The anti-Scientologist

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK, there are good things in Scn. That doesn't mean I'd recommend anyone getting involved with the co$. The false claims for Clear & OT are enough to advise anyone against getting involved. The costs are just too high in terms of money and time to be chasing after a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gib

He-man

Hero extraordinary
I wish this had not become a political thread. It's a distraction from the topic at hand.

What topic are you refering to? The anti scientology crusade in general or something else entirely?

The lingo, and themes, of these Scientology Inc. vehicles has been appearing here, by way of one particular poster, for some days, and some people have responded to that.
So "That one particular poster" uses the same analogues as Scientology Inc and therefore..?

Life was so much easier when there was just one crusader to keep track on. My mind is melting.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Scientologists believe that because so much of Scientology is GOOD, then the little bits that are BAD are not important.

Therefore, Scientologists say that Scientology is ALL GOOD.

Anti-Scientologists believe that because so much of Scientology is BAD, then the little bits that are GOOD are not important.

Therefore, Anti-Scientologists say that Scientology is ALL BAD.

If the truth of anything is both the good and the bad, you can see that both Scientologists and Anti-Scientologists are equally unable to tell the truth about Scientology.
I disagree.

Scientologists say that Scientology is all good because if they criticize, they get sent to ethics, worst case declared.

Most "Anti Scientologists" realises that Scientology is a cult and focuses on the abuses of the organisation(at least that is my perceived perspective)

Therefore, Anti Scientolgists doesn't really care about perceived "gains" from Scientology.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I disagree.

Scientologists say that Scientology is all good because if they criticize, they get sent to ethics, worst case declared.

Most "Anti Scientologists" realises that Scientology is a cult and focuses on the abuses of the organisation(at least that is my perceived perspective)

Therefore, Anti Scientolgists doesn't really care about perceived "gains" from Scientology.
It isn't about "gains".

It's about existence.

The truth about anything is BOTH the good and the bad of it: Ronald Reagan, Adolph Hitler, Mitch McConnell, Tulsi Gabbard, Albert Einstein, Shirley Temple.

You've got to crack out of this two-poled Scientology vs Anti-Scientology debate to see the wider existential nature of my point.

Seeing and evaluating what I am saying through those filters is what keeps people stuck.
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
<snip talking-blob video>
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
Hi.

<snip video transcript>
I thought people did talking-head videos because they didn't want to spend the time typing out (or dictating/editing) all the words. Otherwise, why do it? A vid of a pretty girl doing nothing else than talking may be watchable. But you? (Or me, for that matter?) No.

But you created a perfect (I assume) transcript.

Paul
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I thought people did talking-head videos because they didn't want to spend the time typing out (or dictating/editing) all the words. Otherwise, why do it? A vid of a pretty girl doing nothing else than talking may be watchable. But you? (Or me, for that matter?) No.

But you created a perfect (I assume) transcript.

Paul
Just for you, Paul.

I hope there are no typos.

And as you can see, no one has taken over my account. I am the one making my own points, despite Veda's anti-Scientologist hysterics.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
It isn't about "gains".

It's about existence.

The truth about anything is BOTH the good and the bad of it: Ronald Reagan, Adolph Hitler, Mitch McConnell, Tulsi Gabbard, Albert Einstein, Shirley Temple.

You've got to crack out of this two-poled Scientology vs Anti-Scientology debate to see the wider existential nature of my point.
Why?

Why do I need to crack out of something that doesn't exist?

I am anti-Scientology, the organisation, the abuses done by the individuals, its "tech" - never specifically the individuals themselves. I want to see justice done, I have accepted that it will most likely never happen.

The a=a=a=a mindset is a part of the mindfuck that I simply do not buy into. I am what you could consider allergic to it. It give me rashes that develops into boils. I hate lancing them.

I can agree with people and lend them support or the reverse, it doesn't mean I am fused to them in a bi polar structure. One thing that you have to remember about social structures is that they are never permanent. That being said, I definitively feel I belong in this "tribe" as you call it, I do consider meself being an "Ex Scientologist" however that "tribe" is wast and does not mean I have the same beliefs or mindset as everyone else here.

Scientologists are individuals, and as such it is not about their "existence" that are at risk, it is their (weird)ideas. This is where I think "we" went wrong some nine years ago. Everyone's ideas can and should be reviewed, criticized and discussed. Whether they pertain to predatory stalking fresh blown Scientologists to herd them into the freezone, Emma's cooking skills(ok maybe not that one, I fear the ban), one member going on a crusade, whether auditing people once you are out is fucked up --- WHATEVER. It should not be perceived as a threat to someone's flippen existence. That's retarded thinking in my opinion, witch I mean in the kindest form of the word.

The way I understand your wider existential point - Be specific about what in Scientology you criticize? Is that what you're saying? If so, are we then actually disagreeing or do we do that from two different mountaintops?

Mine is of course - taller.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
That's a very simplistic view of the complex cultural readjustment an Ex is faced with.

It's not just "are there no Clears and OTs"?

It's 'can I trust the mental practitioners they have here in mainstream society'?

Maybe.

'Is Big Pharma gonna kill my children"?

Maybe not. But it's far from a certainty.

"Do members of mainstream society live meaningful lives without a Bridge to Total Freedom"?

Maybe some, maybe some not.

These are complex cultural re-adjustments from the sub-culture of Scientology, back into mainstream society. And they are not black and white at all.

None of this means Scientologists were damaged or are mentally ill simply from being in Scientology.

Leaving Scientology is primarily a cultural predicament, not primarily a psychological one.

Veda is hell and gone from being able to understand anything like this. In fact he views this as a DANGER, probably influenced by OSA!

That's why I think his paranoid Torquemada version of Anti-Scientology is so bad for Ex-Scientologists.
OMG! It's like somebody crossed a New Age Bullshit Generator with Scientology and Marxism.

Veda has proven to be a valuable resource for exposing historical things like the cult and occult origins of Scientology. I love his work. I can understand why you don't get along.

I think I'm going to start keeping score. So far you have condemned to Alanzo's Anti-Scientology Cult hell:

Veda
Type4
HelluvaHoax
Mike Rinder
Leah Remini
Karen de la Carriere
Jeffrey Augustine
Tony Ortega
TheOriginalBigBlue (Volunteer)

I feel like I'm leaving someone out.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I can see why people say you don't answer their questions. As you wish.

Paul
I already answered you, Paul. Remember?

You did a review of my Anti-cult Movement video, and you asked me the same question - and your answer was actually in the video you watched..

So I pasted part of that transcript as an answer to your question - very specifically for you - because you might not have seen it.

And now you are asking the same question again, saying "I can see why people say you don't answer their questions."

Not your squirrel cage librarian, Paul. Go find your post yourself and re-read it.

I answered you.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I already answered you, Paul. Remember?
I just read through both transcripts and didn't see an answer. Maybe buried in the logic puzzles it's there, but I really don't care that much. Thanks anyway. I'll try to remember not to ask the same question again.

Paul
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
That's the problem Gib, my boy.

For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat—and wrong

Why do you think people keep saying it takes years to "recover" from Scientology?

Because the problem has been misdefined and over simplified. No wonder it takes an ex a lifetime or more to recover from Scientology.
"Auditing can handle that!"
 

Veda

Sponsor
Alanzo has misrepresented my views. He must know better and I have no idea why he's doing this.

This is a short post of mine from 2011. It's been re-posted a number of times. This essential view has been expressed, by me, in many different ways, with varying degrees of nuance and detail, depending on the circumstance:


IMO, those who perceive Scientology's negative core often can't see the positives that - amongst the hype and soft manipulation - speckle the outer display layer of the subject. Their explanations are often incomplete, as they can't see those parts of the display coating that are truly positive.

Those who perceive the positives - in the outer display layer - often are unable to see the negatives at its core. Their explanations tend to be extremely naive.

Conveying the idea that there is both a positive outer display coating which is ultimately subordinate, and also a negative hidden core which is ultimately dominant, can be difficult. It seems that the laws of nature, the laws of the human mind, and perhaps the laws of the human nervous system make recognizing both aspects difficult.

Scientology is a secretive and manipulative doctrine with a truth-coating. The truth-coating is displayed while the negatives are often hidden or disguised; or, when they no longer can be denied, are rationalized or "spun."

The "Scientology package" is both positive and negative. Scientology is a carefully crafted (by its founder) mix of "Black Scientology" and "White Scientology," resulting in Scientology.

Since the negatives are hidden, disguised, or denied, it becomes necessary to focus on the negatives. However, I've also acknowledged and spent time describing the positives.
:)
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Alanzo has misrepresented my views. He must know better and I have no idea why he's doing this.

snip...

Since the negatives are hidden, disguised, or denied, it becomes necessary to focus on the negatives. However, I've also acknowledged and spent time describing the positives.
:)
The Standard Anti-Scientology fanatic reasoning: Because there is so little GOOD in Scientology, or because the GOOD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology ALL BAD.

This is the 2-poled flip of a Scientologist's reasoning: Because there is so much GOOD in Scientology, and because there is so little BAD, or the BAD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology is ALL GOOD.

Veda, as an anti-Scientologist, is just as incapable of telling the truth about Scientology as a Scientologist is.
 
Last edited:

He-man

Hero extraordinary
The Standard Anti-Scientology fanatic reasoning: Because there is so little GOOD in Scientology, or because the GOOD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology ALL BAD.

This is the 2-poled flip of a Scientologist's reasoning: Because there is so much GOOD in Scientology, and because there is so little BAD, or the BAD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology is ALL GOOD.

Veda, as an anti-Scientologist, is just as incapable of telling the truth about Scientology as a Scientologist is.
Would you say the same of me?
 

cleared cannibal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Alanzo has misrepresented my views. He must know better and I have no idea why he's doing this.

This is a short post of mine from 2011. It's been re-posted a number of times. This essential view has been expressed, by me, in many different ways, with varying degrees of nuance and detail, depending on the circumstance:


IMO, those who perceive Scientology's negative core often can't see the positives that - amongst the hype and soft manipulation - speckle the outer display layer of the subject. Their explanations are often incomplete, as they can't see those parts of the display coating that are truly positive.

Those who perceive the positives - in the outer display layer - often are unable to see the negatives at its core. Their explanations tend to be extremely naive.

Conveying the idea that there is both a positive outer display coating which is ultimately subordinate, and also a negative hidden core which is ultimately dominant, can be difficult. It seems that the laws of nature, the laws of the human mind, and perhaps the laws of the human nervous system make recognizing both aspects difficult.

Scientology is a secretive and manipulative doctrine with a truth-coating. The truth-coating is displayed while the negatives are often hidden or disguised; or, when they no longer can be denied, are rationalized or "spun."

The "Scientology package" is both positive and negative. Scientology is a carefully crafted (by its founder) mix of "Black Scientology" and "White Scientology," resulting in Scientology.

Since the negatives are hidden, disguised, or denied, it becomes necessary to focus on the negatives. However, I've also acknowledged and spent time describing the positives.
:)
I think this may be the most damaging part of Scn esp for someone leaving or newly out. There are many things I agree with Scn on but I find it hard to be true to myself because if Scn believes it it must be bad. It is getting better but is almost a book definition of cognitive dissonance. It makes leaving that much harder because along with coming to grips that your spiritual beliefs may be wrong it also require leaving many of your other anchor points at a time when you are most vulnerable. I feel any Scn that has been indoctrinated and then leaves the faith is at heightened risk of suicide or psychotic break.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The Standard Anti-Scientology fanatic reasoning: Because there is so little GOOD in Scientology, or because the GOOD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology ALL BAD.

This is the 2-poled flip of a Scientologist's reasoning: Because there is so much GOOD in Scientology, and because there is so little BAD, or the BAD is so unimportant, you must consider Scientology is ALL GOOD.

Veda, as an anti-Scientologist, is just as incapable of telling the truth about Scientology as a Scientologist is.
Wow! Watching people attempting to have a conversation with you is totally bizarre.
 
Top