Alanzo’s Top 5 Criticisms of Tony Ortega & His Underground Bunker

tony ortega
Tony Ortega, Gazing at a Reflection of Himself

Tony Ortega will buddy up to the worst, most criminal abusers in Scientology history such as Mike Rinder and Mark Rathbun in order to have a steady stream of quotes from “former Scientology officials”, and never press them publicly to tell what they know so that decades of their victims can be healed.

And yet when he gets the chance to attack the powerless Scientologist mother of a suicide victim and subject her to public ridicule, he will dig deep on them and even follow up years later when he finally gets the dirt.

Scientology abuse needs to be exposed, and few have done it more publicly in recent years than Tony Ortega. But targeting victims of Scientology such as Taylor Tweed’s mom and family, while giving the worst abusers in Scientology a pass so he can continue to get quotes from them is, and always will be, just wrong for a journalist to do.

For Journalists: Why Tony Ortega’s Reporting on Scientology is Negatively Biased

(Running Time: 03 min. 49 sec)

Alanzo’s Top 5 Criticisms of Tony Ortega and His Underground Bunker

  1. Being a “never-in”, Tony Ortega has often displayed a problem in telling the “Vics” from the “Perps” in Scientology. And he continually demonstrates that he does not understand what it was really like to have been a Scientologist. This causes him to dismiss important things and glom on to unimportant things. For instance, he has glommed on to his favorite “Hubbard was a pedophile” quotes which to him, prove that Hubbard “endorsed” pedophilia and taught Scientologist to “condone” it. But because Tony Ortega was never a Scientologist, he does not understand that it was the Office of Special Affairs, as run by Mike Rinder, which covered up many instances of pedophilia and kept the victims from going to the police. What Tony Ortega will never get is that no other Scientologist would ever condone, let alone endorse, pedophilia. Why? Because L Ron Hubbard did not teach any such thing.Tony Ortega’s experience as a never-in may be the cause for this wrongheadedness in his criticism of Scientology, or it may be another of the reasons below. But for all the times Tony Ortega gets things right about Scientology, he too often gets things wrong. And any reader of his should beware of these problems and think critically about what he writes.
  2. Tony Ortega repeatedly whips up intolerance and cruelty in his blog commenting community, and keeps it going for as long as it benefits himself personally – no matter who gets harmed.Tony Ortega is informed, and fueled, by his own ideology which basically sees anyone promoting any kind of religion online as an enemy. The “party bus” atmosphere of his Underground Bunker would be great if it weren’t for its toxic purpose, which is to assume they know the truth and ridicule and tear down anyone else who has a different idea of it.
  3. In addition, Tony Ortega often inserts his own views into his reporting, under his private rationalization that he is being a “reporting columnist” rather than an objective reporter on things in Scientology. He then pretends his opinions and assertions are facts. And where is his evidence so we can see it? That’s confidential.Yet most of his readers believe that Tony Ortega is an unbiased, objective journalist, reporting just the facts about Scientology. If you step back and look at his years of reporting on the subject of Scientology, it is clear that he is anything but objective and unbiased. Any information that ends up benefiting the Church or getting them off the hook, Tony labels as “apologism”. In the end, Tony Ortega does not even see himself as an objective, unbiased reporter on Scientology. He sees himself as a Reporting Columnist:tony ortega reporting columnist
    My main criticism here is that Tony Ortega does not make this clearly known to his readers, as you would see opinions only on the opinion page of a newspaper. This is very bad journalistic practice.
  4. As an atheist, Tony Ortega has contempt for all religious and spiritual pursuits, and his overriding contempt works its way into the heads of Ex-Scientologists and makes them hate themselves for ever using Scientology on their own much larger spiritual path. For people who have lost their religion and are groping for their own next steps, this is extremely destructive and blatantly beating people when they are at their weakest.
  5. Personally, after reading his blog for almost 7 years now, I think Tony Ortega, with his limited ideological viewpoint on Scientology and religion, has backed himself into a corner and has developed way too many characteristics of a troll than he has as a trusted source of news on the subject of Scientology. He has produced a lot of good factual information on Scientology in the past, but his sneering atheism has caused him to damage the reputations of good people with his trolling and information control. And in recent years, he simply runs his assertions as crusades – dismissing all contrary evidence as “shilling”, or “apologism”, or accusing those who provide the evidence as “OSA Agents”.Tony Ortega has a long history of some of the most cruel hoaxes and trolling I think I have ever seen. In his very own entry on, Tony Ortega is exposed as the real journalist behind a cruel hoax making a joke out of the experiences of 2 teenage kidnapping and rape victims.It’s hard to believe that someone would do this, but Tony Ortega did. tony ortega trolls 2 teenage victims

These criticisms are provided so that any of his readers will remember to question Tony Ortega and to use critical thinking on his often hysterical assertions about Scientology, and learn not to swallow everything he gives them whole. In the end, I believe that Tony Ortega’s extended crusade against Scientology is one of vengeance, rather than any type of journalistic endeavor reporting a “beat”.

He has admitted that he believes that Scientology poisoned his cat, and this belief has militarized him and, along with many other militant anti-Scientologists, ensured that his present feud with Scientology will go on until the whole of the Earth is scorched.

For Ex-Scientologists, it was a mistake for Scientologists to think uncritically about L Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige. It is just as much of a mistake to do it after Scientology with Tony Ortega.


38 thoughts on “Alanzo’s Top 5 Criticisms of Tony Ortega & His Underground Bunker”

  1. I haven’t logged in to Disqus in probably more than a year. Today I reset my password, which I had forgot, so I could see how I reacted to the article in 2014. According to the Disqus comments section in my profile, it looks like I didn’t say anything. I guess I’d have to re-visit the article itself and open up all comments, just to be sure. Perhaps I said nothing because I have an inkling of what it’s like to lose a person in this manner.

    Be that as it may, two things:

    In going over my comments in general, I can see I received a huge amount of support and understanding from people at the Bunker. I was also given a great deal to laugh about, which was invaluable for me at the time. The ability to laugh at your oppressor is no small thing. I also remember a couple instances where I went all crazy and started or joined a hunt on a presumed OSA commenter. I’m still ashamed about doing so, and still ashamed for other comments I have made on people’s personal situations I could not possibly know anything else about beyond what Tony reported. This I cannot undo.

    Also, despite Tony’s methods, I think he has given people who wanted to speak out a platform and a wide audience. I was shocked that Rachel Bernstein gave an evaluation in absentia, and didn’t understand the change in tone re Monique Rathbun. Admittedly, I was confused by Monique’s choice as much as anybody, largely because I believed she was winning. When you’re surrounded by news every day, it’s sometimes hard to realise that behind every event reported there are real people with real suffering. Harder still to care about them all. I read the news a lot, so-called mainstream and so-called alternative. Both invite readers to sit in judgement. Tony is no different in that regard.

    I admit that I don’t understand this new fault line or its necessity. The scientology grounds are shifting sands, so it may not matter. I guess you’re focusing your efforts on seeing without filters, to whichever extent possible. Perhaps cults are more or less the same everywhere because people and groups are more or less the same. Perhaps any Internet community for or against something will end up silencing dissenting voices at some point.

    Lastly, I have a question for you, Alanzo. It seems I have not understood something about this post. You say “A person gets himself into a cult, and he gets himself out of it, too.” and then say “…has been deceived just like every other Scientologist into a life that is no longer her own.” How does the latter claim add up to the former claim that a person gets himself into a cult? The former sounds like all agency and no environment, the latter sounds like the reverse.

    • In this view, a person is both himself and his environment. It’s not one or the other.

      It’s both.

      That’s why providing an environment of free inquiry and a tolerance for blasphemous ideas allows a person to get himself out of a cult.

  2. This comment is in reply to your top 5 criticisms. I have another comment to make; but I emailed you asking how you’d like me to proceed with that one–it’s long. 🙂

    1. I never considered that before. You’re right. Some victims are portrayed as perpetrators. Wow, I’m just gobsmacked I never thought of that before. I mean, I became away some victims were vilified and treated with disdain; but I never thought about it so succinctly before.

    2. Absolutely correct.

    3. Again, absolutely correct. I do understand the need the confidential sources though, especially with reporting on Scientology.

    4. FUNNY!!!

    5. I would agree.

  3. [This is copy/pasted from a blog post I made this morning. I back dated it to March 1, as I really want to put this all behind me and move FORWARD! 🙂 ]

    I didn’t really want to make this public. But the more I thought about it and the more I was questioned and love bombed, the more I realized I had kept some opinions/thoughts to myself for too long and I didn’t need to do that anymore. Mostly though, it’s because I’ve been continual questioned as to when I’m returning to the bunker and the inability of some to understand that “I’m done” means just that. This is the only time I am writing about this. All the love bombing of the past few days and questioning has got my TMJ flared up again. Just leave me alone please. You’ll see there is no ‘handling’ that can be done for me. I’m posting this and then the door will be shut, locked, and bricked over. I’m done.

    I’ll say this again below, but I want to say this upfront (though why I have no idea, I know my words will be taken out of context and be misconstrued): There are good people in the bunker. Good, caring individuals who end up doing/saying things they probably wouldn’t normally do (just like Scientologists) because of the group think/hive mentality. I want to stress there’s good people there. Their actions are more than likely not something they’d normally do–with. of course, a few exceptions. 🙂

    If I were to pinpoint exactly when my disillusionment began with Scientology watching, I’d have to say the seed was planted with the Going Clear premiere. Yeah, really. I sat here and watched it and whereas yes, I’m aware he couldn’t cover everything in the book; the editing was good; the pace was good; etc I just felt something was missing. I read all the superlative comments how it was awesome, amazing, etc and was like, really? Seemed like hyperbole. This isn’t a documentary review though. But the group cheer leading with no criticism planted a seed that stayed dormant for awhile.

    The seed started to get germinated at the Parma event in September. At the after event, Tony asked the group if one of us would start a fight with Media_Lush so he had an excuse to ban him. Someone asked him why and he said, basically, it was because of the blind gossip items he kept posting and how they were wrong but ML persisted they were right. What kind of behavior is that? To request someone to start a fight with someone else so they’d be banned?

    The seed went dormant again until, I’d say, probably March. That’s when the undue stress and strain caused by an individual regarding HowdyCon started. I decided to take a big step back from the comments and not participate as much but just watch in a detached manner. I did not like what I saw. Hypocrisy, vitriol, manipulation, hero worship, group think, group paranoia, and I identified each of those as having been something I had fully participated in and I was appalled at myself. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the parallels between the bunker and Scientology in some ways. Again, I was appalled at myself. On the other hand though, it serves as a reminder that ANYONE can become involved in a toxic cult like group that fronts as trying to help others, just like Scientology.

    Some people screen grab every single comment in the bunker, as does OSA. OSA is derided and mocked for that; but the bunkerites who do it aren’t. What’s the difference? To both groups I’d ask ‘why do that?’ I know the answer a few bunkerites would give. They’d say it was done in an attempt to suss out ‘socks’. Who cares if there’s sock accounts though? Some people see ’26’ in every new poster. For a bit after 26, I admit I took part in some sock hunting but I quit shortly after I started because it just seemed wrong to be analyzing certain posters, what they said, trying to verify those things, etc. Though I once again partook with Rick in Indy. I shouldn’t have done that, that was wrong.

    Media_Lush ended up being banned, without warning, because he posted a fat shaming photo of Kirstie Alley. Never mind that Kirstie should be ‘fair game’ for fat shaming because of her endless public announcements of dissatisfaction with her weight, her weight loss business forays, and deal with Jenny Craig. All the while, publicly showing that Scientology can’t fix the weight problems she feels she has. Tony posted about ML being banned in such a way that of course everyone fell in line and agreed with him about it.

    The last time I was in the bunker, Mark had posted a fat shaming photo of John Sugg. I commented asking why it was okay for some people to be able to fat shame; but not others, wasn’t that hypocrisy? Or did it depend on the who was in the ‘in crowd’. It was more of a rhetorical statement/question. But Mark twisted the situation to make it seem like I was personally attacking HIS size and others fell in place. I said/did no such thing. Then Baby was sent to ‘handle’ me saying I should have commented to Mark on an older post and that it wasn’t like me to comment like that. Well, one, why would/should I comment on a back post? Fuck that. Two, that IS me. I question unfairness, hypocrisy, double standards, however you wish to put it. John Sugg, unlike Kirstie, as far as I know, has not made any public declarations about having issues with his weight and/or publicly gone on weight loss plans. Oh wait, he writes revolting things about others, so therefore he’s ‘fair game’. I concur he writes revolting things; but it doesn’t mean he should be fat shamed when others can’t do it. But Mark is in the ‘in crowd’ so it’s okay I guess.

    Alanzo was banned for an email he sent. Ah, judged for what you do outside the confines of the bunker. Huh, reminds me of some religion. Tony portrayed it as that Alanzo had threatened that therapist so of course people rallied behind him as a champion of women, a chivalrous man, and isn’t he just great? Now, I am not privy to the email Alanzo sent; but, I have seen the comments he posted in the bunker about that therapist. They were not threatening, he was cordially pointing out where he felt she was violating the state’s ethic code with her comments on Cathy Tweed. He also praised her work with former Scientologists. Alanzo made excellent points in his posts and I’m sure he did in his email too. Is it a threat to point out that you might be violating your code of ethics? I don’t think so.

    Epsi was banned for questioning a poster he felt could be a sock. Yet, people are encouraged to police the comments themselves. Shortly prior to Epsi being banned, both he and Howdy were warned they’d be banned. Can you imagine had Howdy been banned? Though I have no doubt people would have fell in line and agreed with it.

    Back to the mention of Cathy Tweed. Here’s where chivalry is dead. That article was sickening. Posting a dead young woman’s deleted Facebook comments? Having that therapist analyze and criticize her mother, Cathy Tweed, who is a private individual, not someone who is in the public eye. Where were all the alleged champions of mental health on that post decrying that it was wrong? Crickets. Shamefully I didn’t speak out either; but if others felt as I did, they might have felt like me: too frightened to say something. One cannot go against the grain in a major way. People were vilifying Cathy in the comments though. Even some Ex-Scientologists were too. You’d have thunk they would have had a better understanding of how/why Cathy was handling the death as she was, as they had once had those same beliefs. Instead, no, she’s a Scientologist and it’s fair game to crucify her publicly, though she’s a private person and not public. That was one of the most sickening displays I’d ever seen on the bunker.

    Speaking of vilification, Marty Rathbun. Do I really need to say anything on this? Sure, of course I do. How/why Tony dislikes him is something only known to him. His opinion of Marty comes through in his writing though (more on that in a bit). When the Rathbuns fired their attorneys and dropped the lawsuit, Tony said for people not to speculate. What did he do? Speculate with Texas Lawyer. Including tossing out the idea that they had walked away from millions of dollars. That’s some major $peculation right there. The disdain and contempt Tony holds for Marty is palpable. He further allows the vilification of him in the comments. Such horrible comments about Marty by the bunker. Why people dislike him so much I have never understood nor will understand. In some ways, it seems he’s disliked more than David Miscavige. The level of vitriol towards him is horrible. I’ll never ‘get’ that. The Rathbuns owed no one, especially not the bunker or Tony, an explanation as to why they fired their attorneys or dropped the suit. I do think, as his opinion of Marty was woven into the story, that Tony was, in a way, fair gaming them. I understand where Marty is coming from in his statements. When I left the bunker for good I sent him an apology for making the ‘rue the day’ memes and he graciously accepted it and recommended a book for me to read. It was an excellent book choice, exactly what I needed then and I can’t thank him enough for that. (Ah, yes, I was consorting with a bunker enemy, that’s high treason isn’t it?)

    Someone else whom apparently Tony doesn’t like is Carmen LLywelyn and again, chivalry is quite dead. As she has on her blog, he posted a comment claiming he had interviewed her extensively and never did anything with it, so make of that what you will. The implication being she was not credible enough for him. She says she only had a 10 minute conversation with him, he did most of the talking, and they agreed to meet up so he COULD interview her. She tried to arrange that; but he never got back to her. I believe her.

    Since he had posted that comment about her, that made her ‘fair game’. One of the last days I was in the bunker there was a conversation going on about Carmen. I left in the midst of it, as it was disgusting. They were trying to psychoanalyze her. Then someone commented that they knew her personally and she was crazy. No one questioned that person, they accepted it as fact. Another individual put forth a conspiracy theory that Scientologists might have gotten to her and to Marty because both were posting denouncing Tony and the bunker around the same time. Uh huh, cuz you’d have to be crazy to have an issue with Tony or the bunker? And/or Scientologists would have had to have paid you off to do that? SMDH It’s called seeing things how they really are. Both Carmen and Marty are victims of Tony and the bunker. They have every right to be angry, hurt, and upset.

    Some Ex-Scientologists are viewed as heroes by Tony and the bunker. Others are viewed with scorn and contempt. How these views are determined I don’t know. I can only make guesses, assumptions, and speculations. I’d prefer not to do that.

    As aforementioned, opinions of individuals comes through in many posts. Such as Marty, and most certainly Cathy Tweed. I could list others, but those are the two best current examples I can think of. I also prefer not to ruminate on the bunker. Opinion woven into a ‘news story’ leads readers, usually always unknowingly, to agree with the author. It’s like most current ‘news’ articles today with a political bent–towards either side. Aren’t the Rathbuns’ attorneys selfless heroes who were shafted out of money? You’d have to be crazy to fire these brilliant legal eagles, right? Let’s have Texas Lawyer give an opinion that meshes with ours, that’ll shape how people think to ensure they agree with us. Isn’t it horrible how Cathy Tweed is handling her daughter’s suicide? Let’s have a counselor give an opinion that meshes with ours, that’ll shape how people think to ensure they agree with us. And what was up with the title of the ‘Lisa Marie Defection’ article? Purely misleading as she had already defected Scientology.

    Now, I don’t wish to denounce Tony’s work as a whole. It might seem that way; but no. He does provide a valuable service. But when he starts letting his personal opinion of others soak into articles, leads a group into agreeing with him, and tries to intervene in things behind the scenes (there are things told to me in confidence and it’s not for me to disclose those things, I’m sure in time the individuals involved will disclose them), that’s not ethical journalism. It’s not even ethical as a human being. He tries to portray himself as humble; but it seems more and more it’s just a veneer. Does he know he’s surrounded by sycophants? Do the sycophants know they’re sycophants? I know I was unaware I was one until a few months ago.

    It’s claimed people can have different opinions in the bunker. Well yes and no. Yes, you can differ on say, the kind of music you like, food, etc; but you cannot differ on whom is ‘in’ or ‘out’. Those ‘in’ or ‘out’ include those in the bunker; Ex-Scientologists, as some are alleged good, others bad; reporters/websites; and the consensus that Scientology, wholly, is horrible and should be eradicated. Those who’ve mentioned, exes, that they still audit, or read some LRH works, are put on the ‘handling’ list. You know what I realized? If doing some of that helps them, why shouldn’t they? What’s wrong with that? They aren’t hurting anyone. It’d be like a former Catholic who still takes comfort in praying the rosary. There’s too much judgment and attempts to control others. Like some religion I know of.

    Of course, some exes CAN do Scientology auditing and/or reading and it’s okay. Others cannot. It all depends on who is ‘in’ or ‘out’. The unwritten rules don’t count for some. Isn’t there a religion that has rules that only apply to some not all? Huh.

    If your opinion differs on one of the things on the unwritten list of ‘you need to get in line and think like all us’; then there’s attempts to ‘handle’ you. Comments to try to get you to change your opinion, the email brigade will kick in, and you either just concede or shut up about it because you don’t want to end up with what would happen next: disconnection. Yeah, just like some religion, if you persist in a differing opinion, refuse to be handled, then your exclusion begins. You don’t want to be on the ‘outs’ do you? No, of course not. Do you know how many times I kept my opinion to myself because I knew what would happen? Shamefully far more than I can count. I didn’t want to be on the ‘outs’. I was unaware at the time, but that suppression of myself was chipping away at my soul. Why would I do this? I SPEAK OUT! Cuz I was fearful. Fearful of what? Well what happens when you’re excluded. Don’t we all seek a sense of belonging? Just like some religion I know of.

    Once you’re excluded, fair gaming can/will begin. Every comment you ever made is analyzed, because of course they have screen shots of every single comment. You’re followed around the internet and your activities there are screen grabbed and analyzed. Sometimes you’ll be attacked on other sites when you’re not even posting about Scientology. You know this has happened. In one instance I took part a few years ago. I’m going to send them an apology today. They deserve it. It was wrong, I was wrong, and I need to apologize.

    There’s fair game and black PR as you’re analyzed, diagnosed, dissected, turned into a joke, a meme, and Tony allows this in the comments as people are destroyed. Perhaps it’s difficult to realize online but there are real human beings with feelings and emotions behind the computer. That doesn’t matter in the midst of a bunker feeding frenzy. The same people who will show such kindness and consideration for others, will turn and destroy those that are deemed ‘not worthy’. I don’t believe for a second they’re consciously aware of what they’re doing. As I said, I did it too. Until I viewed things in a detached manner, I wasn’t aware of those things about myself. I’m ashamed and disgusted with myself. It goes to show though, that anyone can fall into a group think/hive mentality. Those that judge people who got into Scientology need to give pause for thought about how/why they’ve gotten into the Bunker group think/hive mentality. What’s the difference? Sure, the human rights abuse, physical abuse, etc but the GROUP THINK HIVE MENTALITY is there. Once you’re in that, you can/will do things you wouldn’t normally do.

    Hypocrisy does rule the day in the bunker.

    There are good people in the bunker (just like in Scientology). They do things they normally wouldn’t as they’re under the power of group think (just like in Scientology). They think what they’re doing is for the greater good (just like in Scientology). There’s a snitching culture, there’s a form of ethics, and if people would detach and look objectively, they’d see what they’d become. I’m not proud of it. It’s made me physically sick (In addition to the ‘fun’ with HowdyCon that exacerbated my health problems–thanks Spike!) and I’m leaving this behind.

    Due to my severe PTSD I try to avoid conflict/confrontation at all cost. I didn’t really want to write this; but I kept getting pushed and pushed with the emails; love bombing—I mean really? emails from people I never talked to to begin with, you didn’t think I’d see through that?; and the apparent group think that I’d return. I said I was done. I meant it. I deleted my disqus. That was it, done. Now you know why and y’all can spend a few days dissecting me, analyzing me, villainizing me, etc. I don’t care. I’ve already done it to myself. I’m done with Scientology Watching. I don’t even read the news anymore nor even dlisted. I’m done with all that. This is not open for discussion.

    In a way it’s a shame I couldn’t have just been allowed to quietly go away, as I would have preferred; yet in another way, it’s good to get this out. Good bye, good luck, I wish you all the best.

    • Miss Tia- I can’t message you on your blog. Looks like we have to be FB friends. I wrote this to you on Alanzo’s Blog somewhere. So I’m copying it again so you’ll get this. It’s in response to your statement about leaving The Bunker:

      This is very powerful and I want to personally thank you for writing this. This takes major courage. I’ve never been a Bunkerite. I’m a born in, so I don’t find reading about Scientology interesting.

      Recently, I skimmed over The Bunker because of Tony’s sensationalized titles. Obviously meant to degrade & insult The Rathbuns. Something like “Marty Rathbun No Longer King of SP’s” Then I read the comments from The Bunkerites. It was disgusting. Think what we may about Marty. But Mosey was never a Scientologist. She is innocent in my eyes. The hatred, sexist comments, and pure vitriol aimed at her was abhorrent.

      I completely agree with you about the group mentality. People start acting like animals and attacking those who aren’t a part of ‘The In Crowd’ It is chickenshit bullying. A pure form of cowardice.

      I have nothing but respect for people like you Miss Tia. People who can stand above the herd and speak up when you know something is wrong. Hopefully you can continue the fight against Scientology. Just join the people who are in it for legitimate and honorable reasons. There are many of us out there. Unfortunately there is a massive amount of ‘critic worshippers’ out there. Which is why we see people worshipping Tony O. I will never understand critic worship. It’s odd to me.

      You can find me on FB if you’d like Hope to hear more from you. Peace x

        • Mis tia…. You were one of few that have used “rue” Joke lots of times…… But koki is happy that you are free now…..
          Forget about commenting, just follow news….

          Big hello from LRHs Bulgravia.

  4. Yes. Alonzo,

    I pretty much agree whole heartedly with your pov.

    I am not on Tony Ortega’s blog.

    But I get enough info from fallout.

    And I met him in T.O. last yr at the anti scn conference, and talked briefly with him.

    I told him I had wins in scn and with scn on my own.

    I did my own evaluation of scn and gleaned the useful data from the false and limiting data.

    The good data is very valuable.

    It saved my life more than once.

    And I know the management of scn is insane, corrupt and criminal.

    DM needs to go to jail.

    By the look on his face, Tony didn’t think that I should of even been at the conference.

    I don’t agree with Tony Ortega’s way of doing things.

    Tony is not qualified to criticize scientology.

    People who are not objective are intellectually dishonest.
    And it is intellectually dishonest to comment on something, if you are not qualified to do so.

    And no one can be qualified to comment on scn if they have not been in it.

    Now that being said, I have said it before, many times and will say it again.

    In the ch “How to study scn” in New Slant on life, Hubbard is frustrated and being really honest for once, and tells followers to quit parroting him, to question everything and go and learn to think for themselves, and do their own research.

    An aside: It appears to me that there are more than one version of that article in different editions of the book.

    There are the keys and map to the way out of the trap of scn, written by Hubbard himself, for anyone who would do their homework, and read the books. If the diligent student/reader would of read that, and questioned everything, in other words followed instructions, he should soon wake up and find his way out pretty fast, and have the data for defense. All he needs to do, is say; I am following the instructions. Or I am doing things according to the book.

    The keys and the map are pretty much hidden in plain sight, for those with eyes to see and the ears to hear and a mind to think and read.

    Now all that being said:

    How can anyone justly or honestly complain about being in the cult and blame Hubbard and even DM?

    This world will screw you and abuse and steal from you and punish you until you smarten up and do things right.

    This world has zero tolerance for ignorance and stupidity.


  5. When the Portland Org spread around “confidential” folders to mock and degrade her daughter (and others), and her daughter complained through what she had been told were proper channels, Cathy True spearhanded a vicious campaign telling all her friends to vilify her own child until she was bullied into saying how wrong she was to complain. This is worse than anything Derek Bloch’s parents did to him, approaching what Vivian did to Miss Tia. I am appalled that you continue to defend that.

    • Bob –

      You continue to misunderstand what I am saying. I’m not defending anything.

      If you’ll actually read my post entitled “Tony Ortega and Rachel Bernstein’s Abuse of Scientologist Cathy Tweed” you’ll see what I am saying.

      Now go read that post, Bob, and we’ll discuss what I actually said. We will discuss that all you want.

      But there will be no more shaming of mothers who have lost their daughters to suicide – no matter their religion – on this blog.


      • “Tweed” not “True”, yes, my bad.


        I told you Bob – we are not going to trash a mother who lost her daughter to suicide here on this blog. It does not matter if you refuse to understand why no matter how many times I explain it to you.

        Go to Tony’s Blog and trash her there all you want – you guys eat that stuff up.

        But it’s not happening here.


        • Alonzo,
          I’m trying to.understand your reasoning.
          On the one hand, you have a woman who has suffered the greatest loss a person can suffer (IMO). So, on its face, yes, in would agree with you. To question this woman’s behavior in the aftermath of a tragedy would be unkind.
          But let’s use a different example……say you have a young person who commits suicide after growing up in a cult and suffering great the hands of the cult.
          After hearing of their child’s death, the parent refuses to acknowledge the past abuse, refuses to apologize and goes on to ‘trash’ (for lack of a better word) their child.

          I just watched a documentary (on HBO) about The Children of God cult. Many people who grew up in that cult suffered horrible abuse and wound up killing themselves. Some of the parents who are still in the cult turn a blind eye to the past abuse or outright deny it. They say their kids committed suicide because of other issues (non cult related).

          So, I guess my question is when does it become alright to discuss someone’s. behavior in connection to a suicide? Is it unfair to say ‘this person had a crappy life and had a crappy family and that is what drove them to suicide’? Or, is the family of a suicide victim always ‘off-limits’ to questioning?

          I’m trying to understand your position, not debate the topic.

          As far as the therapist commenting….I don’t know what the guidelines are for therapist malpractice, but I know I hear therapists (psychiatrists, etc) on TV/radio all the time commenting on someone’s behavior (always with the caveat of ‘I don’t treat this person, but…..’). So I can’t see the harm in a psychiatrist giving their opinion. I’ll have to re-read the post, but I don’t recall the therapist coming out and trashing the victim’s mother directly.

          Perhaps the intention was if this behavior is exposed, it will prevent it from happening again ….

          • Hi Chee –

            For some reason, the internet makes it seem like broadcasting what you are saying about someone publicly is similar to talking to a family member privately in your own living room. I don’t know why it’s like that, but it is.

            You know it’s not, though, right? What you write about people on the internet is public, and it ends up on search engines and gets spread around.

            If you had a neighbor whose child committed suicide, would you get inside your convertible with a blow-horn and ride up and down your street yelling, “THAT KIDS’ PARENTS DROVE THAT KID TO SUICIDE!!!” Over and over and over? To make this example equivalent to searchable internet postings, because the internet is forever as you know, you would have to keep riding around in your neighborhood and keep yelling your message about those parents into your blowhorn for years to get the same effect as writing this same message once on the internet.

            How arrogant would you have to be to think that you knew enough about the intimate details of that child’s inner world to make the conclusion that those parents drove that child to suicide? Really, think about it. How would you ever know?

            And this example is just a neighbor.

            Your vengeful spleen, and the spleens of your fellow Bunkerites, were directed at people you do not know at all.

            Because the death of one’s child lasts in a parent’s heart forever – until the day they themselves die – you have no idea the kind of changes a parent will go through in the future regarding their present religious beliefs, and their own thoughts and feelings about their own actions. None. You can not predict how they will see themselves in the future, and wonder what they might have done to make things turn out differently for their own child.

            This is a private hell, that for some reason, you and others at Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker want to get in on, to stoke the flames to make them as hot as you can get them for your glib and disconnected Revenge of the Day.

            Suicide is such a horrible thing for everyone, it is its very own punishment. Way more of a punishment than you could ever deliver to satisfy your own vengeful lust. Piling on to a suicide is incredibly brutish and cruel.

            It is fucking shameful.

            An idiot could see this, yet you and Robert want to keep getting me to explain why I think the way I do.

            Did you ever stop to think about what you are doing to people by venting your spleen every day in the Underground Bunker?

            I know you think that you are justified in taking down a cult. But that’s all you can see. Your spleen is actually splattering in every direction, and splattering lots of innocent people, and you and too many others there are completely oblivious to this.

            Or else you would not have come here to ask me this stupid fucking question.


          • Alanzo I recommend that you cross post your reply to Chee on Marty’s blog. It encapsulates so well what the issue of Cathy Tweed and treatment of her is all about. As wide of an audience as possible needs to read it.

            Of course it also comments quite well the overall principal of “be careful how you accuse or judge others openly on the net, because it really is like shouting it out on a mega bullhorn”.

            • I appreciate that. But I am hesitant to do that. Makes me seem like more of an attention whore than I already am.

              You can do it, though. 🙂


        • This was not an isolated case. It is part of a pattern. By trying to shut down discussion of how these things happen, you are helping it to happen again. I wish you had half the concern for the abuse victims that you have for their abusers.

          • I’m sure you can think up a way to expose the pattern without piling on to a particular parent’s own private hell, can’t you?

            If not, you are part of the pattern of abuse yourself.


          • No. If a gay teen commits suicide because the parents relentlessly damned him to hell and forced him into bogus torture-therapy, or a schoolkid because of years of bullying that the school administrators did nothing to stop or even participated in, these things need to be exposed. If that exposure is painful for the abusers: good. It should be.

            • This is why you’ll never get it, Bob. Your cruel lust for revenge is out of control.

              Please don’t come back here.

              Stay in Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker where you belong.


              • Whatever happened to freedom of thought, opinion, speech, etc?

                If you don’t want me posting on your blog because I have a different take on things, agree with Bob Eckert, actually, then I won’t.

                It puts you in a similar light to what you’re saying about Tony, though, IMO. Sycophants welcome, many of our/these blogs, should advertise. “You have freedom of speech, so long as you agree with us.”

                • I have no obligation to publish anyone’s comment on my blog.

                  Bob Eckert and Chee Chalker of the Underground Bunker both expressed desires to continue to be cruel to a woman who has lost her daughter to suicide, and my blog is not going to be a forum for them to do that.

                  They can do that at Tony’s blog to their dark heart’s content, as can you.

                  If you have something to say that I find worthwhile, then I’ll let your comment through. This comment of yours, for instance, questioned my censorship policy and so I found it worthwhile to clarify for you what it is.

                  Scientology is a very dark subject and it attracts some dark people, who can sometimes turn other people dark. Over time, over-dwelling in the dark injustice of Scientology, the prolonged exposure to the toxicity of the environment can become very corrosive to one’s soul.

                  All you have to do to see what I am saying is to stop posting or reading anything related to Scientology on the Internet for a few months, and then come back to it. You can see good people with the best of intentions turn into nasty hate and disgust-spewing machines who just spew their hatred and disgust at Scientologists and others, over and over, day in and day out.

                  They’re not really even exposing or criticizing anything any more. They are just engaging in personal insults and character assassinations of other people. Even when there is a valid topic to discuss, some people completely ignore the topic under discussion and vent their disgust for other people.

                  It’s really astounding what can happen to a person. Sitting in front of your computer, reading things every day that make your blood boil, and being connected to a bunch of other people all doing the same thing can become an incredibly powerful Skinner Box, very similar to the “2 Minutes of Hate” George Orwell described in 1984.

                  “The next moment a hideous, grinding screech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.’

                  “As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.’

                  “The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even — so it was occasionally rumoured — in some hiding-place in Oceania itself.’

                  “Winston’s diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard — a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party — an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it.’

                  “Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other.’

                  “In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair.’

                  “The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.”

                  Here’s more on the 2 Minutes of Hate concept

                  So please read ACOPL 9 NOVEMBER 2014 CENSORSHIP POLICY and realize that it will be applied here with no apologies to anyone.

                  After 16 years of Scientology on the Internet, I’ve had enough of this kind of thing. That censorship policy suits me.


  6. Hello Alanzo, Lush, Tia et al … Just short note to say that I have appreciated the fair-mindedness, the humor, and the personal warmth you have displayed on the bunker over the years. I had angrily departed the Bunker in advance of the blowup, (I had fairly singular one of my own a few weeks earlier) and came by … as a guilty pleasue…to lurk today. This stuff is news to me, and yet, it feels very familiar.

    People who have been hurt by Scientology can look around the bunker and get useful information. That’s ok, but are advised to look elsewhere too.

    Things are always changing. Most people want to do better after they learn from their mistakes.. Who knows? Maybe in the future the bunker will cycle back into a less rigid, less narrow, more open and more tolerant forum. We each can think of past members who really made it into a good place. Perhaps it can happen again.

    daytoncapri out (drops mic).

    • The crowd ROARS!

      “Maybe in the future the bunker will cycle back into a less rigid, less narrow, more open and more tolerant forum. We each can think of past members who really made it into a good place. Perhaps it can happen again.


      Thanks Dayton.

    • A friend of mine left Scientology around the same time I did. He was actually in it longer than I was though. A few years after leaving I started getting active in the Ex/Critic/Watcher forum and blog universe. My friend never felt the need to do this. (In fact he was repelled by these sites).

      Consequently his recovery from the cult is far more advanced than mine. He was able to move forward and get on with his life in a much saner way than I did.

      I don’t think ESMB, WWP, and The Bunker are good places for Exes still recovering and learning to live without falling right back into a groupthink trap. If I had it to do over again I would’ve avoided these places like the plague. I think I would’ve been much better off. I know I would have.

      Books, a therapist if needed, and real life friends are still the best remedy.

      • I hear you Lone Star. I would say that I benefitted from visiting those sites for awhile. I gained useful information help validate my choice to separate from Scientology, put some closure to that decision. The trap for me was to get sucked into the community. For awhile, I felt that it was a place, as an Ex, where I could gain and share understanding. Part of me still does, but honestly, I didn’t fit in.

        My little rant: I lost it when a little kid named Siri was being j&d’d, and the same night two ignorant never-in regulars got into it with an occasional poster who was fair-gamed in real life. Shit, one of my best friends had been fair gamed, why should I hang with these people?

  7. Now, where this cult is going down, some Cowboys, which liked to fight the evil, are in boredom now.

    With the gun on the right side they make a duell. This is Kindergarden.

    Of course there are bigger satanist than Hubbard and Miscavige, but there is a potential of evilness underneath, completely underestimated by all of us, which has to be made obvious to all people. The Nazis and Russian and Chinese camps show where the crowd can go.

    I have seen it in the Sea Org how people were trimmed to unreflecting soldiers. It was quite obvious: If we are on an Island, with the Sea Org Flag on it, the next thing is a concentration camp and directly behind this is the order to shoot this Downtoners, DeBes and “SP”s.

    Once a German SS-Officer showed me his Hakenkreuz, on which he was still proud of. He said, he is still meeting his old friends, and they are happy if they are together. He surely is dead now – without any sense of having ever doing wrong.

    Americans do not have a history on a Kaiserreich, a Nazi-Reich, a Stasi-Reich. The government cannot see the signs of a totalitarian regime as described in “1984”. (Me too, like you 😉

    Again: Scientology is a totalitarian regime. No matter how often you signed a success-story in this cult and signed how good you feel. Maybe you were only a fan, a follower, and not a do-er, like the SS-man above.

    I have seen in the last 10 years more than two handfull of Scientologists and EX-Scn going to kill themselves. Or were they driven to kill themselves? I stupidly believed the storys of: they are PTS or SP or Out-Tech Lowtone or whatever. (Does one of you fellows have a list of all justifications in SCN? – would be nice to have).

    It is not only this “Hole”, or this “RPF” or “Ethics” – it is brainwash. Look on your thoughts. I beg a lot, that, while reading this, thoughts came up, very fast, like “is this a SP”, “yes we have to stay together” and so on. Hubbards thousands of thoughts and storys weeping in our heads. This is the damage. Think on computations you made as a SCN-Fan on your friends. Always when you have seen a person, the first thing was computing: is he 1.1? If he is so nice, he must be over 3.0.” And so on. Crazy.

    So dear Cowboy, if you have to put your bullets out, please shoot directly to this satanists.

    I guess, its better you get rid of the rest of your filled head from this Hubbardian idiotisms and read this blogs like a newspaper.

    And if you have fellows there, from which you are separated, then donate or help the

    Maybe, one time the government in the US wakes up and refuses the tax free-status and forbids this disconnection suppression, invented by Hubbard and used also by other cults like Jehovas etc.

    I hope you enjoy the rest of your life – in freedom – you ever looked for.

  8. I started following Tony Ortega’s site about 1 1/2 years ago because I had had some run-ins with the church and felt he provided interesting information. However from the beginning I felt uncomfortable about the cult mentality and found it ironic that what everybody in the bunker was railing against, they themselves practiced it to some degree.

    An example would be holistic health. Now I know very little about it but Ortega had something negative to say and the whole group immediately chimed in.

    Another example is the a person who considers himself an expert on music and especially Jazz, yet if someone disagrees, this person goes on attack yelling troll or other insults. Some people want to protect their turf.

    I’ve read some very informative posts by Tony, but that worship mentality bothers me.

    A a result, I might read the column but haven’t felt any need to post.

    Just my two cents.

    • I also have been greatly helped by reading Tony Ortega’s post. I still click onto it every day.

      One doesn’t have to get into the social aspect of it. Sometimes, I’m irritated when they talk about taking the cat to the vet, etc. At times, I comment; at others, I don’t. I get the information, keep it, throw it away – take the best out of it.

      I reiterate, one doesn’t have to be drawn into the group agreement. I agree that some of the bloggers sound as though they’ve never left scientology, they’re reduced to the same gushing and carrying on that goes on in the cherch.

      BUT, Tony’s blog is an essential blog. He publishes material no other blog of its kind does. We need to see it. If a post is not of that much much interest to me, I scan through it. If I don’t approve of something, I move on. I’m not willing to forfeit all his material though. He’s got some good sources. I also like the videos by Chris Shelton, articles by Jon Atack, Jeffrey Hawkins and Jeffrey Augustine; and others.

      Let those who sprout vitriol,sprout it. It’s a free world. Or it should be. It may be the stage they’re at in their decompression. At some point, they’ll get over it. It they don’t, it’s their business and I don’t worry about it.

      One of the worst characteristics of scientology is its propensity to label people. Let be.

  9. LEAH REMINI told everybody that her sister Nicole found her ex husband having sex with her best friend in nicole’s bed. Nicole was crying to Leah and she said, “Get over it”
    ‘I’ll buy you a new pair of tits.”


Leave a Comment

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