People need simplistic explanations for Scientology because it’s too much work to understand it. They just want Scientology to be a cult & Hubbard to be a con man because it’s easier to think with that way. Even an Ex-Scientologist can go through a period where this is what they want.
In the long run, that’s never going to work. So even though this need for simplistic understandings is understandable, in the end, it will never do what you need it to do.
But even this is not the worst thing you can do to yourself as an Ex-Scientologist.
Good post.
Thank you, Eileen.
I asked myself this morning, what is the main thing I’ve been trying to say for the last two years?
What did I learn that I think might be valuable to other people who, like me, have come through Scientology after spending a significant part of their lives in it?
I think the point you have been making, that we don’t have to repudiate entire decades of our lives, is essential. Every experience matters. The idea that a person can recognize the good while also recognizing the bad is profound.
In that way you really are stepping ahead of the pro and anti Scientology scene.
Thank you very much for that, Eileen.
Most people who get out of Scientology never get into the “pro vs anti” scene. Scientology was never a big enough part of their self-identity that it mattered enough. They just moved on.
But Scientology was so life-changing for me when I first got involved, that I did make it a big part of my self-identity. And so when I found out about the incredible insanity at Int Base, and Hubbard’s true bio, I got out and made protesting it and being an anti-Scientologist a large part of my self identity too.
I’m not the only one who did this.
And that part of your identity (the protesting shit stirring part) is also important.
It is an amazing feeling to step outside the stories we tell ourselves about our life, and just see the sweeping arc, fading back to the distant past and sweeping ahead to who knows where? It’s got me thinking about some changes I need to make, some labels I have grown too attached to. I wonder what I could do if I let them go?
I know!
That’s the freaking question, isn’t it?
yes Alanzo, the power of choice is what makes us, or does it? It depends.
What sits behind the power of choice is rhetoric, which Hubbard used to get us to become a scientologist.
What sits behind one getting out of scientology is rhetoric as well.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm
But if we break down rhetoric to pathos, ethos and logos, why hubbard used all 3 means, and getting out requires the same. Funny how that is?
So, are us ex scientologists just supposed to move on up and not tell of our experiences?
Stepping back and trying to look at Scientology and anti-Scientology objectively, and not through any ideological filters, is not meant to limit one’s freedom of speech.
But you can do that to yourself if you want.
In fact, if you would like to start self-censoring yourself I’m sure many people would be grateful. 🙂
I’m not posting on your blog for group agreement, just the facts.
I know.
You’re here as part of the ESMB delegation. Kind of like the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations ( 🙂 ). We have other delegates from other parts of the world too, like the Underground Bunker. We have Indies and I’ll bet even a few Churchies. We have Ex-JWs and Never-ins. Even The Psychs are very well represented here.
What we need, and what I’ve always wanted, was someone like Karin Pouw or Tommy Davis. An overt, rather than covert, representative of the Church to present cogent, rational arguments for the Church’s positions on things. I think that would be very valuable.
I swear that as the Chief Moderator I would hold back the wolves and let a Church LRH PRO speak unharmed. And I’m sure everyone here would be as diplomatic as possible, as well.
I don’t know where I learned this, but I always thought that conditions were improved by more communication, not less.
I’m a cabal of one exposing Hubbard’s rhetoric.
“I don’t know where I learned this, but I always thought that conditions were improved by more communication, not less.”
LOL 😀
“I swear that as the Chief Moderator I would hold back the wolves and let them speak unharmed. And I’m sure everyone here would be as diplomatic as possible, as well.”
I don’t think they could actually be free enough to have a true discussion.
But what a wonderful thought!
That would be amazing. But you would have to protect both sides. There are also wolves on those hills.
Apparently, there are wolves everywhere.
it’s kind of funny, in the link I provided, Cicero mentioned inventio,
That’s Hubbard. LOL
That’s a good link. I’m surprised at how many of those people had negative comments about rhetoric.
me too, only a few. It’s interesting.
Another link:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html
just click on mp3 to listen.
It’s true that many anti’s go on about how Scientologists are brainwashed and “Ronbots” – but others take a very unsypathetic view of them and say how stupid they must be, or how “willifully ignorant” they are about the abuses and other outpoints. They (the anti’s) seem to want it both ways – that Scientologists are completely at effect and that they are aware of what’s going on but refuse to be honest about it. Maybe some of them hold both views as their own cognitive dissonance.
Btw, Alanzo, you seem to be as good at relatively extemporaneous (I assume) speaking as you are at writing – although you haven’t done nearly as much of it, as far as I know. These recordings were a great idea.
Well thanks.
Writing posts is so much hard work. At least 2-3 hours.
Just ranting for 10 minutes or so is so much easier!
Interesting. I don’t think many people have a flair for it. You’re very glib – in the good way! 😀
Just to note, by glib “in the good way” I meant the first definition:
1. Performed with a natural, offhand ease: was fascinated by his unfailingly glib conversation.
2. Given to or characterized by fluency of speech or writing that often suggests insincerity, superficiality, or a lack ofconcern: criticized him for being glib about something so serious.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/glib
Thank you for clarifying.
But I was pretty sure you meant the Cary Grant kind of glib and not the Matt Lauer kind.
“Matt, you’re glib. You’re glib, Matt.”
Gawd, was he awful in that interview. I understood the real reason Katy left him.
I’m getting a “403 Forbidden” message when I try to go on Mike Rinder’s blog. I wonder what’s up with that. I’ve posted some general conversation comments there over the last month which went through and no hostile comments. I still find some interesting comments there, or at least I did. Oh well. Maybe it’s just an internet mystery.
I’m getting the same message, but be a disruption in service
It’s a server error. Tony Ortega is on it.
For a day I thought I was involved in internet intrigue – “Forbidden” from a website – ha ha
Amateur.
Once you’ve been forbidden from as many websites as I have, then we’ll talk.
Laughter – true. I’ve only been blogging two years and that’s the first time I saw a message like that when trying to get on a website. I thought it applied to me personally. Here are a couple of thoughts that went through my head.
What did I do!?
I’m being unjustly accused!
Maybe he’s banning me for things I said on Alanzo’s blog.
Did someone get my IP address?
Who’s third partying me!?
I need to retread “Clear”. I got restimulated!
Someone asked Mike if he thought OSA was responsible for the hack. He replied, “Of course. Who else would be motivated to do it?”
Someone else apologetically admitted they got bored while the website was down and went over and looked at Alanzo’s blog. Someone scolded him for that.
In the good old days there was the saying “If it isn’t fun it isn’t Scientology.” In the above circumstance that still applies.
Ha!
When I was a militant anti, I used to think that anyone who disagreed with me must be an OSA agent.