ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



To Karen Pressley: Why OSA Wins When Critics of Scientology Don’t Allow Criticism of Themselves

Discussion in 'Leaving Scientology' started by Alanzo, Aug 30, 2019.

  1. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Karen Pressley runs the closed Anti Scientology Facebook group called “SWOT”. Her same reasoning here is rampant on ESMB. It's always good to expose reasoning and lay it out in the open so it can be inspected for its soundness, right?

    Karen “cleaned house” recently by expelling critics of Scientology from her group who were Ex-Scientologists. The people she expelled have built a very good track record of being precisely the kind of person she says is welcome in her group, right from the first paragraph of the notice she posted:


    In fact, one of the people Karen Pressley banned from her group presented a Wollershiem level fair game case to Mike Rinder, asking him his advice on it and how to proceed. Mike told this person not to bother bringing her case, that Scientology would win.​

    You mean win like you won Wollersheim, Mike?​

    So not only has this person done this exact thing that Karen says belongs in her group, but the person Karen Pressley is protecting from criticism, Mike Rinder, actually used his influence to divert her case from being examined by legal professionals and have it resolve in justice against the perpetrator.​
    Karen goes on to describe what it means to be a member of her group:​


    Only the cult? Why not use critical thinking on the group’s Anti-Scientology programs, too, so that they can be tested from multiple viewpoints, having the best ideas rise to the top after a multi-viewpoint debate?​

    All the smartest, most effective groups do that. All the dumbest groups follow authority.​
    Just like the Sea Org.​


    This is interesting because the people who were banned questioned the trouble that Aaron Smith Levin was causing other members in her group by calling them “whacked out conspiracy theorists”. It’s funny how some critics can be criticized in Karen’s group while others can not.​

    Just like in the Sea Org.​


    And yet that’s exactly what Aaron Smith Levin did – he found fault with whistleblowers, observers/watchers and troublemakers.​

    Yet it was the people he found fault with who were banned.​

    Just like in the Sea Org.​


    You can only tear up Non Sea Org Ex-Scientologists in Karen’s group, apparently.​


    Is there really only one big picture? You mean the big picture that has allowed David Miscavige to remain in power for longer than L Ron Hubbard, eating lawsuits for lunch, and doing whatever he wants to Scientologists?​

    That big picture?​

    I think that big picture has proven itself impotent, and new big pictures need to be hung for Scientology critics and whistleblowers to examine.​


    “Fueling OSA with your comments” what does that mean, exactly? Has Karen ever examined this?​
    I doubt it.​


    And yet all that is still unresolved. And Karen Pressley is protecting Mike from having to resolve it.​
    But is what Karen says here true? Has even Karen herself left that black hole? Because power pushes against factions that she doesn’t consider in authority is precisely the kind of Sea Org behavior which she has employed here.​


    And yet Aaron Smith Levin did exactly that to critics of Scientology who are working to expose it.​


    That post called out Aaron Smith Levin for clear abuses of other critics, exposed his faulty logic and lack of critical thinking, and very clearly and professionally reminded him of the standards that the Aftermath Foundation themselves espouse.​

    That post was an important set of ideas to inject into a community of critics who for far too long have never questioned their own assumptions, and who have simply regrouped outside the Sea Org to trigger each other into the same old Sea Org behavioral patterns.​

    That post was one of the most important posts I’ve seen posted to Karen’s group, and she could only see it through her own old Sea Org eyes.​

    And all of her own old Sea Org behavioral patterns took over and shut down important ideas and discussions that Scientology critics and whistleblowers desperately need to have.​


    So there it is – because we have all sinned (and no Scientologist has sinned as much as a Sea Org member) no one can criticize anyone in Karen’s group for any reason – even if the harm they caused, as Aaron did, is right there in present time. Why?​

    Because you are a sinner yourself.​

    Karen? Is Aaron Smith Levin without sin?​

    Because he tried to destroy and discredit the characters of critics and whistleblowers in your group.​
    Can you even see that, or has all your Sea Org training come back to blind you?​


    This is the most hypocritical Sea Org based bit of authoritarianism I’ve seen since at least last Tuesday from Celebrity Anti-Scientologists.

    Part of the reason that David Miscavige is still in power, still doing what ever he wants to Scientologists is that his critics and whistleblowers are stuck in their own tribal hypocrisy and blindness, they block out new ideas from people who don’t 'have the rank' to present them, and they ban the very people from their group who could contribute the most.

    Now possibly, Karen could be so triggered into her old Sea Org patterns that she can’t see what she’s done here.

    I hope this post makes some progress to waking her up to her own stated standards.

    That’s what criticism is, by the way. At its best, criticism reminds people of the standards they have set for themselves and shows a productive way forward to achieve it.

    What am I suggesting as a productive way forward?

    Start reading and commenting in the open Facebook group called Scientology Deprogramming. And right here on the new ESMB. Because that’s where the real deprogramming from Scientology occurs – not by triggering each other into the old roles, old emotional habits, and drilled-in reactions from the Sea Org.

    Does anyone see any problems in the reasoning presented here? Either with Karen Pressley's reasoning, or with the commentary?

    For those of you who can't stand to hear criticism of critics, gird your tender loins, fire up your critical thinking skills, and let's hear it.

    Otherwise, you always have the many options that Management provides for you here on ESMB to put this thread on ignore.

    Start!
     
  2. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    How interesting.
     
  3. Hun, you gotta start somewhere.
     
  4. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    Start what?
     
  5. Mansplaining goose poop from a meat pie.
     
    tesseract likes this.
  6. chipgallo

    chipgallo Patron Meritorious

    Are the Rules not clear? Looking at #3 specifically. These seem to give a pretty good prediction of group norms.
    SWOT rules 2019-08-29_21-14-23.png
     
    Alanzo likes this.
  7. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Is that from Karen's closed group rules Chip?

    If it is, do you have specific rights to post it here Alonzo?
     
  8. Tanchi

    Tanchi Patron with Honors

    Alanzo, I have a question. Is it not possible for you to directly contact Karen Pressley?
     
  9. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Why would I need to do that? To 'handle' Karen?

    No.

    We need to publicly examine her reasoning which is not original to her, and which is so dominant in our community of Exes, to test it to see if it is valid.

    I personally don't think it is. And I say why.

    Do you think her argument is valid?

    Why?
     
  10. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Karen posted this in many different groups, not just her own. As she has admitted.

    She spread this all around at the time.
     
  11. Tanchi

    Tanchi Patron with Honors

    To communicate with her privately, respectfully.

    I'm confused about your use of "we". Who is we?
     
    tesseract likes this.
  12. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    This group of Ex-Scientologists here on ESMB.

    Do you think her argument is valid? Why?
     
  13. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    Your post has no specifics, i.e. quotes of the posts in question. So we are to just take your assessment of the situation as some kind of fact?

    I think your post is rude.
     
  14. Tanchi

    Tanchi Patron with Honors

    Ok. Thank you for splainin! :) Since you linked to the Scientology Deprogramming FB group, I wanted to make sure which group you were speaking for.
     
  15. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    "Our community"? Sorry, but you're not a part of that community. You're in the anti-anti-scientology community. Standing on the outside throwing rocks.
     
  16. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    This is the Ex Scientology community (or one of) as far as I know, or was when I last looked.
     
  17. Tanchi

    Tanchi Patron with Honors

    But is it possible to resolve your issue with her privately? To me, it's just better manners. (Aging Southern Belle)
     
  18. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    OK Emma. I get you.

    However there are factions now. There's Alanzo's faction and then there's the rest of us that need to be reprogrammed and dictated to.

    We now must follow the dictates of Alanzo to:
    He can examine all he likes.

    His "analysis" provides no quotes to provide context in which to examine Karen's post.

    His crusade to convert the "anti-scientologists tribe" to his way of thinking so far isn't going so well. I suppose he's just going to keep on tearing into critics, justified by his mission to save us all from damage by our wrong-think.
     
  19. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    Says who? Not me. Not anyone else.

    Good. Don't let anyone tell you what to think.