Tweeting With Tony Ortega

I’ve re-joined the fray on Twitter over the last couple of weeks.

Tony Ortega is on Twitter answering questions to people about Scientology in his extremely biased way. I mean really, even Tony Ortega has to admit that he has a bias, and he writes with a bias on Scientology everyday on his blog. No one really thinks that Tony Ortega is unbiased and objective and tells all sides of the truth in his reporting on Scientology, do they?

So I replied to Tony Ortega’s tweet.

Tweeting with Tony Ortega

Here I was just telling Tony what it was like inside Scientology for the vast majority of Scientologists – NON Sea Org members. I figured since he was never in Scientology at all, he might appreciate someone letting him know what it is really like to be a normal, everyday Scientologist.

If you look at his response to me below – I’m “Troll” in Tony Ortega’s tweet – you see that Tony doesn’t really duplicate or understand what I tweeted him, nor does he seem to care.

Here you can see that Tony completely twisted what I said. I never said anything about how toxic policies were OK, or how they did not apply in the Midwest. I said that the fanatics in the Sea Org have trouble enforcing any policies on Scientologists there, and elsewhere in the world where there is no Sea Org installation, and thus they have less reach.

So I tweeted him back:

Alanzo Tweeting Tony Ortega

When I said that Tony Ortega had a colossal bias on Scientology and this made him unable to see and report on real life inside Scientology, given the above, was that really an unreasonable statement?

Who could expect a guy who never was a Scientologist, and never would be a Scientologist because of his total contempt for Scientology, to be able to report on everything in Scientology accurately?

Am I all wrong here? Is my point to Tony valid?

Here’s another one from just this morning. Get the way he answers the question he’s asked.

Is this a guy who is trying to provide the objective truth about Scientology?

Why are so many people putting up with this without questioning him?

More Tweets to Tony Ortega:

22 thoughts on “Tweeting With Tony Ortega”

  1. Better question to start with: Where is the evidence that Nicole Kidman has even been declared an SP? AFAIK, no SP declare has ever been issued and anyone insisting that she has been declared should at the very least provide evidence of such an order.

    Tony Ortega is also incorrect as regards the claim that the “rules” (the proper term is Ethics) are somehow “different” for celebrities,. Such claims are based purely on hearsay. Ethics are the same for all public Scientologists, “celebrity” or not. He does not appear to understand the definitions of Ethics and Justice in the context of Scientology and how they are applied to publics as opposed to staff.

    If he knew anything about Scientology, he would know that arbitraries are common; consistently standard application of Dianetics and Scientology across all orgs is a myth, which is how someone like Leah Remini got hit up for over $300K for an unwarranted Ethics program at Flag, which mostly consisted of confessionals, which was then entirely refunded after she complained and demanded a review. Tony Ortega doesn’t appear to realise that famous and/or wealthy Scientologists are actually less able to “break the rules” than the less affluent, especially after attaining the State of Clear and moving on to the OT levels. Most Scientologists cannot even afford to attend services at Flag, even if they are able to qualify to step foot on the property; most who apply for permission to visit Flag are rejected. This has been true for awhile now.

    I find no evidence that Elisabeth Moss is closely involved in the practice of Scientology, or even that she spends much time in the company of other Scientologists. AFAIK she has not been active on the Bridge for some time, nor is she anywhere close to attaining the State of Clear. However, it is a fact that Elisabeth Moss is not a spokesperson for Scientology, and has never functioned in any way as a spokesperson for any Scientology organization, nor has she ever promoted Dianetics and Scientology. She is a highly successful, independent adult woman who is fully in charge of her own life and does not answer to anyone in Scientology. Most certainly, she does not and would not allow herself to be ordered around by anyone in Scientology or allow any such persons from dictating who she is or is not allowed to interact with, even in relation to anyone who has been declared an SP or who is thought to be an SP.

    Conclusions:
    1) Elisabeth Moss is her own woman who lives her own according to her own rules.
    2) Elisabeth Moss is a public Scientologist of her own free will and studies and practices Scientology at her leisure.
    3) Elisabeth Moss is not in thrall to any Scientology organization, nor does any representative of Scientology have any authority to involve themselves in her personal life, nor would she ever allow or accept such intrusions.
    4) Elisabeth Moss isn’t on Twitter and doesn’t know who Tony Ortega is, but doesn’t give a rat’s ass what he or his misogynistic Twitter friends think or say about her so long as they keep their trolling and verbal violence between themselves and away from her.
    5) Tony Ortega is a weirdo who should mind his own damn business.

    • Excellent points, Atomical. We need more of this kind of non-hysterical, reality-based viewpoint on Scientology from people who obviously know what they are talking about.

      Welcome to AlanzosBlog.

    • Atomical – At the bottom of the “Ethercat Out . . .” topic Zane X posted a link to an interview with Elizabeth Moss. He was griping because the interviewer asked her about scn, but it was only a paragraph or two in a lengthy and interesting interview. She was voted Class Clown on one of her production sets for keeping everyone laughing.

  2. Why are so many people putting up with this without questioning him?

    I will offer an opinion on this, but first a little background.

    I’ve been thinking lately about the mercurial nature of consciousness, and what we think we know. How different things hold our interest for a while, sometimes a long while, and then pass out of that zone of interest.

    You’ve made similar observations about yourself, Alanzo, over the years, how your point of view has shifted and is constantly shifting, vis-a-vis Scientology.

    The point of this is the impermanence of Certainty.

    The idea that once you know something, you never have to revisit it or think about it again is fallacious. You think that all you have to do is get all your mental idea ducks in a row and then you’re done. That is a way to “certainty”, but it sets up a sort of permanent learning disability in oneself.

    And at different points in one’s life, this certainty gets blown up. That is usually accompanied by a lot of turmoil, but if one toughs it out, the process and the emergence on the other side can be the most exhilarating and liberating thing to experience.

    Tony Ortega is Certain. Mike and Leah are Certain. RTC staff, SO members are Certain.

    Quite possibly, it is the mechanism of Certainty that might be the toxic element, not the meaning or significance that one is certain about. An rabid anti-Scn person is trapped in the same structure as a rabid scientologist.

    Certainty is rigid. It is not a flow. It is a stop. A point of no motion. So is a state of Mental Certainty a desirable condition in a constantly changing, flowing, unfolding world?

    I don’t think it is. Yet that is completely counterintuitive.

    So why do people put up with Tony Ortega’s extreme bias you ask? Because he says things that are false or exaggerated, and also things that are quite true, but it all goes along with the narrative they want to believe. They don’t want to think about complex questions such as what parts of Scientology might be benign or beneficial and which are toxic.

    It’s understandable. Scientology forces you to adopt a synthetic Certainty that all LRH, all Scn Tech is good and most everything else is bad and it is KSW#1 that is basically telling you you ain’t shit until you are 100% Certain of that.

    So when people throw off the mental shackles of Scientology, they are pissed at Scientology big time.

    But I think that maybe what they really should be doing is learning to embrace Uncertainty, to develop a tolerance of the discomfort of uncertainty. Instead, they’ve misidentified that the problem they had was believing 100% in Scientology. And while that is not really wrong, what they might miss is the deeper problem: they have done nothing to address their own addiction to Certainty.

    So they become “Certain” again, after a really uncomfortable period without it. Only now they’ve plugged in the opposite significance into the Certainty machine: everything Scientology sucks.

    Don’t mistake what I’m saying here is that one can’t know anything or believe anything. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is people can miss out on the wonder and joys of our constantly changing world by their attempts to encapsulate more and more of that world into neat little static packages.

    • John Doe wrote:

      “So why do people put up with Tony Ortega’s extreme bias you ask? Because he says things that are false or exaggerated, and also things that are quite true, but it all goes along with the narrative they want to believe. They don’t want to think about complex questions such as what parts of Scientology might be benign or beneficial and which are toxic.”

      That process of holding both “sides” of the truth in one’s mind can be extremely dissonant (distressful) at first. But the better you get at it, the less stressful it becomes. You could say that there are always two sides to the truth, but a more accurate statement would be there are NO sides to the truth.

    • John Doe – Excellent “short essay”. “The impermanence of Certainty” is worth pondering upon. I like the metaphor “the Certainty machine”. To me your essay reads a bit like Vedic wisdom in modern English.

  3. I’m surprised Tony published your tweets. I think if you get in a pissing match with him you’ll be out and none of your viewpoints will get aired. I’ve posted on Marty’s blog for almost two years and very few of my comments were blocked. I didn’t question his motivations or evaluate him, just stuck to my own experiences and opinions. “your colossal bias” is pretty strong. Just sayin

    • In Tony Ortega’s case regarding Scientology?

      Would you agree that he has a bias regarding Scientology? How big of one?

      I say “colossal”. Would you say, what? as big as a house?

      As big as a telefunkin47?

      How big?

      • I don’t know how Twitter works. Can he block your tweets if he doesn’t like them? At least you’re getting some opposing viewpoints posted. Do you really think he’s going to concede to Alanzo’s Superior Wisdom and admit he’s biased on his own Twitter account? (joke)
        What’s “Derp.”

        • It’s why I need that cape.

          No one’s taking me seriously. I only have 19 followers.

          Actually, Tony can block me. But to his credit, he has not.

          “Derp” is the sound a mouth breathing idiot makes.

          I really need that cape.

        • I watched your video with Indie Scientologist Andy Nolch and you seemed to be breathing from your nose. I guess your meditations have helped.

          Speaking of Andy, he’s a good sport. Most of the comments on his blog are negative but he keeps his sense of humor. I posted that I was an Ex and had resolved any issues I had with scn, but also mildly criticized something about his manner of speaking. He suggested that I do ten minutes per day of TR0 with a wall to get over it – lol

          19 members is a pretty good coffee klatch if we can talk about cats like on Tony’s blog. Scn is still in the news so you’ll probably gain more followers.

  4. You know, Alanzo, this is just an opinion with no actual evidence, but I am beginning to think that the anti-Scientology work pays really well! I mean, Ortega’s followers (admitted by Ortega HIMSELF) funded his “journalism” work (travel expenses, stay, etc) to go in the middle of Hurricane Harvey to the courthouse regarding Marty’s citation about his former lawyer’s allegations of having been left out of the “secret deal” that Marty allegedly did with the CofS.

    Ortega, after ignoring the possible fate of the Rathbuns with Harvey, added a small comment at the end of his “journalist” article, wishing for the Rathbuns to be well and safe. The level of hypocrisy is very highly indeed!!

    The “Vulcan Science Officer” (Aka “Chris Shelton” Mr “Critical Thinker”) is now asking for “Patreons”. And I am sure that a blog with so many commenters and supporters of its narrative as Rinder’s, must have been making constant donations to his blog. It would be interesting to find out how much they make with their Anti-Scientology activities, you know; Ortega, Rinder and Shelton.

    Perhaps I should create a blog myself about anti-Scientology, and leave my construction business, haha.

  5. This is my first comment, though I have exchanged a couple of tweets with you Alanzo.

    I have to ask why is it a bad thing in your eyes to be anti cult.

    • Thanks for your question, Allison.

      And welcome to AlanzosBlog.

      I have learned in the past few years that it is important to not think in stereotypes and cognitive distortions regarding minority religions.

      After many years of seeking revenge against Scientology as a former member, critic, and anti-Scientologist, I have experienced something similar to waking up from a nightmare. It is very similar to the original “awakening” which got me out of Scientology.

      If you know anything about thinking with cognitive distortions from cognitive behavioral therapy, I have found that a person who goes through the experience of losing their religion, such as an Ex-Scientologist goes through, can pick up these cognitive distortions and they can dominate their thinking about their former religion. And when you get into a group of people – such as the anti-Scientology community – these cognitive distortions can form a constant nightmare hysteria that can be enforced and re-enforced over and over on whole groups of people.

      Cruelty and abuse of power, such as can occur in ‘cults’, is important to expose. And I have done that for 18 years on the Internet. But there comes a point where this exposure can turn cruel itself, and engage in stereotyping and criticisms that are not recognizable against the reality of being a Scientologist.

      95% of Scientology is NOT abusive. And 99% of Scientologists are not the abusers in it.

      Someone needs to be saying that, and exposing the evidence for a more rational, non-hysterical view of “cults” in general, and Scientology in particular. I’m doing that because I see it as important now to expose this about Scientology as it was to expose their abuses 18 years ago.

      • A couple of things stick out to me in your answer. First you say that most aren’t abused and most aren’t abusers in Scientology. In your next paragraph you point to your attempt to expose their abuse 18 years ago.
        So obviously the abuse hasn’t stoped.

        I was never in Scientology, I started out curious and now after having learned, I feel a need to help my fellow human beings.

        You can say what you will about the average scientologist but the writings of LRH are intended to make a secret society and make those in the Scientology have a them and us mentality.

        It seems to me that somehow things have got turned around where the people hoping to help the abused are somehow made to be the bad guys.

        • The abuse is top-down in Scientology. It ALL originates from David Miscavige.

          If David Miscavige were made to leave, by whatever means, the abuse in Scientology would almost disappear.

          It would still need to be watched, but it is David Miscavige’s particularly cruel and sociopathic interpretations of L Ron Huibbard’s texts that generates almost ALL of the abuse we are seeing in Scientology.

          Thus, the target for correction is DAVID MISCAVIGE, not Elizabeth Moss, or any other public Scientologist. They have no power to abuse anyone – and they never would. To them, Scientology is a means to helping people. That’s why they are Scientologists and that’s what they do, all day every day.

          You might disagree with Scientologist’s religious beliefs, but without David Miscavige, there would be very little abuse in the Church of Scientology for anyone to worry about.

        • >The abuse is top-down in Scientology. It ALL originates from David Miscavige.

          Half right. The abuse originates in the policies written by LRH. David must have found something in the ruthless enforcement of LRH policy that clicked with his own abusive personality. But to pretend that DM is the only problem with Scientology is to bury one’s head in the sand.

        • No one has been a greater proponent of your argument than me. But, almost no jew or christian murders gays any more in the west – even though Leviticus commands to do so.

          LRH had many contradicting policies. A person less violent and less insane than Miscavige would interpret LRH in less violent and less insane ways.

          Anti-Scientology, as it is presently constructed, would completely collapse without David Miscavige.

Comments are closed.