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.