just “internet drama”:
If all the Exes and critics that Tony Ortega has bullied over the years (such as Carmen Llywelyn and others) are not important to you, and just “internet drama” – but what Mark Rathbun does is extremely important – don’t you think that is a weird kind of tribal blindness that you have going there?
Where is your compassion for Exes who have been bullied and fair-gamed by Scientology, only to come out and be bullied and fair-gamed by Tony Ortega?
You saw Tony’s dead-agenting of Scientology critic, and former underground bunker volunteer worker, MissTia yesterday, right?
You do realize that he is accusing her of fraud here, right?
And what’s that “dead agent” ad-hom, completely non-sequitur slight about her “bizarre past”?
Again, PeaceMaker, if you are swallowing this manipulation by Tony Ortega without questioning it, then you are being played.
If you swallow the Ortega accuser’s manipulations without questioning them, are you also being played?
Not in this case.
There are no manipulations here.
Alanzo, I’m well aware of Ortega’s style of reporting, and the things he does that seem counter-productive to the cause of ending Scientology’s abuses – and I have made comments regarding it on his blog, including questioning him directly, from time to time.
I did note in my original comment, that I see Ortega and Rathbun as variations of what I would call a “bulldog” personality, so I don’t see why you would refer to my supposed “tribal blindness,” unless you’re too wrapped up in your current hot button topic to pay attention to what I actually wrote. Your upset at finding Ortega to be a less than perfect human vessel, as presumably happened to you with Hubbard before him (and perhaps Rathbun?) seems to me to be more playing out of “ex” behavior than the “post-ex” you aspire to.
Then, you didn’t address any of my substantive issues, such as about doing real analysis. I think that sort of makes my point, that the rabbit hole of internet drama is sucking you in to the point where you’re losing your focus on your own stated goals and priorities.
I think that’s great. I did not know that. You are obviously in the minority there then.
Actually, I was pretty specific in analyzing and pointing out one pattern that Ortega uses which shows he’s not an objective journalist, but a reporting columnist – even showing his own words stating such as evidence of my point. So for you to say that my upset “stems from finding Tony Ortega to be less than a perfect human vessel”, and then going on to say that this presumably happened to me with Hubbard and Rathbun, again shows that you are blind, or at least visually impaired, to the points I am making.
If I missed you questioning Ortega, and you missed the specific point I made, perhaps we are projecting on to each other what we want to see, rather than what is actually there. It’s simpler for me if you are an unquestioning suck-up to Tony Ortega, and it’s simpler for you if I’m still a blinkered cult member, disappointed by the flaws of my cult leaders.
But here’s the thing: my disappointment in L Ron Hubbard was not that he was imperfect, but that he was a liar, and that he did destructive things to Scientologists. Whenever I would debate with Scientologists, they would defend L Ron Hubbard, as you are defending Tony Ortega, by saying that he was “imperfect”, completely missing the specific criticisms that I laid out of their cult leader.
The problem with believing in “cults” is that it makes the behavior describing cult members somehow specialized and alien from normal every day human behavior. Make no mistake: the behaviors of “cult” members are not specialized and alien. Their behavior is normal human group behavior common to all groups and differing not in quality but only in the degree to which their confirmation bias and tribal blindness make them work against their own self-interests.
As a never-in, it is no skin off your ass, really, if Ex-Scientologists are harmed by accepting Tony Ortega’s narratives without questioning them. And really there’s no skin off mine anymore either. But like an idiot I do care about what happens to my fellow Ex-Scientologists and so I continue to point out the damaging parts of Tony Ortega’s ideas and his ridiculous onslaughts on Exes and critics in the hope that the normal human group behavior that too many Exes are caught up in at the Underground Bunker is exposed.
I’m not familiar with most of the “new generation” of never-ins who, for whatever reason, focus on anti-Scientology blogging or tweeting. I think I may have mentioned this before, but I just don’t get why anyone who has no background in Scientology or significant experience with it (more than just curious dabbling in Dianetics or a Life Improvement Course) would devote so much of their time to anti-Scientology. Scientology is extremely small in comparison with groups like LDS, Hare Krishna, TM, Jehovahs Witnesses, and the convoluted and confusing nature of Dianetics and Scientology in theory and practice virtually ensures that it will never get anywhere close to being as large as those groups.
Most people don’t have the patience or attention span for auditing, which is so tedious that you find plenty of people in the church, especially in the SO, who go out of their way to not get auditing. So its not unusual to find Scientologists who’ve been in it for decades and yet they’re not even Clear or anywhere close to it. A lot of exes believe that this is actually due to church management not fulfilling its promises and I’ve no doubt that there are staff and SO who are motivated to go Clear and OT but are held back because of bureaucracy or because their org management are a bunch of assholes with chips on their shoulders. But in my experience and observation during times when I had to work in Ethics, staff would just get burned out on auditing, usually at some point during the Grades, and they end up just putting off sessions until before you know it, 20 years has passed and they’re still on the Grades and haven’t had a proper session in years.
I don’t believe its possible for Scientology to become a huge mass movement on the scale of LDS and TM, even if they returned to affordable pre-1982 prices or even if they start offering lower Bridge services free of charge. Most people just don’t have the attention span or emotional stamina to endure intensive auditing. Hell, most non-Scn who end up signing up for the Purif don’t even make it past the first week and blowing the org without even bothering to ask for a refund beforehand.
So with all that and the fact that there haven’t been any criminal abuses to prosecute, and the fact that multiple FBI, LAPD and Clearwater City Hall and PD investigations have turned up nothing that can at least be verified as having actually occurred that could justify deeper long-term investigations, I don’t get why anyone with no family ties or years-long involvement would want to devote so much time and effort to anti-Scientology. That’s on me.
But forget all that. I don’t know anything about this person you’re writing about and this is actually the first time I’m encountering her name. I’m not on twitter or facebook and I haven’t kept up with ESMB or OCMB for a long time, visiting them every once in a blue moon. Whatever news and gossip I hear about Scn is usually from actual Scientologists that I personally know and maintain contact with, and also from disillusioned staff members that know me and want advice on whether or not to stay or if they should leave and how to do that and where to go and so on.
So I’d say I have a very different view of things than most, including those exes who’ve never been in the SO and certainly radically different from those who have had no significant involvement in Scientology. It makes sense then that I wouldn’t be able to relate to the way the average anti-Scn view and interpret Hubbard’s writings and lecture, and vice versa.
I get that. I really do. But what I don’t get it is when someone who seems to want to take a more nuanced view of things than the hardline tomfoolery of Tony Ortega and his bunkerites continues to believe that LRH advocated child molestation or rape.
I’ll say it again. I don’t know this person and I’ve only looked at a few tweets so maybe I have the wrong idea here. But when she refers to the quote as “vile” (or words to that effect) and interprets it the same way Ortega and bunkerites do, I don’t get it. Because on the one hand, she states that condemning all Scn as “pedophiles” or supporting child molestation is insane, which it is. Scientology isn’t the catholic church. There’s never been any systemic sex abuse, whether of children or anyone else. The few incidents that have occurred have been isolated and church management has always taken steps to make sure such incidents don’t occur and Hubbard himself advocated intensive security checks to weed out those who are or potentially are sex abusers. There are plenty of sec check lists on the web which have questions that to the casual observer seem ridiculously invasive and/or insane, and Ortega has ridiculed these lists many times.
Feel free to bash the hell out of me on this, but Hubbard’s paranoia that led to his creating these lists I’ve always felt was justified. And if you look at when the few incidents of sex abuse occurred, it was during the period of time when sec checks, especially of non-SO, were not being done the way policy dictates. There’s a lot of LRH policy I have problems with, but sec checks, done for the right reasons and not as some kind of punitive measure or outright abuse (“gang bang” sec checks come to mind, though I don’t believe any policy supports such abuses) I feel is appropriate and fully justifiable.
Look at the Hollywood scandals lately. Ortega always dumps on sec checks but lately he’s been obsessed with rape allegations against Danny Masterson and talks about it as if Masterson is representative of Scientologists in general. Before the allegations, whenever Ortega mentioned Danny Masterson, he always made it clear that Masterson was not a particularly dedicated or active Scientologist. Masterson has had very little auditing for someone who is a 2nd gen Scientologist and is nowhere near Clear. Any former staff member from CC will tell you that it was a pain the ass to get even get Danny to stop by the org, let alone get his ass into session. His wife Bijou Philips has had significantly more session and course time at CC than him. Why is this? It comes down to a little something called being “sessionable” and Danny is not the kind of guy who is “sessionable” often. I have no idea whether the allegations are true or not. FWIW everyone I know at CC thinks its bullshit and if I am to believe them, there isn’t anything in his PC and Ethics folders to support the allegations. Based on its own history, church management will not stand by or defend one of its own members if they know or suspect the person is guilty. The absolute #1 priority for the church is itself and its own self-preservation.
But for sake of argument lets assume Masterson is guilty and church management was not only aware of the incidents in question but deliberately suppressed the allegations and convinced the accusers to not press charges or something along those lines. If any of this could be verified sufficiently enough for the DA to press charges, then the church should absolutely be called out and condemned for their role in suppressing evidence and/or bullying the accusers into silence.
But Ortega is not interested in this case out of altruism. If the accusers were to retract their allegations or wanted to back out for whatever reason, Ortega would probably start bullying or berating them himself. We’ve seen how he’s treated Carmen and other women who didn’t give him he demands or expects.
So Ortega’s deliberate misinterpretation of a single LRH quote is not unusual. It’s very stupid, but this is what he does to pay his bills, for better or worse. What surprises me most is that he didn’t jump on this quote years ago, seeing as how he always brags that he’s the world’s #1 Scientology observer since 1995. Yet he knows very little about it, has zero experience with it and relies 100% on others who actually do know a thing or two about Scientology.
But I find it very patronizing and condescending for an anti-Scn to say that most Scientologists are decent people, or that generalizing all Scientologists based on that single quote is wrong, etc but at the same time also saying that the “vile” quote means exactly what Ortega is claiming, that LRH was advocating or supporting child rape.
That’s just wrong. She mentions “triggers.” Well, you know what, this is why most Scientologists, especially the most knowledgable and experienced Scientologists, even in this day and age, don’t read anti-Scn material or allow themselves to get pulled into an anti-Scn “debate” on twitter. What’s the point?
When I know and other Scientologists — current and former — know that LRH was not a child molester or pedophile or rapist, and we KNOW it, not just believe it. We KNOW he wasn’t what Ortega & others are claiming about him, so much so that when we do our own research, just to see for ourselves if a possibility exists that we’re wrong, and we find that there is ZERO evidence to back up claims that LRH advocated or in any way supported child molestation and rape. We KNOW that it is insane for anyone to claim based on a SINGLE QUOTE that LRH was pure evil and a child molester.
I mean, what else can be said? This BS and the fact so many people, even those who claim “sympathy” for us poor gullible Scientologists, accept Ortega and Remini’s claim about this one quote… this is why I don’t even bother visiting here anymore because I can’t help but look at the comments and its always infuriating and frustrating. I’ve tried to not look at the comments and just read the articles, but I always fail. So, in order to avoid getting “triggered” I have to avoid reading about Scientology online, even the church’s own websites since that’s a whole different sort of BS going on there.
i wish I had a thick enough skin to hang around more often and to involve myself more directly in exchanges, but I don’t. You can imagine what I went through with TR0 bullbait. Stuff of nightmares. At least I’ll never have to subject myself to that ever again.
Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. Publish this or don’t publish it, either way thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about this totally totally frustrating circus revolving around a SINGLE QUOTE. This is irrational and nuts.
But then again, Donald Trump is actually the President of the USA and no one ever thought this could’ve happened, but here we are.
Nice rant atomical! I pretty much agree with every thing you said. Firstly on the incredible amount of time many never-ins spend on the anti or ex scientology sites is weird. A very large percentage of the Underground Bunker is made up of never ins. Back when Tony Ortega was touring around the world promoting his book I actually went to one of his talks when he was at a city near me. (I found him to be very unimpressive in person by the way. Okay as a speaker, but one on one I found him to be arrogant and stand offish). Anyway I met this middle aged woman who was from the eastern seaboard. Since this talk was in the middle of the country I thought it kinda strange that she was at this one. It turns out that she was following him around like a groupie. She had been to around five of them at that point if memory serves. She said her college age kids thought she was nuts. Well, yeah! I’m with them. That is very nutty behavior. Oh, and she is a never in to boot!! WTF? I’m tellin’ you folks the Bunkaroos are indeed a cult of personality. No doubt about. And the never ins are THE most dedicated ones it seems.
Oh, and I agree about auditing being boring. It was one of the biggest reasons why my whole time in Scientology was less than three years total. I just could’t see myself going up the Bridge doing that shit. Being the auditee and an auditor were both very unappealing to me. Tedious, repetitive, and mind numbingly boring. It’s good to know many others feel and felt the same way.
Gib – leave that stuff on ESMB.
Don’t call people names. Stick to the subject matter.
Try your best to be polite and kind – especially to people with whom you disagree.
it’s the truth, whatever
the subject matter of dianetics and scientology is to produce a clear and a OT, none exist, if you don’t allow my posts to go thru, I will leave happily. So long my friend, I wish you well.
Thanks for being clear Gib
just kidding, and yes I’m trying to be clear about my position regards the scam of scientology, are you?
yep, I what to make clear, no clears or OT’s, unless you can prove me wrong?
No I’m very clear that there ain’t no clears. Or OTs.
I wish there was a way to acknowledge Gib, finally and once and for all, that just about every person on this blog knows that there are no Clears or OTs from Scientology as Hubbard defined them.
But I think he still won’t trust the acknowledgment, no matter how it is delivered to him.
Could it be that Gib himself might not be completely convinced there are no Clears or OTs in Scientology?
Something to consider….
Gib? Are you trying to tell us that you are not quite sure whether there are no Clears and OTs in Scientology?
LOL Alanzo, you funny.
OK OK OK OK, maybe I’ll change my mantra to “scientology is not a religion because of no Clears or OT”s since scientology as a religion is to produce a clear and then OT”.
I’ll have to figure out how to say this in Sanskrit and put it on titanium plates, that will make this sound official, philosophical, and religious and profound, and time immemorial.
Maybe I should start up a gofundme with the purpose of setting up a underground fault next to the COS’s site of titanium plates. LOL.
Shoot, I could start a new cult called the ASC, LOL
OK OK OK OK is from lethal weapon, fun movie, laughing
Did it ever occur to you that my posts are designed to speak to Indie’s and OSA bots?
Call me a troll, that I am. But aren’t we all trolls when it comes to posting on the various blogs?
I’m not sure if you are aware this Alanzo, but there is a website called Scientology 101, here it is:
In that link, it mentions you Alanzo, but the links show as website no longer available. Obviously you said some things in the past that provided the website to agree with.
Do you have any idea what you wrote?
I moved all those posts to this website, and I keep them locked down in the dungeon, to be re-released when the world is ready.
The world is not yet ready.
We need to get 750 people up to and through the Post-Ex Rundown.
Only then can these blog posts be revealed.
it’s too bad you left all your valuable thoughts to the dustbin, to help people.
Atomical – I think Hubbard should have made some mention that bullbaiting should more closely resemble what might occur in an auditing session rather that telling jokes to get a person to laugh or other foolishness. One time in an auditing session my pc started waving his hands in the air crying “NO! NO! NO!” He was reliving an incident when he was dumped off at an orphanage as a child.
Some excellent points, atomical. I, as well, do not understand the never-in interest in the church. It is a fairly esoteric subject when you look at it. So much so, that I feel you have to have been a card-carrying Scnist, a true believer, to fully grasp the subject.
It’s quite likely the public fascination with Scn will pass, once the next big thing comes along to capture the public’s imagination. It’s a novelty, which is difficult to understand for us veterans.
Ortega has commercialized anti-Scn and turned it into a cottage industry. I suspect that market is shrinking as people lose interest and move on. Traffic to the Bunker was in a slow decline, only to be saved by this season of the Aftermath. Which may explain his attempts to pump some life into the subject by creating controversy.
Anyway, ex-Scnists need to realize his motivations are much different. Most ex-Scnists are trying to understand what the fuck happened to them, to make sense of it and get on with their lives. For Tony O, it’s a freak show…and he’s selling tickets.
A bit late to the party here but I fail to see any “bullying” going on in what you posted.
Comments are closed.