Michael Pattinson

I remember, back when I was last reading ARS a few years ago, a guy whose paintings I really liked (some of which can be seen here) and who made grandiose, sometimes ridiculous, claims against Scientology - such as Scientology attempted to deprogram him and that Clinton was part of a Scientology conspiracy.

I did not follow what happened since then but now I read that he lost his cases, hardly surprising as they always looked to me as frivolous and silly as the Letterese and Elliott ones.

I could not find a Wikipedia page on Pattinson, which is an indication that critics have nothing to brag about. So here are two opposing view pages. The story of Pattinson hosted on Lerma's site, (for critics' side) and that of the RFW (for the CoS' side). Make up your own mind.

As for me, I really would like to know where I can find more of his paintings.

Monica Pignotti's Short C.V.

Monica has published a short C.V. on the Nurel List.

As is obvious through Monica's recent stance in ARS and OCMB, she no longer shares some of the myths common in the anti-Scientology milieu. The level of verbal abuses and personal attacks she encounters in these forums now almost reach the level of attacks that were levied at Diane Richardson and myself for years. That's always a sure sign that what she is saying has more impact than what anti-Scientologists can deal with and so have to resort to try and shoot the messenger instead.

Though slanted in the anti-cult direction ten years ago, Monica was always, IMO, a gentle and thoughtful character. See for example her 1996 debate with Diane Richardson on the mind-control issue, then compare this to the more typical sort of "reply" anti-Scientologists engage into in the 1997 second Diane Richardson mind-control thread which I also webbed.

Anyway, in addition to this interesting C.V., the points I would like to make here are two:

1. Even though anti-Scientologists think they are experts because they gather from the Internet tons of information, they nevertheless remain on the surface of that ocean. Dipping deeper will reveal a host of alternative information that would bring one to revise some of the mis-conceptions and simplistic views they have about Scientology and cults in general. You don't have to engage in academic study to find these out, though it certainly helps. I have been encouraging Anonymous to go out from this box too by extending their area of investigation beyond the OG fixed certainties, but I now start to doubt this will ever happen.
   
   
2. This being said, I believe Monica, and myself, are somewhat different than most academic researchers because through our experience with Scientology, we are also aware to what I personally refer to as the "cultic-mindset". This too is an interesting field of investigation and scholars should likewise dip further in it than they henceforth did. We are now seeing an interesting debut of convergence between moderate anti-cultists and some scholars in this direction. I believe the contribution moderate and informed critics such as Monica can bring in this new direction can be invaluable.

Growing the Cojones to Leave Scientology

From time to time I receive e-mails from moderate ex-members who share my views. It is always rewarding, especially when they have been substantially helped by the information contained on my web site. I have webbed such an example on my Scientology kids page. Check also this blog entry for another example, but I have many more on my email archive.

Often, it helps ex-members to know that not everything in Scientology is either rabid anti-Scientologists or fanatical CoSers, and that there exists a "third way" that is neither nor one or the other and that goes beyond both on the path that ultimately amounts to a spiritual journey.

On occasion also, it helps members who are on the edge to break away from the bond of Scientology more than other critical web sites. Indeed, they are quickly put off by the exaggerations and distortions most critical web sites typically engage into, whereas on my site they find a more gentle approach, as well as a stand against the myths they can observe for themselves at various places on the net. They thus tend to listen more attentively to a critical view, which in turn can bring them to think about it all.

Below is the email I received today, from a lady who grew up a Scientologist and gradually broke away from Scientology. The email is published with permission.

I am very gratified to read your perspective both on Scientology and the Anti-Cult freaks that so mischaracterize it. I was born and raised in a Scientologist family, with a very strong willed and critical thinking Scientologist mom, while Dad was less critical but perhaps more deeply philosophically-minded – together they made a fine, inquisitive pair.

Like you, I have noticed that there are cultish aspects of the church that are both encouraged by some of LRH's writings while completely contradicted by others. My big cognition was that the EP of Scientology was growing the cojones to leave Scientology.

Anyway, it really heartened me to read your perspective, because I deeply appreciate much of what I learned in the CoS, and I wouldn't trade the training and study I had as a young adult and adolescent for anything. It was a great way to grow up and it instilled in me a lust for learning and bent for philosophical inquiry that benefits me to this day. The anti-Scientology comments from overwrought critics annoy the hell out of me. It's sheer ignorance and closed-mindedness. I am also annoyed at my friends who constantly tease me when I still use the term "we" while gently correcting their misinformation regarding the beliefs of Scientologists (after spending most of my life identifying with that group, it slips out sometimes) and who make cult jokes and rib me about Xenu. Like you, I walk the middle ground, defend Scientology when appropriate, and agree with criticism when appropriate. I am very glad to know that I am not the only one!

I am not a Scientologist, but I'm not a non-Scientologist either. I'm my own damn self!

Thank you so much for your website.

Jeff Hawkins

chuckbeatty77 posted a comment on my entry about the Ex-Scientologists New Web Site, asking me to "Please do a posting on Jeff Hawkins and Mark Headley".

I fail to see how this is relevant to the post in question but I guess he wants to know what is my take on these two.

Frankly speaking, as of now, I have no real idea who they are. All I have time to do currently is to try to keep up with the news and I don't have time to go into the details of everything.

Nevertheless, I was curious and so I fired my Google on the first name and checked the first ten entries on Jeff Hawkins Scientology.

Apparently, Jeff Hawkins was a high-ranking Sea Org member who has been declared SP and has quit Scientology. He now writes a book about his past 35 years in the movement, which book is availabe online as a blog.

Interestingly, Jeff refers to his story as "counterfeit dreams", being similar in that with the title of my own story, "everybody has a dream, but everyone needs to wake up". We seem to be on the same foot on that one.

However, he does write much better than I. That's an understatement. He is an extraordinary writer, and his story reads like a novel. Of course his level of experience in the movement is much more extended than mine as well.

So far so good. As of now, his story is tl;dr for me to read, but he does look sincere and as long as there are no red alerts ringing as I read, I am always willing to give people the benefit of doubt when they write their story. I am even willing to assume as true for now his claim that he and others have been beaten up by DM. So, until I find the time to read his story and listen to his radio interviews (that may not be soon :-(), I am going to reserve my opinion on this matter.

However, there is something else that struck me as I was scanning the first ten Google entries.

Most of these are made of forums references commenting on his book/blog. The comments are universally positive. except for ARS.

This is to be expected. So-called critical forums such as the Operation Clambake Forum (OCMB), Enturbulation.org forum, and the Ex-Scientologists Message board are moderating out dissent under one pretense or another and therefore are hardly interesting to read, most opinions being aligned in the same direction.

ARS is a different matter. ARS is totally unmoderated, and this is usually where you get the real picture, and it so happens that the thread in ARS on Jeff Hawkins appears in the Google top ten, and so I got to read it.

Why is this interesting? Because this is where you can see Jeff (and other critics), dealing with actual dissent, and this is one of the things that speaks the loudest about their current state of cultic mindset, and therefore the credibility of the rest of whatever they may be saying.

For example, Magoo, is a long-time ex-member who have some interesting things to say about Scientology and is quite good at giving out public speeches. However, she long time ago discredited herself in my eyes because she would take little responsibility for her carelessness with facts, and because her reaction to her critics is to cry "OSA, OSA, Bill Yaude, OSA". This eventually even led her to lose her celebrity status with Anonymous who won't be spreading her videos anymore. A counter example to that would be David Mayo, who always displayed intelligence and openness towards his critics.

You can write chapters and books, and give interviews and demonstrate in the street, but if through actual challenge all you display is basically the same fanatical and cultic mindset as the one you were in while in Scientology, what's the point? It just shows that you didn't really learn anything from your experience, so why would anything you may write about interesting at all?

Unfortunately, for the very little he dabbled in ARS, Jeff did not fare that good so far. However, I am going to dismiss it for now as just a newbie thing. I don't have enough material as yet to make a final judgment, but, Jeff, if you happen to read this, please think about all of this.

The thread in ARS is here. It starts out as in the other fora, but, unlike these, of course, we very soon get a dissenting opinion, that of one "Tom Newton".

Tom questions the validity of what Jeff writes about DM beating up people, asks where is this substantiated, and why he did not file in a criminal complain or a civil suit.

Of course, Tom is going much further than that and does engage in a whole range of cultic behavior himself, accusing Jeff of lying and being in league with Anonymous, but nevertheless some of his points are valid, namely the question of substantiation.

Jeff Hawkins replies as "Fishdaddy". He does not really address Tom's main questions, but goes on to ask him his real name. This of course is irrelevant, especially in a world of "Anonymous" all around claiming that personalities are not important, only content is... But the worst is still to come.

Though ARS isn't moderated, dissenters are heavily trashed, randomly accused of being trolls and OSA agents and other "circle jerks" not worth listening to. We thus soon get very quickly as well this sort of cultic answer that has done so much to discredit critics, from one "Out_Of_The_Dark" (out of the dark, yeah, right...):

"He does this to anyone of merit here, Jeff. His real name is Alan Conners and he's a well known usenet kook most likely hired to 'dead agent' and distract readers. he;s turned down various offers to meet up with critics and get the facts but that is just not a part of his agenda. As a consequence, most here just ignore him "

There is of course not a shred of evidence to show that Tom Newton is Alan Conners, but this is an "ARS fact" that is routinely being repeated and presented as something established. It is almost certainly false, but it does not seem to matter much for so-called critics. As long as they are able to repeat it ad nauseum , it is going to be true...

Tom Newton appears simply to be someone who does not reconcile what he reads in ARS with the Scientologists he personally knows and who questions the whole Anonymous thing. He does often launches himself in unwarranted accusations but also does point at time to legitimate questions, and more importantly, is one of the few dissenting voice remaining in ARS. By all means, who he is is not even relevant. It does not change the question or the arguments being made.

What does Jeff do in regards to the supposedly out of the dark poster's "information"? He buys the black PR as-is and does not question anything! Oh, that's his real name? Right... He is a troll and an OSA agent, ok, I understand now, I will not be paying attention to him anymore nor address any of the legitimate questions or objections he may have...

Yeah right...

This is foolish, but as I said, I'll forgive that behavior for now as a newbie thing. However, if this is the type of reaction that repeats itself, I may not even be interested to start reading his story at all.

As for chuckbeatty77 who asked me to make an entry for Jeff Hawkins, I am rather disappointed with his reaction in this ARS thread too, though I am not going to pass judgment either until I see this as a pattern. He goes right off and accuses Tom Newton of being OSA. Now, with all due respect, this is stupid, Chuck. You write:

"My thoughts are there's a crew of skilled persons with conveniently plausible "nutjob" valences who are encouraged to keep ARS all weird and unattractive to prevent really helpful ex members like you from discoursing here."

Let me tell you that the people who keep ARS all weird and unattractive are people unable to address dissent in any meaningful way other than trying to dismiss them as troll or OSA agent. Even if Tom Newton was an OSA agent it would still not matter - just address whatever arguments he is making.

This knee-jerk reaction to a simple dissenting comment is the kind of things that very badly reflects on critics, and does more damage to whatever Jeff Hawkins may be writing of value than anything else.

Rather than start to accuse me of being an OSA agent myself (it has been done plenty of time before and still continues), you Chuck and Jeff and anybody else who may turn out to be reasonable critics would do well to consider my friendly advices - address dissent as you would expect a non-cultist and reasonable person to do. Address content and stop building up and promoting conspiracy theories to "explain" dissent away, because eventually it is only going to make you look like conspiracy kooks, and this does no good for whatever else of value you may be saying.

Rolling Eyes and Getting to See the Light

One of the nice folks over at ESK wrote something about me that I feel is quite correct.

Critics often accuse me of being OSA or some sort of disguised/deluded Scientology agent because of my critical stance towards critics. It does not matter much to them that I am also critical of Scientology. In fact, some of them, such as paranoid Lerma, claim that this is only a "cover" to better entrap unsuspecting victims.

The fact is, however, that precisely because I take the stance I do towards critics, some Scientology members will read my pages, including its critical content towards Scientology, whereas they won't read other critical pages, and this may start them consider critical aspects of Scientology they would not otherwise. By agreeing with me on the exaggerations and abuses of critics, what I critically write about Scientology is more credible to them, especially since such criticism is reasoned, based on my own thought process upon leaving, and not wild accusations.

What happens is in fact the exact opposite than what Lermaloons claim. One needs to be quite paranoid and cultish to think that my site is a malicious and clever setup by the CoS. I just write things as I see it and as I feel correct. To think that any criticism of critics is automatically an OSA operation is quite cultic by itself, as if this kind of criticism could not be valid on its own and evaluated as such.

I thus receive from time to time emails from Scientology members thanking me for helping them to get to see the negative side of Scientology through my web site - precisely through its combination of reasonable criticism, allied with exposing the exaggerations, myths and abuses on the critics' side.

But you don't have to take my word for it, here you have a statement on a public forum.

Note - I would agree that sometimes even reasonable critics reading my site, and especially my blog where I write without giving much thought to it, may legitimately "roll eyes", and sometimes I wish I had the luxury of time to better qualify and nuance my writings, but nevertheless, the fact of Scientologists opening up as described does happen, and critics should do well to consider this angle rather than trying to dead-agent me with all kinds of rather silly cultic rationalizations:

"I'm not Bernie and don't know him, just know some of the back history. Like I said, he has been accused of being an OSA op and cult apologist many many times. I happen to think that despite his criticism of the critics -- in fact, because of it -- his site can be useful for Scnists getting out of CofS.

I think that because when I was getting out, I read every page of his site. Because he was willing to "look at both sides", at the time I found his criticism to be especially potent - far, far more creditable than a.r.s for instance which was so full of vitriol I didn't care for reading it.

Nowadays I roll my eyes and would heavily debate a lot of his points, but I still think it makes a good transition point for CofSers who may be testing the waters on the outside, even if they're fairly indoctrinated.

I don't think it's an op because it's been going on so long, and while the CofS may have once been capable of such sophistication as the infiltration you describe, nothing the CofS has done in relation to the internet in general has shown me that they are still so capable.

When he put up his page, the CofSes general "handling" for the internet was to try to remove the a.r.s. newsgroup, fill it with sporgeries, and put up spam pages. I just don't see them putting up a site that is even remotely critical of CofS, especially not at that time. But I'll allow that I could be wrong. "

Ex-Scientologists New Web Site

The ex-Scientologists message board is a forum that gathers to ex-members (though many posters are not ex- at all). It is created and "policed" by one "emma", who makes sure that all on the board cry in the same direction (banning those who don't). The forum now has its own web site, or more exactly, the forum is now just the forum part of a larger web site.

The new site is nicely organized, with the particularity that it works primarily as a database. Even pages on the site are just items, and they can be sorted by alpha or by number of hits. That's the nice part of it.

Otherwise, the site site is 100% anti-cult oriented and does not bring anything new. It basically is just another rehash of what you will find through zillions of so-called critical web sites.