Mark my words. Tony Ortega and his unnamed sources will rue this day when they declared Monique Rathbun as fair game and subjected her to intentional libel.
Mark my words. Tony Ortega and his unnamed sources will rue this day when they declared Monique Rathbun as fair game and subjected her to intentional libel.
Choosing a side and then obsessively resisting against another side causes one mental and spiritual dissonance. One doesn’t get relief from one’s dissonant self by changing sides and carrying on with resisting. Agreeing to resist and then resisting is the trap. Many a trap sells jazzed up forms of resistance. Inspection of the salesmen on either side of most dramatic conflicts shows close parallels to those whom they invite you to resist. Intuitive people can even perceive their similar exuded discordant wavelengths.
An easy mark for resistance recruiters is someone who has been deeply conditioned to resist. Such folk are sitting ducks for re-enslavement by entrainment. Resisting against that which you once resisted for appeals to the denialist mind looking for return to the seeming comfortably numb stasis of two-valued thought. It is the lazy, short-sighted condition experienced by those practicing denialism.
Both sides in denialist conflict depend upon one another for the continuation of their chosen crusade, in some cases even for their very identities. All the while what you consider of the other side is precisely what it considers of you. In the world of scientology this week while the post ‘Scientology’s Vortex of Hate’ was current, a prominent scientologist twittered that those interviewed in the documentary Going Clear were akin to ‘Nazis’ talking about Jews. Meanwhile, one of those alleged ‘nazis’ publicly dropped the same ‘N’ word on scientology twice. Two-valued logic thinking prevails: black vs. white, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, God vs. the devil, America vs. the Nazis.
It is a game where everybody ultimately loses. Into the matrix one goes joined with and thoroughly dependent upon his nemesis for his very continued being. One can even wind up difficult to distinguish from his enemy in terms of language and behaviors.
Transcending is often accompanied by some discomfort and some new thinking; and that requires a tad of courage. The mechanics are similar to those employed in addiction rehabilitation. The way out of the matrix is not paved for the pack-minded weak. That is not to say it requires great effort. It does require some discipline to learn the skill of letting go.
The simple minded on both extremes of the scientology ‘war’ will no doubt deal with this as denialists do with reason. It will likely be categorized with a label convenient to stopping thought or contemplation, like ‘a call to apathy’, or ‘lack of compassion’ or ‘an apology for the enemy.’ For those perhaps capable of looking beyond the most immediate emotional impulse, and appreciating nuance and paradox, I leave you with a passage from the Tao Te Ching.
Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water.
Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it.
The soft overcomes the hard; the gentle overcomes the rigid.
Everyone knows this is true, but few can put it into practice.
Therefore the Master remains serene in the midst of sorrow.
Evil cannot enter his heart.
Because he has given up helping, he is people’s greatest help.
True words seem paradoxical.
Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard developed a complicated knack for sucking all who defied him or failed to comply with his dictates into a vortex of hate. Virtually all of his closest associates who expressed the slightest doubt or disagreement with him were driven by Hubbard to wind up hating him with a vengeance. A careful study of Hubbard’s history suggests the cycle was intended. It garnered him all manner of hysterical calumny that he deftly turned into exhibits in demonstrating hate-filled ‘bias’ against him and his creation, scientology. And so it goes with his brainchild scientology and his successor David Miscavige.
In the early fifties Hubbard lectured to his followers that he considered that no group could survive for long absent a well-defined, hate-filled enemy. He candidly admitted that he ‘chose’ psychiatry (generalized as ‘psychs’ to rope in virtually all mental healing arts and sciences) as scientology’s enemy out of convenience. It worked well for a while. Several prominent psychiatric and psychological societies worked feverishly to check or stop scientology in its tracks. While the psychs were hard at it, scientology saw its greatest expansion, drawing close ranks to energetically fight off real (albeit largely self-created) threats to its survival. Ironically, fifty years later scientologists came to believe as an article of religious faith that psychs are inherently evil, while psychs came to consider scientology little more than a harmless fringe cult. Scientology sought refuge in the guise of religion and achieved a sort of immunity from the consequences of its crimes. But it came at a cost, parking itself in time as a mid 20th Century anachronism.
As society itself evolved and hating lost its social acceptability, scientology lost its expansion-driving underdog, under-siege appeal and cohesiveness. Its numbers have been gradually declining since the mid nineties when the last serious threat to its continued existence was overcome. I use the term ‘last’ decidedly, notwithstanding the scientology infotainment blogs’ End of Days prophesying with the airing of ‘Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief.’ While the documentary will have an effect on the size of future potential new membership it will do little to change or alter scientology’s course. (For more on that score, see Vice.com interview.)
Over time Hubbard and scientology fine-tuned their ethics system and organizational pattern to replicate its policies of hatred creation toward anyone who doubted or questioned any aspect of Hubbard or scientology. The cycle seemed to go: a) someone exposed scientology abuses or criticized its practices, b) scientology harassed the person to the point of driving him into a rage causing the whistleblower to become a crusader, c) as scientology’s smears and attacks escalated in their audacity and dishonesty, the crusader naturally clustered with others similarly situated folks for support, (scientology all the while encouraged such clustering pursuant to principals set forth in Hubbard’s recommended text The Art of War) d) as the cluster was then attacked as an ‘anti-scientology’ group, its members developed a hate-filled culture, took scientology’s bait and started responding in kind, d) scientology then pointed to the character of hate-filled counter attacks as proof the attackers were haters. Ultimately, haters hate, they wind up hating each other and the groups having no purpose beyond scientology’s demise accomplish little beyond steeling up scientologists to fight yet more battles.
You can see that same cycle playing out today. Scientology forums read more and more like scientology’s propaganda sheet ‘Freedom.’ They are replete with name calling, expressing glee at every enemy faux pas, assigning evil motives to any and every enemy utterance or move, pronouncing hyperbolic end of days scenarios for the enemy, even targeting for distrust and enmity anyone who does not exhibit its own culturally devolved standards of ridicule and hate. Their heaping praise and kudos on those mostly closely adhering to the company line verge on cult-like. The tone, intelligence and tolerance levels are no different than scientology’s itself. Their leaders have become as obsessed with scientology as scientology’s leading lights are. Their sense of right and wrong becomes nearly identical (albeit reversed in vector) to scientology’s.
Scientology’s instilled ‘ethical’ values can be summed up in two clauses: Whatever or whoever supports and forwards scientology is good; whatever or whoever detracts from scientology is evil.
Similarly, the anti-scientologists’ creed could read: Whatever or whoever supports and forwards scientology (or, in extreme cases, is even neutral on the subject) is evil; whatever or whoever detracts from or attacks scientology is good.
Sadly, what apparently few of the former friends of Ron and ex-scientologists grasp is that when scientology successfully sucks one into its vortex of hate, one has lost and scientology has achieved its objective.
It is relatively easy to get former scientologists to go this route since they developed such simplistic denialist thinking patterns as scientologists. They simply reverse the target and carry on as before in the comfort of a new group of like-minded pack members.
It is a regressive cycle. It involves segregation, devolution, and descent. It may give one an outlet for a cheap, temporary sense of relief, purpose or importance but at the end of the day it does not achieve its purported aims. Paradoxically, it often has the reverse effect than that intended. It winds up fueling scientology’s drive to expand numbers, resources and influence. That perhaps is not surprising given the fact that that was scientology’s purpose for creating the vortex of hate in the first place. Ultimately, scientology’s gloating, self-professed conquerors in fact wind up as unwitting agents of scientology itself.
Conversely, the only effective route to individual healing and growth is greater understanding. Not surprisingly, it is the practitioners of that process that scientology attacks with the most resources and vigor.
It is heartening to see that established, credible media is now seeing the reality of what we set out to accomplish six years ago and suggested we had accomplished a year ago.
On 10 February 2014 we posted Miscavige’s Obsession With the Rathbuns.
On 24 February 2015 the New York Times posted Scientology’s Chilling Effect.
In the most recent edition of its ‘Freedom’ magazine, Scientology may demonstrate why the people of France and their institutions constitute one of the few remaining bastions of resistance against abuses of the cult. Freedom’s article entitled ‘Get Religion?’ is at first blush a level-headed plea for ‘freedom of religion.’ Clearly it is scientology’s latest effort to hide behind the cloak of religion in response to unprecedented media coverage of its abuses. In that regard, Freedom espouses a number of ‘religious freedom’ arguments that are the epitome of hypocrisy. They rail against censorship and alleged attacks upon conscience while carrying on operations as perhaps the most censorious and violent usurper of expressions of religion and conscience. Its aims to dominate and silence opposition are so strong that even within its best efforts to convince the world it is reasonable, scientology cannot restrain nor well-disguise its overriding intentions. Scientology’s stripes appear loud and clear to the attentive reader in the following Freedom passage on the recent, highly publicized terror attack on and murder of French journalists and artists:
“The editors at Charlie Hebdo appeared to go to great lengths to antagonize extremists and some might even say provoke the deadly terrorist response with its publishing of sacrilegious depictions of the Prophet Muhammad they knew to be deeply offensive to Muslims. Is the freedom to publish also the freedom not to publish?”
‘Some might even say’ is textbook scientology code for ‘everybody knows’; a generalization technique deftly developed by its founder L. Ron Hubbard to mean ‘we say, but the hell if we are going to take responsibility for saying it.’
Scientology is notorious for its take-no-prisoners retribution apparatus. The stories and testimonials about its vicious attacks on whistleblowing former members and the media who interview and publish their testimony are legion. Perhaps then it should be no surprise that they would be in the vanguard of defending fundamentalist terrorism and murder particularly when it is ‘justified’ by media coverage that some might even say would provoke as much.
Scientology’s final word on the Charlie Hebdo murders is this:
“The fury aimed at the Muslim community speaks to a disturbing level of bigotry and outright discrimination.”
Interesting. Bigotry and outright discrimination against the ‘scientology community’ is precisely what Scientology accuses French law enforcement officials and media of when it comes to scientologists. Yet, there are no scientology ghettos in France. There are no scientologists arrested for crimes committed by others because of the way the scientologist looks or even acts. There is freedom of economic opportunity for scientologists in France. The millions Scientology continually rakes in and funnels overseas is testimony to that. Scientology has even giddily published evidence that it has unbridled access to the highest levels of French government (photo of Tom Cruise schmoozing with former President Sarkozy).
Scientology has no respect or affinity for the Muslim community in France or anywhere else. At the same time Scientology espouses a mighty fury aimed at France. Could that be because France apparently is one of the few republics remaining that has not been cowed and censored by Scientology?
In plain English, here are scientology’s core religious beliefs.
2. Planet Earth is a prison. The vast majority of human beings – and billions of invisible other beings – are its inmates.
3. Xenu is the name of scientology’s Satan who established Earth as a prison and transported billions of beings to serve as its inmates.
4. Our continued imprisonment is assured by ‘psychs.’ ‘Psychs’ are defined as psychiatrists, psychologists, psycho-therapists, priests, ministers, and anyone else practicing in the field of the mind and spirit. Psychs were sent here from a planet called ‘Farsec.’ They are a special breed of being created and invested with the sole purpose of keeping humankind mentally imprisoned.
5. Ron Hubbard is the first to discover the above ‘truths’, and the only one to have devised a means of escaping the prison planet.
6. Navigation through the only hole in the wall consists of closely emulating Hubbard and behaving as he did when he lived.
7. Enemies, including psychs as well as anyone expressing any doubt or reservation about these beliefs, must be destroyed by any means necessary by scientologists. Such means include lying, suing, cheating, harassing, intimidating, blackmailing, smearing and by physical violence.
8. When a scientologist has expended all of his best efforts in the vain pursuit of these beliefs he is expected to ‘discard’ his body so that he may continue to pursue them without such a physical ‘impediment’.
Whether the ultimate belief, number 8 above, constitutes suicide is a wholly subjective question of religious belief.
Media coverage on this post:
Over the past few days I have told a several people that the then current post on this blog, The Scientology Sandbox, would very likely be my last post on the subject. However, this morning as I was leaving Los Angeles after taking care of some business there the ambush partially captured on the video below occurred.
The cast is as follows:
1. Bald guy – Marc Yager. Highest ecclesiastical officer of scientology’s ‘mother church’ (church of scientology international). Watchdog Committee Chairman.
2. Fellow with video camera. Dave Bloomberg. Long-time Scientology Executive Strata member – the alleged highest management body in church of scientology international.
3. The woman is Jenny Linson Devocht. She is a close personal aide to David Miscavige – the self-proclaimed pope of scientology. She is also an intimate friend of Miscavige.
Because of scientology’s bunker down response to public exposure of Miscavige’s creation of a culture of violence at the highest levels of scientology, including maintenance of concentration and torture prisons, people have been in mystery as to what scientology management has been up to for the past several years.
This video gives a partial answer. It is remarkable in that Miscavige has spent millions of dollars to create a wall of perjury before Texas courts claiming that he, and the highest levels of scientology management, have no knowledge – and have not authorized – these same type of ambush, in-your-face tactics against me and my family that have been carried out for years now.
That phrase keeps coming to mind when I see the TNT ad “we know drama”. TNT, you have nothing on scientology. Seems sort of oxymoronic, doesn’t it? Scientology’s entire mission purports to be to remove dramatization from the psyches of adherents, and ultimately from all of humankind’s psyches. Yet, by observation there are no more drama obsessed people than scientologists.
I was not going to post this essay for the foreseeable future. However, I came across this item from FOX 411 recently, Lewis on Cruise. Most of this essay was drafted prior to me seeing this latest scientology, well, drama. When you get to the end of the post you will understand why this news prompted me to push the ‘post’ button.
One of the favorite sayings of scientologists to express disdain towards someone is ‘he is just dramatizing.’ It is used to label any behavior that is not upbeat, Stepford or Truman Show like, positivity. It has its source in the mind ‘technology’ presented by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard teaches that we are all the unknowing effect of previous moments of pain and unconsciousness, called ‘engrams.’ To a scientologist, the poor, unknowing non-scientologist doesn’t even realize that a great percentage of his behavior, his choices, and his actions are really to greater or lesser degree ‘dramatizations’ of the emotions and post-hypnotic commands buried in engrams.
After a scientologist spends hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years conquering his engrams, he is said to be ‘Clear.’ He no longer has the supposed repository of engrams called the ‘reactive mind.’ Thus, theoretically he no longer dramatizes. Right? Wrong.
The Clear is indoctrinated into a dramatic universe view that is so surreal millions of dollars are spent annually to keep the scripts under lock and key and out of the hands of the public at large. The drama is so intense that Hubbard claims that if the unprepared are exposed to it, they will drop dead on the spot. The secrets teach that there is no original thought on planet earth, but that of Hubbard. All technology advances are simply dramatizations of the 75 million year-old incident that converted Earth into a prison. All social sciences are mere dramatizations of ideas that were implanted into beings’ heads 75 million years ago. Now, realize the drama so far revealed in this paragraph is cold, hard reality to the clear scientologist. In their minds, clear scientologists are sub rosa agents on an enemy controlled prison planet giving it their all to clear humanity from the effects of their universe view indoctrination. And like any good drama, the scientology one includes its nemeses.
All who would state the patently obvious as I have done here are labeled as suppressive persons. A suppressive person is an agent, knowing or unknowing, of the intergalactic forces who converted earth into a prison planet 75 million years ago. They are programmed to destroy, wittingly or not, humankind’s only hope for furlough, scientology. Some classes of people do not even have to demonstrate that they have even heard the word ‘scientology’ to be considered suppressive people by scientologists. ‘Psychs’ is such a class. Psychs is a scientology term describing anyone involved in the mental health, mind science, or psychotherapy fields. That includes all psychologists, psychotherapists and psychiatrists. And, by extension the manufacturers of psychotropic medications: pharmaceutical companies. Psychs are overtly targeted for ‘annihilation’, ‘obliteration’ and ‘extinction’ by scientology.
This drama becomes so dramatic for the scientologist that he or she can ‘freewheel’. That is, go into a paranoid-schizophrenic like spin where they act out the drama that the enemy is everywhere. In such a state they can become wild-eyed and, well, dramatic about matters that would seem to have little significance to anyone but them.
That is rather apparent from the very public dramatization that is the subject of Lewis’ lament:
A couple years later Tom Cruise invited Brooke Shields and her husband to his scientology wedding to Katie Holmes in Italy so that she could see first-hand those who really know about the mind. Brooke graciously accepted and flew to Europe with her husband to attend. Tom’s hand-picked high-level scientology officiating minister was Commander Norman F. Starkey. Starkey was given a furlough from a scientology concentration and torture camp at which he was serving time in order to conduct the wedding. Starkey promptly got drunk, and overtly hit on Brooke Shields. She and her husband were so offended, they complained to Cruise’s best man, scientology supreme leader David Miscavige.
Cruise was later exposed for having attempted to use his resources to cover up his bff David Miscavige’s operation of cult prison camps where torture was regularly meted out:
Cruise was then exposed for using his bff David Miscavige’s cult as a pimping and pandering operation:
Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Cruise went mute and as we can divine from Juliette Lewis’ rants took solace in the fact his conduct really did not happen because in fact the forces of evil want him silenced. Perhaps he shut up in order to dutifully comply with those terrifying forces?
Poor Juliette Lewis – with apparent conviction and sincerity lamenting that Tom’s public relations problem is that big pharma wants him silenced. If Big pharma really cares about hurting scientology, I am pretty sure they want Tom out there front and center continuing these antics. Does all this seem just too thick to believe? It would not if you had had much experience with scientologists. Scientologists know and teach drama like nobody else.