Aftermath Announcement

freethinker

Sponsor
I don't know which episode you were in, but I think it's good that you got to tell your story on TV.

You do realize that Mike Rinder, the guy who fairgamed critics for 22 years, and CREATED these stories - perhaps even yours - made a bunch of money on your story and the others. And you say that you don't care.

Fair enough.

Do you know about any of the others, especially some of the kids who worked with the show, and what happened to them as a result of their unpaid work?
See, you're just pissed that you weren't either a good enough suppressor or a good enough victim in order to reap rewards from it.

This is really what it is all about with you, they get paid and you don't.

Well, they put their resume out there and got calls, they got jobs telling about Scientology but no one called you because your resume doesn't stand out as a top suppressor or top oppressed or you don't have the personal knowledge sought.

They got work and jobs because they criticized and analyzed Scientology for people who wanted to know.

You, instead criticize them because they have what you want, they get paid to do it.

If you could do a better job than they are then you would be making the money and we wouldn't have to listen to you whine. Instead there would be some other Alanzo whining about you.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
We call Scientology a cult. Alanzo doesn't want us to use that. It is supposed to be sub-culture or minority religion. I disagree with that and I associate that kind of behavior with Rules for Radicals. Of course people who use Rules for Radicals to push Alinsky type agendas probably believe those euphemisms much the same way Scientologists believe terms like SP and squirrel. We can argue with them all day long and they will never change their position because they are too invested in the agenda behind the perversion of the language.
My terms come from social science.

They are the terms used by people who are trained in quantitative analysis and who run social science departments, for instance, at the University of Virginia, such as David Bromley, and the University of Ohio such as Hugh Urban. And lot's more pretty much everywhere in the world.

Social Science is important for Ex-"cult" members. It provides objective, science based ways to understand what they view as their spiritual journey through religions that are not part of the mainstream society they live in.

The more you try to wave Exes way from it, Big Blue, the more your intentions for them are suspect as once again, pushing fanatical ideology.

Your terms like "cult" come from people like Stephen Hassan who appeared on Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath, yes, but who, even his colleagues, have a very hard time finding any credibility with

https://phtherapies.wordpress.com/2...ws-steven-hassans-latest-self-published-book/

https://cultnews.com/2017/03/serious-complaints-about-cult-specialist-steven-hassan/

I believe you need to expand your thinking out from the ideology of the anti-cult movement, and question things more.

Be more skeptical of these crappy little touchstones from the anticult movement. Be skeptical of your own assumptions. You can't help but grow from that.

No one is trying to cover over abuses. And no one like me is trying to hide any crimes.

But it's VERY important to keep a cool, objective head, and to use disciplined science-based reasoning when dealing with religions.

Especially OTHER PEOPLE'S RELIGIONS which are the hardest thing in the world for our tribal species to understand.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
My terms come from social science.

They are the terms used by people who are trained in quantitative analysis and who run social science departments, for instance, at the University of Virginia, such as David Bromley, and the University of Ohio such as Hugh Urban. And lot's more pretty much everywhere in the world.

Social Science is important for Ex-"cult" members. It provides objective, science based ways to understand what they view as their spiritual journey through religions that are not part of the mainstream society they live in.

The more you try to wave Exes way from it, Big Blue, the more your intentions for them are suspect as once again, pushing fanatical ideology.

Your terms like "cult" come from people like Stephen Hassan who appeared on Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath, yes, but who, even his colleagues, have a very hard time finding any credibility with

https://phtherapies.wordpress.com/2...ws-steven-hassans-latest-self-published-book/

https://cultnews.com/2017/03/serious-complaints-about-cult-specialist-steven-hassan/

I believe you need to expand your thinking out from the ideology of the anti-cult movement, and question things more.

Be more skeptical of these crappy little touchstones from the anticult movement. Be skeptical of your own assumptions. You can't help but grow from that.

No one is trying to cover over abuses. And no one like me is trying to hide any crimes.

But it's VERY important to keep a cool, objective head, and to use disciplined science-based reasoning when dealing with religions.

Especially OTHER PEOPLE'S RELIGIONS which are the hardest thing in the world for our tribal species to understand.
The social sciences have been so taken over by SJWs that it's become a cult itself. But nice try.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
<snip>
Your terms like "cult" come from people like Stephen Hassan who appeared on Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath, yes, but who, even his colleagues, have a very hard time finding any credibility with

<snip>
:roflmao::duh: "Bury them in generalities" No, the word "cult" wasn't invented by Hassan. You pretend this is all about one lone whack-job attacking an innocent "minority religion". You aren't ignorant or stupid, why pretend?

Thousands of researcher has studied cults to understand what a cult is and how people get trapped into cults. There are dozens or more studies with lists of cult characteristics that help identify cults and help people understand how they got trapped.

In list after list after list, the Church of Scientology matches most or all of the characteristics of a cult. It is a cult. I don't say so, people who have studied cults for years say so.

You can pretend all you want but the reality is, Scientology walks like a cult and talks like a cult. Yeah, it's a cult.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
My terms come from social science.

They are the terms used by people who are trained in quantitative analysis and who run social science departments, for instance, at the University of Virginia, such as David Bromley, and the University of Ohio such as Hugh Urban. And lot's more pretty much everywhere in the world.

Social Science is important for Ex-"cult" members. It provides objective, science based ways to understand what they view as their spiritual journey through religions that are not part of the mainstream society they live in.

The more you try to wave Exes way from it, Big Blue, the more your intentions for them are suspect as once again, pushing fanatical ideology.

Your terms like "cult" come from people like Stephen Hassan who appeared on Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath, yes, but who, even his colleagues, have a very hard time finding any credibility with

https://phtherapies.wordpress.com/2...ws-steven-hassans-latest-self-published-book/

https://cultnews.com/2017/03/serious-complaints-about-cult-specialist-steven-hassan/

I believe you need to expand your thinking out from the ideology of the anti-cult movement, and question things more.

Be more skeptical of these crappy little touchstones from the anticult movement. Be skeptical of your own assumptions. You can't help but grow from that.

No one is trying to cover over abuses. And no one like me is trying to hide any crimes.

But it's VERY important to keep a cool, objective head, and to use disciplined science-based reasoning when dealing with religions.

Especially OTHER PEOPLE'S RELIGIONS which are the hardest thing in the world for our tribal species to understand.
Oh great, you adopted a new cult with new guru's
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Many, if not most, people who route out of the SO or are FBed out aren't given a dime. I don't know when this "severance check" thing started but at the time I left no one I knew who left was given any money. I was on the org's FP committee. If people were being given money to leave my org you can guarantee it would be the org's FP that would have to cover it. I would have known about it.

I left in 1996, so this practice of the check when you're heading out the door must be recent.

Of course, I blew, so my personal situation would be irrelevant. But other exes I know of who were in and who left when I did or before were not given any money by Scientology.
I routed out via the PAC RPF in June 1996. My departure was delayed for several weeks because ITO hadn't put the $500 on their FP. I've sat on FP Committees too, and knew if I waited for this I'd still be there today. I didn't need the $500 and said, look, you could give me a bag of dog shit and I would agree it was worth $500 -- LEMME OUTTA HERE. They gave me a couple of KTL books from the RPF library instead, which was fine by me. And I was soon released.

Paul
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
My terms come from social science.

They are the terms used by people who are trained in quantitative analysis and who run social science departments, for instance, at the University of Virginia, such as David Bromley, and the University of Ohio such as Hugh Urban. And lot's more pretty much everywhere in the world.

Social Science is important for Ex-"cult" members. It provides objective, science based ways to understand what they view as their spiritual journey through religions that are not part of the mainstream society they live in.

<snip>
Unlike with natural sciences that rely upon experimental data, social scientists rely primarily on experiential data, do they not?

How exactly do they study Scientologists? Call David Miscavige, request permission to send in a team to various orgs so they can make observations and do interviews?
 

Veda

Sponsor
I'll go first.

I think Marty Rathbun was one of the most effective critics of the Church of Scientology ever.

I have no idea what happened to him, and neither does anyone else.
This post by you in another thead requires clarification.

Marty had three phases as a critic: First, as the Marty Luther of Independent Scientology, this was up to maybe early 2014; then, the second phase, a gradual shift to ceasing being a Scientologist and beginning to understand what Hubbard's Scientology actually was, when he was simply being honest; and then the third phase that began a few years ago where he settled with David Miscavige and became his puppet.

DDxQjn0UAAAhNUT.png

The tragic third phase​


To which phase are you referring when you called him "one of the most effective critics of the Church of Scientology ever"?

This linked thread begins with a quote from Marty when he was well into phase two: Rathbun saw the light, then was crushed | Ex Scientologist Message Board
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Unlike with natural sciences that rely upon experimental data, social scientists rely primarily on experiential data, do they not?

How exactly do they study Scientologists? Call David Miscavige, request permission to send in a team to various orgs so they can make observations and do interviews?
Excellent skepticism Type4_PTS.

You should use that skepticism more!

Social science has used Quantitative Research (see the link I provided for you) for decades in the case of cults, to debunk the idea that people were 'brainwashed' into becoming members of a minority religion.

Eileen Barker of the London School of Economics is only one of many social scientists who simply counted the number of people who were claimed to be under 'brainwashing' and who continued to count their progress from recruitment, to adherence, and to leaving the "brainwashing cult".

Don't you think this would be important objective information on the POWER of brainwashing to make people act against their own power of choice?

Here.

Watch this:

 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
This post by you in another thead requires clarification.

Marty had three phases as a critic: First, as the Marty Luther of Independent Scientology, this was up to maybe early 2014; then, the second phase, a gradual shift to ceasing being a Scientologist and beginning to understand what Hubbard's Scientology actually was, when he was simply being honest; and then the third phase that began a few years ago where he settled with David Miscavige and became his puppet.

DDxQjn0UAAAhNUT.png

The tragic third phase​


To which phase are you referring when you called him "one of the most effective critics of the Church of Scientology ever"?

This linked thread begins with a quote from Marty when he was well into phase two: Rathbun saw the light, then was crushed | Ex Scientologist Message Board
I'll answer you there.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
I routed out via the PAC RPF in June 1996. My departure was delayed for several weeks because ITO hadn't put the $500 on their FP. I've sat on FP Committees too, and knew if I waited for this I'd still be there today. I didn't need the $500 and said, look, you could give me a bag of dog shit and I would agree it was worth $500 -- LEMME OUTTA HERE. They gave me a couple of KTL books from the RPF library instead, which was fine by me. And I was soon released.

Paul

Well, I blew in June 1996, the same time you were routing out.

Maybe people were getting paid when they left at this point. If so, it's news to me. No one I knew that had left were given a check when they routed out.

I'm positive it never came up in an FP meeting.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well you have to suffer abuse to get that.
No, seriously, there is good money to be made defending the Church of Scientology, if you can pull it off. What do have to do?
  • Token disparagement of Miscavige to be accepted, but don't overdo it.
  • Disparagement of Hubbard is fine.
  • "The Church of Scientology is not a cult"
  • "Anti-Scientologists are fanatics and irrational"
  • Critics of Scientology are not intelligent people
  • The leading critics of Scientology are only in it for the money.
  • Critics of Scientology have crimes of their own
I dunno, if you get a resume full of these kinds of statements, maybe you can get money from the church.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
No, seriously, there is good money to be made defending the Church of Scientology, if you can pull it off. What do have to do?
  • Token disparagement of Miscavige to be accepted, but don't overdo it.
  • Disparagement of Hubbard is fine.
  • "The Church of Scientology is not a cult"
  • "Anti-Scientologists are fanatics and irrational"
  • Critics of Scientology are not intelligent people
  • The leading critics of Scientology are only in it for the money.
  • Critics of Scientology have crimes of their own
I dunno, if you get a resume full of these kinds of statements, maybe you can get money from the church.
Maybe he does.
 

AryaZ

Seeking truth and retribution
Many, if not most, people who route out of the SO or are FBed out aren't given a dime. I don't know when this "severance check" thing started but at the time I left no one I knew who left was given any money. I was on the org's FP committee. If people were being given money to leave my org you can guarantee it would be the org's FP that would have to cover it. I would have known about it.

I left in 1996, so this practice of the check when you're heading out the door must be recent.

Of course, I blew, so my personal situation would be irrelevant. But other exes I know of who were in and who left when I did or before were not given any money by Scientology.
The 2 people I knew personally, left the SO around 2005--06 Celebrity center and Gold. Karen discusses Alexander receiving $3500 in her post on Marty's site:
https://markrathbun.blog/2010/06/30/lrh-trained-class-xii-cs-karen-de-la-carrierejentzsch/#comments

It is also well documented that Debbie Cook and Wayne received $50,000 when they left. Just Google it.
 
Top