What is a Classic Scientology Apologist?

[Emma]

I was involved in that chat and I certainly never said "classic" and I don't think Alanzo did either.

Both you and Sneaks refused the label "apologist" for yourself, but now you accept it?

What I actually said was "What you are witnessing is a Scientology apologist on an Ex Scientologists message board. There are bound to be flames".

 

[jesuslovesxenu]

Having watched Hardeep Singh Kohli's video, I can imagine that it's simple and fundamental, or I can imagine that it (Scientology) is complex and spiritual.

In the particular instance of Scientology, I can't quite imagine that it's both, yet, but someone with more experience might be able to explain that. Or not.

 

[Tanstaafl]

There are those who will differentiate between CoS-Apologist and Scn-Apologist, and those who won't.

 

[Alanzo]

I was involved in that chat and I certainly never said "classic" and I don't think Alanzo did either.

Both you and Sneaks refused the label "apologist" for yourself, but now you accept it?

What I actually said was "What you are witnessing is a Scientology apologist on an Ex Scientologists message board. There are bound to be flames".

I don't know what "classic" even means in this sense.

Fluffy?

What's the difference between a "Scn apologist" and a "classic Scn Apologist"?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

delete

 

[Zinjifar]

and there are those who will seek to redefine terms so that they won't have to move their own positions, but want to avoid the label.

In fact; isn't that part of 'The Tech'?

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I was involved in that chat and I certainly never said "classic" and I don't think Alanzo did either.

Both you and Sneaks refused the label "apologist" for yourself, but now you accept it?

What I actually said was "What you are witnessing is a Scientology apologist on an Ex Scientologists message board. There are bound to be flames".

Yes,actually you did say "classic". And that is what the sticking point was.

I have no problem with being called an apologist but I'm anything but typical or classic. I have never ever denied that label though I think people who get too into affixing labels to others are making a mistake whenever they do so.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

There are those who will differentiate between CoS-Apologist and Scn-Apologist, and those who won't.

And there are more than a few non CofS Scn'ists who act like typical Ronbots. Never something I wanted to do. That's why I don't get along with the more party line FZers.

 

[Tanstaafl]

and there are those who will seek to redefine terms so that they won't have to move their own positions, but want to avoid the label.

In fact; isn't that part of 'The Tech'?

Zinj

Fair point Zinj.

I was simply trying to (respectfully) point out that this issue dovetails with a lot of stuff that's been rubbed into the ground on ESMB and which, for the most part, left us agreeing to disagree.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

This term came up the other day. Afterward, I got to thinking. What would that actually be?

To me, it sounds like it means a typical Scientology apologist.

Wouldn't a typical one be a "Ron can do no wrong" type guy or gal? I think it would. I see stuff like that from Scientologists in letters to the editors, or picked up by critics from various sources and reposted. I have also met and talked to Freezoners who felt that way. Don't diss Ron. If he were here, he'd sort everything out. It's only DM who's the problem.

Another trait of the classic Scientology apologists I've seen is to have total and utter faith in the tech and to not admit that Hubbard's claims were and remain exaggerated.

I don't know of anyone here who has that view. I know I don't. I wouldn't want either of the points of view described above. In fact, I've never ever used any of the arguments I've seen the real hide bound Scn'ists in CofS and the Freezone use. I don't believe in most of 'em. I do think that Scn has a lot of brilliance and truth in it, but from there, the hardliners and I part company. I don't believe in everything Hubbard wrote, I don't believe that Scn is the only metaphysical, self help, or other methodology people should try. None of that.

I do think Scn is out-gradient for people, and that includes myself. I posted a topic about that months ago where I posited that as my theory. It's a theory I've been playing with for some months now. But that's not a matter of "you poor slobs don't get it". It's more my observations on the many contradictions in Scn, the fact that LRH threw everything in there, and the many times I've seen trained staff mangle Scn concepts, mangle Scn techniques, as well as the many things I've seen ex members say.

No, no, I leave "classic Scientology apologism" to churchies and some of the more hard line among the Freezoners. At this point, I'm playing with concepts and theories. Since they're theories, I don't have to officially back 'em up. Because they are concepts I'm playing with. All I have to do is say why I think this might be the case. So I really don't need any "classic critics" calling me names.

This is what I posted the other day. Please note the sentence that starts with "but that's not a matter of".

 

[Emma]

I don't think Fluffy is a CoS apologist. That is obvious. She does speak up against the abuses of the cult.

I did say she was a scientology apologist because she came into chat with a theory that IMHO belittled everyone who rejects the scientology philosophy.

Her "Scientology is out gradient" theory offends me personally. For it to me true means that I never understood it, could never properly apply it and just faked my way through. This is rubbish.

What actually happened is quite different.

I do understand Scientology, I applied at accurately for 9 years and I got some good results on people. But what was also happening was that I was seeing no REAL OTs, no REAL Clears (as per textbook definitions), no STABLE EPs for grades completions, lies from management, people being ripped off and disconnected from their familes and human rights abuses.

So now I'm a critic of Scientology. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I never "got it" or couldn't apply it.

Thank you.

End of rant.

 

[Emma]

Yes,actually you did say "classic". And that is what the sticking point was.

I have no problem with being called an apologist but I'm anything but typical or classic. I have never ever denied that label though I think people who get too into affixing labels to others are making a mistake whenever they do so.

No I didn't say classic for the simple reason that you aren't a classic anything.

It was the word APOLOGIST that got you so riled up. Now you accept it. Go figure.

 

[jesuslovesxenu]

This is from the Scienowiki, I thought it was interesting:

It is convenient, although an oversimplification, to broadly look at things like this:

* Churchie - Loves the Church and loves the Tech.
* Freezoner - Hates the Church and loves the Tech.
* Critic - Hates the Church and hates the Tech.
* Int Mgmt - Loves the Church and hates the Tech.

 

[Tanstaafl]

And there are more than a few non CofS Scn'ists who act like typical Ronbots. Never something I wanted to do. That's why I don't get along with the more party line FZers.

Fanatics is as fanatics does.

If someone just calls it as they see it, without flinching from the observable and without defaulting to group agreements, then they're alright by me; whatever their opinion. I know, I've got things wrong before and I will again. I hope people see that I'm trying to find the truth - whatever the hell that is.

Anyhoo, I believe that CoS is a much more important issue, socially, than the validity of the tech. Although, Veda may have a point on the OT levels as they are currently presented.

 

[Zinjifar]

Fanatics is as fanatics does.

If someone just calls it as they see it, without flinching from the observable and without defaulting to group agreements, then they're alright by me; whatever their opinion. I know, I've got things wrong before and I will again. I hope people see that I'm trying to find the truth - whatever the hell that is.

Anyhoo, I believe that CoS is a much more important issue, socially, than the validity of the tech. Although, Veda may have a point on the OT levels as they are currently presented.

How bout if we all just apologize and say that Fluffy is classic narcissistic victimologist and then move on to the demolition of Ron already in progress?

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I don't think Fluffy is a CoS apologist. That is obvious. She does speak up against the abuses of the cult.

I did say she was a scientology apologist because she came into chat with a theory that IMHO belittled everyone who rejects the scientology philosophy.

Her "Scientology is out gradient" theory offends me personally. For it to me true means that I never understood it, could never properly apply it and just faked my way through. This is rubbish.

What actually happened is quite different.

I do understand Scientology, I applied at accurately for 9 years and I got some good results on people. But what was also happening was that I was seeing no REAL OTs, no REAL Clears (as per textbook definitions), no STABLE EPs for grades completions, lies from management, people being ripped off and disconnected from their familes and human rights abuses.

So now I'm a critic of Scientology. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I never "got it" or couldn't apply it.

Thank you.

End of rant.

I said it included myself and I said it was only a theory I was playing with.And I don't just "speak up about the abuses of the cult".

My theory is none too complimentary about Hubbard or Scn. So you don't like or agree with the theory. I'm not sure I do,either. Just a concept I'm playing with. I'm sure there are other ways for people to tell me they think the theory's all wet without personalizing the issue. In fact, some posts here did just that.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

This is from the Scienowiki, I thought it was interesting:

Unfortunately, I don't fall into any of those categories.

 

[Mojo]

A real classic $cn apologist is going to defend CofS no matter what.

That would be a 'Church' of Scientology apologist.

Ron's always right

That would be a Hubbard apologist.

They're not going to condone the use or interest of any Scn'ist in any other methods other than Scn.

That would be a non-sensical statement.

So yeah, there are classic Scn apologists out there

A classic scientology apologist would be one whom does not defend the church and does not defend Ron Hubbard , but does defend scientology aside from the church and aside from Ron Hubbard.

You are a classic scientology apologist Fluffy. With emphasis on the word Classic.

You are not a critic of scientology Fluff. Come on now. You love scientology. You are a critic of the Church of Scientology, and of L. Ron Hubbard. But you are not a critic of scientology. Which is perfectly fine. I seriously doubt if the majority of those protesters all around the world on feb. 10th were critics of scientology itself. Mockers of it? yea. Jokers and Degraders? yea. But they were first and foremost critics of the corrupt management of scientology (read that church) and critics of Hubbard's lies deception cons and fraud.

Fluffy is a Classic Scientology Apologist. Has a nice ring to it. Be proud of it. You are not alone. There's Nick, Leon, Bjorkist and various others here that share your undying devotion and love of scientology as a philosophy/doctrine/cosmology/technology, call it what you will.


name signed with invisible ink to protect the innocent from being ignored.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

No I didn't say classic for the simple reason that you aren't a classic anything.

It was the word APOLOGIST that got you so riled up. Now you accept it. Go figure.

No, Emma. It was the word "classic" that did. Plus the way in which all that was said. I don't much care about the apologist thingie, though I think it's got some inherent flaws wrt the concept of labelling others.

 

[Leon]

Wooo Hooooo!