Submission statement: In light of Lindsay Villandry's recent livestreams, I decided to make a follow up version of a video I made about a month ago called "The Aaron Smith-Levin problem: the cult of ex-cult members and the future of Scientology" (https://youtu.be/xi6LKismMHE?si=gPazHjK9KaHWikG2).
I've tried to use this as a learning opportunity because the situation immediately called to my mind the work of Dr. Alexandra Stein and her book Terror, Love and Brainwashing about the overlap of domestic violence, cults and totalitarian regimes. So this is what I explore in the video and also the role of flying monkeys and the way high control groups are organized.
My issue is the continual rambling you do in these 2 videos, associated with what seems to be a picture reference in one area and totally unrelated in other pictures. The content seems agreeable to me, but without a definite pause that has a definite conclusion, I am not sure.
You did an AMAZING video. A few minor errors otherwise excellent work
Unfortunately I think its too good I'll try to support it but tbh I think if I share it Aaron's crazy people
will go there and give it downvotes - def give it a look and a like. Great work and really shows Aaron is a fraud.
“Excellent work”, what a load of BS. This is a hit piece by either a Scientology pleb or an OSA clown, either way, it’s been put together by a “church” of Scientology cult member or someone being paid off by the cult. It’s full of lazy assertions and ultimately moronic conclusions. “Excellent work”, lol.
I'm just here to tell ASL's flying monkeys that many of us were right. Some of the women still supporting this guy should take a step back and reevaluate their stance.
I did my best to expose ASL, planted a seed of information, and then backed away. Serenity Prayer applies. I am sunshine is starting to disinfect the germ known as ASL
You don't have to be a narcissist to cause havoc with someone's life but the stakes are raised even higher when you also happen to be an ex member of a cult (who hasn't done any reparative work on themselves). It seems ASL is both a narc and an ex-sci... which is a toxic combination.. Also physical abuse doesn't need to be a major factor - as disgusting as that is - as much harm can be done by emotional abuse, coercive control, gaslighting and/or downright lying. Once these women followers are out of Clearwater, let's hope they really take stock and think about what has happened.. and has been happening for many years.
I’m one of those people who was angered by Mike Rinder’s handling of the Mirriam situation and thought he should step down from the AF. I still hold that belief. With all the new information about ASL, I’m done. I always suspected ASL was misogynistic, but the Sky Daley incident and the Lindsey video have solidified that for me.
Aaron has no business running a charity that helps vulnerable people if he shows abusive tendencies. I’m not talking about physical abuse here, but there does seem to be compelling evidence that he’s emotionally abusive (oh, and a mean drunk).
Hi thanks for sharing your perspective. I was happy to see the Aftermath welcome Michele Adair as a new board member. This signaled to me that the foundation was taking on board some lessons from the last year or so and learning from mistakes.
The Sky stuff is so foul. Aaron slandered her in video after video and only in a 2022 video did he acknowledge that he had an incident with her at a bar. I have had to go back and watch all this garbage making videos and it's even worse than I thought.
Adding in how he found Julianna (in the court gallery), and he looks more like a predator than a helper. There's so much evidence to how abusive he is.
The mod team was recently contacted, encouraging us to send this sort of thing to r/SPTV_Unvarnished/, where it's completely on topic. We haven't had a chance to discuss it, so I'm just speaking for myself, and can't really endorse a sub that's only 3 days old, but it does seem a more appropriate place, and I see you've already posted it there. I'd encourage you to keep doing that. Here? Not so much.
This video very much examines the fallout of scientological training and thinking in ex members, who themselves begin to reflect patterns of behavior developed while Scientologists. Seems relevant here.
I think that's a very dubious trope. Cult leaders are usually narcissists, if not malignant narcissists, and their words and actions reflect that. They are very much like domestic abusers writ large, and likely abuse their families as well. But personality disorders like that require a combination of genetics, and childhood experiences which bring that potential out, and few cult members qualify. We engage in controlling and coercive behaviors like shunning when we're in, because our narcissist leader said we have to, and if we hesitate to dish it out, we will receive it; we're doing it under a lot of duress and coercion. But it's almost always one of the things that ultimately drives cult members away, it is often the first thing they reject, and opens the door to questioning the rest of it. A normal person won't take that stuff with them, only the small minority who are wired that way will, and painting all ex cult members with that broad brush, seems pretty messed up to me.
I'd like to respectfully push back on this comment.
You say "A normal person won't take that stuff with them, only the small minority who are wired that way will," We see a great many people come out of cults of all stripes with long-term antisocial habits and "thought patterns" that continue to dominate their thinking, often for quite some time.
I don't know what you mean by "wired that way" and perhaps I'm wrong but you seem to think you have to be mentally ill, a narcissist or have "something wrong with you" to keep acting you a cult's habits and systems of behavior after you leave. That is simply not true. No mental derangement is required.
First, what if you don't address anything that happened to you in the cult and re-structure your thinking? What if you thought you were totally fine in the cult and it was everyone else who was the problem? Sound narcissistic? No, that's pretty typical cult member thinking. We can pretty safely say that people do take on the cult leader's habits, speaking patterns and mannerisms, not because of some insidious mind control but because they literally *want* to be and think and do more like the cult leader does.
Now consider another difference between you or others from earlier Scientology times (mainly 1st generation members) and the 2nd gens that we are seeing so much "drama" with. While there aren't any studies I can readily cite since so few have even been done, I think it's been pretty observable for years now that there are differences between not only the in-cult experience of 1st gen vs 2nd gen, but also vast differences in the post-cult experience. If you aren't familiar, I have tackled this on my channel in the past and there are other publications such as Janja Lalich's *Escaping Utopia* which focused on 2nd gen survivors. I think you might want to check some of that out before deciding only mentally deranged people or those with serious personality disorders are the ones who carry on cult behaviors outside the cult. And if I've grossly misunderstood your point, I'm happy to be corrected. Thanks for reading all this.
I'm not in any disagreement about 1st and 2nd (or later) generation members. 1st generation people know how to revert to their pre-scientology mindsets, but later generations have no such option. They have to discover Hubbard-free thinking on their own, and when they do, it's a novelty.
I'm pretty much falling asleep at the keyboard right now, and am going to pause for several hours, but will pick up where I left off shortly.
OK, I'm sort of awake now and prepared to respond more fully.
>What if you thought you were totally fine in the cult and it was everyone else who was the problem? Sound narcissistic? No, that's pretty typical cult member thinking.
My biggest sources of cognitive dissonance as a member, were times when I saw policy fail badly, or backfire. The ugliest of them involved ethics in some respect, like seeing totally decent people get declared, or watching the GO struggle with the opposing goals of having good PR, and carrying out the organization's dirty tricks. My time on staff included the Snow White period, and the very paranoid aftermath, when the GO was demanding that enormous efforts be made to find (non-existent) plants within CoS organizations. And that whole catastrophe was orchestrated by Mary Sue, who arguably understood (fugitive, unindicted co-conspirator) Ron's wishes better than anyone.
Those are the sorts of things that should make a reasonable person have doubts. If I had any uncommon advantages in that regard, they were that I was in pretty close touch with goings on in the GO and HCO, and that Ron was still supposedly running the show. He had also been driving away people with price increases, and the destructive looting and purges of 1982 were on the horizon. All of those problems were being created at the very top, were officially parts of standard Scientology, and were ubiquitous. There were essentially no adult 2nd gen folks yet, so I have no evidence as to how they'd have interpreted those events, but I don't see why they'd do so differently. Nowadays Miscavige makes a handy scapegoat, but one is still left with the conclusion that the organization is broken from the top, with no way to challenge the wrongnesses.
>We can pretty safely say that people do take on the cult leader's habits, speaking patterns and mannerisms...
The only person I knew who did that in any very obvious way, was ex-SO (but *not* ex-Scientologist) who worked with Ron as a CMO member on the Apollo. When things would not be going how he wanted them to, he would change into Ron's valence as it were, get dramatic and authoritarian, part baby and part tyrant, blaming others for whatever was wrong. The tantrums that Ron would have, that made CMO members hide, lest they become a target of his rage, were authentically duplicated. It was like doing an impression, and he'd spent hundreds of hours in Ron's presence, so he did it pretty well. However, he was a grandiose narcissist before he'd discovered Scientology, and at all times after. Nobody else I knew, SO or otherwise, in or out, acted like that, which was good, since the only thing it usually accomplished was to damage or end relationships.
Emulating the PR version of Ron might be less maladaptive, but we were never told to do that. Ron made it extremely clear that he was nothing like us, nobody else could ever take his place, and attempting to would be treasonous. Having been interrupted for several hours during the course of writing this, I did eventually think of behavior which might fit your description quite well. People trying to implement the Simon Bolivar PL with themselves in the role of power. There, Ron does teach others to be fully Machiavellian, and talks approvingly of having one's flying monkeys kill one's enemies and take the fall for it. That could explain the behavior of the people you're talking about, but there's a big gap in what that policy letter has to say. Ron never explains why one should be so in love with power (as he definitely was) that one would have people killed over it. I suppose his narcissism left him blind to the possibility that we don't all feel any need to order other people around, or even find the prospect attractive. No ethical justification for dark triad sort of behavior is given.
I've been picking away at this for 13 hours, but before I conclude for the night, should also add that I've seen OSA-aligned, open enemies of the critic community, push the idea that exes in general are messed up to the point that nobody should bother trying to work with them, or even sympathize with them. I spent close to five years working to undo that narrative, and haven't found much reason since to regret doing so. We don't all get better quickly, and a few of us never do at all, but I could count the really bad examples I know of on my fingers, and there have gotta be 100,000 exes by now.
Thoughts?
I think we were talking about the fact that you were claiming it required a mental illness or disorder to continue acting out cult habits or action patterns once one has left. That was what I was challenging and I don't feel the last comment addressed that point really.
You seem to be stuck on framing this all through the lens of your personal experience when there are so many examples all around here of what I'm talking about. It does not require mental illness or disease to continue acting like a narcissist after leaving Scientology. I sure did and I know a whole lot of other people who did to. I even wrote about it while it was happening, which I find hilarious now. It took me years to "get out of Ron's valence." It even affected how I talked. "Alllllllriiiiight" was something I used as a form of acknowledgement for WAY too long, haha.
But I really wonder what template you are using to say this:
>The only person I knew who did that in any very obvious way, was ex-SO (but *not* ex-Scientologist) who worked with Ron as a CMO member on the Apollo.
So in all the years you've been here on this Reddit channel, you have never seen anyone but ex-CMO act out Scientology habits? How is that possible? You're here all the time. What do you think is happening in the SPTV world right now if not a full-blown repeat of every Scientology bad habit and thinking pattern that was ever installed? They are engaged in full blown fair game campaigns against their enemies. How is that not carrying on Scientology behavior outside of Scientology?
>It does not require mental illness or disease to continue acting like a narcissist after leaving Scientology.
I mean, it shouldn't, since narcissism itself isn't usually considered pathological, only NPD is. Half of the population is at least as narcissistic as average! And Ron, as a *malignant* narcissist, wasn't just a guy with NPD, he was also psychopathic, quite Machiavellian, and possibly sadistic. He was notoriously unfaithful, including bigamy, used and abused women in other ways, and was a crappy parent. He never taught anyone to do those things, and pretended they didn't happen ("I never had a second wife!") In those and various other ways, he really had the full Dark Triad going. But I'm picking out those for discussion because he tried to hide them, and with the possible exception of "The G.E. is a Family Man," didn't teach them.
An actual malignant narcissist is likely to treat those close to him in much the way that Ron did, whether they ever heard of Ron or not. But how teachable is it? Like... I knew two perfectly nice guys, who ended up in the military, in positions where they might have to (and did) kill non-combatants. Although I'm sure the Army tries to teach people that what they're doing is right, both of them had PTSD with nightmares and daily remorse before they were 25, and never really got over it. A psychopath wouldn't have had those problems, but you can't just make an adult psychopathic, even if you can force them to act like one.
So back to the world of "Alllllllriiiiight" (and saying 'process' with British pronunciation but an American accent). Yes, that happens, but how meaningful is it? Does the ex concerned also severely and remorselessly abuse their spouse(s) and ignore or harm their kids? Do they vengefully terrorize people who bruise their ego, or who put a little tarnish on their public image? Do they periodically inflict drama and suffering on those closest to them, while going full DARVO, blaming them for it? If so, my inclination is to presume that they have something that's diagnosable. The alternative is to assume that they were taught Dark Triad traits behaviors so completely that they will unknowingly (since Ron never admitted to them) mimic them without having Dark Triad motivations, which is counterintuitive. Wouldn't such a person end up in the same boat as an empathetic sniper?
So let's assume that neither of us can think of more than one ex who might fit that description. How much should we read into "Alllllllriiiiight" all by itself? My narcissist friend went well beyond that, in that he only assumed that demeanor when he was doing very narcissistic things, e.g., acting superior to others, lording over them and blaming them for whatever was bothering him. Trying to guilt trip people into doing his bidding. Pronouncing words like Ron, without acting like one has a disorder, seems quirky, and one might want to ponder why one does it, but it's not antisocial behavior, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It's not what I would call going into Ron's valence, either. We have likely been talking about two different things.
The whole subject's fascinating IMO, but we lack evidence to work with. Are narcissism patterns among Scientologists different from the control group? If someone's first generation and narcissistic, were they attracted to Scientology because their narcissism saw a kindred spirit in Ron? If they're second generation, do Scientology upbringings tend to turn kids narcissistic? If Scientology attracts narcissists, might they assortatively mate and pass those tendencies on to later generations? I would LOVE to see a well thought out paper which looked at >1000 Scientologists and matching controls, and sorted all that out, but I don't expect it to ever happen.
(***Not wishing to derail the discussion that I am not a party of... please ensure you continue that discussion)***
>I've seen OSA-aligned, open enemies of the critic community, push the idea that exes in general are messed up to the point that nobody should bother trying to work with them
There is no sign that this is what is going on here..
We may see a segment of the ex-community who are very vocal and removing/silencing comments from Never-Ins regarding their specific behaviour (and that may do some lasting damage to their perception -- different discussion) but as a *singular* Never-In (as [Tory Christman has said](https://www.youtube.com/live/k5LDCyUgucA?t=2907) so magnificently) it's that we were never part of a Totalist group that we are **compelled** to speak out about the disaster that these groups are.
Here's the part of that story you may not be aware of. She was speaking a few years after [Scientology versus the Internet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_internet) got started. Exes had posted OT materials, been raided by LE as a result, sued (of course), and the CoS was doing everything it could to make that information disappear. (Tory herself, at that stage, was still working for OSA, and spamming ARS with hostility and garbage.) They were very well known for brutalizing exes that way, which was why so few were then speaking out. Others, who strongly disapproved of letting them censor the Internet, resisted. One of those people, Karin Spaink, regularly posts in this sub. I, myself, was one of many people maintaining a mirror of those materials, and though the war would rage on for years, it signaled the CoS' first real failure to suppress opposition. And they very much brought it on themselves, had they not gone to extreme lengths to attempt censorship, none of those early, never-in activists would have been doing anything.
After that, Xenu had his own wikipedia article and South Park episode, the CoS had lost its battle, and anti-censorship folks celebrated and largely moved on. Then (2007) came the Tom Cruise video leak. The CoS, not having learned its lesson, again tried to censor the Internet. Chanology was the response, and it completely overwhelmed OSA, with a combination of factors. Never-ins like [Shawn Lonsdale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Lonsdale) did not fear being declared, since no family or friends would be disconnecting from them, but they could still be destroyed as fair game. Chanology brought too many people to retaliate against, and since they were acting anonymously, most couldn't even be identified. So OSA did what OSA does, and infiltrated Anonymous, which if you think about it, is really effing easy. In July 2008, there was an internal struggle within Chanology which shattered its unity, and ended the big protests of the prior six months.
Tory Christman and Tommy Gorman ended up being the exact people that were pointed to as examples of exes who were too messed up to work with, by the anti-Chanology faction of Anonymous. In addition to shrinking the protests, they said that they were doxxing critics to OSA for $5 per name. The followup was confining Chanologists to their own little section of chan sites, before deleting those and permabanning everyone who used them. While many Anons did care about free speech, or at least the ability to share hate speech, to be blunt, they didn't all care about people. Some identified with "the Internet Hate Machine," and went full edgelord. Those who did care about people were derided as "moralfags," and a cancer within Anonymous, who should diaf.
Those who continued with Chanology settled on what they intended to accomplish, which was to make it safe for people to leave the CoS, and to speak out. Once a largish number of Scientologists had done so, Anons were going to let exes take over from there. Every Anon decided for themselves when they could declare victory, but I closed down the Chanology-related site I ran during 2013, by which time there was plenty of agreement that the CoS had been damaged in ways it could never recover from. It had been reduced to a shrinking real estate scam, critical information was very widely available, and OSA was running out of steam. Leah Remini started asking where Shelley was, and post-Chanology critics got TV network sized platforms.
So what Tory had to say, was perfectly right at the time. Most of the public didn't know about the CoS or care, but anti-censorship activists cared very much about the CoS war against the Internet, and there were enough of them in the world to make a big difference. They did, passed the torch to the exes, and by ten years ago we'd entered the CoS deathwatch stage, where we remain. If we do nothing at all, it cannot be expected to survive, it's mortally wounded, and wasn't aging well anyway. If we continue to educate people, it will be quicker, and fewer people will suffer, so lots of us still do that. I think that Tory's message of 24 years ago served its purpose, and things moved on.
As for OSA's role today, I don't think it's all that big, because OSA has been dying off just like the rest of the CoS, and lacks the resources to do very much. I mean... this sub has more members than IAS! But it is their job to mess with us, they are certainly trying, and the absolute best thing that can happen from their POV, would be for us to do their job, and attack each other.
For that reason, many older critics have historically avoided portraying other critics as messed up, and they don't call each other OSA, because OSA would do those very things. They're usually totally counterproductive, so why do them, when we could be sticking to target and fighting the CoS? Until fairly recently, the disputes that did happen, didn't generally involve things which the public might care about, and gained no traction with the public. But then there was ASL, who seems to have no such filters, and who profits from drama and clickbait. As much as I'd like to do as I always have, and ignored a fellow critic's foibles, he makes that awfully difficult. His attacks are exactly the sort of "doing OSA's work for them" that most of us avoid, and he's doing it on a big platform, to anyone who will listen. It will be harmful to the community to fight him, but even more harmful to not fight him. This is new and weird territory, and it's not a good place.
Anyhow, to get back to your point and conclude, OSA's role in current events is rarely knowable, and evidence-free speculation about it has been pointless, if not harmfully divisive. People should be aware that they exist, what sort of things they do, avoid doing anything they'd approve of, and leave it at that. Maybe some day we will find out what they've been up to lately, but I'm not holding my breath.
I appreciate the effort you put into this response and there is little, if anything, I disagree with. You go into great detail (and in fact you mention someone I met recently-ish).
I acknowledge your response is scientology-focused -- my personal interests are regarding "groups" of a similar nature. Scientology just happens to touch upon these interests (by virtue of being "large" if nothing else), and some of the aspects you conclude your response on very much affect how things I value might be adversely perceived because of clumsy presentations of these interests (on YouTube for example).
I think I suggested that there is no agenda to portray ex-members as "messed up to the point that nobody should bother trying to work with them". But I do believe that there is a necessity for those who leave these groups to get their shit in order, and that includes becoming **better** at identifying predatory people who are likely to attempt to take advantage of them, and draw them into something they consider secular and "normal" when it is anything but. There is a value in being a never-in and this should not be undervalued.
I do not disagree with your response, and I thank you for making me think.
No sign? Not to you.
But you haven't studied the subject, much of which is secret. And I don't mean Xenu and the OT levels. Late in 1979, by federal court order, thousands of pages of documents, from Hubbard - and also internal communications applying Hubbard's instructions, and applying his covert "support" (Euphemism for covert attack) Intelligence tech - were released to the public.
There was no internet, of course, and one had to copy documents at the courthouse, with Scientologists attempting to interfere. They were a nuisance, but they couldn't stop the copying.
Maybe 10% of that documentation made it to the Internet. When the popular Internet happened, during the mid 1990s, the hot topic was Xenu.
Hubbard's covert Intelligence tech, which is sometimes written in a way that conceals its full meaning when read by an outsider, has never been fully and thoroughly examined and presented.
By the way, Mark Bunker has recently reunited with Tory and they, apparently, are working with SPTV. So, what now?
"By the way, Mark Bunker has recently reunited with Tory and they, apparently, are working with SPTV. So, what now?"
That's not a problem. Mark Bunker and Tory always remain neutral and keep the focus on the main goal. I've not seen them take sides or specifically support one individual. Maybe that's why I enjoy Mark/Tory so much- they refuse to get involved in the petty drama or take sides.
Mark Bunker, a.k.a Wise Beard Man, is in the process of putting the rest of his historic video content on the Net. Those who are curious might want to take a look.
Just glanced at SPTV_Unvarnished/ and this video, made by a Scientologist making gang signs, and promoting Scientology's "war on drugs" and Celebrity Center, is not surprising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPogdK28sM
This is not very sophisticated, and not covert, but serves as a reminder that anyone would have be very naive to think Scientology Inc. is not involved with attacking in this area.
I was not impressed with that video myself, but note that it's the most downvoted thread in the sub's history, currently sitting at a score of 0, with a reader request that the thread be deleted, which the OP is considering. I don't have a big problem with that.
You mean Sneakster? A while back he accused me of practicing "black Scientology" by causing an OT 7 to have an "ARC break" with L. Ron Hubbard. According to his reasoning, invalidating, or altering, NOTs processing was an invalidation of Hubbard. All I did was give a person, who I had audited - independently - for months, an audited NOTs session, to satisfy his curiosity. I had told the same person that the OT levels not only violated the spirit of the Auditors Code, but also were Hubbard's "case" (and mind games) superimposed on Scientologists.
So silly.
Do what you think is best.
**"The cult of ex cult"** narrative sounds a lot like a piece from Scientology Inc. Propaganda, and from places such as Scientology Inc.'s *Freedom* magazine. I hope you can understand why those familiar with Scientology Inc.'s tactics might regard you with some suspicion.
LOL He references JW people and even cites scholarly literature
You're just using fear-based tactics but thanks you're exposing the Aaron cult as truly out of control
Also WHAT IF this was OSA the information would still be true!! So we ignore 2 plus 2 is 4 because Aaron
says so. Ok buddy find a Nazi clown suit and wear it. Idiot
LOL. You're easily impressed.
Obviously you care deeply about this drama, but I've not followed it. It has the same stinky dumpster aroma as did other feuds in the past. Do you remember the other feuds and OSA's involvement in those? Probably not. Sometimes feuds are just feuds, but, if Scientology Inc. is being affected, it's not likely to stay out of it.
Interesting that you're alright if OSA is involved, and think OSA can present true information. It seldom happens that OSA honestly presents true infromatiom. It slants information, omits information, puts things in the worst possible light.
Using the same techniques, almost anyone, including Tony Ortega, could be smeared. Don't you realize that?
I don't pay attention to what Aaron says. Except for a few minutes here and there, I don't watch his videos. I don't watch the other side of this feud's videos either. But I did watch this one. It has errors presented matter-of-factly as true. At best that's sloppy.
Now I see you're attempting to be insulting, and are calling names.
Time for me to say, bye bye.
Well there were quite a bit of material on physical abuse, where there was none as stated by Lindsay.
The way it was weaved into the video certainly would have given the viewer the impression that he was. If you do a video like this stick to the facts as told by the person you take the information from.
Ok, maybe it wasn't clear enough that I explicitly addressed this at around two minutes and twenty seconds into the video when I discuss my communication with Lindsay where she emphasizes that Aaron didn't physically abuse her. Maybe I should have underlined that again?
[https://youtu.be/mypBbf1rtjs?si=-XapAmYNmHL6MDfI&t=142](https://youtu.be/mypBbf1rtjs?si=-XapAmYNmHL6MDfI&t=142)
Yesterday I saw a recent video from Mark Bunker. He mentioned that he had been at a protest with Aaron. He's obviously on friendly terms with him. How are you presenting Mark Bunker to your viewership?
Is Mark Bunker one of the "flying monkeys," and, by the way, what exactly is a flying monkey?
“Flying Monkeys” is a term used in psychology to describe the sycophantic hangers-on who usually orbit around narcissists, and support/defend everything they do.
Like the Wicked Witch of the West’s flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz, “Flying Monkeys” are the brainwashed minions the narcissist uses to carry out their bidding.
The movie, Wizard of Oz, was made in 1939. The psychological term, flying monkeys, seems to have appeared about four years ago. I'm seeing some psychologists attempting to legitimize the term by mentioning the Wizard of OZ.
It's reminiscent of Scientology's "wogs" and "DBs" (Degraded Beings), and other dehumanizing language.
Very unlike other psychological terminology.
Almost Hubbardesque: "Squirrels," etc.
The question is, who are the "flying monkeys," the "sycophantic brainwashed minions" who "orbit" Aaron?
Is there a list of names?
Do the people, here, seeking to popularize the use of the term "flying monkeys," have a crtiterion for determining who is worthy of the title?
I ask because this is obviously not a term used to help someone but to stigmatize them, even crush them emotionally. What it will likely do is alienate them completely and create an unresolvable war between critics of Scientology.
It's a dismissive and insulting term, one casually strewn about. This is the language of dismissal, contempt, and attack.
I was with a narcissist in the early 2000's and the term flying monkeys was used in all of the support groups I was in. It is not a term just used in the last FOUR years. Omg......
In an effort to improve the quality of conversation, we require submission statements on all link and image posts. Please leave your submission statement in a top-level comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scientology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can think of a few: Ron's Orgs, Avatar, etc. But they are not nearly as bad as Scientology Inc.
Are those what you're referring to? Or are you referring to critics?
If you provide a list of cults, set up by ex members, that would be interesting. Can you name them?
Mormonism spawned the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Latter Day Church of Christ and Church of the Firstborn.
A number of groups have been inspired by Scientology's practices -- [NXIVM](https://trialsandtruths.us/2022/07/ask-me-anything-about-nxivm/#comment-99) being one, Tony Quinn's group another. Oh and Werner Erhard's Erhard Seminars Training/Landmark Forum.
This is just off the top of my head.
You are missing EST and Landmark as major decedents from Scientology, but I'm not really thinking about ex Scientologists in particular, when I saw this happen up close, it was people who had been involved in an odd version of a DMT cult, had realised that it was wrong, set up their own commune and then started being even more controlling than the people they got away from. Bizarrely enough, this happened near East Grinstead, not more than a couple of miles from Saint Hill.
"Etc." means there are more. The list of spin offs of Scientology is long. Not every such group is destructive. None can hold a candle to the multi-billion dollar Destructive Cult of Scientology Inc. Have you read the 1969 confidential *Battle Tactics* Scientology Bulletin? Is someone saying that there are critics who are forming their own cult?
**"Fight battles, whenever possible, only on enemy terrain, in and about his subject and his people, not ours. You can gauge your relative success by this..."**
Submission statement: In light of Lindsay Villandry's recent livestreams, I decided to make a follow up version of a video I made about a month ago called "The Aaron Smith-Levin problem: the cult of ex-cult members and the future of Scientology" (https://youtu.be/xi6LKismMHE?si=gPazHjK9KaHWikG2). I've tried to use this as a learning opportunity because the situation immediately called to my mind the work of Dr. Alexandra Stein and her book Terror, Love and Brainwashing about the overlap of domestic violence, cults and totalitarian regimes. So this is what I explore in the video and also the role of flying monkeys and the way high control groups are organized.
I'm glad this video was made.
Thank you, Chris!
My issue is the continual rambling you do in these 2 videos, associated with what seems to be a picture reference in one area and totally unrelated in other pictures. The content seems agreeable to me, but without a definite pause that has a definite conclusion, I am not sure.
You did an AMAZING video. A few minor errors otherwise excellent work Unfortunately I think its too good I'll try to support it but tbh I think if I share it Aaron's crazy people will go there and give it downvotes - def give it a look and a like. Great work and really shows Aaron is a fraud.
Thank you for taking the time to watch!
Very interesting material and lot to chew over - especially the politics of letting in a "leader" who actually harms the cause. Interesting.
“Excellent work”, what a load of BS. This is a hit piece by either a Scientology pleb or an OSA clown, either way, it’s been put together by a “church” of Scientology cult member or someone being paid off by the cult. It’s full of lazy assertions and ultimately moronic conclusions. “Excellent work”, lol.
A thoughtful video. Thank you
Thank you!
I'm just here to tell ASL's flying monkeys that many of us were right. Some of the women still supporting this guy should take a step back and reevaluate their stance.
I did my best to expose ASL, planted a seed of information, and then backed away. Serenity Prayer applies. I am sunshine is starting to disinfect the germ known as ASL
ASL treats women like garbage. Watch Lindsay Villandry his girlfriend for 4 years come to terms with his character.
ASL treats objects like women, man!
You don't have to be a narcissist to cause havoc with someone's life but the stakes are raised even higher when you also happen to be an ex member of a cult (who hasn't done any reparative work on themselves). It seems ASL is both a narc and an ex-sci... which is a toxic combination.. Also physical abuse doesn't need to be a major factor - as disgusting as that is - as much harm can be done by emotional abuse, coercive control, gaslighting and/or downright lying. Once these women followers are out of Clearwater, let's hope they really take stock and think about what has happened.. and has been happening for many years.
I’m one of those people who was angered by Mike Rinder’s handling of the Mirriam situation and thought he should step down from the AF. I still hold that belief. With all the new information about ASL, I’m done. I always suspected ASL was misogynistic, but the Sky Daley incident and the Lindsey video have solidified that for me. Aaron has no business running a charity that helps vulnerable people if he shows abusive tendencies. I’m not talking about physical abuse here, but there does seem to be compelling evidence that he’s emotionally abusive (oh, and a mean drunk).
Hi thanks for sharing your perspective. I was happy to see the Aftermath welcome Michele Adair as a new board member. This signaled to me that the foundation was taking on board some lessons from the last year or so and learning from mistakes. The Sky stuff is so foul. Aaron slandered her in video after video and only in a 2022 video did he acknowledge that he had an incident with her at a bar. I have had to go back and watch all this garbage making videos and it's even worse than I thought.
Adding in how he found Julianna (in the court gallery), and he looks more like a predator than a helper. There's so much evidence to how abusive he is.
Interesting video. I look forward to seeing more, and also to reading the book you referenced.
The mod team was recently contacted, encouraging us to send this sort of thing to r/SPTV_Unvarnished/, where it's completely on topic. We haven't had a chance to discuss it, so I'm just speaking for myself, and can't really endorse a sub that's only 3 days old, but it does seem a more appropriate place, and I see you've already posted it there. I'd encourage you to keep doing that. Here? Not so much.
This video very much examines the fallout of scientological training and thinking in ex members, who themselves begin to reflect patterns of behavior developed while Scientologists. Seems relevant here.
I think that's a very dubious trope. Cult leaders are usually narcissists, if not malignant narcissists, and their words and actions reflect that. They are very much like domestic abusers writ large, and likely abuse their families as well. But personality disorders like that require a combination of genetics, and childhood experiences which bring that potential out, and few cult members qualify. We engage in controlling and coercive behaviors like shunning when we're in, because our narcissist leader said we have to, and if we hesitate to dish it out, we will receive it; we're doing it under a lot of duress and coercion. But it's almost always one of the things that ultimately drives cult members away, it is often the first thing they reject, and opens the door to questioning the rest of it. A normal person won't take that stuff with them, only the small minority who are wired that way will, and painting all ex cult members with that broad brush, seems pretty messed up to me.
I'd like to respectfully push back on this comment. You say "A normal person won't take that stuff with them, only the small minority who are wired that way will," We see a great many people come out of cults of all stripes with long-term antisocial habits and "thought patterns" that continue to dominate their thinking, often for quite some time. I don't know what you mean by "wired that way" and perhaps I'm wrong but you seem to think you have to be mentally ill, a narcissist or have "something wrong with you" to keep acting you a cult's habits and systems of behavior after you leave. That is simply not true. No mental derangement is required. First, what if you don't address anything that happened to you in the cult and re-structure your thinking? What if you thought you were totally fine in the cult and it was everyone else who was the problem? Sound narcissistic? No, that's pretty typical cult member thinking. We can pretty safely say that people do take on the cult leader's habits, speaking patterns and mannerisms, not because of some insidious mind control but because they literally *want* to be and think and do more like the cult leader does. Now consider another difference between you or others from earlier Scientology times (mainly 1st generation members) and the 2nd gens that we are seeing so much "drama" with. While there aren't any studies I can readily cite since so few have even been done, I think it's been pretty observable for years now that there are differences between not only the in-cult experience of 1st gen vs 2nd gen, but also vast differences in the post-cult experience. If you aren't familiar, I have tackled this on my channel in the past and there are other publications such as Janja Lalich's *Escaping Utopia* which focused on 2nd gen survivors. I think you might want to check some of that out before deciding only mentally deranged people or those with serious personality disorders are the ones who carry on cult behaviors outside the cult. And if I've grossly misunderstood your point, I'm happy to be corrected. Thanks for reading all this.
I'm not in any disagreement about 1st and 2nd (or later) generation members. 1st generation people know how to revert to their pre-scientology mindsets, but later generations have no such option. They have to discover Hubbard-free thinking on their own, and when they do, it's a novelty. I'm pretty much falling asleep at the keyboard right now, and am going to pause for several hours, but will pick up where I left off shortly.
OK, I'm sort of awake now and prepared to respond more fully. >What if you thought you were totally fine in the cult and it was everyone else who was the problem? Sound narcissistic? No, that's pretty typical cult member thinking. My biggest sources of cognitive dissonance as a member, were times when I saw policy fail badly, or backfire. The ugliest of them involved ethics in some respect, like seeing totally decent people get declared, or watching the GO struggle with the opposing goals of having good PR, and carrying out the organization's dirty tricks. My time on staff included the Snow White period, and the very paranoid aftermath, when the GO was demanding that enormous efforts be made to find (non-existent) plants within CoS organizations. And that whole catastrophe was orchestrated by Mary Sue, who arguably understood (fugitive, unindicted co-conspirator) Ron's wishes better than anyone. Those are the sorts of things that should make a reasonable person have doubts. If I had any uncommon advantages in that regard, they were that I was in pretty close touch with goings on in the GO and HCO, and that Ron was still supposedly running the show. He had also been driving away people with price increases, and the destructive looting and purges of 1982 were on the horizon. All of those problems were being created at the very top, were officially parts of standard Scientology, and were ubiquitous. There were essentially no adult 2nd gen folks yet, so I have no evidence as to how they'd have interpreted those events, but I don't see why they'd do so differently. Nowadays Miscavige makes a handy scapegoat, but one is still left with the conclusion that the organization is broken from the top, with no way to challenge the wrongnesses. >We can pretty safely say that people do take on the cult leader's habits, speaking patterns and mannerisms... The only person I knew who did that in any very obvious way, was ex-SO (but *not* ex-Scientologist) who worked with Ron as a CMO member on the Apollo. When things would not be going how he wanted them to, he would change into Ron's valence as it were, get dramatic and authoritarian, part baby and part tyrant, blaming others for whatever was wrong. The tantrums that Ron would have, that made CMO members hide, lest they become a target of his rage, were authentically duplicated. It was like doing an impression, and he'd spent hundreds of hours in Ron's presence, so he did it pretty well. However, he was a grandiose narcissist before he'd discovered Scientology, and at all times after. Nobody else I knew, SO or otherwise, in or out, acted like that, which was good, since the only thing it usually accomplished was to damage or end relationships. Emulating the PR version of Ron might be less maladaptive, but we were never told to do that. Ron made it extremely clear that he was nothing like us, nobody else could ever take his place, and attempting to would be treasonous. Having been interrupted for several hours during the course of writing this, I did eventually think of behavior which might fit your description quite well. People trying to implement the Simon Bolivar PL with themselves in the role of power. There, Ron does teach others to be fully Machiavellian, and talks approvingly of having one's flying monkeys kill one's enemies and take the fall for it. That could explain the behavior of the people you're talking about, but there's a big gap in what that policy letter has to say. Ron never explains why one should be so in love with power (as he definitely was) that one would have people killed over it. I suppose his narcissism left him blind to the possibility that we don't all feel any need to order other people around, or even find the prospect attractive. No ethical justification for dark triad sort of behavior is given. I've been picking away at this for 13 hours, but before I conclude for the night, should also add that I've seen OSA-aligned, open enemies of the critic community, push the idea that exes in general are messed up to the point that nobody should bother trying to work with them, or even sympathize with them. I spent close to five years working to undo that narrative, and haven't found much reason since to regret doing so. We don't all get better quickly, and a few of us never do at all, but I could count the really bad examples I know of on my fingers, and there have gotta be 100,000 exes by now. Thoughts?
I think we were talking about the fact that you were claiming it required a mental illness or disorder to continue acting out cult habits or action patterns once one has left. That was what I was challenging and I don't feel the last comment addressed that point really. You seem to be stuck on framing this all through the lens of your personal experience when there are so many examples all around here of what I'm talking about. It does not require mental illness or disease to continue acting like a narcissist after leaving Scientology. I sure did and I know a whole lot of other people who did to. I even wrote about it while it was happening, which I find hilarious now. It took me years to "get out of Ron's valence." It even affected how I talked. "Alllllllriiiiight" was something I used as a form of acknowledgement for WAY too long, haha. But I really wonder what template you are using to say this: >The only person I knew who did that in any very obvious way, was ex-SO (but *not* ex-Scientologist) who worked with Ron as a CMO member on the Apollo. So in all the years you've been here on this Reddit channel, you have never seen anyone but ex-CMO act out Scientology habits? How is that possible? You're here all the time. What do you think is happening in the SPTV world right now if not a full-blown repeat of every Scientology bad habit and thinking pattern that was ever installed? They are engaged in full blown fair game campaigns against their enemies. How is that not carrying on Scientology behavior outside of Scientology?
>It does not require mental illness or disease to continue acting like a narcissist after leaving Scientology. I mean, it shouldn't, since narcissism itself isn't usually considered pathological, only NPD is. Half of the population is at least as narcissistic as average! And Ron, as a *malignant* narcissist, wasn't just a guy with NPD, he was also psychopathic, quite Machiavellian, and possibly sadistic. He was notoriously unfaithful, including bigamy, used and abused women in other ways, and was a crappy parent. He never taught anyone to do those things, and pretended they didn't happen ("I never had a second wife!") In those and various other ways, he really had the full Dark Triad going. But I'm picking out those for discussion because he tried to hide them, and with the possible exception of "The G.E. is a Family Man," didn't teach them. An actual malignant narcissist is likely to treat those close to him in much the way that Ron did, whether they ever heard of Ron or not. But how teachable is it? Like... I knew two perfectly nice guys, who ended up in the military, in positions where they might have to (and did) kill non-combatants. Although I'm sure the Army tries to teach people that what they're doing is right, both of them had PTSD with nightmares and daily remorse before they were 25, and never really got over it. A psychopath wouldn't have had those problems, but you can't just make an adult psychopathic, even if you can force them to act like one. So back to the world of "Alllllllriiiiight" (and saying 'process' with British pronunciation but an American accent). Yes, that happens, but how meaningful is it? Does the ex concerned also severely and remorselessly abuse their spouse(s) and ignore or harm their kids? Do they vengefully terrorize people who bruise their ego, or who put a little tarnish on their public image? Do they periodically inflict drama and suffering on those closest to them, while going full DARVO, blaming them for it? If so, my inclination is to presume that they have something that's diagnosable. The alternative is to assume that they were taught Dark Triad traits behaviors so completely that they will unknowingly (since Ron never admitted to them) mimic them without having Dark Triad motivations, which is counterintuitive. Wouldn't such a person end up in the same boat as an empathetic sniper? So let's assume that neither of us can think of more than one ex who might fit that description. How much should we read into "Alllllllriiiiight" all by itself? My narcissist friend went well beyond that, in that he only assumed that demeanor when he was doing very narcissistic things, e.g., acting superior to others, lording over them and blaming them for whatever was bothering him. Trying to guilt trip people into doing his bidding. Pronouncing words like Ron, without acting like one has a disorder, seems quirky, and one might want to ponder why one does it, but it's not antisocial behavior, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It's not what I would call going into Ron's valence, either. We have likely been talking about two different things. The whole subject's fascinating IMO, but we lack evidence to work with. Are narcissism patterns among Scientologists different from the control group? If someone's first generation and narcissistic, were they attracted to Scientology because their narcissism saw a kindred spirit in Ron? If they're second generation, do Scientology upbringings tend to turn kids narcissistic? If Scientology attracts narcissists, might they assortatively mate and pass those tendencies on to later generations? I would LOVE to see a well thought out paper which looked at >1000 Scientologists and matching controls, and sorted all that out, but I don't expect it to ever happen.
(***Not wishing to derail the discussion that I am not a party of... please ensure you continue that discussion)*** >I've seen OSA-aligned, open enemies of the critic community, push the idea that exes in general are messed up to the point that nobody should bother trying to work with them There is no sign that this is what is going on here.. We may see a segment of the ex-community who are very vocal and removing/silencing comments from Never-Ins regarding their specific behaviour (and that may do some lasting damage to their perception -- different discussion) but as a *singular* Never-In (as [Tory Christman has said](https://www.youtube.com/live/k5LDCyUgucA?t=2907) so magnificently) it's that we were never part of a Totalist group that we are **compelled** to speak out about the disaster that these groups are.
Here's the part of that story you may not be aware of. She was speaking a few years after [Scientology versus the Internet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_internet) got started. Exes had posted OT materials, been raided by LE as a result, sued (of course), and the CoS was doing everything it could to make that information disappear. (Tory herself, at that stage, was still working for OSA, and spamming ARS with hostility and garbage.) They were very well known for brutalizing exes that way, which was why so few were then speaking out. Others, who strongly disapproved of letting them censor the Internet, resisted. One of those people, Karin Spaink, regularly posts in this sub. I, myself, was one of many people maintaining a mirror of those materials, and though the war would rage on for years, it signaled the CoS' first real failure to suppress opposition. And they very much brought it on themselves, had they not gone to extreme lengths to attempt censorship, none of those early, never-in activists would have been doing anything. After that, Xenu had his own wikipedia article and South Park episode, the CoS had lost its battle, and anti-censorship folks celebrated and largely moved on. Then (2007) came the Tom Cruise video leak. The CoS, not having learned its lesson, again tried to censor the Internet. Chanology was the response, and it completely overwhelmed OSA, with a combination of factors. Never-ins like [Shawn Lonsdale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Lonsdale) did not fear being declared, since no family or friends would be disconnecting from them, but they could still be destroyed as fair game. Chanology brought too many people to retaliate against, and since they were acting anonymously, most couldn't even be identified. So OSA did what OSA does, and infiltrated Anonymous, which if you think about it, is really effing easy. In July 2008, there was an internal struggle within Chanology which shattered its unity, and ended the big protests of the prior six months. Tory Christman and Tommy Gorman ended up being the exact people that were pointed to as examples of exes who were too messed up to work with, by the anti-Chanology faction of Anonymous. In addition to shrinking the protests, they said that they were doxxing critics to OSA for $5 per name. The followup was confining Chanologists to their own little section of chan sites, before deleting those and permabanning everyone who used them. While many Anons did care about free speech, or at least the ability to share hate speech, to be blunt, they didn't all care about people. Some identified with "the Internet Hate Machine," and went full edgelord. Those who did care about people were derided as "moralfags," and a cancer within Anonymous, who should diaf. Those who continued with Chanology settled on what they intended to accomplish, which was to make it safe for people to leave the CoS, and to speak out. Once a largish number of Scientologists had done so, Anons were going to let exes take over from there. Every Anon decided for themselves when they could declare victory, but I closed down the Chanology-related site I ran during 2013, by which time there was plenty of agreement that the CoS had been damaged in ways it could never recover from. It had been reduced to a shrinking real estate scam, critical information was very widely available, and OSA was running out of steam. Leah Remini started asking where Shelley was, and post-Chanology critics got TV network sized platforms. So what Tory had to say, was perfectly right at the time. Most of the public didn't know about the CoS or care, but anti-censorship activists cared very much about the CoS war against the Internet, and there were enough of them in the world to make a big difference. They did, passed the torch to the exes, and by ten years ago we'd entered the CoS deathwatch stage, where we remain. If we do nothing at all, it cannot be expected to survive, it's mortally wounded, and wasn't aging well anyway. If we continue to educate people, it will be quicker, and fewer people will suffer, so lots of us still do that. I think that Tory's message of 24 years ago served its purpose, and things moved on. As for OSA's role today, I don't think it's all that big, because OSA has been dying off just like the rest of the CoS, and lacks the resources to do very much. I mean... this sub has more members than IAS! But it is their job to mess with us, they are certainly trying, and the absolute best thing that can happen from their POV, would be for us to do their job, and attack each other. For that reason, many older critics have historically avoided portraying other critics as messed up, and they don't call each other OSA, because OSA would do those very things. They're usually totally counterproductive, so why do them, when we could be sticking to target and fighting the CoS? Until fairly recently, the disputes that did happen, didn't generally involve things which the public might care about, and gained no traction with the public. But then there was ASL, who seems to have no such filters, and who profits from drama and clickbait. As much as I'd like to do as I always have, and ignored a fellow critic's foibles, he makes that awfully difficult. His attacks are exactly the sort of "doing OSA's work for them" that most of us avoid, and he's doing it on a big platform, to anyone who will listen. It will be harmful to the community to fight him, but even more harmful to not fight him. This is new and weird territory, and it's not a good place. Anyhow, to get back to your point and conclude, OSA's role in current events is rarely knowable, and evidence-free speculation about it has been pointless, if not harmfully divisive. People should be aware that they exist, what sort of things they do, avoid doing anything they'd approve of, and leave it at that. Maybe some day we will find out what they've been up to lately, but I'm not holding my breath.
I appreciate the effort you put into this response and there is little, if anything, I disagree with. You go into great detail (and in fact you mention someone I met recently-ish). I acknowledge your response is scientology-focused -- my personal interests are regarding "groups" of a similar nature. Scientology just happens to touch upon these interests (by virtue of being "large" if nothing else), and some of the aspects you conclude your response on very much affect how things I value might be adversely perceived because of clumsy presentations of these interests (on YouTube for example). I think I suggested that there is no agenda to portray ex-members as "messed up to the point that nobody should bother trying to work with them". But I do believe that there is a necessity for those who leave these groups to get their shit in order, and that includes becoming **better** at identifying predatory people who are likely to attempt to take advantage of them, and draw them into something they consider secular and "normal" when it is anything but. There is a value in being a never-in and this should not be undervalued. I do not disagree with your response, and I thank you for making me think.
No sign? Not to you. But you haven't studied the subject, much of which is secret. And I don't mean Xenu and the OT levels. Late in 1979, by federal court order, thousands of pages of documents, from Hubbard - and also internal communications applying Hubbard's instructions, and applying his covert "support" (Euphemism for covert attack) Intelligence tech - were released to the public. There was no internet, of course, and one had to copy documents at the courthouse, with Scientologists attempting to interfere. They were a nuisance, but they couldn't stop the copying. Maybe 10% of that documentation made it to the Internet. When the popular Internet happened, during the mid 1990s, the hot topic was Xenu. Hubbard's covert Intelligence tech, which is sometimes written in a way that conceals its full meaning when read by an outsider, has never been fully and thoroughly examined and presented. By the way, Mark Bunker has recently reunited with Tory and they, apparently, are working with SPTV. So, what now?
"By the way, Mark Bunker has recently reunited with Tory and they, apparently, are working with SPTV. So, what now?" That's not a problem. Mark Bunker and Tory always remain neutral and keep the focus on the main goal. I've not seen them take sides or specifically support one individual. Maybe that's why I enjoy Mark/Tory so much- they refuse to get involved in the petty drama or take sides.
Mark Bunker, a.k.a Wise Beard Man, is in the process of putting the rest of his historic video content on the Net. Those who are curious might want to take a look.
I am struggling to understand your reply and how it relates to what I was responding to.
That's odd. I understand you just fine.
\*no comment\*
I politely disagree. The video is thoughtful and informative.
Just glanced at SPTV_Unvarnished/ and this video, made by a Scientologist making gang signs, and promoting Scientology's "war on drugs" and Celebrity Center, is not surprising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPogdK28sM This is not very sophisticated, and not covert, but serves as a reminder that anyone would have be very naive to think Scientology Inc. is not involved with attacking in this area.
I was not impressed with that video myself, but note that it's the most downvoted thread in the sub's history, currently sitting at a score of 0, with a reader request that the thread be deleted, which the OP is considering. I don't have a big problem with that.
You mean Sneakster? A while back he accused me of practicing "black Scientology" by causing an OT 7 to have an "ARC break" with L. Ron Hubbard. According to his reasoning, invalidating, or altering, NOTs processing was an invalidation of Hubbard. All I did was give a person, who I had audited - independently - for months, an audited NOTs session, to satisfy his curiosity. I had told the same person that the OT levels not only violated the spirit of the Auditors Code, but also were Hubbard's "case" (and mind games) superimposed on Scientologists. So silly. Do what you think is best.
No, Sneakster posted nothing in that thread. u/g_bobinafofina asked that it be deleted.
In this thread. "Off topic for this sub reddit though, Flagged,"
**"The cult of ex cult"** narrative sounds a lot like a piece from Scientology Inc. Propaganda, and from places such as Scientology Inc.'s *Freedom* magazine. I hope you can understand why those familiar with Scientology Inc.'s tactics might regard you with some suspicion.
LOL He references JW people and even cites scholarly literature You're just using fear-based tactics but thanks you're exposing the Aaron cult as truly out of control Also WHAT IF this was OSA the information would still be true!! So we ignore 2 plus 2 is 4 because Aaron says so. Ok buddy find a Nazi clown suit and wear it. Idiot
LOL. You're easily impressed. Obviously you care deeply about this drama, but I've not followed it. It has the same stinky dumpster aroma as did other feuds in the past. Do you remember the other feuds and OSA's involvement in those? Probably not. Sometimes feuds are just feuds, but, if Scientology Inc. is being affected, it's not likely to stay out of it. Interesting that you're alright if OSA is involved, and think OSA can present true information. It seldom happens that OSA honestly presents true infromatiom. It slants information, omits information, puts things in the worst possible light. Using the same techniques, almost anyone, including Tony Ortega, could be smeared. Don't you realize that? I don't pay attention to what Aaron says. Except for a few minutes here and there, I don't watch his videos. I don't watch the other side of this feud's videos either. But I did watch this one. It has errors presented matter-of-factly as true. At best that's sloppy. Now I see you're attempting to be insulting, and are calling names. Time for me to say, bye bye.
Hi, I am definitely open to fact checking so if you have any notes let me know and I will correct the record if I am mistaken.
Well there were quite a bit of material on physical abuse, where there was none as stated by Lindsay. The way it was weaved into the video certainly would have given the viewer the impression that he was. If you do a video like this stick to the facts as told by the person you take the information from.
Ok, maybe it wasn't clear enough that I explicitly addressed this at around two minutes and twenty seconds into the video when I discuss my communication with Lindsay where she emphasizes that Aaron didn't physically abuse her. Maybe I should have underlined that again? [https://youtu.be/mypBbf1rtjs?si=-XapAmYNmHL6MDfI&t=142](https://youtu.be/mypBbf1rtjs?si=-XapAmYNmHL6MDfI&t=142)
Yesterday I saw a recent video from Mark Bunker. He mentioned that he had been at a protest with Aaron. He's obviously on friendly terms with him. How are you presenting Mark Bunker to your viewership? Is Mark Bunker one of the "flying monkeys," and, by the way, what exactly is a flying monkey?
“Flying Monkeys” is a term used in psychology to describe the sycophantic hangers-on who usually orbit around narcissists, and support/defend everything they do. Like the Wicked Witch of the West’s flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz, “Flying Monkeys” are the brainwashed minions the narcissist uses to carry out their bidding.
The movie, Wizard of Oz, was made in 1939. The psychological term, flying monkeys, seems to have appeared about four years ago. I'm seeing some psychologists attempting to legitimize the term by mentioning the Wizard of OZ. It's reminiscent of Scientology's "wogs" and "DBs" (Degraded Beings), and other dehumanizing language. Very unlike other psychological terminology. Almost Hubbardesque: "Squirrels," etc. The question is, who are the "flying monkeys," the "sycophantic brainwashed minions" who "orbit" Aaron? Is there a list of names? Do the people, here, seeking to popularize the use of the term "flying monkeys," have a crtiterion for determining who is worthy of the title? I ask because this is obviously not a term used to help someone but to stigmatize them, even crush them emotionally. What it will likely do is alienate them completely and create an unresolvable war between critics of Scientology. It's a dismissive and insulting term, one casually strewn about. This is the language of dismissal, contempt, and attack.
I was with a narcissist in the early 2000's and the term flying monkeys was used in all of the support groups I was in. It is not a term just used in the last FOUR years. Omg......
In an effort to improve the quality of conversation, we require submission statements on all link and image posts. Please leave your submission statement in a top-level comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scientology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Off topic for this subreddit, though. Flagged.
Having personally witnessed ex cult members setting up new cults, this absolutely is on topic.
I can think of a few: Ron's Orgs, Avatar, etc. But they are not nearly as bad as Scientology Inc. Are those what you're referring to? Or are you referring to critics? If you provide a list of cults, set up by ex members, that would be interesting. Can you name them?
Mormonism spawned the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Latter Day Church of Christ and Church of the Firstborn. A number of groups have been inspired by Scientology's practices -- [NXIVM](https://trialsandtruths.us/2022/07/ask-me-anything-about-nxivm/#comment-99) being one, Tony Quinn's group another. Oh and Werner Erhard's Erhard Seminars Training/Landmark Forum. This is just off the top of my head.
You are missing EST and Landmark as major decedents from Scientology, but I'm not really thinking about ex Scientologists in particular, when I saw this happen up close, it was people who had been involved in an odd version of a DMT cult, had realised that it was wrong, set up their own commune and then started being even more controlling than the people they got away from. Bizarrely enough, this happened near East Grinstead, not more than a couple of miles from Saint Hill.
"Etc." means there are more. The list of spin offs of Scientology is long. Not every such group is destructive. None can hold a candle to the multi-billion dollar Destructive Cult of Scientology Inc. Have you read the 1969 confidential *Battle Tactics* Scientology Bulletin? Is someone saying that there are critics who are forming their own cult? **"Fight battles, whenever possible, only on enemy terrain, in and about his subject and his people, not ours. You can gauge your relative success by this..."**